top of page

How to hire partnership team with Jess Romano, Head of Partnerships and BD at Oyster

I'm delighted to share our interview with Jess Romano, Head of Partnerships and Business Development in Oyster, a quickly growing global employment platform. Jess started her career on Wall Street in Goldman Sachs and then led partnerships in Plaid, Apple Pay and Symphony. In all these great tech companies Jess was in the very beginning of partner programs, and she shared her wealth of insights on how to launch and grow with partnerships.

📍 In this episode:

  • Starting in partnerships

  • Launching partnership function in Symphony (collaboration SaaS for financial industry)

  • How do different companies approach partnerships - similar or different?

  • Scaling with partnerships

  • How do partner programs start and develop over time?

  • How do companies scale with partnerships?

  • Partnerships in Plaid

  • Partnering with suppliers

  • How Oyster is growing partnerships

  • Hiring and setting up partnership teams

  • Fostering engagement in distributed partnerships teams, and with partners

  • KPIs to optimize for in partnerships

  • How to prove and maximize the value of partnerships?

Jess, it's great to have you on our show. You started your career on Wall Street in Goldman Sachs, an enviable place, and then you moved to Symphony and started in partnerships. You've done a lot of other amazing things, and we will dig deeper into that. But let's start with what attracted you to partnership in the first place?

I guess I have taken a bit of a nontraditional path in my career, having started out in finance in an equity sales trading role, as you mentioned, at Goldman Sachs out of university. And I did that for a couple of years and really enjoyed it. It's a very fast-paced industry and at that time, just being out of school, it was a great place to learn on the job. All the different ways you need to act and things that you need to manage in terms of people, platforms, market understanding, and things like that. And there was a lot of opportunity for growth there for the first few years that I was there. But as I reflected more and more year after year, I was there for a total of about five years, but around year three and a half, four, I really started getting more curious about smaller companies and startups.

This is when you are starting to hear more and more about startups in at least the New York City tech scene. I basically had started volunteering on the desk that I was working on to test out some of the tools that we were using from a technology perspective. That was just something I was interested in and was willing to do as a person representing my team. And with that, I was exposed to the strategy teams and the technology teams, and I thought, this is actually a whole new world that I find really interesting. How can I parlay my finance knowledge and experience into a tech job? And that was the real spark of interest that I had. And then finding that job was not super easy or straightforward, as I'm sure many can attest to who have done it. Because you want to basically line up your skill set and not lose all of that experience, but also be able to grow. And sometimes it's not super easy to convince companies that you want to switch industries and switch roles at the same time.

What I was able to do initially, I didn't jump right into partnerships from that role. I actually jumped into a more sales and account management role. I was one of the first hires on the sales team at a company called Symphony, which we can talk about later. But this company essentially serviced the same market that I was covering when I was at Goldman with technology. Different focus areas, but the same target audience, even though we were working with different personas. But it was a nice segue to be able to get into the technology industry, into a startup as well. And again, my curiosity was really piqued after working at such a corporate place, which has its positives of course, but there are also just other work environments out there that I was excited to try, and that's why I parlayed that experience at Goldman into Symphony initially.

Long story short, I moved into a technology role, but it was sales and account management-oriented. And after about a year of doing that and helping to build out that team and set up those processes at Symphony, I was tapped by the head of business development to work on partnerships as the first person to work on partnerships. And I'm a relationship-based person. I like new challenges. I like to build things. All of these combined together, it was a natural fit for me to move into partnerships at that time in my career.

This is the first thing that they teach you in MBA programs - never try to do too many jumps, right? And you seem to did a gradual change,\fantastic.

Partnerships. Symphony essentially could be described as "Slack for financial industry", right? Can you talk about what was the most memorable or interesting partnership that you started? What did you learn in that role?

For those who may not be familiar with Symphony, it is essentially a collaboration platform built for regulated industries. As I mentioned earlier, the initial target market was finance and financial service companies. Large banks that are multinational, hedge funds, mutual funds, sovereign funds, basically any company that needed to communicate internally as well as externally with their network.

you create the process as you go and nothing needs to be perfect. But as long as you come with an analytical mindset of, “okay, these are the parameters I'm working under, these are my goals. How can I do the best job possible in the quickest amount of time?” and get stakeholder buy-in was basically the biggest thing I learned in stepping into that role initially.

