Humility and Leadership

Way back in 1955, I remember my father bringing home a copy of either LOOK or LIFE magazine. I was just a little fellow who could print his own name and was just getting acquainted with the Dick and Jane series of readers. As I thumbed through the magazine, I started laughing. I said to my dad, “Look at this old man with the funny hair.”  My father told me that it was a picture of Albert Einstein who had just passed away. He added that many people thought that Einstein had been the smartest person in the world.

As time went by, I began to read a lot about Einstein. One thing that I noticed was that, despite his reputation as a brilliant physicist, he was a very humble man. During college I stumbled across one of his most famous quotes--"I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.” Clearly, he had many special talents but his modesty was something that I noted and appreciated.

Thinking of Einstein’s behavior, I have been recollecting all the leaders that I have met and considered what level of humility that they displayed. It has been a very interesting exercise.

Over the years, I have observed three traits that leaders who display humility tend to have:

1) They NEVER underestimate their competition. In advertising and communications, too many people (sadly) show disdain for their competition. The humble leaders take nothing for granted and are always aware that they can lose an account or be outmatched by an adversary. They tend to be better prepared for major presentations than the arrogant ones who feel that business should magically come their way.
2) When talking to people, especially young staffers, they are secure enough to talk about their own weaknesses and past failures. It disarms people, makes them approachable, and reminds everyone that despite their lofty title, they are human, too.
3) They listen to all ideas. Their humility allows them to admit they do not have all or the best solution to issues. Sometimes, they appear to give too much time to someone who seems to be really “out there.” Invariably, a far less zany version of the eccentric person’s idea may be used and the leader gives them credit for it.

Recently, a few sincere young people told me that they wish they could know all the things that I do. When that happens, I laugh and say that I am 40 years older than they, so I have a lot behind me. Also, and I think importantly, I remind them that we are both passionately curious (to steal a phrase!). The only difference between me and them is that I know what I do not know. And, that is a lot!

Take a look at people who lead. Are they truly humble? If they are, you may be looking at a real winner.

Happy New Year!

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

The Abdication of Advertising Agencies?

Like many of you, I spend a fair amount of time reading marketing case studies and company success stories. Recently, I began to notice one trend in the summaries. It is quite simply the relatively narrow role that advertising is playing in most of the marketing triumphs. How can this be? Here is my theory:

When I started in the business back in the early 1970’s, advertising and marketing were often used interchangeably. That was wrong, of course, but advertising was such a dominant part of the entire marketing mix that it is understandable how it happened. Many of the senior people in advertising in that era were the best of the best. A surprising number were from Ivy League or NESCAC schools and they were bright, well read and well connected.

As the 80’s came along and Wall Street surged, the bright young men and women from the best schools stopped going in to advertising. A number went into finance and made staggering amounts of money very quickly. I dare you to look at recent graduates of the top schools in America. Find out how many have gone into advertising. The number approaches zero these days. Along with this brain drain came the end of the 15% commission in advertising. It seems with every passing year that clients increasingly turn the screws on their agency. With the agency’s dominant asset being talent, how do you recruit young talent when Wall Street beckons with huge salaries? The crowd that provided strategic talent for a few generations on Madison Avenue are now on Wall Street or tucked away in Silicon Valley.

So, a great deal of the marketing know-how, if you will, is now client side and not at agencies. An old friend who is currently on the corporate side told me an illustrative story recently. His boss, an erudite marketing pro from far overseas, was visiting my friend in the states. When his agency found out about the global chieftain’s visit, they begged for a meeting under the pretext of a “really big idea.” The big idea turned out to be a storyboard for a TV spot. The international marketer was polite and attentive when they showed the proposed commercial but started to lose it when they called the session without a clue about a business strategy that backed up the spot. My friend kept his job but will keep this agency and perhaps his future agency far away from the global marketing director.

Another wrote to me saying that his company has moved to more promotion in their mix and are finding it extremely profitable and, to their great joy, far more predictable than advertising. He was so thrilled with the performance that he wanted to throw a dinner for the graphic artists who put together the promotional packages and coupons plus the two young agency analysts who tracked redemption and helped pick support markets. To his shock, their agency chief said, “Why do you want to spend time with those guys? They are not talented.” He did it anyway and said sales continue to go up and his TV advertising continues to decline as a percentage of his total spending.

