« March 2010 | Main | May 2010 »
April 28, 2010
Capitalism 4.0
I spent the weekend reading the final draft of Anatole Kaletsky’s book, Capitalism 4.0, due out at the end of June. Kaletsky, a columnist at the Times of London and economist serving the financial community, has given us a brave prognosis on the future relationship between business and government. His thesis is that “Instead of separating the State and private economy, Capitalism 4.0 will bring them into a closer relationship.”
No surprise here, you think. Business screwed things up in the period of deregulation. The world is moving back to heavy government regulation. According to Anatole, you would be wrong. “The size of government will have to shrink, even as its responsibilities and influence expand… One reason is the size of deficits created by the crisis... A deeper cause will be the inability of bureaucratically inflexible big government to meet society’s ever-changing demands.”
So where does this leave business? “The problems of rebalancing public and private interests will have to be confronted if Western democracy is to overcome the challenge from a different model of capitalism rising in the East (meaning China).” Kaletsky argues that “…markets will operate in an economic and political context set by politicians and officials, responding to different incentives than from those of the market itself... Businesses will have to acknowledge wider definitions of their objectives than maximizing their company’s share price... Managements and investors will need to discover new ways to reconcile financial and political targets. Those who refuse to do so will be driven out of business.”
The author describes the economy of the future as an Adaptive Mixed Economy: "explicitly a mixed economy in the sense that both private and public sectors will play an important role" and "an adaptive economy [because] the rules of economic engagement, including the relationships between the government and private markets, will be subject to change.” Kaletsky contends that the markets are so complex that the right approach for both business and government leaders will be to “take reasonable decisions based on the information they have before them, then be willing to modify decisions based on how circumstances evolve... bold and pragmatic policy experimentation… Nothing about this new version of the capitalist system will be rational or perfectly efficient… the future will be unpredictable and inconsistent.”
The ambiguity of Capitalism 4.0 means an ever more fundamental role for PR people. We will be called on to explain the public purpose of business action because, unlike government, it is immediately accountable to customers, investors and employees. We will be expected to forge partnerships between civil society/NGOs and the new soul mates, business and government to help address a full range of societal challenges-- from trade to energy to health. We will have to solicit opinion from influencers--traditional experts and new voices alike-- to inform clients’ strategy and decisions. We will assist business in becoming a reliable source of information for stakeholders through their own web presence. As part of that effort, we will have to develop a generally accepted set of statistics that go beyond financial reporting to assure progress against a broader set of commitments, such as a firm’s carbon footprint. Building trust in a continually uncertain and skeptical world will require an evolution in communications—from ‘controlling the message’ to building credibility by sharing knowledge with stakeholders to improve continuously.
Posted by Edelman at 6:04 PM |
Comments
Richard great post on the”what” of Capitalism 4.0, hopefully the book shed light on the “how”.
My understanding is that Capitalism 1.0 ended with culture war in the U.S. at a high level; attributable to battles over evolution, immigration, prohibition and the resurgent Ku Klux Klan. Then, in the 1930s, the culture war died; perhaps because the Depression put economic survival front and center.
Our era’s culture war does not appear to have dissipated as a result of the 2008 pre-election financial meltdown, quite the opposite appears to have occurred. It is hard to envision Anatole Kaletsky’s Capitalism 4.0, evolving with the culture war at current level.
Globalization, which has favored eastern style of capitalism, has resulted in fiscal and monetary stimuli of both liberals and conservatives being much less effective than they may have been in the past. One can hope this ineffectiveness may result in enough humility, on the part of the governing, to significantly reduce or extinguish the culture war.
Posted by: Hugh Campbell at May 2, 2010 8:44 PM
Richard
DId you see John Kay in the FT today?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc919ce4-57af-11df-855b-00144feab49a.html
"..markets operate successfully only when they were embedded in communities; that trust and co-operation are not antithetic to a market economy, but essential to it; that the driving force of innovation is pluralism and experiment, not greed and monopoly; that corporations acquire legitimacy only from the contribution they make to the societies in which they operate."
Posted by: Richard Sambrook at May 5, 2010 9:44 AM
Richard, thank you for introducing us to Anatole Kaletsky’s new book "Capitalism 4.0". I look forward to reading it. You reveal the book's thesis of "what" is expected that appears to be entirely consistent with my thesis of "how" (to address Hugh Campbell's comment) "aspirational corporate governance" may be more appropriate for "an Adaptive Mixed Economy" in a new Wiley textbook on corporate governance being published in September (see http://trustenablement.com/index.htm#book).
