Atlanta painting is not one competitive market with one obvious leaderboard. Residential painters, commercial contractors, multi-service operators, and specialists can look radically different depending on whether you measure reviews, local search visibility, website maturity, digital audience, or observable operating scale.
This report asks a narrower and more useful question: what does the public evidence actually say about how Atlanta painting companies compete? The answer is less about finding one magic tactic and more about understanding which dimension matters for which kind of business.
Atlanta painting is a fragmented market where reputation, visibility, digital maturity, and operating scale often tell different stories about the same company.
The strongest conclusion is not that Atlanta painters need more software. It is that owners need to understand which competitive dimension is actually constraining their business before deciding what to change.
- The study resolves 621 canonical Atlanta-area business entities from 632 raw listings; 324 are classified as core painting businesses.
- Public reputation is highly uneven: the median core painter has only 5 Google reviews, 60.5% have fewer than 10, and just 11.4% have 100 or more.
- Residential search visibility rises sharply with review traction, but the relationship is not deterministic: House Painting Plus reached 67% residential grid coverage with 95 reviews, while Ollie’s Painting reached 31% with 37.
- Among 121 semantically reviewed painter websites, proof and positioning signals are more characteristic of high-review firms than online scheduling: portfolio, service-area clarity, warranty, and an obvious estimate CTA stand out most clearly.
- Website depth is strongly associated with review traction — the highest-review website quartile has a median sitemap footprint of 110 URLs versus 9 in the lowest quartile — but much of that likely reflects underlying maturity and resources.
- The technology stack is not the moat: Google Analytics is common, while observable specialist CRM, call-tracking, and marketing tools remain rare even among stronger firms.
- Commercial and industrial painters require different benchmarks. B & R Painting, for example, publicly reports 40+ full-time professionals despite having only 9 Google reviews.
The Atlanta painting market
The research system began with 632 Google Places listings collected around metro Atlanta and resolved them into 621 canonical business entities. Of those, 324 are classified as core painting businesses. The rest include mixed contractors, adjacent finishers, unrelated listings, and companies whose fit remains uncertain.
That distinction matters. A raw search result count is not a market size, and multiple listings can represent the same company. The entity layer is the basis for the analysis below.
Distinct Atlanta-area business entities after resolving 632 collected Google Places listings into canonical businesses.
Entities classified as businesses whose core offering is painting, rather than adjacent trades or unrelated listings.
Median accumulated Google review count across the 324 core painting businesses. Review count is treated as public reputation traction, not revenue.
196 of 324 core painters have fewer than 10 Google reviews, illustrating the market’s long reputation tail.
Successfully crawled credible-core painter websites reviewed for customer-journey, proof, trust, and conversion signals.
The first thing the market reveals is fragmentation. The median core painter has only 5 Google reviews. Nearly two-thirds have fewer than 10, while a very small group has accumulated hundreds.
That does not mean the median painter is necessarily small. It means the median painter has very little public reputation traction on Google.
The evidence in one view
The charts below summarize the strongest quantitative patterns in the current dataset: review concentration, residential search visibility, website customer-journey signals, digital depth, CrUX availability, and observable technology adoption.
Public reputation is a long-tail market
Most core painters have accumulated very little public review traction, while a small group has built hundreds of reviews. Review count is useful as a reputation signal, but it should not be treated as a universal proxy for company size.
Residential visibility rises with review traction
Review traction and residential search visibility are strongly related, but not identical. The standardized search grid shows a steep increase across review tiers while still producing important outliers.
What Atlanta painter websites visibly communicate
The reviewed cohort is much more likely to show proof, service-area clarity, warranty language, and a clear estimate action than sophisticated scheduling or financing flows. “Not observed” means the signal was not found in the crawled evidence, not that it is definitively absent.
- Estimate CTA observed87 of 121 (72%)
- Portfolio/gallery observed81 of 121 (67%)
- Service area clear81 of 121 (67%)
- Reviews/testimonials observed76 of 121 (63%)
- Warranty/guarantee observed71 of 121 (59%)
- Click-to-call observed69 of 121 (57%)
- Estimate form observed37 of 121 (31%)
- Online scheduling observed13 of 121 (11%)
- Financing observed11 of 121 (9%)
- Response-time promise observed9 of 121 (7%)
High-review websites emphasize proof and clarity, not scheduling
Within the highest-review quartile of the 121-site semantic cohort, obvious estimate CTAs, portfolio evidence, service-area clarity, and warranty language are very common. Online scheduling is not: only 2 of 30 top-quartile sites showed it.