Agencies always tell clients that they want to be “a partner and not a vendor.” Well, vendors present spots and ads and partners lay out a strategy. Yet the Catch-22 is how do you provide strategic leadership when you cannot afford to hire authentic counselors?

There is no likely solution in the immediate future. Big players will likely work with a team of marketing communications companies covering internet, mobile and conventional advertising and have some staffers on board who can orchestrate harmony among the parties. Yet the important functions of keeping tabs on trends and staying close to popular culture will likely come from the research team on the client side. These days clients tend to think of the marketing arena as their platform for creating connections. Agencies, especially those that are mid-sized, still want to sell ad campaigns.

So, many say that advertising agencies have abdicated their role. I disagree. To me, the game has changed and advertising is playing less and less of a role in integrated marketing communications. Many agencies have chosen not to or cannot afford to keep up with the changing times.

Over the last few months Media Realism is now delivering 55% of its audience from outside the United States. I wish all of you across the world a very Merry Christmas and a great 2014.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

Admitting Your Mistakes Publicly

A few days ago, I was not feeling at all well and needed to take my mind off my discomfort. I picked up a compendium of Warren Buffett’s annual letters to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders and found some of his comments so riveting that I soon forgot about my pain.

The one issue that hit me hard was not his folksy wisdom and common sense. It is his total willingness to explain, IN GREAT DETAIL, the major mistakes that he has made managing his shareholders money. As clearly one of the greatest investors in history, it is amazing to see the stunning humility that Buffett continues to show year after year.

Here are a few examples:

In his 2007 letter to the Berkshire faithful, he conjured up a story that many of us in communications can relate to easily. He discussed at length how 35 years earlier he passed on buying the NBC TV affiliate in Dallas-Ft. Worth (his board member, Tom Murphy of Capital Cities Communications had to divest the station to meet FCC regulations). Buffett talked about how, at the time, TV stations used to “shower cash on their owners.” He went on to say that since he did not pursue the deal the station has spun off approximately $1 billion dollars in profits and was likely worth $800 million. He also said that he could have grabbed it for $35 million back in 1972. Buffett closed by saying, “The only explanation is that my brain had gone on vacation and forgotten to notify me.”
Looking at the 2009 letter we find-- “During 2008, I did some dumb things in investments.......Without urging from Charlie (Charles Munger, his long time business partner and Berkshire Vice Chairman), I bought a large amount of Conoco Phillips stock when oil and gas prices were near their peak....the terrible timing of my purchase has cost Berkshire several billion dollars”.

You simply do not see that kind of candor anywhere else on the business scene. In other letters he went after himself for his USAir involvement and his purchase of Dexter Shoe among others. Today, companies and financial analysts constantly talk and write about transparency. Buffett lets his shareholders know what he has done wrong and also that he has learned from his mistakes. Both the quantity and quality of his admissions are both amazing and refreshing. And, he is truly transparent. If you wish to plow through some dense numbers, he lays out the figures for every Berkshire Hathaway operating company.

As I look back on my career, few people ever admitted mistakes. When an ad campaign did not work, it would be blamed on a bad economy (sometimes true), poor media (true when we did not have sufficient funds), poor distribution, or competitive tactics. How about ineffective creative? No one ever admitted to that!

Over the years, I was often called in to rationalize what went wrong to clients and senior people said that I had become an excellent spin doctor. Hindsight has shown me that these were not my proudest moments but I suppose we all rationalize things to protect our corporate franchise.

One of the problems now is that marketing directors have a rather short tenure; some studies say that it tends to average around two years. So, if you are candid and say, “Sorry, we blew it this time”, you will likely get fired as the marketing director knows that his or her job is tenuous as well.

A few people have told me that Buffett can afford to be honest as his success overshadows the occasional stumble that proves he is human. There is some truth in that but in both my heart and my head, I know that his course is best. I salute him!

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

The Top 1%

These days many of you hear and read a lot about the top 1% in income in the United States. Some research coming very recently from the University of California at Berkeley hit us with some eye-popping statistics including:

--Last year the top 1% or earners in the U.S. collected 19.3% of the nation’s total household income which is an all time high

--Incomes of the top 1% have grown by 31.4% over the last four years while the remaining 99% have experienced a gain of 0.4% (not a typo, my friends--less than one half of 1%).

