Why People Are Voting For Trump

A marketer’s perspective on how Donald Trump won the GOP nomination, captured the hearts and minds of a surprisingly large number of the American public, and continues to have their support despite his numerous and very obvious shortcomings

I must admit that I was scared to publish this post. I am not that well informed on politics, let alone that of the US. And this is a lightning rod of a topic.

However, I know a thing or two about marketing. I am able to remove myself from a situation and examine it from multiple perspectives. And I enjoy studying culture, thinking about the current and future state of the world, and discussing such matters with other open-minded individuals.

Political campaigns are also 100% marketing.

They are about establishing clear and measurable objectives; surveying and understanding the external and internal environment; selecting an audience (or audiences – ideally with a common psychographic trait or belief system); deeply understanding that audience; shaping the identity of a product, service or in this case, candidate, to meet the values of that audience; and creating a system that leverages the internal and external forces, audience understanding, and the candidate’s desired identity, to craft and reinforce a narrative which resonates with the audience, compelling them to take a specific action (i.e. vote).

So I decided to take the risk and hit the “publish” button.

But before I begin my discussion on why Trump has been able to achieve what he has, allow me to make one thing abundantly clear.

I do not support Trump.

I do not think he has the skills, temperament, nor experience to lead a country. Nor do I think he is a respectable human being. Such topics have already been detailed by too many articles and publications to count, like this, this and this. Just know that my writing of this post/article does not in any way imply that support him or condone his actions.

If I were able to vote, I would vote for Hillary Clinton. She is remarkably qualified and has the experience and tact to lead the US during these challenging times. Yes, she has made mistakes – big ones – and in my opinion has run a poor campaign, which I will discuss at points below. But of the two potential options, there isn’t even a contest. It’s a sad state of affairs, but I digress.

So how is it that a man who has repeatedly been denounced by the press, celebrities, and his own political party have, at the time of publishing this post/article, 43% of the popular vote?

And despite his remarks objectifying women, and his ridiculous behavior in the 2nd debate, he still has a mass of loyal supporters – including women willing to defend and support him.

Let’s begin with a quick discussion of human behavior. Voters are human (yes, I know this may be obvious). And there are a number of things about humans and our behavior, particularly as it relates to elections, that need to be considered.


We are not rational, logical beings

Despite what economic theory would like us to believe, we are not perfectly rational beings. In fact, we are irrational and emotions play a huge role in our decision making. Voting is about making a decision; thus emotions are involved as are a variety of other factors.


We do not have time (nor care) to assess all available information

Despite all the things that have been written about Trump, few people have read it all or care to. The same goes for what has been written about Hillary. We simply don’t have time. We scan and choose to consume information that aligns with our perspective. If you’re a Hillary supporter, consider this: how many negative articles about Hillary have you read? My bet: less than 5, and that’s being generous. Now consider that there are people who think differently than you, and for whatever reason, support Trump. They do the same thing.


We are prone to single-issue voting

Ok, this is a big one. Elections are very complicated and when assessing which candidate to vote for, there are an enormous number of issues to consider. But humans prefer simplicity, so we look for ways to make things easier and decide using heuristics. We also have different values and priorities – to one person it might be their job security, another taxes, another child-care benefits or education, or their personal safety and security, or immigration, or support for veterans and the military. The list goes on. The reality is that we commonly will latch onto one issue, above all others, to make our decision.

For example, consider the following, purposefully simple exercise, of evaluating a brief description of an individual and guessing who their preferred Presidential candidate would be:

  • A low-to-middle-class blue collar worker whose company has undergone repeated restructuring due to cheaper labour in China or Mexico, and has lost, or fears losing, their job
  • An individual who believes the government is corrupt, and hasn’t created significant forward progress for the economy
  • An individual who is scared, not only for their own personal safety and security, but that of their friends, family and the country, due to increased terror threats and a perceived lack of response
  • A racist, of which unfortunately there are many in the US

If you guessed that all these individuals would vote for Trump, congratulations, you’re a winner.

Oh and let’s also consider the political climate, and acknowledge the massive mistrust of government and people in power, who desire change from an outsider. Someone who is not a politician.