Building out the partnerships program there as a whole is probably the highlight for me because as I mentioned, we built it from the ground up. It was basically myself and the head of business development at the time. And what I learned, having been in a very corporate environment versus moving to a startup that had about 100 people when I joined, is that you need to do things yourself. There is no process and you create the process as you go and nothing needs to be perfect. But as long as you come with an analytical mindset of, “okay, these are the parameters I'm working under, these are my goals. How can I do the best job possible in the quickest amount of time?” and get stakeholder buy-in was basically the biggest thing I learned in stepping into that role initially. And it was exciting because Symphony was a type of platform or product where many different types of partnerships made sense.

There were product partnerships, there were commercial partnerships, and kind of everything in between. And at the end of the day, we were making the customer experience better.

There were product partnerships, there were commercial partnerships, and kind of everything in between. And at the end of the day, we were making the customer experience better. And since I had come from a more commercial background, I really liked having that understanding of servicing the customer and making sure that we were providing the best platform possible and partners helped enable us to do so.

There were many different partners, and I'd say an exciting piece was working with a bunch of up-and-coming startups that were just a few people building very interesting tools for financial services and applying data-driven processes through the platform. Working with people that were building their own companies themselves, that was very exciting. And the first time I had a chance to do that in my career, but also working with huge companies like the Thomson Reuters of the world and then figuring out how to navigate those relationships, which are completely different in nature, of course, then working with a 10 person startup. It was a variety of experience there. And then at the end of the day, launching an actual program that got a lot of press, got a lot of interest from customers, and drove a lot of business to ourselves and to our partners. That was the most rewarding thing there.

After Symphony, you moved to Apple and then eventually to Plaid, which is also a very famous company and we'll talk a little bit more about that. There are different ways to think about partnerships and one of them is that partnerships are very different in different companies.

But I'm wondering, working on all of these fintech-related tech products, what are the commonalities and what are the differences that you encountered in partnership teams? How were they built, how partnerships were developed in the market, and so on?

With each company that I've worked at, I worked at two very corporate companies and two startups that grew quite quickly. Two very different groups of companies there. And the partnerships, though there are some similarities, are also quite different. And this is because of a multitude of reasons you have different kinds of leverage points as a company. What are you bringing to the partnership as a company today versus what you may bring in a year, five, or ten years? That's going to change over time and you'll need to reevaluate which partnerships you're working with, but planning those longer-term partnerships and mapping that out based on where you are and where your partner is today is super important.

you'll need to reevaluate which partnerships you're working with, but planning those longer-term partnerships and mapping that out based on where you are and where your partner is today is super important.

For example, Apple is likely not going to officially partner with a two-person startup, potentially not unheard of, probably through the App Store, if you want to call that a partnership. But from a more corporate partnership standpoint, it's just the mismatch of where those companies are in the market may not make sense. But at the same time, there are points when you're working for a startup company, Plaid or Symphony are good examples where you may be the smaller company or you have a certain niche, but you're bringing a lot of value to big corporate partners potentially. So mid-market or corporate partners, for example, where you're plugging a hole for them potentially or adding value in a way that they cannot, whether that's the narrative of what you're offering the particular client base or geography or servicing, and you have to be very, very thoughtful about these things when you're planning your partnerships in your program and your portfolio of who you want to work with. Because at the end of the day, you only have so much time to work on each partnership and you need to dedicate the right amount of resources to get the most out of it. That's basically all to say is your partnerships there's no one size fits all. There are some core things that you should always consider for every company you work with. But you have to definitely think about, okay, it's not just about what can partners do for me, it's what can I do for them? Absolutely, If you don't have that mindset, you're not going to have a partnership that goes many places.

Because you were in the inception of partnership programs in several companies like you mentioned and then you were in Plaid. I would love to ask you your perspective in terms of how you typically see a partnership program emerge? Where they typically start on which side is it, the distribution partnerships, the tech partnerships, and how they develop over time?

I don't think you'll ever find a company doing it the same exact way as another company. And it really depends on a bunch of different things. One is what the team organization is, how it's set up, what the funding levels are and what kind of business you're in, and what kind of market you're in. For example, if you are a SaaS product that's pretty straightforward, you probably don't need implementation partners as an example. Or you may not want to have product integrations because you simply don't have the resources. You're going to need to look for more commercial or referral-type partnerships. It depends on where you are on the journey. I'd say for companies that pre-seed or Series A, B. I've consulted with several of these companies to date, and it's always a question of should I hire somebody now or later? And I would say earlier in the journey is a good time to think about partnerships, because they take a long time typically to bear fruit. It's not always the case and there are situations where you can quickly snap up tactical partnerships and make those work. But the ones that are going to be probably the highest value in the long term take multiple quarters.

earlier in the journey is a good time to think about partnerships, because they take a long time typically to bear fruit. It's not always the case and there are situations where you can quickly snap up tactical partnerships and make those work. But the ones that are going to be probably the highest value in the long term take multiple quarters.

