[ paul isakson ]

A Few Worthwhile Reads

Some interesting things I came across yesterday and would like to post more on, but probably won't be able to for a day or two if at all, so for now, here are the links...

First, Dave Trott Live Chat via Scamp - Dave shares some great advice and thinking on how to get a job in this business and what he thinks makes for great advertising today. I also really liked Scamp's approach to this for two reason. First, Scamp wrote a post arguing that much of what Dave wrote 30 years ago on getting a job in advertising was irrelevant today and followed it up by allowing Dave to have a conversation with Scamp's readers to defend/explain himself on the Scamp blog. Second, I think using the comments section of a blog post to host an audience driven interview was a fantastic idea. Thanks to Alan (a.k.a. Tangerine Toad) for pointing it out via Twitter.

Second, Scholz & Friends has posted an interesting presentation titled Brands and Communication in the Era of Media Democracy that is well worth a look. For those browsing here, following is the slide show. For those reading this where it won't come through, here's a link.

Lastly, BMW has revealed some inspiring thinking on the future of car design that caught the attention of quite a few. I love that they ignored conventions and took a fresh look at things. A bit from the WInding Road post:

Chris Bangle, head of BMW Group Design, describes the philosophy behind this wildly innovative GINA Light Visionary Model as “Being flexible. Thinking flexible, acting flexible – context over dogma.”

Back to Basics: Creative Problem Solving, Part 2

image credit

Whitney Hess left a very thoughtful comment on the previous post bearing this title and it reminded me of another comment she left on a Logic + Emotion post a while back that I really liked. The first bit of it really stood out to me and reads:

I think we forget sometimes that "design" means "to develop a plan." Design really isn't about execution, but about accurately defining the problem in order to allow for the most successful, effective and valuable solution -- given the objectives and constraints of the system -- to emerge.

Very well said.

It's not about sitting down right away and sketching out the brief to create an ad, a Web site, or whatever the client requested. It's not about trying to figure out what the main idea is immediately or what the "one thing" is we need to communicate (and as the research by Duncan Watts shows, it's likely that we'll need more than one thing or one idea anyway).

No, none of those things are the right way to start off, if they ever really were. We have to start by digging deeper into the issues facing our clients' brand(s). It might not be that they need what they are asking for. We need to do as Whitney outlines.

Start by accurately define the problem(s), taking into account all of the objectives and challenges, and then begin looking for the most successful, effective and valuable solution(s).

I know it's easier said than done. Especially given some of the circumstances we're up against at times. But following the same map that has been used for the past several decades won't lead us to interesting new places. That map leads to a ghost town now.

I don't know about you, but none of my clients are marketing their products to ghosts.

Back to Basics: Creative Problem Solving

The above "tweet" from David Armano this past Friday has been sitting in the back of my mind the past couple of days. It was from Claudia Kotchka's presentation at the Institute of Design Strategy Conference.

As Alan wisely noted in response to one of my earlier posts, the behavior of agencies is often driven by the way their clients engage them. If you're a client-side marketer and you want to infuse more innovation into your marketing plans, or even into your products, listen to the essence of what Claudia Kotchka is saying.

Don't go to your agencies and ask them to create an _______ (ad, web site, etc.). Bring them the problem you're trying to solve and see what they come up with.

Digging Into Design Thinking

image credit

In looking up more on the subject of design thinking, I came across a great article from Red Hat published in May of 2006 that is well worth the read. Here it is in its entirety:

Intro to design thinking

An interview with David Burney conducted by Tim Hyer

You may have noticed the word "design" being talked about recently. Perhaps you've read about design thinking in a recent business publication, or noticed the phrase being used in discussions on innovation where you work. Maybe you've heard about Stanford's newly-founded d.school.

That's a lot of hype. What is true is that design is changing the way innovative businesses operate. Successful companies like GE, Procter & Gamble, and Maytag have made significant investments and organizational changes to take advantage of design process and methodologies. Design as an innovative problem-solving methodology is fast becoming an imperative business strategy.

Our success at Red Hat is due to one of the biggest and most successful collaborative/transformative innovation models ever--open source. The value we bring to IT customers the world over is unquestionable and defining. Open source, at its heart, is a design thinking process.

What follows is a Q&A with David Burney, Vice President of Brand Communications + Design at Red Hat. Burney is a champion of design thinking.