So while there are a number of things Trump has done wrong, there is also a lot he has done right from a marketing perspective. And remember, whether what he says is true, rational, etc. is unfortunately irrelevant. Donald Trump and what he says resonates with some people, and here’s why:


#1 – He has selected an audience with a shared mindset

Selecting and understanding your audience is one of the most fundamental tenets of marketing. You need to be focused; uncover the audience’s needs, wants, hopes and fears; and identity a shared mindset in order to truly connect. While an audience may be demographically diverse, especially in the context of a political campaign, this shared mindset is a common belief or view of the world that unites the group and is used to frame the conversation.

Trump supporters are diverse – but they have at least one thing in common: they don’t like what America has become or will become if it continues on the current path. Perhaps they long for the days when America was clearly the dominant world power and could use intimidation and force to achieve its agenda, or they just really dislike the Democrats. Regardless, they want change.


#2 – He has a careful crafted narrative

Humans love stories. And to connect with your audience, you need to craft a story that incorporates and validates the common belief, and presents a solution that resolves the underlying tension.

Trump’s approach has been to stoke fear within the American public, and establish a narrative that the country is in a terrible position due to the current administration (i.e. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) making poor decisions because they lack proper judgement, are influenced and corrupted by Wall St., have accomplished nothing beneficial in their time in power, and are too focused on being politically correct to do what needs to be done. He has positioned himself as a cowboy, unafraid of consequences, with no ties to the established way or process within government, who has run many successful businesses, speaks the ‘truth’ – politically correct or not – and thus is capable of putting the country back on track.


#3 – He has articulated a clear vision and perspective on the world

Brands (and leaders) that are successful and enduring, have a clear stance on the world. They outline a vision for what they seek to achieve, and in doing so provide the audience with direction and confidence; as well as frame of reference to evaluate actions.

While you or I may not agree with the slogan “Make America Great Again”, it is clear, fits nicely with the narrative Trump has established, and is action oriented. It also speaks directly to his audience’s shared mindset.

Unfortunately, I can’t say the same about Hillary. Do you know what Hillary stands for or is looking to achieve?

Until recently, I had no idea. Yes, I knew about her policies, but there isn’t a clear unifying theme. Her slogan, “Stronger Together” exemplifies this shortcoming. Sure it is a polite, unifying statement, but it’s bland and doesn’t symbolize change. Which for a large number of voters, in this or any election for that matter, is what they want.


#4 – He elicits an emotional response

As previously established, emotions drive to our decision making, often overpowering logical thought. This is one of the key reasons marketers seek to establish an emotional connection with their audience. When people feel something – whether positive or negative – it means they care and can be influenced; the worst thing for a marketer is for people to be indifferent.

Well, Trump makes it impossible to be indifferent. He is unfiltered, inflammatory, and absolutely outrageous. It fits his narrative and it’s why his supporters love him; he seems like a real human (more on that later). It’s also why his detractors hate him and continually talk about it, which he uses to his advantage (more on that later as well).

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is measured, polite, non-confrontational … and absolutely boring. (Way more competent than Trump in my opinion, but again that’s not the point) She’s even jokingly admitted she’s a robot; not sure that will endear her to many people.


#5 – He’s always in the news and being talked about

There’s an old adage that any press is good press. The idea being that the more frequently an audience is exposed to your brand and/or message – regardless of sentiment – the more likely they are to remember it. The underlying assumption being that awareness and familiarity are key to success.

While not always true (being repeatedly slammed in the media can caused significant damage), it’s a philosophy that works well in the political context. Remember my comments earlier about human behavior and elections?

But why trust me – there’s actual data and analysis from people way smarter than me to support this.

A Harvard study analyzing the media coverage for candidates leading up the 2016 primaries, found that “media exposure is arguably the most important” indicator of success. And Trump had coverage in spades. Of the 8 media outlets studied (including the Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal), Trump’s coverage was “more than one-and-a-half times the ad-equivalent value of Bush, Rubio, and Cruz’s coverage”. Not only that but “Trump’s coverage was favorable”.

The report also concluded that “Trump exploited [journalists] lust for riveting stories” and described him as “the first bona fide media-created presidential nominee.”

Now consider that since the Presidential race began, Trump has received almost 2x more coverage than Hillary.