- Estimate CTA observed28 of 30 (93%)
- Portfolio/gallery observed27 of 30 (90%)
- Service area clear28 of 30 (93%)
- Warranty/guarantee observed24 of 30 (80%)
- Financing observed6 of 30 (20%)
- Estimate form observed8 of 30 (27%)
- Online scheduling observed2 of 30 (7%)
Higher-traction firms tend to have deeper websites
The relationship is strong descriptively but should not be read causally. Larger, older, and better-resourced firms can invest more in content, so website depth may partly be a consequence of business maturity rather than a cause of it.
Real-user Chrome data is concentrated among higher-traction sites
CrUX availability is not traffic, revenue, rank, or a performance score. It simply indicates enough eligible real-world Chrome usage for Google to publish aggregated origin data, making availability itself the useful signal here.
Technology is infrastructure, not the moat
Basic analytics is widespread, while observable specialist marketing, CRM, call-tracking, and scheduling tools remain uncommon. The strongest market pattern is not “leaders use exotic software.”
- Google Analytics142 of 162 (88%)
- WordPress67 of 162 (41%)
- Google Tag Manager53 of 162 (33%)
- Meta Pixel26 of 162 (16%)
- Google Ads tag14 of 162 (9%)
- Tracked specialist tool10 of 162 (6%)
Different businesses are playing different games
Among core painters, 129 entities carry a residential customer-segment tag and 113 carry a commercial tag; those groups overlap. Industrial, institutional, multifamily, property-management, and other segments appear as smaller cohorts.
That is not just taxonomy. It changes which metrics are meaningful.
B & R Painting
Scale/review mismatchCommercial & industrial painting · Lithonia, Georgia
A commercial/industrial operator that looks small through a consumer-review lens but publicly reports a much larger operating footprint.
Observed digital capabilities
- — Estimate CTA observed
- — Portfolio/gallery observed
- — Reviews/testimonials observed
Strengths
- Public website evidence states more than 40 full-time professionals.
- The first-party domain is approximately 18.1 years old.
- Semantic classification identifies the company as a commercial/industrial painting contractor.
Evidence
- 9 Google reviews at a 4.1 rating.
- Reviewed public scale claim: 40+ full-time professionals.
- Commercial and industrial customer-segment classification based on public business evidence.
B & R Painting is the clearest reason not to rank every Atlanta painter on the same consumer metrics. A business with substantial workforce capacity can have a tiny Google review footprint because its customer-acquisition game is different.
OpportunityCommercial peers should be benchmarked on operating evidence, vertical fit, reputation within relevant channels, and commercial discoverability — not residential review norms alone.
For residential-facing businesses, reviews and local search matter much more directly because homeowners frequently encounter both before making contact. For commercial and industrial businesses, workforce, crews, project history, vertical specialization, and buyer relationships can be much more informative.
A single market-wide score would blur those differences, so this report deliberately avoids one.
Reputation is concentrated, but reputation is not visibility
Review traction is strongly related to residential local-search visibility. In the standardized grid experiment, residential painters with fewer than 10 reviews averaged only 0.7% visibility coverage. Businesses with 100 or more reviews averaged 17.2%.
But the outliers are strategically important because they show the relationship is not deterministic.
House Painting Plus LLC
Visibility outlierResidential painting · Decatur, Georgia
A residential visibility outlier: materially smaller by review count than the largest firms, yet unusually broad across the standardized residential search grid.
Observed digital capabilities
- ✓ Estimate CTA observed
- ✓ Estimate form observed
- ✓ Online scheduling observed
- ✓ Service-area clarity observed
- — Portfolio/gallery observed
- — Warranty/guarantee observed
Strengths
- 67% residential visibility coverage — the strongest observed residential coverage among the outliers examined.
- 50% top-10 residential coverage despite fewer than 100 Google reviews.
- An estimate CTA, five-field estimate form, booking action, call action, and Metro Atlanta positioning were all observed.
Evidence
- 95 Google reviews at a 4.8 rating.
- 67% residential visibility coverage, 24% top-3 coverage, and 50% top-10 coverage in the standardized grid experiment.
