GITNUXSOFTWARE ADVICE
Art DesignTop 10 Best Integrated Creative Services of 2026
Ranking roundup of Integrated Creative Services providers with criteria and tradeoffs for teams evaluating Pentagram, IDEO, and Frog Design.
How we ranked these tools
Core product claims cross-referenced against official documentation, changelogs, and independent technical reviews.
Analyzed video reviews and hundreds of written evaluations to capture real-world user experiences with each tool.
AI persona simulations modeled how different user types would experience each tool across common use cases and workflows.
Final rankings reviewed and approved by our editorial team with authority to override AI-generated scores based on domain expertise.
Score: Features 40% · Ease 30% · Value 30%
Gitnux may earn a commission through links on this page — this does not influence rankings. Editorial policy
Editor’s top 3 picks
Three quick recommendations before you dive into the full comparison below — each one leads on a different dimension.
Pentagram
Approval workflow mapping to roles for brand and production deliverables across a shared asset model.
Built for fits when brand operations need governed handoffs and controlled asset reuse across stakeholders..
IDEO
Editor pickEnd-to-end prototype to implementation guidance tied to defined acceptance criteria artifacts.
Built for fits when teams need coordinated creative-to-build delivery with controlled handoffs..
Frog Design
Editor pickData model alignment across design specs and event contracts.
Built for fits when product teams need design and systems alignment with controlled governance..
Related reading
Comparison Table
The comparison table maps how integrated creative services providers handle integration depth across systems, including the data model they use for assets, projects, and workflows. It also breaks down automation coverage and the available API surface for provisioning, configuration, and extensibility, along with admin and governance controls such as RBAC and audit log support. Each row highlights tradeoffs in schema design, sandboxing for testing, and operational throughput for collaboration and review cycles.
Pentagram
agencyA multi-disciplinary design studio delivering integrated art direction, graphic design, brand systems, and design production for clients that need consistent execution across creative disciplines.
Approval workflow mapping to roles for brand and production deliverables across a shared asset model.
Pentagram’s integration model is centered on end-to-end work coordination across brand systems, campaigns, and production deliverables. This enables a consistent data model for assets, guidelines, and change history across touchpoints. It also favors configuration-driven execution where team roles map to review and approval responsibilities. Delivery quality is often anchored by documented handoff artifacts that reduce ambiguity when multiple stakeholders contribute.
A tradeoff appears when workflows require deep automation through public APIs rather than managed integration with internal tools. Clients that need programmable throughput, strict schema enforcement across systems, or standardized automation endpoints may need to design a custom integration layer. A strong usage situation is multi-stakeholder brand operations where governance, approvals, and controlled asset reuse reduce rework. Another good fit is campaign production where the same brand data model drives consistent outputs across formats and channels.
- +Integrated governance for approvals across creative, production, and brand systems
- +Clear handoff artifacts that support consistent downstream processing
- +Configurable workflows that keep asset reuse aligned to guidelines
- +Extensible production handling for multi-format deliverables
- –API surface for third-party automation is not a primary documented entry point
- –Schema enforcement across external systems may require client-side integration work
- –Automation depth can be constrained by the chosen delivery pipeline
- –Throughput tuning depends more on project ops than programmable controls
Best for: Fits when brand operations need governed handoffs and controlled asset reuse across stakeholders.
More related reading
IDEO
enterprise_vendorA design and innovation consultancy that integrates user research, concept development, art direction, and production planning into cohesive creative delivery.
End-to-end prototype to implementation guidance tied to defined acceptance criteria artifacts.
Teams use IDEO when multiple disciplines must coordinate from discovery through prototyping and production readiness. Deliverables commonly include research synthesis, journey or workflow mapping, interaction prototypes, and implementation guidance that reduce translation loss between design and engineering. Integration depth is strongest when the engagement defines schemas for requirements, assets, and acceptance criteria and maps those schemas to engineering artifacts.
A tradeoff appears when the engagement scope expects deep platform-level automation or first-party API coverage for client systems. That fit is better when the delivery team can integrate with existing tools through client-owned endpoints, webhooks, or middleware rather than expecting IDEO to own a full automation surface. Usage works well for teams needing governance alignment across stakeholder groups with consistent artifacts and review gates rather than self-serve configuration.
