Revolution 2011

I suppose it was inevitable, considering that I spend all of this time here in cyberspace claiming to know something about business, but this past week somebody finally asked me what I think about the Occupy movement and if I was going to do a blog post about it. My eyes crossed and I found myself back in the 1960s, with a little voice in the back of my head singing something about “We’d all love to change the world…”

John Lennon wrote those lyrics because he doubted the tactics of destructive change that some leaders at that time were advocating, not because he had any doubts about the message of social justice and equality that were the burning issues of the day – and it’s instructive to realized that he was excoriated by the Left for “betraying the movement” just as he was being blasted by the Right as a moderate subversive warning the Communists and Maoists not to “blow” the revolution by pushing too hard. It’s forty-four years later, and things haven’t changed as much as you’d think…

When you read some of the screeds that people in the OWS movement have written it’s hard not to agree with them – but it’s hard to understand exactly what they want to accomplish, too. There was one post I read on Alter Net, for example, that went on four pages about the evils in our society and the need for social justice, respect for all people and all viewpoints, and taking care of the Earth – all things that I care deeply about and with which I certainly agree. I have to wonder if protest in the streets can accomplish any of it, though; it seems to me that there might be a few other ideas worth trying…

Consider, for example, that all you need to attend the Annual Meeting of any large corporation and request the opportunity to ask questions of the board is one share. Large blocks of stock may be out of reach, but the protesters don’t need millions of shares; one is all they will need to get their objections into the public records of any company. More to the point, perhaps, there are a lot of shares out there that are not owned by the 1% - shares that are owned by community groups, non-profit organizations, retirement funds, or even small blocks that are owned by private citizens. And it’s worth noting that a lot of them are not happy about huge salaries and bonuses being paid to executives who are running THEIR companies into the ground. Remember, the stockholders ARE the owners – and all you need to start a stockholder’s revolt is a single share…

Then there’s the issue of collective action. The members of the OWS movement have avoided electing leaders or trying to create a single manifesto specifically because they represent so many different voices and have so many different concerns. But that doesn’t prevent them from raising that collective voice and singing together – and together, they represent more power than you might think. If a handful of conservative groups can force change by boycotting a product, or a small network of religious groups can force a television program off the air, what could a group that represents 99% of Americans do? Could the membership agree on even a single company they want to influence – and then do it? This isn’t political strategy or radical idealism, folks; it’s business. And the one thing that no company ever wants to do is annoy thousands or millions of customers to the point where they boycott your products…

Of course, the same tactics could be applied to influencing political and social organizations, if anyone wanted to figure out a common point or two on which all of these protesters agreed. If the Tea Party, which is generally believed to represent between 10% and 16% of all Americans, can exert the kind of influence we’ve seen them wield over the past two years, what could 99% of all Americans – or even 48% of all Americans – do if they wanted?

When we consider the political and social upheaval of the Twentieth Century, the one thing that becomes clear is that popular movements do not change anything until they get organized and take coherent action. There is still political and social power available in America to groups of people who are willing to stand up for the things they believe, but random marching, shouting and waving signs won’t do any good, even if you do it online. Grass-roots action must target the economic fortunes of companies through their customer base, and the political futures of government figures through their hopes of re-election if they are going to create real change – and these things can still happen. We are the 99%, and this country is still ours, and no one can take it away from us – unless we let them…

The Ethics of Gambling

Over the last couple of decades we’ve seen a vast increase in gambling operations in this country, from state and multi-state lottery drawings to tribal gaming to the appearance of casinos in communities where gambling was previously outlawed. But while there has been a lot of ink spilled about whether or not gambling is wrong (in a religious sense of being a sin under several theological systems or in an exploitation sense of using someone’s addictions to make money off of him or her), I haven’t seen much discussion about the ethics of the industry itself, or of the larger effects on the community, the business environment, or the economy itself. Accordingly, I thought it might be interesting to take a closer look…

One of the most common arguments advanced in favor of gambling operations is that they put more money into the local economy. While this is sometimes disputed – if the facility is owned by interests from outside the community, the profits will be leaving too – it is hard to deny that the creation of jobs for local residents will have a positive effect overall. If the business purchases supplies locally – whether food for people, fodder for horses, equipment or uniforms for employees, energy from local utilities, or whatever – this will also add to their suppliers’ bottom lines. If the introduction of gambling brings visitors into the community, this can strengthen the local tourism industry (or create one of the community didn’t already have one), which will also create sales for local companies and jobs for local residents. And if the community becomes a tourist destination, there is always the possibility of attracting additional businesses (amusement parks, shopping centers, movie theaters, and so on) who will share in the revenue stream created by waves of tourists…

