Image via Wikipedia

A year ago I shared some musings on what it takes to excel at the world’s oldest profession.  Recent events have got me thinking about what it takes to excel at the world’s most glamorous profession: princess.

Earlier this month Kate rubbed shoulders with some genuine Hollywood royalty, including Barbra, Nicole and JLo (and her mum!).

And from all accounts she held her own – in looks, dress, bearing and chit chat.  Earlier on she seems to have gone down well too in Canada, at all sorts of events.

How did she get the job?  How come she does it so well?  What does it take to succeed as a princess? 

It’s worth thinking about.  Sure, the romantics will say that she fell in love with her Prince Charming at  university.  She is who she is and that’s all there is to it.

The sceptics have a different take.  They see her mother as the archetypal social climbing schemer, from council estate to stewardess to pilot hubby to new business venture to money to posh school/posh uni/posh mates for the kids, ultimately landing the ultimate family jackpot, a prince in the family and their own coat of arms.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle – no grand scheme from the outset, but some careful career planning and training once the prince had been ensnared.

Does Kate have what it takes to be a princess? Does she have what Di had? Or Grace?  Does she need what they had? 

Does she need the glamour?  Should she compete with the Hollywood glamour?  For how long can she compete? 

Think beyond the glam princesses to one who is so good at her job that she is revered as deity in her country, crown princess Sirindhorn of Thailand.

And think again: what does it take to be a good princess? In my next post, we’ll look at the key kapabilities needed to do the job…

Image via Wikipedia

This post is probably just an excuse to write about Gauguin, having just visited the amazing exhibition at the Tate museum in London.  But at least the visit has stimulated me into opening the blog – after some months away while writing a new book, Backing You, MBA!

The layout of the exhibition is by subject rather than chronology, making the visit particularly stimulating and illuminating.  Entering the fifth room on Gauguin’s landscape painting, of Brittany, Martinique and Tahiti, takes the breath away.  And the room is doublyexciting, since one can linger there awhile knowing that the best – his Tahitian portraits – are yet to come.  Magic.

So what is there to learn for purposes of a career-oriented blog from a stockbroker who abandoned his family in Paris in the late nineteenth century and set sail for the South Pacific, with the express aim of “learning to live like a savage”?

The answer is everything.  He backed his passion, he gave up all, family and career, for his passion.  His family may have been the loser, and so too eventually Gauguin himself, as he rotted away, impoverished, cantankerous and syphilis-ridden, to an early death. 

But the winner was the world, able still today to marvel at the most mystical, moving, enigmatic, colourful and sensual paintings yet conceived by man.

Will you back your passion in 2011?

Image via Wikipedia

The loss of David Laws to the British coalition government is a crying shame.  At a time of great economic uncertainty and impending cuts in public services and pay, he radiated competence.  He gave us confidence that the right man was at the helm.

He had no choice but to resign. That his abuse of parliamentary expenses was caused by his desire to maintain privacy around his sexuality, rather than to gain financially, offers no excuse.  It just makes it sadder. And so frustrating to those who supported him. He is a wealthy man, so why did he not just stop claiming any rent allowance?

He possesses so many of the Key Kapabilities (see Backing U!) needed to become a top politician – see my post last year on Sarah Palin.  His mastery of not just the Treasury brief, but that on Education before that, was evident to all.  His communication skills are so adept that my 13 year old son, along with 70% of a youthful audience, had no hesitation in voting for him in a debate on education at a youth centre in South-East London in March this year.

There are some impressive ministers in this coalition government, but none more impressive than Laws.  He will be back.

Image via Wikipedia

The British public has been mesmerised by politics over the last week in a way unprecedented in my lifetime. 

How is this relevant to a career-oriented blog on backing your passion?  Bear with me…!

The general election on May 6th was so tantalisingly inconclusive.  By 4am on the 7th, when I called it a day,there was still little confirmation which way the country was moving.  So many results were quirky or anomalous that no clear pattern was emerging.

The next morning we found out.  The Conservatives had won the most seats, but not the majority they had long expected.  Labour had lost almost a hundred seats, but had proven surprisingly resilient in the cities and regions.  The Liberal Democrat bubble had been blown away and, far from gaining 20+ seats as the polls had suggested, they had lost more seats than gained.