Posted by: Alex Todd at May 7, 2010 10:28 AM
Meanwhile in the Southerh Hemisphere, those countries which have weathered the GFC are now exclaiming that the Asian Century is upon us. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his Treasurer Wayne Swan are extoling the virtues of an 'Asian Century' in which Asian and Indian-subcontinent cultural business practices will affect Australian government and Public-Private Partnership activities. It would seem that ebracing an 'Adaptive Mixed Economy' is the way forward to your southernly-based colleagues.
Posted by: Bonnie Rothchilds at May 12, 2010 6:58 PM
Post a comment
| TrackBackApril 21, 2010
I Am Honored
I received an email over night from Kristine Boyden in Edelman’s Silicon Valley office, who works with me on our HP client. She sent me the Forbes.com story, reporting that glassdoor.com had recognized me as one of the ten most popular CEOs with their employees. I am both surprised and humbled by the recognition, especially because the thumbs-up is from my colleagues. In fact, I’m the beneficiary of their entrepreneurial zeal and commitment to clients. Here are the principles I have followed as CEO for the past thirteen years.
1) Lead from the Front—Work on clients; I took the Dairy Management Inc. executives today to meet with the Wall Street Journal. I originate new business opportunities and go to the presentations. I try to recruit top people to work at Edelman. I travel 100 days a year to see our teams around the world.
2) Loose Rein—Hire world-class senior people. Give them plenty of latitude to decide on strategy, acquisitions and executive appointments. Hold them accountable for results. Have robust discussions about big issues, not small ones. Avoid pitched battles by seeking a middle ground.
3) Encourage Risk-Taking, Not Risky Behavior—Advance the company by promoting entrepreneurial behavior at all levels of the company. Learn from experiments in the field. But have zero tolerance for any conduct that will undermine the reputation of the firm.
4) Vision—Invest time to stay on top of the key global issues. I attend The World Economic Forum and WSJ’s Eco-nomics events so I can understand where the world and our industry are going.
5) Keep People Informed—When it became clear that the recession of 2008 was going to be a serious reset, I met with our Executive Committee we and agreed on a strategy. We would freeze salaries (except for junior ranks), reduce staff only in units losing money and keep our service levels high. I took a pay cut as did my father. We cancelled our global leadership meeting, non-essential travel and initiatives. All of this was explained to our colleagues, first by me, then by others in management. We provided constant updates throughout the downturn.
6) Reinvest—My father began our tradition of reinvesting every bit of profit into the business. We have built a global network through organic growth and acquisition, without selling or going public while maintaining a conservative balance sheet. We take our acorns and plant new trees.
7) Network—I try to have a breakfast or lunch every day with a reporter, a non-profit leader, a new business prospect or lawyer/banker referral source. This process keeps me sharp and current.
8) Family— I leave work early to see my kid play tennis or basketball because it matters to me (and maybe some days to her). When I informed my wife of the Glassdoor recognition this morning, she said pithily, “Congratulations. Just don’t let it go to your head.” With that she rolled over and went back to sleep. I know my place in the family—respect but not deference.
9) Give Back—I love the time that I spend on non-profit activities, from the Gettysburg National Battlefield Foundation to the Children’s Aid Society. I recently drove a dozen teens from the Children’s Aid Society to a hoops tournament in Hershey, PA (where I even learned the meaning of the word, “shorty,” which is modern parlance for a girlfriend).
10) Know When to Say When—I work 10-11 hours a day. I turn off my Blackberry at 9 pm. I read books. I work out five or six days a week. On weekends, I trundle around my home in Long Island, carrying large bags of mulch for my gardener wife. Workaholic is not in my DNA.
11) Reinvention—From blogging to classical music to yoga to moving our office downtown to Soho (who knew there was a NYC south of 16nd street); change is refreshing.
12) Stay humble. I take the subway around New York City (faster and cheaper). I drive a Ford Taurus Station Wagon. I buy my shoes and shirts on sale after Christmas.
So there you have it. Thanks again for the honor. I intend to prove my colleagues right every day.
