While newspapers and TV stations rush to put more “news” online, I fear that they’re missing the bigger opportunity on the Internet – one that companies like Groupon and Living Social are stealing away.   The more important local content in the lean-forward medium of the Internet is advertising, not “news” in the traditional sense.  Perhaps that’s behind the latest rush of yellow pages companies to make their print directory business more “newsworthy.”

The latest is Yellowbook, the entrepreneurial yellow pages company that this week announced the launch of Weforia (www.weforia.com). Its initial deals are limited to Boston, Fort Myers and Phoenix, but the early sales results prior to the Sept. 25th launch portend a rapid rollout in other cities. While I was on the phone with Mike Wilson, vice president of digital media and general manager of Yellowbook.com, he kept receiving email notices of more sales for Weforia.

(We’ll explore these deals further during our Local Mobile Advertising Conference Sept. 27-29 in Dallas. Would love to see you there.)

The yellow pages have a natural advantage. Yellowbook has 1,000 directories and tentacles into hundreds of thousands of small businesses. So do companies like AT&T, Supermedia, Dex and others. The deal-of-the day program adds currency to the static offering of the printed directory and allows them to compete directly with the “news”.

“Yellowbook’s goal is to provide small businesses with multiple ways to reach local customers,” Wilson said. “A consumer-facing website like Weforia.com, built to showcase special, local limited-time deals from our clients, is a natural extension to our current portfolio.” In addition to Weforia.com, merchant group offers will be promoted on Yellowbook.com, Yellowbook’s suite of Mobile Apps (including Android, iPhone and iPad, among others) and across its wide network of partners.

At Borrell Associates, the phone has been ringing off the hook and emails have been rolling in from clients launching group-buying deals like Groupon and Living Social. We’ve heard amazing results – like one media company launching a program that, after three months, is already on a track to generate $1 million in net revenue this year. On very, very little expense.

It’s the new-new thing, and the results are certainly encouraging – even exciting. In the end, companies like Yellowbook, I think, will have learned the secret of “local media” that Adolph Ochs was talking about.

Hmm.  I did say last year that mobile presented “a great opportunity for media companies to lose money.”  But I’m not sure that “nothing” is the appropriate strategy for a medium that will attract more local ad dollars than radio, yellow pages, direct mail or outdoor advertising within five years.

Truth be known, the newspaper manager was actually doing something.  He had launched an app and was delivering news over mobile devices.  But the company was devoting scant resources to sell the app or to work on anything else in the mobile space, like text coupons or location-based advertising.

So is that the appropriate strategy?  You’d think so if you’d seen what I’ve seen in the past two months.  Conference speakers get blank stares when they act like Chicken Little citing statistics about the growth of mobile advertising.  They get laughter and even applause when they do their Eeyore imitation bemoaning how overrated it all seems.

Case in point:  At a conference of major retailers in Chicago a few weeks ago, the founder and CEO of eMarketer took the stage and was far more energetic than his unresponsive audience.  His liveliness and jokes fell flat.  But he found a sweet spot when he started debunking the numbers for mobile advertising and social media.  He showed the wide range of forecasts being offered and commented, “I’m not sure where they’re getting these numbers.”  Chuckles and nodding.   When he showed research demonstrating how miniscule or overrated certain audiences were, the audience remained engaged.

Another case in point:  At a state broadcasting convention last month, the audience laughed and applauded when the president of Emmis Communications bashed social media and the phenomenon of people glued to Droids and iPods.

A final case in point:  Ten people emailed me an Advertising Age article headlined, “Forrester:  Why Most Marketers Should Forgo Foursquare.”  One of the comments on the Ad Age article observes:  “Wow – for once, Forrester isn’t riding the social media bandwagon and it gets taken to the woodshed by the commenters.”

The backlash for mobile marketing has begun.  I suspect it will intensify in the coming months as legacy media like TV, radio and newspapers start showing gains, as is typically the case when we climb out of  a deep recession.   Our forecasts at Borrell Associates show newspapers with annual revenue gains of 1.6% over the next five years, TV with gains of 3.6% and radio pretty much flat. The fact that newspapers and broadcast media aren’t dead is “news,” which means that all this stuff about new media killing old media must be hogwash.