And then the talks started.  Four days of Conservatives stuck in a room with arch-rival Lib Dems.  Gordon Brown announcing he will go to entice Lib Dems into talks with Labour – yet with no realistic prospect of a deal, given the mathematics. 

Then Brown resigned, the Queen asked David Cameron to be PM and we  had the first coalition Government since WWII – complete with an astonishing love-in between Cameron and Deputy PM Nick Clegg in the rose garden at #10.  Two men who had a week earlier been tearing strips off each other, smiling and joking and patting each other on the back.

Extraordinary times.  But can this whirlwind romance last?  Yes and no.

In the corporate world, there are three prime pre-conditions for a strategic alliance to work – that is, to be sustainable.  The organisations need to have shared objectives, a common time horizon and the value brought to the alliance by each party has to be fairly assessed and built into the power sharing in the new entity.

In this case, the Conservative and Liberal Democrat negotiators did a thorough job spelling out their shared objectives.  Their coalition agreement is as good as could reasonably have been expected for a document cobbled together over four days between formerly bitter rivals.

The time horizon has likewise been sorted.  Both parties are firmly fixed on a full term, five year horizon, with safeguards built in to ensure no one party cuts and runs.

It is in the power sharing that the mistake has been made.  The Conservatives no doubt argued for an allocation of seats based on their respective number of MPs (57:306), so four out of 23 seats to the Lib Dems.  The Lib Dems would have countered that the electoral system is biased and the allocation should reflect votes cast (23%:36%), giving nine seats to the Lib Dems. 

For a stable alliance, they should have split the difference, to say six or seven seats.  The Lib Dems got five.  Furthermore, they landed not one of the big three offices of state – the Treasury, Home Office and Foreign Office.

Once the early, pre-agreed legislation has been passed, the Lib Dems will find themselves marginalised.  As events unfold, they will feel that they are sitting in an effectively Conservative cabinet.  Their supporters will regard them as Cameron’s poodles.  Their activists will be less keen to stuff leaflets through letterboxes and knock on doors.

They will be unable to hammer out issues on a four-four negotiating basis as over the last week, but as five to 18. A seven to 16 ratio around the cabinet table, with one of theirs representing a heavyweight office, would have represented a healthier balance of power.

The Lib Dem negotiators did well on policy matters, but less well where it really matters, the power sharing.  Here Cameron’s team was too successful.  Their success is not conducive to coalition stability.

There is a lesson here for all of us.  Be careful in your negotiations.  Be too successful and the ball can bounce back to strike you.

When you join a new organisation, you effectively form a new alliance, a new coalition.  Your little organisation, UCo, merges with the big organisation, BigCo, to form a slightly bigger one.  It is in your interests to make BiggerCo a stable organisation.

So when you apply for a job and sit down with your boss-to-be to discuss pay and conditions, take care not to win outright!  Leave him or her with the impression of a score draw.  If you manage to negotiate too good a deal, there could be lingering resentment, leading to an unstable alliance. When the layoffs come along, guess who’ll be first out of the door.

Image via Wikipedia

Gordon Brown’s indiscrete rubbishing of a pensioner on Wednesday will be the final nail in his coffin. A shabby end to a once glorious career. The lady was no more a “bigot” than you or me – just an old lady finding it difficult to come to terms with the changes around her and asking honest questions of her party  leader.

Back in the early 1990s, when I stood for parliament, Brown was a formidable opposition politician, indeed the most formidable opponent. He was devastating in framing answers in one or two minute or even 10 second soundbites. He went on to become a sound chancellor of the exchequer, achieving the previously unattainable feat of a Labour chancellor being trusted by the financial markets – at least for the first half dozen or so years.

It is said that all political careers end in failure. Maggie was undone by the poll tax, Major by sleaze and tedium, Blair – and Bush – by Iraq. Brown will be undone by vanity. He was never cut out to be a PM, as  most in his party have long known. But he pursued his ambition ruthlessly and heedlessly.

His appearance in the final PM debate last night was excruciating. In control as much of fact as spin, yet so divorced from reality that he could mount no simple, clear, convincing case for his record. Instead his rhetoric was largely negative. One can only imagine how his Labour collegaues must have wished they had had the courage to replace him with Alan Johnson or David Milliband a year ago – just imagine how well either of them would have performed against Cameron and Clegg.

