Thursday, June 30, 2005
HC+T Update: June 2005
The June 2005 e-mail newsletter from Holtz Communication + Technology
HC+T Update
June 2005
1. Under The Wire Again!
2. Cluelessness In The World Of Big PR
3. The Unique Characteristics Of Podcasts
4. Another Call To Replace PR With Blogging
5. Deconstructing Larkin
6. Top 10 Marketing Trends
7. Don’t Miss “Writing For The Wired World”
8. Site of the Month
9. HC+T Update
10. Boilerplate And Subscription Information
As usual, this issue represents mostly material I’ve written for my blog over the past month. You can find the blog at http://blog.holtz.com. And don’t forget, you should seriously consider switching from the email subscription to the RSS feed. Just add the following URL to your RSS news reader: http://blog.holtz.com/index.php/update/rss_2.0/.
1. Under The Wire Again!
With just about six hours left in June, I’m delighted to get the June issue of HC+T Update out the door.
It’s been a heck of a month. I’ve been on the road almost the entire month; I think I’ve spent five days at home. I just wrapped up my travels this morning, returning from Washington, D.C. and IABC’s international conference. (More on this later in Update.)
You’ll be reading this in July, no doubt, but distributing it any time up to midnight tonight qualifies it as the June issue…right? I could even distribute it at 12:55 a.m., since it would still be June in Hawaii. (Hey, I’m looking for an excuse here!)
In any case, I hope you enjoy it.
2. Cluelessness In The World Of Big PR
PR heavyweight Ketchum has come under considerable fire for the launch of its new-media practice. If you haven’t read Constantin Basturea’s excellent deconstruction of the Ketchum approach, you can find it here:
http://blog.basturea.com/archives/2005/06/18/poor-ketchum/
Here’s a summary of Constantin’s points, many of which had already been articulated in one place or another:
- Ketchum failed to launch the eKetchum blog it promised.
- Ketchum has no executives blogging, along the lines of a Richard Edelman Christopher Hanegan
- The press release didn’t include the URL where people could learn more about the new service
- Ketchum’s podcast isn’t a podcast because you can’t subscribe via RSS
There’s more. A lot more. Read Constantin’s post.
eKetchum director Adam Brown posted a response to Constantin’s blog, by the way, that addressed one or two of these issues, and not very well.
But that’s not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about an additional bit of cluelessness from Ketchum, the company that’s supposed to help its clients with social media like blogs. Ketchum has a website that addresses some new media issues, called Ketchum Ideas. The site offers an idea a day. I haven’t read them all; so far, in fact, just the one our friend James Cherkoff of Open Sauce Marketing forwarded along, in which he is quoted. It deals with the need to factor blogs into crisis communication planning (old news) and offers some advice. It’s not all good advice.
One of the things Ketchum says you need “at a minimum” is…
“A customized blog that is ready to go should you need it - either a ‘live’ site already in use or a ‘dark’ site that can be switched on almost immediately. But be sure to assess the potential vulnerabilities of entering this volatile sphere of the Internet.”
A dark site for addressing a crisis is a good idea. A “dark blog” is not. Blogs are, at their core, trust networks. One of the upsides of a corporate blog (if done well) is that it builds a bond of trust with readers. When a crisis strikes, you can tap into that trust network where you have some goodwill in the bank. (Look back at my coverage of BigHa’s blog and how it helped the company through its media crisis…or For Immediate Release’s interview with BigHa’s Noah Acres.) Starting a blog specifically to address a crisis, though, could only be met with derision. How do you build trust through honest and candid engagement when you’re busily defending the company from the aftershocks of a crisis?
If this is the kind of advice Ketchum plans to offer clients of its new service, prospective clients should beware. It’s just further indication that the company is jumping into the blogosphere for no other reason than that they don’t want to leave billables on the table. It certainly doesn’t seem to have much to do with an understanding of the environment in which they plan to help clients communicate.
3. The Unique Characteristics Of Podcasts
As Virgin Atlantic begins a podcast series dealing with travel, it’s clear that businesses are adopting podcasting as a channel for reaching targeted audiences with fresh, unique content. Coupled with the release last week of Apple’s iTunes version 4.9—complete with podcasting support—it’s clear that communicators need to come up to speed on this medium.
