Posted Sat 24 Jan 2015 09:20:29 AM PST
It’s one thing for individuals to upload all my
music for free listening (it doesn’t bother me). It’s
another thing entirely for a major corporation to force
me to. I was encouraged to participate and now, after
I’m invested, I’m being pressured into something I
don’t want to do.
Arel Lidow has a look at Mary
Meeker's Internet Trends report and
Each year, the gap between dollars spent on mobile
advertising versus time spent on mobile devices
increases: in 2011, the implied gap was about $14
billion; in 2013, it was about $28 billion.
So why is the gap in mobile ad spend so damn large? And
when will those billions of dollars come flooding
I plotted the same data, and and put the numbers for print, web, and mobile, across several years, on the same graph.
Clearly, Lidow is right. Mobile is remarkably disappointing, compared to web. But what is going on with print?
Even as the fraction of user time spent on print falls, it's worth more to advertisers than mobile is.
This isn't much of a surprise, if you look at advertising history. More targetable ad media such as junk fax and email spam tend to fall in value, while non-targetable ad media tend to hold or gain value. (Seems paradoxical until you look at the economics behind it.)
But here's Lidow's recommendation:
If you could
wave a magic wand and provide a perfect attribution
system with widespread usage by marketers and
agencies, the mobile ad landscape would change
quickly, and ad spend would increase.
So wait a minute. Take the a low-value ad medium and make it more valuable by doing more of what makes it less valuable? Wouldn't you want to figure out how to go the other way?
I don't get it. More and more I'm starting to think that this whole surveillance marketing trend is more about selling Marketing to the rest of the company than about selling stuff to customers.Posted Thu 22 Jan 2015 07:12:23 AM PST
Is it just me, or is all this stuff hitting the web ad business all at once?
The market couldn't sustain a zillion different 8-bit
back when those were a thing. And it has always seemed
unlikely that the market can keep supporting a zillion
adtech firms. Jack
Marshall of the Wall Street Journal
A shakeout is under way in the online advertising
industry, where dozens of startups—often with
seemingly undifferentiated services and limited
scale— face the reality that there isn’t enough
room for everyone.
Google and Facebook are eating
ecosystem. Michael Eisenberg
Today, most adtech companies are exploiting
features that are missing on the core platforms of
Google, Facebook, and many of the already public
companies. They are optimising and brokering
between technology platforms (mobile and web),
exchanges and advertisers. However, information
is nearing perfection in this market, making it
difficult to build a moat around businesses and
that plan to make a living helping clients navigate a confusing list of
technology partners are probably on the wrong
side of the trend here. They're like Unix ISVs who planned
to keep building the same basic product on dozens of
basically identical but incompatible Unix variants.
A difficult feat of management and tech integration,
but not really the way that mature technology markets
tend to go.
You know how, when a lot of people are starting committees to talk about how something is an industry-wide problem and it's everyone's responsibility to fix it, that means the problem is about to go away?
Blocking keeps going up, tracking protection emerges
Ad blocking is trending up, but it's not for everyone. Many users have a basic fairness expectation around advertising: if you look at the content, you should also accept the ads that that support it.
Tracking protection, though, is a
situation where fairness norms point away
from adtech. A 2014 survey found that
87 percent of users choose not to be tracked by
Tracking protection products such as
Disconnect and Privacy
using a different message from crude ad blocking, to
reach more users.
Disconnect is positioning its tracking
protection product as as basic Internet security
Join over 3 million people
who use our open source software to protect their
identities and sensitive personal info from hackers
and trackers—not a way to get something
Browser built-in tracking protection is coming along,
Apple Safari already blocks
third-party cookies, MSIE has tracking protection
(which lump adtech in with
malware) and Firefox is getting
its own tracking protection too.
The holdout is Google Chrome, and that's a whole other story. Google as a whole would certainly do better on an all-tracking-protected web, because if everyone's less able to track users, Google's expertise in parsing content matters more. But it's hard for information packrats to walk away from shiny, tempting information.
The typical adtech/publisher relationship has more in common with one-sided record contracts than with typical advertising. Publishers haven't understood the technology as well as adtech firms, and so have signed away their valuable audiences in pursuit of surveillance marketing woo-woo.