On the downside, the generation of an increase in tourist traffic may also have negative effects on the community. Traffic and pollution will almost certainly rise as more people make use of local roads and public spaces, and crime will usually rise as predators come out to feed on the unwary tourists and careless gamblers. Gambling is an addiction, and there will inevitably be those members of the community who become addicted and lose more than they can afford. If any of the facilities are owned by interests from other states or other countries those entities may begin to exercise influence in local government, seeking to have municipal or county laws passed that will increase their profitability. The local infrastructure will most likely need to be expanded to handle increased demands on police, fire fighters, paramedics and ambulance services, healthcare, and potentially even education and housing. And while it’s not as universal as the movies and television would have you believe, organized crime and its attendant issues are a very real threat where such operations exist…

Unless you’ve been living somewhere that already has legal gambling operations (or somewhere such things would never be possible due to cultural or practical limitations) you’ve probably heard all of these arguments before. What I am asking is how we, as business people, balance the benefits our operations might provide to the community against the harm we might inadvertently inflict? Can we in reason say that because in our opinion the benefits outweigh the risks, the community should just accept us? For that matter, can we tell our stockholders that because the risks are so great, we are not willing to go forward with a business operation that could make us (and therefore them) a great amount of money? Do we have an ethical responsibility to do what is best for the community, whether they want us to or not? Or should we assume that the community leaders are grown adults who have chosen to legalize gambling and allow us to build facilities for that purpose in their jurisdiction?

It’s worth thinking about…

Writing a Business Plan: The In Group

Once when I was a business consultant working with small to medium start-ups, one of my clients who ran a small sandwich shop told me that the volume of customers was below their projections, and no one could figure out why. There was one Subway location nearby, but no other businesses that would account for the lack of traffic. I had an idea of what might be going on, so I suggested we take a look around the neighborhood and see if we could figure things out. We got into my old Pontiac and started driving around…

On the next block from the sandwich shop was the Subway. My client pointed it out to me, and said “See it? They don’t seem to be that busy, either.”

“Maybe that’s not the problem,” I replied. As we came to the end of the block there was a McDonalds, a Burger King and a Wendy’s on the corners. “What about them?” I asked.

“Those aren’t sandwich places,” my client replied. “Those are burger stands.”

“They’re places where you can get lunch to go for under $10, right?” I asked, turning left.

“Well… Yeah, I guess,” said my client.

On the cross street was a strip mall with a Chinese takeout place and a taco stand in it. “What about those?” I asked.

“Those aren’t sandwich places either,” said my client. “Are they really competing with us?”

I shrugged. “Think back before you owned a sandwich shop,” I requested. “Did you ever eat things other than sandwiches for lunch?”

At the next corner I turned left again, driving past two more burger stands (a Jack in the Box and a Carl’s Junior), a Taco Bell and an Arby’s. There was also a little hole-in-the-wall deli, which made sandwiches according to the sign in their window. “I count nine,” I said, turning left again to head back to our starting point.

“Ten, actually,” my client replied, sadly. “The supermarket here has a deli counter that sells sandwiches; I’d forgotten about them.”

“So, ten other options in a three-block square area,” I replied. “And that doesn’t even count places that deliver to this neighborhood, or sit-down restaurants that might be around here.”

“I get the point,” said my client, and sighed heavily. “Does this mean we’re done for?”

“Not at all,” I replied. “It just means you can’t base your strategy on being the only economical lunch option in the neighborhood. Let’s go back to the shop and talk about some other ways of bringing in customers.”