- First-party domain age is approximately 12.7 years.
House Painting Plus demonstrates why visibility deserves to be measured independently from review count. It punches far above what review volume alone would predict.
OpportunityFor a peer business, the lesson is to diagnose visibility directly rather than assuming more reviews automatically produce equivalent geographic coverage.
Ollie's Painting, LLC
Visibility outlierResidential & commercial painting · Jonesboro, Georgia
Another strong visibility outlier with modest public review volume and a substantial public lifetime-customer claim.
Observed digital capabilities
- ✓ Estimate form observed
- ✓ Portfolio/gallery observed
- ✓ Service-area clarity observed
- — Explicit estimate CTA observed
- — Online scheduling observed
Strengths
- 31% residential visibility coverage and 22% top-10 residential coverage with only 37 Google reviews.
- The website publicly claims 10,000+ customers served.
- Gallery and service-area positioning were observed.
Gaps
- The crawled evidence showed a contact form but did not surface an explicit estimate-specific CTA, making the next action less explicit than at many higher-review peers.
Evidence
- 37 Google reviews at a 4.9 rating.
- 31% residential visibility coverage and 36% commercial visibility coverage in the standardized grid experiment.
- Public website claim of 10,000+ lifetime customers served.
Ollie’s combines modest review volume with meaningful local visibility and a much larger public customer-history claim, another example of why one metric should not stand in for total market strength.
OpportunityA clearer estimate-specific path would make the existing proof and visibility easier to convert without requiring a more elaborate technology stack.
House Painting Plus reached 67% residential grid coverage with 95 reviews. Ollie's Painting reached 31% with 37 reviews. Meanwhile Atlanta Painting Company, the review-count leader at 1,435 reviews, measured 20% residential coverage across the same standardized metro-wide opportunity set.
Atlanta Painting Company
Reputation leaderResidential & commercial painting · Roswell, Georgia
The reputation leader in the core-painter sample by Google review count, with a mature first-party web presence and a dense set of visible trust and conversion signals.
Observed digital capabilities
- ✓ Estimate CTA observed
- ✓ Estimate form observed
- — Online scheduling observed
- ✓ Financing observed
- ✓ Warranty/guarantee observed
- ✓ Portfolio/gallery observed
- ✓ Service-area clarity observed
Strengths
- Highest Google review count among the 324 core painters studied.
- Estimate CTA, estimate form, financing, warranty, reviews, recent projects, service-area positioning, and a same-day free-quote promise were all observed.
- First-party domain registration dates back roughly 20 years.
Gaps
- Its reputation leadership does not translate into equally dominant standardized residential search coverage: the business appeared across 20% of the residential query-grid opportunities measured.
Evidence
- 1,435 Google reviews at a 4.7 rating in the collected Places snapshot.
- 20% residential visibility coverage and 6% top-10 coverage in the standardized residential grid experiment.
- Crawled website evidence includes request/schedule estimate CTA, hero request form, call-or-text, financing, 3-year warranty, reviews, recent projects, service areas, and same-day free quotes.
Atlanta Painting Company is a useful reminder that historical reputation and local-search coverage are related but separate dimensions. Even the review leader is not visible everywhere across a metro-wide standardized grid.
OpportunityThe interesting question is not whether the company needs more reviews; it is where its existing reputation is and is not converting into local discoverability.
The implication is not that reviews are unimportant. Google itself describes prominence/popularity as one input into local ranking, and review activity can contribute to that prominence. The implication is narrower: you cannot use review count as a substitute for measuring visibility.
What stronger websites do differently
The website evidence is more interesting for what it does not say than for what it says.
Among the 30 highest-review sites in the 121-site semantic cohort, 93.3% showed an obvious estimate CTA, 90% showed a portfolio or gallery, 93.3% made the service area clear, and 80% showed warranty or guarantee language.
Those signals were materially less common in the lowest-review quartile: 58.1%, 45.2%, 48.4%, and 45.2% respectively.
These are observational relationships, not proof that adding a gallery or warranty badge creates growth. Stronger companies may simply have more resources, longer histories, and more mature marketing systems. Still, the pattern is useful: the public-facing difference is mostly about proof, positioning, trust, and a clear next action.
