When the move to boycott Alan Jones began a week or so ago, the ‘savvy’ conventional wisdom of media experts was that advertisers might pull their ads for a while, but that they would be back as soon the fuss died down. The recent examples of Rush Limbaugh and Kyle Sandilands were cited in support of this claim. I don’t know about Sandilands (is there any info on advertisers who publicly dropped him, then returned?) but I don’t think Limbaugh’s case supports this claim, and the decision of 2GB to run Jones ad-free makes it even more problematic.
In the US, it seems that, far from returning to Limbaugh, big corporations have concluded that advertising on hate radio of any kind is a losing proposition, now that people outside the immediate audience are paying attention to what they are doing. Far from returning to Limbaugh they are pulling ads across the board, in favor of straight news shows, or away from radio altogether. The new model for hate radio is narrowcasting, as practised by Glenn Beck, who relies on his own merchandise and small advertisers. That’s commercially viable in a country as big as the US, but it ensures that Beck remains a marginal figure, with none of the influence he had in his days with Fox. Limbaugh hangs on, but he’s a much diminished figure, who no longer inspires terror, even among Republicans.
The 2GB “ad-free” strategy seems like a panic move. The obvious problem is that you are either ad-free or you are not. So, presumably they are planning on a relaunch, in which a bunch of advertisers return simultaneously, and with a fair bit of publicity. If I were the PR director of a major national company, I don’t think I’d be keen to be part of that. So, their best bet is to line a bunch of rightwing small businesspeople who are willing to take one for the team. Perhaps that will carry him long enough for some bigger companies to sneak back, but I doubt it. The boycott campaigners are seeking commitments to stay away through 2013. With no ads running anyway, making such a commitment, and getting loads of good publicity as a result, seems like a no-brainer for most companies.
John Quiggin 
I wonder if Jones is working ad free…and…pay free. He certainly can afford to do that and he would no doubt see his continued presence as a smack across the face for his critics. But then there may well be a contract that binds them all together.
The first advertiser who returns will get the full force of the campaign. Just this morining, Human Nature — not an advertiser — just doing a bit of free self-promo with Jones, got on and had a chat. The Jenna-Price destroythe joint page facebook page immediately got people making reference to it and targetting them.
This isn’t going to stop.
2GB’s strategic moves are just one more example of the level of contempt commercial interests have for their customers. The idea that “the customer is always right” gave way to much more cynical views of how to deal with those they depend on. Serious empirical research is conducted to find out exactly how badly business can treat its customers, to save money, and still have them coming back. Contrary to the idea that great wooing of customers is required in the competition for their buck, the evidence is that you can treat them quite badly and still have them coming back for more. The high yield customer doesn’t complain. They’re the ones you want; the ones you make the most money off. Be interesting to see how the Jones saga plays out and whether it will be one more case of “the customer is always wrong”.
Meanwhile, down in Melbourne, I’m still puzzled as to why Jones and similar broadcasters seem to thrive in Sydney and other parts (thanks Ron E.) but not elsewhere. I’ve even done some fieldwork and listened to 3AW a few times and have been consistently let down by its mildness. I don’t buy the usual Melbournian claim that we’re just more multicultural and culturally superior, after all….This is Bolt country. (Apologies to H.S. Thompson)
Perhaps I’m lacking a wider understanding of media markets. Any ideas?
Im quite sure that Jones audience are mostly not the target audience for Mercedes and other high end advertisers. They market with Jones to create brand recognition and envy for their products, which makes them more appealing to high income earners. Exclusivity breeds desire. The social status reinforcement and kudos they once gained by being associated with Jones has dried up or exists elsewhere nowadays.
Has been a good week on this front. The hilarious irony of the right-wing press (News Ltd et al) bitterly decrying concerted consumer campaigns that have the temerity to target one of their own. Of course we must remember that rational consumers in a vibrant free market are to be encouraged, unless they’re ‘trolls’ abusing the social media to target real Australians and their poor hard done media corporations!
A positive sign for the future, the hatemongers of the tabloid media are slowly but surely losing their power.
It will be interesting to see if the Mercedes executive, labelled a “gutless wonder” in a tirade by Mr Jones on air, feels aggrieved enough to seek legal advice. I suppose, in his defence, Mr Jones could always argue that he was referring to the car?
