Polygraph Media Blog

The Dot-com bubble, the 2nd Great Tech Boom & Economic Viability

I suppose we are three years into the boom of this cycle in tech, and 2011 has finally given us a few IPOs -- Groupon, Zynga, Pandora, Angie's List, and LinkedIn.  Others like Facebook, Twitter, and Yelp reportedly intend to go public in 2012.  Investment continues to pour into startups, although there are signs that early stage investments are dropping slightly in favor of Series B and Series C investments into companies that are scaling to grow and eventually reach a liquidity event of their own.  Some startups like Gowalla have hit the deadpool.  Others like Hunch and ReadWriteWeb have modestly exited.  And a wide array of others are fighting for their place in the world.

If you've read this blog for awhile or seen some of my posts on Mashable and other publications, you know that I've been critical of a vast majority of new products and services that have been invented in this cycle.  But it isn't because I don't like the companies or their founders.  Quite the contrary -- I've interacted with many and like just about all of them personally.

The problem is that they all face the same underlying economic problem -- for many, customer acquisition costs are significant but there is little/no lockin.  At the end of the day, all of these businesses will have to face that core economic reality.  If it looks like there is not a chance these business can overcome the customer acquisition problem and become economically viable, I get skeptical.

Interestingly, almost all the local/SMB plays have heinous customer acquisition metrics as reported by their S-1s and other financial statements.  It's why Wall Street has not been kind to Groupon, Angie's List, et al.

As it happens in every boom cycle, a vast majority of us get intoxicated by the possibilities for both startups and newly-minted, publicly traded companies.  But those very possibilities dominate our thinking -- and we underestimate the risks and/or the costs associated with building audiences of loyal customers who won't migrate.  From a purely economic standpoint, the migration/churn problem is just as bad as the acquisition problem.

I had an exchange with Robert Scoble yesterday on Google+ where we briefly debated this very issue.  Robert is one of the better pundits out there, but in my view he's a tad optimistic because he thinks of the possibilities far more than the risks, alternatives, and customer acquisition costs.

I am perhaps the opposite -- I think in economic terms and am influenced by the last tech bubble.  People said the same thing about Priceline, vertical web sites like Pets.com and Living.com, Webvan, eBay, Amazon, etc.  The economically viable ones survived.  Those that were not died.  Optimists and pessimists were both correct, as I'm sure they are now.

When projecting ahead and thinking of the survivors of this cycle, ask yourselves which properties are truly economically viable in the long-term.  That's the only filter that matters.

It's why I continue to be bullish on Facebook -- they're mainstream and habitual.  Can they screw up?  Of course.  But the collective community of friends on Facebook makes it a part of our lives that is more or less impossible for us to leave.  Path can challenge Facebook as it is more about "close friends", but they still have an uphill battle to climb to gain mass mainstream adoption.

In the 2nd part of this blog post, which I'll release in a few days, I'll talk about other winners I foresee... and the thing that I think all will have in common when it's all over.

Google+, the shiny new thing, and the perils of business process innovation

We're all captivated by bright, shiny new things.  In the tech business, we've had a lot of them in a short period of time.   Some (like the iPod) shut off entrepreneurial activity and brought all the value of a number of industries (music/video marketplaces, DRM, MP3 players, etc.) more or less to a single company -- Apple.  Others (like the iPhone and iPod) create a ton of economic value as companies look to engage with customers better.  Consider also, the world of "self-publishing" has been unleashed with Twitter and YouTube.  Social context has been unleashed with Facebook.  Our resumes and business relationships have been captured by LinkedIn.  And the potential of local business services has kinda been unlocked by Groupon, LivingSocial, and location-based services.

If it all ended tomorrow, we will have lived through one hell of a run over the last 7 years.  We've come a long way in a short period of time.  I don't think it's over by any means, but let's call it for what it is.  It's great to be in tech right now.

Now there's another shiny thing, Google+, which from my vantage point appears to be a less functional version of Facebook with a good UI for putting people into Circles.  It has attracted a large audience of people in the tech industry, but the masses can't help but ask the question:

"Why should I use both this and Facebook?"