Red Hat Magazine: What is design thinking?

David Burney: Design thinking is a term being used today to define a way of thinking that produces transformative innovation. While the term feels trendy, the way of thinking is hardly new. One can think of the cave painters in Lascaux 25,000 years ago as design thinkers-- they first began to collect data about the world they experienced, express that data by creating visual stories, document those stories in a way that could be shared into the future, and use that data to create new and innovative ways to solve their problems. The creation of alphabets thousands of years later is an example of design thinking.

RHM: What does design thinking have to do with design?

DB: The word "design" has a lot of different meanings for a lot different people. Often when people think of design they think of an artifact that's been designed well--such as a chair, a car or a building. Or they think of design as style or fashion--a great pair of shoes. The term 'design thinking' has gained popularity because it makes it easier for those outside the design industry to focus the idea of design as a way of thinking about solving problems, a way of creating strategy by experiencing it rather than keeping it an intellectual exercise, and a way of creating and capturing value.

RHM: Is design thinking exclusively art/design-related?

DB: That's a pretty big question. If I could determine the nature of art, then maybe I'd have a chance of answering it. Ellen Lupton, who is a very good designer and a leading writer on design, says that design is "art people use." I like that answer. What I find interesting in your question is that art, design, and design thinking are all about creating something new--in that, they are all transformative in nature. There are very real and important differences between processes that tear down to innovate, or processes that gather best practices to innovate, and creation processes that innovate. They demand very different actions, different cultural ways of thinking.

RHM: What impact does design thinking have on the way businesses operate?

DB: That's a great question. There is one philosophy that businesses only turn to design when they're desperate. After they've competed on price, delivery, systems, etc., and they find their business is totally commoditized and they have no other choice, THEN they turn to design. Some suggest that's true of Apple.

Of course, some businesses look for commoditized industries for opportunites to apply design thinking. Then they create new business categories. Even industries. What's more of a commodity than the coffee bean? Then consider what Starbucks has been able to accomplish. Or consider what Nike did in the sports shoe industry. Or Toyota in automobiles.

Clearly, today, it's increasingly difficult for businesses, even countries and geographic regions, to find ways to compete. They're finding that iterative methods for generating innovation and value aren't giving them the competitive advantage they're used to. The success of businesses who have built design thinking cultures has begun to be noticed. Innovation and creativity are on everyone's lips. Stanford University has started a d.school. This year, Davos has included design as a topic on its agenda. It's all over the business media. And companies as diverse as traditional marketing giant Procter & Gamble and manufacturer GE, commodity companies like Maytag and LG, are creating new strategies and restructuring their companies--making huge investments--to take advantage of design thinking.

RHM: How does it lead to innovation?

DB: From my point of view, leading transformative innovation is a very different animal from the processes most often used in the business world, and certainly very different from the cultures that are built to sustain most enterprises. A few years ago, Businessweek editor Bruce Nussbaum stated that less than 5% of Fortune 1000 companies 'get it' when it comes to design.

Ironically, I don't think innovation is that hard. In fact, once you can accept that innovation is about generating lots of ideas-- focusing on quantity rather than quality-- you're halfway there. That's first and foremost. It's dependent upon being extremely confident while not 'knowing' the answer. People who demand to know the answer too soon kill innovation. So, that's easy, right?

Design begins with the process of defining, and redefining, the issue or problem at hand, because it's terribly important to make sure everyone is on the same page. You can only get there if people are willing to put forth the most basic thoughts and ideas, and use those to create as simple a problem definition as possible. It's extremely important to feel free to suggest bad, even dumb, ideas. IDEO, one of the world's great design firms, actively pursues wild ideas. Because without that mindset you won't have the same ability to innovate; not by a long shot. Because transformative innovation is dependent upon having participants who don't know all the answers. Let's face it, if you know everything--if you have all the answers--it's kind of hard to innovate.

Play is important in design thinking. Critical even. Having fun IS often the objective. Giving up ownership. Listening, humbly. Forming teams from people who come from very different disciplines and cultures; not keeping them compartmentalized. Getting into the world and testing things out. Prototyping and failing. These are all good things in design thinking cultures.

Traditionally, success in the corporate world is often another matter: Territorial battles, internal competition, opaque agendas, hoarding information; strict structure by function--all are serious detriments to building a culture of design.

