Building Great Brands: Defining and Measuring Brand Equity Ken Mison, CMRP, P.CRM Vice President Branding and CRM Research Solutions
Why this topic?
Marketing Sciences Institute 2005 Top Tier Priorities 1. Assessing Marketing Productivity (Return on Marketing) and Marketing Metrics. Link internal marketing metrics (awareness) to financial metrics / valuing customers and brands 2. Brands and Branding: Measuring brand equity and relating it to customer equity 3. Managing Customers: Retaining customers and measuring lifetime value 4. Growth, Innovation and New Products: Improving metrics for ROI for new products and early prediction of marketplace acceptance 5. Understanding Customers: Anticipating future needs and assessing the value to the customer of the firm s actions. 3
The Friday 2pm Test!
Which may be the oldest brand in the world? Clue: 1668 5
Which company was the first to spend 1M per year on advertising, and when? Clue: 1870 6
What percent of American drug markers revenues were spent on marketing and advertising in the 1860 s? 40% 7
One of these early American drugs went on to become the most famous brand in the world which one? This intellectual and temperance drink makes not only a delicious, exhilarating, refreshing and invigorating beverage, but a valuable Brain Tonic and a cure for all nervous affections Head Ache, Neuralgia, Hysteria, Melancholy, etc. 8
Bonus Question: Who will wash your blues away? 9
Channel Domination: How did they get so big? Five most valuable brands according to Interbrand (2005) Coca-Cola Microsoft IBM General Electric Intel Most people would probably say the success of these companies is based on giving people great products and great communication We tend to think that brand building is something that is done in the mind But look again at the above companies 10
Does that mean that what people think is irrelevant? The value of committed customers.
Why have these brands been losing? Kodak Nintendo Nokia In all cases the losses are the result of losing consumers. The equity of these brands is being driven by consumer equity not channel dominance. AOL 12
Lifetime Value Validation from TNS UK Scanner Panel Data: 30 countries, 27,000 people, 2 years, 17M observations ROI in terms of Life Time Value ROI measured as life time value increases 7,000%+ ROI measured as life time value increases 1,900% 13
Points of view on brand equity measurement
Brand Equity measurement approaches Economic Sociological Psychological-Behavioural 15
The Most Commonly Identified Components Brand-Finance Performance assessment Differentiation Esteem regard, reputation, word-of-mouth, credibility Relevance Young and Rubicam Differentiation Relevance Esteem Knowledge 16
Comprehensive models of brand equity (Keller and Lehman, MSI, 2004) intense and active preference, attitudinal and behavioural loyalty (Keller 1996) Bonding (Millward Brown) Favorable Brand Response Judgments Feelings Strong, unique brand associations Functional Imagery performance personality Brand Mind Share awareness, familiarity, knowledge Advantage Performance Relevance Prominence in the mind Top 20% percentile on all four dimensions (Young & Rubicam) 5 Core Measures 14 Core Measures 48 Universal Measures The top-3 in each of these approaches collapse to just one thing: Relevant advantage (i.e. The brand offers what I m looking for better than others at the right price ) 17
It s hard to get head to head comparisons but here is one Famous Microsoft Brand Things are great! Famous Brand according to our measurement this brand was dying 30 30 5 9 4 4 5 15 The above measures were taken at the same time in separate surveys. Clearly we were telling the client different things. We were saying the brand was dying and they were saying everything was just great! Y&R say they can identify dying brands They can t by the time they do, it s too late Reason wrong measures are being used This brand has since been withdrawn from the market. 18
Some other measures that have been suggested but will not work Market share Stock price Past behaviour Stated future intention (to purchase or switch) Price sensitivity / conjoint approaches Customer satisfaction / delight Loyalty measures / indexes Some form of satisfaction / delight / loyalty measurement is perhaps the most common measures across the different brand equity measurement models in use. They deserve special attention. 19
Why not measure loyalty? Loyalty is behavioural it s about what people do it s about observing purchase and repurchase behaviour Loyalty refers to the likelihood of repurchase based on past behaviour loyalists are not necessarily committed Commmitment is psychological it s about how people feel it s about the strength of the psychological relationship / bond Commitment refers to the likelihood of repurchase based on what s in the consumer s mind Committed people are as loyal as possible Most important: commitment correlates with future behaviour 20
Satisfaction itself is based on a false view of consumer behaviour... Brand Loyal This <.> makes me happy - it s congruent with my needs and values Loyalty Convert Low Two words defeat this model: Habituation - nothing delights forever Involvement - I don t care enough to want to be delighted Satisfaction High Extreme delight 21
What commitment really is... Committed What happens if I don t care? Commitment It s not great It s okay Uncommitted Disgust Satisfaction Delight Without involvement you can t get enthusiastic Your attitude is more likely to be what s the big deal 22
And, brand equity must also account for category enthusiasm when all brands are equally strong, relevant and differentiated to the consumer Multiple commitment is a real state of mind The key ingredient is category enthusiasm Does making me more satisfied or delighted make sense? Best quality products Competitive prices Friendly service Fix problems fast Understand customers And so on... Brand 1 Brand 2 Disgust Satisfaction/Attributes Delight 23
Let s start from scratch How would we recognize a brand that has become entrenched in the minds of its customers and that it s being bought by choice, not just because it is the dominant product in the market?
