In This Issue:

• Brand Management – Building Long-Term Shareholder Value
• The Anatomy of Corporate Turnarounds
• Tobak's Great Wine for Techies

Brand Management – Building Long-Term Shareholder Value

In our previous article on branding, we learned three things:

1. Every company, product and service has a brand identity and     everyone that matters has a perception of those brands.
2. In today’s era of choices and intense competition, buying            decisions at all levels in the supply chain are based more and       more on brand perception.
3. As a result, branding influences the competitive position,             profit margins and shareholder value of every company in the     supply chain.

Once you accept these points, the focus becomes one of developing strategies for managing high-tech brands and optimizing their equity.  While this does tend to be a rather personal exercise for each company, there are some basic concepts that, once understood, will help to provide initial guidance in getting your company pointed in the right direction. 

Who Are You?

If I asked ten employees to tell me about your company, how many different answers would I get?  If the answer is ten, then your first step in the process is to determine your company’s distinct corporate identity.  While this can be a fairly involved process, it starts with a research audit that is designed to provide essential data on your company’s competitive positioning and perception in the minds of customers, analysts and employees. 

An analysis of the data, perhaps in a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) format, for example, will help you to identify the company’s core competencies and major issues.  With this analysis in hand, the next step is for the management team to determine the company’s strategic vision, the key strategies that will help accomplish that vision, and the company’s core behavioral values. 

The next step is to articulate this corporate identity in the form of positioning and messaging, both textually and graphically, so that all company communications are consistent in the way they represent the company and its products.  This includes everything from customer and investor presentations to the company’s press releases, advertisements and websites. 

This positioning – often called the brand platform – reflects both the company’s self image as well as the way the company would like to be perceived by its customers and investors.  This change in perception requires strategy to be effective, or a new brand strategy. 

Brand Strategy

Brand strategy provides a roadmap for change.  These strategies, in fact, are designed to bring about specific changes in perception among a large group of the company’s key constituents, including employees, customers, analysts and investors.  There are a number of key factors in developing branding strategies that will bring about the desired results.  With an effective corporate identity in place, the next step is to decide upon these key factors.  A word to the wise: the key factors also influence each other, so the order matters.           

Who’s Your Audience?

Imagine a corporate pyramid with your company’s executive management team at the tip and the end users of your products at the bottom.  Although the scale will not be linear, a simple representation might look something like this: 

The idea is to determine which segment of the audience is most critical for you to influence.  Many people fall into the trap of automatically targeting end users, and there are three things to keep in mind about that strategy: 1) it gets progressively more expensive to influence audiences as you go down the pyramid, by orders of magnitude, in fact, just because of the shear numbers involved; 2) from a grass roots standpoint, people that are higher up in the pyramid influence those lower down in the pyramid, so they can be used as highly leveraged resources, and somewhat conversely; 3) with respect to mass marketing, targeting a specific segment of the pyramid will also indirectly reach audiences above that segment, but not below. 

To net this out, the trick is to find the segment of audience, highest up the pyramid, that you must and can afford to influence, with a reasonably high probability of success.  Then you target your messaging specifically for that audience, and in so doing, you will also reach the audiences above it. 

Most importantly, if you target a segment larger than your means will allow, with reasonable probability, then you will both throw your marketing budget away and fail in your efforts.  Think of it as pouring a glass of ice cold water into an ocean to change its temperature, although that may be overstating it a bit.  The only exception is to implement a grass roots branding campaign, in which you employ a segment to influence a larger segment further down the pyramid. 

Grass Roots versus Mass Marketing

There are three main reasons for utilizing a grass roots branding strategy versus a mass marketing one, 1) for budgetary reasons, i.e. you can’t afford to reach the target audience, 2) the change in perception you are trying to bring about is so great that word of mouth is required to convince people and mass marketing will simply not be effective, or 3) the concept or product you are introducing is so new or unique that, again, word of mouth is required and mass marketing will not be effective. 

So the first step in making this decision is to decide if you fit into any of the three categories above.  The first one is pretty self explanatory.  As for the second and third, this concept is nothing new and is pretty widely accepted, but here are some examples.