RHM: What are some examples of companies that embody design thinking as a competitive advantage?

DB: I've mentioned a few already. You can add companies like OXO, Target, VW, Progressive Insurance. These are great examples of design thinking-- companies that really involve their customers in co-creation of their products/service--companies that build great systems.

RHM: What role does collaboration play in design thinking?

DB: Most children easily grasp the concept that two heads are better than one. Well, 40 heads are really better than one. The myth of the lone genius is just that. A myth. I like to remind people that Frank Lloyd Wright is dead. Now, what we're seeing in the development of Linux and other open source collaboration development (design) models is incredible. Look at Fedora! Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Look at the value created! I think we, as humans, are just beginning to tap into the power of large-scale collaboration for creative problem solving. Bruce Mau, who spoke at our Summit last summer in New Orleans, is doing a great job of documenting how large-scale collaboration projects are changing the world. We believe at Red Hat that we have a strong leadership role to play.

RHM: How can corporations take advantage of design thinking?

DB: Design thinking is more than a methodology. Design is a cultural way of thinking. It's important to understand its power, commit to evolving your culture, even restructuring the company, resourcing and rewarding those who practice design thinking. You can no longer tolerate those who shut down design thinking. We have to get rid of the devil's advocates and experts who own their domain to the detriment of innovation.

 

Re: The Future of Advertising is Design

In catching up on RSS feeds and email over the weekend, I came across an announcement that Anomaly, one of the agencies that often gets referred to as an "agency of the future," has hired Kevin Lyons to be their design director. The key bits from the article:

Anomaly has appointed former Urban Outfitters CD Kevin Lyons to design director, to bring what agency co-founder Carl Johnson calls "real world perspective" to its design initiatives.The four-year-old agency has always touted its holistic approach to branding for clients and has undertaken its own product development and design projects, so Lyons' role is intended, says Johnson, to inject the shop with "the pragmatism of retail" that will root its entrepreneurial endeavors in the truths of the market.

"Anomaly needs creative people who understand brand development beyond communications," Johnson says. "[Lyons'] experience in the retail/apparel world will be valuable to a company with a financial stake in its work. He knows how product innovation provides customers value and the ultimate pressure of sales numbers, in an ad world unfamiliar with those concepts."

"I am the balance between creativity and the practical application of creativity," Lyons says. ...

Thought this quote in particular was very interesting:

"Anomaly needs creative people who understand brand development beyond communications."

As more and more advertising gets ignored, agencies have got to come up with better, more meaningful ways to help their clients reach and connect with people. Anomaly gets this. They believe in it at their core.

"... when a client comes in with an advertising problem, Anomaly addresses it more broadly as a business issue, analyzing everything from design to product development." Fast Company, March 2008

This cuts right to the heart of what I've maybe not been articulating so well by using the words "design thinking" in my previous posts. Maybe "design thinking" isn't the right term.

Maybe the title of the post should have been, "The Future of Advertising Is More Than Communications."

Anyway, I thought this was relevant to some of what I've been posting lately and was also interesting in regard to looking at what types of people "the agencies of the future" are hiring.

The Future of Advertising is Design (Redux)

Through all of the rambling that was the post titled, The Future of Advertising is Design, Linda was kind enough to leave a link to a post she put together in the comments which contained the above quote from the venerable Mr. Lee Clow.

I have always intended to do a shorter follow-up post to clean that mess up and this quote gave me the perfect lead-in.

What I intended to get at, but derailed with tangents, is that based on what Mr. Clow is talking about above - that what we do now (at least those of us who are to survive in this industry) is far bigger than what in the past has been called advertising - we have to think bigger than advertising at the beginning of creating ideas.

If an ad agency* is to prosper at whatever it is we'll call it in the future, they have to think bigger than the standard TV, Radio, Print and OOH model that then tosses a bone over to "interactive" by asking "the web guys" to put the TV spot on the web site. O.K., they also want a micro-site based on the TV spot. And make it a "viral" micro-site while you're at it. Oh, and get the PR agency to do a press release on the new campaign. There. It's all integrated now. Right? (Pssst. No. That's wrong.)

