To understand what's good marketing and what's bad marketing watch the rent-seekers

I'm a marketer. Got all the badges. Used to have a big job telling folk how to to it. And I'm here to remind you that there's two sorts of marketing - the good sort that's about a conversation with consumers so we can meet their needs (and maybe prompt them towards something they'd not thought about) and the bad sort that's about persuading authorities to fix the market so as to allow the client a temporary monopoly or other unfair advantage.

Of course, dear reader, I did the first sort and got plenty of flak for doing so. "Where did you get my name and address", "you're manipulating people with your clever personalisation", and "these profiling systems are exploiting people's personal data". But at no point did I collect, analyse or otherwise use data for any other purpose than to make my advertising and marketing pound stretch a little further - I just wanted to sell you what we'd got in the warehouse.

The bad marketing doesn't get the same criticism, we say little or nothing when the farmers' union lobbies for protectionism or the steel companies rant about 'unfair dumping'. Yet these businesses want to fix the market so as to profit - and that profit comes at your and my expense. It's like this:

Yet lobbying requires resources: the building and office supplies used by lobbyists, the fuel used to ferry lobbyists to and fro in their privilege-seeking efforts, but mostly the time and effort of the lobbyists themselves. And the greater the expected benefit of securing a special privilege, the greater is the amount of resources those in search of such privileges will use in that search. Such resource expenditures are beneficial to the rent-seekers themselves, for these expenditures increase these rent-seekers’ prospects of actually securing the sought-after special privileges that yield rents (that is, excess profits). But from society’s perspective these expenditures are wasteful: the building used to house lawyers who seek rents for their clients is not available to be used for genuinely productive activities (such as serving as office space for tech start-ups, or for lawyers who specialize in helping commercial clients write better contracts).

For lawyers in Don Boudreaux's screed you could insert 'lobbyists', 'PR Agencies', 'Public Affairs Consultants' and a host of other titles all dedicated to the job of getting politicians and bureaucrats to fix markets to the benefit of these agents' clients or employers.

So next time someone has a go at people like me - the good marketers who just use data and information to get you better products and services - point to the lobbyists and ask when that will stop. That is corporate welfare, market fixing and it happens at our cost - Boudreaux gives one example:

I have no idea what Mr. Stohr is paid. So let’s low-ball it – I mean really low-ball it: let’s assume that he’s paid a mere $100,000 annually. If so, then at least $33,333 worth of valuable resources – Mr. Stohr’s time, effort, and creativity – are spent simply trying to maintain that which ought not be maintained, namely, subsidies – a special privilege – for American aircraft manufacturers.

Multiply this a thousand - maybe ten thousand - times just for the USA and you see the extent to which the brilliance of us marketers is turned to the dark side promoting the market-fixing interests of large corporations, labour unions and NGOs. And then the same for every country on earth, the cost of lobbying and those fixed markets to us ordinary consumers is immense. If you want a campaign that will really change the world - put an end to rent-seeking driven by the lobby and by the avarice, the ignorance of politicians.

....

An Evil Marketer comments on data analytics in political campaigning

Back in the 1970s a man called Richard Webber was working at the UK government's centre for Environmental Studies. This, more or less, was what he was doing:

I created Acorn, the first neighbourhood classification system, while working at the government's Centre for Environmental Studies in the 1970s.

People ask how it came to be a commercial application. I had organised a seminar for local authorities to show how neighbourhood data could identify areas of deprivation. Quite by chance, it attracted Ken Baker, a sampling specialist from BMRB. He was a lateral thinker and he came up with the idea that the Acorn tool would be useful for market research sampling.

I meanwhile had realised that Acorn could help predict the households most likely to respond to direct mail and door drops.

Without wanting to come over all geeky, Webber had used census data combined with the electoral register to create a classification of small neighbourhoods (based on census enumeration districts, the base geography for the national census). The principle of Webber's classification is essentially that 'birds of a feather flock together' - people in Manchester who have the same census characteristics as people in Bristol will tend to have other similar behavioural characteristics including, of course, purchasing preferences.

I know you're asking what all this has to do with Brexit (or indeed voting in general). The thing is that, as well as Webber's classification of residential neighbourhoods capturing similarities in terms of how people might respond to different marketing offers, the system also applies to the matter of how we vote. If the 'birds of a feather' principle is correct then similar areas will have similar voting behaviour.