Yep, good to see hate radio losing its power. I dislike all talkback radio, though I guess it’s just the radio equivalent of blogging in a way. Then again, to blog you at least have to be literate. That in itself would explain why the tone of blogging in general is a bit higher than talkback radio.
This phenomena is an interesting twist on market power. With branding being so popular it is strange that the PR types didn’t see this coming. The apathy of people and the ability of Alan Jones to get away with so much no doubt led to this inability to see the Convoy of No Confidence coming. However Prof Q I think you are right – there will be little imperative to head back to Alan Jones, as upsetting his small audience is nothing compared to long term damage to the brand in the wider community. People may not change but if they do it will be long term and affect future profits long into the future. It would be a brave company to take the gamble. Banks, Insurance companies, grocery chains would take a long time to recover if people shift their business as once new customer habits and allegiances form they are hard to break.
We see that he is just a naughty boy after all.
It was interesting to see that Slater & Gordon, the most famous “Labor law firm” (whose most famous alumnus is the Prime Minister, but there have been plenty of Labor pollies – nearly all on the Left – who have worked there) pulled their ads from Jones.
That is, it was interesting that they advertised with him in the first place. It is plausible that the kinds of people who get legal representation from Slaters also listen to Jones, and business is business, but still.
As recently as May 2012, Alan Jones’ breakfast show rated very highly – in terms of market share. http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/kyle-and-jackie-o-arent-winning-us-back-20120508-1ya9k.html
I understand, ratings are an input in the decisions making process by private and public organisations, particularly advertising consultants and advertising executives when allocating advertising budgets.
It seems to me, the latest Alan Jones episode is yet another example of ratings not being a sufficient statistic for decision making.
Other examples are the ratings of financial securities, various performance ratings that lead to bonuses or other actions. An example in the making is performance based payments for teachers.
These examples are special cases of management by ‘key performance indicators’. This management method has become very popular over the past decade or two. Not surprisingly, I suggest, because it is easy for managers; no professional knowledge and judgement is required and the impression of quantitative objectivity is created. The latter is convenient for the various levels of middle-management to protect their own jobs without ever having to pass a test on statistics, or learn to make a distinction between quantification and measurement, or study the literature on incentive compatible mechanism (which is so obviously biased against post-modern deconstruction of text, indeed it may look like a conspiracy against text and critical text analysis).
Approximately 17% market share for the Alan Jones breakfast radio show is the highest market share among all other ‘competitors’ in the sample survey of the industry. But for the advertiser, the biggest market share is approximately 83% – the ABC component of about 14% = about 69%, provided by all others.
Time will tell whether the advertising executives learn faster than the public and private enterprise executives who still chase ratings of financial securities.
I think that I might have to start boycotting “hate parliament”.
@Ernestine Gross
I agree with all statements and inferences (that I understand) in your post above. I don’t understand the following text;
“to make a distinction between quantification and measurement, or study the literature on incentive compatible mechanism (which is so obviously biased against post-modern deconstruction of text, indeed it may look like a conspiracy against text and critical text analysis)”
What is the distinction between quantification and measurement and why is the distinction important?
What is “incentive compatible mechanism” and why does the statement in parenthesis (ironically?) illuminate it?
I ask these questions in all seriousness due to my point-specific ignorance. But overall, yes, I agree with the implied critique of managerialist ratings and KPIs.
If I may, quantification and measurement. Government and businesses where KPIs are a popular management tool don’t seem to understand that this tool was once the widely used approach to managing the Soviet Empire. Before even the collapse it had fallen into disfavor. The problem is that it is very easy to quantify, that is generate meaningless numbers which KPIs typically are, and perverse incentives create nonsense numbers in government and business just as they did in the Soviet Empire. The example from the Soviet Union, you measure nail production by numbers of nails suddenly all the nails produced are pins. If the KPI is tonnes of nails they are then all the type of spike you would drive into a railway sleeper. So quantification is easy, producing meaningful accurate measurement of something worth measuring, not so easy.
Sad that thinking is now long out of fashion in business and government having been replaced by the elaborate rituals of the the managerial class (KPIs). But here I am failing a kpi by creating too many posts. Maybe I will be fired (banned)?