To begin, let s look at what Brand Equity would look like in our data and that requires evidence of actual inmarket behaviour against an equity measure Validation needs to Be Global Be directly linked to actual in-market behaviour Be predictive of future in-market behaviour Capture the entire category (competitive set) at once Address either brand or category equity Validate with every product / service / brand / category Validate with any size of brand including a new category entrant Be equally effective in both B-C and B-B 25
It tracks to real in-market behaviour and it predicts the future of a brand accurately 6 competing brands (first 3 are large and next 3 are small) tracked over 4 years with a 6-month lag. Changes in Brand Equity precede changes in market shares. This happens because the measurement used is psychological and attitudes change in advance of behaviour. 80 Brand One 60 40 20 0 50 40 Brand Two 30 20 10 0 40 30 20 10 0 Brand Three Equity Score Market Share (actual) R = 0.91 R 2 = 0.82 R = 0.84 R 2 = 0.70 R = 0.87 R 2 = 0.76 5 4 3 2 1 2 1.5 1 0.5 5 4 3 2 1 Brand Four Brand Five Brand Six R = 0.74 R 2 = 0.55 R = 0.85 R 2 = 0.72 R = 0.92 R 2 = 0.85 26
It should account for known brand phenomena The brand effect gap (double jeopardy) as described by Andrew Ehrenburg is real. Market leading brands get more than their fair share of spend 45 Brand Effect Gap 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Brand 1 Brand 2 Brand 3 Brand 4 Brand 5 Brand 6 Brand 7 Brand 8 Other Equity Score Share of Wallet 27
It must cover the whole category including new entrants Tracking over 6 years in a beverages market. All brands, large, small, old, new responded in the expected manner. Two month lag to share change. Average R = 0.83 Average R 2 = 0.68 Equity Score Market Share (actual) New entrant immediately seen and tracked 60 50 40 30 20 10 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 0 28 Week 9819 Week 9827 Week 9835 Week 9843 Week 9851 Week 9909 Week 9917 Week 9925 Week 9933 Week 9941 Week 9949 Week 0007 Week 0015 Week 0023 Week 0031 Week 0039 Week 0047 Week 0104 Week 0112 Week 0120 Week 0128 Week 0136 Week 0144 Week 0202 Week 0210 Week 0218 Week 0226 Week 0234 Week 0242 Week 0250 Week 0308 Week 0316 Week 0324 30 25 20 15 10 0 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 8 6 4 2 0 Week 9819 Week 9827 Week 9835 Week 9843 Week 9851 Week 9909 Week 9917 Week 9925 Week 9933 Week 9941 Week 9949 Week 0007 Week 0015 Week 0023 Week 0031 Week 0039 Week 0047 Week 0104 Week 0112 Week 0120 Week 0128 Week 0136 Week 0144 Week 0202 Week 0210 Week 0218 Week 0226 Week 0234 Week 0242 Week 0250 Week 0308 Week 0316 Week 0324 Week 9819 Week 9827 Week 9835 Week 9843 Week 9851 Week 9909 Week 9917 Week 9925 Week 9933 Week 9941 Week 9949 Week 0007 Week 0015 Week 0023 Week 0031 Week 0039 Week 0047 Week 0104 Week 0112 Week 0120 Week 0128 Week 0136 Week 0144 Week 0202 Week 0210 Week 0218 Week 0226 Week 0234 Week 0242 Week 0250 Week 0308 Week 0316 Week 0324 Week 9819 Week 9827 Week 9835 Week 9843 Week 9851 Week 9909 Week 9917 Week 9925 Week 9933 Week 9941 Week 9949 Week 0007 Week 0015 Week 0023 Week 0031 Week 0039 Week 0047 Week 0104 Week 0112 Week 0120 Week 0128 Week 0136 Week 0144 Week 0202 Week 0210 Week 0218 Week 0226 Week 0234 Week 0242 Week 0250 Week 0308 Week 0316 Week 0324 Week 0332 Week 0340 Week 0348 30 12 25 10 20 15 10 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 5 0 Week 9819 Week 9827 Week 9835 Week 9843 Week 9851 Week 9909 Week 9917 Week 9925 Week 9933 Week 9941 Week 9949 Week 0007 Week 0015 Week 0023 Week 0031 Week 0039 Week 0047 Week 0104 Week 0112 Week 0120 Week 0128 Week 0136 Week 0144 Week 0202 Week 0210 Week 0218 Week 0226 Week 0234 Week 0242 Week 0250 Week 0308 Week 0316 Week 0324 Week 9819 Week 9827 Week 9835 Week 9843 Week 9851 Week 9909 Week 9917 Week 9925 Week 9933 Week 9941 Week 9949 Week 0007 Week 0015 Week 0023 Week 0031 Week 0039 Week 0047 Week 0104 Week 0112 Week 0120 Week 0128 Week 0136 Week 0144 Week 0202 Week 0210 Week 0218 Week 0226 Week 0234 Week 0242 Week 0250 Week 0308 Week 0316 Week 0324 Week 9819 Week 9827 Week 9835 Week 9843 Week 9851 Week 9909 Week 9917 Week 9925 Week 9933 Week 9941 Week 9949 Week 0007 Week 0015 Week 0023 Week 0031 Week 0039 Week 0047 Week 0104 Week 0112 Week 0120 Week 0128 Week 0136 Week 0144 Week 0202 Week 0210 Week 0218 Week 0226 Week 0234 Week 0242 Week 0250 Week 0308 Week 0316 Week 0324