--The top 10% of earners took home just over 50% of the nation’s total income last year.

--The top 1% earn just over $500,000 per year and if you go to the elite .1% if soars in to multi-millions topped off by a few hedge fund managers who make over a billion dollars per year. The top .1% have nearly 11% of total earnings.

--Separately, the New York Times has reported that the top 10% have 90% of the stock market wealth (not a big surprise!).

Long run, if you are fair minded, it is hard to determine what kind of divisions this is causing or will cause in society but it is safe to say that it will eventually put a strain on social safety nets both on a state basis as well as nationally.

Are you bothered by the 1%? Most of us do not give them more than a passing thought. When I talk with people they either say that they are not as smart as the 1% and others tell me that they are not willing to work as hard as the elite do. Interestingly, I have not heard the term “the idle rich” in a few decades. And, it makes sense. Nearly 100 years ago, in 1916, the top 1% received only 20% of their income from paid work. They “clipped coupons” and lived off the interest on their bond portfolios. Today, it is closer to 70% of the wealthy living on their earnings, not passive bond and dividend income. Most of the elite in the U.S. have not inherited their money--they earn it every day and put it long, even savage hours in many cases.

Surprisingly, the group that seems most resentful of the super elite (.1%) tend to be the folks at the lower end of the 1%! They may be lawyers, accountants, doctors who see the vast wealth of members of the super elite as they are service providers to the posh and the riches of the few seems to annoy many of them. While compared to most of us these professionals appear to be living the American dream, they are jealous of the super elite. I have personally heard snarky comments from those who are lower echelon members of the 1% say, “He has just been lucky” or “I am far more intelligent than he is--why does he have so much money.” So envy surfaces at all strata of society although one might think that anyone in the top 1% would be happy or at least thankful for what they have in today’s uneasy economy.


A few years ago, I talked about the issue of income inequality in “The Gini Coefficent and the Future.” (see Media Realism, January 21, 2010). What surprises me is that the gulf between the wealthy and the rest of us has grown far wider in just a few years. Part of it has to be due to a buoyant stock market in the US. Also, when real estate bottomed out a few years ago in many areas of the country, the top 1% had ready cash and could scoop up some great bargains when foreclosures were soaring. Yet, even a cursory look at the income and wealth spread shows that American is now resembling a developing country rather than a vibrant democracy. Historically, in an economic recovery, the income growth was spread across the entire population. Not so any longer! Allegedly, we are in the fifth year of an economic turnaround, and the asset growth continues to go almost exclusively to the flush and especially the super-flush.

To be clear, in a relatively free market such as ours, there will always be income inequality. Always. The talented, the hard working and yes, the lucky, will rise and do better than most of us. What is alarming is that the middle class is getting hollowed out and the majority of Americans are, at best, simply running in place or losing ground.

What to do? Soak the rich? There are not really all that many of them. Tax reform might be a start. During the 2012 presidential campaign, I along with many who are data junkies, were more than bit annoyed when we saw that Mitt Romney was paying out only 13% of his income in Federal Income taxes while many of us with far more modest incomes were writing checks to the US Treasury as a percentage of our incomes that were two or even three times as much as he did. Now, do not get the wrong impression. Former Governor Romney did not break any laws. He was wealthy enough to structure his affairs in such a way as to minimize his tax bite.

This leads to some saying that the concept of fairness has to be set aside because the super wealthy or even the affluent are “job creators.” I have a problem with that logic, even though people tell me that a private investor such as I is often a “job creator”. If someone takes a flyer on an IPO (Initial Public Offering), he or she is definitely a job creator. Such individuals take a risk and the capital that they provide helps new companies expand and help grow the economy.  Most investors do not buy IPO’s. The overwhelming majority of their investments are stocks bought in the secondary market. Consider this example--let us say that tomorrow one of you buys 1,000 shares of a famous global blue chip company. You hold it for five years and watch with delight as they raise the dividend each year 8-10% giving you a growing stream of income. After five years, the price of the blue chip has doubled and you sell for a nifty profit. How many jobs have you created? The company treats you as a bookkeeping entry with your thousand shares now being owned by someone else. Yet, our tax system gives you preferred capital gains tax treatment. You have created zero jobs.