But that's changing. New publishers have web skills from the ground up. Vox Media is a good example. And existing publishers are getting better at defending their interests. Quartz, an Atlantic Media site, runs ads that look and work more like expensive magazine ads than like ratty web display ads. And, most important, Quartz ads are intact for users running Disconnect.
The near-term effect of VC investment in web publishing startups is that many publishers will have the breathing space to turn down the short-term revenue from crappy, targeted "click the monkey" or "one weird trick" ads, and pursue other options. Tracking protection for a site's audience is the kind of "moat" that investors tend to look for.
Put it together
The fun part isn't any one of these trends, or even the fact that they're hitting at the same time, but how they interact.
Fraud helps drive consolidation. Consolidation, with more accurate tracking, encourages more users to try tracking protection. Tracking protection and fraud drive ad spending to quality publishers. Success for quality publishers means more investment in tracking protection. And around it goes.
What a fun year this is going to be.Posted Thu 15 Jan 2015 05:35:48 AM PST
Posted Sat 10 Jan 2015 07:49:41 AM PST
grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg grub2-install --target=x86_64-efi
Nobody is writing with more insight and depth on the
subject of online advertising, and doing the work
required to understand what kinds of advertising best
support (and hurt) what's left of professional
journalism in the networked world.
(This is about me, believe it or not. if I can't get a conference speaking slot out of that...)Posted Thu 01 Jan 2015 08:48:38 AM PST
(No long list of predictions, just a news story that we might see this year...)
Go For Bro? Maybe later
SAN FRANCISCO (Apr. 1, 2015) Broconomy.com is a hot new startup that helps people handle those routine chores that nobody has time for. But the online community-building drama has us filing this one under "maybe later."
When I needed my old DVD collection ripped and Ebay-ed, I hit the Broconomy app, which is well-designed and snappy (see screenshot). It quoted me a fifteen-minute wait time and dispatched a worker to my apartment. So far so good, but twenty minutes later, no worker.
It's not just me. Flaky is par for the course, according to disappointed app store comments. Broconomy CEO J.R. Dobbs Jr. blames an "online anti-tech hate campaign" by loosely organized Internet trolls. The best-known of the troll groups calls itself "International Workers of the Web." "Our workers appreciate the opportunity to make some extra income, and only a few online trolls are trying to make things worse for everyone," Dobbs said in an email interview. The online troll campaign is not associated with the Industrial Workers of the World.
According to one "union" forum, members are instructed to sign up for sharing economy sites, and subscribe to alerts of "flash strikes" on particular companies and ZIP codes. (The forum is listed as a hate site, so I can't link to it here.)
Social media expert Prof. Jane Brooklyn said in an interview that the troll campaign uses familiar methods of Internet humor to keep members engaged. Participants often post screenshots of tasks on the Broconomy app along with captions mocking the customers. "Some common themes are inability to recognize common food items or failure to complete toilet training," Brooklyn said.
The most attention-getting posts are those where a worker cancels a job at the last minute, then intercepts the new worker on the way to the customer site and makes a new recruit for the "union" campaign. "Instead of threatening or insulting workers who don't participate, they typically offer a stuffed toy animal, a cupcake, and the same small payment that the worker would have received for the original job, in cash," Brooklyn said.
Last fall, Broconomy was the subject of an investigation by the California Department of Labor. After a worker was trapped in the collapse of a customer's "Hobbit"-themed birthday party, and later rescued, the state accused the company of failing to carry worker's compensation insurance. The complaint was settled this year. Terms of the settlement are confidential, but all Broconomy workers in California were required to re-register as independent contractors for Broconomy's Qatari affiliate.
Clean, intuitive app design.
- Trolls, trolls, trolls! There ought to be a law...
I spent some time with targeted online advertising from the advertiser side this year, looking at a data-packed dashboard and tweaking all kinds of stuff. Did not get to spend that much time on it, since I have to do a lot of different things for work, but did get to learn and try it out. And managing targeted ads is like all the most habit-forming parts of solving crossword puzzles, gambling for real money, checking and re-checking social sites, and getting sucked into a real-time strategy game. All at the same time.
But in the long run...
The more targetable an ad medium is, the more it provokes filters and regulation. (Do Not Call, the junk fax ban, spam filters, web adblock...)
The less targetable an ad medium is, the more it can support content, build brands, and get attention. (Even people who spent perfectly good money on a TiVo still watch most of the TV commercials.)