A good man, undone by pride. Any lesson for us there?

Would you back U in your current job or business? Are you hanging on, without passion, motivation and conviction, simply because of pride?

If so, bail out now, before it is too late.  Before you come to be seen as a failure, like Brown.  Before you are ousted in favour of others who have more oomph than you.

Find another job or business where your passion lies and where you’ll be backable.  Back your hwyl!

Image via Wikipedia

What does it take to become successful in this business, and are there any lessons for the rest of us? 

Let’s take it from the top.  As set out in my book, Backing U!, this needs to be done in two stages.  You first set out what the needs of the customer are, and then you consider what the provider needs to do to meet those needs and run a successful business – the key kapabilities (“K2s”). 

Let’s take a stab at customer needs.  At the top end of the market, he (let’s keep it simple, it’s usually this way round) is probably looking above all for three things: excitement, safety and cleanliness.  He may also be interested in things such as specialties, conversation, comfort.  Only a few, at the top end, will be concerned by price – though this will be very different at the bottom end. 

To satisfy the most important needs of the top end customer, the provider needs to have the appropriate package of looks, attitude and technical skills, convey a sense of security through site location – an apartment or hotel with plenty of CCTV cameras? – and be scrupulously hygienic.  

She may also need to develop skills in certain specialities and develop a line of banter and/or intelligent conversation, as required.  Dr Brooke Magnanti, alias Belle de Jour, in an interview with Billie Piper (pictured), the actress who played her in the TV series, stated that she specialised in a particular technique inappropriate to mention on this blog – though that would hardly have differentiated her from the street provider.  She also acquired a highly diverse wardrobe – making sure that “working knickers and the rest of my knickers never entwined” – and was at the least on an intellectual par with her clients. 

All this, however, just gets you to the level of competent provider.  To excel, you need something else: passion.  Magnanti seems to have had it.  She thoroughly enjoyed her job.  She had no guilt at all.  [“It's OK if someone goes home and has sex with someone they don't know for free. But it's not OK if... there's some money involved, which is something I don't quite understand.”] She needed the money and this was something she was good at, darned good at.  [“You left a client and thought – yes, I nailed it!”]. 

But even passion isn’t enough to run a successful business.  There are the management-related K2s to consider as well, over and above those related to customer service.  In a service such as this, marketing and distribution are critical. 

As for all self-employed professionals, if no-one knows you’re there, you won’t get your share.  Allie, the call girl interviewed at length by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner in SuperFreakonomics, relied exclusively on web marketing for her business.  She got into it by accident, through visiting online dating sites and, after one such date, finding $200 left on the dresser: “I’d been giving it away for years and the fact that someone was going to give me even a penny – that was shocking!”  From then on, she focused her investment on online marketing – that was her distribution channel. 

Magnanti chose an alternative channel – an agency.  Less effort, more secure (due to call-to-office security checking pre-appointment), but more expensive – the agency would lop off one third of charges for commission. 

Either way, the distribution channel chosen was highly instrumental in the business success of these two entrepreneurs.  When you look at the channel pursued by those at the bottom end of the profession, that of walking the streets, you can see the advantages.  The street hooker has the benefit of free distribution, but at the cost of maximum discomfort, minimal security and rock bottom prices.  It’s a desperate model. 

At the other extreme, Allie’s web-based marketing and distribution model was extraordinarily successful.  She was able to exploit her bargaining power to hike up prices, work less and earn more.  How many professionals can do that?  Even Magnanti couldn’t have done that, being reliant on a third party distributor and marketer. 

No-one in their right minds would recommend a young woman to embark upon such a career, even where the need for ready cash borders on the desperate.  There must always be an alternative.  Happily, both these call girls came through and moved on successfully.  Magnanti is now a best-selling author and TV personality, on top of her highly respected job as a research scientist.   Allie went on to take a university degree in, of course, economics and even gave guest lectures at Levitt’s University of Chicago.  Levitt records that some students said she gave the best lectures ever – she had them hooked!  It is unlikely that these two are the norm. 

But these top practitioners in the oldest profession can remind us of two vital tips for the self-employed: it’s all about passion… and selling.