Alan Jones makes a crass joke at what he thought was a closed function. It was a lousy joke at the expense of a dead man and the PM. He shouldn’t have made it irrespective of the occassion. He realises this and has apologised several times for what was clearly a case of very poor judgement. He could have done a better job of the initial apology but that really ought to have been the end of the matter. The hyperbolic response from the left is going to become counter productive. Heck I even tuned into Alan Jones this morning on 2GB myself to see what he had to say. I only listened for about ten minutes but in that time he apologised to the PM again. I’m starting to feel sympathetic towards him. I’m starting to feel that the campaign is just vitriol. Keep it up and Jones starts to become the victim. Or even worse a sort of hero for toughing it out.
The Mercedes guy got called gutless because he had cancelled the advertising contract with 2GB a few days prior to the bad joke incident but then tried to pretend he cancelled because of the bad joke incident. I don’t know if that is gutless but it is dishonest.
Freelander, as you say, stick to the KPIs
@TerjeP Actually Mercedes pulled the pin one day after but if you prefer the Jones version of reality then keep on listening.
This isn’t just about the Parrot’s patricide remarks.
Many persons, and not just leftists, are appalled by the Parrot’s serial crimes against civility. As noted above, an entire city — Melbourne — when exposed to him by Murdoch’s Channel 10, recoiled in disbelief and nausea at his vulgar insinuations. Melburnians boycotted the repellant twerp decades ago. I’m pleased to see that the rest of the nation has finally caught up with Melbourne.
Better late than never.
@John Quiggin
I would if maintaining (my) employment was a concern.
Rog – do you have a source for that counter claim?
@TerjeP
It appears there are a few realities to choose from.
According to a story on smh.com.au at the top of the page right now, a corporate deal was cancelled in mid September but the instruction to dealers to cease advertising post-dated the Jones comments.
Thanks Megan. I found the article following your advice. It is here for those interested:-
http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/mercedesbenz-replies-to-jones-attack-on-exec-20121009-27aqu.html
the Alan Jones breakfast slot had a 17.1 per cent audience share, but how many listen to morning radio? how many take it seriously?
Jim – I listen to morning radio in the car driving to the office. Although sometimes I listen to podcasts on the iPhone instead. Usually if the radio is on in the morning it is ABC Radio National with Fran Kelly. I usually don’t take it to seriously.
p.s. Clearly some people take Alan Jones very seriously. The whole campaign to shut down 2GB seems to take him incredibly seriously. Why not just turn off the radio if he bugs you or else change station. It isn’t that hard.
TerjeP – I am not sure why Alan Jones apologised to the PM on his radio show today but do wonder if it was like the original insulting apology for getting found out. If he was serious about an apology he would write to the PM saying “I’m sorry that I was such a fool and spoke so wrongly about your father”. There, not so hard.
Instead he demands that she take his phone calls and respond to his remarks to his listeners as if he is the one running the country and she has nothing better to do than listen to his drivel all day.
If turning off the station would make Alan Jones go away people would do this. However he bobs up everywhere. No-one I know has suggested that 2GB should be closed down but many people I know think that he should be held accountable in the only way that he understands. It does seem to be working.
@TerjeP
Self evidently, our unwillingness to pay him any heed hasn’t worked. He continues to foul public space in part with our support, since it’s not listeners he primarily needs, but advertisers. Listeners are his product.
As the saying goes, if you keep doing what you’re doing, you’ll keep getting what you’re getting
As this episode shows, going after his food source — the flow of funds to keep his mouth open and the effluent flowing — was key. This is apparently costing Singo and Carnegie $80,000 per day — perhaps 25% of MRN revenue if it lasts a year. It will be interesting to test that friendship.
You more than most ought to grasp that consumers are a part of “the market” and are using the power of markets to bring him to book. Turnbull said as much today.
In an interesting counterpoint, I was listening to Chris Smith(?) this afternoon on 2GB and he was complaining about some low-Rent show on TV Reinhart called “Can of Worms”. Apparently, in the show there were some pretty offensive references to Alan Jones. (Yes, if they were as reported they were repulsive, even though I find Jones repulsive).
Some chap from a website called “cando” came on wanting to lobby the shareholders to axe the show and force an apology. Now personally, I say good luck to them but it does seem a tad hypocritical on the one hand for them to invoite people to use the dial in realtion to Jones if they don’t like it and seek to have Channel 10 axes the when they don’t like it.