A recent ITWorld.com article listed five reasons businesses should consider podcasting. One of them was that podcasts encourage two-way communication with listeners. Specifically, according to the author James Lewin: “Because podcasts are built on RSS 2.0, the lingua franca of the blog world, podcast content is easy to subscribe to and blog about. This encourages other publishers to add their meta-comments about a podcast.
“Because podcast feeds are often built with blog-tools, they frequently support comments and track back, which encourage a two-way dialog about the content. This two-way conversation is important, because it creates 3rd party content about your podcast, and encourages links to your content.”
I’m inclined to agree with Lewin’s observations, particularly in light of my own experience with “For Immediate Release: The Hobson & Holtz Report.” So I was intrigued when Rebecca Leib, executive editor of ClickZ Network, wrote in an article titled WhyPod? that podcasts are flatly one-way:
“Podcasts offer zero interactivity. Once downloaded, a podcast is an audio file—plain and simple. Nothing more, nothing less. The subscriber can listen. She can’t click, fill out a form, or navigate elsewhere.”
Right. And, of course, you can’t click, fill out a form, or navigate anywhere when you’re in your car or walking your dog, but you can listen to a podcast. And because the podcast presumably is narrowcasted to your interests, when you’re back at your computer, you post something about it on your blog and include a trackback, post a comment to the podcast blog, send an audio file, call the comment line, or email the podcaster.
With my podcasting partner, Neville Hobson, I often spend half of our show talking about issues raised by our listeners. It’s not a real-time conversation by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s definitely a conversation. While the podcast itself may well be nothing more than an MP3 file, in the context of the social network of which it’s a part, it is definitely an interactive tool.
Leib also suggests that marketing podcasts need to be more professional than the amateurish podcasts produced by individuals. “A low-rent approach doesn’t work for every brand.” I see a difference, though, between “a low-rent approach” and an authentic human voice that doesn’t sound like a professional broadcaster. GM cars are a pretty significant brand, but Deb Ochs sounds like a regular person when she conducts the Fastlane podcast interviews.
Leib makes a few other questionable statements. Quite correctly, the notes that podcasts are RSS-distributed feeds to which listeners subscribe. But she goes further: “Real podcasts don’t stream, nor are they individually downloadable, single files.” Really? “For Immediate Release” is a real podcast. It’s available by subscription through our RSS feed, and we hope more and more of our listeners will access it that way. But our statistics indicate most of our listeners download the MP3 file. Heck, even Adam Curry’s “Daily Source Code”—the original podcast—is available for download. And recently, we’ve added a Flash-driven streaming player that lets anyone listen to our podcast directly from our site. Leib seems to want to have it both ways. It’s either a plain old MP3 file (which allows you to do with it whatever you will) or it’s not. To qualify as a podcast, you have to be able to subscribe to the feed, but there’s no rule that says you must limit your podcast to an RSS subscription.
Another point Leib makes:
“If your podcast is high in informational value but lacks other audio bells and whistles, such as music, interviews, celebrity value, or sound effects (particularly if the audience is business-to-business), you may be better off with text.”
Again, I don’t think so. It’s easy to dismiss the value of the sense of sound, but there’s just something about hearing a real person rather than reading their words. And, again, if I’m in my car, I can’t read anyway. (Well, I suppose I could, but seeing other people read while they drive has always terrified me!) “For Immediate Release” isn’t the only podcast that is largely just a couple guys talking. One of the most popular podcast out there is Dave Winer’s “Morning Coffee Notes,” which features Winer talking, coughing, sniffling, and making a host of other sounds. Even if your podcast is business- or marketing-focused, all you need is an interesting person with something to say to make it worthwhile. (Which is not to dismiss sound effects, music, and interviews, of course.)
Despite all this, Leib’s overarching point is a valid one: Don’t podcast just because you can. Make sure you have a strategy that supports it.
4. Another Call To Replace PR With Blogging
So Steve Rubel gets up at Gnomedex and says something along the lines of, “Blogging is PR with candor.” I wasn’t there, but I’ve read the reports of people who were.
Blogging certainly can be candid, although there’s nothing to stop a blogger from being less than candid in his blog. Further, I’ve seen plenty of candid PR that was produced without blogs. The notion that PR simply cannot be candid without blogs is absurd. I don’t think that’s what Steve meant at all. (I doubt that Steve is lobbying for his employer, Cooper Katz, to eliminate all of its efforts and provide no services other than blogging to its clients.) But some apparently took it that way.
