360angles

Here’s an old Steve Jobs video talking about branding. He’s unveiling the “Think Different” campaign from 1997 and then shows the first TV spot at the end of the video. It’s a really great campaign, but pay attention to the very beginning of this talk:

The big takeaway is in the first few seconds of video:

“This is a very complicated world. This is a very noisy world and we’re not going to get a chance… to get people to remember much about us. No company is. And so we have to be really clear on what we want them to know about us.”

The whole branding thing is just like selling or pitching…

• Lunch pitch: ~15 minutes
• Bar pitch: ~5 minutes
• Elevator pitch: ~30 seconds
• ?

That last pitch is your brand. It’s the ultimate distillation of what you do. Someone just cold-surfed to your site or maybe they’re standing in the aisle at the supermarket looking at you and 20 other competitors. You’ve got five seconds, a logo and one-half line of copy. What is the one thing you want them to know about your business?

If you don’t know, then you’re in trouble.

We love Blaine Fisher. Blaine is a killer photographic talent working in Kansas City and traveling the world shooting for Sports Illustrated, Prudential, ESPN, Sprint, The Girl Scouts, Farmland and Weight Watchers; among others. He’s a close friend of the agency and is responsible for making us look good on more than one occasion. So, when he needed a new site at BlaineFisherPhotography.com, we jumped at the chance to make him something special.

We had three major directives from Blaine:

1. The site has to be easy to update by a casual computer user.
2. It has to show BIG photographs. (The target audience for this site is predisposed to having large high quality monitors and fast internet connections – i.e. creatives and creative directors.)
3. The site itself has to get out of the way of the photography.

The first thing we did was outline solutions to these challenges.

1. Easy to update – build the site on a customized WordPress CMS install. Ease of use is one of the many reasons the WordPress platform is so wildly popular.
2. Showcase BIG photographs – Make them as large as the medium will allow: fill the browser window completely. (No stretching or distorting allowed.)
3. The site itself can’t get in the way – Make a minimal GUI with collapsible elements to put the focus on Blaine’s work.

Then we sketched up some concepts for him to look at…

As you can see we went for the biggest image size we could fit on a web site-one that fills the browser window completely. Then it’s over-laid with a semi-transparent minimal interface that allows a user to navigate between the pictures grouped into various categories and tags. We also wanted the user to be able to “hide” the interface, or at least a significant portion of it, for a better view of the photos. This is also good for Blaine when he wants to show off the site to a client and wants to hide the user interface, since he isn’t a casual browser.

Once approved, the next step was making it happen with pixels. The Photoshop mock up is below.

The next order of business (and the real challenge) was to find a way of making his photos the full size of the open browser window. This is hard because the browser window size is a moving target depending on user configuration and then once on the site they can re-size their window at will. In order to have the current photo take up the entire window we needed an image to fill that space dynamically without distorting.

After a some research, we found a little jQuery/CSS magic to make it happen without resorting to less elegant techniques such as defining window sizes (user hostile) or building it in Flash (hard to update and not search engine friendly). With some light modification, we got the plug in working on our WordPress install. Then we made the main interface elements hide-able at the click of a button using some custom jQuery and were ready to get Blaine up and running. After some light training, he was ready to go. Check out the video below to see it in action…

Or just head on over to Blaine Fisher’s site, we launched it July 1st.

The most requested iPhone 5 feature may be the ability to actually order one. As of 1:00 AM this morning, myself and about a million other folks have been trying to pre-order the new iPhone 4. I started at about 7:15 AM myself. The results have been less than stellar. The white iPhone is nowhere to be found, and both the AT&T and the Apple pre-order sites keep going down (presumably) under the weight of incoming requests for the new gadget.

I wonder if all this lack of pre-order preparedness will carry over into demand problems when these things are supposed to be delivered on June 24th? (If no one can order one, it’s not going to be a problem.) For what it’s worth, there are reports of a better chance of getting through on AT&T’s site, although I couldn’t get that to work, either.

10:50AM UPDATE: Apple also isn’t taking phone calls at this time.

1. WolframAlpha, another search engine? I’ll probably never use this since Google is so good.
2. Holy hell that demo video was AMAZING! This thing is going to change the world.
3. 
   
