Brand Blab

Mergers and Acquisitions – myths and reality

 

The global financial fall out has seen accelerated market consolidation as companies in survival mode play predator and prey depending on their circumstances.  The classic so-called orderly ‘migration’ strategies of companies seeking to ‘merge’ their brand equities are suddenly irrelevant when speed and opportunism are priorities. The niceties of gradual absorption or a sensitive fusion of identities and cultures are history when a fast morphing is required to maintain market share or advantages in a more brutal economic climate.

It exposes the potential hypocracy of corporate speak euphemisms blurring the fact that a more aggressive successful company has taken over a less agile, less powerful, or sometimes just unlucky competitor. The dominant party dictates the new board and subsequent staff redundancies and organisation.  That’s capitalism in the raw and tough times may at least remove the corporate deceit of proposed ‘mergers’ and their ‘spin’ in waffling about mutual gains and ‘synergies’   Taking out a competitor and grabbing their market share makes commercial logic but we do not want to be reminded of the often inevitable clash of shareholder interests over lesser ‘stakeholders’ – staff, the community, suppliers, etc.

It certainly exposes any bullshit when it comes to brand equity.  Those who still believe branding is about the name over the door must be in a dilemma if the services, process, people and offer are basically the same.  Does it matter the ‘name’ has been around for years?  Heritage is presumably about earned reputation not longevity.  On this basis any ‘new’ brand has got a problem. Woolworth’s was part of our past but not relevant for our present - that’s the reality.  Santander’s planned removal of the English icons Abbey, Alliance & Leicester and Bradford & Bingley from the UK high street is surely a totally expected logical move not a surprise.  Sure we hate cloned high streets and predictable tenant mixes in shopping centres but ultimately the harsh economic times are shaking out business that should not have been in business.  We cannot have it both ways.  Mourning shops we did not frequent is pure hypocracy.  In the end we get what we support if I understand how supply and demand works.

Obviously it is not that simple.  Shopping is satisfying lifestyle and emotions providing appropriate, interesting enriching experiences.  However, do we feel anything for banks, particularly now given their all-time low point in terms of public esteem?  Do I want an ‘experience’ or just a highly efficient process increasingly by computer with the occasional real person phone call.  Am I really going to feel worried about a Spanish name over the front door if they do what they say they will do?

We are supposed to be in an age of new honesty, transparency and straight talking as our M.P.s have now acknowledged.  The test is whether we can handle the truth unwrapped or whether we still need nice ‘packages’ and aspirational promises to make us feel better.  Lets see if honesty, trust and transparency can really drive a company’s values and behaviours. Generic values of all companies should include these basic attributes plus perhaps Stability and certainly Relevance.  Without the latter any business is doomed.A DIY brand, Ronseal’s back-to-basics ‘does what is says on the tin’ slogan is particularly apt for such times.  Direct, honest without hyperbole - a lesson for all of us I guess.

Cutting jobs and culling companies is never going to be good news for those concerned.  The realities of share price and political interests make straight talking difficult but everyone understands ‘survival’ as a strategy.

Perhaps we are now all more grown up and need less stories and myths to feel good about who we shop and bank with and whose products and services we use. But, I doubt it – as humans we want to believe what we want to hear so if the brand promise is to make me richer, younger, cleverer, more attractive and happier it maybe worth a try … and do I really care who took over who to make that happen?

 

 

Added-Added Values

Before banks discovered the true value of toxic assets, companies were all signing up to the need to embrace the ‘new values’ of sustainability and corporate social responsibility.  It was essential to show your positive green credentials and ethics as a responsible brand.

Branding is ultimately about differentiating an added value offer and we were just getting used to adding the new moral values to the more traditional emotional and perceived unique selling points as ‘added added values’ when the new ‘survival of the fittest’ era arrived post September 08.  Now we must add another level of ‘value’ – ‘real value’.

Real value was previously discussed as a cost/quality ratio – not the cheapest, but a best value perception in terms of product, service, process, environment, experience.  However anyone arguing that price is not now the main driver for most people must face a new reality in these tough times.  It seems everyone is cutting back whether measured in less sales of Bentley’s in Russia or increased Value own brand purchases in Tesco’s.  We now face balancing our previously ‘nice to have’ green values and ‘feel good’ conscience-added -value purchase triggers with a simple need to satisfy basic survival needs – forget social and ethical aspirations.  What we say and what we actually do are even more under test.  Sod status and image if it does the same job.