Like Todd Cochrane, who wrote in Geek News Central, “companies probably would be better in firing most of their PR people, and hiring bloggers as Marqui did in their paid to blog program.”
Now, let me state straight up that I’m a Todd Cochrane fan. I listen to the Geek News Central podcast religiously, and the blog is among the feeds that are in my A-list folders. But a statement like this displays an appalling ignorance of what PR people do day in and day out. Did Todd read Scott Cutlip’s or Fraser Seitel’s PR textbook before suggesting that companies can replace public relations professionals with blogs? It’s not just Todd, of course. Most critics of PR know little of the profession.
(This isn’t the place, by the way, to address the ethics of Marqui’s paid-to-blog program.)
Public relations is, as I’ve defined it before, the practice of managing an organization’s relationships with various constituent audiences, notably those whose opinions and behaviors affect the organization’s ability to execute its strategic plan. It’s also about influence, and not in a negative, manipulative way. For example, I have colleagues who work for a major global PR firm on an account for a government agency designed to influence young teens to commit to remaining drug-free. (Now there’s a nefarious goal if ever there was one.) The research they did was extensive, leading to strategies that would be effective with the target audience. Their implementation has been evolutionary and crafted with the peak of professionalism. Their metrics are sophisticated and help them assess the degrees of success and adjust their efforts to produce even better results.
If we listen to Todd, all this could be replaced with a blog or two.
Todd and the legions of others who proclaim blogging the future of organizational communications are blissfully unaware of the tens of thousands of highly professional public relations practitioners who work in relative obscurity producing outstanding results for their organizations through the ethical implementation of tactics based on strategies designed to deliver specific outcomes. And, believe it or not, many of those tactics are based on a foundation of openness, transparency, and candor.
The notion also suggests that the channel through which a message is delivered is more important than the message itself. Who can we rely on to crystallize an organization’s message? Speaking at the opening general session of the IABC international conference on June 26, political operative James Carville defended the sound bite, noting that it provides clarity around complex issues. Can we rely on a network of bloggers to do that? Or should bloggers react to the messages trained, experienced professionals have crafted?
I understand the nature of evangelism and you’ll find no bigger supporter of blogs as a PR tool than me. But I get weary of hearing proclamations that blogs spell the end of public relations. I wish those making such assertions would make at least a token effort to learn something about the profession they’re so easily dismissing before calling for its eradication.
But this has always been true: When you’re selling hammers, every problem looks like a nail.
5. Deconstructing Larkin
(Get ready. This is a long piece.)
T.J. Larkin is an excellent presenter. He’s entertaining, engaging, witty, and charming. At the end of his presentation at the IABC Research Foundation luncheon at the IABC international conference in Washington,D.C., on Tuesday, June 28, the crowd of about 500 gave him a standing ovation. His performance deserved it. The substance of his presentation? Well, that’s another thing altogether.
I first became aware of Larkin when I read “Communicating Change.” In this book, Larkin points to research conducted in the late 1980s by Towers Perrin in which employees were asked their preferred source of information. The answer, it should come as no surprise to anyone, was: “My immediate supervisor.” Of course, the question was asked badly, and it was the wrong question. The research was so flawed as to render it useless. The question needs to be asked multiple times about a number of business issues and topics. If asked, “What is your preferred source of information about benefits?” would employees point to their supervisors? How about this one: “What is your preferred source of information about the impact of new federal regulations on this company’s ability to compete and sustain profitability?”
So you need to ask the question about each of the major issues facing the organization. In addition, the question should also ask for the top three preferred sources in order to produce a ranking. What if the intranet falls right below the supervisor by a difference of a neglible few percentage points? Should the intranet be dismissed as a source of information?
Larkin concluded in his book that it should. He blatantly stated that any communication to front-line employees that does not come through immediate supervisors is a waste of time and resources. I was on a plane when I read the book, and my seat mate must have concluded that I suffered from Tourette’s Syndrome. Every few minutes, I’d jerk into an upright position and shout out, “Bullshit!” or “Crap!”