Now, I told you this story as an introduction to the idea of Strategic Groups, as we call them in business school. The basic idea is simple: consider what other companies in your area of operations meet the same customer need that your product or service meets, keeping in mind that not all of them will be in exactly the same industry that you are nominally in. For example, a doughnut shop, a convenience store, a McDonald’s, an IHOP and a bagel stand may appear to have nothing in common – until you realize that all of them will sell you a cup of coffee and something to eat for breakfast. If the entrepreneur who owns the bagel shop thinks that he or she is the only game in town and fails to take the competition (and the resulting customer power) into account, the bagel shop is unlikely to prosper. By the same token, a Sears, a Target, a Walgreens, a Wal-Mart and a Best Buy may not appear to have much in common – but you can probably buy a television set or a radio in any one of them. And if you attempt to open a specialty electronics store in a market that has all of these national competitors in it already (or any three of them, for that matter) you’re likely to have problems unless you are ready to fight for your share of the customers…

Of course, your business may not have any competitors within driving distance; if you’re entirely web-based you might not have neighbors in the conventional sense at all. But the Strategic Groups analysis remains as useful as ever, even for purely electronic merchants. It’s not enough to look at who is running a business exactly like yours; you need to consider who is running a business that serves the same needs as yours. Honda and Rolls-Royce both make cars, but a Honda is not a substitute for a Rolls, and vice versa. A pizza joint does not make tacos, but both businesses will be competing for the same segment of the dining-out market. Before you begin operations – and, if at all possible, before you begin writing your business plan – it’s worth taking a moment to look around and see what business you are REALLY in, and who will be fighting with you over the same customers…

Can of Worms

Last week I wrote a post for this space about the growing kerfuffle between the American Cancer Society (ACS) and an atheist group that calls itself the Foundation Beyond Belief (FBB). I don’t have any particular grasp of (or interest in) the debate between religious groups and evangelical atheists; I’ve always felt that both groups are just opposite sides of the same coin, and that neither one has anything to do with business. But I know a few things about non-profit operations and publicity, and I felt that the demand by the FBB to be recognized as a National Partner in the ACS’s annual Relay for Life on the strength of an offer to raise one team and match its collections 1-for-1 was a bit disingenuous. More to the point, perhaps, I felt that the claims that the ACS had rejected the donation because the people making it are atheists were completely missing the point – perhaps deliberately…

First and foremost, the American Cancer Society never refused the donation. Never. Not even for a moment. People continue to insist that the Society is only interested in donations from religious people, or at the very least, from donors who won’t offend religious people – but this isn’t true. According to all of the information I’ve been able to find, ACS donors include people and organizations of every possible description; secular humanists as well as members of every known religion. It’s a list that includes strip clubs as well as churches (no, really; go look it up…), businesses as well as community organizations, schools and homeowner associations, fraternities and sororities, social clubs and bowling leagues, family foundations and private individuals. If all the atheists wanted to do was contribute to the fight against cancer, they would have been welcome to do so – and still will be…

Second, a pledge is not a donation, even if it comes with a 1-for-1 matching pledge from another organization. Some of the people who had been writing to me have objected that there were individual teams that made over $23,000 last year, and with a matching donation might raise $46,000 this year. This might well be true – there’s no published list of how each team did over the past years of the event. But even if that is true, the actual offer was not a pledge of $46,000 or $46; it was the offer of one team plus a 1-for-1 match. If you divide the total collected by the total number of teams over the years you get an average of about $2,800 per team, but the FBB isn’t even promising that. In fact, they’re not promising anything, much less the minimum investment of effort and time required to be named a National Partner…

Third, a lot of people are claiming that the ACS “changed their story” multiple times about what was required to be a National Partner, or even changed what the requirements were in order to exclude the atheists. But this is nonsense; the requirements have changed over the years, as the ACS has focused more on corporate partners in order to increase its reach and recognition, but those standards have been posted on the Society’s website for all to see since well before this flap began. Moreover, you and I were not party to the communications between the Foundation and the Society, and we have only one side’s version of what was said in those discussions…

The reason I felt this was worth discussing in a business blog in the first place was that it falls into our discussions of people who aren’t really customers who demand to be treated like customers, and people who demand consideration to which they are not entitled. Whatever one thinks of atheists or their support organizations, I think we are justified in questioning whether they deserve the same recognition for one vague offer of nothing in particular that a major sponsor like AT&T or Delta gets for sponsoring hundreds of relay teams in dozens of states. It would be like me demanding the same frequent flyer benefits that the New York Times gets, even though they fly hundreds of reporters around the country every week and I only get out of Central Michigan once or twice a year…