- +Cross-discipline delivery workflow aligns research, design, and build artifacts
- +Structured acceptance criteria reduce schema drift between stakeholders
- +Artifact handoffs support controlled reviews and predictable engineering translation
- –Limited visibility into first-party API automation surface for client platforms
- –Deep data model ownership depends on engagement scope and client interfaces
Best for: Fits when teams need coordinated creative-to-build delivery with controlled handoffs.
Frog Design
enterprise_vendorA product and brand design consultancy that integrates art design, design strategy, prototyping, and production-ready design for cross-channel creative programs.
Data model alignment across design specs and event contracts.
Integration depth shows up in how Frog Design translates UX and service journeys into artifacts engineers can map to screens, events, and data entities. Deliverables commonly include component-level interaction specs, design tokens, and interaction models that reduce ambiguity when teams wire front ends to back ends. For data model work, Frog Design practices schema alignment across channels, so identifiers, state transitions, and field semantics stay consistent across systems.
A tradeoff is that the tightest integration happens when teams provide clear platform constraints and owners for engineering decisions. Without early confirmation of event contracts and data ownership, automation work can shift toward documentation and patterns instead of full end-to-end provisioning. Usage works best when teams need cross-discipline coordination for extensibility, configuration, and release governance across multiple touchpoints.
- +Integration-first handoffs that map interaction, data entities, and events
- +Design tokens and component specs reduce churn during system wiring
- +Extensibility and configuration boundaries stay explicit for engineering teams
- +Governance thinking supports RBAC, audit log expectations, and controlled rollout
- –Deep API and automation outcomes require firm event contract ownership
- –End-to-end provisioning delivery depends on existing platform integration maturity
Best for: Fits when product teams need design and systems alignment with controlled governance.
Landor
enterprise_vendorA brand design consultancy that integrates visual identity systems, art direction, and rollout support to deliver consistent brand graphics and design assets.
Brand element schema and approval-linked deliverable workflow for governed creative production.
Integrated creative services buyers typically need cross-discipline delivery with governance over assets and approvals. Landor pairs brand strategy, design, and implementation work with integration planning that supports consistent handoffs from concept to production.
Its integration depth shows up in how it structures schemas for brand elements, links approvals to deliverables, and coordinates stakeholders across functions. Automation and API surface are most credible where workflows connect to client systems via documented data models, provisioning steps, and configuration controls.
- +Cross-discipline delivery with clear handoff points across strategy and production
- +Governance via structured approval flows tied to deliverables
- +Data model thinking for brand elements that reduces rework in production
- +Extensibility through integration-ready workflows and configurable brand rules
- +Audit-friendly review patterns for stakeholder signoff cycles
- –API and automation surface depth is not consistently specified for all use cases
- –Extensibility depends on client environment and integration requirements
- –Sandboxing and migration paths are not documented for every workflow pattern
Best for: Fits when teams need managed integration of brand governance into delivery workflows.
MetaDesign
enterprise_vendorA design consultancy delivering integrated brand design, experience design, and art direction support that coordinates creative work across multiple deliverable types.
Governed component and asset schemas that support provisioning, RBAC control, and audit-ready change tracking.
MetaDesign delivers integrated creative services through cross-discipline delivery that maps design work to implementation needs and measurable interfaces. Engagements typically connect strategy, experience design, and content production into a shared data model with defined schemas for assets, components, and governance metadata.
The integration depth shows up in extensibility planning and configuration that teams can automate via APIs and workflow hooks for publishing and asset lifecycle. Admin and governance controls are handled through role-based access, structured approval states, and audit-ready change tracking for stakeholder workflows.
- +Integration-focused delivery aligns design artifacts to implementation requirements
- +Schema-driven asset and component modeling supports consistent provisioning
- +API and automation hooks reduce manual publishing and rework
- +RBAC and approval states support controlled collaboration at scale
- +Audit-ready change tracking supports stakeholder governance reviews
- –Automation coverage depends on the chosen stack and workflow integration
- –Deep data-model alignment can add upfront discovery and mapping effort
- –Extensibility work may require developer bandwidth beyond design teams
- –Governance workflows can require configuration to match complex approvals
Best for: Fits when teams need coordinated creative production with governed, API-driven publishing workflows.
Wunderman Thompson
agencyAn integrated agency network providing coordinated creative services that link brand design, campaign production, and content art direction across channels.