Proof and positioning appear more characteristic of stronger sites than fancy automation
High-review websites disproportionately show a clear estimate action, portfolio evidence, service-area clarity, and warranty language. Online scheduling and estimate forms do not show the same pattern.
Evidence
- Among the highest-review website quartile, 93.3% show an estimate CTA, 90% a portfolio/gallery, 93.3% service-area clarity, and 80% warranty/guarantee language.
- In the lowest-review quartile, the same observed rates are 58.1%, 45.2%, 48.4%, and 45.2% respectively.
- Online scheduling was observed on 6.7% of top-quartile sites versus 16.1% of bottom-quartile sites; estimate-form adoption was nearly identical at 26.7% versus 25.8%.
Business implication
The public evidence points toward clarity, trust, proof, and an obvious next action as more plausible competitive priorities than adding automation for its own sake.
Recommended action
Before changing platforms or adding scheduling software, make sure the website clearly answers: what do you do, where do you work, why should a customer trust you, and what should they do next?
Related Business OS Studio capability: Customer-journey and conversion-proof audit.
What we did not find
This is where the dataset becomes especially useful because several common assumptions do not survive contact with the evidence.
We also do not see evidence that an exotic technology stack is the competitive moat. Google Analytics is visible on most successfully observed core-painter sites, while specialist CRM, call-tracking, scheduling, and marketing tools are rare. Observable Google Ads tags appear on only 14 of 162 successful technology observations.
The conclusion is not “technology does not matter.” It is that technology looks like infrastructure rather than strategy. The business still needs the right market position, proof, offer, coverage, and operating model.
Digital depth is real — and heavily confounded
Higher-review firms tend to have much deeper websites. The highest-review website quartile has a median sitemap footprint of 110 URLs; the lowest has 9. The highest quartile also has more service and location pages.
It would be easy to turn that into a simplistic recommendation to publish more pages. The data does not justify that conclusion. More mature firms have more services, more locations, more resources, more customers, and more reasons to maintain a deeper digital footprint.
Digital depth is associated with traction, but “more pages” is not a strategy
Higher-review firms have substantially deeper sitemap footprints, but the relationship is confounded by maturity, resources, and existing traction.
Evidence
- Median sitemap footprint is 110 URLs in the highest review quartile versus 9 in the lowest.
- Median service-page count reaches 9 and location-page count 6 in the highest quartile, compared with zero in the lowest.
Business implication
A deeper site can reflect a more mature market strategy, but mechanically publishing pages is not evidence of competitive advantage.
Recommended action
Expand service and location content only where it reflects real operating coverage, customer questions, and a deliberate search strategy.
Related Business OS Studio capability: Digital footprint and content-depth benchmarking.
The useful question is whether a company's website reflects the services and geography it actually competes for — not whether it can manufacture an arbitrary page count.
Digital audience: a small but revealing signal
We checked 152 core-painter websites against Chrome UX Report availability. Google publishes aggregate CrUX origin data only when an origin has sufficient eligible real-world Chrome usage.
Only 26 sites (17.1%) had CrUX data. Availability rises from 2.6% in the lowest review quartile to 47.4% in the highest.
This should not be interpreted as traffic, revenue, ranking, or a performance score. The useful observation is simply that higher-traction businesses are much more likely to have enough real-world browser activity to cross Google's publication threshold.
Longevity helps with context, not causality
Across 332 entities where a first-party local domain age can be used responsibly, the median domain age is 7.2 years. The middle half ranges from roughly 2.8 to 16.2 years.
Domain age is digital longevity, not company age. A business can predate its domain by decades, and franchise domains can predate a local operator. We therefore keep domain age as supporting context rather than treating it as a ranking factor or causal explanation.
Where the market-level opportunities actually are
The strongest opportunities emerging from this study are diagnostic rather than generic. They begin by identifying which competitive dimension is weak for a particular company.
Reputation strength does not guarantee geographic visibility
Residential visibility increases sharply with review traction, yet businesses with similar review counts can have very different coverage across the Atlanta search grid.
Evidence
- Average residential coverage rises from 0.7% among businesses with fewer than 10 reviews to 17.2% among businesses with 100+ reviews.
- House Painting Plus reached 67% residential coverage with 95 reviews; Ollie’s Painting reached 31% with 37 reviews.
- Atlanta Painting Company leads the market in review count at 1,435 but measured 20% residential coverage in the standardized metro-wide grid.