Google+ solves a problem that power users of social networks have -- easy ways to differentiate friends and to put them into groups easily.  The resulting data set that emerges from this would be rich.  But, of course, it has to scale beyond people in the tech industry.  And the everyday person has to see & understand the value in it to make someone migrate from Facebook primarily to Google+.  I haven't even mentioned the challenge of moving your entire social graph as well.  Social networks are a lot less interesting when your friends are not there.  I already see this phenomenon on Google+ -- pretty much the most active people there are folks in my Twitter stream, not people in my Facebook News Feed.

It's ambitious of Google to go after this market.  I think they originally wanted to unseat Facebook, but Google+ may end up being a bigger competitor for Twitter.  The audiences right now are almost identical.  The use cases are also -- I use both to listen, not so much to participate.

If Facebook truly feels a threat, I'm sure they'll introduce a slightly modified Circles equivalent and knock the legs out from under Google+.  That's the trouble with business process innovations -- they're so easily copied.  You have to have more than business process innovation to last.  You need a technical edge and a visionary roadmap to compete today, in addition to a world-class user experience for whatever it is that you are selling.

The bigger question this begs for me right now is really why Twitter has not innovated much.  And are they planning to do so anywhere other than ads?  Heck, it may not even matter.  As stale as Twitter may look these days, it's all over mass media and it remains the best way for average people to keep up with their favorite celebrities.  Those are two huge advantages.

Analyzing eMarketer SMB stats on useful social marketing tools

Those of you who have followed this blog for awhile and some of the guest posts we've written on Mashable, ReadWriteWeb, Forbes, and other places know two things about me:  1) I'm a data junkie, and 2) I don't really have a lot of respect for "spin" in the startup world.

It's why I questioned the utility of location-based services last year and asked for meaningful metrics (which we still haven't gotten).  It's also how yesterday's guest post on Mashable came about -- we're seeing metrics that indicate that although group purchasing as a sector is alive & well, it has peaked for individual providers and certainly local businesses.

I am not naturally a curmudgeon.  I just think that if you really want to know what is happening, you have to look at where the numbers are and how they are trending.  Metrics trump all -- the coolest technology, the best PR team, the best venture capitalist.  All win and lose most of the time based on numbers.

So I was interested to see some great numbers from eMarketer this morning on what small businesses  think of different marketing outlets.  Here's the chart in case you missed it.

This is great data.  I'd prefer a slightly larger sample size than 752, but it is good enough to draw inferences.

I think the way the data is presented is a little misleading -- so I did some basic number crunching of my own.

Specifically, I wanted to understand just what local businesses really think of each one.  For every person who likes each service, how many dislike it or find it ineffective.  I also wanted to correlate the numbers other criteria -- specifically what the service provides a small business, whether or not they sell directly to the small business or have a low-touch model, how large the audiences are, etc.  All of these things play into something that local businesses can regard as good opportunities for advertising/marketing dollars and attention.

First, I wanted to 
determine awareness/usage.  To do so, I'm making an assumption that anyone who comments one way or another on the utility of a platform for marketing is definitely aware of the core features of each platform, probably has tried the platform, and has *possibly* used it in a business context.  These numbers pretty much make sense to me, although I was surprised to see that people have an opinion of foursquare almost as much as Yelp or Groupon.  That isn't a stab at foursquare, but LBS adoption overall (foursquare + competitors) is something like 5% worldwide, yet 26%+ of local businesses feel qualified to opine on its usefulness for marketing.  So the concept of LBS is known more than adoption at the moment.

Next I wanted to understand what's known in quant research/customer satisfaction parlance as "the top two boxes"... i.e. what are the % of folks who think that something is either excellent or very good.  In this case, it's "very beneficial" or "somewhat beneficial."  See below for the results.  Column E is the % of all polled SMBs who regard each platform in the top two boxes.

But that isn't the end of the story.  These web services cluster into 3 groups when you look at the percentage of people who aren't users.  Facebook is more or less ubiquitous, but still almost 1 in 3 SMB owner/operators have not used it.  Roughly half SMBs have not used Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn, and MySpace.  And roughly 3 in 4 SMBs have not used Groupon, Yelp, LivingSocial, or foursquare.  So we must normalize the data to give us a clearer picture of what the people who have used each tool actually think.