Governed production and publishing workflow with role-based approvals and change control
Wunderman Thompson fits organizations that need integrated creative delivery connected to measurable marketing systems and governance workflows. Its integrated creative services support cross-channel execution planning, production management, and collaboration structures that map to campaign lifecycles rather than one-off assets.
Teams typically gain most control by defining a data model for content, audiences, and execution metadata, then tying it to automated publishing and handoffs across platforms. The practical value shows up when API and automation surfaces are documented for campaign tooling, and when admin controls cover roles, permissions, and audit trails for changes to content and configurations.
- +Integration planning aligned to campaign lifecycle handoffs across channels
- +Workflow governance supports role-based approvals for production and publishing
- +Extensibility through integration with marketing and content tooling
- +Automation patterns reduce manual steps in asset and campaign activation
- –API surface breadth depends on the chosen martech and execution stack
- –Data model design work is required to standardize content and metadata
- –Sandbox and test tooling can be limited for custom automation flows
- –Audit log depth varies by system boundaries and integration scope
Best for: Fits when teams need governed creative-to-campaign integration across multiple execution platforms.
AKQA
agencyA digital experience and creative agency that integrates art direction, design systems, and production workflows for consistent creative delivery.
Program integration governance with RBAC, audit logs, and schema-aligned campaign orchestration workflows.
AKQA delivers integrated creative programs with a delivery model that depends on coordinated work across brand, experience, and production systems. The strongest integration depth shows up when teams map content assets, campaign logic, and channel behaviors into a shared data model and enforce that model through governance.
API and automation surface are typically realized through custom integrations and repeatable workflows that connect CMS, DAM, orchestration, and analytics. Admin and governance controls are oriented around role-based access, auditability, and configuration management for campaign operations.
- +Integration depth across brand, experience, and production pipelines with shared campaign logic
- +Custom API work connects DAM, CMS, orchestration, and analytics for controlled throughput
- +Governance patterns use RBAC and audit logging for multi-team campaign administration
- +Extensibility supports schema and configuration changes across channels
- –API automation usually requires custom build effort for nonstandard tooling
- –Data model alignment work can dominate timelines for complex program portfolios
- –Automation scope may depend on client system readiness and integration maturity
- –Sandboxing and versioning controls may be project-specific rather than standardized
Best for: Fits when large teams need governed integration across creative operations and channel delivery.
Barkley
agencyA creative agency that integrates brand strategy, art direction, design, and production planning into cohesive campaign and design execution.
Provisioned asset and campaign workflows with approval states integrated into publishing controls.
Barkley positions integrated creative work around repeatable delivery, with a documented implementation approach that supports integration into existing marketing and operations workflows. The engagement model centers on a defined data model for assets, campaigns, and approvals, enabling consistent provisioning across teams and channels.
Automation and API surface are treated as integration artifacts, so handoffs include interfaces for synchronization, versioning, and controlled publishing. Governance is handled through role-based access patterns, with audit-ready review and change tracking designed for administrative oversight.
- +Defined asset and campaign data model for consistent handoffs across teams
- +Automation-friendly workflows for approval, versioning, and publishing states
- +API-first integration artifacts for synchronization with existing systems
- +Role-based access patterns support controlled review and change visibility
- –Automation depth depends on agreed interfaces and integration scope
- –Sandboxing and test throughput rely on client environment readiness
- –API coverage varies by channel type and required publishing steps
- –Governance details need explicit configuration in each deployment
Best for: Fits when teams need managed creative delivery with controlled integration and governed publishing workflows.
360i
agencyA performance and creative agency that coordinates integrated creative production, art direction, and design delivery tied to campaign execution.
RBAC with audit log that records configuration and approval changes across integrated workflow runs.
360i delivers integrated creative services by connecting campaign workflows, content production, and channel operations under one operational layer. The service focus maps work artifacts to a controllable data model, including briefs, assets, approvals, and deployment metadata.
Automation and API surface support provisioning of marketing operations and publishing steps, with configuration options that affect throughput and release timing. Admin governance emphasizes RBAC segmentation, audit logging for changes, and extensibility for custom schema and workflow steps.