#6 – He’s turned Hillary’s strengths into her weaknesses

There are numerous ways a brand can defend against competition, from having a unique position, to continual innovation, or building a Blue Ocean Strategy. Another is what I like to call “marketing judo”, which involves using a competitor’s strengths against them. It can also be used to turns one’s own weakness into a strength. Trump has executed marketing judo on Hillary, and it fits perfectly with his narrative.

At the DNC, Obama praised Hillary, stating that she’s the most experienced and qualified person to ever run for President. Her experience as a first lady, Senator and Secretary of State is definitely advantageous and a reason many people support her.

However, Trump has used Hillary’s experience to discredit her: equating her with the establishment and repeatedly hammering her in the debates for her failures while in these positions (i.e. Benghazi, Email Scandal). And while it may annoy or frustrate Hillary devotees, it definitely creates doubt about her capabilities in the minds of others.


#7 – He is authentic

Authenticity is a term that has become increasingly popular in marketing circles and much has been written about it. The rationale being that in our increasingly connected, desire for transparency age, brands that are authentic are the ones that win.

I’m a proponent of this belief, but with an important clarification: authenticity is not about honesty, but rather “being true to oneself by behaving in ways that reflect one’s values, motives, beliefs, and dispositions”.

Trump is definitely not honest, but he is authentic. Like it or not, he is brash, tells it how he sees it, goes off script (he may not even have one!), and is anything but measured and politically correct. This is part of his appeal. It makes him accessible and relatable because he is human, and again, it fits perfectly with his narrative.

In fact, according to David Greenberg’s 2015 article in Politico, “Americans have pined for a straight-talking, truth-telling, spontaneous, unpackaged, unrehearsed savior to redeem our vapid, scripted politics”.


So given all of this, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that Trump is where he is today.

What do you think?

Being Customer-Centric Is A Strategy, Not A Positioning

To distance itself from its competitors, TELUS released a new commercial entitled “Scream”, further supporting its customer-centric position as the mobile service provider who cares. It features a man waiting on hold for customer-service with another provider…and his frustration. The conclusion is that TELUS is better and the viewer is encouraged to visit the website where he/she can learn why.

The execution is decent. The message is clear and it resonates – we can all relate to such a situation. But is it true? Is TELUS really better?

Full disclosure: I am a TELUS customer and a former ad agency strategist with telco experience. This is not an evaluation of TELUS’ customer service, but rather an evaluation of their marketing and communications strategy.

TELUS has done a good job progressing with this positioning for the past few years. Telling customers they listen and care – even admitting they are not perfect. This platform has been well executed across all consumer touchpoints and has done a nice job of humanizing the brand.

But what strikes me is that while the positioning may seem unique at the moment, it is not original in the sector or sustainable. In fact, it’s already been the positioning for two other telcos in Canada.

When Virgin Mobile entered the Canadian market in 2005 it set out to be the consumer champion. Seeking to liberate Canadian consumers from the shackles of the “Big 3”, it leveraged the underdog, market-disrupter role of Virgin. The launch campaign, entitled “The Catch”, positioned the brand as the cure to the industry’s ills of contracts and hidden fees. In 2006, the brand was focused on treating customers with love and respect, exploiting the poor customer service and impersonal treatment by competitors. There was even a commercial featuring a frustrated man on hold with customer service. Since 2009 Virgin Mobile Canada has been wholly owned by BELL and is a youth-focused, experiential brand, selling the benefits of being a “member” – i.e. discounts at partners like H&M. This doesn’t seem part of the Virgin brand’s DNA. Obviously something changed.

WIND Mobile also began with a customer-first approach. Prior to entering the market in 2009, it solicited feedback from consumers and then built its offering to match. It too was keen to liberate Canadians from the oligopoly of mobile service providers.

In 2011, the account changed hands but the positioning continued – albeit with a new creative platform. The focus was still on treating customers fairly, and with respect – listening to and implementing their ideas and feedback; putting the customer first. But in 2013, the brand moved to a higher-level, more empowering position featuring the tagline “True Mobile Freedom”.

Why did both Virgin Mobile and WIND Mobile start with similar positioning’s and change course? Because the idea of listening and responding to customers needs – being customer-centric – was (and is) not a sustainable positioning.

It is one thing to put customers first in your approach to business. For a million reasons it makes sense and you should. But it’s a whole other thing to build your positioning around the idea.