Image via Wikipedia

In the book SuperFreakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner delve into the mysterious economics of prostitution.  They explain how demand for prostitution overall has plummeted over the last fifty years, driven out by the sexual revolution of the Sixties and the advent of serious competition in the form of casual sex, delivered for free by consenting, newly “liberated” women.  Prices for street sex have accordingly crashed over the decades, with street hookers now finding it hard to scrape together a hard, dangerous and sad living. 

The economics is very different at the top end.  Levitt and Dubner showed how a savvy, self-employed, home-based, web-marketing call girl can not only make very good money, but can actually increase her earnings by pushing prices up and working less.  Yes, read it again! – atypical economics indeed. 

Some might say that whether a girl is working the street or from a fancy apartment, the ultimate mechanics are the same and a hooker is a hooker.  Morally perhaps, economically not so.  A high class call girl operates a different business model altogether. 

For over seven years, one of the most widely clicked blogs in Britain has been Belle de Jour, the “intimate adventures of a London call girl”.  The diaries are witty, quirky and, most strikingly, literate.  They were also anonymous, and for years had press pundits vying to guess the identity of the scribe.  Most opined that the adventures were the work of a reputable author with an over-active imagination, possibly a man. 

Then in November last year the author revealed herself.  She is Dr Brooke Magnanti, a research physicist in her mid-thirties, specialising in developmental neurotoxicology and cancer epidemiology.  For 14 months in 2003-04, she worked as a prostitute to support herself during her PhD studies.  She found her situation not without humour, so started blogging under the name Belle de Jour, the nom-de-guerre of a bored housewife turned call girl played by Catherine Deneuve in the brilliant movie by Luis Bunuel in the 1960s. 

Magnanti  earnt very good money in her surprising, enjoyable (says she) but temporary  career, but that was just the start.  The blog turned into a best-selling book, and the book into a TV series, starring Billie Piper, former teen pop singer and later co-lead of the highly rated UK children’s TV series, Dr Who.  Again, the role of hooker was played by a celebrity known more to children than adults. 

Magnanti has been condemned by many in women’s groups, politicians and the media for glamorising prostitution.  But she frankly retorts that she was lucky.  She was at the top end of the trade, she never had to face a troublesome or dangerous client and she wasn’t in it for long. 

She recognises that things are very different at the street end of the trade and she in no way wishes to glamorise that, especially where trafficking is involved.  All are agreed that any element of coercion in the trade, from over-assertive pimping to outright abduction, is abhorrent.  But where there is free will, and that is the case in the vast majority of cases, according to recent research by London Metropolitan University, which challenges the over-inflated numbers on trafficked sex workers in the UK touted by some in the media, the ethics vs economics argument is more open to debate – and is indeed regularly debated in parliament and beyond. 

What then does this have to do with a blog on backing your passion and achieving career success, you may well ask? 

Well, aside from the obvious retort that if the practitioner doesn’t display some element of passion at the delivery end of the trade, quite a lot.  It is an activity that we all come across in an amateur capacity and regard the professional side of things with at least curiosity.  And it has some strange economics, as discussed above. 

But, above all, it produces quite a surprising result to the question we ask of most jobs: what do you need to have, or do, to be good at it, to succeed in the trade? 

Is it the technical skills?  The attitude?  The passion? 

Have a think about what drives success on at the top end of the game.  How come the high class hooker in SuperFreakonomics was able to raise her prices?  How come the real Belle de Jour was so successful?

Any tips for the rest of us?  All will revealed in a later post. Hint: think marketing…

Image via Wikipedia

One or two interesting things have happened since my last post.  Sarah Palin’s book tour was a stellar success, she has landed a new role with Fox News and her limelight in the Republican party has been dimmed somewhat by the stunning victory of Scott “Centerfold” Brown to the Senate.

But none of this changes the analysis. 

Firstly, what capabilities are required to do the job of President of the United States of America?  This is not straightforward, since there is no clear stereotype for success.  Recent presidents have been notable for their differences rather than their commonalities. 

But let’s have a go.  How about this?  A president should be able to master a tricky brief, to manage several briefs at a time and to lead the Government team, ruthlessly when appropriate.  To get there, he/she should be able to communicate well, preferably inspirationally and generating mass appeal. 

For the sake of simplicity, we’ll restrict the required capabilities to the four above.  So how does Sarah stack up?