Not only to just prospect and find these partners, but also then develop the relationships, formulate the agreements, figure out what the roadmap is, and then actually execute it and have that ongoing partner life cycle happen. It takes a long time. If you're a company that's one year old or two years old and you're like, okay, well, I want X, Y, Z of my revenue to come from partnerships because it's a scalable function. You need to be thinking about that sooner than later.

And I've seen companies approach it in different ways in terms of building out teams. For example, some of the companies I've worked with want to test the waters and get some ideas, because either they don't have the time or the expertise to do it. They'll hire somebody part-time or a consultant to advise who's been in the space potentially, or is familiar with the function, or hire somebody that's very commercial or adaptable as an example to bring them into the organization. This was similar to my experience at Symphony as an example. There was no team focused on this, but it sort of fell under business development in that particular company.

When we started to see enough demand from customers that they wanted to see all these different partnerships happen, and then we were also receiving a lot of inbound from companies that wanted to work with us. We said, okay, we need to dedicate someone to do this. And for that, I was able to use, for example, my sales and account management skills and learn the partnership skills along the way. That's another approach that I've seen companies take that can work as well.

On the scale side, when you how companies scale. Do you have any benchmarks that might come from partnerships, in your mind?

I think it really depends on the product and service you're offering. Again, if you are offering a certain type of platform, maybe it's a great candidate for channel partners or distribution partners, for example, an API-based platform.

If you're selling APIs as an example, that may be wrapped up very well as a package with other tools that are out there in the market. You may be working with companies or targeting partners that can sell on your behalf and then you have a revenue share in place as an example. That's one example of how to achieve scale. And sometimes those can work really, really well because again, it's a scalable, efficient way to increase revenues and to increase visibility.

And on the other end of the spectrum, you have maybe you're an emerging company and you need some street credit, you need some credibility or legitimacy. You're going to want to find partners that can bring that to the table for you, that have an established brand name or market base. And then, of course, you need to position yourself as what can I do for you as the partner and this new emerging technology as an example. It really does depend. It is not a one size fits all.

And again, I think what's important in the beginning is, if you have some resources, you can dabble in different partnerships and explore not too many, but a couple of different mechanisms. And then once you receive some very early signals, lean into those and actually go with it because you don't want to be a guessing game completely and you can't have 100 partnerships right off the bat. You need to actually gradually grow them and see what works.

Completely agree with you. And I really like how you think in this range because there's no hard rule in partnerships, right? Everything is on the spectrum, but there's a big upside potentially. Double-clicking on Plaid, because Plaid is like a Silicon Valley darling these days and it's a phenomenal company that was almost acquired by Visa. But now it's independent, which is probably better. What did you learn in doing partnership in Plaid? What was the most exciting and maybe most counterintuitive as well?

I was actually on what we called the Financial Access Team at Plaid, and these were data partnerships. This is another thing I would mention for anybody interested in a partnerships career, they can take many, many different forms. For example, you can have partners that are suppliers in a sense to you and you can have partners that are distributing for you and you can have all kinds of partners across the board.

At Plaid, I was working primarily on these data supply relationships with primarily financial institutions or any companies that were holding consumer permission data. It was imperative for the help of the business to have these partnerships work. Because without the supply of data, obviously, we're not able to then service our customers' needs, which is basically data that flows through the platform on behalf of consumers that are wishing to connect their accounts to services. That was really critical and those were multi-year, very complicated agreements in some cases with the largest banks in the world, of course. A very different style of partnership and a different type of partnership, but not less important than any other commercial partnership program.

On the other hand, Plaid does have a commercial partnerships team focused on a couple of different things. Platform partners, for example, like the reselling and packaging of products that make sense for the mutual customers that we had and then also the implementation partners. Since Plaid is primarily an API-based company, the product can be quite technical. Not every customer can do it on their own necessarily or want to. We would have implementation partners as well that would help our customers achieve their goals more quickly. We had something similar to this at Symphony as well, where we worked with system integrators and ISVs and consulting firms because we worked with very large banks as clients and they wanted to implement our partner products as an example, and sometimes they wanted some additional support, so we work with those professional services companies as well. Lots of different partnerships.