Where most ad agencies are getting into trouble, at least in my best guess, is that they are starting with looking at reaching the client's objective/goal by asking, "What's the ad campaign we need to create to solve this?" Or, "What's the message we need to tell people that will solve this?" If your approach is to start by assuming it's an ad, or starting by assuming the answer is to tell people something, then you're going to miss significant opportunities and as the quote above says, your client's brand will not be able to survive against others taking a bigger picture approach.

This is where the link to design came in. I didn't mean design will become advertising or advertising will become design. I simply meant that as an industry, we need to bring design thinking into the process to help us think bigger than advertising.

That's all. For now at least... Ha!

*For the record, we can plug "digital agency" into this equation too. If a digital shop is only thinking about how to best solve their clients' problems with web/digital solutions, they're going to quickly end up in the same situation. The only thing keeping them safe right now is that what's going on in the digital arena has everyone excited and so they're not taking the same heat as the traditional ad shops. Once the shine wears off the penny, they'll be hearing the same song.

Discovery: The World is Just Awesome

Discovery Channel has a new logo, a new ad and a new tag line. (TV spot via 72 and Sunny. Logo via Viewpoint Creative.)

Maybe I'm reading into it too much, but ever since someone called out that the "smile" on the Amazon.com logo is actually an arrow linking the A to the Z, and Faris reminded me of that bit not long ago when he noted the arrow in the FedEx logo, I've started looking into new logos more.

Anyway, it looks like maybe the "c" and the "o" are kind of forming an infinity sign, which if it's true and equates to there being infinite things about Earth that we can discover, well, that's kind of cool. Or maybe they're forming the viewing end of a pair of binoculars? I know. Now I'm really stretching.

The ad was fun. It definitely caught my attention. And now the song is stuck in my head. Overall, I liked it.

So, there's my over-thinking this stuff... What are your thoughts?

[found]

The Future of Advertising is Design

--

Follow-up Note/Preface: This post kind of rambles and roams. It's not well constructed and thought out. I generally don't post "streaming thoughts" like this, but I felt like I should start getting this stuff out in the open and written down more instead of continuing to hold it in the back of my head until it's exactly how I want to say it. It's clear from some of the initial comments that I didn't get at what I am aiming to yet. At least not broadly. We'll get there. I promise.

Thankfully, the comments that are being left are helping me sort through this further and see where it's falling apart.  You're helping me find the right way to articulate it. So, thank you to each of you who has taken time to leave a remark, a thought, a link and/or a note. Please continue to share links, thoughts and challenges/questions as it is going to make this better in the end.

Final note/comment - I wasn't trying to say that the future of advertising is literally design and creating products with/for our clients. I do think that's a part of it, but it's not the entire bigger picture/total. I can see how the way this "brain-dump" progressed and the examples that folded in as the thoughts poured out makes it sort of come out that way. A follow-up post will be coming to tighten this down more and clarify what I was working at getting to, but didn't yet. Anyway, with that, continue on if you wish and by all means, keep commenting to push this further...

--

Came across this just now which led me to this and this. I'm putting Brian Collins' quote here and sharing it as it relates directly to something I've been thinking about for quite some time now.

A couple of those thoughts bubbled up in the comments of a post on Logic + Emotion recently. I guess it's probably time to just post some of them here instead of continuing to wait to write up something more "fully baked."

With that, here we go then on some true "thinking out loud"...

To me, Brian's quote says exactly where advertising needs to head if it is to survive. I've been playing with a thought in my head to capture the essence of the change that needs to take place. It goes something like this:

Advertising creates problems. Design solves them.

Or...

Design solves the problems advertising creates.

They're not quite right, but I think they're somewhere close. What I mean by them is this...

Most advertising as it exists today creates problems. Everyone is claiming to be the best, or better, or the fastest, or the newest... and on, and on, and on. Thousands of ads yelling the same basic message for thousands of products. This creates confusion for people. Confusion is a problem. People generally don't like problems. To counter this, we've created filters to block out all the problems we don't need to deal with.

To get rid of the problem for the things we do want or need, we turn to our families, friends and co-workers to see what they think or know from experience. We also turn to the web to look up more information to see what several people, including experts and complete strangers, are saying so that we can find out which one really is the best for what we need. We seek the truth, or as close as we can get to it at least, to clear up the confusion.

What does this mean for your ad? Simply put, if your ad doesn't match what these people say, you're probably not going to fare so well.