In 2015, we have an opportunity to save web advertising, by moving toward less targetability. While database marketers are all fired up about ads in native mobile apps, the main web browsers all have decent tracking protection available to users who choose to turn it on.
Individual sites and brands can't unilaterally give up the Big Data habit all at once, but I can help make my own site's users less trackable, which helps me a little bit right away and a lot more later.
Now is the chance to inform, nudge, and tempt users into doing what's right for publishers and brands. Some users like the "getting away with something" feeling of running an ad blocker, but IMHO most people will feel better about helping their favorite sites by getting tracking protection turned on.
End of year bonus links
BOB HOFFMAN: Why Your Social Media Strategy Sucks
Lauren Kirchner: Amway Journalism
Derek Thompson: The New York Times Is a Great Company in a Terrible Business
Robinson Meyer: I Drank a Cup of Hot Coffee That Was Overnighted Across the Country SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY.
Rebecca J. Rosen: Actually, Some Material Goods Can Make You Happy
Richard Byrne Reilly: NSA spying might have affected U.S. tech giants more than we thought
AdExchanger: Beware Of Publishers’ Walled Gardens
AdExchanger: Answering A Squirrelly Question: 'What Is PII?'
Sean Blanchfield: 2014 Report – Adblocking Goes Mainstream
eaon pritchard: influencer theory is the wrong end of the stick
Allison Schiff: Fraud-day With Dstillery: Everyone Is Responsible For Fighting Fraud (In the long run, fighting fraud means fixing tracking.)
Matthew Garrett: My free software will respect users or it will be bullshit
Katerina Pavlidis: The day I realised my personal data was no longer mine
Stephany Fan: Do Beacons Track You? No, You Track Beacons
Doc Searls: How Radio Can Defend the Dashboard
Federal Trade Commission: Online ads roll the
Could different groups of people, including “protected
classes,” see entirely different ads? If the offer and
group are subject to legal protections, could the
result have a disproportionate adverse impact? Even if
they are not subject to legal protection, can some ads
be offensive or harmful to some audiences?
BOB HOFFMAN: Amazing Tale Of Online Ad Fraud
AdExchanger: Facebook And Google Are Bringing Walled Gardens Back
Amanda Tomas: My Day Interviewing For The Service Economy Startup From Hell (via The Awl)
BOB HOFFMAN: Hypocrisy By Proxy
Rachel Goodman, Staff Attorney, ACLU Racial Justice Program: FTC Needs to Make Sure Companies Aren’t Using Big Data to Discriminate
Andrew Casale: A Better Programmatic Supply Chain Will Root Out Fraud
Bourree Lam: Newspaper Ad Revenue Fell $40 Billion in a Decade
Jim Edwards: The Guardian Is Being Swamped With 'Dark Traffic' And No One Knows Where It's Coming From ("Dark" traffic is worthless to low-reputation sites, though. The less information available on individual users, the more that site reputation matters.)
MediaPost | Garfield at Large: These 15 Hottest Naked Celebrity Diets For Getting Audience Attention Will Shock You
Nicholas Nethercote: Quantifying the effects of Firefox’s Tracking Protection
Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project: Americans Consider Certain Kinds of Data to be More Sensitive than Others
eaon pritchard: sincerity is bullshit
Digg Top Stories: Somebody’s Already Using Verizon’s ID To Track Users
Doc Searls: Some thoughts on App Based Car Services (ABCS)
marks: Dark social traffic in the mobile app era -- Fusion (via Digiday) (via Digiday)
Simon Phipps: A shadowy consortium opposes your Internet privacy
Kelly Jackson Higgins: Online Ad Fraud Exposed: Advertisers Losing $6.3 Billion To $10 Billion Per Year
Media Briefing TheMediaBriefing Analysis: Guardian CEO: 'The idea we will survive by becoming a technology company is garbage'
Chris Smith: How publishers combat ad blockers
BOB HOFFMAN: Charts, Graphs, Facts, and Fiction
Ed Lee: Getting Tiles Data Into Firefox
Daniel Terdiman: Facebook goes all-in on advertising after years of laying groundwork
Bruce SchneierS: Over 700 Million People Taking Steps to Avoid NSA Surveillance
Antonio Cangiano: Don’t Count on Ads
Brian Braiker: Michael Wolff on digital media in 2015: ‘A deluge of crap’ (via Doc Searls Weblog)
Gretchen Shirm: The push: product placement in fiction
Ryan Gantz: Bad community is worse than no community
Justin Peters: The Sony Emails Are Fair Game
Ricardo Bilton: 4 publishers that killed their comment sections in 2014 (via Marketing Land » Marketing Day)
george tannenbaum: Writing copy.