Posted by Edelman at 2:53 PM |
Comments
Congratulations on the achievement, as it's well-earned. Great words of advice, as I too own(ed) a Ford Taurus Station Wagon; "The White Whale".
Posted by: Roy Morejon at April 21, 2010 4:31 PM
Hi Richard -- A voice from the past, here, but I just had to congratulate you on being named the 8th Best Boss in America! Well done! If you take a look at my Facebook page you'd see quite a few fellow Latinites. It's kind of fun reconnecting with people you haven't seen in way too many decades. Please say hello to Renee for me -- we used to have fun playing tennis. Congratulations again! Best, Jane
Posted by: Jane Freilich Clevenger at April 22, 2010 11:38 AM
You gave concrete advice, instead of abstract talking points, and that is refreshing. It appears you have a wonderful company. Congratulations on the honor.
Posted by: Mark Kinsley at April 23, 2010 8:10 AM
Congratulations twice; for the honor and for explaining your great work philosophy. Inspiring.
Posted by: Philippe at April 23, 2010 1:25 PM
Congratulations on the accomplishment! I follow on Twitter a few of your colleagues and it seems like a great work environment.
Posted by: michael osacky at April 26, 2010 11:18 PM
Congratulations on the accolade, Richard. As an Edelman employee it’s great to hear that our CEO is being recognised in this way and I particularly like the emphasis you place on being humble. In my experience, the importance of remaining humble and approachable cannot be underestimated. Thank you for sharing these tips.
Posted by: Ben Cotton at April 27, 2010 4:54 AM
Richard,
Congratulations and thank you for sharing your personal insights and building blocks for success. As the owner of a small PR agency, your tips were insightful and the values -- a good reminder for how to balance it all.
Posted by: Aimee Miller at May 24, 2010 5:28 PM
Post a comment
| TrackBackApril 14, 2010
Chicago Media Scene; Two Views of Tomorrow
I grew up in Chicago as a true newspaper fanatic. I would race downstairs in my t-shirt and shorts to meet the paper delivery man at 6 AM, in the forlorn hope that my beloved Cubbies had defied the jinx and were still in pennant contention. I came home to read the afternoon papers after school. My hero as a teen was James Hoge, editor of the Chicago Sun-Times before the age of 30, who was thrown through the plate glass window at the entrance of the Chicago Hilton during the upheaval at the 1968 Democratic Convention because the police thought he was one of the protestors. So with those memories in mind, I met yesterday with Mike Lev, associate managing editor/business for the Chicago Tribune, and David Greising, general manager of the Chicago News Cooperative (and long time business columnist for the Tribune) to get an update on the business.
The Tribune’s strategy for the business section is to be “more locally focused,” Lev said. “We are here to focus on those industries that are central to Chicago, including aviation, food, medicine, banking and residential real estate. We have reduced our coverage of futures trading, technology and commercial real estate.” He added that reporters must be able to see each story “from the consumer and the business point of view. A menu decision at McDonalds has implications for investors and customers.”
The Tribune has started a news ticker online, Chicagobreakingbusiness.com, which includes stories and blogs from its reporters, but also aggregates content from outside sources, including the Financial Times, Reuters and Bloomberg. The paper also shares content across all of the Tribune family of papers, for example taking stories on entertainment or the Toyota crisis from the LA Times for its own use and sending it onto other smaller sister papers, such as the Baltimore Sun and Hartford Courant. The Tribune family now has a single Washington bureau and a single foreign desk, located at the L.A. Times, with foreign correspondents based in important cities such as Beijing or London.
Reporters are often given more space online than in print. There is more focus on reporters/columnists as personalities, with photos of the journalists often included under the by-line. The paper breaks news on the digital platform; “when you have a hot story, you put it out there. You don’t worry about tipping off the competition.”
The Tribune’s strategy is to attract eyeballs across a multiplicity of platforms, from the print edition to ChicagoTribune.com to Chicagobreakingbusiness.com to ChicagoNow.com (a community managed by the Tribune, featuring 90 local bloggers supported by advertising sharing model) to the hyper-local print ‘Tribune Local.’ “Our goal is to drive as many local eyeballs to our sites as we can, because that’s what we can sell best to advertisers. And just having the Chicago Tribune online isn’t enough, given the fractured marketplace. We need to create lots of different digital products if we really want to capture the marketplace.” This multi-channel approach is in response to the readership decline of the print product, now averaging 600,000 readers daily, down 25% in the past five years
Greising and his partner, former Tribune editor Jim O’Shea started the Chicago News Cooperative (CNC) in November, 2009, with venture funding from the McArthur Foundation and wealthy individuals. “We produce enterprising exclusive public service stories from the Chicago market,” Greising said. “Our primary distribution outlet is two pages in the Midwest edition of the New York Times on Friday and Sunday as well as our own web site.”