None of this will matter to the people who are flaming the ACS, of course, any more than it will matter to the people who keep flaming me (and sending me nasty comments); it’s always easier to run around yelling “WE ARE ATTACKED!” than it is to think – and in this case, it serves their cause better anyway. Or so they believe, at least. To all of my readers (assuming I have readers) I can only say, stick to your convictions and don’t let anyone push you around, whether they claim to have the one true opinion about the nature of the Universe or not. And if you have a few dollars to spare, please give some of them to any anti-cancer organization you like, whether it makes you a National Partner or a Grand Exalted Pooh-Bah or a Special Pioneer Scout Opinion Leader or just says “Thank you” and gets on with the task of eradicating this horrible disease. You’ll be glad you did…

Missed Their Calling

From time to time I will encounter a story wherein one of the principals has clearly chosen the wrong profession; however proficient he or she may have become, it is clear from the nature of the account, if not from the subject’s own remarks or actions, that he or she would be far more successful in another endeavor. This isn’t really surprising, when you think about it; most people grow and change as their careers develop, and very few of us are fortunate enough to have a true vocation that will occupy us for all of our lives. Where this becomes tragic is when an individual has spent decades in a career that does not suit them, and has been miserable the whole time, or where an individual is attempting to influence others with his or her expertise while failing to grasp that said expertise is inferior to that of an ordinary schoolchild…

The recent comments of some of the Tea Party operatives calling for small businesses in America to refuse to hire anyone in order to harm President Obama’s job creation initiatives (and his chances for re-election next year) struck me as falling into this category. I don’t pretend to know that much about politics, and no one would describe me as a demagogue, capable of swaying the masses or leading even a very small percentage of the electorate to the opinion I want them to have. But I know a fair amount about starting, developing, and managing a small business, and it struck me that Melissa Brookstone of the Tea Party Nation should probably stick to politics, because this whole idea is just silly from a business standpoint…

Consider, for a moment that no paid position in any business should exist unless the company has an active need for whatever function the employee is supposed to fulfill. If a given business has no need for a groundskeeper or a wine steward, for example, then it shouldn’t employ one. By the same token, if a given company has a need for a specific position, that means that it is losing money for every day that position is open – either because that position is not generating revenue through production, or because that position is not preventing the loss of revenue through efficient operations. If we remove all extraneous considerations and simply consider the business implications, then the suggestion that a business leave any position open, or fail to create new positions that are needed, is preposterous. Taken to its logical conclusion, such a suggestion will ultimately destroy the company in order to achieve the goals of the person or persons making it…

Now, I don’t mean to suggest that the Tea Party Nation (or the larger Tea Party movement that it alleges to speak for) are hostile to small business in America and want to see it destroyed; such a suggestion would be inflammatory as well as unsupported by the evidence. On the strength of the Chicago Tribune story from which I learned of this call to action it would appear that Ms. Brookstone simply regards the removal from public office of the current President, the majority of both houses of Congress, and indeed, everyone else with whom she disagrees as being more important than the lives and livelihood of everyone associated with small business in America. And, indeed, from her political and ideological point of view, this may seem reasonable; I am no expert on political viewpoints, let alone far-right extremist viewpoints. I merely observe that from the standpoint of a business teacher and management consultant, this is lunacy, plain and simple…

The American author and humorist James Thurber once noted, as the moral to one of his modernistic fables, that “You can’t be King of the Beasts if there aren’t any.” Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that everything advanced by the Tea Party about the current administration is correct, that still does not explain how crippling every small business in America and thereby destroying our economy and bringing about the personal ruin of tens of millions of people will save us from the horrors of socialism and/or communism – assuming that socialism and/or communism have horrors associated with them in the first place. I can only suggest that Ms. Brookstone and the Tea Party stick to politics – because they would appear to be terrible business consultants…

The Ethics of Public Giving

Over the past week the confrontation between the American Cancer Society and the militant atheist group calling itself the Foundation Beyond Belief has gotten a lot of attention on the Internet and occasionally even in the real world. As I noted in my earlier posts about the subject, I don’t think there’s a lot of ethical grey area in this specific case; the ACS is trying to maintain its usual quiet dignity while the atheists are using the situation to gain attention and forward their socio-political agenda. But the fact is that a lot of companies and non-profit organizations do support fundraising events in exchange for publicity and a non-specific upgrade to their public image, and the line between altruism and enlightened self-interest is not nearly as easy to draw as you might think. So I thought we should take a closer look…