Design on the other hand, doesn't try to claim anything, Design doesn't talk. Design, well, it just does. Design sees a problem someone has with something they're using and works to solve it. By making things better or easier or more useful, etc., you create your own advertising. The person who uses the product or service tells others about it because you just made their life a little better.

That confused person above, the one who saw your ad... They're asking the person who is using your competitors redesigned "X" what the truth is and the person using your competitor's "X" has something real to show them and tell them about. Meanwhile, you've got the same old "Y" and a loud ad that creates problems. That doesn't sound like a fun situation if you ask me.

So where does all this go/what does it mean? Good question. I don't have the answer yet, but I've been playing with a thought or two and talking with a few people about them. It feels like this might be on the right track...

The way I've been articulating it, but I don't know if it's the best way of saying it, is, "We're no longer in the business of creating ads. We're in the business of creating experiences."

What this means for agencies is exactly what Brian Collins is talking about. We've got to re-think the process of how we solve problems for our clients. Instead of starting with "what's the main idea we need to communicate,' we need to start with "what is the experience we need to create to change behavior?" As a very wise man keeps pointing out, telling people things doesn't change behavior. Getting them to actually do things does.

What this means for advertising is that your ad needs to draw people into the experience instead of telling people you're the best. Make the ad do something, not just say something. The most recent iPhone ads are good examples here - showing what the phone can do to help make life easier instead of trying to tell you the iPhone is the best phone on the market and/or will make you look cool.

Another great example is the TV spot for the new Dyson Ball vacuum where James Dyson demonstrates the "steering" problem with conventional vacuum cleaners due to their being on four wheels that are only able to roll forwards and backwards and then showing his solution, putting the vacuum cleaner on a ball so it can pivot on a dime.

(Tried to find the spot so I wouldn't have to describe it, but couldn't. Sorry. If you know where it is, please let me know and I'll put it here instead.) Linked above (TV Spot) now, thanks to Camilla from Dyson sharing the link in the comments.

As for the Dyson example, they're taking the entire experience of using their vacuums very seriously - always looking for ways to improve and rethink them and then actually doing something with what they learn. How is it working for them? They've been cleaning house on the competition for some time now. (Bad pun intended.)

Another good example of this is BMW. For years they've been all about selling the ultimate driving experience. This begins with the car and how they design and engineer every aspect of it. They think about the driver and what they can do to make driving a BMW a truly special experience. They then use the advertising to give you a hint at what that experience is like. BMW Films took this to an entirely new level.

All three of these examples put the user experience first and foremost and then they build the advertising around that experience. Sure, it helps that all three of these products have an inherent "coolness" factor built into them, (I never thought I'd be calling a vacuum cool, but the Dyson kind of is...) but as the presentation I posted touched on, you don't have to have a cool product to create a great experience around the product. You can do things with your marketing that add value to the product or service, making a better overall experience for people.

Anyway, the point is that as an industry, we have to stop thinking about things like traditional advertising people. We need to start thinking about things like designers, engineers, architects and the like. We need to think about the action we want people to take and what will be required to make that action happen. We can't just think about what we want to tell people. Odds are, telling someone to do something won't be effective alone, if at all. Today's congested media landscape requires a lot more than a campaign built on 30-second TV ads with a heavy media buy to create any real change. It's in creating total experiences that we will see success.

And with that, I'll stop for now. More to come on this later, I'm sure. I didn't expect it to go as far as it did already.

Side note: I don't have time to keep going anyway. I've got to run my Sunday errands now since I'll be going to see Bon Iver tonight when I normally do them. If you haven't heard him and you like Nick Drake, José González and others in that vein, be sure to check him out. He's not exactly like those artists, but if that style/genre of music suits you, then I think you'll like what Justin is doing.

David Report no. 9 - I Shop Therefore I Am

David Report has posted their newest issue - "I shop therefore I am." You can read it at their site or it's also available to download for free. The very high-level description:

We are proud to announce the new David Report bulletin called "I shop therefore I am". In this issue we are looking into the world of consumer culture from different point of views; ethical, social, political, economical and humanistic.

Shopping has turned into a lifestyle. We consume as leisure and a way to pass time. But at the same time many are realizing that the power of consumption is stopping us from finding true and sincere happiness; and that shopping often works as a substitute for something that we´re missing in life. At what point does the accumulation of material goods become less fulfilling and more stressful and overwhelming?

