Remember...

[fareastwarriors]

Interesting: most people in the digital marketing industry that I have spoken to (digital agencies, programmatic buyers, DMPs/DSPs) - they have all said that facebook is pretty much the worst. Poor results on all metrics and they are the worst company to work with.

 

What's the best for them then?

[rishig]

Interesting: most people in the digital marketing industry that I have spoken to (digital agencies, programmatic buyers, DMPs/DSPs) - they have all said that facebook is pretty much the worst. Poor results on all metrics and they are the worst company to work with.

 

There is enough data out there that is contrary to what you have heard imo.

mc-advertising-index-q1-2017.pdf

[Spekulatius]

 

 

Don't we have a bubble right now? Bonds, stocks, real estate...

 

But  then again, bubbles are only hubbles in hindsight after they popped. Before they pop, they re called secular trends, peak X, Outsiders companies etc.

 

 

 

For US stocks, that depends on whether tax reform gets done in 2017 like they're aiming for.

 

Assuming rates continue to slowly rise, then if the tax cuts are deep the market is not expensive.

If they pass something mediocre, I'd say the market is somewhere between stretched and very expensive.

If they can't pass anything, then bubble's the right word.

Right now, the market seems to be betting something big will happen on tax reform before the end of the year. Time will tell.

 

As for large cap US tech growth stocks, they're still between cheap and fairly priced. From what I've read, mid-caps are the most overvalued stocks.

 

 

 

Relative to other stocks, I agree that large cap tech stocks are not overvalued. I think the case can easily be made that GOOG for example is undervalued, since it is a business with vastly above average prospects trading for not much more than the market multiple. I think a lot of overvaluation is in crappy small cap and mid cap stocks, as well as in somewhat cyclical business

 

Tax cuts don't matter for the valuation, in my opinion, unless they favor stocks over other asset classes, which I don't believe to be the case.

[Jurgis]

Tax cuts don't matter for the valuation, in my opinion, unless they favor stocks over other asset classes, which I don't believe to be the case.

 

I think he means corporate tax cuts which do favor stocks, since the underlying business income suddenly goes up X%. (Not looking at secondary effects).

[LC]

Interesting: most people in the digital marketing industry that I have spoken to (digital agencies, programmatic buyers, DMPs/DSPs) - they have all said that facebook is pretty much the worst. Poor results on all metrics and they are the worst company to work with.

 

There is enough data out there that is contrary to what you have heard imo.

Careful...there are a few big issues with this report. The first 15 pages address the Consumer/Retail advertising industry (aka the VAST majority of the industry) - you will note they only report increased spend on advertising, and increased revenue from facebook/google.

 

What is sorely lacking is any assessment of whether this increased spend is leading to one of two things: increased conversions or increased engagement. This is of course what advertisers measure their success by.

 

The only place the word "engagement" or "conversion" appear, is the B2B section:

 

In the 2016 “State of Marketing” report, Salesforce

reported that 83% of high-performing marketers are

using CRM to power their digital advertising. Then from

the “Salesforce Advertising Index, Q1 2016,” advertisers

who had CRM-powered advertising on Facebook had

a 47% higher engagement rate than those with just

standard targeting

 

Of course, Salesforce sells CRM services to Business customers. And this metric they provide is less meaningful: it does not compare facebook engagement vs. non-facebook engagement. It is just saying, for everyone already dumping ads on facebook, you have more success if you use our CRM services.

 

I may very well be wrong when I claim that facebook advertising is pretty useless, but what you have referenced does not support it.

 

 

[LC]

Interesting: most people in the digital marketing industry that I have spoken to (digital agencies, programmatic buyers, DMPs/DSPs) - they have all said that facebook is pretty much the worst. Poor results on all metrics and they are the worst company to work with.

 

What's the best for them then?

 

I will ask and report back :)

[Guest ajc]

 

 

Relative to other stocks, I agree that large cap tech stocks are not overvalued. I think the case can easily be made that GOOG for example is undervalued, since it is a business with vastly above average prospects trading for not much more than the market multiple. I think a lot of overvaluation is in crappy small cap and mid cap stocks, as well as in somewhat cyclical business

 

Tax cuts don't matter for the valuation, in my opinion, unless they favor stocks over other asset classes, which I don't believe to be the case.