Steven Englehardt: How cookies can be used for global surveillance
AdExchanger: The Publisher’s Guide To Domain Spoofing
Jeffrey Zeldman: Unexamined Privilege is the real source of cruelty in Facebook’s “Your Year in Review” (via One Foot Tsunami and swissmiss)
RichardStacy: Organic social media is dead: but was it ever alive?Posted Wed 31 Dec 2014 08:05:40 AM PST
All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa
combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own
excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte
for a commander, could not by force take a drink from
the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial
of a thousand years.
(Our computers, though...)Posted Sun 21 Dec 2014 06:48:38 PM PST
I read Bob Hoffman's
blog, and, fine, I
have to agree that advertising has a certain amount of
in it. But the sad news is that old-fashioned brand
is losing out to web-scale Big Data bullshit.
Seriously, ad people, you're getting beat by a
bunch of computer programmers. That's weak. Our
idea of bullshitting is stuff like
Look at the the
to the company if you buy me a faster computer!
We're just tech people, no formal training in any of
this stuff. We shouldn't be able to out-bullshit
anybody. But I guess that as soon as you throw
TECHNOLOGY and STATISTICS into the mix, ad people
whatever you say!
Bwah ha ha.
How about a simple example of the kind of thing that gets through?
I'll start a used car lot, and hire a statistician. She stands around with a clipboard and watches the people who walk in. 20% of the people kick at least one tire. Out of the tire-kickers, 10% end up buying a car. Out of the rest of the people, only 1% end up buying a car. So, out of every 1000 visitors:
20: kick a tire and buy a car.
180: kick a tire and don't buy a car.
8: don't kick a tire, buy a car anyway.
798: neither kick a tire nor buy a car.
What do I do with this information besides sell 28 cars? Maybe, not much. But let's say I need to hire my nephew. So he comes in to work and starts handing a live rat to everyone who kicks a tire. Now, half of the people who get a rat just run away.
100: kick a tire, get a rat, run away.
10: kick a tire, get a rat, buy a car.
90: kick a tire, get a rat, don't run away but don't buy a car.
8: don't kick a tire, buy a car anyway.
798: neither kick a tire nor buy a car.
Now, are the rats a good idea? If you want to go by common sense, probably not. I'm selling 18 cars instead of 28. But let's say the nephew and the statistician work together to justify the rats. The statistican can do multi-touch attribution on car sales. How does that work?
Simply speaking, channels that appear more often in
converting paths than to no-converting paths receive
a higher weight, which in turn allows them to claim
more conversion credits and thus revenue.
By multi-touch attribution, the rat plan is a huge
win. There are 18
converting paths and there's
a rat on 10 of them.
So, did I convince you that we should be handing out rats to more customers? Probably not. But use real-world messy data, dress it up with a few more graphs and some more mathematical-sounding language, and make the rats digital? Hell yeah.Posted Sat 13 Dec 2014 07:29:11 AM PST
Thought Leader Rob Rasko writes:
One of the greatest fears publishers face is an
impending loss of revenue, based on the spread between
what they earn selling their premium inventory and
what they earn from programmatic. In some instances,
the delta between publisher premium and programmatic
can be as great as ten to one; in other words, some
publishers’ programmatic ads are earning only ten
percent of what their premium counterparts earn.
Since programmatic is here to stay...
Too much corporate speak. Let's see if we can find someone who puts it more clearly.
Adtech proponents don't say it like that, though.
It's not adtech people wanting to take web
publishing's ad revenue away on their own initiative.
Programmatic is here to stay and it's all
INEVITABLE because of TECHNOLOGY and stuff. How
about that Internet, disrupting the economy again?
What can you do?