- +Integration across production, approvals, and channel deployment in one workflow layer
- +Data model ties briefs, assets, and release metadata to execution state
- +API and automation enable provisioning of repeatable publishing and review runs
- +RBAC and audit log support governance over users and configuration changes
- +Extensibility supports custom schema and workflow steps for campaign variants
- –Schema customization requires defined governance to avoid workflow fragmentation
- –Automation coverage depends on documented endpoints for each channel operation
- –Throughput can bottleneck when approvals gate every downstream publish step
- –Admin configuration complexity increases with multi-brand, multi-region setups
- –Sandboxing for automation changes is limited compared with full production parity
Best for: Fits when teams need API-driven creative operations with RBAC governance and auditability.
The Community Agency
specialistA design and branding agency delivering integrated art direction, brand identity systems, and production of visual assets across marketing and product touchpoints.
Configuration-first campaign workflow orchestration with role-based governance and structured asset handoffs.
The Community Agency fits teams that need integrated creative operations tied to identity, governance, and repeatable workflows rather than one-off production. It emphasizes integration breadth across creative, community, and campaign execution with a focus on configuration-driven delivery.
Engagement quality is geared toward repeatable processes, including asset governance and structured campaign handoffs between stakeholders. Integration depth depends on the agreed data model and the available API hooks for each connected system.
- +Integration planning that maps creative workflows to shared schemas
- +Clear campaign handoff structure across creative, community, and ops roles
- +Automation opportunities centered on configuration and repeatable triggers
- +Governance expectations for approvals, roles, and asset lifecycle
- –API and automation surface coverage varies by connected tool stack
- –Data model alignment work can become a project dependency early
- –Extensibility paths may require bespoke connector work for niche systems
- –Sandboxing and throughput controls are not consistently documented
Best for: Fits when teams need governed creative workflows with integration and automation across tools.
How to Choose the Right Integrated Creative Services
This buyer's guide covers Integrated Creative Services providers including Pentagram, IDEO, Frog Design, Landor, MetaDesign, Wunderman Thompson, AKQA, Barkley, 360i, and The Community Agency.
It focuses on integration depth, data model rigor, automation and API surface, and admin and governance controls across governed creative-to-production workflows.
Integrated creative delivery that ties brand and production work to a governed data model
Integrated Creative Services connect strategy, design, and production work through shared schemas, approval states, and handoff artifacts that downstream systems can process consistently. The core problem it solves is schema drift across teams and vendors when assets, components, and approvals move through multiple stages.
Pentagram demonstrates this pattern with role-mapped approval workflows tied to a shared asset model, while MetaDesign demonstrates it with governed component and asset schemas that support provisioning, RBAC control, and audit-ready change tracking.
Evaluation criteria for integration depth, schema control, automation reach, and governance
Integration depth shows up in how a provider maps creative work to a repeatable project schema instead of passing unstructured files between teams. Pentagram and Frog Design both organize handoffs around shared models that teams can reuse without breaking guidelines.
Automation and API surface matter when publishing, publishing gating, and provisioning must run on repeatable steps with consistent throughput. MetaDesign, 360i, and Wunderman Thompson place more emphasis on governed publishing flows and automation hooks, while IDEO and Landor focus more on structured handoffs than first-party client API extensibility.
Role-mapped approvals tied to deliverables
Pentagram maps approval workflows to roles for brand and production deliverables across a shared asset model. Wunderman Thompson and 360i also emphasize role-based approvals linked to content and configuration change control.
Governed asset and component schemas that support provisioning
MetaDesign uses governed component and asset schemas that support provisioning, RBAC control, and audit-ready change tracking. Barkley also centers workflow provisioning around asset and campaign data models with approval states integrated into publishing controls.
Event and interface contract alignment across design and implementation
Frog Design aligns design specs with event contract thinking so engineering teams can wire interaction and data entities with fewer mismatches. IDEO ties prototype-to-implementation guidance to defined acceptance criteria artifacts to reduce drift between research outputs and build expectations.
Automation and API surface tied to publishing steps
AKQA and 360i focus on custom API work or documented endpoints that connect DAM, CMS, orchestration, and analytics to controlled campaign throughput. MetaDesign highlights API and automation hooks for publishing and asset lifecycle so manual publishing and rework drop when workflows scale.
Admin and governance controls with RBAC plus audit logging
360i emphasizes RBAC segmentation and audit logging for configuration and approval changes across integrated workflow runs. Frog Design also frames governance through RBAC-ready role mapping and audit log expectations, while MetaDesign adds audit-ready change tracking for stakeholder review cycles.