Mass marketing alone would not enable Martha Stewart, WorldCom or Enron to recover from their PR disasters.  The magnitude of the distrust in the brands is just too great.  However, once appropriate changes are made to ensure that the company is on the straight and narrow, a consistent and comprehensive program of meeting with key influencers – like analysts, institutional investors and the media – could eventually restore trust and confidence.      

Likewise, no amount of mass marketing could have convinced the American public that it is cooler to own a Harley than one of the many, seemingly superior, oversees brands that were flooding the market.  Harley Davidson’s rise in market share, against the trend, was the result of a highly successful, methodical and carefully managed grass roots marketing effort. 

Are You Like Coke or Proctor and Gamble?

Coca Cola, Mercedes and Federal Express are huge companies with equally huge marketing budgets, but each of these companies has one thing in common: they each have only one, significant brand.  And then there are companies like Proctor and Gamble that are known more for their individual product brands than that of the mother company.  To further confuse matters, there are companies with equally strong corporate and product brands, like Intel and its Pentium product line, as well as Microsoft and Windows.       

The decision of whether to have one, strong corporate brand, or multiple product brands, or something in between, is one of the more important choices in developing branding strategy.  There are a number of factors to consider in developing a first approximation to this somewhat complex issue.   

First of all – and this is not obvious to everyone – the fewer the brands, the more efficient your brand management efforts will be.  This is simply because it takes a certain amount of budget and customer mindshare to establish a specific brand image, and the fewer you have to manage, the higher the probability that you will achieve your branding goals.  In general, companies tend to attempt more brands than they should, as opposed to the other way around.    

On the other hand, there are circumstances when having multiple product brands makes sense.  Companies that are relatively fragmented, with decentralized operations and diverse product lines, are candidates for a multiple brand strategy.  And if your budget is big enough, as in the case of Intel and Microsoft, having both a strong corporate and product brand is certainly reasonable.  Coca Cola managed to keep their corporate and product brands virtually identical – unless you consider Coke to be a separate brand – which is a neat trick if you can pull it off.

In general, the rule of thumb is to have as few brands as possible and ensure that multiple brands are justified.  In the case of multiple brands, a brand hierarchy should be developed to ensure the interrelations of the brands are clearly understood and managed consistently.  As in the case of Intel, for example, the company name is the master brand, while the primary product brands are Pentium, Celeron, Itanium, Xeon and Centrino.  The Pentium has various sub-brands of its own, such as Pentium-M and Pentium IV, as well.  This is the result of a carefully thought-out brand management strategy designed to maximize the brand equity of long-term brand names – like Intel and Pentium – while allowing for strategic market and pricing segmentation.           

There are certainly circumstances when product and corporate brands are intentionally separated.  For example, extremely negative PR on the part of the mother company, such as the case with Philip Morris, WorldCom or Martha Stewart, may necessitate such action.  However, these cases are certainly rare.

Co-Branding

For semiconductor and other “ingredient technology” companies, co-branding is another option that may be explored, albeit with caution.  The tradeoffs associated with this brand management concept are covered in detail in the January issue of Invisor Insights.

As you’re probably aware, there are books written on the subject of strategic brand management; in my opinion, the basic concepts can be learned rather quickly, so the ROI from reading entire books is not necessarily high.  Moreover, while the steps I’ve outlined above provide a practical guide to deriving a high-level branding strategy, including some of the more important tradeoffs, the key to building brand equity lies in consistent and well-orchestrated execution over time. You can have the best brand strategy on the planet, but if you don’t manage it for the long-term you many find yourself back where you started. Certainly, as high-tech continues to evolve from its hobbyist and academic roots to a more mature industry, brand management strategy, and its execution, will continue to increase in priority as a critical means for driving long-term shareholder value.

Back to top

Invisor Insights – a monthly letter – provides direct perspective and analysis on issues critical to high-tech industry leaders.

Coming in the August Issue of Invisor Insights:

• Crisis Management - Walking the Tightwire
•  Is Your Company Going Through a Corporate Transition?
• Tobak's Great Wine for Techies - Miracle Meritages and The Truth About Wine Ratings

The Anatomy of Corporate Turnarounds

When it comes to bad news, the only thing more surprising than how quickly investors forget is how long customers remember.  It’s true.  Wall Street and VCs are happy as long as you hit your numbers.  Miss earnings expectations once and they slaughter you.  Get back on track for a few quarters, it’s like nothing ever happened.  Customers are quite another story.  Screwing up with a customer is a very big deal these days.  Sure, you’ll get a chance to recover, but fail at that, and you can kiss your place on the approved vendor list goodbye … maybe for years.   