4. *send*
5. Wait a minute… the results for terms I search the most, like directions and products, are total crap. I don’t even think that’s what this is for…
6. *deletes bookmark*
7. I hope no one mentions that email… Maybe I’ll just say I was tired.

I deleted my Facebook profile a few weeks ago because they unilaterally altered the terms of our agreement for the sixth time in five years. They did so in a way that explicitly benefited them over me. The original agreement went something like this (paraphrased):

Facebook: I’ll give you a private place to build something of value to you and your peers online. In exchange I’m going to show you ads.

Me: OK.

But then the agreement changed, and changed, and kept changing until I left.

I’m pretty tech-savvy and was never under any illusions about my sharecropper status at Facebook. I left when the arrangement became undesirable and in doing so, left any value I’d created with them. That’s all you can do when you don’t own the information. Right now, Facebook is the largest land owner online and 400 million+ people are sharecropping. We’re farming their land, they get a cut and it’s their way or the highway.

Social Media Sharecropping

Facebook gives us space and tools. We then create value by populating the space with user generated content. In exchange they get to extract value from the content we provide, but it’s totally different from the social value we extract. Their value is in the form of advertising and/or data mining (for other advertisers) but it’s a shared value proposition either way. This is basically the whole crux of the Web 2.0 movement. Users are adding value to the web and the owners benefit directly or indirectly which makes everything “free.” (I’m painting in broad strokes to make a point, bear with me…)

The caveat, and what makes the sharecropping allegory really stick, is that when we spend time adding value to their site and they unilaterally change the terms of the agreement there’s nothing we can do because they own the land, we just work here. It’s not easy for us to take our built up value (aka information) with us, if we can do it at all. There’s little to no data portability.

I’m singling out Facebook because they’re the elephant in the room, but there are tons of sites online where you can sharecrop or do something similar: MySpace, Flickr, Digg, YouTube, Twitter, Foursquare, Metafilter, Deviant Art, Etsy and on and on. It’s worth noting that many of these communities are more like co-ops or some other mutually-beneficial relationship with many degrees of data ownership and portability in between.

The Haves and Have-Nots

Digesting this concept can be tough, so I’m speaking in metaphors. If someone doesn’t know the difference between a web browser and a search engine, how are they to make the distinction of whether or not the value they’ve been curating and creating belongs to them? Maybe the better question is, does it even matter? The answer is the same as the answer to most questions; it depends.

I’m a bad candidate for sharecropping. Some are not.

Real sharecroppers are generally too poor to afford land; they’re a step above indentured servants. However, the hard cost of creating a web property these days is nominal. With free software, commodity hosting and a registered domain name; you can be up and running for the cost of a large pizza. This shifts the monetary wealth in our sharecropping metaphor from haves and have-nots, to knows and know-nots.

I am not poor at all in this new know and know-not sense. I know how to build websites, I do it all the time. Which is what leads me to the point I was at two weeks ago: staring at Facebook’s account deletion page.

I was done creating value for them. In most of my tenure as a Facebook user it was just a glorified address book to me, so I’m sure I was a low value user anyway. The point is I have other options. I can create content on the web on my own terms. I have several web properties that I unconditionally own and create value around. But wither the forced sharecropper?

Building Portable Value

The majority of people I interact with on a day to day basis  can’t build their own website; my best friend can’t, my wife can’t. True land ownership online is not an option for them. So if they want to create something online they’re left to sharecropping.

As I said before, the options are many. However, In my opinion the desirable options are few. Here are two of my favorites that I often find myself recommending to others.

Posterous – This is probably the best recommendation because it hooks into just about everything (see above) and does so with little or no technical knowledge from the user. In fact, it could be argued that Posterous’ best use is as a hub for exporting data to other sharecropping arrangements or “walled gardens”, but the key is that it does export well with no advanced technical knowledge. They also have a nice display interface themselves with lots of options.

WordPress.com – It has one-touch data export and once the data is out you can manipulate on your own terms. You do have to be technically inclined to do so, but it’s a nice feature for users who start out as sharecroppers and then build their informational wealth to a point that they’re ready to own some land. (I’m biased though, I cut my web development teeth on the open-source version of WordPress.)

There are other good options, I’m sure, but the important thing is that both of these services cater to the non-tech savvy without using it against them for data lock-in.