Those involved with brand development are getting a sharp lesson in achieving perceived ‘added values’ whether product, service, or destination brands.  Suddenly the need to achieve more for less by the organisation is now a first priority in terms of survival and adaptation.  Marketing budgets get slashed, new designs get shelved.

Branding must now prove its role as an essential management principle and ethos – the driving force, the DNA, the glue that coordinates the organisation.  The result should be, by definition, true synergy and therefore real value creation, vital in today’s market.

It certainly puts the old but still prevalent view of branding as simply a visual media manifestation exercise in the bin – or I hope it does, otherwise companies selling branding as cosmetic packaging exercise will be in for some tough times - who needs a new letterhead when you have no one to write to.  Or more basically, if price is the real added value, who cares about nice packaging.

Of course, its not as simple as this.  We are all human and hearts as well as heads must be satisfied.  However, a back to basics ethos is now an essential modus operandi i.e. getting best value out of given resources.  A good brand strategy should facilitate a clever value engineered approach by providing a focus to everything a company does to be a customers’ preferred choice. A classic brand audit exercise must now encompass a clear evaluation of the real worth of every investment – people, product, service, environment, technology, etc in terms of the effective contribution to creating the first choice brand experience for all audiences – external and internal.

Difficult times force adaptation and new ways of being – lets hope real brand development can now be recognised as a vital survival corporate added value gene – allowing real value creation for all concerned - the ultra added-added value proposition.

New Values - Old Behaviours?

Another week of ‘disclosures’ and disillusion with our parliamentary M.P.s and calls for a ‘new politics’, assuming the death of democracy as we know it.  The global financial collapse and backlash against fat-cat bankers has underlined the hypocracy of institutions, companies and frankly all of us.  While there are always some brave lone voices and whistleblowers, most of us go along with what we want to hear, unconsciously ‘ticking the boxes’ when we generally benefit from the status quo.  Only when our lifestyles are threatened and survival modes kick in that we start really questioning the behaviours and values of others it seems.

 

As a professional observer and practitioner in ‘visions and values’ I am certainly hoping that we can cut through the ‘protective’ niceties of corporate-speak aspiring to the usual roll call – ‘innovation, trust, openness, community, environment, etc’.

 

Back-to-basics is a cliché but a simple emphasis on honesty, trust and transparency would be a good start. 

 

I came across another value recently – ‘Courage’.  I really like this – an organisation that believes in its people having the courage of their convictions and actions - intellectual and practical courage. 

 

Differentiation gets increasingly difficult distinguishing between typical generic corporate ‘must have’ organisation attributes. Perhaps now is a good time to strip out the flabbly clichés and reconstruct a company’s values from scratch based on real behaviour.  ‘Courage’ then becomes a real ‘driver’ and a way of identifying who really cares and delivers.  Looking forward to some brand awards for bravery soon.

 

 

Asia Retail Congress in India

 

Given the daily barrage of global meltdown news in the European press I was intrigued to find out how a major BRIC economy was handling the crisis.  The invitation to speak at the Asia Retail Congress provided an opportunity to hear first hand from local retailers, developers and expert observers how the economy and retail sector was being affected by the international credit crunch.  

I had just been to Moscow and experienced the difficulties of another BRIC economy coming to terms with the end of an era of exceptional fast track development and seemingly unlimited growth of consumer aspirations.  Russia within a few months has been transformed from a buoyant confident economy to a country suffering a downturn being compared to the rouble crash ten years previously.   

Suddenly the fast tack expansions and explosion of retail development across Russia has been stopped overnight.  Was India experiencing the same pain and similar potentially slow recovery scenario?  

From the evidence of Mumbai and the Congress I have to report a very different mood and attitude to the new economic world realities.  The inevitable common theme running through the conference sessions was the impact of a tougher economic climate on consumer confidence and sales.  Certainly all retail sectors were being affected.  However, what was clear was belief that India retains some strong positive fundamentals – a large consumer population – 64% of India-produced products are consumed locally, and a growing aspirational middle class.  Despite the problems there was still anticipated a GDP growth between 6-7% this year, 65% of the population is under 35 and incomes are rising.  After telecomms, retail is India’s biggest business sector and is said to become the world’s largest retail economy by 2012?    