 

 

 

Like Jurgis just noted, cutting the US corporate tax rate to 20% will flow directly to the bottom line of most public companies. That'd make the S&P500 substantially cheaper. You might be thinking about personal income tax rates which are also slated to be cut significantly.

 

I agree there's a lot of overvaluation out there. It wouldn't surprise me if the market dropped 15% or went sideways for a year or two. Then again, focusing on individual stocks is always the better option.

 

 

 

[ScottHall]

It's funny you use those words... because I described myself as a train wreck in an article I wrote not too long ago. The only difference is I was talking about myself last year, before I started using marijuana. I don't think you really know much about me, but it doesn't offend me. I think it's kind of funny.

 

I appreciate that you care about me enough to share that advice, but I think I'll look at what's happened in my own life since I started smoking pot instead of worrying about other people's failures.

 

I think this board needs people like you. I actually think its a great board because there are a lot of intelligent people and the views are pretty diverse. Its kind of funny because I have a friend something pretty similar to what you are doing with marijuana. I pretty sure it won't end well for you or for him. But I am often wrong. Anyways if it doesn't, don't beat yourself up about it...if your life isn't working it makes sense to experiment with things even if it doesn't work out. Good luck to you!

 

Thanks Rukawa. I agree; why not shake things up now and then?

 

Some people view life as a precious thing where it makes sense to find a system that works and stick with it. I have no desire for that; I think the path to knowledge requires blowing up your comfort zone sometimes.

[SlowAppreciation]

Interesting: most people in the digital marketing industry that I have spoken to (digital agencies, programmatic buyers, DMPs/DSPs) - they have all said that facebook is pretty much the worst. Poor results on all metrics and they are the worst company to work with.

 

I worked in the industry for 7 years and don't hold the same opinion.

 

Remember, what's good for an agency or buyer is not necessarily good for the advertiser (their client). An agency's primary motivation is to spend as much of their client's money as possible. Say you get a $10m budget from WeddingCo targeting 25-34F in NYC, interested in wedding dresses, who went to an Ivy League college, and have a dog. Well what if there's only $7m worth of that audience available? You're not going to let that money go to waste, so you reach out to Publishers to see who can spend that extra $3m for you. Most ad-tech companies are going to stretch who belongs in that audience so they can get paid. Agencies turn a blind eye to it because it's really in their interest to.

 

The sense I get from FB is that their targeting is good, and they don't play in this gray area as much as other digital advertising platforms/vendors. I think this is partially the gripe with FB in the industry, and the fact that they don't hand hold/manage campaigns for advertisers. They really push self service first, which grates on some who are accustomed to the old model.

[LC]

Interesting: most people in the digital marketing industry that I have spoken to (digital agencies, programmatic buyers, DMPs/DSPs) - they have all said that facebook is pretty much the worst. Poor results on all metrics and they are the worst company to work with.

Say you get a $10m budget from WeddingCo targeting 25-34F in NYC, interested in wedding dresses, who went to an Ivy League college, and have a dog. Well what if there's only $7m worth of that audience available? You're not going to let that money go to waste, so you reach out to Publishers to see who can spend that extra $3m for you.

Oh I agree with this. I'm not arguing the spend isn't there. I'm just saying the ROI on facebook sucks. A big reason people are buying facebook ads is exactly the reason you mention: they have to spend that extra 3M.

 

The sense I get from FB is that their targeting is good, and they don't play in this gray area as much as other digital advertising platforms/vendors. I think this is partially the gripe with FB in the industry, and the fact that they don't hand hold/manage campaigns for advertisers. They really push self service first, which grates on some who are accustomed to the old model.

I've got a response to this but I want to confirm the info...last I heard (about a year ago) was that FB's policies were literally the definition of the gray area in data sharing, and they were screwing the agencies and buyers. But need to confirm that is still up-to-date info.

[SlowAppreciation]

Interesting: most people in the digital marketing industry that I have spoken to (digital agencies, programmatic buyers, DMPs/DSPs) - they have all said that facebook is pretty much the worst. Poor results on all metrics and they are the worst company to work with.

Say you get a $10m budget from WeddingCo targeting 25-34F in NYC, interested in wedding dresses, who went to an Ivy League college, and have a dog. Well what if there's only $7m worth of that audience available? You're not going to let that money go to waste, so you reach out to Publishers to see who can spend that extra $3m for you.