But at Plaid, in particular, there was kind of the two sides of partnerships. There are the data supply side partnerships, very important relationship-based, and then also the more commercial and distribution partnerships as well.

But at Plaid, in particular, there was kind of the two sides of partnerships. There are the data supply side partnerships, very important relationship-based, and then also the more

commercial and distribution partnerships as well.

Just a quick question about partnering with suppliers. Why do you call them partnerships?

I think because it is a two-way street that involves some trust and those are the ones that work the best. In Plaid's case, in particular, it was very interesting to work in this space because it's highly evolving, number one. And Plaid was growing very, very quickly and the industry was changing a lot in terms of the number of fintech offerings out there for consumers. Plaid was at the forefront and the hub of a lot of that. And a lot of the banks that we worked with and financial service institutions, we'd work with them in a consultative way and it went both ways. We’d say what we are seeing in the market, what we're hearing from customers, what the challenges are in the industry, how can we have best practices around data privacy, and things like that. These were really deep and detailed conversations that we were having with these partners, and they were also sharing information with us around how they approached it and a totally different perspective on the market. And I think that was beneficial in many cases for both Plaid and the institutions that we worked with. So that is why ultimately it was a partnership. And just from an operational perspective, there are also typically agreements involved with those partnerships that require a lot of ground and light work, and it's a long-lasting relationship that you'll have, hopefully. That is why we call them partnerships.

Makes a lot of sense, actually. It's sort of co-innovation, right?

Definitely. Definitely. In Plaid's case.

Brilliant. Now, you've worked with these multiple startups and now you're leading partnerships and business development in Oyster, which is a company I've heard a lot about. It's a great company. Tell us a little bit more about Oyster.

Oyster is a fantastic company and I can talk for days about it. But basically, for those who don't know, essentially what we offer from a software perspective is a way to hire, pay, and care for employees anywhere in the world. Think you're a company and you want to hire cross-border anywhere outside your country. You can come to Oyster to do it. Very exciting times for this space. HR tech is relatively new for me. I had a personal interest in it. Given that I myself relocated from the U.S. to Europe in the past couple of years. I became much more in tune with visas and how you need to operate and get employment and things like that. I had a personal interest and obviously, the past couple of years with the pandemic have shown a huge change in the way people work and want to work. And Oyster has been at the forefront of that. The company is two years plus old and has grown astronomically. There's a bigger demand for what we do and just a huge need for companies to have a good experience and an efficient one when hiring abroad.

And the great thing about Oyster, there are many great things, but it's about what we're trying to do at the end of the day. It's not just enabling customers. Obviously, it's a for-profit company and we want to sell what we offer. But at the end of the day, what we're trying to do is enable people anywhere to get the jobs they want. And there's a whole area we can talk about around why that's good for people, for the environment, for everybody, and for productivity at the end of the day.

But that's integral to what Oyster does, and the company really lives it each and every day. It's been great to join. I actually joined over the summer, a couple of months ago when there was one person working on partnerships. He was working on getting everything in place for these initial partnerships that were launched and setting the groundwork for what we wanted to do. And I came in to help structure that and then actually build out the team. Now we're a team of five likely going to double in size this year and there's a ton of work to do and a ton of opportunity in this space as well. For Oyster, as I mentioned, what we enable is hiring, paying, and caring for employees. And there's a lot in that space and there's a lot that comes before that and after that from an HR person's workflow perspective. There's a ton of opportunity for partnerships there.

100% with you, I've been working in distributed teams since 2015, which is like seven years and there's a lot of value, right? You can hire brilliant people all over the globe in a day, but there's a lot of complexity that emerges with that and it's just a nightmare when you start to scale. Great things.

But also this is a really perfect segue to talking about people who lead partnerships. I mean, we can see you, obviously very sharp people, but what is the culture of the team? Who do you hire in the partnership team and how do you structure that?

This relates to what I mentioned earlier around where you are as a company and what kind of product you offer at the end of the day. There are some companies that are very, very technical as an example, and they have very complicated products. You're going to want to target certain types of partners in that case versus others. And if you're starting out your team, we talked a little bit about the different approaches to building out a team. But, once you decided partnerships is something that we're going to invest in, I'd say you want to look for people who are great relationship managers, who are quite strategic in their thinking. Again, longer-term thinking with short-term tactical wins, that's the kind of mindset that works really well. Who can adapt and kind of bob and weave as you go, because things do change, the market changes, your partners change.

once you decided partnerships is something that we're going to invest in, I'd say you want to look for people who are great relationship managers, who are quite strategic in their thinking. Again, longer-term thinking with short-term tactical wins, that's the kind of mindset that works really well.