Powerful, valuable, long-lasting brands inspire people. They stand for something, giving people something to believe in. Yes people like it when you listen to them. But once you’ve done that, then what? You need to lead.

The reality is that every brand should deliver good customer service. Every brand should treat customers fairly. Every brand should listen. Starbucks is oft cited as a pioneer and leader in this regard for their “My Starbucks Idea” community, but in our hyper-connected, always-on, seemingly transparent world every brand is (or can) do it. It’s just not a focus of their messaging.

So what about TELUS?

To be honest, I’m not really sure what TELUS stands for, why the brand exists. And I’m not going to suggest specific solutions, here. But I believe that the current positioning is transitory and hope I’ve demonstrated why it should be. I’m also curious if anyone has thoughts about the positioning not being unique – even if they don’t recall previous brands’ efforts.

I’ve always respected the TELUS brand and I know some of the people who worked on it in the past and/or work on it now. I think they’ve done a good job. But I’ll be really interested to see what the brand does next.

Creating the New Man: How Cosmetic Companies Lured In The Relatively Untapped Male Market

Chivalry may not be dead, but today’s “modern man” is much different from days of old: he applies moisturizer and even wears makeup.

While you may accept this as the norm (or find it shocking that we are even calling attention to it), it’s important to acknowledge it hasn’t always been this way. Sure our fathers applied Brut and Brylcreem, but these were basic items, commodities of sorts. Today it’s much more complicated.

Why? Because for cosmetic companies and fashion houses, there was a huge untapped market. While women adorned themselves with the latest make-up items and fashion accessories, fuelling continual growth, the same could not be said for men.

If only they could get men to value their physical appearance more and adopt such rituals. But how?

A core principle of customer experience design is that customers don’t exist, they have to be created. Cosmetic companies and fashion houses had tried (albeit unsuccessfully) in the past to enter the male market, but such market didn’t exist; consumers weren’t ready.

To get men to adopt the desired attitude and behaviours leading to this consumption represented a significant cultural shift. In order to do so, they (marketers) needed to create a new morality for men.

Applying an adaptation of Giesler and Veresiu’s model of consumer responsibilization – which theorizes that responsible consumption involves “the active creation and management of consumers as moral subjects” – we can analyze how this new morality was created. The process involves four steps.

Contrast the idealized consumer with the current (irresponsible) one

The goal of the first step, personalization, is to make the consumer aware that things can be better, to feel that their current state is inadequate. Though the wearing of makeup and use of grooming treatments had been accepted in the gay community, the practice hadn’t transferred to straight males. Cue the ground-breaking, now-famous, TV show “Queer Eye”, where a group of gay men give a straight man a lifestyle makeover, particularly focused on grooming and fashion. The show exposed the “straight man’s” shortcomings and socialized the idea that successful men should care more about their image, and take care of their skin (for example) as much as women. This served to put pressure on men to better maintain their physical appearance and present the idea of a new morality – to take great care of one’s physical appearance is the right thing to do.

Rendering the adoption of new practises legitimate through expert knowledge

With the desired tension created, men now needed to feel comfortable and reassured they could adopt this new image, or at least integrate it with their current self-perceptions. This is where the second step, authorization, comes in: using expert knowledge to render new practices both economically and morally legitimate. This is exactly what L’Oreal did when they launched Men Expert, a new line of men’s beauty products. Engaging confident, established gentlemen like Pierce Brosnan, Gerard Butler and Hugh Laurie demonstrated that it was perfectly fine to use moisturizers and skin revitalization creams. To support this, trusted publications like Men’s Health and GQ featured scientific evidence about the effects of aging on men’s skin and testimonials from women about what they value in a man’s appearance. These efforts served to reinforce the desired morality.

Develop concrete market infrastructures for responsible self-management

The third step, capabilization, calls for further development of a market that helps individuals in their self-management process. With assurance from authoritative figures, men begin seeking more products and services to address their beauty needs. L’Oreal acquired Nickel, a French brand targeted towards men that offers products as well as services such as body treatments, facials and microdermabrasion, and manicures and pedicures. Many others, such as designers Marc Jacobs and Tom Ford, have followed suit and released men’s beauty products including concealers. In fact, launches of new beauty and personal care products for men increased 70% from 2007 to 2012 (Mintel).