The chart above is really astonishing to me.  81.5% of SMB Facebook users think it is effective for marketing.  That's an amazing number.  On the opposite end of the spectrum, a little more than half of SMB users of Yelp, MySpace, Groupon, LivingSocial, and foursquare (in that order) think those products are effective for marketing.  Now let's look at the other end of the spectrum -- of SMBs that use all of these tools/services, which do SMBs think are relatively ineffective for marketing?  To assess that, we'll need to analyze the "Not Beneficial" numbers:

The "Not Beneficial" numbers in Column H all look similar across the various platforms -- but they have a hidden meaning when compared against the total % of respondents who have an opinion about each platform.  Of SMB users who responded to the eMarketer survey, almost half of the actual Users question the effectiveness of MySpace, Groupon, LivingSocial, and foursquare for helping them achieve their needs.

All in all, eMarketer's report was fascinating and gives us a good idea of what SMBs think.  Granted, SMB in and of itself is not a segment.  SMBs are in hundreds of types of businesses, many of which are not suited for individual local, social, or mobile platforms.  So the numbers don't necessarily tell the entire story.  But they do tell us who is winning so far and what constitutes a platform or platforms that SMBs should pay attention to.

One final note... it would be very interesting to compare these numbers to old media means of advertising:  yellow pages, billboards, newspapers, radio, television, etc.  I'd love to see how these "new media" services compare to old media.

Latest Mashable Blog Post - LivingSocial & Amazon

Yesterday around 1:20pm, I succumbed to the maelstrom of social media wonderment and became the 645,773rd person to buy $20 in Amazon merchandise for $10.  I reacted much like I'm sure you did -- "it's a no-brainer!"  I will use the proceeds to buy a book or two for my wife on our Kindle.

I thought I'd share some additional thoughts on the guest post Mashable was so gracious to post -- it is the second time they've done so for me.

Quick administrative note/disclaimer first... posts for places like Mashable have to be a little edgy and controversial to get shared, commented on, mentioned, and read.  The end product was a little different than my original thoughts.  They always are.  :-)

And the Mashable team changed the title... the focus of the article was really more about why the LivingSocial-Amazon deal is really the beginning of Social Commerce 2.0.  No worries.

Now, to elaborate.

First of all, what a clever way for Amazon to maximize the value of their investment.  I don't know the terms of the revenue split between LivingSocial and Amazon, but I imagine this was part of the plan all along.  Amazon makes an investment & sets aside a little extra money to cover a planned group purchase.  They use the strength of the Amazon brand among consumers to create a no-brainer deal that would help both LivingSocial and Amazon acquire new customers.  They made the amount of the transaction high enough for people to share & care, but not so high that it was a total loss for Amazon, which runs a pretty tight ship as it is.

LivingSocial gets inexpensive customer acquisition and tons of new accounts.  Amazon uses its strength in the marketplace to dramatically increase the value of its investment.  Everybody plays, everybody wins.  It was *brilliantly* executed by all involved.

As CEO of a company in the social commerce space, I can tell you that this very much fits in to the broader picture of trends we are seeing with group purchasing and social commerce:

1. The increasingly crowded group purchasing landscape has made it tougher for the various competitors to attract the top local advertisers in almost every market.  Consistent deal quality has suffered tremendously.  So there are more tanning beds, teeth cleanings, and acupuncturists -- and all of them are more "niche" businesses that are by definition less interesting to the mass market of consumers.

2. Group purchasing has therefore gotten less effective at the local level, and leading providers are now seeking top national/international brands to do group purchasing deals (e.g. Gap, Amazon, etc.).  Late entrants have struggled as, well, they're late to the game.  Margins shrink for all the "technology providers."  Advertisers aren't as happy and are getting pitched frequently as sales pressure intensifies on group purchasing providers.

3. However, consumers still respond to group purchasing as long as the quality of the deal is very, very high.  The Amazons/Gaps/best restaurants/best retailers of the world do a lot better than your aforementioned neighborhood acupuncturist.  So group purchasing (as it has been defined thus far) is less special and looks more like any other marketing tactic with every passing day.  i.e. if you are running marketing for an established and/or successful entity, you're at a huge advantage over someone who isn't.

4. Despite what a deal like this may make you believe, consumers have *no* loyalty to individual group purchasing providers today.  Consumers just want to save a buck at places where they know they'll shop anyway.  The Gap and Amazon were successful because of who they are, not because of the plumbing (Groupon and LivingSocial) that allowed people to buy gift cards.