Everything is happening very quickly typically if you're in a high-growth environment. And for me, it's important to either have a commercial type background, be good with people, understand the product, or have a curiosity about the industry. Obviously these are good things for any team that's hiring. Or you can approach it from hiring people that perhaps come from engineering backgrounds or more technical backgrounds. It's just a different way of approaching or building the team. For us at Oyster, we've hired out based on the focus areas that we have right now. Regions, for example. The different regions that we're focused on as well as the different programs that we're launching and the different integrations that we're launching. These all take different focus areas. You can have one person come in and work on everything, which we did, and he came in and did a great job, and then I joined him and we were doing lots of different stuff ourselves. But then you get to a point where there's a lot of work to do and you need to start to specialize, and that happens more quickly than you even think and it happens sort of organically. I think that's the best way it happens where you're like, okay, we have early signals here, we have an opportunity, let's go for it. We need to hire and staff that full time and build out like that. I think it's definitely an art form when you're hiring any team as a startup. It's not a science. There are some things you can follow that I mentioned, but you have to also go with your gut as far as culture goes, as you mentioned. There's definitely a consideration that I have for my team and for the company, for Oyster, where you want people to come into the company that is going to thrive and expand the horizon for your own team in the company. You don't want carbon copies of each person that you've already hired. I think that can be very tricky when for the different companies I've worked for and interviewed people for. There's always a culture fit thing or aspect and that is important to certain pieces of it. But I think it's really important to think about, just because somebody doesn't have a similar background or doesn't come from the same place or have the same personality, it doesn't mean that they're not going to be a great fit. And being as objective about that as possible is very important. And we've seen great results from a team vibe perspective based on that at Oyster. I've been very happy to see that.

Brilliant. Because your entire team is distributed, what did you learn in terms of setting the right culture within the partnership team? And maybe on a broader scale, like keeping not only your team engaged and efficient, but also your partners engaged and efficient. What are the things that come to mind?

Yeah, this is a great point and an important one that I think everybody will always have to keep working at as we change the future of work as we go forward. One thing that is important is kind of goes without saying communication and being mindful about how you communicate. And understanding that people come from different experiences and different backgrounds and how they work. I think most people that work in tech, generally speaking, had some experience with remote or distributed work that was forced obviously in the past few years. Some companies have obviously returned to the office or have hybrid methods. But from that perspective, I think most people have a bit of experience. But what's interesting is that Oyster started as a distributed company. That was the decision right off the bat. It's ingrained in how the company operates in the tools that we use, in the guidance that we receive from our workplace design teams as an example of how to interact and set boundaries and barriers as well. My team, for example, is across ten time zones from Canada to Greece. We do a lot of asynchronous work and that involves a lot of trust in your team and building that. It goes two ways between your manager and their team and then also with each other and with other teams as well. Figuring out how to work cross-functionally can be of course a bit of a challenge because every team has its own ways how they do things. But the guidance that Oyster at least has put around just general communications has been really helpful in how we work and what the expectations are. The expectations aren't to be online 24 hours a day, even though we have people everywhere. It just doesn't work like that. We pass the baton, we follow the sun, and that's the model. That's one really important piece. I think with partners, I really haven't seen it be a hindrance at this point that we're all remote. I think there is definitely value in being able to meet people in person if and when it's responsible and you can, you're comfortable with it. I feel like it's like a treat these days. If we get to do that, I want to do that. But I don't think it's necessary to have really good relationships. And this is a skill that people are just continuously learning with working remotely. And for partners again, it's about regular connectivity, planning together, and listening. I mean, these are general things that I think any team could benefit from. But those things are really, really important. I'd say from a morale perspective, it's important to check-in and be a human being. And this is not partnership specific. This is with any team in a remote environment. I think it's easy to just get so involved in the work and not log off and things like that. But you have to remember we don't need to dive into business results in the first 30 seconds of a Zoom call, you can say things like, “how is your pet? What's going on? What was the best thing you did this weekend?” or whatever it is. Taking time to do that and not being mindful of that doesn't come naturally to everybody, to every manager, or to every person at a company. Just reminding yourself and understanding that people have different degrees of how they like to engage is really important.

