Why 'principal-based' media is bad for the Advertising Industry

?

This week sees the annual Global Marketer Week from the World Federation of Advertisers, held in Toronto this year.

Although the WFA is known for its big global advertiser members, it also acts as a collective association for its national constituents worldwide, such as ISBA and the ANA, so its annual conference is a good place to assess the true health of the advertising industry worldwide.

As noted in my column last month , there is a lot to feel good about. Advertising spend is booming, it is still a key business growth driver and it funds the majority of news, entertainment, culture and sport worldwide. It has enabled vast amounts of free content to enrich people’s lives. At best it contributes to culture and nurtures it (for nostalgic older UK readers this is the ‘Nice One, Cyril’ effect).

It even maintains the Arts with many an out-of-work actor, for example, surviving on voiceover work (although AI threatens this).?

All of this, of course, comes at a price. Advertising has also helped fund some of the worst aspects of human life, playing fast and loose with people’s privacy and propagating hatred and harm. Ad fraud is probably one of the biggest global crimes; it’s drug money without the guns and the risk of being caught.

Advertising pays for user-generated platforms that are unregulated, uncontrolled and unaccountable and which are exploited mercilessly and recklessly by governments, political parties, pressure groups and extremists of every kind.

There is also far too much advertising , much of it worthless, lots that alienates the public and much that is simply there just to make the wrong people wealthy.

So a lot is at stake and the WFA has a full agenda as usual in trying to emphasize the positives and addressing the negatives.

The role of the WFA and the national associations is to represent the best interests of their members and they do this on multiple dimensions through such great initiatives as the Global Alliance for Responsible Media.?

These interests should include the propagation of a healthy advertising industry, providing the services and resources that make advertising effective while providing employment for hundreds of thousands of people.

They need an industry where the advertisers and the media gain from successful advertising in a mutually beneficial relationship.

The various intermediaries involved, including agencies and ad tech, should be rewarded proportionately for facilitating this exchange and increasing the monetary returns for advertisers, and by implication themselves, by enabling success.

In former times the supply-chain was short and the Media Agencies strove to make the clients’ money work as hard as possible. The media owners did their bit and cross-industry consensus on mutual needs such as measurement oiled the wheels.

Now the multifarious intermediaries take an increasingly huge chunk out of the advertising budget and this reduces ‘working media’ and therefore advertising effectiveness.

Many intermediaries no longer act as enablers of advertiser and media owner success but instead exploit their position in the supply-chain to extract as much profit for themselves as possible.

The new supply-chain includes Media Agencies, Adtech providers, Data, Research and Analytics companies and the myriad of smaller fish who swim alongside and feed off the whales. It’s a lot of mouths to feed and only one caterer.

Advertisers are often unaware of the full extent of the businesses involved in the provision of their services and blissfully unaware of how much money they’re making out of the client’s dollar. The business models underlying today’s advertising eco-system are buried deep.?

The balance has tipped over from being demand-led to supplier-driven; the big Media Agency groups have become part of the supply-side, selling so-called ‘products’ to their clients at inflated and undisclosed prices.

Estimates vary, but it is likely that non-transparent sources of Media Agency revenue are now the principal funding mechanism for the network media agencies, accounting for some two thirds to three quarters of their revenue. These revenues come in many guises and these increase and morph continuously in line with the ingenuity of the people who pull the levers.?

Media Agencies worldwide now deal with thousands of other intermediaries and control the access to clients, so it’s ‘pay to play’. They are able to make or break other businesses that need client cash, and they can and do dictate their own terms.

Making money in this way compensates for the tedious, laborious and often unsuccessful process of having to pitch and win new business on terms that make their problems worse.

With such a reliance on the money derived from supply-chains, the priorities for the network Media Agencies have changed. They now have new bosses.

One vital and increasing source of these revenues is ‘Proprietary Media’ (aka ‘Inventory Media’ or ‘Principal-Based’ media). It is common to all network Media Agencies and some independents in some countries.

For ease of reference let’s talk about ‘PM’ as shorthand for ‘Proprietary Media’.

For the few uninitiated, PM is the process whereby Media Agencies re-sell media to their clients at a price that is higher than they pay for it themselves. It is broking by any other name.