CNC stories focus on government, politics and education. “We emphasize shoe leather, Chicago-style journalism. A good example is our uncovering of the hugely advantageous deal struck by Morgan Stanley to securitize the income from Chicago city parking meters. The firm is making a fortune.” That kind of article will” lead to further coverage on public radio and TV, driving people to our web site where we will host conversations,” he added.
“We intend to create news interest networks which take advantage of the social networking aspect of news,” Greising said. “We think that there is deep interest in education as an example; we can facilitate a two way conversation by posting contributions from policy makers and academics, then responses from teachers and students. We intend to charge participants in these networks as much as $2 per week; we will also try to guarantee diversity by getting corporate sponsorships from big local companies to subsidize lower-income people.” Greising does not see advertising as a serious revenue opportunity.
For the PR person contemplating these changes, consider local media as a more important part of your national press relations strategy. A story in the Tribune can appear in ten important local papers from Baltimore to LA. The local reporter might well have a stronger relationship or superior knowledge about the client than, a wire service reporter. The print reporter also often needs a video content for the web. Do take particular note of Lev’s comments on hyper-local and the consumer/investor dual interest when pitching stories.
Posted by Edelman at 5:40 PM |
Comments
Hi Richard:
Old habits die hard. We often look at the Tribune and the Sun-Times as the only guns in town, but as you pointed out, there's a universe within the ChicagoNOW network.
This means we have to pick our spots when it comes to local media. Especially the online media.
Between the emergence of news from the Web, against news on the Web, I think there was a time when it was a tall task to place a local story. Reporters couldn't cover everything that they wanted to. With the exception of investigative journalism, I don't think this statement is true anymore.
The opportunities are there. Clearly, local news is back.
Cheers,
-psc-
Posted by: Philip Chang at April 15, 2010 12:14 PM
Post a comment
| TrackBackApril 7, 2010
The Journalism School of the Future
I just read Ken Auletta’s brilliant book, Googled, which describes a media world under siege, as advertising from digital sources fail to compensate for inexorably eroding revenues from traditional outlets. He quotes Clay Shirky of NYU as saying, “The old stuff gets broken faster than the new stuff is put in its place.”
Given that context, I attended a dinner yesterday evening hosted by Columbia University President Lee Bollinger and Journalism School Dean Nick Lemann. The Columbia Journalism School (my Dad’s alma mater) is thriving, with record applications and ambition to influence the global regulatory agenda. Here are highlights of the discussion:
1) The End of Apprenticeship—Lemann spoke about his second job at Texas Monthly Magazine, where his copy was scrutinized by a top flight First Amendment lawyer and very experienced editor. This level of on-the-job training is no longer possible given media economics. Students must come out of journalism school ready to play.
2) Many Go to Start-ups—The graduating class of 2009 had great interest in working at start-up media ventures. The newly minted reporters are completely comfortable with video, audio, charts and other accompaniments to print content that is posted online. One example is Tehran Bureau blog, run by a Columbia graduate, M.S. ’05 & M.A. ’06, from the basement of her parents’ home in Newton, MA; it is touted as the best information source on street life in Iran.
3) Proprietary Stories, Not Commodity Product—According to David Westin, president of ABC News, investigative journalism generates by far more hits online than commodity stories. He cited a recent report from the ABC correspondent in Afghanistan, in which the journalist explained that the tribes in adjacent valleys were as different from one another as a Chicagoan from a Floridian. “Don’t ever underestimate the audience,” Westin said. “It is the end of distribution scarcity. Now the value must come from what we are saying.”
4) Government Support for Media—Bollinger noted that there is a tradition of government assisting media, through subsidized postal rates or taxes on TVs to support the BBC in the UK. He worries about the disappearance of investigative journalism and the scrutiny of local politicians. “What kind of discussions will we have in the future? Not all kinds of information is created equal.” With community news under pressure from “rampant market success,” he is open to further efforts by government to encourage local reporting.