Business implication
Owners cannot infer local discoverability from review count alone. A company may have strong reputation assets while still leaving large geographic or query-specific visibility gaps.
Recommended action
Benchmark visibility by relevant query family and geography, then diagnose the specific places and search intents where a strong reputation is not translating into discovery.
Related Business OS Studio capability: Local-search benchmarking and competitive visibility analysis.
Residential and commercial operators need different scorecards
Consumer reviews and residential local-search visibility are informative for residential-facing painters but can severely understate the scale of commercial and industrial operators.
Evidence
- 129 core painters carry a residential customer-segment tag and 113 carry a commercial tag; segment tags can overlap.
- B & R Painting has 9 Google reviews while publicly reporting 40+ full-time professionals.
- Other reviewed public scale claims include 150 crews and 100+ subcontractors with 800–900 houses per year, illustrating how much operating evidence can diverge from review footprint.
Business implication
A single market-wide ranking can reward the wrong things and produce bad recommendations. Peer definition is part of the analysis, not an afterthought.
Recommended action
Benchmark each company against businesses that compete for similar customers and work, then choose metrics that match that competitive model.
Related Business OS Studio capability: Peer segmentation and company-specific competitive benchmarking.
The common mistake would be to look at this market and prescribe the same stack of reviews, SEO pages, CRM tools, scheduling software, and ads to everyone. The data argues for the opposite approach.
Recommended response
Market-wide
Define the competitive peer group before comparing performance
Rationale
Residential, commercial, industrial, specialty, and mixed operators compete through different channels, making one universal score misleading.
Expected outcome
Benchmarks and recommendations that reflect the company’s actual competitive game rather than generic industry averages.
First stepClassify the company by customer segment and business model before interpreting reviews, visibility, website signals, or operating scale.
Related to: Residential and commercial operators need different scorecards
Measure local visibility directly instead of using reviews as a proxy
Rationale
Review traction and visibility move together, but the outliers are large enough to matter strategically.
Expected outcome
A clear map of which relevant search intents and geographic areas are strong, weak, or unexpectedly competitive.
First stepRun the relevant query family across a standardized local grid and compare coverage, top-10 presence, and rank against the right peers.
Related to: Reputation strength does not guarantee geographic visibility
Strengthen proof, positioning, and the next action before adding automation
Rationale
Portfolio, service-area clarity, warranty language, and estimate CTA are much more characteristic of the highest-review sites than online scheduling or estimate forms.
Expected outcome
A website that makes the business easier to understand and trust without unnecessary system complexity.
First stepAudit the visible proof, service-area positioning, trust signals, and primary call to action on the pages prospective customers actually land on.
Related to: Proof and positioning appear more characteristic of stronger sites than fancy automation
Treat website depth as market coverage, not a page-count target
Rationale
High-traction firms have deeper websites, but maturity and resources explain part of the relationship.
Expected outcome
Content investment tied to real services and geography instead of low-value page proliferation.
First stepCompare existing service and location coverage against the company’s actual operating footprint and the query/geography gaps identified in local search.
Related to: Digital depth is associated with traction, but “more pages” is not a strategy, Reputation strength does not guarantee geographic visibility
The sequence matters: define the peer group → measure the actual gap → improve the customer-facing evidence → then implement the systems needed to close it.
What this means for an Atlanta painting company
There are several very different situations hiding inside the same market averages:
- A residential painter can have strong reviews but weak geographic visibility. The problem is not reputation generation; it is discoverability across the relevant queries and service area.
- A smaller-review painter can have exceptional visibility. The priority may be conversion, trust, or operational capacity rather than more local-search exposure.
- A strong commercial contractor can look weak on consumer metrics while operating at substantial scale. The right benchmark may have almost nothing to do with residential review norms.
- A mature company can have a deep website and large digital footprint without that depth being the original cause of its market strength.
- A company can have perfectly adequate technology and still have a positioning, proof, or market-coverage problem.
That is why a useful competitive analysis needs to be company-specific.
Methodology
Scope
Atlanta-area painting market study built from 632 collected Google Places listings within a roughly 50 km study radius around central Atlanta, resolved into 621 canonical business entities. The public report focuses on the 324 entities classified as core painting businesses and uses peer-specific subsets where appropriate.