Oh I agree with this. I'm not arguing the spend isn't there. I'm just saying the ROI on facebook sucks. A big reason people are buying facebook ads is exactly the reason you mention: they have to spend that extra 3M.

 

 

The low ROI surprises me, though I guess it's high dependent upon the marketer and their objectives. For example, GEICO is going to do way better on GOOG than FB simply because of the way people use each platform.

 

I previously worked for a company that specialized in this very specific type of online advertising. FB kicked the tires for an acq ~2012 but passed (smartly). 8 months later they built pretty much the same product and business model, but it performed 5-6x better plus an insane amount of reach.

 

The sense I get from FB is that their targeting is good, and they don't play in this gray area as much as other digital advertising platforms/vendors. I think this is partially the gripe with FB in the industry, and the fact that they don't hand hold/manage campaigns for advertisers. They really push self service first, which grates on some who are accustomed to the old model.

 

I've got a response to this but I want to confirm the info...last I heard (about a year ago) was that FB's policies were literally the definition of the gray area in data sharing, and they were screwing the agencies and buyers. But need to confirm that is still up-to-date info.

 

The gray/opaque policies aren't unique to FB—it's the entire industry. I worked at GOOG and it's no better. And I think FB does a better job of actively weeding out fraud/bots on their network than GOOG. I remember them opting not to build a DSP a few years ago because they found the quality of ads on exchanges was so low. I respect that.

[mrholty]

I agree with SlowAppreciation. 

 

If you are Oreo and you have a large sales quantity, brand awareness, etc and you are running general ads than you can spend a ton of money very quick on Facebook.  If you are a new brand and have limited dollars to spend FB targeting while not perfect can take unprofitable campaigns and by further segmenting the groups lead to very healthy ROI's that can be actually measured especially vs old school mediums of radio, print and TV. 

 

My friend who built his business burned through a bunch of money to start.  He took no salary for 2-3 years and did this as a part-time gig.  It took a lot of fine tuning to figure out what worked and what didn't and even then its changing.  Last night I reached out to him again to see how its going.  He's finally started to get to breakeven on some instrgram ads though his target market only slighly overlaps with the average user there. 

 

His viewpoint on the different platforms:

GOOG Adwords - he spends less and less on.  Still a positive ROI but barely.

Instragram - Finally breaking even on ROI - has a few positive campaigns.  He'e excited for some new features that Instragram is launching here where you can buy what is in the ad without leaving Instragram.  (his words is that this will be a gamechanger for instragram if it works as well as he's read about it)

Pinterest - If you have a product for women (any age) it will work.  Pinterest is 90% women and the way ads work along with promoted pins and others they have a long tail.

Snapchat - their targeting is absolute crap.  He was shocked at how bad it is vs Facebook.

Bing-He has a few products that skew older and they work very well on Bing.  A much better ROI than Goog due to their costs being less than half primarily but also a higher conversion %. 

 

 

[SlowAppreciation]

I agree with SlowAppreciation. 

 

If you are Oreo and you have a large sales quantity, brand awareness, etc and you are running general ads than you can spend a ton of money very quick on Facebook.  If you are a new brand and have limited dollars to spend FB targeting while not perfect can take unprofitable campaigns and by further segmenting the groups lead to very healthy ROI's that can be actually measured especially vs old school mediums of radio, print and TV. 

 

My friend who built his business burned through a bunch of money to start.  He took no salary for 2-3 years and did this as a part-time gig.  It took a lot of fine tuning to figure out what worked and what didn't and even then its changing.  Last night I reached out to him again to see how its going.  He's finally started to get to breakeven on some instrgram ads though his target market only slighly overlaps with the average user there. 

 

His viewpoint on the different platforms:

GOOG Adwords - he spends less and less on.  Still a positive ROI but barely.

Instragram - Finally breaking even on ROI - has a few positive campaigns.  He'e excited for some new features that Instragram is launching here where you can buy what is in the ad without leaving Instragram.  (his words is that this will be a gamechanger for instragram if it works as well as he's read about it)

Pinterest - If you have a product for women (any age) it will work.  Pinterest is 90% women and the way ads work along with promoted pins and others they have a long tail.

Snapchat - their targeting is absolute crap.  He was shocked at how bad it is vs Facebook.

Bing-He has a few products that skew older and they work very well on Bing.  A much better ROI than Goog due to their costs being less than half primarily but also a higher conversion %.