The Future

Some may argue this is all moot point because if a person is tech-illiterate enough they won’t care or understand why data lock-in is bad, but if they’re too tech-savvy they may just go off and build their own thing. I respectfully disagree…

It may because of articles like this, or it may be because people are just pissed they can’t get their photos out of Facebook, but there is a small middle ground that is growing; and I think it will continue to grow into the majority. They understand the importance of data portability and the concepts of an open web for one reason or the other, and they demand services that offer value in this form.

Tagged.com coughs up $650,000 after spammy+deceitful practices marketing their online social network. A well deserved, “Ouch”.

Full story.

Something we all knew is now official policy:

You may have heard that here at Google we’re obsessed with speed, in our products and on the web. As part of that effort, today we’re including a new signal in our search ranking algorithms: site speed. Site speed reflects how quickly a website responds to web requests…

…If you are a site owner, webmaster or a web author, here are some free tools that you can use to evaluate the speed of your site:

• Page Speed, an open source Firefox/Firebug add-on that evaluates the performance of web pages and gives suggestions for improvement.
• YSlow, a free tool from Yahoo! that suggests ways to improve website speed.
• WebPagetest shows a waterfall view of your pages’ load performance plus an optimization checklist.
• In Webmaster Tools, Labs > Site Performance shows the speed of your website as experienced by users around the world as in the chart below. We’ve also blogged about site performance.

Now when I first used Facebook I used their system of uploading information from my Google Mail address book to find friends. Little did I know (and I would not have expected) that Facebook would retain that information after I’d used it for the purpose that I gave it to them for, and later use it to tell other people about me.

This seems like a problem, although they do list it in the Facebook privacy policy. You can opt out of course, but to do so you’d obviously have to know about it first. Which is indicative of an even larger problem, to me.

Here’s Facebook’s privacy policy as of today at half size:

There’s 350,000,000 people on Facebook, and 600,000 more are signing up every day. How many of them do you think have read that? How many of them know what it opts them (and everyone in their address book) in to?

Yesterday, Google rolled out a new home page design. Or rather a new homepage design element, but it’s such a structural change that it could be considered a whole new design. (Their home page is so sparse, it doesn’t take much.) All Google.com shows now is their logo, the search box and the submit buttons…

…until it detects mouse movement, then the rest of the GUI elements fade in.

I like it. It gives Google the sheen of the sophisticated tech company they really are, without screwing up their minimalist design; no rounded corners, “Apple Reflections” or web 2.0 gradients thank-you-very-much.

But wait, this looks familiar. Here’s a shot of the original Google home page in 1999, when they were still in beta:

It looks like the big G is returning to its roots. And I for one, think it really works. Not that it matters what I think, just as you might suspect Google tested the hell of this thing before making it live:

…the variant of the homepage we are launching today was positive or neutral on all key metrics, except one: time to first action. At first, this worried us a bit: Google is all about getting you where you are going faster — how could we launch something that potentially slowed users down? Then, we realized: we want users to notice this change… and it does take time to notice something (though in this case, only milliseconds!). Our goal then became to understand whether or not over time the users began to use the homepage even more efficiently than the control group and, sure enough, that was the trend we observed.

The fade-in happens quickly enough that by the time you get your mouse to where you’re going, the control you were seeking is there. And since the search input field is auto-focused when the page loads, you can just type your query and hit enter if you don’t need/aren’t interested in this other stuff.

I love this UI decision. It lets Google have its cake by un-encumbering search users; and eat it too, by still providing for the other subset of users that visit Google.com as a jumping off point for their secondary service offerings.

As Bing shows signs of actually mounting an effective assault on the behemoth, and the Newspapers threaten to take their ball and go home find a business model that works without Google, they make a stylish return to what made them great in the first place: search, and that’s all.

After two full business days of relentlessly negative coverage for Microsoft, the noise from the echo chamber is deafening. More than 500 separate posts on mainstream tech sites and in blogs have amplified the original story, most of them simply repeating the accusations from the Prevx blog post with no original reporting or fact-checking. The story has now taken on a life of its own…

…You’ll notice I didn’t link to any of the Prevx blog posts or IDG headlines in the account above. Here’s why: Doing so increases the rank of those pages on search engines and makes those inaccurate headlines and summaries even more likely to bubble to the top of a search for troubleshooting information on Windows. And given that most of those stories have not been corrected, it would be irresponsible to give them more Google juice than they already have.