So what does all this mean?   Timing is very important.   We are approaching the tail end of an extended period of hype for mobile marketing.  People are rushing in by the thousands with apps and features and software and all sorts of gimmicks, citing statistics (like Borrell Associates’) to gain credibility.  That bubble is about to burst, and mobile-bashing will become vogue, similar to what happened in the aftermath of the dotcom bubble burst.

That’s why we’ve pulled together a Local Mobile Advertising Conference next month in Dallas.  The agenda is devoid of people who have something to sell and includes only the key front-line strategists in the mobile space.  We’ve filtered out the hype and plan to get down to brass tacks.  What’s working, and what’s merely interesting but yields no results?

For media companies, successfully tackling the mobile space will depend not on rushing in with everything you’ve got, but knowing when to rush in with the appropriate effort.

While newspapers have fallen on hard times over the past decade, the industry is finally showing signs of emerging from the deep trough it tumbled into, a pit largely dug by the newspapers themselves. In a few weeks we will revisit our forecast from 12 months ago that newspaper ad revenues would bounce back, showing an average annual increase of approximately 1.7% over the ensuing five years but perhaps never again reaching the $40 billion they achieved in 2008. I suspect we’ll adjust the forecast, but not by much. A mild bounce-back is inevitable.

Back in the early ’90s, before the Internet realigned everybody’s perceptions of media, newspapers were coming out of another earnings slump — albeit a far more shallow pit than the one they currently endure. The men who ran the big, multi-city metro chains decided that the best way to court Wall Street was with steadily climbing margins. They worked hard at the strategy, pulling newspaper company profit margins from an average of ten to 12 percent to beyond 20 percent by the end of the century. The process was tough. Newspapers were laying off people and ending careers all through the good times of the ’90s, long before their primary advertising franchises became in doubt.

By the late ’90′s newspaper classifieds started to erode. First, recruitment spending went to the Web, as employers discovered they could do for themselves what the liner ads in the back of the paper had always done before. Next, department store spending bled away, as the big chain stores hit cost and competition walls. Later on, real estate discovered the Web as well, and that long-held franchise began to drift away.

In reality, all of these major components of newspaper advertising had been eroding for years. But in a hot economy, loss of share may not be noticed as long as receipts continue to climb — especially if you don’t measure share, just year-over-year change in sales. The strategy of increasing price where sales were good, then meeting with major advertisers to mediate the increase had always worked for newspapers. Everybody thought it would work forever. However, the strategy could only work in a world where no new media competitors — especially competitors that could compete in the classified arena — existed. Once the Internet was monetized, the old ways no longer applied.

Now, as the newspaper industry pulls itself back to black ink, it finds itself in a new world. Here are some of the new rules:

• Content is still king (but not newswire content). Anybody with a computer or a smart phone can find 50 free sources for AP or Reuters content. They don’t need a newspaper (in any form) for that. On the other hand, Local news isn’t as commoditized. It tends to be scratched and suffered out of the community by actual reporters (or even by readers). It is the more valuable content for newspapers.
• Ads are content, too. More than one-third of the people who use their computers or read a paper are employing those media to help them look for items to buy, things to do, or places to go. On Sundays, nearly half of the people who buy the newspaper are doing so for the advertising content.
• Advertisers want measurement. They’re no longer satisfied being told that an ad will reach a lot of people – unless they can see the results in their places of business.

The last point is probably the most important. The marketing pendulum is swinging away from advertising, toward promotions. Unlike ads, promotions are very measurable, and they can be launched on an advertiser’s own website or Facebook page.

Can newspapers find a place in this new world, someplace between the pit and the pendulum? Some smaller papers, community and suburban offerings for the most part, continue to do well. It’s the big metro dailies that have been hit hardest and seem the slowest to recover. It is too soon to forecast how and in what form they will continue.

Part of the magazine’s content decried social network marketing. One column begins, “The real danger with social media is in marketers expecting too much from it.”  Another begins, “Social media takes up more time than it does money.”   But the coup de grace is the back page.  It features a full-page “Last Word > Found in the Trash” piece showing a crumpled piece of paper with a chart labeled “Percent of Adults Who Use Social Media, 2005-2009.” Above the chart, a nameless executive has written “Why are we paying so much attention to this if HALF the population isn’t?” The scribbled answer: ” ’Cause it’s the cool new thing.”