Jill – how do you know he hasn’t written to the PM?
As for the campaign working I don’t know what the metric is. If you mean to extract an apology well that was achieved pretty quickly as criticism came from all quarters. What is the measure of success for this campaign? And what collateral damage is the left prepared to sustain in the process?
Fran – boycott all you like. I haven’t questioned the morality of that method. Although the legality is still unclear to me. And I don’t find it very endearing. Beyond a certain point it seems counter productive.
This has become so overblown that I’m feeling the glimmerings of sympathy for Jones myself.
We can all boycott. Amongst other measures, I’ve cut $40,000+ from my weekly spend at Woolies (this got them on the phone!), & the four to six computers + software I get each year from Harvey Norman will be now be supplied by someone else.
Neither of them will miss my business, nor will I be inconvenienced by shopping elsewhere.
I’ve never heard Alan Jones, & never paid much attention to him until just recently (it seems he isn’t the coach of the Australian football team any longer, however it is the same man).
This whole business has held the mirror up to the left, & the reflection has been quite ugly. Exposed is the homophobia, hypocrisy & selective outrage of the screeching class.
Jones is hardly the only person to make such offensive statements.
However he did not make them on air, but in a private capacity, saying nothing more than I’ve heard probably a dozen other people say.
The comment is disgusting, offensive, and sick. (not to mention inaccuate – JG’s father would actually have been proud of his daughter’s conduct!)
Jones makes an off the cuff comment, behind closed doors, to a bunch of uni students, and it is treated like the Hiroshima blast. It took more than a week after the comment for the news to break (this will be because the comment wasn’t that obvious, and the reporter who broke the story took that long to sift through his clandestine recording – even then the quality of the recording is akin to that of a front-line despatch from a war correspondent)
Then because a wet behind the ears uni student puts up an online petition (signed by, among others, Superman, Batman, Napoleon Bonaparte, Rasputin and Wyatt Earp) a heap of big tough corporations wet their pants, over people who’ve likely never listened to Jones, and never will.
That there has never been similar outrage over some of the comments made live on air on the ABCTV show QandA, (for example) reveals the vomit inducing hypocrisy of those who now affect outrage over Jones’ comment.
Jones made one correct statement: That this is cyber bullying, which he’s able to withstand, but is tough on the smaller businesses who bought advertising, they are just ordinary Aussies trying to make a go of it, and should not be subject to such treatment.
There’ll be unintended consequences reveal themself at some point. We’ll wait to see what they are.
Why would a company drop Alan Jones? It makes little business sense.
The facts are that he was a disliked person by many sections before the comments. Presumably these sections didn’t listen too him before the comments. Presumably advertisers weren’t looking to attract these non-listening sections. Therefore the advertisers will be offending Jones “fans”, who they were seeking as customers, whilst making happy those they were not. It’s commercially stupid if one seriously thinks about it.
The problem with this type of campaign is that people will always investigate those that instigate them. That means a persons past and present actions and associates. A good astro turf campaign is unbelivably hard to pull off successfully.
@Steve at the Pub
Sadly I have to agree with some of what you say. In life we hear the reason, often, but the real reason rarely. Jones is having done to him what the mob can do because the mob can at times do it.
I’m still of the view that the outrage is out of all proportion to Jones’ semi-private peccadillo. That said, I’d love to see him (figuratively) lynched. So I’ve signed the petition, I’m maintaining the rage, and I’m on call, ready to pick up torch and pitch-fork and march on the castle
@TerjeP I think that you believe anything Jones says proves your own bias.
@Steve at the Pub For someone who has never heard Jones you seem to have a lot to say on the matter (or more correctly be able to recycle distortions and untruths put forward by the Piers Ackermans of the world)
OK, now that the Keyboard Kommandos of the Mum’s Basement Survivalist Militia have openly swung their support behind Alan Jones, it’s time to let it rip.
Let’s see which side of this confrontation is more adept at making Jones’ sponsors blink.
BTW, this boycott is in the best American Revolutionary tradition. In 1765, Americans boycotted businesses that used the reviled stamps mandated by the hated Stamp Act.
In the end, this act of consumer resistance so disrupted the business model of leading merchants, their pleas persuaded George III’s ministry to repeal the Stamp Act.