Here is a modest proposal that makes sense to me. Jobs do not come from “job creators” such as I but rather from businesses. So, slash or eliminate the corporate income tax and tax all capital gains (except IPO’s) and dividends as regular income. Eliminate the “carry trade” which treats some short term trades as capital gains (sorry, Mitt). Perhaps this can right the ship a bit with some job creation and bring some fairness back to the tax code. And, finally, reform the Social Security and Medicare systems with a means test. The top 1% and especially the super elite top .1% may have to fend for themselves. I am confident that they can do it.  :):):)

Why are most people complacent about our growing inequality? I am not sure and often find it hard to get people to speak about it. One thing is certain--this trend cannot continue much longer or we will face significant social unrest at some point down the road.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

Can Your Ad Agency Survive The Two Revolutions?

Recently, I read THE INNOVATOR’S DILEMMA by Clayton Christensen of the Harvard Business School. Many analysts consider it THE book to read on disruptive change in the business world. One point that Christensen makes clearly and often is that well established firms generally fail when their industry is confronted with new markets and technologies. The logical extension of this is that this cannot bode well for the smaller and mid-sized players in the advertising industry if his thesis is correct.

Christensen is not brutal in his comments. He does not say that managers of struggling firms are lazy, corrupt or intellectually limited. The point he makes is “there is something about the way decisions get made in successful organizations that sows the seeds of eventual failure.” People are very wedded to the axiom that, “if the machine ain’t broke, don’t fit it.” Well, that is fine for normal times but, in a revolution, it no longer works.

My take is that in an era as we have now in communications a leadership team at an agency has to be able to spot paradigm shifts and adapt to them quickly. What concerns me is that all but a few agencies below the major advertising holding companies are equipped to do it or have the financial resources to buy companies and people who can.

What are the two shifts? To me, it is not simply the erosion of TV as an ad medium that many people point to as THE key issue. Rather it is the twin paradigm shifts taking place--the emergence of Big Data and the emerging (sic) middle class in emerging markets.

We discussed Big Data at some length in an earlier post “The New World of Ad Agency Mergers” (Media Realism, 10/28/13).  The major holding companies have set up exchanges that can purchase on line impressions at a depth and cost that cannot be replicated by smaller shops. The second shift is what is going on in emerging markets. Every marketer in recent years nods vigorously when the abbreviation BRIC is mentioned and can proudly list Brazil, Russia, India and China as the countries making up the term.  Yet, the BRIC companies are not where the real action is these days. Less obvious choices such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam in Asia, much of Latin America outside of Brazil and selected countries in Eastern Europe are showing stellar growth. As their middle classes grow, the need for advertising is soaring. The giants are ready to take advantage of this trend but the mid-sized and smaller shops generally have to watch it from afar.

In the United States, package goods companies increasingly are putting more money in to promotion and many advertisers are beefing up Public Relations and Interactive and Internet Marketing. Again, this puts the non-giants in an awkward position. They may be able to do solid Public Relations for smaller clients but they will increasingly be outgunned when it comes to Internet Marketing.

So, clearly there is a revolution going on in advertising both with the advent of Big Data and the shift away from North America, Western Europe and Japan in terms of dynamic advertising billing and simply economic growth.

When I try to talk or e-mail people about this, they often claim that they have the right people and will be fine no matter what happens. While this is a bloodless revolution, who survives and prospers in revolutions? Almost always, if you look at history, it is people who are wired differently than most of us. And, they do not always take the traditional straight path that to success. Both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were college dropouts--no MBA’s for them. Billionaire investor George Soros claims that his father’s wise decision to leave Nazi-occupied Budapest steeled him for his later life. They abandoned an upper middle class lifestyle for a new life on a new continent. People who succeed in upheaval just see things differently than most people in existing successful companies. They are smart and focused and think outside the box as they have little or no vested interest in the status quo. Look at all the 20 somethings in Silicon Valley. They may be irreverent but they embrace the change and often make it more rapid. Virtually all started as outsiders.