In the US, where Media Agencies normally act as agents of their clients and therefore have a fiduciary duty to only ever act in their clients’ best interests, they act on a ‘principal’ basis when collectively trading PM and therefore no longer have such a duty and are acting in their own interests, supposedly at their own risk.

Their ’principal-based’ interests may not (and often can’t) coincide with their clients’ own requirements. The risk for the agencies is negligible to non-existent given how much the big groups control the market and with so many levers to pull.

Although PM alleviates the problem of having to win business legitimately, the pitch tendering process is of extreme importance; agencies will low-ball fees and media costs to win because they can make money on the money via the total ‘extraction rate’ from the client’s business. It keeps the engine stoked up.

This is akin to the printer cartridge and razor markets, where the initial costs are low but the add-ons are high. It’s not a good look when a professional services industry acts in this way, but that is the reality.

It’s also a gamble by the agencies on being able to word the client/agency contract in ways that prevent detection of the many extra sources of revenue and gaming the audit process (performance and compliance). Things are rarely black and white these days.

The older non-transparent services were hidden behind the scenes, but now the client-facing Media Agencies have to go out on the thinnest of limbs at the behest of the guys behind the curtain, re-selling PM and maintaining the pretence that it is the best thing since sliced bread.

A new study published today by the ANA delves deeply into the PM phenomenon. As usual the ANA have done a great job; it’s thorough, accurate and well-researched. The conclusions are precisely right and the recommendations strong.

The basic tl;dr is that advertisers may choose to use PM for some logical reasons but they should include in their agency contracts a laundry list of caveats over the extent of PM, how it is identified on plans and in buying reports, with stringent governance on how it is justified and approved.

Leaving aside the ethics of whether Media Agencies should ever re-sell media to their clients, the reality is that they do; the ANA study examines this and even quotes examples of clients who have used PM to their satisfaction.

The laundry list of caveats is both extensive and granular. However, we know from experience that the intricate process of policing PM on a daily basis can mean that the highly sensible recommendations in the ANA study can get overlooked (ie ignored) in the trench warfare of daily life, its pressures and deadlines, especially on international contracts where the other countries may either not know of the contract’s terms or just ignore them.

Often the Media Agencies’ central teams don’t know what is happening in their own further-flung outposts and unless they employ internal compliance teams, they can’t. And these teams are expensive, so they need more revenue to fund them (but not from client sources).

Often advertisers don’t even know that they are using PM. The ANA’s sample of 121advertisers contains 18% who don’t know if they are or aren’t. That’s 22 clients who need some serious help.

The number who are (47%) outnumbers those who aren’t (35%).

Of those who are, 38% have no guidelines at all on the use of PM, so theoretically the Media Agencies could use as much as they like. Coincidentally that’s another 22 clients who need help.

Sometimes advertisers only find out a year or more after the event that they had been unknowingly using PM and then find out that they are prevented from auditing the money-trail as much as they had planned and their agency has been making extra money they didn’t know about.

Some advertisers who have agreed to a limited amount of PM find that the limit agreed has been significantly exceeded. It’s never less.

Tight governance takes specialist expertise and the ANA, among others, have long advocated the recruitment of the right kind of people within the client organisation to ensure it. Hard-pressed Procurement people don’t have the bandwith nor often the experience to do this?

Disclosure time: one of the independent consultants who gave their time voluntarily to the report is Media Marketing Compliance (MMC), for whom I am the Non-Executive Chairman. So read into this what you will, but the MMC team observe many infringements of contractually agreed PM protocols.

The agencies prefer to apologise later than seek permission before. So while the ANA’ s guidelines are perfectly sensible, compliance with them cannot be taken for granted.

What is clear is that 47% of the ANA’s members included in this survey have ‘opted in’ to PM and thereby have surrendered their right to knowing how much their agencies have profited from it.

It is hard to know how they can take an informed view of agency compensation without sight of the amount of money their chosen agency makes from them. Some choose to turn a blind eye because they don’t mind the agency making more to counterbalance the crazily low fee rates that Procurement ?‘forced’ the agency to voluntarily offer (not my words).

Sometimes it’s just easier to let things slide.

The ANA report shows that a minority of advertisers (21%) consider PM to be an important part of their media activities, and there are case studies from advertisers who have used it to their apparent advantage. While it may only be important to 1 in 5 advertisers, virtually all will be urged to use it unless they have already decided not to.