Today’s presentation left me feeling pretty much the same. As is the case in most of the other advice he presents, Larkin made huge leaps from questionable research to astounding conclusions. Here’s a summary of some key issues I had with his remarks and his conclusions:
Web, paper, and face-to-face
Larkin began with a brief summary of the most effective uses of the web, print, and face-to-face communication. The web, he said, is best for immediacy (the delivery of news content) and the retrieval of data and information. He made no reference to the web’s multimedia capabilities or the collaborative nature of message boards, blogs, wikis, or other social media tools. Print is best for learning long, complicated, new ideas. Face-to-face is best for motivating change.
To prove his point, Larkin referenced a study in which employees were given a benefits document on the web that contained a lot of links. Another group was given the same document in print. When asked to explain a particular benefit, the group that got the information online made 33% more errors than the group that got it in print.
Why is this problematic? Larkin made no reference whatsoever to the quality of the web document. Were the links embedded in the text or in a “related links” box? Were the links clear in terms of what readers would find when they clicked them? Were they relevant to the content on the page? Were they organized in a manner to support e-learning? Or was it a print document shoveled onto the screen and littered with links? In other words, did the web document adhere to the principles of usability? We’ll never know; Larkin didn’t say.
My conclusions: Bad websites are bad. Bad hyperlinks are bad. But Larkin doesn’t suggest that one solution to this problem might be to improve the site so it produces better results. His answer is simply not to use the web for this purpose at all, but rather deliver print.
Continuing with the benefits theme Larkin started, let’s assume an employee wants to learn all the benefits associated with having a baby. She could read through every element of every plan in the linear print document, or visit the “Life Events” page on the benefits site and click on “Having a Baby,” where all the information relevant to the expectant mother is aggregated. Which is more likely to produce better results?
At one point, Larkin reinforced his points by pointing to a company whose web sites his firm “improved.” However, I wasn’t aware of Larkin’s qualifications as an online communicator. Just how did he “improve” them? In ways that, say, I would endorse? Good question; he didn’t offer up an explanation of just how those pages were made better.
Searching isn’t thinking
Larkin also produced the results of research to support his argument that there is a vast difference between searching out content on the web and learning. The study cited was from Australia, conducted by Wendy Sutherland Smith. In the study, Smith had grade-school students go to a list of links to information about penguins, then go to a shelf with books about penguins. On the web, they clicked madly and didn’t learn much. When they went to the shelf, they picked one or perhaps two books and sat quietly reading.
But again, were the links crafted in a manner to support learning? Are all those e-learning organizations simply pulling the wool over clients’ eyes? Or have they, through research and experience, figured out how to appropriately craft online content to support learning habits? Any psychologist will tell you we learn best by playing. What about online games-based learning? It wasn’t an avenue of this issue that Larkin ever addressed. He simply leapt from the results of this and a few other research studies to conclude that learning is always best in print.
Face-to-face and change
Finally, Larkin suggested that change is best managed face-to-face. You’ll find no bigger advocate for face-to-face communication than me, and I agree that face-to-face engagement with an immediate supervisor will drive change effectively, especially when the supervisor has embraced the change him or herself. But you can’t tell me that Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” did not drive any change. The power of the printed word to inspire people to action is unquestioned -— except, perhaps, by T.J. Larkin.
It was in this area that the research Larkin presented and his conclusions confounded me the most. For example, he presented a study in which the motivating factors driving behavioral change in employees were calculated. Change driven from articles in an employee newspaper came in at .08, while change driven by an explanation from a supervisor weighted in at .72 (where 1 is the highest). Change driven by attendance at a town hall meeting came in at .19 while a manager explaining the change came in at .72. Merger communications from the top produced behavioral change of .00, while informal communication from supervisors came in at .53.
Larkin admitted that the combination of messages from senior leaders and interpretations from supervisors produced better results, but said these results were incidental. But again, there was no reference to the quality of the higher-level communication or the strategy under which it was executed.
My conclusion: Bad communication is bad. Should we help leaders improve their communication? Not according to Larkin. According to Larkin, there is no value to high-level communication. Employees don’t care, he said. CEO-focused articles in employee newsletters were one example of the formal, top-down communication that failed to produce significant results. Did those communications include the CEO recognizing and rewarding employees who embraced the desired behaviors? We have no clue. We only know they were newsletter articles.