There’s nothing wrong with a media choice or outlet defending itself, or seeking to increase its validity at the expense of competition. However, there is something very odd about a quasi-governmental organization that may lose $5 billion this year spending public money to bash the wrong competitor. (Yes, that’s billion with a B.)

The Postal Service doesn’t need more direct mail. Nor do consumers. Direct mail of all sorts already makes up more than half of all the items delivered to our mailboxes every day. What the Postal Service needs — desperately — is more personal mail, the letters you and I used to send each other before long distance calls got so cheap and e-mail became so ubiquitous.

Sadly for your postman, a return to the personal mail levels of the 1980s or even the 1990s is highly unlikely. Without that kind of volume, the Postal Service will be unable to continue its Faustian bargain with the nation’s large direct mailers. The facts are simple. Even though direct mail makes up an increasing share of postal volume, its share of postal revenue sits at about 20 percent. That old Vaudeville line, “I lose a buck on every sale, but I make it up in volume!” applies here with a vengeance.

For decades the imbalance didn’t seem to matter, as long as the deep discounts given to direct mailers could be offset by stable amounts of personal mail. Now, everybody involved will have to pay more and get less. To make a bad situation even worse, the Postal Service has pension overhang as bad as any Detroit automaker ever endured. The agreement pushed through Congress in 1993 might have brought relief, if e-mail had never been discovered.

What is needed now is a bitter dose of reality — not a slick magazine. We will always need a postal service. But we need a service that serves the people of this nation, not businesses grown used to unsupportable discounts. “Deliver” should be mantra of this service, not the title of a marketing campaign.

Sandy Martin, BAI Marketing Analyst

In May, he ran an annual campaign that was promoted on-air, online and on mobile devices. The station gave away an umbrella a day, every day, for the month of May. They started the campaign 15 years ago with entries via post card.  Post cards were followed a few years later by online entries which were now followed by SMS entries.  While they received almost 9,000 Web entries, this year they also included a text call-to-action in their promotions and received 4,342 unique entries via mobile phone. I was impressed enough with the 4,342 responses. But, dare I ask? Did he make any money? Yes.  $26,000.

Now, I’m pretty nerdy, so when I think about 4,342 entries, I think of databasing and the ability to remarket.  This Interactive Director, on the other hand, saw the campaign as an opportunity for the advertiser to reach an engaged audience, and the entries represented proof of engagement.  Remarketing to a list never came up in the sale.

So, I ask you, what are you doing in your market to demonstrate that you have an engaged audience for your advertisers? How can you use mobile advertising, the most personal of all media, to increase brand recall and call-to-action on behalf of your clients?

Mobile couponing comes up a lot because it’s easy to do with text messaging. While it may be effective, it offers a weak revenue opportunity when compared to the example above. It wouldn’t take long to get 500 to 1,000 people to subscribe to SMS alerts from a neighborhood pizza joint. Then what? The restaurant pays to remarket to the list again and again? That’s a commodity strategy for the media company and a discounting strategy for the restaurant. In neither case is it very profitable.

I just redeemed my first mobile coupon for a free personal organic cheese pizza this week. In fact, I nearly leapt across the table to seize the alternative weekly my friend was reading when I saw the text “FUSION” call to action out of the corner of my eye as he turned the page. Who doesn’t love pizza coupons? There are 14 pizza places within two miles of my house. I have a stack of pizza coupons in a drawer in my kitchen, but I’ve ordered pizza twice this week and only used one coupon. I prefer Pizza Fusion, coupon or not. That’s branding in action, and, against my better judgment, I’m a profitable customer.

• 1 in 10 Brits thinks it is OK to text during sex.
• A widely successful condom awareness campaign, running in India, is based on a ringtone download that sings “Condom, condom!” (get yours at www.condomcondom.org).
• Victoria’s Secret is attracting eyeballs with an outdoor campaign that uses a sultry model in lace panties to promote a program allowing cellphone users to use Bluetooth outside their stores to get downloads and special offers.

If nothing else, this nascent industry has learned what every good advertiser knows: sex sells. Outside of these titillating facts I also learned that –

• Disney predicts that half of all brand engagement with its customers will be through mobile media by 2012.
• 1 in 3 mobile searches on Google involve a “local” intent.
• Conversion rates for mobile advertisers are in the double digits.