5. Brand/corporate advertisers and their agencies can effectively run these types of campaigns themselves and they will as they get more savvy.  They'll also do so for the cost savings.  The technology is there for companies to take matters into their own hands.  Most have captive audiences already in Facebook pages and e-mail lists, among other assets.  All you need is a great deal to offer and the right social commerce middleware (which we have - yes I can say that because you're on my blog).

6. Ergo, brands and people with big audiences ultimately get more and more competitive with time, and they win in the end.  It may take ten years, or it may take two.

Whether we're talking with big, recognizable brands, major media companies, or major companies, it's all the same.  Inertia is out.  Action is are in.  Audiences are again the key. Technology helps major players tap into the audiences.

And most importantly, this LivingSocial/Amazon deal just higlights that there is no brand affinity in "deals".  Consumers will go where they can save money at places where they want to spend money. The company to scale this capability wins and becomes Groupon 2.0.

It will be a very interesting 2011 as this next phase of social commerce begins to shake out.

5 Ways Facebook Places Changes the LBS Game

I think just about everyone in the local advertising halo is digesting Facebook's announcement that they are jumping into LBS with two feet.  The LBS folks knew this was coming, yet the proposed "co-opetition" still scares the hell out of them.  In fact, I brought up this very point at a panel in May with Josh Williams of Gowalla.  The entrance of a major player with a HUGE audience is a massive gamechanger for the startups that popularized things like check-ins, mayorships, location-driven game mechanics, etc.

If rival tech giants such as Google, Yahoo, AOL, Microsoft, and Apple haven't considered Facebook a competitor yet, they're probably now realizing that, yes indeed, Facebook is perfectly willing and able to compete in the local advertising arena and they're a major, major threat.

Overall this is obviously a really big deal and a seismic shift in the LBS business, in local advertising, and perhaps in social networking in general -- although it will take several years to play out.

In May, I shared some thoughts about LBS on Mashable and followed up here on my blog.  I thought I'd spend a few minutes today talking about what I think the latest news means for the sector:

1) LBS startups forced into building an ecosystem like never before -- I have written before about how LBS startups have been riding the wave of popularity & innovation but have also to some degree tried to control how third-parties interact with their systems.  For instance, even today only foursquare allows write access to their API.  LBS startups are not by any means dead -- in some circumstances they will remain the "consumer front end" for LBS.  But to stay relevant, they will need to be a lot more aggressive fast about building an ecosystem that helps justify themselves long-term.

2) Legitimacy to LBS -- LBS startups have done a great job of exciting the early adopter market and showing the world the possibilities of local, mobile services.  But none have yet made it to the mainstream.  Why?  Because it is a HUGE undertaking.  Reaching moms in Kansas is just tough.  Facebook changes all of this significantly because they have such a huge audience.  150 million+ people are on Facebook Mobile and over 500 million experience Facebook on the Web.  Now those are mainstream audiences.

However, I do think that this is a situation where the "rising tide raises all boats."  This will legitimize the existing LBS startup players as well.  In fact, I think in the short term foursquare, Gowalla, MyTown, and others will experience growth.  The bigger question, of course, is the long-term impact for the LBS startups.

3) Facebook, the aggregator -- With this move, Facebook aims to be the center of all location-based activity.  The existing players are presently invited to "read" data from the Facebook Places API but will also be allowed to write data to Facebook.  What a great way for Facebook to build a robust database off the backs of the startups that popularized the sector.  I think the golden rule needs to be changed from "he who has the gold rules" to "he who has the users rules."

4) Twitter, the afterthought -- Twitter just gets a little more marginalized each day.

5) The Cold War begins in earnest -- There is absolutely NO WAY that this move will go unchecked by Google, Apple, Yahoo, AOL, and other major players who are eyeing the location sector.  To some degree, this move really forces relatively quick action by these companies who will need to do something to be relevant.  Otherwise, Facebook will own it.  I suppose you can argue that Facebook is already well on its way -- they have the audience, they are about to have a ton of data, and they've delivered an immersive experience to users so far.

We live in interesting times, that's for sure.