Or, as Lenin observed, commercial necessity induces the last capitalist to sell the rope that hangs the second last capitalist.
@Steve at the Pub
Just focusing on the substantive …
No it isn’t. It’s consumers gving feedback. Cyberbullying is when you try to intimidate a human being using the web. Corporations and companies are not human beings. Alan Jones claims he is not being bullied. Personally, in his case I don’t care. The Golden Rule applies. As Turnbull added, he is getting a taste of his own medicine.
If you are paying to pollute (in this case) the airwaves, you can’t be surprised if people don’t want to pay you.
@TerjeP
It seems much more productive than everything that has been done so far. Admittedly, the bar is pretty low. So far what we’ve done pre-boycott has had zero effectiveness. Now we are, reportedly, costing MRN about $80k per day — or about 25% of revenue. Objectively, there’s no basis for it to seem “counter-productive”.
It’s not clear yet that we will succeed in having Jones removed from the air and his connections with 2GB severed. Yet even if we fail, we are no worse off than we were before, and arguably somewhat better off, since we will have least imposed a sanction that is meaningful to him and others who might be tempted to go the Jones approach to public commentary. We have set a precedent.
I beleive your sympathy for Jones culturally has pushed your inference-making competence to one side.
Ahh, Fran, who hasn’t seen someone able to make their own decisions in life whom she hasn’t desired to manacle & send to the gulag.
Your attempt at mob rule won’t work Fran. The attack by the screeching class has made Jones more marketable. Those who pulled their advertising are feeling some blowback from those who do not believe in mob rule (see my #30 for some of the financial damage that is happening to those who caved in to the class of hating screechers – and oh boy are they becoming aware of it).
An ill-considered comment by Alan Jones, is in danger of turning into a fair dinkum witch hunt.
This will rebound most unhappily on the screeching class. The people won’t put up mob rule, especially when it is based on a triviality.
Just to show you’re actually interested in eliminating offensive stuff from the airwaves:
Please point to where you’ve attempted to get QandA, or at least those who’ve made similar offensive comments during broadcasts, hunted from the airwaves.
Or are you simply part of a mob who can’t stand the thought that Alan Jones brings publicity to some of the more electorally unpalatable deeds of the ALP?
The theory that support for the ALP is a symptom of mental illness doesn’t seem wide of the mark at times like this!
@Steve at the Pub
Limit already reached for today – JQ
What is remarkable is that Terje and SATP are willing to accept that Jones is a valid substitute for truth, especially STAP who doesn’t listen to Jones.
This extends to the myth that corporations are people and that Jones sponsors are just mum n dad businesses battling to make an honest dollar.
Put a sock in it Rog. I’m saying the Jones affair has turned into a farce.
A (disgusting) remark made in private has been latched onto by a cohort that wants to muzzle Jones for political reasons & nothing else.
It is not about responding to offensive speech. It is about a nakedly political campaign to whack (& hopefully silence) an effective critic of the ALP. Many of those affecting outrage over Jones’ comments have been responsible for similar stuff, or far better broadcast stuff, and furthermore have remained silent through no end of other tasteless remarks about the same topic, and tasteless & worse about other public figures. They are hypocrites.
What Jones says on air is irrelevant. This is not about anything he said on air, it is about him being anti-ALP. What the heck has the fact that he doesn’t broadcast in my part of the world have to do with it? How many hours each day do you spend listening to his programme? Or do you restrict yourself to sound bites replayed on the news and reading third party commentary?
I’m all for boycotts of broadcasters who say offensive things, I abhor however, the secondary boycotting of those who merely advertise on the airwaves.
I’m not interested in being part of a political witch hunt. The ALP is big enough & ugly enough to look after itself. Jones must be very effective.
People with adequate money are free to buy or not buy particular legal products or to patronise or not patronise particular businesses. People are free to advocate in a legal manner the purchase or the non-purchase of any legal products or the patronisation or non-patronisation of any legal business. People are free to use their own minds to determine whether they will be influenced or not influenced by others advocating purchase or non-purchase, patronisation or non-patronisation. What aspect of these ordinary social and economic freedoms are people objecting to?
So far as I am aware, the consumer boycott is a legitimate political and economic tactic provided existing laws are not broken in its promulgation and execution. Those who decry mass action like consumer boycotts are those who dislike the mass of ordinary people having any power at all. They prefer power to be concentrated in the hands of rich people and the big corporations.