Some good reporting on some bad reporting by Ed Bott, a reporter with search on his mind, at ZDnet.

Rupert Murdoch/Newscorp are threatening to block Google from indexing their content, and it’s looking like they have a real incentive to do so, since Microsoft might pay them for it. (It’ll be interesting to see the zeros on that check since Google currently provides ~25% of traffic to Newscorp’s sites such as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post.)

To anyone that works in the search, and most of us in the even broader web development industry, this sounds absolutely ludicrous. There must be some fundamental misunderstandings of the mechanism (search) at play for this to even be considered:

1. Misunderstanding What People Are Searching For

Murdoch thinks that people are using search to look for Newscorp sites, but they aren’t. People use search to look for information. When we type in the topic of a late breaking news story we don’t try different engines and key phrases until a source we recognize pops up in the results. That’s optimizing our information intake and it’s hard, we went to Google in the first place so we wouldn’t have to do this. Instead of optimizing our information intake, the majority of us will satisfice.  We click through on one of the results that’s provided; the one that looked like it might solve our problem in the three to five seconds we cared to spend scanning the page. We do this because the penalty is low and we know it usually works.

2. Underestimating The Quality Content Supply

Taking Newscorp’s content out of Google will only strengthen Newscorp’s rivals. As a content provider myself, I would love for Newscorp to remove themselves from Google’s index. And I’m not alone. There’s an army of new media publishers that have been doing a good job of slaying the print media dragon over the last few years and they would be overjoyed if a monster like Newscorp just took itself out of the online content provider gene pool.

Thousands of people will fill that void left by all the Newscorp results disappearing. Yes, a few loyal followers will follow the Wall Street Journal and New York Post content to Bing. (Or will they-if a user is specifically searching for a New York Post result, why not just search directly on the site itself? Why keep querying various third parties until you receive a result from the site you want?) People will keep using Google because it’s what they know, they deliver high quality results and they’ll keep clicking on the relevant search results that Google has always delivered, but non of them will be Newscorp results, and that’s a lot of clicks – people that are knowledge-hungry and primed to discover new information sources, ones that will replace Newscorp sources. It’s an opportunity that many online content creators will jump at.

3. No One Will Pick You Over Google, Even If You’re Google*

People trust Google. People trust Google so much that when a competitor’s search results are compared with Google’s and the brand names are switched, people pick the Google-branded results. No one thinks that Google is bad at search. When something is not included in Google’s search index, users don’t go looking for it or wonder, “gee why isn’t that Wall Street Journal article in Google, Google must be broken.” They think that the article in question is what’s broken, or that the website is down, or that it’s not included because it’s poor quality. This could be partially remedied by a traditional media marketing blitz, but that kind of marketing doesn’t work so well with the search savvy crowd that makes a conscious decisions about the engine they use; which makes that an incomplete solution at best, and at worst, an expensive waste of time. Either way, there will be serious damage to Newscorp’s various brands. (Damage to the tune of 25% of their current audience.)

*Yes, this brand bias will go away eventually, but that’s a long road; combined with the other factors above, Newscorp may never see the end of it.

Whither Bing?

This is a raw deal for Newscorp, but what about Bing? It would be great publicity for them and help keep the momentum they’ve generated, but it’s definitely not the high road. Paying 3rd parties to remove themselves from competitors’ search results isn’t a sustainable strategy and smacks of desperation.

It’s also a credibility issue with web developers and tech industry insiders: some prominent people are complaining that this is the start of a sky-is-falling scenario for the state of the current web. Microsoft is already much maligned in these circles because of the havoc that their deliberately non-standards compliant browsers continue to wreak on the web. This will just be one more notch on Microsofts let’s-piss-off the-community-we-operate-in-and-hire-from. Not that Microsoft cares, or at least they haven’t in the past.

3.1 The REAL Reason Newscorp Should Be Scared

You can take all of the above as biased rambling (I do work in search), but the real reason that Newscorp should be extremely concerned about the success of a search pullout is that Google’s response has essentially been, “we don’t care.”

“Google News and web search are a tremendous source of promotion for news organisations, sending them about 100,000 clicks every minute… Publishers put their content on the web because they want it to be found, so very few choose not to include their material in Google News and web search. But if they tell us not to include it, we don’t.”

