famebook™

@johnbattelle's 'Digital Nirvana' and my 'Hurdles' to achieving it!

This is inspired by a great post by John here, which is one of several I have seen recently that describe scenes some of us have been predicting possible for some time and to which this was my reply, now edited, but in the original comments. (Thanks John - read his 'Searchblog' it's great always!) For those of us not trapped by greed and business models that never made sense in the first place, the consumer is King and always will be. So how do we set them free? My humble starter as follows:-

3 BIG Hurdles To John Battelle's Internet Nirvana

1).

Respect:-

You've cited the potential assumption that brands are 'publishers of content'. Actually in a social world, my view is that brands are the subject of the conversation, not the owners of it, however much the platforms and brands themselves are deluding themselves and/ or us to the contrary. The graph owns the conversation and the graph is made up of hundreds of millions of people still trying to define their digital homes in an environment where the same respect, ownership and privacy afforded their physical ones is being ignored.  Current business models presume the platforms and the advertisers own the graph, a colonial right to enter those homes by stealth, digital rape or force and so that model needs to flip 180 degrees. The Customer is always right and the emphasis in my opinion should be for brands to work out how to earn our respect, such that they become increasingly part of our conversation. You are right about the end game, but note the subtle difference in the journey. Respect cannot be taken, it has to be earnt and that works both ways.

2).

Trust:-

If I suddenly woke up one morning with a hangover from hell and in the middle of some saharan desert and there was just a stall selling Coca Cola, I would feel perfectly happy opening a bottle, safe in the knowledge that it would taste as I expected and not cause me any harm. I would suggest that the majority of internet users do not currently trust any of the main platform providers. (Some of whom, have been so abhorrently flagrant in their abuses of what trust we have vested that I'm not sure they deserve a resolution) I am also staggered for instance that Coca Cola would risk the brand value earned over generations by aligning themselves anywhere near those organisations in their current guise. However, I do think that if the business models of social networks were flipped 180 degrees and replicated the principles of one's physical homes, villages and towns, based on common interest instead of location, then the creation of content, value and aspiration would both allow for monetisation through underpinning that with a digital currency and likewise encourage a new age of global optimism and sharing. (It would also make Hyperlocal make sense of course and either make AoL's investment in Patch an embarassing mistake or help them redefine it into a content creation facility that has true value.)

The battle is for a Digital democracy vs the Digital Socialism/ Dictatorship path we are following. I don't 'like' anything on Facebook because I see that as offering the world a free camera into my own home. I think everyone else is starting to realise that they are all naive entrants to a Truman Show world where all the upside is in the hands of a few people who are repeatedly proving they cannot be trusted. Once we establish that our digital homes are ours to trade and our content is our currency, then some of us who enjoy creating and contributing might like to open up and deliver the advertisers wet dream. (The fabulous, but poor, train loving photographer in Chicago, might like the idea of a few cents from every person that enjoys his images and articles about trains) If consumers could trust the platforms and the latter weren't fuelled by a misguided business model and valuation driven greed, then perhaps the trust they require could start to be achieved. In the meantime, they, the media and politicians who are increasingly beholded to the dark machine are all losing our trust and just because 700m users have proven we all like to be connected, it doesn't mean the wheels of the machines they inhabit are really turning in a sustainable way or that you can treat brand loyalty as irrelevant or hide behind 'failing forwards fast'.

What if for example, the big brands who have entered the black hole of 'creepy social 1.0' on faith alone came to realise that a few million 'likes' is totally meaningless and even counter productive if the platform suffers a catastrophic viral rebellion based on a trigger we haven't yet seen signs of, or that in fact their long-standing cache has suddenly started to spiral downwards and out of control. (See Aspiration below) A new entrant into the market could turn up like Facebook did and with the benefit of hindsight, do it better, faster and with a more tangible consumer tie-in maybe; or perhaps one privacy abuse too many that touches a global and political nerve, brings the whole house tumbling down or at least sets all the world's decent politicians to unite in protecting their once held personal democratic values, they are themselves apparently now treating with the same contempt, the platforms are treating us.

3).