Notably, the 38% of sampled members who don’t use PM will include advertisers who used it before and stopped. This will include a significant number who take the view that their Media Agencies really shouldn’t be doing this kind of thing and hard-won transparency is important. Or the apparent benefits are not as billed.

However, even if PM has been used to the ostensible satisfaction of some advertisers, it is inherently not a positive contributor to the advertising industry. In fact, it’s very bad for it.

The Media Agencies promote PM as the answer to a maiden’s prayer; the inventory you would have bought anyway at lower prices and sometimes commission-free. What’s not to like?

The stated rationale is that the Media Agency buying group has flexed its unrivalled negotiation power and prowess to secure highly discounted rates that can only be achieved when the agency group guarantees to the media vendor that they will pay for the inventory anyway, whether or not their clients use it.

Sometimes this includes access to some inventory that allegedly can only be secured through PM. This may strike some as, er, rather odd. Surely the media vendors wouldn’t make some of their best properties only available to clients of network media agencies who ‘opt in’ to PM, would they?

You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out that Media Agency groups would never really do any of this. There is no value to any agency to hold unwanted inventory and they have many ways to avoid having to pay upfront or even after the event.

Equally, you don’t need similar detective powers to work out that it is in the interests of the Media Agencies to promote PM to their clients because it makes them more money, and they have quotas to meet set by the Agency group; they may even be incentivised to meet those quotas and, possibly, sanctioned if they don’t.

One unnamed contributor to the ANA study rightly says “I don’t know if my agency is recommending principal media because it’s the best media for me, or the best media for them.” I suspect on balance we know the answer to that question.

PM is only one of many non-transparent practices but it is the worst. Unlike the others, it purports to be in the advertisers’ interests and is positioned as a fair trade-off between lower media costs and loss of back-end transparency.

Now, call me old-fashioned, but I would have thought that an advertiser’s Media Agency should be able to buy hyper-competitively without having to resort to shady practices and loss of clarity on how much money the agency is making behind the curtain.

I would also have thought that advertisers shouldn’t have to turn their bullshit detectors to ‘high’ when reviewing media plans or arguing the toss over contract clauses a year after the airtime has gone out.

And I would not expect clients to have to count their fingers after they’ve shaken hands with their agency, play ‘Where’s Wally?’ (or ‘Waldo for US audiences) when negotiating contracts and being forced to make tough choices on what to do when the agencies place obstacles in auditors’ paths.

There is only one kind of transparency, and being ‘transparent about being untransparent’ isn’t it.

PM is the tip of the iceberg and only one of many non-transparent practices that are simply bad for advertisers, the media and ultimately the agencies and their supply-chains, too.

Why so?

Firstly, they legitimise and perpetuate a business model that artificially sustains the unhealthily oligopolistic nature of today’s advertising industry.

The market for advertising services is dysfunctional. There is a limited number of multi-national players (six), so choice for advertisers is restricted if they want international coverage with well-resourced offices and the right people, capabilities, systems and processes (-ish)?

All six players work in a very similar way, employing techniques that they mimic from each other, often transmitted by people leaving one group to go to another, taking their toolbox with them.

Sadly, some of the less appealing characteristics of the non-transparent trading model have been exported to the US from the UK, much as our language and the Bible were. Other such imports included disease, of which this is one.?

Network choice is limited but the six are insanely competitive with each other. Pitching is vicious, with rounds of increasingly insane offers on media cost guarantees that are not available without chicanery. Fee rates are set below cost because the agencies hope that the difference can be made up elsewhere (and this is normally unknown at the point of appointment). The horse-trading over precise contractual terms usually happens too late.

This oligopoly operates in a merry-go-round of client moves, with the general thrust of cost reduction as a main (if illusory) outcome. It has made pitch management a nice earner for some, with the dreaded and increasingly irrelevant media cost grids making the problem worse.

We are living in a spreadsheet world where the ‘dark arts’ of media horse-trading fabricate money for agencies, replacing the rather quaint art of advertising. The focus is on spending money, not generating profit for advertisers.

This circular firing squad has not only famously commoditised media, it has helped sustain a business model that is more than just a race to the bottom.

It means that network Media Agencies ‘plan the buy’ rather than ‘buy the plan’ and prioritise media channels and other intermediaries (including Out-of-Home specialists and ad tech companies) with whom they have a financial reward mechanism.