This is, of course, bullshit. The
mess that web ads are in, where adtech
destroys more value than it
captures, is a matter of economic
not technological inevitability. Like all
long-running varieties of bullshit, the adtech
variety depends on different qualities to get past
different people. It beats regular marketing
people's filters by having just enough math in
it to scare them. It gets past the technology
people by appealing to one of the oldest, most
deeply held IT biases: if it was hard to write, and
technically elegant, it must be good. (Ever notice
how so many tech people automatically say
ads even when targeting reduces a medium's
Finally, the people with the best chance of detecting
adtech bullshit—journalists who cover business
and the web—are kept looking the wrong way by
their own pride in the editorial/advertising firewall,
which is ordinarily a good thing.
So what's the answer? Let's look at the chart.
Print is moving down and to the left. It'll be too small for analysts to bother tracking within a few years. Mobile is moving to the right, and a little up. All the web has to do is let mobile take over the bottom right corner, which it's on its way to doing, and move up and a little left to get out of the way and take print's old niche.
That depends on fixing third-party tracking, though. Maybe, if we can somehow get all the Thought Leaders to focus on native apps while the web quietly fixes its trackability issues, it'll be fixed before anyone knows it. Especially if publishers can give the audience a little nudge.
Leslie Anne Jones: Trapped between Yelp and a hard place
Alana Semuels: Is There Hope for Local News?
Rance Crain: Is Consumer Tracking the New Advertising?
Baekdal Plus: The Four Laws of Privacy - (by @baekdal)
John McDermott: Google’s display advertising dominance raises concerns
Lucia Moses: Inside T Brand Studio, The New York Times’ native ad unit (via Mediagazer)
Judy Shapiro: It's Time to Balance the Tech-Human Element in Marketing
Samuel Gibbs: Europe’s next privacy war is with websites silently tracking users (via Techrights)
Mark Wilson: TMI Is The Future Of Branding
george tannenbaum: Mike Nichols and Digital Natives.
rhhackettfortune: How online pharmacy spammer organizations really work (via Krebs on Security)
Jim Edwards: Google's New Ad Strategy Could Delay A Bunch Of Tech IPOs (GOOG) (via VentureBeat)
Barry Levine: With Big Data, where’s the magic in marketing?
Phys.org - latest science and technology news stories: Unlike humans, monkeys aren't fooled by expensive brandsPosted Sat 06 Dec 2014 09:24:34 PM PST
Well, "Targeted Advertising Considered Harmful" has a graph now.
This is what happens when you take the ad spending vs. user time data from each year's edition of Mary Meeker's Internet Trends report.
What is it about print advertising that makes it so much more valuable per user minute than web or mobile advertising?
Why has web advertising stayed in roughly the same spot even as the amount of processing power being thrown at the problem of matching users to ads increases?
Why is mobile, the most targetable medium of all, even crappier than the web?Posted Thu 04 Dec 2014 08:53:09 PM PST
A small technological marvel occurs on almost every
visit to a web page. In the seconds that elapse between
the user’s click and the display of the page, an ad
auction takes place in which hundreds of bidders gather
whatever information they can get on the user,
determine which ads are likely to be of interest, place
bids, and transmit the winning ad to be placed in the
page. (How browsers get to know you in
The rate of clicking on banner ads
is so tiny, that for a media genius to deliver the 100
clicks she promises a client she has to buy over
And so, in trying to achieve goals, an enormous amount
of ads must be bought. And splattered all over
everything we are trying to do online.
Also, because they are so ineffective, they are
ridiculously cheap. And they keep getting cheaper. The
result is that every creepy company in the world can
afford these things and annoy the shit out of us with
them. (Display Advertising is Poison)
Hold on a minute. Online display ads are terribly ineffective, despite all the bleeding-edge technology being thrown at them?
Close. But not despite. Because.Posted Wed 03 Dec 2014 07:13:48 AM PST
Chris Sutcliffe says publishers are losing out
Vox may have both innovative ad
formats and significant scale, but traditional
display isn't seen as especially exciting in a
world where Google, Facebook and ad tech firms
are taking home most of the money. (Why
has Vox Media been valued at less than half of
Michael Eisenberg says adtech firms aren't making
Adtech and ad networks are equally
fragile as they are completely dependent on publishers
(many of whom themselves, as Adam points out, are
dependent on Google and Facebook.)
(A Call to Israeli Engineers! Adtech Is Not For
What if they're both right?