Collection period
August 8, 2026 – August 10, 2026
Inclusion criteria
- Entity-level records are preferred over raw listings so multiple Place IDs belonging to one business are not counted as separate competitors.
- Core-painter market statistics use entities semantically or heuristically classified as businesses whose principal offering is painting.
- Residential local-search comparisons use core painters tagged as residential-facing and the residential query family only.
- Website-customer-journey findings use the 121-site semantically reviewed credible-core cohort.
Exclusion criteria
- Businesses classified as likely unrelated to painting are excluded from core-painter findings.
- Painting-adjacent specialties are not silently folded into the core-painter cohort.
- Third-party platform domain age is not interpreted as company longevity.
- Unreviewed candidate operating-scale claims are not treated as normalized scale evidence.
Metric definitions
- Review traction
- Accumulated Google review count, treated as a public reputation/traction signal rather than revenue or company size.
- Local-search visibility coverage
- Share of standardized query-grid opportunities in which an entity appeared in the top 20 Google Places Text Search results for the relevant market segment.
- Observed website signal
- A feature or message found in the successfully crawled website evidence. FALSE/not observed does not prove the feature is absent from every page or business process.
- Local domain age
- Age of a usable first-party candidate domain, interpreted as digital longevity rather than legal or operating history.
Limitations
- Google review count measures accumulated public reputation, not revenue, profitability, workforce, or customer mix.
- The local-search experiment uses standardized Google Places Text Search over a fixed grid. Real users can see different results based on precise location, personalization, query wording, and Google product behavior.
- Website observations are point-in-time and evidence-limited: “not observed” is not the same as definitive absence.
- Residential and commercial operators require different interpretations; consumer search and review metrics can materially understate commercial operating scale.
- Operational-scale evidence is sparse because only explicit, semantically validated public numeric claims are accepted. No claim found means unknown, not small.
- CrUX data was available for only 26 of 152 targeted sites, so availability is more useful here than detailed performance comparisons.
- Review-momentum infrastructure exists, but the first snapshots were collected too close together to support meaningful review-velocity conclusions yet.
- Branded search-volume analysis is not included in this version because the Google Ads API pipeline is not yet operational.
- All relationships in this report are observational. They should not be interpreted as proof that a website feature, technology, or marketing tactic causes growth.
Primary collection and synthesis for this report was completed August 8–10, 2026. Market conditions, websites, reviews, and search results can change after the observation period.
Sources
- Google Places business listingsPublic directory
Accessed August 8, 2026
Business discovery, entity-resolution inputs, ratings, review counts, public contact details, and business categories.
- Standardized Google Places Text Search grid experimentPrimary research
Accessed August 9, 2026
Eight query families across 25 geographic grid points: 200 successful searches and 4,000 ranked top-20 result rows. This is a standardized visibility index, not a reproduction of a personalized Google Maps session.
- Painter website crawl and semantic reviewPrimary research
Accessed August 9, 2026
Customer-journey evidence for 121 successfully crawled credible-core painter websites, including estimate actions, proof, trust, service-area, scheduling, financing, and related signals.
- Website technology and sitemap observationsPrimary research
Accessed August 9, 2026
Observable public signatures for analytics, CMS, marketing technologies, structured data, forms, links, and sitemap depth. Signatures do not prove an active integration or campaign.
- Chrome UX Report origin observationsOther
Accessed August 9, 2026
Targeted CrUX availability checks for 152 core-painter websites. Availability is interpreted as sufficient eligible Chrome usage for Google to publish aggregate origin data, not as a direct traffic metric.
- RDAP domain-registration observationsOther
Accessed August 9, 2026
Domain registration data used as a digital-longevity signal only when the domain can reasonably represent the local business. Shared brand and third-party platform domains are treated separately.
- Semantically reviewed public operating-scale claimsPrimary research
Accessed August 9, 2026
Explicit numeric claims found in public company materials, including employees, crews, subcontractors, customers, projects, and annual production. Coverage is intentionally sparse.
Where does your company stand?
Market averages hide enormous differences between individual businesses. Using the same dataset behind this report, Business OS Studio can benchmark an individual Atlanta painting company across the dimensions that actually fit its competitive model: reputation, local visibility, digital presence, customer journey, longevity, and observable operating scale. If we sent you this report directly, we may also have prepared an analysis of your company.