In order to create a Brand Equity measure Two bits of theory are important: Brand Equity and Commitment
Why do people buy what they buy or do what they do? Choice services, products, etc.... How much do I really want that one? Is that one an option? Can I get to it? 30
Why do people buy what they buy or do what they do? Choice services, products, etc.... The power of a brand in the mind Free Choice The power of a brand in the market Constrained Choice 31
This gives us a framework for understanding brand equity Sales (behaviour in a market) Consumer Equity Market Equity Brand Effects (brand / product experience) Antecedents not the measures themselves Communication Effects (advertising, press) Market Presence (visibility, distribution) Market Structure (contracts, legacies) Free Choice Constrained Choice 32
General behavioural characteristics of consumers Consumer Equity Willing to climb mountains to buy the brand The brand has no chance with this person The best of all possible worlds Don t care - buy whatever is easiest or most convenient Market Equity 33
Measuring Consumer Equity
The Challenge In Measuring Brand Equity A brand equity measure must display A sound theoretical platform Parsimony Universality Actionability Validation 35
Quick reminder - some measures that have been suggested but will not work Market share Stock price Past behaviour Stated future intention (to purchase or switch) Customer satisfaction Loyalty measures / indexes Price sensitivity / conjoint approaches Behaviour follows from attitudes. Attitudes are psychological. The only way to measure brand equity is to measure a consumers psychological relationship to brands in a category. 36
Our approach was developed from the world s most widely used measure of consumer commitment The Conversion Model The Equity Score was developed from the Conversion Model. More than 7,000 studies worldwide More than 300 product and service categories More than 82,500 brands Used by 80% of the world s most valuable brands (Interbrand, 2004) It is the only research model developed directly from the original Conversion Theory (Hofmeyr, 1986). Annual validations have been conducted since 1990 it is probably the most validated research model in use. 37
Conversion Theory holds that there are only four dimensions to measuring the commitment of anyone to anything. Needs fit how do people rate each of the brands they are aware of or use Involvement how important is the brand choice how much does it matter Attraction to alternatives how do all of the alternatives compare (competitors or substitutes) Ambivalence how certain are people about the choices they ve made 38
The Conversion Model produces three outputs Commitment For every brand in a category the basic segmentation The Conversion Model World s Leading Measure of Commitment COMMITTED UNCOMMITTED OPEN UNAVAILABLE States of Mind States of Mind describes a market in terms of the mindset of the respondents. This looks at people rather than brands. Equity Score Our focus today 39
Features of the Equity Score A number from 1 to 100 for each brand Sum of all brands = 100 (and will sum to 100 for any group of respondents) Easily comparable to actual market share It was created from a database of over 27,000 respondents with over 17 million purchase observations gathered over a two-year period across multiple developed countries using TNS scanner panel data 40