Quick Hits July 14, 2010

Howdy everyone.  I'm back after taking the longest break from this blog I've ever taken in the 28 months I've been writing here.  I don't think I've gone 10 days without a post & here I am getting back to the blog 33 days after my last post.  The ironic thing is that I have been doing a lot of writing but primarily for purposes -- guest blog posts, marketing materials, investor docs for Lasso, etc.  So I'm maybe a little burned out on writing at the moment, but I'll push on.  I've also had the good fortune of participating in some podcasts

Anyhow, some quick hits:

• LinkedIn Direct Ads, in my experience, have been a total waste of time & money for me.  Far less effective than Google Adwords or Facebook Ads.  They're expensive and they are integrated so seamlessly in the rest of the site, people can't find them.  It's alluring to reach people for B2B purposes, but the luster fades fast IMO.
• The location-based services buzz just keeps going.  Kudos to folks at some of the more popular services for staying buzzworthy for so long.  I still suspect the usage metrics are heinous, but if they can keep chugging along sooner or later they'll figure out the equation to get people to use those apps repeatedly.  It may take some time though.
• I am not a fan of the Influence Project on Fast Company.  Without getting into too much detail, I think it's a self-serving way for Fast Company to inject themselves into social media on the backs of mavens who desperately need to promote themselves.  Like it or not, there is no denying that social media can put everyone on stage to some extent and that impacts sincerity.
• For what it is worth, I think all of this is yet another reason why a lot of people will grow weary of social media in the long run.  The salad days are here to stay for awhile though.
• Kudos to the folks at Old Spice for their brilliant use of YouTube to extend their brand to & through social media.  The videos are entertaining, but maybe more importantly they've created a viral phenomenon by giving people an incentive to talk about Old Spice across all major social media outlets.  It's pure genius.
• Facebook recently announced two things of interest for the future:  1) 150m mobile users, and 2) their intent to make mobile a platform for third party developers much like they originally did with Facebook.com.  Facebook has not been downright hostile to developers as Twitter has, but remember the rules did change rather significantly over time.  Just saying. :-)

Follow up on Mashable guest post

Howdy everyone -- I'm back at home after some customer visits last week.  Every time I write something that has an impact, I am out of town.  Maybe I should go out of town all the time. ;-)

A few quick observations & some additional context for the post:

• First of all, let me say that I did not mean for the post to attack or criticize anyone in the LBS business.  I have communicated with folks at all the major consumer LBS companies & they're all more or less good people.  We may even partner with a few.
• I think the LBS people are trying to do too many things with their apps, and so from a business perspective they're good at closing the deals but the apps could be a lot better in the business metrics area.
• I do think that they're all overvalued for reasons that I pointed out in the post as well as some others that I didn't mention.  But what I think really doesn't matter because value is based on what people will pay whether it is a venture capitalist, an investor, or a company that acquires one of these should it happen.
• The post was primarily written because I have seen all the PR around many of the major players & quite frankly have been impressed by how that has excited & energized the tech innovator community.  I have been surprised to some extent that the major tech blogs haven't been a little more critical & demanding of the #s that are put out by consumer LBS companies.
• A number of people have written, however, about how a lot of technologies fail to make the leap to a mainstream audience because the tech crowd can't empathize with late adopters/middle America.
• I do think most of the LBS providers understand this more or less (ex. the Starbucks deal I cited in the article) and are working the problem.
• But they really aren't close IMO and I think they'll need a lot of help.  We deal with a number of major brands and household names as well as local businesses.  Very few of them look at LBS as a big opportunity.  Most don't want it, and many don't even understand it.  Their needs are different.  Where there is interest, it is out of curiosity primarily & the need to not get left behind.
• And of course we haven't seen moves by all the major tech players, all of which will be doing major things in the location area.
• Ergo, there is a big gap between consumer LBS reality & the hype that needs to be closed.

I'd also add that there are some interesting applications of location technologies that are monetizing and are churning cash far better than consumer LBS.  Wavemarket does some interesting things as do a number of other players who have focused on partnerships with major media to make things happen.  I think this is the way it works -- LBS is an enabler that empowers big media to add location to their tech portfolios.

In the end, I think it all looks a lot different than it looks today -- and we'll all look back and get a good chuckle out of all of this.  It will be an interesting few years as all of this evolves.  I know we're looking forward to competing & bringing interesting and sustainable products to market.

Guest post on Mashable

Here's my guest post from earlier today on Mashable.  Those of you who have read this blog for awhile know my position on it that we're VERY early in a game that will play out over the coming decade or so I suppose.  Lots can happen as major players figure out their strategies, startups build better offerings, and the market naturally evolves.