Why am I telling you this?  Because, too many people think turning around or repositioning a company is all about perception.  Unfortunately, it isn’t; that would be too easy.  Most companies that think they have a perception problem actually have something completely different – a reality problem. That’s what makes turnarounds so hard.  First you have to convince the management team they have a problem.  Then, after they try to solve it for themselves and fail a few times, you have to get them to cough up budget they don’t have to hire someone to fix it.  Then, after the company is executing for a few quarters, you can get investors back on board.  Even then you’ve still got to jump through hoops to bring customers back, especially the big ones. 

Almost makes you want to never screw up, doesn’t it?  I wish it could be that easy.  Unfortunately, companies are always getting into trouble.  It’s the nature of the highly competitive and dynamic tech industry.  And if a company gets into enough trouble and digs itself a deep enough hole, it can wake up one day to find itself in need of a turnaround.  There’s a positive side to turnarounds; it’s a great time to join a company – in terms of stock option price – if the turnaround’s successful, that is.  And people write books about great turnarounds.  Everyone likes a good rags-to-riches story, but nothing beats a rags-to-riches-to-rags and then back to riches story.  

Call it what you want – corporate troubleshooter, turnaround specialist or problem solver – there’s more method to the madness than you think.  In fact, it’s a lot like practicing medicine; things always get worse before they get better, the condition is sometimes hard to diagnose, sometimes the condition requires surgery, sometimes there are complications, and sometimes the patient doesn’t make it.   

Where Does it Hurt?

The first step in a corporate turnaround is to obtain a diagnosis.  Doctor’s don’t prescribe medication and surgeons don’t cut without one.  You’ve got to find out what went wrong.  And that doesn’t mean just sitting down with the CEO, the executive management team and the board.  That would be like diagnosing an internal injury by looking at the patient’s exterior.  You’ve got to dig deeper and research broader than that; you’ve got to turn over every rock and find out where the bones are really buried.  And there will inevitably be sacred cows that will need to be revealed for what they are, as well.  To do that, you have to research employees, customers, partners, competitors and analysts.  And that research has to be confidential, or you won’t get the real story.  Only then can you develop a realistic picture of the company.  With all that perspective, it only takes a reasonable amount of analysis to determine what the issues are and develop recommendations to resolve them.     

Critical Condition

At that point, when you’ve worked with all the players for a while, it’s safe to determine who the key players are going to be, going forward.  It’s not automatically the existing executive management team, nor is it wise to just can the CEO; quick fixes like that are bound to get you into trouble.  You’ve got to methodically separate those who can be part of the solution from those that are part of the problem.  It’s a lot easier if you can surgically remove the problem players up front, but that’s not always possible.  If they’re too embedded in the organization, then the restructuring process has to be designed to bring their weaknesses and issues to the forefront and ultimately, weed them out.  This is tricky, but very doable if you know how. 

Once you’ve assembled your restructuring team, you essentially bring them into the fold on your discovery process, sharing the good, the bad, the ugly, and of course, your recommendations to cure the company of its ills.  It helps if you use both quantitative and qualitative sources of data in presenting your findings.  You have to appeal to both the left and right brain members of the team.  If you think you’ll meet considerable resistance, then you might want to share your more controversial findings and recommendations with a couple of members of the team one-on-one, to create some allies before you go up in front of the group.  It will be easier to drive the group to consensus then.  I call that method “circling the wagons”. 

After you share your findings and recommendations with the group, of course, you’ll get some feedback, which you may or may not agree with.  In addition to gaining allies one-on-one, another trick that will help you to drive a diverse, senior level and opinionated group to consensus is to tell them that, while you’re very interested in their feedback, you’re the expert and you are not obligated to accept it.  You will listen, think it over and then inform them of your plan.  It may take you a while to convince them that your plan is the right one, but as long as you can get them to accept the ground rules, you’ve won a major battle.