Not being on the ‘Preferred Supplier List’ is the velvet rope at the cool nightclub.

So it’s not just the planning that gets distorted, it’s also how the plan is executed. No matter that another DSP can do a better job.

It invites the advertiser to take the short-term benefits of lower cost media at the expense of the kind of transparency that delivers a trusting relationship. It relies on the client turning a blind eye in the interests of a quick win.

By reducing the transparency that advertisers have over their budgets it consolidates what Travis Lusk of Ebiquity accurately describes as the agencies’ hold over the effectiveness of media spend through taking a principal position on the media and its measurement.

No doubt there are agency voices that would say that in this instance it is better to earn more revenue from clients than from the agency’s supply-chains, but this is tantamount to saying that it is better to rob a bank than mug the bank’s customers.

Non-transparent ?revenues artificially prop up the Holding Company profits and at an unrealistically high margin. The ANA study describes well the background to why non-transparent revenues matter so much to the Holding Companies.

This is why the investment community like Proprietary Media so much and either don’t understand its consequences or only care about a quick fix before swapping their funds into something else.

The additional profits generated by non-transparent media trading do not benefit the Media Agencies actually doing the work. The revenues flow up, eventually, to the Holding Company and only a fraction (‘earned’ by achieving a quota) remains with the client-facing agency.

The people doing the work are having to do more with less. The demands from clients have multiplied, the speed of response required has accelerated, the amount of systems and data has mushroomed…you know the picture.

Pitches get harder, more aggressive and demanding and the immediate benefits are not enough on their own, given that the big money gets made later behind the scenes and this doesn’t help the pitching agency.

It was always difficult for the client-facing agencies to explain why Out-of-Home (a notorious source of rebates) or certain media vehicles appeared incongruously on the plan; with PM, this problem is reduced (but not eliminated) and is replaced by the need to explain why PM is on the plan, often unheralded at pitch stage. As it dressed up as being in the client’s interests, it is easier to justify but it strains the agency’s credibility.

The people who are having to plan, buy, activate, report, measure do the paperwork and pitch are often paid less now than they were many years ago. Starting salaries at Media Agencies have stagnated since 2005 (not a typo), increases are meagre, bonuses less common and benefits tighter.

Newly qualified staff at law firms now start at ￡150,000 per annum or more. Yes, you need a law degree but other sectors also recognise the importance of human capital more than Advertising does, or can.

If you want to work in ‘Advertising’ and earn well, there’s always Google where your starting salary is 2x. Ping pong tables aren’t enough to make the difference in favour of agencies.

Pay in agencies has hit a plateau, costs are up, and these days you have to work from your parents’ spare bedroom and socialising is rarer (to the benefit of Tinder). Rent swallows up your take-home pay and getting on the housing ladder is usually a matter of how lucky people were when born.

We have a mental health issue in our industry which could be alleviated if people worked less and were paid better.

We have a DE&I issue in our industry which could be improved if we could pay the less privileged but talented young people of Bradford or Birmingham enough money to afford to rent in London or Manchester. They can’t live at home with their parents, so agencies are more likely to recruit people from the commuter belts around London and Manchester, essentially fishing in the same pond (not lake).

We would all like Media Agencies to move upstream and reflect the new needs of the client, as described by Ailsa Buckley in yesterday’s The Media Leader, but this can only happen with a different business model that legitimately funds the recruitment of highly skilled specialists.

But these are industry-level problems and they cannot be solved if too much of the additional revenue goes into subsidising Holding Company profits given their dominance of the global industry.

It’s hard to see how any of this is in the longer-term interests of the agencies themselves; they will struggle to retain and recruit people and the more highly-qualified will be able to choose better places to start.

It could also be argued that PM is also not beneficial to the media owners and vendors.

A pause here to warn you that reading further will take you into some of the darker recesses of how our industry really works, some of it familiar, parts less so. Unfortunately this subject is sufficiently complicated to resist easy soundbites, so be prepared for plenty more nuance and subtlety.

The ANA study shows that TV is the medium that is most affected by PM trading. Some of the roots of PM can be tracked back to the ‘Programme Finance’ schemes that emerged in the 2010s. These are effectively barter deals that the media Agency groups agree with TV programme makers (mainly independent production houses) and the broadcasters.