CEO communication
To support his view of the worthlessness of leader communication, Larkin pointed to research from three companies -— GE, Lloyd’s, and Heinz -— that showed managers would spend no more than 3 minutes with printed CEO communication. He also showed a photo of Domino’s Pizza drivers watching a video of the CEO presented earnings results. In the photo, the employees looked dumbfounded and uninterested. That’s proof, in Larkin’s world, that communicators should abandon CEO communications and focus on supervisor communication.
Communicators who adopted this approach would abandon all business literacy efforts to connect employees to the marketplace. Understanding business strategy is pointless —- only the workplace implications matter. You have to wonder what Jack Stack at Springfield Remanufacturing would make of such an argument. (Stack introduced open-book management and engaged in lots of CEO communication with his troops, ensuring they understood the big picture and had line of sight between their jobs and the bottom line.) Using Larkin’s line of thinking, soldiers would pay attention only to their platoon leaders and sergeants, and dismiss General Patton or Eisenhower as delivering just a bunch of (in Larkin’s word) shit. (During a visit to the U.S. Archives after the conference, I saw General Eisenhower’s message to the troops before D-Day. I thought it was inspiring, and history affirms that the troops had the same reaction.)
In my world, employees want to be led by leaders who lead. They want to trust their leaders and know they are guiding the organization forward and not to its doom (and their own unemployment). And there are plenty of examples of leaders who communicate effectively to drive organizational change and influence employee behavior. As my friend Angela Sinckas noted, Chrysler’s turnaround was not the result of supervisor communication, but rather Lee Iacoca’s dynamic leadership communication. Need a current example? Intel CEO Paul Otellini is blogging over the intranet, sharing issues and concerns with employees and soliciting comments that inform his decisions. Employees feel listened to and engaged. Otellini makes better decisions. Trust grows. Intel wins.
And isn’t it interesting that in recent research, IBM employees preferred to get their information from the intranet more than from supervisors and colleagues combined?
The GE/Lloyd’s/Heinz research -— yet again -— made no reference to the quality or nature of the communication that failed…only that it failed.
Larkin said he has never seen research that supports the value of CEO communication. One wonders how hard he has looked, since the value of leader communication has been documented repeatedly.
My take: Bad leader communication is bad. But we shouldn’t abandon the leader as a force for communication. We should improve the communication from the leader to produce better results.
Well, he’s entertaining
So, there were 500 communicators on their feet, applauding Larkin after having laughed at his contempt for the examples of bad communication he had presented. It is my sincere hope they were applauding his performance. (Hell, I applauded his performance.) My fear, though, is that communicators struggling with leader communications and mediocre intranets will return to their offices and advocate the abandonment of valuable communication channels and sources based on Larkin’s conclusions.
The conclusions are leaps of logic. The research is questionable. And I hope those attending take it with the bucket of salt they deserve.
5. Top 10 Marketing Trends
Every now and then, I drop by Web Digest for Marketers to see what’s on Larry Chase’s mind. I’ve never worked in marketing or marcom, but it’s hard to deny that—at least in terms of the channels we use -— marketing and PR are joined at the hip.
On my last visit, I found Chase has posted his “Top 10 Trends for the Next 10 Years..” Personally, I’m reluctant to prognosticate two years out. For example, who would have predicted 18 months ago that podcasting would be a major trend? It didn’t even exist before last August. (Take a look at Neville’s post today to see exactly what’s expected of podcasting as it continues to build momentum.)
Still, Chase’s list is intriguing because of the items that synch nicely with the themes raised by the PR blogging community in the last year or so. For example (what follows are directly quoted from Chase’s list):
2. Feed Marketing Flourishes: You’ve got RSS (Real Simple Syndication). You’ve got Podcasting (where you can download and time-shift audio content to your iPod or MP3 player). Now you’ve even got Video Podcasting where you can download MP4 videos into Sony’s PlayStation Portable unit for viewing when you’re mobile. As the use of RSS grows quickly, and more consumers buy iPods or MP3 players, these formats will grow in usage. And where there are ears and especially eyeballs, marketers are never too far behind.
5. Reverb Marketing, In Stereo: eMarketer points out that many Internet users already use multiple forms of media at once. Even as I write this I’m listening to CNBC in the background. Smart marketers will synchronize their messaging so the end user hears and sees complementary messages at or near the same time.