Going Under the Knife

There are obviously situations where emergency measures are required, such as if the company is burning cash too fast and there’s insolvency risk.  In cases such as that, you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do.  Barring those circumstances, restructuring plans should include both bottom line and top line considerations, and a time factor for implementing them.  Restructuring plans too often focus only on the bottom line and then deal with top-line growth later.  That’s like prescribing medicine or surgery that’s itself dangerous to the patient and saying you’ll deal with that later.  Sure, it may come to that, but only in extreme cases.  In most cases, it is possible and advisable to develop a revenue plan simultaneously with the budget plan.  After all, they are inextricably linked, are they not?

The best way to develop a single operating plan that addresses both bottom and top lines is to have the businesses develop a prioritized, bottoms-up revenue and budget plan, going forward.  Then finance overlays an effective financial model on top, which provides zero-based-budget (ZBB) guidelines to the businesses.  The restructuring team judges the businesses prioritization, and projects above the ZBB line get funded, while those below the line do not.  At times, entire project teams can be eliminated in this manner, while certain resources can be redeployed on higher priority projects.  

It’s then very important to ensure the ongoing management team and businesses are aligned with respect to the new operating goals, both in terms of revenue targets and expense management.  Moreover, the entire organization should be aligned with respect to goals and performance metrics.  It helps if a compelling top-line strategy for the company is communicated along with the news of bottom-line cuts.  People have a much easier time digesting cuts if they know there’s a light at the end of the tunnel they can work hard towards.  Effective communication goes a long way to ensuring folks actually support the restructuring plan, as opposed to resisting it.

Anatomy of a Successful Turnaround

One of the better high-tech turnarounds to be executed in recent years was On Semiconductor.  The company was spun off from Motorola and recapitalized by Texas Pacific Group in 1999.  After a successful IPO at the peak of the bubble in 2000, the company found itself in hot water – or red ink – when the bubble burst. 

The board acted decisively, planning and executing a multi-year restructuring plan that included a comprehensive profitability-enhancement program – another name for plant closures and major op-ex and cap-ex cuts – executive changes and debt refinancing.  In addition, the company refocused its efforts on high-margin, growing lines of business, like power and data management, while securing ongoing contracts with major customers and support from major distributors.  As a result of these decisive and comprehensive actions, the company has returned to operating profitability and positive cash-flow.    

As a final consideration, keep in mind that restructuring a company is much less about the what, but more about the why and how.  What that means is it’s easy to determine what will seemingly help a company return to solvency and/or improved financial performance.  What’s hard is to understand why the company ended up in its current state, and determine how the restructuring should be implemented, in terms of specific execution plans and timelines.  Only a fully informed diagnosis and treatment plan will ensure the company returns to sustained financial performance.  By acting prematurely, you may think you’re making progress, but in the end, you may lose the patient. 

Back to top

Tobak's Great Wine for Techies

The following story is a reprint from our January issue. Watch for a new installment of Tobak's Great Wine for Techies in our next issue.

One day I got to thinking, why is it that folks are always asking me to recommend wines and wineries to them and asking me stuff like, “what was that Chardonnay we had the other night?” after a business dinner?  Well, I know that wine is hot, that Silicon Valley is close to the wine country, and that lots of folks want to be at least knowledgeable enough to order wine at a dinner meeting or a dinner party.  I also know that wine is pretty complicated stuff for beginners, and that most folks don’t even know where to start.

So, whether you’re into wine and are looking for some excellent recommendations or you’re a beginner looking for a place to start, welcome to my column.  My focus is to boil things down for you and try to simplify a very complex subject.  So don’t expect to get every last detail, just what I think are the most important things to know to help you to be somewhat conversant and capable of ordering and buying some really great wine at reasonable prices.  And just like in my consulting business, I share your perspective, being one of you – a techie, as opposed to one of them – a wine industry person.  So what qualifies me to write this column?  Well, I just happen to have a wife who studied culinary arts and turned me on to the wonderful world of wine.  After that, it just bit me like a bug.  Now I just do what I love to do, collect and drink great wine.  I hope my passion with wine helps to enrich your life, but most importantly, remember to have fun with it.  And, of course, let me know what you think.  I’d love to hear what you like and what you’d like to see in the future and we’ll see where this thing goes.  So, let’s get started.