They effectively swap TV programme budgets for airtime; the Broadcaster gets money for content that saves it from having to pay for commissions; the production companies get their programmes financed; and the Media Agency groups can sell on the ad inventory at any price they choose.

Advertisers are not involved in this process and almost entirely unaware.

The quality of the programmes thus made can be subjective, but it is clearly in the interests of the Broadcasters to buy in high rating programmes that don’t cost the earth in bartered airtime, so more likely Reality TV than a documentary about Schoenberg.

The way that the money-go-round works in Programme Finance is fiendishly convoluted and not known to many. It has virtually nothing to do with advertising other than providing plenty of airtime for the Media Agencies to carve up as they see fit to subsidise their client contract deals, including performance-related fees.

The TV broadcasters may like Programme Finance up to a point but when content budgets get pulled (as they are), they may have to increasingly rely on the Media Agency traders to help fund new content, and never mind the quality, just feel the width. This could, in extremis, affect audience levels if the quality of programmes declines as a result. You can make your own judgements on the quality of today’s programming, but the Lazarus-like revival of formats from the 80s is possibly a clue.

More broadly, other media vendors are vulnerable to the kind of coercion that PM can generate. We work within an extremely unbalanced industry where an unnatural amount of ad spend goes to the biggest players, mostly digital, despite plenty of evidence that this may not be the right answer.

The big Broadcasters can find ways to absorb the effects of PM through combinations of airtime within the linear feed and now the On Demand element, and on paper it evens itself out. But others don’t have this choice.

The media vendors who are most likely to be pressurised into doing PM deals, at higher discounts, are those that have small but often valuable audiences and can’t use paywalls for subscribed content.

Often this will include minority media owners, others with high fixed cost bases due to their content costs and others who just can’t afford the attention they deserve.

The dilemma for smaller media owners and supply-chain players is how to resist the need to agree to PM and other non-transparent practices. Damned if you do….

Conversely, the big digital players don’t need to play in the same sandpit and are not beholden to the big agency groups given their scale and their long-tail customer bases. In fact, the big Media Agencies have to keep the platforms happy to remain on the right side of the velvet rope. They have no sway with them.

And let’s not forget the crucial matter of cash on cash. With the return of decent interest rates, the agencies have another lever to pull with media vendors. For those with tight working capital (ie virtually everyone other than the big digital players), this is another area of exposure. And, of course, the Media Agencies are processing vast volumes of money through their treasury systems and earning nice returns on cash preservation.

So, non-transparent media practices, and especially PM, are bad for advertisers, media owners and ultimately Media Agencies and by implication their supply-chain partners. All of these are paid for by advertisers and the more that money slips through the gaps, the less effective advertising will be.

There have of course been many attempts to stem the tide; the ANA conducted their Media Transparency study in 2016 and the K2 Intelligence part of this caused major waves. Sadly, the recommendations document that appeared one month later (which I co-wrote) was overwhelmed by the K2 firework show. A bit like being the support band that no-one listens to, only worse; it appeared after Springsteen had stolen the show and the crowd had already gone home.

The recommendations regarding PM in this week’s ANA report are almost identical to those on page 13 of the 2016 ‘Prescriptions’ document. All that has happened in the meantime is that the Media Agency groups now make a lot more money from a wider range of sources and do so in ways that have both grown more obscure and more obvious, while the volume of PM has grown exponentially.

After the 2016 revelations, cash rebates were converted into untraceable ‘value pots’ and their equivalent; these were called out in the ISBA Media Agency template contract and while there was a debate about who owed the value, the Media Agencies ramped up ‘Proprietary Media’ and the multifarious schemes that have been created in virtually all parts of the media forest and especially the darker digital parts.

The value of PM to the Holding Companies is obvious from the ANA study, and it can be positioned as an active advertiser choice. The risk is that it becomes legitimised and a normal way of working.

The agencies and their shareholders like it because it is the most lucrative of all because it uses the high volumes of TV. It may overall be lower margin than K2’s higher estimates of all non-disclosed schemes (up to 90%), although free inventory has an infinite mark-up, but it’s on bigger money.

Agencies also like it because the ‘opted in’ advertisers are not allowed to audit the mark-up on PM inventory. It‘s a useful smokescreen that clients have agreed to and it provides plenty of scope for obfuscation.