Aspiration:-

Because we have a three way mexican stand-off between Apple, Google and Microsoft effectively dominating the world's digital engine rooms with companies like Facebook, Twitter etc. using their supply of fuel (social graph) to try and arrest a position at a higher level with the aforementioned or looking to create a new ship of their own on the one hand. And media conglomerates, who blinked and misssed them leaving port on the other; I believe your nirvana is fundamentally screwed until the final battle is fought and won. Traditionally, power has always resided with the world's most successful brands; Coca Cola, Ford, Disney, BBC, Time Warner, Viacom, CBS, Fiat, GE, Wal-Mart etc. etc. Now we are seeing the ever so subtle pressure developing which was the inevitable result of the fact that one or more of the big three is supporting the digital fibre of those businesses and as we know, the bigger the reliance, the larger the control. Collectively though, they all should be reminded that they are only in existence as a result of human aspiration. The founding entrepreneur's aspiration to change the world and the consumer's aspiration to want to be better. Social networks are destroying aspiration in my opinion and as brands succumb to 'the light' like flies to a UV lamp and in pursuit of short-term gain, they are no longer standing out from the crowd and increasingly, where once people looked up to them, the new flat environments simply force people to look across. How long before the only brands with any 'reluctant' reverance are the ones controlling the platforms and once glorious names are merely categories within a super-brand like Skynet or AGM?

My background for most of my career was as a Manager of some not so well known and some iconic Artistes/ Producers and I watch in horror as I see kids think the only route to fame nowadays is by getting their tits done or queuing in line for a TV show, where a back catalog song is milked for yet more life and money and a dumbed down public pays to choose it's fodder for the coming year until we start all over. All routes via traditional sweat, A&R and truly lasting global talent all but closed off. Will kids aspire to a viral hit on YouTube and being 'liked' on Facebook if they're still working the checkout at Wal-Mart and how will any of us be able to find talent outside of the machine if the only place it is distributed is within it and dominated by the big three and the media companies they can bring into line around or beneath them.

In a world of so much noise, there is only so much human capacity for infinite choice and we need to have places where real talent can reach us honestly and organically. I think there is a gaping hole on the internet for a platform where technology meets media and that would provide the absolute safety valve we need to prevent the big brands dying in the social vortex and the three 'Mexicans' carving up the world between them and killing the oxygen supply to everyone that doesn't comply. Aspiration only works when the top of the mountain is worth attaining.

The absence of a truly elegant environment on the internet where brands are revered instead of made to look ordinary and where kids can believe that however they express themselves creatively, they may achieve heights unparalleled in history, is becoming a critical necessity to preserve and encourage respect, trust and aspiration. The best way of persuading them has always been and will always be to buy music, art etc. and watch people get really rich. Facebook are currently focused on everyone knowing how rich they are getting on our content not encouraging a platform where the content we create is ours to share, trade and benefit from. Why should we create value for Facebook? Personally, I think it's time for Mark to go and Sheryl to take over leading up to and after the IPO, when the beneficiaries of the business done right should be the pension funds of our children. At the moment Mark can still claim rightfully the creation of the world's biggest change since the internet itself and even perhaps be forgiven for some of the ways he got there. But as an ongoing role model and safe guardian? No, certainly not... Facebook could provide a democratic mechanism to help the world discover talent, but trying to build, control and retain the media 'head' within their 'long-tail' technology platform is both an oxymoron and for reasons people can explore by visiting my blog, potentially also tresspassing on my IPR.

Always appreciate more followers and RT's etc. on http://www.twitter.com/famebook for those that think my humble ramblings are worthwhile!

Social Media is Not Social... Yet! - UPDATED VERSION

What's the difference between going to a party with old and new friends and visiting a nightclub? With the former, you get to be surrounded by a bunch of people you feel good about around a common theme and with no commercial backdrop whatsoever. Maybe during the fun, you create something of value; a new connection, a business idea, a deep romance or the discovery of a new food or drink you like. Noone has an agenda for you other than the host hoping you have a great time and his or her pay off is that they will get a subsequent invitation where you invite them to enjoy some of the same. That's what we call social isn't it?

When you go to a club, you are greeted at the door by bouncers who judge if you fit in, pay your entrance fee and enter an environment designed to entice your wallet towards that drink with the highest mark up. You may be in a social group of course, but the chances are it will be just a handful of your friends and rather than being yourself, you will likely adapt your persona to fit into the style of that particular club. The girl you fancy across the dancefloor is seeing the 'you' which you think might get you laid, but probably not the person that was at the party the week before! Sure it's fun and part of the mix, but it's not 'social'; it's called 'entertainment'.