Making Sense out of Wine Naming Conventions

One of the great mysteries of wine – adding to the overall complexity of the genre – is the lack of a worldwide naming convention.  It’s bad enough that French, Italian and English are different languages, but these three major wine-producing nations don’t even name their wines the same way.  We’ll start with a quick overview that will hopefully simplify the whole mess and at least help you begin to make sense of it all.  Then we’ll discuss the relation between the names of wines made in France and those made in the US.  We’ll get to Italy next month.

Okay, first let’s split the wine world in half; there are old world wines and new world wines.  Old world wines include those made in Europe, while new world wines include those produced in the US, Australia and South America.  Now, this is important.  In general, old world wines are named after places – like wine growing regions – and new world wines are named after grape varietals – like Chardonnay and Cabernet Sauvignon.  For example, French Burgundy wines are typically only made from two grapes: the whites are primarily Chardonnay and the reds are made from Pinot Noir grapes.  Very simple.  You can travel through the entire Burgundy region of France and those are pretty much the only two varietals the wineries make.  But the one thing you’ll almost never find on a bottle of old world wine is the name of the grape.  What you will find – in Burgundy for example – is the actual appellation or place where the wine is grown, such as Nuits-St-Georges or Morey-St-Denise.  So if you buy an American Pinot Noir, it’s the same grape as a red Burgundy.  Same goes for Chardonnay and white Burgundy.  Different styles, perhaps, but the same grape. 

Now to finish off the grapes of France so you can relate them to their new world or US counterparts: Bordeaux are the most widely produced wines in the world.  Red Bordeaux wines are primarily made of Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot and Cabernet Franc grapes, and to a lesser extent Malbec and Petit Verdot.  White Bordeaux wines are principally made of Semillon and Sauvignon Blanc.  So if you grow up in Burgundy, you’re not really exposed to Cabernet Sauvignon, and if you grow up in Bordeaux, there’s little Chardonnay to be found.  Much different than in the US. 

In the vast Rhone region of France, where blending of grapes is the rule, many different grapes are used.  Red Rhone wines are principally made of Grenache, Syrah ( sometimes called Shiraz, especially in Australia), Mourvedre and Cinsaut, although at least eight other varietals may be used in small amounts.  The Rhone whites are typically made of Viognier, Marsanne and Roussanne.  The Alsace region – where white wines are predominant – uses Riesling, Gewurztraminer, Muscat, Pinot Gris (also called Pinot Grigio in Italy) and Pinot Blanc grapes.  Alsace’s only major red grape is Pinot Noir, which is used primarily in Rosé wines.  In addition to the grape varietals already mentioned, Gamay and Chenin Blanc are used along with Sauvignon Blanc extensively in the Loire Valley, a kind of melting pot, like California.

Focus on American Whites

Red wine bigots, listen up.  White wine goes better with lots of foods, is cooler in the summer, and – for the most part – does as much good for your heart as red wine.  In fact, a business associate who grew up in a town in Bordeaux told me they typically ate heavier foods and drank red wines in the cold months, consuming lighter foods and chilled whites and Rosés in the summer months.  So try to open up your mind to something new and, the next time you’re eating fish, chicken, spicy Asian cuisine, salad, vegetarian food, or pasta in a light sauce, go white.  There is such a thing as certain wines pairing well with certain foods.  After all, you wouldn’t drink a coke with a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, would you? 

Here’s a brief overview of whites you’re likely to see in the US:

Chardonnay: the king of white wines. Robust, long-lived, fruity and versatile.  Pair with shellfish, fish steaks and white meats or pastas in white sauces, or drink alone.  Can benefit from 2 – 3 years aging and some can last much longer.

Fine examples: Kistler makes the best (but expensive and hard to find), Ridge (see winery focus below), Newton unfiltered, Saintsbury, Au Bon Climat, Merryvale, Matanzas Creek, Ferrari-Carano.

Sauvignon Blanc: sharp and citrusy, drink young or age 4 or 5 years (I know it sounds strange, but it works). Drink with light appetizers, seafood, cheese.

Fine examples: Matanzas Creek, Rochioli, Simi Sendal (blend with Semillon), Flora Springs Soliloquy.

Pinot Gris or Grigio: rich, mineraly and acidic.  Drink with pasta, pizza, pork.

Fine examples: Etude Pinot Gris, Archery Summit Vireton (Pinot Gris blend). Lots of good Pinot Gris’ come from Oregon.