They also like the control it gives them over what TV airtime is PM and non-PM. There is plenty of million row, multi-tab Excel involved in this process that remains a firmly-guarded secret. Discounts and price can be manipulated beyond the capabilities of any Media Auditor.

Incidentally, it can also be argued that the lack of automation in the TV buying and selling business has resulted from the agency desire to manage airtime in order to maximise profit and beat the rather flat-footed media performance audit processes.

The 2016 ANA study went into a lot of detail about how PM works but there has been much less coverage since then. Meanwhile the amount of PM has grown as the additional revenue needs of the Holding Companies have also grown, especially with the declining margins in creative agencies even before the ravages of AI.

But let’s be clear. PM only exists to make Media Agency groups more money.

We can’t and shouldn’t expect individual advertisers to concern themselves too much about these matters. They are obliged to ask for great ideas, low fees, cheap media and extended payment terms and it’s not their problem if the agencies offer at least the latter three of these (the first is arguably subjective and usually discounted or free). If they get most of the above, they may choose not to insist on full transparency. Although the most assertive do.

However, the industry as a whole needs to have the debate about the longer-term consequences of non-transparent media-derived revenues.

The Global Marketer Week will no doubt discuss some of these matters and their knock-on effect on the people who work in our industry. Awareness is high within the Advertiser Associations, even if some of the consequences are less well-understood.

Some trade press coverage has helped highlight aspects of the issue but the focus on PM has the effect of distracting from the bigger picture concerning non-transparent practices, much as the furore over MFAs has masked the much bigger issues in online display.

In Toronto the WFA will no doubt discuss the inherent loss of trust that arises from Media Agencies increasingly becoming re-sellers of advertising services and ‘products’ to their clients, and the resultant conflicts of interest. In an era when the Media Agencies make a lot more money from their supply-chains than they do from clients directly, any discussion about agency compensation has to take into account the real value to an agency of client business-the ‘extraction rate’.

There are clients paying fees and commissions plus rewards based on cost-guarantee achievements that are themselves enabled by PM. So any remuneration protocols have to take this into account.

And now that interest rates are back, advertisers need to think hard as to how their payment terms affect agency compensation.

Advertisers also need to realise that low fees and pressure on media cost guarantees have contributed and even caused a lot of these problems, exacerbated by the Media Agencies’ voracious appetite for money on the money, especially with interest rates back.

Paying the right rate to the agency (not ultimately the Holding Company) for services delivered is eventually going to have to happen.

The WFA congress will also no doubt consider how clients and agencies are working in a contractual environment where the agreements are getting longer with many more provisions than before, leaving ample scope for grey areas and even white ones. Contract compliance itself is changing to cover more bases than ever with the expansion of contracts.

The loss of transparency that PM creates in itself sets a precedent and the ANA Media Services template (building on the prior work from ISBA) has expanded to accommodate the creep of non-transparent agency practices. We need more advertisers using the ISBA and ANA templates and resisting the ‘red lines’.

We continue to need the advertiser trade associations to raise these topics publicly and also to make their members aware of their role in addressing them. It’s an uphill task in the absence of support from any of the other constituents in the advertising industry advertisers can effect real change through their actions.

They can’t solve climate change but they can make a difference immediately through the ways they spend their advertising budgets.

There are sensitivities galore, relationships to preserve, restrictions on remit and many other obstacles but there is no substitute for the kind of work that the WFA, ANA, ISBA and their counterparts elsewhere carry out on advertisers’ behalf, so we should lend them our full support.

Ideally, advertisers should not permit the use of PM. The reasons why are explained at (great) length in this article. If they do include it for valid reasons they should take the new ANA study, apply it in full, monitor it microscopically and sanction any misuse?

Finally (yes, really), we shouldn’t really start from here. There are solutions to these matters but they would require a true reset in our industry. If you will forgive the plug, this document takes a purist view on how we can reverse out of the situation we’re in. It may take time, but there is little alternative.

In the? meantime, the ANA study into PM is the answer to one specific aspect; let’s hope it gets the support of advertisers and, crucially, their independent advisors even if the Media Agencies will be less keen?

And if you care about issues such as this, join our ‘Who Cares?’ initiative as detailed in Brian Jacob’s latest blog .

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?