 

Do you know if the same FB targeting options are available in Instagram? I noticed that I don't get any Instagram ads anymore, and I suspect it's because I don't have a FB account. So I wonder if it's all built on the same "stack" now.

 

If/when Instagram really puts some effort behind being able to purchase whatever you see in a post, I think it will be a game changer. I tried launching a business a few years ago (now defunct) that was centered on this idea. It got some traction (but I couldn't manage the logistics/inventory) and the operations were a nightmare. But the central concept was "see cool picture, buy whatever you want in it". It definitely resonated with customers, and if you're simply a platform that enables these transactions rather than trying to fulfill them, I think it can be a bonanza for FB/Instagram.

 

I originally scoffed at the $1b purchase price for Instagram. Now I think it was a steal.

[LC]

For big campaigns, facebook is lovely to present to c-levels because facebook themselves is able to sell such a good story.

 

Effective? Nobody knows.

 

Facebook tells you they have a great ROI. Facebook tells you they have great engagement.

 

Facebook controls what information they give to advertisers. But the reality is, you have no metrics to compare to other outlets. You don't even know how they calculate their metrics. You can't drop pixels on anything to confirm what they report. How do they measure their ROI? How do they measure engagement? How do they build their audiences? You have no idea. Facebook controls everything in and out of facebook. The third parties who have tried to estimate these metrics report they are lower than what FB reports (albeit it is just an estimation and you could further question conflict of interest). The fact remains that you can't confirm anything facebook reports to you.

 

So when the salesman from facebook tells you facebook is a great marketing tool, if you believe him, then you think Facebook is effective. If you ask him to prove it, he won't.

 

My friend thinks there only two digital spots which are useful: paid google search, and facebook news feed. In my opinion, facebook news feed might be useful for branding. Might be. For conversion or engagement I'm not sold. But it's an easy story to sell.

[ScottHall]

For big campaigns, facebook is lovely to present to c-levels because facebook themselves is able to sell such a good story.

 

Effective? Nobody knows.

 

Facebook tells you they have a great ROI. Facebook tells you they have great engagement.

 

Facebook controls what information they give to advertisers. But the reality is, you have no metrics to compare to other outlets. You don't even know how they calculate their metrics. You can't drop pixels on anything to confirm what they report. How do they measure their ROI? How do they measure engagement? How do they build their audiences? You have no idea. Facebook controls everything in and out of facebook.

 

So when the salesman from facebook tells you facebook is a great marketing tool, if you believe him, then you think Facebook is effective. If you ask him to prove it, he won't.

 

My friend thinks there only two digital spots which are useful: paid google search, and facebook news feed. In my opinion, facebook news feed might be useful for branding. Might be. For conversion or engagement I'm not sold. But it's an easy story to sell.

 

I work in DRM and it's not that hard to calculate your economics based on ad spend. FB gets a lot of use in my industry, for good reason.

[Spekulatius]

 

Thanks Rukawa. I agree; why not shake things up now and then?

 

Some people view life as a precious thing where it makes sense to find a system that works and stick with it. I have no desire for that; I think the path to knowledge requires blowing up your comfort zone sometimes.

 

I agree with Scott here. conventional wisdom get you conventional results - if you are happy with that, fine. If not, think different! While I don't agree with everything that Scott writes, unconventional thoughts add much more value to these boards than rehashing the same things over and over.

[LC]

"the eonomics"? what metrics are you talking about? and frankly, data rights is a pretty tangential field. facebook data cant really be compared to other outlets, one of the big problems. just fyi, my info is coming from analysts at the largest digital agencies and tech co's out there, who have been running 8 figure campaigns for all types of verticals, cpg, auto, telecom, etc. for over 5 years. they're the ones responsible for the oreo ads people see on FB, to use an example mentioned previously.

[DooDiligence]

What Facebook says & what their ad rep says don't matter.

 

Your own ROI for a project is all that matters.

 

Nobody relies on just one platform (gotta have search & social)

 

If you craft your offerings well, you'll sell...

[LC]

What Facebook says & what their ad rep says don't matter.

 

Your own ROI for a project is all that matters.

 

Nobody relies on just one platform (gotta have search & social)

 

If you craft your offerings well, you'll sell...