By the end of the 1980s, we were using geodemographics (as Webber's system became known) to combine with proprietary data on customers to refine the targeting of direct marketing campaign, to improve the selection of retail sites and to manage advertising better. Without wanting to overcomplicate, customer address data was given an ACORN code and then profiled using initially a simple index (where 100 = National Average). The indices were reported at the level of postal sector (i.e. BD11 2 or ME2 7) as these were large enough to give the index validity but small enough to facilitate fine grain targeting.

For a targeted doordrop we might then take the top 300 postal sectors and, through the Royal Mail, purchase a delivery of unaddressed mail. Typically, results showed an uplift in response of 2x or 3x depending on the client. Results were less good for targeted direct mail using the electoral register - mostly because a key behavioural characteristic, responsiveness, was not captured in census data. We played other games using expert systems and the early days of data-mining too - it was just a lot slower back then!


The generation of geodemographic systems that followed the original census-based ACORN system (e.g. SuperProfiles, MOSAIC) began to add in other large data sources such as credit data and 'psychographic' survey data - some may recall the retailed questionnaires incentivised with free prize draws that collected this information. Targeting extended beyond shared residential characteristics to details about financial services, indebtedness and preferences around holidays, cars, fmcg products and lifestyle choices (smoking, drinking, gambling, etc.).

Unsurprisingly, political parties began to make use of these systems to improve the targeting of election campaigning especially in areas where they lacked good quality 'voting intention' (VI) data. The same essential methodology was used as that I was using for mail order and financial services companies - a database of VI details was profiles against MOSAIC to provide improved campaign targeting in places with no canvass. This might be used on a national basis to decide which local council by-elections to target or at the constituency level to improve the effectiveness of limited resources thereby allowing the broadening of target seat campaigns.

Which I guess brings us to this conclusion from an article about a marketing analytics business who may or may not have been active during the recent EU Referendum:

Is it the case that our elections will increasingly be decided by the whims of billionaires, operating in the shadows, behind the scenes, using their fortunes to decide our fate?

To appreciate why this is unlikely, we need to go back to how marketing analytics work, which is at the aggregate level. I appreciate, as a marketing professional, how we all want to believe advertising has become like the opening scenes in Minority Report but the reality is that aggregate data really doesn't provide the means to manipulate what we think. Rather, geodemographics, psychographics and marketing analytics enable us marketers to better target those people who are already predisposed to buy our product (or vote for our cause).

The big change from the stuff we were doing with mag tapes and mainframe computers in 1989 is the availability of information from social media (most usually Facebook). Again this is aggregate data - Facebook doesn't sell your details to marketing analytics businesses - but the sophistication of the data makes the targeting of messages all the more precise as does the ability to analyse public profiles without Facebook's permission. But even with this level of analysis, we still haven't 'manipulated' your opinion merely targeted our message more precisely to people more likely to respond positively to that message.

We are right to express concerns about whether the use of analytics has crossed over into misuse of personal data and it appears the UK's Information Commissioner is doing just that. But the likely truth (given it is not in Facebook's interest to share personal data and this is illegal in the EU) is that analytics companies are simply doing just what we were doing as direct marketers 30 years ago - using information to target our messages a little better. Back then it was all seen as a bit sinister ('where did you get my name from...') and nothing has changed except that there's more information, faster computers and social media. You can always find a computing academic (note, not a marketer) do do the full on evil empire stuff:

A rapid convergence in the data mining, algorithmic and granular analytics capabilities of companies like Cambridge Analytica and Facebook is creating powerful, unregulated and opaque ‘intelligence platforms’. In turn, these can have enormous influence to affect what we learn, how we feel, and how we vote. The algorithms they may produce are frequently hidden from scrutiny and we see only the results of any insights they might choose to publish.”

The truth is a deal more prosaic. Marketers ask customers about their lives, social media use and so forth then profile this against aggregate data from various sources to produce targeting information - where geographically or behaviourally we can go looking for folk like those customers we've surveyed. I so want us marketers and ad men to be master manipulators, able to switch your mind at the push of an analytical button or the twitch of an algorhithm. But we're not like that at all, we're not even that good at using big data.

.....

Some reasons why your website is rubbish

Grandpa rambles about his website (which isn't rubbish):

A week or so ago I mused about web sites and how horrible some were.