These are small gestures and touchpoints are critical, right? And they are not always top of mind. They are not urgent, but they are actually more important in the long term than many think.

Starting these partnerships and scaling, I cannot omit asking you about KPIs and measuring. What are the things that you're optimizing for at this stage?

This will change again over time. Your goals today may not be the same ones in six months or a year as a team, and that is just a reality when it comes to partnerships. A couple of different ways you can look at it, and this is in no particular order because again, companies are different and have different goals at different times and you need to really map your partnerships to those goals.

I'd say you can measure, for example, pipeline development that comes from partners. That's one way you can look at it. If you're looking at it from a revenue perspective.

Or if you have a product that you're either reselling yourself as a company from a partner or vice versa, revenue share there. That metric can be measured. But you can have really different metrics that make sense for your company.

For example, if you're looking to grow your brand in the early days of your company, as I alluded to earlier, maybe you're partnering on content as an example. And you're trying to not ride the coattails of other companies, but you're really trying to partner to amplify your message. Maybe then it comes down to tracking engagement with UTMs and things like that. That's a whole other way you can kind of measure engagement. Also, if you have a product integration as an example, it could be the number of integrations that's a metric or it could be the usage, the API calls that are made on a particular integration, that's another KPI you could use. These are all things that are relevant depending on where you are in your partnership journey at a company. For me, what's important is having OKRs or KPIs if we want to call them that are related to the business obviously and driving the bottom line, and then having this consideration of what will be the long term value of my partnerships and how do I measure that? That's also really important, and that's something that you need to work very closely with other functions on. For example, with sales and say like how do we qualify certain opportunities as accounts towards partnerships, as accounts towards sales, as an example? What is the philosophy and rationale behind these things? That's really, really important to educate the rest of the company and to also receive feedback on what the thought process is around different goals and how they work with partnership. These are all different ones. And then there's also when you're building a team, the reality is you're just getting in there, you're building and you're doing it. And there's going to be goals that you need around, like just setting up processes in order to be more efficient. If you have one person working on partnerships and they're handling 10, 15, or 100 relationships that work style and that work will look very different than if you have ten people or 100 people. You can continue to specialize and build out different tools and processes in the meantime and reporting and all that sort of thing. It doesn't happen overnight when you're building a team or a company as you know that very well, Roman. And I'd say it's no different for partnerships.

Because you consult multiple startups, you build partnership programs in many companies. There is always a time when you start, you get some results and then you may be plateaued at some point, right? I mean, this is just how the trajectory typically works. How do you elevate and prove the value of partnerships within the company? Do you have advice then?

In terms of proving the value, I think any or all of the metrics that we just chatted about can apply if you're just looking at impact and results. But from an evolution perspective, like you said, you may plateau with certain partners or with your program. The very cool thing about working in partnerships is that there's always an AND. Like, okay, we did this AND we can do this and we can do this AND we can do this and this and this. And there's really no limit to that. And that comes with one partner, for example, if you're working with one partner. Okay. You built an integration. Well, what can you do to market that? What can you do to do some sort of event around that? What can you do in terms of creating new features or selling that in a different way, enabling your teams to show the value of what you're doing together? There's really no end in sight to what you can do there and how creative you can be. But it also relates to just the whole partner program or portfolio as well. If you're working with a certain group of partners and you plateau, there are millions of companies out there, right? You just need to find the ones that are going to work really well for you at this point in your company's journey. That's why it never gets boring. And that's why it is a hard job at some points in the day or the week or the month of the year, because you do hit plateaus and you do have to figure out ways to evolve as a team and how you fit into the company and what you're doing with your different partners. It's a very engaging and challenging job from that perspective, which I think is a great reason to get into it if anybody out there who is considering it.

Brilliant, Jessica. That was an amazing kind of segue to say actually partnerships always have AND. And hope we will have another conversation and continue this brilliant discussion. I really appreciate your sharing your insights. It has been fantastic. I'm looking forward to chatting more in the coming months and following Oyster's success.

Thank you so much, Roman. This is a lot of fun. And yeah, I'm always keen to speak with folks in the partnership arena. It's an ever changing landscape out there, and I love to bounce ideas. Thank you so much for having me today.

What is a good way to reach you? Is it on LinkedIn?

Probably LinkedIn would be the best way. My profile is out there. I believe it's public so people can search for me there. Otherwise, I can share my email address with you, Roman. Anybody can reach out to you to get that.

Fantastic. Thank you so much.


bottom of page