--000000000000b41b4205eb65c32b Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b41b4105eb65c32a" --000000000000b41b4105eb65c32a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thank you! On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 11:11 AM John McColman wrote: > Ok, these have been done and rearranged as per your direction. > > > > I also put in there that there is no penalty for changing spends as well. > I completely understand where the team is coming from. > > > > Hope this clarifies everything! > > > > *John McColman* > > In Front Marketing > > Results Driven Performance Marketing > > > > 403.861.9727 > > *john@infrontmarketing.ca * > > Suite 401 =E2=80=93 255 17 Ave SW, Calgary, AB > > > > [image: > https://images2.imgbox.com/4f/28/0CulP3sT_o.png] > [image: > https://images2.imgbox.com/86/7d/UEdGNfFZ_o.png] > > > > > > *From:* Alexa Graziani > *Sent:* October 17, 2022 5:30 PM > *To:* John McColman > *Cc:* Timothy Thomas > *Subject:* Re: Proposal from In Front Marketing for THEKEY Canada > > > > > > Hi John, > > > > I hope you had a great weekend! > > > > Just following up to see if those updates can get made and then it will b= e > much easier for us to get you a quick signature. > > > > Thanks! > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 10:35 AM Alexa Graziani > wrote: > > Hi John, > > > > Sorry for the confusion. > > > > That all makes sense. > > > > Would it be possible to > > a) include in writing that it's a new version for the new system > > b) move the "Your Investment" section to after the "accept quote" section > so that it's clearer it's not what we are committing to? Can we also rena= me > it to "Appendix: Existing Investment Review"? > > > > It's basically an optics thing. I do see that the quote is just for the > management fee, not the monthly spend but the placement makes it hard to > tell to those not reading thoroughly. We have a whole new process based o= n > the total of the agreement and this will cover us from needing to go > through several levels of approval/make it clear why we didn't need to. > > > > Thank you! > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 9:41 AM John McColman > wrote: > > Hi Alexa, > > > > I=E2=80=99m not sure that I understand. The contract that was in place wa= s in our > old system. We=E2=80=99ve since moved platforms. Although this would be t= echnically > new, it=E2=80=99s a duplicate (and updated) agreement from last time. > > Did we want to put something in there about this being an updated > agreement for spends? > > > > > > *John McColman* > > In Front Marketing > > Results Driven Performance Marketing > > > > 403.861.9727 > > *john@infrontmarketing.ca * > > Suite 401 =E2=80=93 255 17 Ave SW, Calgary, AB > > > > [image: > https://images2.imgbox.com/4f/28/0CulP3sT_o.png] > [image: > https://images2.imgbox.com/86/7d/UEdGNfFZ_o.png] > > > > > > *From:* Alexa Graziani > *Sent:* October 11, 2022 4:47 PM > *To:* In Front Marketing > *Cc:* Timothy Thomas > *Subject:* Re: Proposal from In Fro