And there isn’t anyone who knows more about the internet, or making money from the internet, than Google. Yes, they could be* are bluffing, but my money says they’re just looking at the future instead of the past, along with most of their users.

*UPDATE:

Google just announced it’s First Click Free program, allowing publishers to limit users to no more than five pages per day without registering or subscribing.

When you paste the following into the address bar of your browser when on google.com and hit return, you should find yourself as new participant of Google’s latest and more all-encompassing prototype test – the one with a new logo, buttons, and always-visible left-hand pane in results. Please note I needed to sign out first for this to work.

javascript:void(document.cookie="PREF=ID=20b6e4c2f44943bb:U=4bf292d46faad806:TM=1249677602:LM=1257919388:S=odm0Ys-53ZueXfZG;path=/; domain=.google.com");

Looks like Google is taking a page out of Microsoft’s (as in Bing’s) book. It’s a surprising move, but one that I think will improve their service. The time framing options presented in the all new left sidebar are something I’ve been wanting for years. (Time framing had been available in the advanced search area for a while, but now it’s a few less clicks away.)

Google is testing this in a few markets right now, and it will be rolling out soon if it gets a positive response. My gut says it will, but I’m sure it’s just an A/B split test for them-the test users will determine if it gets implemented or not.

We’ll be back on Monday after taking a long weekend, have a great holiday!

Social media terrifies a lot of businesses. Because we have to stop controlling and start contributing. It is indeed scary-I’m not saying it’s not-but the good news is this stuff has been around for a few years now and we can be sure it can go 4 ways…

1. You won’t commit once you find out what it costs. It’s just as expensive as traditional media marketing/PR unless you do it in-house, and then the time commitments are large. The big difference (and the whole big deal about social media, in my opinion) is that it usually works better as a committed in-house effort as opposed to marketing and PR which are most definitely better left to dedicated agencies for all but the largest organizations.
2. You pretend to commit, but don’t. Leaving hollow burned out remains of your brand in the form of incomplete profiles in various social communities online. Ease of entry, combined with a sensationalizing of the rare quick return in social media marketing, has made this the most common result of business forays into the market.
3. You commit, but not to the community, only to your own message. You end up damaging your brand in the various social communities you enter online. (This is the one you heard about that’s so scary… Example, example, example, and example.)
4. You commit to the community that you’re entering by using your expertise to add value. This lands you in a personal relationship with a bunch of people online that will be your advocates. (This is THE ONE! The one you heard about that pays immeasurable dividends to your business.)

If you’re not going to do the last one, then do the first one. Skip the middle two, because those are the ones where you spend money and time hurting yourself.

* { outline: 2px dotted red }
* * { outline: 2px dotted green }
* * * { outline: 2px dotted orange }
* * * * { outline: 2px dotted blue }
* * * * * { outline: 1px solid red }
* * * * * * { outline: 1px solid green }
* * * * * * * { outline: 1px solid orange }
* * * * * * * * { outline: 1px solid blue }

Saw this posted by Chris Page over at Snipplr this morning. I love stuff like this. There’s always Firebug+Yslow, Firefox Web Developer and other heavy duty tools to pick apart a site from the outside, but using the language to do the work for you from within the system is pretty much the coolest thing ever.

We’re now officially out of beta! All tools are live. Every one of them is free in one form or another, you just have to create an account to use them:

• Voltmeter – A comprehensive test of any site’s marketing power. This tool crawls a site and reports back on 30+ on and off site factors indicating online marketing prowess.
• A/B Darwin – A data fitness calculator that tells you definitively if your A/B split testing data is complete enough to declare a winner and a loser.
• RANDAL – Rank detection and logging that’s automatic. This tool will check your search rank for specific keywords daily and log your results over time. Hooray! No more manually checking search results.
• User Historian – A unique site analytics tool that can peek into your users browsing history and tell you where else your market is gathering online.
• Keyword Distiller – This tool scans a web page and looks at 13 different factors to determine what keywords that page is targeting. See what terms any page online is targeting, and shore up your weaknesses or learn from your competition.

These tools are all offered for free, but if the tools are useful and you need more power and customization options, we do PRO accounts, too. Being officially out of beta means that our 50% off price lock-in promotion is over for PRO users; but it’s still a great deal at $19.99/month or an even better deal at $149/year. Click either of those links above to look at our upgrade page and see exactly what the difference is between the free and PRO accounts.