Concrete behavioral change

The final step in this model is that of transformation where the individual embraces their new moralized understanding. The fact that it is now acceptable (even encouraged) for men to apply specialized facial moisturizers, cover-up, and get a mani-pedis is proof that the new morality has been adopted. In 2013, for the first time, men spent more on male specific beauty products than they did on shaving products. And this trend is going to continue.

Whether or not you observed it yourself, it is clear that new standards of beauty have been established for men. So when you or your man reach for some specialized moisturizer or make-up, recognize that while it wasn’t always acceptable, now, well, it’s the right thing to do.

This post originally appeared on MarketingMag.ca and was co-authored by Ali Assad Malik and Federica Romano, fellow MBA students in the new Customer Experience Design course at the Schulich School of Business. We thank our Professor, Dr. Markus Giesler for the opportunity and PhD students Anton Sieber and Ela Veresiu for their assistance.

Chaos Presents Opportunity

We’ve all been talking a lot about Rob Ford lately. His antics are ridiculous and people are making a mockery of him. He has drawn copious amounts of negative attention to the city on a global scale. And it only seems to be getting worse.

Yet the ‘Rob Ford Situation’ presents a great opportunity for an important institution in Toronto to both raise its profile and awareness of its cause.

Let me explain.

I think (perhaps radically) that the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) should publicly acknowledge Rob Ford and offer their services to help him recover. Or at minimum, applaud him for getting help (which he claims to be receiving). At a time when almost everyone is shunning him, I think it makes for CAMH to show their support.

It’s clear Rob Ford has issues – alcoholism, drug abuse, perhaps others – and CAMH is world-leader in addiction recovery and mental health. So the alignment makes sense. Yes, many brands and organizations are trying to distance themselves from Rob Ford, but CAMH (and Rob Ford) stand to benefit from this maneuver. Not because of any political beliefs (and I am not going to comment on calls for his resignation, the job he has (or has not) done as Mayor, etc. as there is MORE than enough material on that) but because his behaviour is of the type they try to prevent or help people overcome. It’s not about supporting what he is doing; it’s about supporting him.

I’ve tried to look objectively at the situation and I think that it’s important to acknowledge the challenges that this man is facing right now. And at some level I would hope that we feel sorry for him – regardless of it being his own doing.

So why should we care?

Because mental health and addiction are major societal issues with broad reaching implications. Thanks to recent public awareness campaigns (most widely covered being Bell’s “Let’s Talk“, but also “Right by You” courtesy of Partners for Mental Health) you may know the key stats: that 1 in 5 people will experience mental health issues, that there is a massive toll on our economy and health care system, and that we ALL are connected to someone who is affected.

Rob Ford is clearly one of these individuals. And one of the problems that we as a society face is our unwillingness to acknowledge and accept that these things happen and that people have problems. Workplace mental health is also a growing concern, and Rob Ford is a striking example of a leader of an organization who has issues that need to be dealt with. The ‘nice’ thing in this instance is that he is being encouraged to get support. However I do not think everyone is as lucky.

That’s why I think CAMH could take this opportunity to publicize themselves and their services and try to get this ‘run-away train’ back on the tracks.

The obvious concern with this idea is the inherent risk, that it might do damage to the CAMH brand by being affiliated with this media disaster. And for those who know me, and that I was a Brand Strategist, you may be surprised that I’d make such a recommendation. But this is clearly a man in need and his needs are perfectly aligned with the services CAMH offers.

It’s an opportunity to showcase what the organization does on a global scale and hopefully take a negative situation and turn it into a positive one. (And at least get a tonne of good press)

The one issue that actually exists with this idea is that Rob Ford may already be receiving treatment at CAMH. If so, due to privacy issues, it would not be wise of CAMH publicly disclose or support him (without consent). However, if Mayor Rob Ford, who believes and cares so much about this great city, were receiving treatment at CAMH, it would be an honourable thing for him to admit it (yes, I know…very unlikely).

The reality is that there are many, many people in our city (and across the country and the world) who are in situations like Rob Ford. They may not be as public a figure, but they are facing personal challenges and need help. And perhaps this gesture might give them the courage to seek help themselves and encourage the people around them to also offer their support.

What do you think?

A new adventure

It’s been a while since I last wrote, and as change is on the horizon I figured an update would be prudent.