I've just read this post by a great guy called Jonathan Salem Baskin on Adage and whilst much of what he says I agree with, overall I think he's missing the point. Facebook, Twitter et al are nightclubs in my analogy and popular though they may be; they aren't social, they're entertainment... or at least that, in my opinion, is how brands should treat them.

The idea that as a brand, you can engage with people and be part of their real life conversations  'socially' in a nightclub is of course ludicrous. You simply have an audience and you are selling your wares to that audience. Sure a 'happy hour' on cocktails always works and people will talk about it throughout their groups, but noone gives a shit about the sponsor really and the advertising around the building is no more or less an inconvenience than the ones in the American Idol ad breaks which just go with the territory. The owners of the club (Facebook, Twitter etc.) may be the hottest dudes around, but they're misleading you if they try and tell you they have some special stewardship which gives them direct access to your personal choices. The only way that could happen would be to bug the toilets and monitor the conversations of girls renewing their make up, but that would be a disgusting breach of civil liberties wouldn't it?

So to some fundamental root problems that need to be addressed...

Remember; YOUR home is YOUR castle and you are the king of that and your personal identity and you choose how to portray both. You choose who to let in and what you want them to see when you are there and the brands on display are ones you've selected, not someone else. The B&O TV, Jimmy Choo shoes and Prada handbag speak to who you are or want to be... you're not sponsored to like them, you just do. Likewise, you know you can say what you want in there and it is private. There's no risk of it being used to define you by any third party and when friends come over you may barter some of your value; the cakes you made, a dress that doesn't fit or theatre tickets you can't use. If you recommend a plumber, you do so honestly and get the same value back when you need something. That's social interaction and unless as a brand you are in at that level, then stop kidding yourself that you are engaging socially with your customers. It's just bullshit!

Now let's say you as an individual really own your 'digital' you. Not as a joint venture, but 100% and you want to replicate your 'social' life online. The start point has to be the ability to own your own home or lease it in a way that ensures everything that happens behind the front door is yours first and foremost. Some people rent their 'castles, some buy them and some live with their parents but have their own bedroom with the same rules applying; and you can pay for that privilege in numerous ways which is of course your perogative and down to your own circumstances.

Regardless of the way you pay, it's still YOUR place. If you are a social person and lots of people value your choices, then any benefit to be had for influencing your friend's choices within that place must rightfully be yours. Celebrities not only get paid for endorsing brands, they rarely pay for the brands themselves. Why shouldn't you deserve the same proportionate benefit however small? Similarly, everyone has an area of expertise nowadays, whether it's just being a mum or say as an awesome specialist photographer with a passion for trains. If I said that millions of train lovers or mums might pay you a few cents for your expertise if you allowed them into your digital home, then would you open up and be motivated to share 'socially'? I bet you would. Likewise if I offered you a selection of brands that you could choose, which you felt best reflected your personality and the likely choices of your friends and gave you the majority share of revenue for some elegant adverts adjacent to your digital home; would you spend some time to make that look as nice as you would your kitchen or dining room. I think so.

Your Facebook, Twitter, Google etc. profiles aren't social. They're just entertainment. Until you own your own home within those environments, you wouldn't and shouldn't really open up the real you to anyone. There are moves to trick you into installing mikes into your living room on an opt out basis and you should be well aware of that. If you like stuff on Facebook and RT brand messages for free, in my opinion you're a mug. Save that for when you meet in person, where you are still in charge and own the lion's share of your own value creation or until a platform which respects you as an individual and the sanctity of your own home comes along!

To brands; I understand the challenges, but if you want to stand out from the crowd, you shouldn't be dumbing yourself to a level playing field and being complicit in raping targeting data from people, will do you no favours in the long run. You're the guys who are paying the bills and if you treat the digital individual and their digital homes with respect, they will eventually welcome you in... and in a way which is meaningful.

Social media isn't social yet. It will become social though in my view. As my telephone as a utility enables me to work, socialise, be entertained and play so social networking platforms are equally a utility, but the conversation and content will always be mine and needs to happen within my own space, built on ground I can trust. It doesn't exist yet, but when it does, the next challenge will be fuelling aspiration and where you go if you really do stand out from the crowd. I'll leave you to guess who that landlord will be!