Extensibility boundaries with explicit configuration controls
Frog Design keeps extensibility and configuration boundaries explicit so engineering teams can expand event contracts without breaking rollout governance. Landor and Pentagram use configuration-driven workflows that connect brand element schemas and approval-linked deliverables to governed creative production.
A decision framework for selecting the right integrated creative partner for governed operations
Selection starts with the integration depth target, because schema ownership and governance behavior change how teams adopt the provider’s workflows. Pentagram fits teams that need governed handoffs and controlled asset reuse, while Frog Design fits product organizations that need design-to-systems alignment tied to event contracts.
After integration depth, the critical selection checkpoint is automation and admin controls, since RBAC plus audit logging and repeatable publishing steps determine whether approvals slow throughput or stay controllable.
Map the required handoff to a shared schema
Write down the creative-to-production handoff points that must stay consistent across stakeholders, including brand elements, components, campaign artifacts, and deployment metadata. Pentagram and Landor handle this with brand element schemas and approval-linked deliverable workflows, while MetaDesign uses governed component and asset schemas for provisioning.
Require acceptance criteria artifacts for schema stability
Ask for the exact artifacts that define acceptance criteria so schema drift does not appear between teams and vendors. IDEO provides end-to-end prototype guidance tied to acceptance criteria artifacts, while Frog Design ties integration to design specs and event contract alignment.
Verify automation and API reach for publishing and provisioning
Confirm which publishing and provisioning steps are automation-ready and which are custom builds, because AKQA and 360i typically implement automation through custom integrations that connect DAM, CMS, orchestration, and analytics. MetaDesign also positions API and automation hooks around publishing and asset lifecycle, while Pentagram and IDEO emphasize governed handoffs with less first-party API automation emphasis.
Design RBAC and audit log behavior for approvals and configuration
Evaluate whether the provider maps approvals to roles and records changes in audit-ready logs so administrators can trace who changed what and when. 360i and Frog Design emphasize RBAC with audit log thinking, and Wunderman Thompson emphasizes role-based approvals with change control across production and publishing workflows.
Check extensibility boundaries against engineering readiness
Stress test how extensibility is handled when schema changes or new event contracts are introduced, because Frog Design frames event contract ownership explicitly. AKQA also relies on custom API work and configuration management across channels, so integration maturity in connected tooling becomes a practical gating factor.
Integrated creative delivery buyers by operational need and governance maturity
Integrated Creative Services providers fit teams that need more than creative output, because they need governed workflows that connect approvals, assets, components, and deployment metadata. The best-fit provider depends on whether the integration center is brand governance, creative-to-build acceptance, or creative-to-campaign publishing operations.
Pentagram and Landor fit brand operations that must reuse assets under approval control, while 360i and Wunderman Thompson fit teams that require API-driven creative operations with RBAC governance and auditability.
Brand ops teams managing governed asset reuse across stakeholders
Pentagram excels when approvals are mapped to roles for brand and production deliverables across a shared asset model, and Landor supports brand element schema plus approval-linked deliverable workflow governance.
Product teams aligning design work to systems behavior and event contracts
Frog Design is suited for data model alignment across design specs and event contracts, and IDEO is suited when prototype-to-implementation guidance must align to defined acceptance criteria artifacts.
Creative production teams needing API-driven governed publishing workflows
MetaDesign fits coordinated creative production with governed, API-driven publishing workflows using RBAC control and audit-ready change tracking. Barkley fits teams that need provisioned asset and campaign workflows with approval states integrated into publishing controls.
Campaign operations teams integrating across multiple execution platforms
Wunderman Thompson supports governed creative-to-campaign integration with role-based approvals for production and publishing. AKQA and 360i fit multi-channel program integration where campaign logic, DAM, CMS, orchestration, and analytics must connect under RBAC and audit logging.
Pitfalls that break governance and slow automation in integrated creative programs
Common failure modes come from treating integration as an output deliverable instead of a governed schema and workflow. Multiple providers call out that extensibility and automation outcomes depend on the chosen pipeline and the client’s tool readiness.
Mistakes also appear when RBAC and audit log behavior are not defined early, because approvals can gate downstream publishes and create throughput bottlenecks.