The message was loud and clear: Mobile has arrived as a major media that cannot be ignored. In fact, the biggest hold up is not advertiser interest but bandwidth. And watch out, because once the pipe gets fat, the market will explode much in the same manner that broadband gave the Web its turbocharge over the last decade.

There are about 400 attendees at the Waldorf Astoria.  Nothing I’ve heard here conflicts with Borrell Associates’ aggressive forecast that local mobile marketing spend will surpass the Web in four years as it climbs $14 billion. (Then again, I wouldn’t expect to attend a mobile conference and hear less than rosy predictions about the topic.)

National & Local Mobile Marketing Spend, 2006-2014

Perhaps the best morsel of advice was imparted by mobile marketing guru and author Tomi Ahonen, who kicked off a keynote with his “8 Unique Mobile Benefits.” Approving nods rippled through the audience as Ahonen proclaimed, “Mobile is as different from the Internet as TV is different from radio.” Keep that in mind, for this is a whole new way of marketing to agile consumers in new and challenging way that will require local media Web sites to mobilize faster than they did when the Web launched only 16 years ago.

Ahonen has an excellent point – one that we’re planning to explore deeply at our Local Mobile Advertising Conference in Dallas Sept. 27-29.  We’re taking a lot of pointers from the MMA forum and crafting a dynamic agenda that separates the hype from the real money-making mobile programs spawned from innovative thinking – not incremental steps built on media companies’ existing Web sites.   Check out our agenda at (www.borrellassociates.com/mobile), and watch next week for additional speakers.

More from the Mobile Marketing Forum — Twitter: @MobileMktgForum and #MMAF2010

Clark was recently named CEO of Deseret Digital Media in Salt Lake City.  The importance of this appointment cannot be understated.  Since his days at Harvard Business School, Clark has demonstrated deep academic knowledge about disruptive innovation.  He and I initiated a joint applied research project when I started Borrell Associates, studying how companies like Knight Ridder, Tribune, Media General and Belo were tackling the disruptive forces of the Internet.  They were, we concluded, unwittingly following the disastrous path of tackling it with internal managers – something later to be called “convergence.”

But academia isn’t reality, and as I tell all my clients, people like Clark and me have the easy task of saying interesting and logical things – then leaving.  Implementation is far more difficult than it sounds.

Clark has left the academic world of Stanford, Harvard and Brigham Young to get his hands dirty.  And he’s already doing some amazing things at Deseret Media.

I traveled to Salt Lake City recently to visit his operation.  I left realizing that his operation is probably the most forward-thinking, results-driven local media company in America.  They manage a newspaper, TV station, and two radio stations.  They are already knocking the ball out of the park with KSL-TV’s KSL.com, which will wind up driving more online revenue (about 40% more in my estimation) than any other TV-online operation in the country.  They bought a mobile “deals” company and are about to buy a texting company.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing I noticed while visiting Deseret Media was the contrast between two different meetings of Clark’s staff.  The first meeting included about 30 people, all bright-eyed and eager – and completely in tune with my presentation.  (If any of you have seen me present, you know how challenging I can be with the audience.)  This was one of the only local-media audiences where, after 5 minutes, I realized I was going too slow for them.  Here’s the difference:  Not a single person in the room was a “TV person,” “newspaper person,” or “radio person.”  They all considered themselves employed by Deseret’s digital operations.  After the presentation, many of them hung around and asked questions.

The second meeting was with the same number of people, but all were from Deseret’s TV or radio stations.  The presentation was a bit more challenging and basic, and I got the sense that a lot of them were strapped for time.  As soon as the presentation ended, all but two of them left the room.   They had allotted their 90 minutes to a presentation on digital media, and had to go back to their main jobs. (I’m certain they are just as terrific at their TV and radio jobs as the digital folks are at theirs, just as I’m sure the digital folks are equally as lost about the attributes of legacy media as the legacy media folks are about digital.)

The contrast was amazing.  THIS, I thought, is why legacy media companies have been losing share to the pure-play companies like Yodle, Google, ReachLocal, Truvia, and so many others who have no other distractions.

Clark will be a very enlightening speaker.  His credentials have gone from being a brilliant academic mind, to a brilliant operator.  I think he’s going to help us all lead the way as mobile becomes our new local-media disruptor, and I sincerely hope you can sign up for our conference Sept. 27-29 in Dallas to hear him and the other top performers in mobile whom we’ve lined up.