In the meantime and in the world of 'digital land', I want to own my own home and when I do, you're all invited to a party! ......and that by the way, is when we really know we are 'friends' and the supposed ambition becomes a reality and not just a smokescreen! ;-)

(BTW if you are a leading global brand, give me a call... our first few in are more than just Clients and Friends, they are major Partners.)

Increasing Brand Value Through Honour - A Case Study (DFJ Esprit)

A while back I was reading one of my favourite European blogs THE EQUITY KICKER and Nic, the Writer and Partner at DFJ Esprit was asking for some ideas for taglines for their new website. I had a few moments so I gave it some thought and ventured a few modest ideas to the pot. Others too responded with their ideas and to be honest I thought nothing of it afterwards. I'm often generous with ideas and as long as they don't compromise my own ring-fenced business ideas and asset value, enjoy keeping my creative brain alive by contributing to other people's projects.

On many occasions, I've come up with book titles, song titles, band names, movie titles and they've ended up in lights without so much as a mention or note of appreciation. Every time that happens, I mentally write off the people or companies concerned and look at both their ethics and simple good manners with a sense of resigned disappointment but comfort myself that they have lost any opportunity for further value and at least I will go to my grave knowing I've always been original and have never had to 'steal a line'. In some cases especially where that omnipresent spectre of corporate passing off goes unabated, I know myself and many like me (and increasingly these days), look at some big brands with a sour taste in our mouths and the impression that if they can steal the smallest thing, then the overall company integrity must be suspect.

Sometimes though one stumbles across an honourable person and all the negatives described above are transformed to opposite effect. (At the risk of being seen to seek mileage for my efforts which I can honestly say I'm not, I am though seizing the opportunity to demonstrate the point to those individuals and corporations who've benefited from my contributions in the past without so much of a thank you, or worse, lied about the origin of those assets.) So here's my big up for Nic;

Nic Brisbourne is a gentleman and no we haven't even met in person yet. His blog is impartial, engaging and erudite. He publically crowdsourced his call to action for the strapline from the outset, kept his followers up to date and didn't attempt, like Governments tend to, bury the bad news. Some months later, Nic sent me a note asking for my address without explanation and within a couple of days a very nice present indeed arrived at my door, with a note thanking me for my coming up with DFJ Esprit's new tagline of 'fuelling global ambition'. I'm an old fashioned sentimentalist and I was genuinely touched. Now that action alone 'had me at hello', but I have just noted today that Nic also posted a new blog post thanking the contributors to his website and namechecked me as well which he similarly didn't have to do.

And so I find myself, not only further warmed to Nic as an individual, but with a massive feel good factor for DFJ, both in Europe and as part of the wider network. It's the little things that count and this one little thing has prompted me to break my blogging drought and perhaps further contribute to their ongoing success by sharing that good will.

Maybe in this age of increased sharing, one of the eventual net benefits is the ironic fact that the ability for corporations or some of the people who work there, or individuals with a lack of moral fibre, to plagarise without being called to account is diminishing to the benefit of those that originate ideas in the first place. In Nic's case I contributed without expectation, in others more close to my own ambitions, my ideas are just those and have a price or are just not for sale. Either way and without implying we have any other connection currently, I would prefer to be surrounded by the Nic's and DFJ's of this world than the alternatives and to my fellow morally intact entrepreneurs and potential investors into DFJ, both with 'global ambitions' I hope this strikes a cord!

To Nic, I hope this is not presumptuous and put more simply, 'it was my very great pleasure!'.

Response to: Will Facebook Be Tomorrow’s Google, and Google Tomorrow’s Microsoft? - Bindu Reddy

Response to article:

Will Facebook Be Tomorrow’s Google, and Google Tomorrow’s Microsoft?

Bindu this is a nice piece, but I think it isn't timed well for maximum credibility. A bit like doing a human interest piece at the moment on how environmentally considerate BP is deep down

Personally, I also don't buy the advertising thing. To me that advert you've cited actually makes Sony look cheap to me. Show me the same product within an elegant print environment like Vanity Fair or Vogue and I still feel good about it. But Sony alongside cheap adverts for obscure stuff does them no favours imho. The trick is getting brands as part of the 'conversation' but here's where FB are coming unstuck... Firstly, they can't own the conversation and manipulate it, they just provide the platform for where it takes place. Secondly and more importantly, I also passionately believe that for any sophisticated and established brand they have to consider one fundamental problem with this new world order; namely:- 'if they want to stand out from the crowd, they can't become part of it!'