More detail Calculated for each brand at the level of the individual respondent each respondent then has an Equity Score for each brand they are aware of or that they use Users: all scores sum to 100 (for all used brands combined) Non-users: if the sum of the Equity Scores for used brands is 100 then all non-used brands get a score of 0 (e.g. there is no more space in the consumers mind). If the Equity Scores on the non-user side sum to less than 100, then the remaining portion gets allocated to the non-used brands based on availability to each nonused brand. The Equity Score therefore takes into account the level of commitment to other brands in the study, both used (in terms of the total sum of used brands) and unused (in terms of the relative allocation of the remainder) In repertoire markets it accurately produces an Equity Score for each brand used in the repertoire and this then represents share of spend rather than absolute market share So, the Equity Score for Brand X for person Y is the market share that Brand X could expect to get from person Y were there no market barriers i.e. if person Y could buy what they wanted. 41
Does this make sense We include users and non-users of a brand Makes sense non-users are a part of a brand s future and therefore it s current equity brands can become more or less valuable in the future and that should be the whole point of a brand equity measure where is a brand going based on where it is today There is nothing about price sensitivity That is a barrier to change not a measure of the brands equity with consumers. Brands can be held in high regard even without purchase and the high regard is what some purchasers are looking for think Rolls Royce for example. There is nothing about associations, knowledge, personality, loyalty, market share etc. They are not needed to calculate brand equity Some are (maybe) antecedents for diagnostic analysis and should not be the outcome measures Things like current share are irrelevant 42
Validation
Quick reminder Validation needs to Be Global Be directly linked to actual in-market behaviour Be predictive of future in-market behaviour Capture the entire category (competitive set) at once Address either brand or category equity Validate with every product / service / brand / category Validate with any size of brand including a new category entrant Be equally effective in both B-C and B-B 44
Validation: Measures Underlying the Equity Score Validation from TNS UK Scanner Panel Data: 27,000 people, 2 years, 17 million observations. The measures underlying the Equity Score are strongly related to actual inmarket spend and behaviour. Our strongest relationships result in nearly 80% SOW 61% of those identified as most likely to switch did so. 45
Validation: Measures Underlying the Equity Score Validation from TNS UK Scanner Panel Data: 27,000 people, 2 years, 17 million observations. Actual spend is strongly related to the Conversion Model segments Lifetime Value calculation accounts for jump and slide between the segments. ROI measured as life time value increases 7,000%+ 1,900 % amongst users 46
Concurrent Validation: Measures Underlying the Equity Score Share of Wallet is sustained Validation from TNS UK Scanner Panel Data: 27,000 people, 2 years, 17 million observations. 78 58 Share of Wallet (Months 1 3) 70 49 34 33 15 14 Share of Wallet (Months 15 18) 17 7 5 3 12 9 7 4 Perseverance = model strength. Over 18 months Conversion Model remained extremely stable and accurate people continued to do what they were predicted to do. 74 51 Committed Percent of times that Brand is next brand bought 26 15 10 5 3 2 Unavailable Predicts next brand purchase in 91% of cases Literature review, 1973-2002: Best R 2 =.08. Only an 8% ability to predict next brand purchase. The best claim found from any source is an R 2 =.27 or 27% correct prediction of next brand purchase. 47
General construction equipment Equity Score and most often usage for equipment brands (Canada) a B-B repertoire market Brand 1 is the market leader and as we would expect it has share in excess of it s Equity Score. Brand 1 needs to focus on relationship building and retention to protect it s position. This is a brand that faces multiple threats rather than a single strong competitor. Brand 5 is a newer entrant to the market and it has room to grow it s share availability is a barrier. This brand stands to gain the most in the near term if supply can be improved. GAP Brand 1-7.2% 50 45 40 n:175 47.6 40.4 Most often usage Equity Score Brand 2 + 2.8% 35 30 Brand 3 + 2.5% 25 20 Brand 4 + 0.7% Brand 5 + 3.3% 15 10 5 0 13.3 12.6 11.9 10.8 7.7 6.5 4.9 3.2 Brand 1 Brand 2 Brand 3 Brand 4 Brand 5 48