One fellow wrote to me recently and said that he has a young digital designer who could be a young Steve Jobs incarnate. My answer was that if that were true the young genius would be bored at his shop and quit. He laughed but told me that my point was very well made.

So, as you hire going forward, look for the unusual. Perhaps she is a stat freak who sees things that you do not in consumer data. Or, perhaps she can link data from different sources together into a coherent strategy in a way the rest of your team has never considered.  Maybe he is a better forecaster than your researchers as he has no baggage from the past to muddle his thinking.

If you have a team that has been together for a while it is probably a good idea to get some new injections in to your agency gene pool. The crazy or two that you bring on board may not be so crazy and could lengthen your corporate life.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may contact him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

Message to Marketers--Listen!

People often ask me to look back over my long career and tell them what the single most important quality is for one to become a good or even great marketer. I always smile and answer immediately. To me, it is so very simple--you need sharp listening skills.

Spending much of my career at ad agencies, it always stunned me how often my colleagues dismissed our clients as morons. One fellow told me that we knew what was best for them and we simply had to lead them. At times, I must admit, after an awful client session or new business pitch, I joined in the chorus of people laughing at clients or prospects. Day to day, however, it was a different story for me.

Some years back, a very large client was often the butt of cruel jokes by many of my associates. At one session on a Thursday afternoon, he asked for an analysis that had everyone rolling their eyes. I asked him an innocuous question or two and the agency’s management representative later thanked me for not laughing in his face. The next day, I told the young account executive on the business that he had not mentioned the client’s inquiry in his call report. The twenty something fellow replied, “Mr. X is an idiot. We do not have to respond to his stupid ideas.” I told him that there was a meeting with the same client on Monday and his boss would be there as well. His response was a shrug and he left my office.

That afternoon, I made a few calls to some media executives in New York. On Sunday, I camped out in my office and put together a simple power-point that shot down the client’s idea but eased the pain by stressing (truthfully) that his idea was a few years ahead of its time.

On Monday, the meeting progressed fairly well. Then, near the end, Mr. X’s boss said,“I gave Tom (not his real name) a media idea last week. Could I have a report on that now?”  The account team froze with the classic “deer in the headlights” look. I jumped up, said, “of course”, and fired up the power-point. I dissected the big man’s idea as tactfully as I could and he shook his head in agreement.

As we were leaving, Mr. X asked to see me in his office. I was prepared for the worst. Instead, he thanked me profusely. “I cannot tell you how much I appreciate what you did today. Your company does good work but you are the only one over there who listens to me.” His comment remains the most meaningful professional compliment that I have ever received. A few weeks later we were fired. Mr. X and I stayed in touch and I considered him a friend until his death.

I did not do anything special--what I did was my job in a service organization. My colleagues thought that they were smarter than Mr. X. Perhaps they were; perhaps not. To me, Mr. X was a decent guy who was helping in a big way to pay my childrens college tuitions.  He was important to me.

The first rule of listening is to be be present and ACTIVELY listening when you clients or customers want to talk. I was always stunned when Chief Marketing Officers would say  that they rarely visited their stores or talked to their customers. They occasionally watched a tape of a focus group or read an executive summary of a research report. The best marketers are involved. They talk to a fair sample of customers at every touch point in the relationship--when someone sees the advertising, buys their product, uses it, and perhaps most importantly, when something goes wrong.

Sam Walton to his dying day was out in his stores talking to his blue collar customers and listening to them. There he was, an early billionaire, but he knew who his customers were, respected them, and responded to their needs. Indra Nooyi, the CEO of Pepsi, often spends her weekends in supermarkets talking with shoppers and sales clerks. She tries very hard to stay in touch with her base of snack food junkies.

Sadly, given the lack of vocabulary in America today, there are over 20,000 sites with the suffix “sucks.com”. The clever marketers do not let the angry comments gather dust. They make a spirited attempt to link people to their proprietary customer service sites. This lets people vent but also they can gather some valuable information. If someone bothers to write to a site, they are angry and may have good reasons. If you can turn some of these people around, you can do your brand a big favor.

Sharp marketers make it easier to reach their company with good and bad feed-back and suggestions. Also, and very importantly, when they respond they make certain that there is a caring human being at the other end. By building a dialogue, they can understand their customers needs much better.