As we’ve discussed before, it isn’t reasonable to expect a for-profit company to operate as a charity; the purpose of any corporation is to produce results through the concentration of capital that would not be possible for the individual investors working alone. Expecting a company to donate all of its assets – or even all of its profits – to charity is silly. But customer relations and public relations in general are legitimate parts of any business; customer loyalty increases sales and good relationships with the public can help you to avoid any number of legal, regulatory or legislative problems you might otherwise encounter. So corporate giving makes sense from a business standpoint; the question would appear to be at what point does it stop being something that you are doing because it is a pure and good act – something that is worth doing for its own sake – and at what point does it become something you are doing entirely for your own benefit?

This basic question is complicated by the fact that in many cases, donating very large amounts of money and/or time will inspire your beneficiary to recognize your support, whether by naming a building or an event or whatever after your organization or by advertising your support in their own publications. In the ACS case that came up this week, the large corporate donors would be featured on the Society’s own web pages, the promotional literature about the Relay for Life event, and eventually on a variety of television and Internet news sources (and probably print media as well) in addition to whatever tax advantages they might be able to pick up in the process. There’s no question that fifty or so fundraising teams each in at least two states (the minimum for inclusion in the National Partners Program) would raise a lot of money for cancer research, or that a lot of people would benefit from those donations; it’s even plausible to suggest that some of them will do more business with the sponsor corporations because they will be alive to do so. It’s highly doubtful that any of those people would care why your company supported the ACS, or that they would be grateful that you did…

Where the ethics of the situation becomes murky is where the donor organization is trying to get the most public-relations and publicity “bang” for their buck, as in the case of the Foundation Beyond Belief trying to get itself named to the National Partner Program for the Relay for Life events. If the requirement to be a National Partner is fielding at least 50 teams in each of at least 2 states of the Union, offering to field a single team clearly does not make the requirement (even if you can provide a matching donation for whatever that one team raises), and raising a huge stink about not being named a National Partner is clearly a publicity stunt. But at what point should such an offer be considered genuine? If the applicant manages to round up exactly 100 teams in two states, does that count? What happens if they can only come up with 89 teams, but each of those can double the national average of donations collected (making them the equivalent of 178 teams), should they be included? What about a group that won’t promise to field any specific number of teams, but is pledging to donate $10 million (the equivalent of about 3,700 regular teams) regardless of how many people they can get to show up?

No one is questioning the fact that corporate donations to a popular cause can also benefit the donor organization, and no sane person is going to question that any organization that is donating money and time to a worthwhile cost deserves to be recognized for their good works. But at what point does it stop being charity and become advertising?

It’s worth thinking about…

Writing a Business Plan: Where Are We?

Once you’ve figured out what you’re going to do and why, the next question to consider is the environment in which you plan to operate and the nature of the industry in which you will compete – or, if you prefer, “where” your new venture will be. Despite what the people who run the “Subway” chain seem to think, there’s no point in opening a new sandwich shop if there are 27 other sandwich shops in a three-block radius. It’s also fair to say that the way you would operate a company if there is only one place you can get your raw material will be different than it would be if you can get your materials from 27 retail stores in your neighborhood and 2,700 different websites; your strategy will also vary a bit depending on the number of customers you can obtain, the number of other products that can do exactly the same thing yours can, and how easy it is for a new competitor to break into your industry. As always, there’s no law that says you have to consider any of these factors before you launch a new business – but there are several laws of economics that confirm what will happen to you if you do…

We’ve already talked about SWOT analyses in this space; that time-honored acronym for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats – and I continue to maintain that there’s nothing wrong with performing this analysis on a regular basis, assuming that you remember that SWOT is an acronym and not a magic spell that will reveal all of life’s mysteries to you. Most of the time, however, you’re going to need something a little more specific, and a good place to start is the Five Forces analysis invented by Dr. Michael Porter, from Harvard Business School. Five Forces is just that: five critical pieces of the strategic picture that you will need to at least consider before starting operations: Competitors, suppliers, customers, possible substitute products, and new entrants into the industry. Obvious, you might thing – until you’ve lived in a city that has three Subway locations in a three-block area, or for that matter, seven coffee houses and three coffee-and-pastry shops in a three-block by two-block area…