The minute I read this I cried "yep". Especially corporate websites.

So here's a few things that are important (not that I'm an expert or anything as vulgar as all that).

1. White Out body copy. Just don't do it. Ever. This isn't an aesthetic comment but one about legibility - as an older person with the deteriorating eyesight that often entails I simply can't read it easily enough to be bothered.

2. Running copy across pictures. Yes, you all do it and, just like white out body copy it's hard to read. And if you can't be bothered to make your site legible why on earth should I bother to read it? Indeed, before you press publish perhaps you should get  half-blind old coot to try and read your beautiful site?

3. Hiding the contact details. Am I the only person who is a tad suspicious when I have to scroll down to a contents listing (probably in nine-point white copy on a pale blue background) in order to find the means to contact you?

4. Making me use a crap form to contact you. I know it's tidy and convenient (for you) but it isn't what folk want. And it's worse still if you don't include a telephone number.

5. Not having a real world address. A bloke once gave me his business card. Colourful, designer-ish and shiny. No address, no landline. Just a mobile number. Precisely what sort of confidence does this give me I'm not going to get ripped off?

6. Why isn't the stuff people want on your landing page? I mean it's lovely, you've spent loads on design and what not but at no point have you apparently thought about why someone's visiting. Half the time it's like having a shop where the windows contain the company logo, pictures of the directors and the chairman's latest letter rather than any sort of product. I'm not there to read a blog about your team building day, I'm there because I might be interested in what you might - you never know - want to sell me.

None of this stuff is new. Back in my direct marketing days all these things (along with more white space, asking readers to actually do something and talking to them not to some vague third party) were beaten into copywriters with especially knobbly shillelaghs. It seems that, yet again, making stuff pretty and technically whizzy has triumphed over making it what the potential customer wants.

....

On being a mass membership party again...

The rhetoric from Conservative Campaign HQ is ringing - get more members. The chairman, Grant Shapps MP has written to all his MP colleagues urging them to recruit more members, to get 3% of Conservative voters signed up as members.

I don't object to these injunctions although I suspect that most MPs will adopt the old Spanish colonial adage, obedezco pero no cumplo - I obey but do not comply. And why blame them. After all the number of members isn't the big deal it used to be. Election campaigns are fought out over the airwaves and election funding allows for a generous dollop of postage and paid doorstep delivery, there's no real incentive to persuade people to join the party, however much Grant Shapps may cajole.

Think about it for a second. Assuming you're not ambitious or a politics anorak, why on earth would you pay good money to join a political party? What do you get for your pleasure? Endless appeals for more money, on infrequent occasions you get to vote for the leader of the party and similarly to select a local MP or councillor. You won't be asked about policy (although you can join groups that engage in endless circular discussions about that policy) and you might get asked to buy tickets for dinners and garden parties.

If you join the RSPB they give you stuff, send you a magazine and give you free entry to their nature reserves. The same goes for other organisations - the National Trust, RHS and so forth. Joining a political party doesn't really get you anything.

If Grant Shapps wants more members at £25 he needs to offer something more and to give up on the idea that the overstretched troops on the ground have the time or inclination to respond to his urgings. Back in Campaign HQ they need to find some money to recruit members - do some old fashioned direct marketing. I don't just mean mass mailings but rather the development of an offer that might make it worthwhile for Fred Smith to hand over that £25 in exchange for a membership card.

The sad truth is that those MPs - and the young things at CCHQ - really aren't interested. Either we'll carry on with parties funded by business donations (or in Labour's case by unions) or else the politicians will, as Nick Clegg wants, dip their hands into the public purse and have state funded politics.

What public health can learn from Reader's Digest

Over 25 years ago I stumbled – more or less accidentally – into the world of direct marketing. And many of things I’ve learned from practicing that craft can be applied elsewhere. So it is with “nudge” and the practical application of what the clever folk chose to call “behavioural economics”. You know, the bit that starts with Steven Landsburg’s famous quote:

“Most of economics can be summarized in four words: “People respond to incentives.” The rest is commentary.”

And then continues to the Thaler & Sunstein idea of “nudge”:

“The trick is to promote actual freedom – not just by giving people lots of choices (though that can help) but also by putting people in a good position to choose what would be best.”