 This underlying strength and confidence was in contrast to the bad news from China that week, reporting unemployment and a massive fall in exports.  Retailers and developers in India have no illusions as to the slow down in sales and consumer confidence.  However, the general view was this end of get-rich-quick development and emphasis on quantity and not quality was ultimately a good thing.  Certainly from a consultancy viewpoint, I felt my message of learning from the mistakes of a fellow BRIC economy and investing in clearly viable commercial short and long term differentiation strategies was now highly relevant.    

 It’s a pity it has taken a worldwide recession to force a rethink. Talking with retailers and developers in India it is clear everyone is having to think more strategically and better focus investment to meet more stringent demands of all parties – consumers want more for less and real value in terms of experience/ price / quality / services / range.  Tenants in shopping centres want viable rents and will be more choosy on centres - their location, design and management. 

High mall rents were universally seen as unrealistic and there will be a new era in terms of more tenant friendly leases – there has to be if vacant empty malls are to be avoided. One of the biggest challenges for the so called 10 – 12% ‘organised’ retail in India is the remaining nearly 90% of ‘disorganised’ retail – local ‘mamas-and-papas’ operations.  The reality is the strong personal customer connection, convenience and availability of India’s ‘traditional’ retail should be a lesson to ‘modern’ retail practices.  Despite the current political barriers to international retailers moving into India, the local major retail group players, like Reliance and Pantaloon, are able to operate contemporary operations based on best western practices.     

Interestingly the ‘new values’ of the west in terms of environmental and ethical practices could enable India to bypass some of the last decade’s investment in highly serviced shopping centre environments and move directly to more ‘clever’ low technology solutions which provide consumers a pleasant experience and tenants a lower cost venue.  The outlet centre principle becomes a relevant benchmark - a lower cost development enabling a lower cost tenancy and great value shopping – a win / win / win strategy for all parties – consumer, investor and retailer.  In India and in the west, the fully air conditioned high tech western mall could be a costly dinosaur in the future – too expensive and too big to adapt to a new economic climate with new values and expectations.  

In many ways India is déjà vu for me after our Russian experience – a massive retail explosion now having to come to terms with competitive market realities and a tougher economic environment.  Watching how both countries handle the current hard lesson in achieving successful retail development will be fascinating and maybe provide some role models for the west.  

Bankable assets

The implosion and disappearance of major institutions and the previously unheard of scenarios we are experiencing are mind boggling-  unprecedented bail outs and overnight deals, financial dynasties carved up, nationalised or allowed to die. As I write this, governments are moving quickly to protect their own national interests but at least talking about global coordinated actions.

It was ironic, then, for me to be presenting last month bank at conference in Moscow on branding strategies for mergers and acquisitions. The fall of the Soviet system came to a fast track end when it became clear reality could not be controlled and the financial system collapse is similarly in melt down mode as realities of an unfettered free market based on ‘unreal’ assets become only too clear. Ten years ago the rouble crashed in Russia and banks were seen as key culprits never to be trusted again. The euphoria of market-led development will certainly now be tempered by the lessons being learned once more in every country affected by the spreading toxicity of repackaged and remarketed ‘collateral debts’.

My presentation, conceived of some months earlier, took on the alternative title ‘fighting for survival’, a more direct criteria for anyone involved in maintaining their brand profile and equity in the current market. However, my original key point that branding to be effective, is all about reputation development not simply image building, was particularly apposite. What you do rather than what you say is key. Image builders are going to have to work hard to regain any reputations in the short and long term and not rely on cosmetic initiatives. If they don’t, then branding will be seen as useful as choosing new seat pattern cover designs for deck chairs on the Titanic.

Suddenly the definitions of branding as the added- value perception of a company created by its image and reputation seems particularly relevant. The overnight loss of hard won and expensively developed reputations followed by immediate collapse was a scary reminder that image without substance is worth nothing. The true brand equity of major companies has been brought into focus- their brand culture- their people and their customer relationships was the real value worth paying for, the label over the door consigned to the dustbin. It rightly puts the traditional emphasis of branding as simply a visual media exercise into question.