What if the money in online advertising is vanishing not because the publishers are making off with it, or because adtech firms are making off with it, but because the valuable parts of advertising are being just plain destroyed online?
What if web ads as we know them are just the digital equivalent of Windshield Flyer Guy? Checking out the car, leaving a flyer. And failing to send a brand-building signal. Targeting destroys signaling power, so adtech firms, and publishers, are fighting over a pool of money that gets smaller as they get better at grabbing it.
John Broughton explains:
From the point of view of
an advertiser the biggest problem with ad tech
(programmatic as it’s called by advertisers) is
that it, and the internet at large, is not currently
setup to deliver brand advertising. At all.
(How will brand advertising work?
That old browser bug, the flaw in cookie handling that enables tracking and prevents signaling, is costing us a lot, isn't it? Time to talk about the necessary steps for fixing it , for both brands and publishers.Posted Mon 01 Dec 2014 10:08:40 PM PST
Maybe the word "privacy" has something in common with the "freedom" in "free software". Privacy is a big heavy word, with too many meanings to be be a good part of a business message. Some free software people handled their version of the problem by coming up with the open source brand, to help close deals without having to have a big conversation about freedom. Maybe what we need today is something similar, a name for a subset of privacy that's worth money.
The big place to cash in is display advertising on the web. The money in advertising is in signaling, not direct response. And an ad medium can optimize for response rate or for signaling power, but not both. So there's clearly a small part of "privacy" that has cash value: for publishers and brands on the web, the quality of having an audience rather than a set of database records, the chance at making web ads work like magazine ads, not like the "windshield flyers" they are today.
Before the emergence of the "open source" brand, people kept having "software freedom" vs. "commercial software" arguments. But the problem wasn't freedom on one side against business on the other. The framing around open source made it clear that some kinds of commerce work better when market participants have some kinds of freedom.
Today, "people want privacy" sounds to me like "people want freedom" and "people want data-driven services" sounds like "people want software functionality." That's a recipe for wasting a lot of carpal tunnels on having two different arguments, threaded together. We need a new word for the economically helpful aspects of privacy, so that we don't have to argue about a word that's just as complicated as "freedom" every time we want to implement a subset of it.
(We do need to keep talking about freedom and privacy sometimes, even though they're hard words. But just as we can have better Internet freedom conversations when we can show examples of corporate-supported free software, I mean open source, we'll also be in a better position to talk privacy when we can point to whatever the new word for a subset of privacy is projects that work in the interests of publishers and brands.)
Publishers and brands can both use whatever the new word is. Publishers first. When ad networks can track the same user from expensive sites to cheap ones, and agencies buy impressions based on who the ad networks say the user is, then high-value sites (the ones that invest in original content) are stuck in the business of selling the same impressions as lower-value sites.
Once the ad networks have a user labeled as a "car intender", then some low-end site can show him a cheap cat GIF and get paid to run a (relatively) high-value car ad on it. Makes it harder for the sites that actually review cars. Content sites lose, and intermediaries win.
The question then is, why do high-value sites participate in user tracking at all? Why not just run only first-party ads? There's some research on that. The problem is that if the medium is targetable, then the best strategy for an individual site is to do targeting, even if (because of the signaling value of its content) the site would do better in a system where no user could be targeted. When we stop thinking about privacy as a big, complicated, hard concept, and try to break out some kind of Minimum Viable Privacy, just enough to protect that "car intender" from site to site tracking, then ways out of the race to the bottom start to present themselves.
For example, high-quality sites could be encouraging users to install anti-tracking tools, to make those users less targetable anywhere. This would reduce revenue in the short term for the high-quality sites (by making inventory disappear) but have a much more dramatic effect on the lower-quality sites that are only viable because of targeting. For brands, the case for helping and encouraging customers and prospects to protect a subset of "privacy" is even stronger. Just need a word for it.Posted Sat 29 Nov 2014 09:59:05 PM PST
Complexity in organizational structures and agreements between people can hide information about what is the right thing to do.
The obligation to do the right thing, however, is conserved, passed through and divided among every participant in an organization or every party to an agreement.
This is the best reason I can think of, so far, to look for simplicity in organizations and in the terms of agreements.Posted Sat 29 Nov 2014 10:22:27 AM PST
Older stuff: archive