The thing is that mail order people and direct marketers had being doing this stuff for 50 years before all the trendy policy wonks picked it up. We’d been carefully learning a whole load of things about human behaviour. And many of those techniques came from the fertile and creative mind of Walter Weintz – someone who the typical academic behavioural economist should have heard of but probably hasn’t. He said:

Once the basic principles and techniques of mail-order promotion are understood, they can be applied in the most unlikely places, and for unexpected products. Although my own initial mail-order experience happened to do with magazines and books, the same rules would have applied had I been working on a correspondence course in accounting, the mail-order sale of Christmas hams or Chesapeake crabmeat, securing leads for Ford cars, or, indeed, getting political candidates elected or fund raising for a political organization...

And of course social policy and public health!

The name may be new to you but his biggest success – the brand that he made famous – is very familiar: Reader’s Digest. And this great man set out the story – as every in his slightly folksy style – in a book: The SolidGold Mailbox. The essence of this direct marketing – of the strategies that Weintz pioneered - lies in two things – incentives and testing.

So when someone arrives with a seemingly wonderful idea – that we can use things other than price or availability to incentivise behaviour – they are merely generalising the specific thing that direct marketers learned from Weintz and others. Things like:

·         The power of words – as Rush Limbaugh famously said: “words mean things”. Words like “free”, “new”, “exclusive”, “limited”, “bestseller” – these are real magic words that trip positive behaviour in people. I know this because it’s been tested and proven by direct marketers hundreds and hundreds of times.

·         The impact of reward - do this and you’ll get (or win or ‘qualify for’)something. It may be a free gift or an “exclusive” discount. Perhaps it’s an entry into a draw or a qualification for a “prize”. Our choice is rewarded – subscribe to the magazine and you are showered with wonders! Choose not to subscribe and these things will be torn from your very grasp.

·         How we love our name. Do you look up, even in a crowded room, when your name is mentioned? You do – that’s why even the clunky personalisation used in Reader’s Digest mailings worked. And because we love our name – think of the silly Starbucks thing about writing your name on the cup – we love to hear others use it. Even when it mispronounced or misspelled! There’s more too – because we like to hear our names, we like to use names too. So asking you to call Ethel or Steve on 0800 123456 works better that call us at that number. It’s a real person!

The point here is to remind us that the idea of “nudge” isn’t about price or regulations but is about language, about the order in which things are written and the way in which the choice is placed before us.  And direct marketers have been playing games with language, with the presentation of offers and incentives, for decades. We can tell you that long letters are more responsive than short letters, that past behaviour (such as buying mail order) is always a good guide to future behaviour and that people don’t read letters the way you think they do. Oh, and if you don’t ask for a response you won’t get one!

All of these things – these little games with words, with design and with non-financial incentives – can be applied to public policy whether it’s getting people to recycle, register to vote, stop smoking or visit the local clinic. Just one simple example will suffice – if you put a map of the clinic location on appointment letters for medical check-ups people are more likely to attend. Even when you know that they know exactly where the clinic is located because they’ve been there dozens of times.

This is “nudge”. Minimum pricing isn’t “nudge”, banning advertising isn’t “nudge”, passing regulations about packaging isn’t “nudge”. Look back at that Cass & Sunstein quote – the bit about promoting “actual freedom”. It’s about the words used and the choices offered – rather than saying “smoking is bad don’t do it” we should argue for point-of-sale-displays setting out the rewards of not smoking not for scary pictures or hiding the product away.

I’m not sure whether “The Solid Gold Mail Box” is still in print but it would be a great boon to effective – and genuinely liberal – social policy and public health campaigns if those creating them read the book. But then I recall a Director of Public Health who rejected a direct marketing approach to a campaign (on HIV/AIDS) because it involved another little thing that Weintz – and every other direct marketing – knows works: targeting those most interested in what you offer. Or, in the case at issue, those most at risk.

Public health hasn’t moved on. It still prefers the general to the targeted – introducing minimum prices that affect everyone rather than targeting campaigns to those most at risk. And they still prefer to say “you mustn’t do that” or “stop that” rather than “wouldn’t it be better if you did this instead?” 

....