Those convinced about the value of naming as a key brand component must be reconsidering their position. The cosy homey images of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have been exposed as faceless dubious government sponsored entities. In contrast, a rather difficult acronym HSBC has been successful in living up to its message as the world’s local bank and appears to be one of the current winners as a strongly capitalised successful global operation. Clearly the magical power of a name is about what you truly represent and the subsequent perception trigger it creates for the relevant audience.

I noted bank brand values have now moved from marketed predictable promises of trust, innovation, openness and service to hubris, ignorance, greed and incompetence. ‘Known for’ attributes will never be the same. The first step will be ‘stability’ – ‘trust’ is going to take a long time before claims of ‘credibility’ and ‘authority’ can be brought back into circulation. Suddenly those new contemporary fashionable images could look rather lightweight and ephemeral in contrast to the replaced more conservative, solid identities of the past. It creates interesting challenges for brand consultants and marketers in how to express values that audiences can relate to. The last page in my presentation showed a scribbled half sun on the horizon. The point was obvious – you could see either a sunset representing a passing of the good times or a sunrise – a new start, a new era, with new values and a new, if uncertain, future.

I really hope this hard dose of reality will have some positive effects for all those involved in creating successful brands. An acknowledgement on getting the fundamentals right and synchronising promises and realities can only be good news ultimately. Seeing branding as just a company ‘packaging’ exercise must surely stop. While spin and hype will always be around, at least we will have all grown up and be harder to convince. With the benefit of hindsight, a ‘look behind the label’ initiative applied to financial institutions would maybe have avoided the nightmares of repackaged toxic assets. Certainly we will be scrutinising more carefully anyone in the future asking us to trust them.

Welcome to a new dawn!

Balancing Acts- Real Cost Benefits

We have all been there- the classic project scenario- fantastic visions, excitement, creativity, great expectations before the seemingly inevitable disillusion and pain of cost realities, politics and reactionary forces frustrating any attempt at changing the world. With experience you try to manage expectations and introduce realistic thinking to anticipate possible road blocks but how often have you heard ‘we want blue sky thinking’ but you know they really need you to keep your feet firmly on the ground.

Trading issues - image and appearance must always be balanced with operational cost and performance criteria but selling dreams and cost benefit analysis rarely happens in the same room with the right people.

People talk about innovation and creativity but this means change and this is not a comfortable concept for vested interests who feel threatened by new challenges and practices. It is unfortunate but perhaps inevitable that companies still often treat costs for individual exercises in isolation rather than reviewing in a company context the real costs to the company rather than an individual department budget.

A typical brand development initiative should involve people, selling channels, processes, technology and communications but how often is it measured and truly assessed as a cross departmental company initiative?

Marketing and real estate can be costed conventionally in anything that can be measured in terms of quality, time and finance criteria, but placing a value on happy staff/ happy customers is not such a direct and obvious measure but potentially the biggest cost benefit whether measured in minimal staff churn or growing customer loyalty and spend.

A new concept may need less staff but an investment in training - who calculates the costs/ savings short and long term? Protectionism is a natural human trait and we all know figures can be manipulated with the appropriate ‘spin’ to say virtually anything.

People inside the organisation need to constantly review strategies for change in a company-wide context to identify and achieve real value. The value of objective external advice and resource is part of that matrix- outsource or do it yourself - another balancing act !

‘Paying for the air’

Working in so called emerging markets you get used to having to defend the business logic of brand development but I was particularly ‘challenged ‘ when a prospective client indicated that developing a brand was like ‘paying for air!’. I had to admit some sympathy with his view given the typical associations of hot air and bullshit with branding. New markets and developed markets still experience the traditional selling of brands by creative agencies peddling branding as a visual ‘packaging’ image exercise based on TV and billboard advertising campaigns. Media advertising groups, design and communication agencies still feel they are the sole arbiters and developers of ‘things to do with branding’ for their clients.

Unfortunately, these vested interests are having a major drag effect on the evolution of branding being seen as a central business activity and ethos. I’ve never had the mindset that branding had to be a marketing-led proposition. Having come from the outside discipline of architecture it seemed obvious that the ‘b’ word involved, by definition, everything a company does in line with what it says. Changes in consumer awareness, the transparency of the internet and general empowerment of customers to influence brands, rather than just be influenced by them has changed the rules.