Kip Cassino, VP Research

While listening to the questions during our Webinar on Wednesday (4/21) on the promise of mobile couponing, I was reminded of Aesop’s famous fable and the spin my grandfather gave it many years ago.

My grandfather was a veteran of both world wars, an Annapolis graduate, a man who had travelled to every corner of the globe. He asked me one day when I was about 5 if I had heard the story. “Of course, Grampa,” I said.

“Well, do you believe it?” he continued.

“I guess so.”

“Son,” he said, “It was a very long time ago, and I was young, but I saw the whole thing. The hare never fell asleep. He was too keen to win.”

“Then how did the tortoise beat him, Grampa?”

“Simple,” the old man said with a chuckle and s smile. “He cheated.”

I drew a sharp breath, and my eyes got wide. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.

“Now, don’t get a frown,” my grandfather continued, “he didn’t do anything sneaky or mean. He just started early.

“You see, the hare wanted to wait until his handsome new jogging suit came in the mail, and the mail didn’t come until four o’clock. The tortoise had nothing but an old set of sweats, but that was good enough for him, so he started off around two. By the time the hare showed up, the race was almost over. He ran as fast as the wind, and his jogging suit looked great, but there was no way he could win.”

“Didn’t the hare complain?”

Grandfather laughed. “Oh, of course. Of course he did! But the reporters were all around the tortoise, so nobody listened. After that, the tortoise got the book deal and the talk shows — and don’t forget the movie. The poor old hare never got a word in edgewise.”

So what do these memories have to do with mobile marketing? As it turns out, plenty. Mobile is sweeping through media in general — and online media in particular — like a growing tide. Some media planners have decided to take a calm, wait-and-see attitude toward getting into the game. “Why go to the trouble and expense to develop our mobile platform now?” they ask. “In a few years, everything will be cheaper, and we’ll have a better idea which way things are heading.” In other words, they are taking the hare’s strategy.

Others (the media planners I agree with, by the way) think more like the tortoise. They may not have the perfect tools or the biggest budgets, but they will begin working in the mobile space as soon as they can, using the resources available to them. If SMS is too expensive, they’ll try mobile portal delivery. They’ll learn how to build apps, and how to take advantage of a growing number of GPS platforms. By the time their more cautious counterparts decide the time is finally right, they will already have won the race.

Starting early. Is it really cheating? No, but it may seem that way to the competitors you beat.

Josh Gordon

This is a guest blog posting by Josh Gordon, president of Selling 2.0, who moderated the Digital Magazine Symposium in New York in March. It is reprinted with permission from his Ad Sales Blog.

Profit on the Web is about audience, not traffic

At the recent Digital Magazine Symposium, Gordon Borrell astonished the audience by blowing up the notion that building that largest base of online readers is the key to ad revenue.

After surveying the financial results from thousands of local media Web operations for the past eight years Borrell concludes there is no direct correlation between large amounts of traffic and large amounts of money.

For example, Borrell tracked a wedding Web site in one of the top media ten media markets making nearly as much money in Internet advertising (in millions of dollars) as the #1 ranked TV station website in that market. The TV site gets about 600,000 unique visitors per month, the wedding site gets about 60,000, or 1/10th of that traffic. How can this happen?

Borrell says that online, the best advertising is content. There was a time before the Internet (my kids are shocked at this statement) when the top way consumers learned about products was through advertising. But the Internet has become a far more efficient educator. Many of the most profitable websites make money because their content functions like advertising did years ago, as a customer educator for product sales. According to Borrell, visitors of these sites are “leaning forward” to read the content while probably ignoring the banner ads.

Some print publishers are still trying to win the print circulation/CPM battles online. But that battle is over. They lost. Online, search, which now accounts for over half of all online advertising dollars spent, has won. A media buyer can always buy more clicks per dollar buying search.

From Silicon Alley Insider

While the online CPM battle is lost, the war for publisher profit can be won. Borrell shows us how with an example: “Compare radio, a $15 billion media segment, with the yellow pages, a $9.8 billion segment. About twice as many people listen to radio compared with those who use the

printed yellow pages. So those ad dollars seem just a little out of whack, right?  Now consider this:  For radio, average weekly time spent listening is about 20 hours.  For the yellow pages, it’s about a minute.  An industry that reaches less than half the audience of radio and gets about 60

seconds of quality time with them every week – compared with radio’s 20 hours a week – can still attract about 65% of the ad dollars as radio?  That’s because the yellow pages, like the Internet, are a lean-forward medium where people see the advertising because the advertising is the content.”