When you're spending $15M/mo on a branding campaign across 10 online platforms it absolutely matters.

 

Do you say that what numbers a company reports doesn't matter, when you are allocating investment dollars between competing investments? Of course not. Companies must report using a common standard - GAAP. They have auditors who provide assurance over numbers like revenue, margins, etc.

 

You have no insight into what Facebook's self-reported metrics mean, and have no confidence when comparing them vs. competitors. Of course that matters when determining where to allocate ad dollars.

 

I'm not talking about some dude with a small business spending 10K on an adwords campaign who can easily measure results. I'm talking about huge clients and their agencies trying to manage very complicated campaigns, where digital spend may only be 5-20%. Even within just digital, with all the attributions that go into trying to measure the success of a campaign, it becomes extremely complicated to gain insight. When facebook essentially FVCKS you on the data, making your job much more difficult, it is easy to see why savvy marketers do not like working with them.

[SlowAppreciation]

For big campaigns, facebook is lovely to present to c-levels because facebook themselves is able to sell such a good story.

 

Effective? Nobody knows.

 

Facebook tells you they have a great ROI. Facebook tells you they have great engagement.

 

Facebook controls what information they give to advertisers. But the reality is, you have no metrics to compare to other outlets. You don't even know how they calculate their metrics. You can't drop pixels on anything to confirm what they report. How do they measure their ROI? How do they measure engagement? How do they build their audiences? You have no idea. Facebook controls everything in and out of facebook. The third parties who have tried to estimate these metrics report they are lower than what FB reports (albeit it is just an estimation and you could further question conflict of interest). The fact remains that you can't confirm anything facebook reports to you.

 

So when the salesman from facebook tells you facebook is a great marketing tool, if you believe him, then you think Facebook is effective. If you ask him to prove it, he won't.

 

My friend thinks there only two digital spots which are useful: paid google search, and facebook news feed. In my opinion, facebook news feed might be useful for branding. Might be. For conversion or engagement I'm not sold. But it's an easy story to sell.

 

I don't disagree with you, but this is no different from any other platform/publisher/ad-tech vendor in the industry. For example, what Google counts as an "impression" is different from ad-tech companies A, B, C, &  D, and they give very little insight into how they calculate spam, what browser technology is used, how much and which metrics are based on "predicted" values rather than what actually happened, etc. The list goes on.

 

In no way do I think the opaque metrics/measurement are good, but to single out FB in an industry where a huge number of players are effectively shysters isn't fair.

 

 

[ScottHall]

"the eonomics"? what metrics are you talking about? and frankly, data rights is a pretty tangential field. facebook data cant really be compared to other outlets, one of the big problems. just fyi, my info is coming from analysts at the largest digital agencies and tech co's out there, who have been running 8 figure campaigns for all types of verticals, cpg, auto, telecom, etc. for over 5 years. they're the ones responsible for the oreo ads people see on FB, to use an example mentioned previously.

 

It's DRM; I'm not talking about brand advertising. Brand advertising is IMO a largely fraudulent form of advertising.

 

The economics are simple. You compare your customer acquisition cost against the lifetime value of a customer, or in my industry's case, subscribers, to measure your return. It's a very simple money out, money in calculation and everyone in DRM does some form of it, or they won't be in business very long.

 

What some guy who manages eight figure spends has to say doesn't mean much to me, given my background. I do think to some extent we're talking past each other here, because we're talking about two largely different schools of advertising.

[DooDiligence]

What Facebook says & what their ad rep says don't matter.

 

Your own ROI for a project is all that matters.

 

Nobody relies on just one platform (gotta have search & social)

 

If you craft your offerings well, you'll sell...

When you're spending $15M/mo on a branding campaign across 10 online platforms it absolutely matters.

 

Do you say that what numbers a company reports doesn't matter, when you are allocating investment dollars between competing investments? Of course not. Companies must report using a common standard - GAAP. They have auditors who provide assurance over numbers like revenue, margins, etc.

 

You have no insight into what Facebook's self-reported metrics mean, and have no confidence when comparing them vs. competitors. Of course that matters when determining where to allocate ad dollars.

 

I'm not talking about some dude with a small business spending 10K on an adwords campaign who can easily measure results. I'm talking about huge clients and their agencies trying to manage very complicated campaigns, where digital spend may only be 5-20%. Even within just digital, with all the attributions that go into trying to measure the success of a campaign, it becomes extremely complicated to gain insight. When facebook essentially FVCKS you on the data, making your job much more difficult, it is easy to see why savvy marketers do not like working with them.