We are told customers are more canny, but I wonder sometimes? While I may preach this I get depressed listening to people still convincing themselves their favourite brand is really different from a competitor brand that appears to do just the same. I’m still trying to figure out the real differences between Tesco and Sainsbury’s for example – frankly both can be as satisfying or disappointing in equal measures, as competent efficient UK supermarket offers, but dinner party conversations still betray emotional status conscious attributes. Everyone would like to shop at Waitrose but is there such a difference? Or is it the image that still really ultimately counts? Such is the power of emotion over logic – the magic of branding, and maybe I am kidding myself we are past the stage of being convinced by just clever brand image building.

The good news is we are now in an interesting era where the real brand experience is the increasingly vital component in creating the brands’ reputation – successfully delivering the promise. Today’s ‘new values’ now mean ideally a first choice company, and the offer should have values that synchronize with their users and audiences. But we are still a long way off from understanding branding in the wider sense. There are excellent books and papers on the need for branding to be embraced as an integral company management philosophy. However the vested interests of so-called branding agencies still target the belief of clients that a cosmetic makeover of an existing brand or a magical name and brand identity for a new brand will solve their business problems. Visual brand manifestations and carefully designed media communications, formats and environments clearly play a key role and are immediate tangible results of investment in ‘air’. The obvious danger is that is stops there and the client feels they can tick the branding box.

So here’s the crunch for me – I know what I’m selling to clients is important. As a strategic branding and design consultancy our mission is to help them successfully differentiate their operations in a competitive market by aligning the image, media, offer, experience and people. But I do recognize we are part of the success matrix. That’s why the development of collaborations between different professional expertise is vital to ensure companywide functions are effectively synchronized to create best value.

We work with some clients who still see branding as just an identity, format design and brand book and the challenge for us is to create a real brand strategy with defined and agreed business attributes – vision and values that can be used as a real catalyst for management and employee mindset change as well as defining their market differentiation. We do this as strategic consultants but it’s scary when you realise the carefully agreed words and imagery are not always understood to be real ‘guideline’ criteria for company actions and behaviour –  a starting point for internal brand culture development to make these values and aims relevant and motivating for management and employees.

We believe in what we do but we have a long way to go if the starting point for many clients is still just a brand media package. Perhaps the concept of ‘paying for air’ is not so wrong if we can convince our clients that without air you die. There is a growing realisation that branding is not a ‘nice to have’ company or offer profile exercise but an increasingly essential component for business survival in a competitive market. Maybe we can market our services as a real life support system worth paying for... ...

Who is the Audience?

Consultants and clients talk a lot about target audiences despite the fact we are told today the best brand offers are created and developed by their consumers – who is targeting who?

Presumably there should be less targeting more listening, reacting and ideally anticipating. The challenge is who are we listening and relating to?

It used to be easy, you just had customers. Now you have to respond to 'audiences'. Any company in the public arena has a potential mission impossible situation in terms of always positively relating to all their audiences. By definition, brands are supposed to form positive ' relationships' with those who 'buy' the product and service. Investors look to benefit from the organization they have bought shares in just as 'traditional' customers benefit from the company's products and services they have purchased. Both want maximum value return on investment- shoppers want more for less, shareholders want maximum value return on investment. We are all driven by our personal needs and aspirations. Add to the mix a company's staff- their 'inner' customers, and we have three potentially diametrically opposed motivations and interests.

Society then provides another level of diverse vested interests which must today be carefully treated and satisfied- observers and influencers, the media, communities of interest, politicians, the competition, each with their own pressures and motives to complicate the mix.

Going back to basic 'customers', in a retailer's case, the shoppers, we have to understand we are dealing with individual mindsets, not conveniently labelled and segmented customer groups. Our motives and moods change in seconds with the right trigger- we feel different depending on the time of day, who we are with, how we feel, the weather....

Generic phrases 'for all the family' may be a starting point but for shopping centers this can simply translate to anyone with appropriate funds at any time. The danger is appealing to everyone and nobody in particular.

Defining typical customer profiles, interests and activities can help identify appropriate initiatives, positioning and concepts but anticipating changes in attitude- what's in and out is an art (and luck) as any fashion buyer knows.

I get really worried when some clients still feel a sufficient brief is simply a socio economic group and some age profiles. Baby boomers, generation x, now y, maybe starting points for describing some general attitudes and trends, but the danger is relying on easy convenient briefs which suit the marketer but can miss a key change or opportunity in aspirations. The 14 year old Japanese schoolgirl was, and maybe still is, seen as a reliable trend-leader to watch, but I would not bet on this.