I'm personally excited about it & really enjoy working with our clients and folks in the technology industry.

I'll share more thoughts in a few days after I get some feedback on the article.

Recap - Rice Alliance Monetizing Location Panel

A few quick thoughts on the location services monetization panel discussion I was fortunate to sit on last night at the Rice Alliance event.

First, it was great to see so many enthusiastic people in the audience.  The event looked to have around 200+ people in attendance.  Of course, Josh Williams (CEO of Gowalla) was the big draw -- I think that was one of his first appearances at an Austin community event.  It was the first time I had met him in person and likely the first meeting for a lot of folks as well.  The other panelists were great as well.  I love TabbedOut and think that Rick and his colleagues are on to a great idea and are executing well.  Blair Garrou of DFJ Mercury is as astute a VC as you'll meet when it comes to location services and how social media, game mechanics, and real-time technologies will shape the future of tech.  So it was an honor to be among such company.

I had a few interesting takeaways from last night:

• Josh is a realist when it comes to some challenges re: LBS -- like the inconvenience of "checking in", privacy, etc.
• I was surprised by the extent of Blair's enthusiasm for the future of location-based services.  If you substitute "LBS" for any other business, I think VCs would be a lot more cautious and perhaps tougher on the execs involved.  Not to mention, there is a nagging question of what Facebook, Google, & Apple may do with their mobile apps/devices and also what Yahoo, AOL, and Microsoft may do to jump in.  But we're seeing a migration of folks to smartphones and computing is getting increasingly mobile.  I think those megatrends are outweighing a lot of questions that VCs would ordinarily have of LBS execs and their business model assumptions.
• The best marketing plays today for location services are definitely in the branding/corporate marketing area.  I'm talking about the Jimmy Choo foursquare example, things Gowalla has done with the New Jersey Nets, etc.  More on this in a guest post coming soon.
• Rick and his team have done a great job solving real problems for bars.  Our experience is similar -- it's hard to scale solutions to real problems, but that's also where a lot of value is created for local businesses.  The rubber has to hit the road & I think the guys at TabbedOut are learning a lot there.
• It was an interesting data point that the final question asked in Q&A was the first one re: actually monetizing location.  I think that would've been quite a conversation -- but I guess we'll have to talk specifics next time.  We'll all know a lot more. :-)

So if you were there, thanks a bunch for attending.  I will update this post when the video of the panel discussion is released.

Busy Week - Lasso progress, Facebook book release, speaking at Rice Alliance event

Interesting times in the land of Lasso.

We go live with one customer this week although you won't get to see it for another few weeks.  We start onboarding two other customers this week, and we have a third call about a new application of our product that is very, very exciting.  The game is proximity marketing, the applications are tremendous, and the opportunity is significant.  We are the infrastructure that makes it all sing and that infrastructure just keeps getting better & more capable every day.

Add to this two other events more on the social side.  My book, Facebook Marketing An Hour a Day, is formally releasing tomorrow although it has been available on Amazon for awhile.  In fact, the book has been in/around the Top 10 in the Web Marketing and e-Commerce categories so far & has been doing very well on the Marketing list as well.  So far so good.

The "virtual launch" of the book is taking place tomorrow.  My co-author, Mari Smith, and I will be on camera (technology hiccups notwithstanding hopefully) to talk about the book, Facebook, and a variety of other things.  I would love you to join us.  A quick note re: Mari -- she is amazing at mobilizing people & preaching the good word!  We are sortof polar opposites when it comes to all of this.  She's the extrovert, I'm the introvert.  She has really done a great job becoming a face of social media.  I'm less worried about all of that than I am our startup work.  The collaboration worked really well on the book, and I hope it is the beginning of even more.  We'll talk about all of this among other things tomorrow at the virtual launch.

Finally, I'm on a Rice Alliance panel re: monetizing location services on May 5th at the AT&T Conference Center at McCombs.  Joining me will be Josh Williams (Gowalla), Blair Garrou (DFJ Mercury), and Rick Orr (TabbedOut).  It should be fun -- I had coffee with an organizer Friday who told me that the event is very popular.  It's like I tell people all the time -- we're VERY early in the location services game!

When it rains, it pours I guess.  Not a bad thing.  Have a great week everyone.