High-speed vs. Dial-up internet services Equity Scores (Canada) Here is an example of a category equity analysis. Clearly the Equity Score can see a category as well as it can a brand. High-speed service clearly dominates in market share. Equity Score results show further growth is possible in the near term however, growth will be moderate (perhaps due to availability and / or cost barriers) at about 4%. Dial-up is still in a declining market share position. There is a hard core segment of consumers whose light internet usage does not make high speed attractive. n:869 Share of market Equity Score GAP + 3.7% High Speed 80.0 60.0 70.0 66.3-3.7% Dial-up 40.0 33.7 30.0 20.0 0.0 High Speed Dial Up 49
Internet service provider Equity Scores (Canada) High-speed market All others accounts for most market share but overall they are not well positioned and are likely to see declines in their share as a group. They are not attracting new users so their strategy has to be retention while they focus on improving their offering (if that is possible). Brand 1 is the largest ISP and appears to be in a position of equilibrium with usage and Equity Score being at similar levels there is little room for further growth under current conditions. This brand also requires a retention strategy and needs to see if they can improve the offering to increase appeal. Brand 2 currently has a small user base, but is in a good position for growth with their Equity Score being greater than share. People are attracted to Brand 2 giving them strength and potential. In reality this brand has a barrier in the form of distribution (access). GAP n:292 80.0 Share of market Equity Score 60.0-1.2% Brand 1 +13.9% Brand 2 40.0 32.9-12.7% All Others 31.7 20.0 22.1 58.9 46.2 0.0 8.2 Brand 1 Brand 2 All Others 50
Retail sector Equity Scores (Canada) Client s Equity Score indicates that it is in a strong position. Strategy: identify and remove barriers to growth. Aggressive acquisition strategy is warranted. Most of the other big brands i.e. Market Leader, Store 3 and Store 4 are all in a position where their market share is higher than their Equity Score. This is unstable in the long run. Strategy: identify and correct weaknesses and in the short-term focus on retention rather than acquisition. Market Leader Equity Score is 10.8 versus share of 20.2. This brand is being sustained by it s current market power but recent news reports have them struggling to sustain share and meet growth expectations we knew this would happen a year ago. They do not appeal to non-users and current users are not committed to the store. 25.0 20.0 20.2 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 11.3 9.8 10.8 13.7 9.8 12.1 9.1 8.0 5.9 6.7 4.0 5.6 5.4 3.5 11.3 8.5 4.8 4.7 1.9 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.6 1.4 1.0 2.8 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.2 Client Market Leader in sales Store 3 Store 4 Store 5 Store 6 Store 7 Store 8 Store 9 Store 10 Equity Score Store 11 Store 12 Store 13 Store 14 Share of Spend Store 15 Store 16 Store 17 Store 18 Store 19 Store 20 51
Brand Health Chart Summary of the overall positions of brands (GPs & Pediatricians) Even a simple diagnostic shows the strength / weakness of a brand. Drug 1 is almost universally prescribed but it is losing share to Drug 2 which has a higher level of commitment and a higher Equity Score. Although Drug 1 is still the market leader it is losing it s position. Equity Score TM (Total) % Users n^: 141 % Non-users 33 Drug 1 35 63 1 36 Drug 2 54 32 4 4 6 21 Drug 3 15 61 8 11 5 7 Drug 4 5 17 30 21 27 4 Drug 5 1 8 17 12 63 Committed Uncommitted Open Unavailable Unaware unavailable 52
But Will It Provide Warning That Can Be Actioned?