Now branding has become an accepted discipline for promoting countries, regions and cities, the complexity of audiences becomes infinitely multiplied. Alignment becomes the buzz word but we have to be kidding ourselves to feel we can really effectively align even the key vested interests. Just a simple generic message line can be difficult - remember 'Cool Britannia ' was a step too far for the conservative half of the British population. At best, there needs to be a reasonable coordination of aspirations from commercial business interests, institutions, the politicians and obviously the most challenging, the residents, visitors and workers that ultimately define the success or failure of such initiatives.

Sustainability issues now create an audience minefield. One person's carbon miles environment impact is another's concern for supporting developing cultures. Selling flowers from Africa can be argued about logically and emotionally and nobody is necessarily right or wrong, but the retailer then has to tread a difficult path to satisfy the myriad audiences watching their every move.

Branding is about 'walking the talk' but the range of audiences begs the question how to keep everyone 'on message'. Incentivising customers- both external and inner can require a gravity defying approach.
 
Branding use to be about simply 'the packaging 'of a company's products and media, but maybe we are returning to an era, where we must think through a range of highly coordinated 'packaging' strategies to meet key audiences agendas.

Nobody said it would be easy..

Clive Woodger

The real thing?

The latest ownership switch in the car industry, Tata’s takeover of quintessential British brands, Jaguar and Land Rover, is seen as a symbol of the change in global economic dynamics – the new East moving in on the values of old West. 

 

When the agreement to use English workers to make/assemble the cars runs out in 2011, it will be interesting to see if production goes maybe to the East how this will affect brand equity. Will this be another example of how car brands can continue to defy gravity and be seen as credible national products?

 

In an age of increasing transparent procurement and need for ethical authority it’s fascinating how emotions can still seem to defy logic when it comes to customer choice. I guess that’s what makes us human (and brand consultants) but I wonder how long car brands can masquerade as national treasures and use this as a basis for their key brand attributes. It seems for cars, branding is still about badges not what’s really under the bonnet.

 

In the West we are preaching brand delivery and experience is key, not just image. New markets have the advantage to learn from the West but it seems the need for status will continue to override product reality when it comes to cars. In the West we are a long way off Own Brand taking over from the manufacturer brand when it comes to cars – will it be final frontier when you can order your new Sainsbury saloon or a Tesco GM convertible?

Clive Woodger

Branding is an integral ethos not a cosmetic fix

Warnings of less brand-besotted customers and a growing cynicism towards the opportunist green-washing of retailers (reported in Shopping Centre, 14 November 2007) at the recent BCSC conference in Gateshead should not come as a surprise to those in the front line of retail. As brand consultants we have consistently advised clients - retailers and developers - that they must stop thinking of branding as just a marketing activity.

Shopping centres are destination brands, but they now must be considered as a synergy of business brands - 'the brands behind the label' - owner, developer, investors, management, tenants and the consumer brand - the centre itself. Now it's more complicated - consumers are starting to 'look behind the label', and consequently the simple split of B2B and B2C audience mindsets and agendas starts to miss the point.

Branding must differentiate one centre from another in terms of whether you want to join as a tenant, work for them, invest or shop there. Now a potential range of ethical, environmental and commercial perceptions are involved. Interestingly, in Russia, we have been able to leapfrog the traditional marketing-led attitude to branding. Sharper developer clients there have quickly understood that branding is more than a media packaging exercise. They have started to embrace the logic that real branding is a management ethos which should inform and drive the architecture, trading and operational activities of the centre. In the west, we are still faced with branding limited to badging and promoting centres. The irony is that Russian consumers are currently relatively brand-obsessed, but they are learning fast and the disillusioning, or rather maturing, of customer brand perceptions will inevitably follow.

We talk about sustainable architecture, but we also talk about sustainable brands, i.e. ones that can continue to walk-the-talk and stay relevant to changing customer values and aspirations. As an architect, I have always seen creating the right architecture and environment as a vital component of a coordinated brand experience.

It seems strange that we are still surprised by consumers being cleverer, wanting better, safer, cheaper experiences. Branding is about creating added-value perception. It is an integral ethos not a cosmetic fix, as customers are telling us.

Clive Woodger