Advice to the Internet from an old mail order guru

****

I was reading an incredibly complacent interview with Alan Rushbridger, the Guardians editor. There was a hint - indeed the very faintest of hints - that the newspaper's on-line business model might not be a sturdy cash generator:

I think you’re putting the cart before the horse. I think it’s better if you embed yourself in this new world of information and work out what it is what we can do that they can’t do and vice versa. If at some point in the future it looks as though some form of payment is going to work, we’re not going to set ourselves against it

And here lies the rub, not just for the Guardian but for much of the 'world wide web' - Rushbridger touched on it by saying:

There would have been no point in 1997 or 2000 saying that we don’t like the idea of this all being free...

At which point I recalled some sage words from a real life mail order guru - my former colleague John Hinchcliffe. We were discussing the strategy (or rather John was discussing and I was doing what might be called 'intelligent listening') options faced by the Freeman's brand following its acquisition by (I think) Littlewoods. Now Freeman's were the only big book mail order company that didn't give new agents a (significant) free gift with their first order and John was considering whether to bring the brand in line with the main Littlewoods brand. This brought the observation:

Once you start giving away free gifts you can't stop

The Internet wasn't listening to John (perhaps it should have been) but this is precisely the problem that we face - not just news providers but social media platforms, music sellers, book retailers and any number of folk supplying software stuff. We gave stuff away for free. As Rushbridger argues (somehow I suspect this is more post hoc rationalisation than the honest truth) this was about embedding yourself in the wonders of the on-line world.

However, it was still giving stuff away for free. And we now have a generation of web wanderers who assume that it's all free and that this is the right way for it to be. Weaning them off that free stuff (especially when so many bely their degree level qualifications and actually believe it is free) is a massive challenge.

John was right. Giving away free stuff was always risky and the Internet is about to discover this truth!

....

The slow death of political parties - perhaps they should try some marketing?

The BBC finally cottoned on to something that some of us have known for ages – political parties are dying out:

Political party membership appears to be in terminal decline in the UK - so can anything be done to reverse the trend? And does it matter?

It was once a source of cultural identity and pride for millions of British people.

But at just over 1% of the population - low by European standards - party membership is fast becoming a minority pursuit.

There are more members of the Caravan Club, or the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, than of all Britain's political parties put together.

The BBC reporter goes on to speculate as to the reasons for this calamitous situation – politics is boring, the rise in ‘individualism’ (pointing oddly at twitter and facebook as evidence of this trend) and the decline of political clubs. What the reporter doesn’t ask – choosing instead to report on the latest round of frantic efforts to get more folk involved from Labour and Conservative Parties - is why?

The problem is pretty simple – only anoraks and the politically ambitious join political parties because these are the only people who get something from membership. When I pay my subscription to the Royal Horticultural Society, I don’t do so in order to attend meetings but in order to get privileged entry to the Society’s gardens and events. This isn’t noble any more that joining the National Trust or RSPB is sold to us as a selfless act.

The problem with political parties is that there is no offer. In times past there was an offer – essentially a well-connected social life. People joined the Conservative Party because it provided a round of dances, parties and sherry mornings. The Young Conservatives (a much better name than the current ultra-naff “Conservative Future”) thrived – becoming Europe’s biggest youth organisation – on this basis.

At a family event a while back – sadly a funeral – I was taken by the extent to which all those attending has made friends, met wives or husbands and developed business contacts through the YCs. The vicar who led the eulogies spoke of being a YC, of borrowing the Mission to Seamen’s van for boozy nights out and of the lasting connections made in those few years. All – or nearly all – this has now gone.

And I’m sure the same goes for the Labour Party.

Despite not having an offer – a reason for someone to pay a chunk of cash to join – the political parties continue to dream that the volunteer-driven, inconsistent and fractious structures of meetings, committees and contradictory bureaucracy will serve to create what Ed Miliband calls (I so love this):

...a modern, outward-looking organisation

While at the same time Ed – seeing the payments to councillors – takes an easy route to raising cash. Introducing a tithe:

A leaked report shows that the Opposition leader plans to force more than 5,000 Labour councillors to hand over seven per cent of their town hall ‘wages’ to stop party coffers running dry.

And Labour’s frontbench team has called for increases in wages paid to councillors, which would benefit the party by resulting in an increase in the value of the new levy.

But before all the Tories out there get excited, we do this too. I pay a proportion of my basic councillor’s allowance to my local association. This is a requirement demanded of me for being permitted to stand as a Conservative and amounts to around £1,000 per year. In addition, I’m expected to pay my own election expenses if I am successful.