At the Digital Magazine Symposium, when Borrell laid this out, everyone in the audience was taking furious notes.

To further support Borrell’s points, the chart above illustrates the dollar value of a unique visitor at some of the best known websites. To estimate these numbers, Silicon Alley Insider took the full year revenue for 2009 for each of the companies below and divided them by the number of their average monthly worldwide unique visitors.

Unfortunately, many newspaper companies are on a path to remain, well, newspaper companies. Unlike their predecessors in the 1920s who leapt into radio with separate staffs and in the 1950s who leapt into local TV with separate staffs, many legacy media companies aren’t going to make this particular new media transformation.  They have either not read or completely forgotten the principal lesson of disruptive innovation: When a disruptor comes along, the winner is virtually always the organization that pursues the new venture with separate resources.

A lot of local media companies – newspapers, TV, radio, yellow pages and cable –labor under the delusion that their existing print or broadcast staffs are all they need to tackle the Internet.  While I believe that these legacy staffs can develop online content and sell online advertising, there’s overwhelming proof that they’re merely enhancing the core business, not building a new one. Those who have devoted significant and separate resources to the Internet have a far better chance of creating new value for their organizations.  McClatchy, for instance, derives about half of its online revenue from new, non-print advertisers; Fisher Communications in Seattle is outsourcing much of its sales to a separate telemarketing sales force and now has more than 2,000 advertisers – almost none of them broadcast advertisers.  They are creating new value, not shoring up old value, for their companies.

I’d really like to see newspapers win this game.  I started out as a reporter and editor, and the only board that I sit on is the Suburban Newspapers of America board of directors.   But I’ve seen newspapers continue to believe in this thing called convergence – that their print reporters and print salespeople have all the bandwidth they need to tackle this on their own.  They do not.  They need help, and a lot of it.  I’m afraid for newspapers, which I why I keep pounding the desk on this issue.  Newspapers had a 44% share of all locally spent online advertising back in 2004.  In 2009, they had a 23% share.   Competitors with a different strategy – and a lot more time on their hands to compete – are gobbling up all the growth.

Meanwhile, quite a few publishers are rushing to lock down their Web sites by allowing access only to paying subscribers, or looking for riches in eBooks.  A case in point is the Newport (R.I.) Daily News, a 12,000-circulation paper that started charging $35 a month nine months ago for online access.  The goal, as stated by the publisher, was to “drive people back to the printed paper.”  Another is the 23,000-circulation Valley Morning Star in Harlingen, Texas.  The publisher says the pay wall was instituted to “allow greater value to our many loyal print-edition subscribers by not giving away the news to non-subscribers.”

I wonder what would have happened if these publishers were around a half-century ago. Would they have tried to shut down their companies’ new media ventures at the time — TV stations — for fear that local news broadcasts were eroding newspaper circulation?   TV did erode newspaper circulation, just as the Internet most certainly does the same.  New data from Pew Research this week shows just how unwilling people are to pay for news online:  82% said they’d go elsewhere if a site erected a tollgate.  If you dissect the numbers a bit more closely, the figure is actually closer to 93%. 

I don’t want newspaper executives to say – like Encyclopedia Britannica executives said in 1996 – We have the most respected brand.  We have quality content.  People will pay for quality content.  We can’t continue to lose subscriptions by giving away all our valuable content.  Britannica thought this was a convergence play as well.  They completely missed something like Google because their internal managers saw the Internet opportunity from an internal perspective.

MTV, Barnes & Noble, and scores of others are in the same camp – thinking they can seize the opportunity under the same brand and the same managers.   Do 18- to 24-year-olds go to MTV.com?  No, they go to Facebook.  When you want to buy a book do you go to BarnesAndNoble.com?  No, you go to Amazon.com.  

The strategy at Britannica, MTV and Barnes & Noble blinded them to the bigger opportunity, and the strategy at many newspapers to use one combined print-and-online sales force to sell newspaper Web sites is likewise blinding them to a bigger opportunity.