Robert Scoble has recently highlighted the issue too and effectively echoed what I've been saying for some time; that Facebook is a Chris Anderson 'Long Tail' or the 80% of the 80:20 rule. The rich and elegant 'HEAD' or 20% is actually outside the platform and is the place where trad media finally converges properly online. This hasn't happened yet, which is why people like Martin Sorrel at WPP still have a certain disdain for Social Networking in it's current guise. (and he's the guy really writing the big cheques...)

Facebook have created a PR catastrophe recently on privacy and if it weren't for their scale, I think it would have been one of the all time great own goals. They still could prevail as you suggest, but certainly not on the current path they are travelling and probably not unless they eat some humble pie too.

I see Facebook's only route being to accept that it has become inadvertantly another ubiquitious utility like the telephone which carries our private conversations in a new fashion. We would no more expect adverts in our telephone calls than we aren't actually irritated by Facebook ones now and more importantly, we would certainly be incandescent if telephone networks started making our conversations public without permission so as to allow publishers to sell to us during our calls. So Facebook should in my view work to a freemium model and work with the owners of the conversation, perhaps by sharing revenues, then maybe we would be more inclined to open up. Sticking FB flags on content territory and privacy without asking and on the assumption you can then remove them if you want is colonisation of our data and privacy and inherently immoral. I would myself pay a modest fee for an advert free arena to connect socially with people I like. If you then think of them as say a service provider/ ISP, they would have 500 million potential monthly billable Clients and wouldn't need to p**s people off. If they want to utilise my private data from there then they can treat me with some respect and negotiate accordingly...

I assume though at the end of the day, Facebook is ruthlessly tunnel visioned on a sale to Microsoft or IPO and Mark Z is by all accounts only concerned with us DF's if we get in the way of that goal.

Read more: http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/15/facebook-google/#idc-cover#ixzz0o3C5WidC

To Journalists - You may have more power than you think! - Web 2.0 Summit 09: "Discussion: Whither Journalism?"

Video from: Web 2.0 Summit 09: "Discussion: Whither Journalism?" via SVW

Response:-

I've watched the VIDEO ABOVE and with the advantage of humility and objectivity, I think the overall solution/ likely outcome of all this is clear and I can't believe it wasn't immediately obvious to the panel:

Firstly, being a strong advocate that all great success comes from people not corporations, then surely it is logical to look at all journalists as individual monetizable channels. This model then defines the structure, reward and audience loyalty for the traditional newspaper brands as agents and caretakers of those revenue sources. (An Iraq based journalist would then be a channel within their 'sponsor/ host/ agent's branded environment, receiving a retainer or advance against royalties! Rather like a Record Company!)

Secondly this then creates the platform for a 'positive' upward trend where the various institutions WSJ, NYT etc. will proactively compete to attract the most popular writers in their genre. Extended of course, those journalists also become the audience's natural filters for Twitter et al realtime info.

Finally, and I've regularly been on record about this in the past, this creates a compelling and monetizable format for creating a 'club' type atmosphere where instead of a pay for content focus, audiences pay for membership to access that content and the channels. This membership provides for access, kindle et al downloads, some hard copy 'The Week' style summaries and maybe further added benefit too. In terms of branded entertainment and sponsorship of particular channels, I would then exclude all Google adsense and sell branded sponsorship packages for each journalists' channel. Top journalists will also get higher commissions/ royalties but the pool can also be afforded on a much wider basis to bloggers etc. Business journalists and channels would attract high end biz advertisers, entertainment channels would attract relevant brands etc. The niche value of the WSJ and NYT then becomes a consumer statement. (I am a proud MEMBER of the WSJ etc...)

I know this may describe in some sense what is happening naturally on some sites, but instead of everyone moving towards aggregation, perhaps there is more money and security in locking down some of those those brands and promoting the individual journos based on their experience etc. Imagine all the long standing Newspapers locking down their IPR and by implication making a clear statement that any content aggregated via Google or anyone else is inferior and unsubstantiated. It would force Google to re-negotiate its inclusion and access to any respected content!