 

i understand & agree again says the small dude...

[LC]

i understand & agree again says the small dude...

I misunderstood your earlier post! Sorry :D

 

It's DRM; I'm not talking about brand advertising. Brand advertising is IMO a largely fraudulent form of advertising.

 

The economics are simple. You compare your customer acquisition cost against the lifetime value of a customer, or in my industry's case, subscribers, to measure your return. It's a very simple money out, money in calculation and everyone in DRM does some form of it, or they won't be in business very long.

 

What some guy who manages eight figure spends has to say doesn't mean much to me, given my background. I do think to some extent we're talking past each other here, because we're talking about two largely different schools of advertising.

Oh...you mean DRM as in direct response marketing. Yeah, I mean I'm talking about the digital marketing industry. The marketing around online newsletters are pocket change to these guys...the big branded campaigns is where the real money is. The tension between clients/agencies vs. the online platforms they market on, how this relationship plays out will move a lot of resources around.

 

 

 

[LC]

I don't disagree with you, but this is no different from any other platform/publisher/ad-tech vendor in the industry. For example, what Google counts as an "impression" is different from ad-tech companies A, B, C, &  D, and they give very little insight into how they calculate spam, what browser technology is used, how much and which metrics are based on "predicted" values rather than what actually happened, etc. The list goes on.

 

In no way do I think the opaque metrics/measurement are good, but to single out FB in an industry where a huge number of players are effectively shysters isn't fair.

 

FB is different. Because of the unique nature of what Facebook does and what kind of data they collect (and the perceived value of that data), they have had the ability to put more controls around how their data/analytics are validated.  There are far more partners in the space who can drop tags on campaigns running through Google (for example) to keep their reporting numbers more honest.

 

To be fair, Google is showing signs of moving towards FB's approach. As that happens more, comparisons will be even more valid between the two.

[ScottHall]

i understand & agree again says the small dude...

I misunderstood your earlier post! Sorry :D

 

It's DRM; I'm not talking about brand advertising. Brand advertising is IMO a largely fraudulent form of advertising.

 

The economics are simple. You compare your customer acquisition cost against the lifetime value of a customer, or in my industry's case, subscribers, to measure your return. It's a very simple money out, money in calculation and everyone in DRM does some form of it, or they won't be in business very long.

 

What some guy who manages eight figure spends has to say doesn't mean much to me, given my background. I do think to some extent we're talking past each other here, because we're talking about two largely different schools of advertising.

Oh...you mean DRM as in direct response marketing. Yeah, I mean I'm talking about the digital marketing industry. The marketing around online newsletters are pocket change to these guys...the big branded campaigns is where the real money is. The tension between clients/agencies vs. the online platforms they market on, how this relationship plays out will move a lot of resources around.

 

Yeah, that's fair.

 

I will note however it's more than newsletters. You can sell health products, survival gear, razor blades, monthly boxes, seminars, educational products, etc etc. this way.

 

I may well end up being wrong, but in my view the entire world is shifting to DRM. Most successful things on the internet use techniques from DRM to attract readers; I use them on this very forum to create threads I think will draw interest. And it usually works quite well, as you can see.

 

As sales continue to shift online or alternatively away from traditional bricks & mortar, I think we'll see the multiple forms of advertising all pretty much converge. DRM is incredibly effective in an era of short attention spans and with the rise of mobile, these ancient techniques have never been more relevant and will only gain relevance from here.

 

In our industry we tend to shit talk the big ad agencies b/c we think they sell bullshit and act as a similar sort of insurance policy as not getting fired for going with Goldman. That's not to say the people who work there aren't skilled and intelligent. I do think the historic stability of the big ad agencies is a testament to how good the model can be. Whether that gets disrupted... who knows. Lots of new players in digital for sure.

 

A lot of the problems you're describing may be exacerbated by FB but they're not caused by them; it's a partially intractable part of not having near-immediate sales numbers to compare your spend to. Maybe that causes problems for them down the road, but when you're dealing with an oligopoly you only have so many options.

 

Anyway, sorta stoned ATM so don't take this post too seriously. Am not trying to offend, just share my view from the opposite end of the industry.