Our consumption grows in the same pace as our economic growth. Studies shows that in hundred years we consume eight times as much per capita as today. Can our globe take such a strain? The power of consumption is being questioned and there´s a change in attitude and way of life. We don´t want to be consuming goofs, we want to be considered aware and responsible. It is all about WHAT we buy and WHAT we choose to invest in, the world we live in will be the result of those choices.

In the future consumption will be more about experiences and services than things. Perhaps giving will be more important than having. Are the companies, who survive on our consumption, prepared for this transition?

The David Report bulletin no 9 "I shop therefore I am" also offers insight on the subject from strategist Kristina Dryza and Zen-Buddhist Sante Poromaa. On top of this an interview with Mathilda Tham, guest professor at Beckmans school of Design.

There were a couple things that stood out in particular to me on this. The first was this thought:

In the future consumption will be more about experiences and services than things. Perhaps giving will be more important than having.

To me, this talks to the on-going hot topic of utility and the desire of today's consumers to use products and services that actually do things for them vs. buying brands in an effort to say things about themselves.

This statement goes beyond utility though and talks about supporting brands that make the world a better place, not just our own lives. In this regard, my mind immediately goes to TOMS Shoes, where purchasing a pair of TOMS not only gets you a pair of shoes, but also gives one to a child in need somewhere around the globe.

This is all further cementing the direction things have been moving in for quite some time. Especially with younger shoppers. People are becoming more conscious about what they buy, what went into producing it and what happens to their dollars post-purchase.

More and more people are moving away from buying things to make a statement about who they are; to buying things that give them an experience or help them do something that then shapes who they are and gives them a story to tell.

The evolution of this is going from purchasing products and services that do something only for our own good to supporting products that also do something for others in need or for the betterment of our planet.

The other piece that jumped out at me initially was a block of text in support of Herd:

A classical psychological symptom is also reflected in our shopping, humans are group animals and will do anything to stay in their group. To be excluded means death and to avoid being excluded people do what all other people are doing, in this case shop! Don’t be different, look like everyone else, do like everyone else etc. ...

In thinking about this in relation to the above point, as more and more people begin to shop with a more conscious mind about how they're spending their dollars, others will follow suit. In my mind, this says marketers need to do things with our marketing that supports and informs these changes.

The brands that start helping people feel better about their spending habits and where their money is going are going to get ahead quickly. The brands that continue to be selfish with their marketing and their dollars, or that just try to appear they're doing good? Well, let's just say they won't need their shades in the future.

How can brands do this? By creating experiences for, or sharing experiences with, people. Experiences change behavior. It is through doing and seeing others do things that we learn and change our own actions. We don't often change our behavior simply from hearing or reading words. Hearing and reading are important as reminders, but the the act of doing/experiencing is far stronger.

If you don't believe this, just think to when you hear a mother tell her child, "Don't touch that, it's hot," for the first time. Being that the child has never felt it before, they inevitably touch it to learn for themselves. Then, the next time their mother tells them the same thing, they recall the burn (action) of the first time and refrain from touching it this time.

Anyway... if you are a brand that is doing good with the money people spend on your products, don't stop at telling people you're doing it or going to do it. Show them you're doing it. Invite them to help you. Make them feel as much a part of the experience as possible. Let them decide how much they want to get involved, but give them every opportunity you can to join in.

O.K., I think I've gone on far too long on this one now. Read the report when you have a few free minutes as there are some interesting things in it to consider as you think about the future of marketing and advertising.

Required Reading: Leland Maschmeyer - Volume 2

For some time now I've been meaning to do a "Required Reading" post every-so-often on blogs, books, sites, etc. that I think others should take note of and spend time with for one reason or another. I've even had the category created for a while and tagged some old posts with it. Well, today is the start of that series. Enough putting it off.

My first post in this series points to Leland Maschmeyer. He formerly wrote Whistle Through Your Comb (which BTW, is full of good bits and bytes to explore if you didn't read it before) and has now moved on from that to start anew.

His focus here is on using design thinking to solve marketing problems (correct me if that's not quite right, Leland), particularly in the area of transformation design. I quite like it because as Neil would say, I'm in violent agreement with a lot of it.

When you have a minute, go see what he's up to. I think you might like it. I know I do.