I’m not often inspired to write but Steve Mykolyn’s short piece “Thinking backwards, moving ahead” in Strategy Magazine’s recent opt-ed got me thinking. Steven discusses how ‘reinvention’ is the future and the key to success; that taking time to step back, look at what’s been accomplished, how the environment has changed, what the future may bring, perhaps acquire some new skills and adjust course accordingly will lead to new thinking and fruitful solutions. As a big believer in reflection, this resonates with me. I also see some parallels with my ‘next move’.

When I started this blog my objective was to become a Strategic Planner. Thanks to a lot of hard work, persistence, the guidance and support of good people and luck I managed to achieve that and then some. Over the past 2.5+ years I’ve had a the privilege of working in the Planning Group at MacLaren McCann, progressing from Analyst to full-fledged Strategic Planner leading brand and digital strategy on national accounts. It was an incredible experience and a role I may well return to in the future.

But right now it’s time for a new adventure. Next week I officially begin the pursuit of an MBA at the Schulich School of Business. For the next 1.5-2 years I’ll be fueling my thirst for knowledge and development – stepping back from the ad game, reflecting, and acquiring new skills; a reinvention of sorts.

I like to think that one aspect of reinvention is investing time in oneself. And that’s exactly what I plan to do.

Porsche: The New Family Car?

Porsche 911 Turbo S

I love Porsches, the 911 Turbo in particular.

But a Porsche is not for the masses. A Porsche is not practical. In fact, those two words don’t even belong in the same sentence. And that’s part of the brand’s appeal. But with their new campaign, Porsche is trying to change that. Call me a purist, but I believe it’s a detriment to the brand.

In their new TV spot, they cleverly display a variety of vehicles adding tangible value to their owners lives. It plays on some emotions and the production value is great. As a spot, I like it (although it does seem like a parody).

Then there is the website, which focuses on the new ‘values’ of Porsche – all weather, usability, comfort, safety, efficiency – and enables real Porsche owners share their stories of how the car adds value to their everyday life. It’s good content, and the Client must love it because the ‘features’ are frequently featured.

But does it do right by the brand? Do statements like “Porsche. Engineered for Comfort” make sense? Doesn’t this seem like a campaign for Toyota??

Porsche is the ultimate in speed and performance. A brand that has previously espoused the need for practicality. If you own a Porsche you can afford to have other cars that are ‘practical’.

So why the change?

According to my colleague Heidi McCulloch: research. And to paraphrase her thinking, this is an example of research leading people (aka Clients) astray. [update] In this case, it’s believed research showed that a segment of the market felt that a Porsche was not suitable for their daily driving needs. And instead of interpreting this positively (it IS a sports car), the research was used as justification to broaden the brand’s appeal and attempt to capture share. [end of update]

The problem we have with the campaign is this: the key to good branding is to know who you are and work it. And with this campaign, Porsche is not being Porsche. Yes, they are trying to change perceptions – but changing the core of who you are? Bad idea. As Adam Morgan noted in his famous book ‘Eating the Big Fish‘, the most poweful brands have a Lighthouse Identity – they don’t follow consumers and do what they do; they stand for something and show consumers the ‘way’. In this case, Porsche is definitely following the consumer. And by doing so, their marketing department is not being a good brand steward.

This campaign is a good demonstration of advertising doing its job: trying to change people’s perceptions. And it may succeed. Heck, I bet sales will increase in the short-term. But if I were a Porsche owner (and I’m not, although I’ve had many dreams about it) I don’t think I’d like the new image. The words ‘comfort’, ‘safety’, ‘efficiency’ do not fit with the Porsche identity, nor should they. And given that one’s identity is, uh, pretty integral to marketing and overall business success, I’m just not sure this change is the right thing to do.

What are you’re thoughts?

Why Blog?: An Update

It feels really good to write this post.

When I started this blog I outlined my raison d’être: to get a job as a Planner. And earlier this year I made a big step towards that goal. In January I joined MacLaren McCann as a Planning Analyst. Reporting into the VP of Planning, I help fuel the strategy engine by gathering intelligence, uncovering insights, and keeping a pulse on culture and technology.

So while this update may be a little over due, it goes without saying that I’ve been a little busy. And so far I’m loving it.

So here’s to having a goal, setting a plan, and working towards it.