6. Blogs Go Multimedia: Blogs are obviously here to stay. Some of the cutting-edge blogs are starting to offer content in audio and even in video. This will not only affect journalism, but it will impact the retail business as well.
9. Publishing Faces Tectonic Shifts: Research is already showing that many people in their 20s are not picking up the newspaper habit the way their parents did. Add to this demographic shift the cost of newsprint, postage (for magazines) and handling, and it’s likely to cause tectonic shifts in the publishing industry. Many people already read newspapers and magazines online. My bet is that special issues will appear in print, and that many publishers will ultimately have to figure out how to make a go of it with free content online (i.e., advertiser-supported), perhaps by asking their readers for demographic information that enables the publisher to sell targeted advertisements at a premium, as you’ll frequently find with trade publications.
Whether these trends will hold up over 10 years remains to be seen. More likely, new trends will emerge that we can’t even begin to imagine today. The full list is worth reading, though. While the trends may not last a decade, they’re certainly true today.
7. Tech Media This Week
Sam Whitmore, the fellow behind Sam Whitmore’s Media Survey, has launched a new podcast you should listen to: Tech Media This Week. It’s short, intelligent, and deals with issues of interest to most of us in the PR world. There’s a story, for example, about the impending sale of Fast Company magazine and an analysis from a PR perspective BusinessWeek’s June 20 cover story, “The Power of Us.” Coordinates for the podcast (directly from Sam’s announcement):
If you want to listen using your computer’s MP3 player, click this link:
http://slapcast.com/users/SWMS
If you want to download it to your iPod or other portable MP3 player, paste this URL into your iPodder or other podcatcher software:
http://slapcast.com/rss/SWMS/index.xml
TMTW also is available as a download from the SWMS site.
http://www.mediasurvey.com
8. Three “Writing For The Wired World” Workshops Remain
There are three workshops left in the current offering of my two-day session, “Writing for the Wired World” from Ragan Communications.
Here’s the schedule:
- Washington DC, July 11-12
- Atlanta, July 21-22
- San Francisco, July 25-26
Get details at http://www.ragan.com/wired2005
And remember, I also bring this workshop in-house if you have enough communicators in your organization who can benefit from it. Details are on my Web site. Book a one-day in-house workshop between now and the end of April and you’ll get $1,000 off the workshop fee.
9. Sites of the Month
I got an e-mail from Alexandra Samuel, who let me know she had been engaged in introducing RSS to a lot of PR types. (Are we a “type?”) I understand the challenge. I just finished a two-day “Writing for the Wired World” workshop that included an introduction to RSS, and it took a lot longer than I expected as these communicators tried to wrap their minds around the concept.
Alexandra said she realized she needed “a simple, engaging introduction to RSS.” So she wrote one. And I like it. If you’re maintaining any kind of list of sites or posts that take a stab at explaining RSS to the uninitiated, you could do worse than adding Alexandra’s post -— “10 Steps to RSStocracy” —- to the mix.
One of the missing pieces in podcasting is the ability to search from among the many audio files out there for the podcast (or, for that matter, video blog or file) for the one that covers material in which you have an interest. Blinkx has introduced a service that seems pretty effective at closing that gap. Blinkx.tv applies a “contextual engine” to listen to online multimedia files and make them searchable. At launch, the site had catalogued more than 20,000 podcasts, and the results are interesting, to say the least.
10. HC+T Update
- Shel will meet with communicators from a well-known non-profit group on the development of a strategic online communication function.
- Shel will consult with a major financial services organization to conduct a review of its online communication efforts
- Shel will conduct a teleseminar for IABC on business podcasting. The teleseminar is set for July 28. Details are on the IABC website at http://www.iabc.com.
11. Boilerplate And Subscription Information
You received this newsletter either because you asked for it or somebody who likes you forwarded it to you.
Please feel free to forward it to someone =you= like!
HC+T Update is published monthly by Holtz Communication + Technology.
You can subscribe by visiting the HC+T site on the World Wide Web at http://www.holtz.com and selecting the FREE email NEWSLETTER page. You can subscribe, unsubscribe and view back issues.
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of this newsletter by adding “http://blog.holtz.com/update.xml” (without the quote marks) to your news feed reader.
Holtz Communication + Technology helps organizations apply online technology to strategic communication efforts.
(C) 2005, Holtz Communication + Technology. All rights reserved.