If these guys don't do something like this, then eventually all these journalists will simply move over to Demand Media or similar and create their own channels, and Demand will eventually become uniquely able to own the whole thing! Conversly of course, Richard Rosenblatt could potentially partner with all the main global Newspapers and offer a platform for that model and totally usurp Google altogether!

Wouldn't that be big news?

RESPONSE TO:- "Why Demand Media is Worth More Than the New York Times!"

RESPONSE TO:- "Why Demand Media is Worth More Than the New York Times". Peter Kafka - All Things D

My response:

Peter,

Nice article. I understand Bruce’s response above, but imho it’s reactionary and though in the moment may have merit, it is based on too narrow a vision.

The latter ‘vision’ being the operative word…Richard has seen that traditional media isn’t necessarily broken, it is just going through a Star Trek style transporter and is still all in pieces mid journey. His model is based on the notion that all the pieces will still come back together on content and we are gradually seeing the evidence of that materialise.

DM have placed themselves at the forefront of that whilst all eyes are still on pure user-generated models and cheap self-serve advertising. DM are the biggest single contributor of content to You Tube for example.

If FB holds a valuation of 6.5bn which has evidently decreased from more than twice than that, then in a recession, my bets are on a more modest but tangible valuation slowly going upwards. DM’s assets may be of varying IP value, but they are genuinely all owned and paid for. The big social networks, only ‘own’ the inconvenience of their users migrating away, not the content itself.

I hope Richard hold’s on to his baby for a few years so his vision is truly born out. Personally I’d invest in whatever he does now or next!

Jan

More information about Demand Media at Demand Media Website

To Traditional Publishers - Create tribes, amalgamate or die...

Previously, a few scoops, exclusives, timely features and a smattering of sexy imagery could lure an audience who would perhaps forgive what is typically a majority chunk of otherwise irrelevant content and advertising, which collectively provided a sense of mass and value in your hand. Online audiences no longer care about all the accompanying bulk and are only interested in the top slice of relevant content and can now skim that selectively in a relative instant. Without that 'captured' set of eyeballs, an online version of the same thing can't hope to deliver any advertising value, at least not in the same way.

In my humble opinion there are only two ways out and that's to amalgamate print brands on a less is more basis to fewer titles and/ or create online tribes of loyal members by packaging the top content to relate to hardcore audiences and then serve that mix as a membership option. (Monthly mag + platinum site access + unlimited Kindle et al downloads and a big hug from the boss = $x per month/ annum)

Personally, the reason I'd walk past the rack at a departures lounge is that I've already packed my laptop with all the best of what I care about, so paying for some dead trees just makes me even more guilty for flying in the first place. Noone can fix that in a traditional way...and as for charging for content Rupert, it's like me submitting an invoice to Facebook for using my content to sell ads around...kinda pointless!

Print Publishers May Create a “Hulu for Magazines” - How stupid is that!

Response to nice Mashable article by Barb Dybwad - Print Publishers May Create a “Hulu for Magazines”

I'm not sure whether it's arrogance or ignorance, but what traditional publishers seem to be conveniently overlooking is that there has been a metaphorical earthquake at the foundations of their whole business model and this has nothing to do with Craig's List or Google poaching their classified advertisers either.

Previously, a few exclusives, timely features and a smattering of sexy imagery could lure an audience who would perhaps forgive what is typically a majority chunk of otherwise irrelevant content and advertising, which collectively provided a sense of mass and value in your hand. Online audiences no longer care about all the accompanying bulk and are only interested in the top slice of relevant content and can now skim that selectively in a relative instant. Without that 'captured' set of eyeballs, an online version of the same thing can't hope to deliver any advertising value, at least not in the same way.

A Hulu for Magazines is as ridiculous as Murdoch charging for news content and is in my opinion tantamount to an online graveyard for a heap of publishing brands who, with some lateral thinking, (shown by UK Telegraph, Daily Beast, Huffington Post, WSJ) could actually re-align themselves and thrive. In reality, they'll find that each of them only has about 10% of their normal print content with any sustainable audience appeal and the ad value will be dumbed down and therefore diluted/ shared to boot. If this is their chosen path, why not call it what it is; which is an amalgamation of lots of brands under one roof and into one online magazine brand..... which I suppose may get bought cheap by Google or Microsoft one day anyway... and if they're really lucky, seemingly like so many these days, it will be at a greatly over-inflated price.