@Steve at the Pub
Simple question Steve — how is the application of taxpayer money to projects you find offensive ethically distinguished from use of money you have paid some company which has been funnelled to some project you find offensive?
bear in mind that both in the case of tax and money paid to companies for services or goods you get, presumably, some value?
In the case of taxpayer moneys you get a chance, in theory at least, to vote for people who will redirect the moneys some place less offensive. In the case of companies though the only “vote” you get is the secondary boycott.
@Ikonoclast
My reply will be on the sandpit shortly.
@Steve at the Pub Again you misrepresent the situation. Yes agreed that Jones comments were disgusting but what was more disgusting was the lack of condemnation from his peers ie young Libs, Libs who were at the dinner and those that who were not. This Libs condemnation was only made after a public outcry, an outcry that you label as “witch hunt”
Jones has made many comments on many occasions, his role in the Cronulla riots was to incite, and does so with the apparent blessing of the conservatives. He is a liberal party man, has stood for preselection and frequently consults with them on strategy on a one to one basis. Howard admitted that he used to run policy past Jones before putting it out to the public. So any counter argument that Jones should not be seen as a political target is farcical.
Similarly farcical is the argument that Jones not be subject to the same pressure that he has successfully employed, that of threat of boycott and/or public disgrace.
two things
Jones’s comments was NOT attempted humour they were entirely serious.
It was NOT a private airing. It was a political function where anyone could go if they paid.
It is somewhat amusing to see people criticise consumers for wishing to make consumer sovereignty more than a theoretical concept.
Ikonoklast – I’m not saying people shouldn’t boycott. Go right ahead if that is how you feel. But I think it will be counter productive. Fran asks what possible down side there is. For her personally probably none. But for some of those now coordinating this action, and the organisations they are connected with, I suspect there will be blowback via public opinion. But go right ahead and join the fray if it warms your heart. Let’s see where it leads. Hopefully JQ will post regular updates from now until Easter.
@Steve at the Pub
@ 42 you write: “It is not about responding to offensive speech. It is about a nakedly political campaign to whack (& hopefully silence) an effective critic of the ALP.”
Outrageous insults dished out by Alan Jones do not constitute a critique of anything in my book.
It may well be the ALP is pleased with the success of Nic Lochner’s petition. I don’t know. But it would be a mistake if the ALP would assume, as you do, that the motivation of all or even a non-trivial number of people, who signed the petition, was to participate in a political campaign to whack an effective critic of the ALP.
@30 you write: “Jones makes an off the cuff comment, behind closed doors, to a bunch of uni students”
What was an ‘off the cuff comment’ @30 became an effective critic @40. Interesting.
Furthermore, making the offensive, tasteless and false ‘off the cuff comment’ to uni students is, in my book, even worse than making it to a bunch of 75+year olds because it sets a very bad example to young people.
You conveniently forgot to say the ‘bunch’ of students were Young Liberal Party people. Good on Malcolm Turnbull to send a different signal to the same bunch as well as everybody else.
“A (disgusting) remark made in private has been latched onto by a cohort that wants to muzzle Jones for political reasons & nothing else.”
As usual Steve you are wrong; it is his ‘character’, his ‘authenticity’, his ‘integrity’ (or complete lack of) that is being critiqued, not his politics, which are really not all that coherent. Although perhaps it is the ‘politics of the personal’ that guides him.
But I’ll back off from encouraging my politically disinterested young relatives and friends – via facebook – to sign any more petitions or contact advertisers, if he behaves ‘decently’ in future. It wasn’t easy you know, getting them to bestir themselves to do this simple little thing – the young people I know are so lazy you know and they can’t be bothered following political politics. It seems to me that their agenda is to make a world in which honesty and openness are valued and hypocrisy and hatred of the ‘other’ is discouraged in both or all political parties.
I’d also note that I think it would be so good for the man himself if he got some therapy for his psychological disorders. It is the case that people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder do not have any insight into themselves or their problems; they don’t think there is anything wrong with the way they interact with the world.
But these are not usually ‘happy’ people in the way that most of us think of being happy. Any ‘happiness”these damaged people feel, comes from feeling superior to others and feeling powerful because they are able to manipulate others.