Competition is the factor most people consider. If your town has only 5,000 people in it, and only 10% of them need your product, opening a business with enough capacity to serve more than 500 people is going to cause trouble – and if there are already three other businesses that can serve 700 people each, there’s going to be cutthroat competition even before you open your doors. If you can outperform the existing competition, either on price or by offering a better product, then the amount of competition isn’t as important – but you still can’t ignore it. Customer power is also commonly considered – if your customers have ten other choices for where to obtain your product, they have greater power over you than they would if you were the only option in town. But there are other factors, such as how important your product is to daily life, the relative quality and utility of your product, the state of the economy, and so on. It serves no purpose to run a business unless there is someone who wants to pay for the product or service you are offering…

In fact, one of the most common issues I saw during my time as a consultant was people who had failed to consider how, exactly, their new enterprise would result in customers giving them money. Supplier power is an issue, especially if you use something rare, exotic, or expensive; the more suppliers you can find, the better off you will be. Substitute products are anything that can do the same job your product does (a pizza is a substitute for a hamburger, for example); if the substitute is superior in either price or quality, there’s a real danger that customers will buy it instead of your product. And new entries into an industry can completely change the equation – competition, supplier, customer and substitute issues can all be impacted by a new entrant to the market. Before you start operations, you will have to examine all of these issues in depth – because only then will you be able to tell if you business can survive in the first place…

Even More Wretched and Excessive

Twenty years ago I was working for a small cable company on the West Coast, and one of the perks of my job was getting to read the Discovery Channel Magazine every month. I don’t mean that the company had paid for my subscription (which would imply that somebody beyond my immediate boss knew I existed), or that the Discovery Channel wanted me to have one (which would imply that someone at the network knew I existed); a free copy of the Magazine’s dead tree edition was sent to every cable system that carried Discovery, and since I was the only one in the office who cared about it, I was the one who read it. I can still remember coming across an article about extreme high-end stereo equipment, and being astonished at the idea of a system that cost more than a decade of my salary, made up of components that each cost twice what my car did. Imagine how surprised I would have been to find a single component selling for over $150,000 USD…

You can find the stats (and asking price) here, if you want to, but the item being offered for sale is a belt-drive turntable, or what we used to call a record player back when there still were such things as vinyl records. There follows a couple of pages of technical descriptions and explanations of why you might want to spent the equivalent price of a small house on a record player, and why this one would totally be worth it, but I had already stopped reading after the price was revealed. I have enough trouble understanding why you’d be willing to spend that amount of money on any consumer product in the first place; I can’t begin to imagine why you’d spent that kind of cash on a technology that has been obsolete for at least two decades now…

Now, the point has often been made that when your disposable income (the amount you can spend without regard to any of your financial obligations; money you could just throw out the window if you wanted to) reaches a certain point you can do whatever you’d like with it. If paying $3 for a latte is trivial for me, then the argument goes that paying $300 for a bottle of wine would be just as trivial for someone making a hundred times my salary, and if paying $150 for an iPod is a modest expense for me, paying $150,000 would be an equivalent expense for someone making a thousand times what I do. The company may not sell all that many of them, but if there are any obscenely rich people out there who like vinyl records (some of that elusive 1% we keep hearing about, I suppose) there’s no reason to believe that they couldn’t purchase one of these units. A much better question is why you would want to…

Even if you can somehow afford technology of this kind, vinyl records are almost extinct; you can still find the occasional example being offered for sale in essentially pristine condition, but even with the utmost care, the disk will never sound quite the same once you’ve played it, and will eventually wear out. Granted that this particular turntable appears capable of reproducing the most distortion-free sound possible from this particular medium, it will also reproduce all of the scratches, warps and skips contained within the disk – and getting pressings from decades ago in perfect condition will only grow more difficult with each passing year…

I don’t mean to suggest that people shouldn’t have hobbies; I’ve met people who collect 8-track tapes, and my grandfather told me about an acquaintance who collected wax cylinders for an Edison “talking machine” music player well into the modern era. I’m only saying that if you are purchasing one of these devices for any purpose other than demonstrating to people how much money you have and how little you care about it, you’re kidding yourself. And if you’re just trying to show off your wealth through wretched excess, there’s a $200,000 bottle of scotch you should probably look into…