5) Protection for Free Speech in Developing World—Bollinger is a First Amendment scholar and proponent of free speech. He believes that a free press is a fundamental building block in economic development. He wants even more non-American students to attend Columbia Journalism School, who will go home to push for ever greater transparency in business and government. Bollinger and Lemann earlier that evening discussed the global free press and the First Amendment in the 21st century—the subject of President Bollinger’s recently published book, Uninhibited, Robust and Wide-Open: A Free Press for a New Century. You can listen to the conversation here.
6) Fair Use—The business model for mainstream media is undermined by the advent of Google, which takes pieces of the content and a share of advertising revenue. Lemann said that Columbia Law Professor Jane Ginsburg takes a strong position in favor of content provider being compensated in opposition to the theory that content wants to be free. Ultimately the test will come in the marketplace as pay walls are erected around some or all of media company content.
We are playing our part in the revolution by hosting the Fourth Annual New Media Academic Summit in New York City on June 23-4. If you are a professor in journalism, communications or PR and would like to attend, please contact latraviette.smith@edelman.com.
Posted by Edelman at 5:41 PM |
Comments
Richard,
Thanks for this recap. I was at Columbia for a high school journalism conference @ 18 months ago and there was extreme concern that journalism instructors are teaching a lost art. Glad to read that there's a strong focus at the top on new media, and that you all are engaged. I've been involved with the New Media Institute at Grady (University of Georgia) - the industry can likewise be encouraged with the leadership from Dr. Scott Shamp and Dean Cully Clark.
As PR and Media professionals evolve, I hope to also see a shift from "reputation" to "authentication". Google power, and thus news, continues to be fueled by buzz scores (aka influence) and clever manipulations rather than facts or verification scores. Encouraging responsible, accurate journalism and public relations can speed this along.
Posted by: Edward O'Meara at April 8, 2010 10:48 AM
Times are changing. This is no longer the print media dominated society where our parents grew up in. As demand for a different kind of journalism rises, the public’s expectations of what a PR professional should be doing rise too. We are entering a world of convergence journalism, where our target audiences have access to several different types of media and therefore have to adjust not only how we say something, but what we say. I am currently a student at Western Kentucky University’s School of Journalism and Broadcasting and am a Public Relations major. Your blog post and review of Auletta’s book was very enjoyable and educational and really helps me get a grasp on the future of the market. At WKU, our School of Journalism and Broadcasting teaches us the same thing: to be well-rounded, well educated, ethical and strong public relations professionals. Whether its strengthening our knowledge and interpretation of the first amendment in our Law and Ethics class, or learning about entrepreneurship to help us if we decide to start up a new company, our school is also a Journalism School of the future. It is this adaptation from old media to new media and being able to be good at a multitude of different things that make the Journalism school of the future so successful. Schools should be teaching convergence journalism and helping their students to be properly equipped for when they “come out of the journalism school ready to play.”
Posted by: Stephanie Romano at May 7, 2010 12:28 AM
Post a comment
| TrackBackApril 1, 2010
Red Tory
I have just left the United Kingdom, where general elections are looming, probably on May 6. In that context, I attended a book party for the publication of Red Tory, a controversial road to the future by Phillip Blond, director of the think tank, Res Publica. Under the watchful eyes (in portrait form) of Conservative Party stalwarts Winston Churchill and Lady Thatcher, Blond thundered against both unfettered individualism and the centralized state. In predicting a victory by Tory David Cameron over the incumbent Gordon Brown of the Labour Party, he asked for the return to progressive conservatism under the rubric of “Red Tory-ism.”
Here are the key arguments in his book:
1) The Thatcher Era is Over—The unconstrained free market has allowed the development of near-monopoly conditions and “stranglehold of producer interests over market mechanisms.” He adds, “Instead of popular capitalism with free markets, we got capitalism captured by concentrations of capital and dominance of the already wealthy.”
2) The Welfare State is Bloated and Counterproductive—Blond says that welfare has ceased to be a safety net; “it is a ceiling through which the supplicant class, cut off from working-class ambition and aspiration—could not break. The welfare state began the destruction of the independent life of the British working class.” He goes on to quote Churchill, who “argued that welfare should consist of both a floor beneath which incomes cannot fall, and a ladder available to allow them to raise themselves out of poverty.”