We also host this resource, as well (no account required for viewing):

• Web Developer’s Field Guide – A huge resource list for web developers to bookmark and come back to when in need of a tutorial, instruction, general information or inspiration.

Being out of beta means everything works, but it does not mean everything is perfect (what is?) so we’ll continue to make improvements to all of our tools and resources. If you have something to say about any of it: we’d love to hear from you.

Our Darwin A/B split testing tool is temporarily offline while we try and find a hosting solution that allows us to run the astronomical calculations we have to perform in order to deliver accurate results.

Update: Darwin is back online!

Click any of the screen shots to see them full size.

I’m excited to say that Darwin, our A/B Split testing data calculator, is live! Go check it out – you’ll need to log in or create an account real fast (free, no email required) if you don’t have one.

Is Your A/B Split Testing In The Dark Ages?

It seems like every week I read another blog post about what rule of thumb is best for measuring your split test results. Sometimes 200 impressions is “enough”, sometimes it’s 600, but it’s always arbitrary. The truth is that there is no rule of thumb that will apply to all split tests. They have to be mathematically analyzed for random data variance on a case-by-case basis. It’s a complicated process that most online marketers skip.

Skipping the science on the data analysis means that A/B split testing for the majority of online marketers is guess work and intuition; both of which have been proven hideously unreliable since, oh… The Dark Ages. Unreliable analysis for your split testing data means that you’ll spend longer getting lasting results, if you get them at all, because you’ll kill a variant of a split test before you truly know it’s better. This means lost time and it also means lost money if you’re paying for those impressions.

Darwin puts a stop to all that.

Darwin is Easy To Use

To use Darwin, you enter your A/B split test data (two sets of related impressions and clicks/conversions) in the four fields and hit “Calculate Fitness”. It will then tell you in the plainest language possible (Yes or No) if your two sets of data show a mathematically significant variance from one another.

If the answer is NO, you need to collect more data because there’s a good chance you’re just seeing random variations in your user base.

If the answer is YES, then you can eliminate the worse performing variant and start over. No more guesswork! (Chance doesn’t stand a chance against science.)

A/B Split testing, or multivariate testing, is arguably the most powerful tool in an online marketers bag of, er, tools. It is essentially putting one pitch up against another and seeing which one does the best. By doing lots of A/B Split tests over time and always keeping the better performer, you can evolve a pitch that is tailored to your market and likely better than a pitch created based on a hunch or intuition. (Careful here; hunches and intuition are not to be discounted. You must start from somewhere, you can’t split test a blank Adwords ad or a from with no fields. And it’s obviously better to start from a good place than not, which is something only a good copy writer can do.)

One of the easiest places to do this is with Google Adwords. They make it very easy to run one ad against another. You can see in the example above, ads for the keyword “right-side back pains”. You would run two different ads (ad A & B, natch) to appear when users searched for that keyword, and see which ad performed better. Then you would eliminate the poorer performer of the two and start testing again. All A/B split testing is some variation of this process.

A/B split testing is also applied to whole web pages or individual elements on a web page like a headline or form. You can see a good example of on-page element split testing here: Writing Decisions: Headline tests on the Highrise sign-up page. They did a multivariate test with lots (more than two) of variables. This is a more advanced form of split testing. (It is much easier to keep track of variables and to vet your data with an A/B split test, which is why it is so much more common.)

In Summary

Split or multivariate testing is comparing things against one another to determine a superior so that the inferior may be disregarded. By running concurrent split tests of marketing pitch’s, ads or design we can allow our market to determine a pitch that is targeted and effective. (It should also be noted that split testing is a whole discipline, in and of itself, and this is bascially a light primer or vocabulary lesson.)

A Search Engine Results Page or SERP is what you see immediately following a search submission. When an end user types a keyword into a search box and hits “enter” or “submit” or “search” the SERP is almost always what they see next. Here’s a SERP for the keyword “SERPs”.

The most helpful way I’ve found to think of SERPs is as what is, literally, the search engine’s product. Most of the real work goes on behind the scenes with algorithm tweaking, web crawling, indexing, and so on, but the rubber hits the road at the SERP. It’s what the user or customer actually sees, so it’s an incredibly important element in the world of search marketing and online marketing in general.