Today, everyone preaches that you do not talk to customers. You need to engage them and create a relationship. Well, too many marketers are committing the error that
 dooms many relationships and even marriages. They simply do not listen.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

Growing U.S. Poverty and Advertising

I do not watch a great deal of television. However, I do watch CNBC and Bloomberg Business every morning plus I read the business press quite aggressively. Invariably, one hears or reads comments these days from commentators or columnists saying “the United States is now sustaining moderate economic growth.” Is it true? Perhaps. The one word you almost never hear from anyone these days is poverty.

Last fall, I watched the televised debates for many Senatorial and House races, and, of course, the presidency. Only Congressman Paul Ryan brought up the issue of poverty in his debate with Vice President Joe Biden. No one else mentioned it anywhere and I am, by some measures, a political junkie. Had it happened, I would have seen and heard it.

You rarely see it in newspapers or TV reports either. I would forecast confidently that less than 1% of today’s news coverage is devoted to the subject of poverty.

Yet, it is an epidemic that shows little indication of receding even though we are allegedly several years out of The Great Recession of 2008-2009. I have put together a number of factoids from various sources that I would like to share with you:

--52 million Americans are on food stamps. Most of you who read this blog lead fairly comfortable lives with jobs in media, advertising, or communications. Do you even know someone personally who is on food stamps?

--Some 1.2 million public school students are homeless. This is a national disgrace.  Again, do you know anyone who is homeless?

--The U.S. Census Bureau states that one out of six Americans is living in poverty. This level is back where it was when Lyndon Johnson began his administration’s “War on Poverty” in the mid-60s. Define the poverty line? It is currently pegged at $23,492 for a family of four.

--Half of all American children before they reach 18 will live in a household where food stamps are used at some point.

--Some demographers say that 150 million Americans can now be described as “poor” or “low income.”

--The number of working poor is soaring. One out of four part time workers is living below the poverty line according to an Associated Press survey. And, 25% of American workers have jobs that pay less than $10 an hour.

--As I write, the Dow Jones Industrial Average keeps chugging along and flirting with record highs almost daily but median household income in the U.S. has declined for five consecutive years.

--Food pantries and soup kitchens now serve some 37 million people per year. Many use these charitable groups to supplement their food stamp allowance. Charities are bracing for an avalanche of demand if the federal government cuts the food stamp payments.

--The median salary in the U.S. for a full time worker is $34,000.

I tell you all this not to attack the major political parties or to offer some simplistic solution to this mess. Rather, I pose a question to all marketers that you need to consider--have you adjusted your product mix, pricing, and advertising messages to reflect the new reality of significant poverty in America?

Why are the Dollar stores doing so well in terms of growth relative to the giants such as Wal-Mart and Target? It seems clear to me that many people are failing out of the middle class despite the apparent economic recovery and go to the Dollar stores out of necessity.

Also, the government tells us that the unemployment rate is drifting down to a current 7.1%. Analysts admit that this is helped by many discouraged workers dropping out of the workforce and are thus removed from the unemployment calculation. Others talk of underemployment and say that authentic unemployment could be double the published figure.

There is another group that no one talks about. Some five to six years ago, hundreds of thousands of people lost jobs paying $100-130k. They were far too young to retire and eventually virtually all of them found new jobs. Talk to them and you find that many took jobs at $60-80k per year. They had no choice. A few have told me to my face that they will never again earn what they did in 2008. So, the government lists them as employed and demographers label them as middle class but they have underdone a huge adjustment in lifestyle and their hopes and dreams have been shattered.

If you look at the commercials and print ads today, they are still largely messages aimed at those of us living the good life. It is not for the top 1-2% that gets all the press but many of the messages do reflect the lifestyle of the top 10%. Perhaps the ad community needs to rethink things a bit. How does one craft a message for a mainstream product when the society appears to be downwardly mobile?

The business news smothers us with coverage of the Twitter Initial Public Offering and when Apple launches a new phone and we see crowds lined up to buy it, we are lulled in to not seeing what is really going on in our country. Things are going just fine for most of us in advertising and marketing.  Much of the rest of the country is struggling and we do not even see it.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com