3) The Unholy Alliance of Market and State—Blond argues that there is a new oligarchy “that spuriously claims to speak on behalf of the common, rather than the vested, interest.” He goes on to assert that the deregulation of financial markets, instead of “spreading prosperity and property to all….is enabling a kind of indentured ownership via every more extreme levels of credit…for to own something on credit is not to own it at all.” One compelling statistic is that only 43% of working adults in the UK have enough funds in place to survive more than three months if fired from the job.
4) Destruction of British Virtue and Shared Values—He contends that the Bloomsbury crowd in the 1920s denied the objective existence of values, replacing them with “redefining the good as what is pleasing to the individual….leading to the exchange of ideals of popular excellence for shopping and competition in personal gratification.”
Blond goes on to advocate a Civil State and the Moral Market. He wants government to decentralize, to engage citizens and communities. He asks that companies adopt the stakeholder model instead of shareholder; that there be “a new type of market regulation via shared ethos rather than state imposition since good treatment of workers, consumers and products will give competitive advantage because people will chose social value as well as value for money. Good practices and habits can gradually drive away bad ones….a rise in market competition in virtue as well as in profits.” If David Cameron is elected in five weeks, what can we expect? If Blond is correct, the new Prime Minister will advocate “a new capitalism that works for society and the refashioning of the state to facilitate human relationships…a new economic model that really distributes wealth and power.”
It is unfair for a foreigner to say anything more than observe. In fact, my total exposure to the UK is limited to London and its environs. As I see it – admittedly, from my limited context-- the past 30 years in Britain have brought prosperity, cultural diversity, tolerance and opportunity for self-improvement. Blond seems obsessed with the cohabitation of government and business and their determination to protect entrenched interests. His solutions, including “new radical localism” and “widely distributed capital,” appear economically unsound and politically extreme. However, I find his call for restoration of “a genuine ethos…that can happen if we can nurture individual honor and reciprocal trust….an altered conception of social equity and meritorious conduct” very appealing. Reputation is forged by honest effort and fair treatment every day – and actions, not just words remain keys to Trust.
PS. If you’re interested in the UK general elections, our London office has opened a site and includes races and candidates to watch, latest polls and our senior PA team’s analysis about what it means to companies and key issues.
Posted by Edelman at 10:04 PM |
Comments
Phillip Blond’s “new radical localism” parallels the term “ lower-archy” (Redesigning Society by Ackoff/Rovin 2003). Excerpts from a 2003 Strategy & Leadership article (www.infoamerica.org/documentos_pdf/ackoff02.pdf) follow:
“Communities have an obligation to facilitate the development of its members, to contribute to their quality of life and standard of living, and to enable them to pursue their objectives as well as they know how.
The third fundamental characteristic of a community is that it is not a hierarchy but a ‘lower-archy’. In a community, those in a position of authority are selected by the people below them, not above them. Authority does not flow from the top down as it does in most corporations; it flows from the bottom up, and so do resources. So the task of turning a corporation around into a community and a lower-archy is really huge.
S&L: What about leading such a transition?
Ackoff: This requires more than management; it requires leadership. The thing that leaders do that managers don’t is articulate an inspiring vision and guide the formulation of a strategy for its pursuit. Good or bad, you look at a Lenin or a Churchill, and what they did is produce a vision shared by others. In Churchill’s case, he produced a vision of victory for the allies and helped formulate a strategy for getting there.
To lead requires different skills than to manage. Some unique individuals combine those two skills, but generally not. Churchill was a magnificent leader in WWII. He was not a good manager, but he had enough sense to pick people who were. He surrounded himself with people who could do what he couldn’t do, and who couldn’t do what he could.”
Posted by: Hugh Campbell at April 2, 2010 10:20 AM
Richard,
There is no disputing the evidence that has been laid out in the book, if you look at the electoral campaigns (on second thoughts don't as they are as insufferable as politicians get) both of them are addressing the points in variants of the same way. Given that London and its environs as you put it account for some 80 per cent of the wealth creation and 20 per cent of the population going outside London would extend and amplify much of what has been said.
Best regards,
Ged Carroll
Posted by: Ged Carroll at April 2, 2010 3:54 PM