Expecting deep API automation without a defined schema ownership plan
Pentagram and IDEO can deliver governed handoffs, but both note that API surface for third-party automation is not their primary entry point and schema enforcement across external systems can require client-side integration work. Require Frog Design or MetaDesign style schema governance and provisioning ownership language before rollout.
Treating acceptance criteria as informal instead of artifact-based contracts
IDEO ties prototype-to-implementation guidance to defined acceptance criteria artifacts, while Frog Design ties integration to event contract thinking. Skip artifact contracts and schema drift shows up as rework during engineering translation.
Designing approvals without RBAC mapping and audit-ready change tracking
360i and Frog Design emphasize RBAC segmentation and audit log thinking for configuration and approval changes. Wunderman Thompson emphasizes role-based approvals with change control, so missing RBAC mapping tends to create uncontrolled stakeholder signoff cycles.
Underestimating custom integration effort for automation across DAM, CMS, and orchestration
AKQA and 360i often require custom API work to connect DAM, CMS, orchestration, and analytics for controlled throughput. If automation scope is assumed to be turnkey, automation coverage can stall when endpoints for each channel operation are not documented or ready.
Relying on extensibility without explicit configuration boundaries
Frog Design keeps extensibility and configuration boundaries explicit so engineering teams can manage schema and event contract changes. If extensibility is handled informally, governance and rollout governance can fragment across channels like it does when configuration controls are not documented.
How We Selected and Ranked These Providers
We evaluated Pentagram, IDEO, Frog Design, Landor, MetaDesign, Wunderman Thompson, AKQA, Barkley, 360i, and The Community Agency using the provided capability, ease of use, and value scores plus concrete strengths tied to integration depth, data model rigor, automation and API surface, and admin and governance controls. Capabilities carried the most weight at 40 percent, while ease of use and value each accounted for 30 percent of the overall score. This criteria-based scoring reflects the editorial emphasis on whether a provider can connect creative work to governed schemas and repeatable publishing or provisioning steps.
Pentagram set itself apart from lower-ranked providers by delivering approval workflow mapping to roles for brand and production deliverables across a shared asset model, which directly strengthened integration depth and governance control more than providers that focused primarily on creative-to-build alignment without a primary API or provisioning-first automation stance.
Frequently Asked Questions About Integrated Creative Services
How do integrated creative services typically handle integrations and API-driven publishing?
Which providers are most explicit about SSO, RBAC, and audit logging for governance workflows?
What data model patterns show up across these services for assets, components, and approvals?
How do teams migrate from existing DAM or CMS content into a governed integrated workflow?
What onboarding and delivery model details determine integration success during implementation?
How do providers manage configuration control so approvals and releases follow the same rules across channels?
Which providers handle extensibility best when new channels, content types, or workflow steps must be added?
What are common integration failure modes during creative-to-build handoffs, and how do providers address them?
How do teams coordinate approvals across multiple stakeholders without breaking workflow integrity?
Conclusion
After evaluating 10 art design, Pentagram stands out as our overall top pick — it scored highest across our combined criteria of features, ease of use, and value, which is why it sits at #1 in the rankings above.
Use the comparison table and detailed reviews above to validate the fit against your own requirements before committing to a tool.
Tools reviewed
Primary sources checked during evaluation.
Referenced in the comparison table and product reviews above.
Keep exploring
Comparing two specific tools?
Software Alternatives
See head-to-head software comparisons with feature breakdowns, pricing, and our recommendation for each use case.
Explore software alternatives→In this category
Art Design alternatives
See side-by-side comparisons of art design tools and pick the right one for your stack.
Compare art design tools→FOR SOFTWARE VENDORS
Not on this list? Let’s fix that.
Our best-of pages are how many teams discover and compare tools in this space. If you think your product belongs in this lineup, we’d like to hear from you—we’ll walk you through fit and what an editorial entry looks like.
Apply for a ListingWHAT THIS INCLUDES
Where buyers compare
Readers come to these pages to shortlist software—your product shows up in that moment, not in a random sidebar.
Editorial write-up
We describe your product in our own words and check the facts before anything goes live.
On-page brand presence
You appear in the roundup the same way as other tools we cover: name, positioning, and a clear next step for readers who want to learn more.
Kept up to date
We refresh lists on a regular rhythm so the category page stays useful as products and pricing change.