And this is the problem. Not that I have to pay but that the leadership of our political parties see public funding as the salvation to the financial woes of those parties and to escaping from the curse of the billionaire – the appearance that very rich men can, and did, effectively buy political parties.

The first front in the desire of political parties to become institutions of the state was the introduction of “Short Money” in the mid 1970s. This seemed a jolly idea – let’s help the opposition work better by giving it, as a political institution, some public money for that purpose. And it is not an insignificant sum of money – in 2009/10 in amounted to nearly £7m. But it acted to show the parties that they could turn to the state to solve their financial woes rather than rasie money the hard way.

And many – building on the creation of a protected legal status for political parties – now argue for direct state funding for political parties. Most notably Sir Hayden Phillips in his 2007 report that followed the “cash for honours” scandal:

In a complex formula to give state aid to parties, which would give a major boost to smaller parties from the Greens to the BNP, the report suggests that funding should be linked to general election votes in order to establish that fringe or new parties have a "base of support in the community". 

It recommends that eligible parties should receive 50p each year for every vote cast for them in the most recent general election and 25p for every vote in the most recent ballots for the Scottish parliament, Welsh assembly and European parliament. 

In addition, Sir Hayden suggests an internet-based system for parties to attract subscribing "supporters", who would pay £5 which would be matched by the same amount from public funds - up to a cap of £5m. 

In return for such public funding - which would replace the small policy grants currently available to parties - political parties would have to produce an annual report showing how the money had been spent. 

Such a system – however much the ‘great and good’ may like it – would represent the death of politics and create parties as clients of state bureaucrats rather than as private, campaigning organisations. Yet that seems the only solution – there isn’t a look across to successful membership organisations asking how they achieve that success.

And it is pretty simple really:

1.  A strong, consistent brand and public offer focused on consumer benefits as well as the wider mission of the organisation.
2. A well-resourced, professional and dedicated marketing operation – not one using the gimmicks of PR but one founded in fundraising, direct marketing and sales
3. Regular and high quality communication with the member, prospective member and supporter – containing offers, incentives and rewards as well as information about the mission and achievements of the organisation

This is why the RSPB, National Trust, Caravan Club and even Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have succeeded while the political parties decline. It isn’t simply “social change” or other such mumbo-jumbo of an excuse but that political parties in the UK focus on servicing the needs of political elites rather than on developing a public offer giving reason for the ordinary person to join the party.

Nothing will change – the parties will carry on declining, continue to disengage with the public and eventually will take more of the state’s money. At no point will these parties turn to us marketers and ask: “how can we build a membership as big as the RSPBs?”

And that’s a question we can answer.

 ....

Why Number 10 needs a direct marketing expert as well as a TV guru!

****

I was struck by Guido Fawkes’ surprisingly thoughtful piece on the current vacancy at Downing Street:

Television will help most voters decide who gets the credit, not broadsheet editorial leaders. Cameron and Clegg are better television performers than Miliband, if they want to exploit that they should hire a director of communications who understands televisual imagery. The media grid planning can be done by Downing Street drones a plenty and Osborne has a good grip on political strategy. Television requires a certain genius. If they want to win over the voters they need a political maestro equivalent to Simon Cowell or Roger Ailes.

Now I agree with this – all the more since on-line activity is rapidly converging with the telly and video is going to be a hugely important communications tool in coming years. However, I think the TV guru needs a right-hand man with another skill set. Not the newspaper skills that tend to dominate spin doctoring nor the blue-sky strategising that many like but an altogether more fundamental set of skills – direct marketing.

Yes the TV image matters but the techniques and technology is headed towards response-based media again. And frankly most in the media and government communications world simply don’t get interactivity and direct response marketing.

So while he’s looking for a TV guru, Dave should also search for a response marketing expert – someone who understands the down-to-earth world of mail order, appreciates the magic words that get response and gets the world that Walter Weintz* described in “The Solid Gold Mailbox”.

Linked to a powerful TV image, such a campaign could transform the way we run political communications – we would combine the ‘common touch’ of TV with the power of effective direct marketing to break past the media gatekeepers and create a direct televisual relationship with the voter.

*Weintz was the man who made Readers’ Digest all those millions by the way!

....