Early warning by tracking Equity Score Because the Equity Score is created from Conversion Model we can identify why results are changing Needs fit, involvement, attraction of alternatives, ambivalence. Different response strategies are required. The warning sign - Availability falling which is driving down the Equity Score no scope to grow. This brand is reaching its peak potential in the market. Equity Score Market Share Not open to this brand Open to start using this brand Uncommitted to this brand Commitment 0 Q1 Q3 Q5 Q7 Q9 Q11 Q12 54
Early warning by tracking business / brand performance 80 60 The warning sign: Fall in commitment (-2%) and availability (-5%) Market share does not change immediately but it will change inevitably. Equity Score Market Share Commitment 46 41 43 36 29 29 27 25 16 14 11 12 40 21 9 0 Q1 Q3 Q5 Q7 Q9 Q11 Q12 Commitment and Availability is declining this brand is in trouble. This will result from (a) product / service problems, (b) ambivalence towards the brand amongst current customers and c) declining marketing or marketing effectiveness amongst users and non-users and / or (d) an increasing appeal to one or more competitors. 55
Commitment to mainstream brands This shows three brands in a rapidly changing market May 1998 May 2004 ( ) 50 50 45 45 40 40 35 35 30 30 25 25 Brand 1 Brand 2 Brand 3 56 % 20 20 15 15 10 10 5 5 0 0 22-28 Feb 99-10-16 May 99 30-06 Dec 98-01-07 Mar 99 21-27 Sep 98-07-13 Dec 98 13-19 Jul 98-28-04 Oct 98 04-10 May 98-20-26 Jul 98 29-05 Dec 99-28-05 Mar 00 20-26 Sep 99-06-12 Dec 99 12-18 Jul 99-27-03 Oct 99 03-09 May 99-19-25 Jul 99 18-24 Sep 00-04-10 Dec 00 10-16 Jul 00-25-01 Oct 00 01-07 May 00-17-23 Jul 00 21-27 Feb 00-08-14 May 00 09-15 Jul 01-24- 30 Sep 01 30-06 May 01-16-22 Jul 01 19-25 Feb 01-07-13 May 01 27-03 Nov 00-26-04 Mar 01 08-14 Jul 02-23-29 Sep 02 29-05 May 02-15-21 Jul 02 18-24 Feb 02-06-12 May 02 26-02 Dec 01-25-03 Mar 02 17-23 Sep 01-03-09 Dec 01 28-04 May 03-14-20 Jul 03 17-23 Feb 03-05-11 May 03 25-01 Dec 02-24-02 Mar 03 16-22 Sep 02-02-08 Dec 02 16-22 Feb 04-03-09 May 24-30 Nov 03-23-29 Feb 04 15-21 Sep 03-01-07 Dec 03 07-13 Jul 03-22-28 Sep 03 Base - Beer/Cider/Stout Past 7 Days
A Tale of 3 Brands: The death of a market leader Brand A started with a 48% market share and was the market dominant brand had been for more than a decade. Poor marketing strategy betrayed the original customer base and failed to attract new users. Strong competitors emerged with a better marketing strategy. 48% Brand A market share R =.99 Brand A Equity Score Time: Period of 6 years Losing current customers and declining availability of new ones. 57
A Tale of 3 Brands: The brand that couldn t Brand B: Aggressive pricing-based push strategy drove market share growth but the Equity Score didn t follow and ultimately the brand could not hold the share gains. Brand B market share aggressive push strategy causes share to grow Brand B Equity Share does not follow the market share up R =.95 No availability to grow. Time: Period of 6 years 58
A Tale of 3 Brands: The desirable brand that struggled Brand C: Has potential to grow but the brand struggles to get the leverage it needs in a strongly contested market. Brand C Equity Score R =.62 Brand C market share small brand struggles to achieve its potential Lots of room to grow. Time: Period of 6 years 59
So, what we are saying is If you care about brand equity and want to understand how to measure, create and sustain brand equity then you must have a measure of consumer equity Consumer Equity is about the power of the brand in the mind it is not about past behaviour or stated future behaviour How people become committed to brands is known it s captured in the theory of commitment and conversion Look at the ability of a brand equity measure to see into the future not the past or current market position 60
Thank you for your stamina and attention Any questions? 61