Pinot Blanc or Chenin Blanc: Light and versatile, a good alternative to Chardonnay. Drink with salads, light vegetarian, fish, or pasta dishes. 

Fine examples: Chalone Pinot Blanc and Chenin Blanc, Qupe Pinot Blanc / Pinot Gris blend.

Gewurztraminer or Riesling: even the dry ones are a little on the sweet side and Gewurzt is also spicy.  Pairs great with spicy Asian food or drink Riesling as an aperitif.

Fine examples: Lazy Creek makes the best Gewurztraminer, also Navarro Gewurzt and Rieslings, Bonny Doon Rieslings.  The best examples come from the Anderson Valley.

Vionier, Marsannne or Rousanne: great alternative to chardonnay.  The best examples are rich and floral.  Drink young, as an aperitif or with light French food.

Fine examples: Calera makes the best Viognier, also Treanna white (it’s a blend), Jade Mountain Viognier, Qupe makes a good Marsanne blend.

Tobak’s Monthly Picks

Wines (all US reds, this time)

Simi Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon.  A great, classic cab from the Alexander Valley.  There are awesome bargains available on both the ’99 and ’98 vintages.  They list at $70, but you can find them as low as the upper $30s, if you know where to look.  If you want to pay a little less, try Stonestreet’s Cab in the $20s.

Matanzas Creek Merlot. Perennially one of the best Merlots around, available in the mid-$20s.

Archery Summit Pinot Noir – Premier Cuvee.  One of Oregon’s premier pinot houses – all their pinots are great – but the Cuvee is also reasonably priced in the mid-$30s.  Their estate wines are in the $60s and $70s if you really want to go for it.  Also great but more reasonably priced, try Saintsbury’s Carneros Pinot, available in the $20s, or their Garnet Pinot – in the teens, or their awesome reserve in the upper $30s.

 Jade Mountain Syrah.  Hard to find but worth it and a great alternative to Cabs and Merlots.  Buy the Napa version in the mid-$20s, the Paras Vineyard at twice the price, but worth it.

Winery

Ridge Winery, Cuptertino, California.  Okay, here’s a quiz question: what was the first wine appellation in California?  If you said Napa or Sonoma, you’d be wrong.  The answer is the Santa Cruz Mountains.  Guess those loggers had to drink something besides beer.  Anyway, to those in the know, Ridge is one of the greatest wineries in California.  Just as important, they make a lot of wine, so you can actually find it if you know where to look.  And their prices are reasonable.  They make arguably the finest Cabernet Sauvignon in California and certainly some of the best Zinfandels and Chardonnays, as well.  They have an excellent website, two great wine clubs (check out the ATP club … very cool concept) and you can visit and taste their wines at either their Santa Cruz Mountains location off the 280 in Cupertino or at their beautiful knew tasting room in Healdsburg in Sonoma County. www.ridgewine.com

Merchant

K&L Wine Merchants .  Absolutely the best place to buy great wines at the best prices on-line.  Also, if it’s convenient, one of the more fun brick and mortar places to shop. The staff is actually knowledgeable and helpful. www.klwines.com

Resources

Clarke & Spurrier’s Fine Wine Guide – A Connoisseur’s Bible, Oz Clarke and Steven Spurrier, Harcourt Brace & Company, 1998.  This wonderful book has been one of my primary resources since its printing in 1998.  It’s a little dated, but as a starting point for someone who wants to drink only good wine and is willing to spend a little to do it, it will help you filter out 95% of the pack and just focus on the good stuff.  The book’s relatively small and therefore usable, and it doesn’t try to rate every single wine / vintage ever made … only the good ones.

Wine-searcher.com.  The best search engine for the best prices on hard-to-find wines.

Back to top

Steve Tobak
Partner, Invisor Consulting
Steve Tobak is a twenty-three year veteran of the tech industry and a founding partner of Invisor Consulting. His commentary is direct and he appreciates your equally direct feedback. He can be reached at stobak@invisor.net.

Subscribe
If you would like to receive Invisor Insights, click subscribe.

Unsubscribe
If you would like to stop receiving Invisor Insights, please reply to this email with the word Unsubscribe in the subject line.

Feedback
We welcome your comments and feedback. Please email us at feedback.

Privacy Policy
The Invisor Insights email list is strictly private and is never shared with anyone.