Her ability to master a brief appears poor.  If one compares her to the supreme master/mistress of the brief, Margaret Thatcher, who was notoriously able to read briefing papers in the ministerial limo on the way to a meeting and then argue ferociously at the meeting, in total control of the issues and facts involved, Sarah is in the wrong league.  Her showing in the Katie Couric interview was cringe-worthy.  She gets a rating of 1 out of 5, and that may be generous.  In comparison, Barack Obama gets a 4, maybe 4.5.  Even George Bush gets a 2.

 The same applies to her ability to manage several briefs at the same time.  To do that, you need both intellectual depth and breadth.  And, preferably, again like the redoubtable Margaret Thatcher, a phenomenal memory.  Sarah gets a 1 again, but there is no need to despair just yet.  After all, it would be hard to have rated Ronald Reagan with anything above a 1, yet he has gone down in history as a successful president.

 Next comes leadership, and here Sarah looks on firmer ground.  She gained her managerial spurs as Mayor of Wasilla for two terms, before moving on to the Governorship of Alaska.  In both positions, she took on vested interests zealously and, at times, ruthlessly.  Controversies abound, but one thing is not in question.  She is unafraid to lead.  She gets a 4 – where Obama, incidentally, would have scored a 1 or 2 pre-election, since he had never presided over an organisation before.

 It was, of course, in leadership where Reagan made amends.  He was able to assemble a strong team around him, which he managed deftly and led ideologically.  Could Sarah do the same?

 Sarah looks best when it comes to communication.  Her performance at the Republican convention in Fall 2008 was nothing short of sensational.  She had been squirreled away in her hotel suite for three days, hidden from the world’s media, still reeling from Senator McCain’s announcement of his running mate.  The pressure on her was overwhelming.  She was immense.

 Her speech was targeted bang on middle America’s key concerns over Obama:

• She portrayed herself as the average American, a world apart from the Harvard-educated and sometimes aloof Obama.  She even cracked that infamous gag at her expense: “What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull?  Lipstick”
• She stressed her managerial experience.  She was someone who got on with the job, who ran a governor’s office and a family of five at the same time, unlike Obama, “a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform”. Ouch!
•  She laid into Obama’s messianic aura: “But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed … when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to the studio lot — what exactly is our opponent’s plan —after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet?  He plans to make government bigger … take more of your money”.  Prophetic words, think many, when it comes to healthcare reform.

 But even more importantly was how she said it.  She used every trick in the public speaking book.  The prolonged, confident eye contact.  The pauses, the variety in pitch, pace and volume.  The talking over the applause.  But she went beyond the book.  This, after all, was Miss Congeniality in the Miss Alaska pageant of 1984.  She seduced America.  With her librarian spectacles, the Dusty Springfield hairdo, the crinkling of the nose, the sideways glances, the winking.  She even blew the country an outrageous kiss at the end of the speech.  One commentator described the performance as “political Viagra”.

 The speech transformed the Republicans’ poll ratings.  McCain went from dead cert loser to a hopeful.  History will never know what could have happened if they had kept Sarah away from Couric.  Sarah gets a 5 for communication and mass appeal.

 So, does Sarah seem to have the capabilities required for the job of president?  Here are her scores, with Obama’s in brackets: Brief mastery 1 (4); Brief multiplicity 1 (4); Leadership 4 (2); Communication 5 (5). 

 If each capability is given an equal weighting, the total of her capability scores comes to 11 out of 20, compared with Obama’s 15.  That averages out at almost 3 out of 5, which is relatively high for any new job.  If communication were to be given a higher weighting, since that is what is needed to get into the White House, as opposed to how the job is done once in, her overall score would rise further.  So too would Obama’s, since he is also an excellent communicator, but it would raise her credentials against other Republican candidates with lesser communication skills.

 Capability is one of two criteria to be taken into account in assessing potential competitive standing in a new job.  The other is experience.  Here Sarah’s three years as Governor give her some credibility, but will be overshadowed next time by Obama’s four years as a senator and four as president.  While a Governor’s responsibilities count for much in terms of domestic politics and managerial experience, the business attended to can often be parochial, as distinct from the world affairs debated and legislated upon in Washington.  Furthermore, Sarah’s abrupt , premature departure from her gubernatorial role may not help her cause.  In terms of experience, she rates no more than a 2, compared to Obama’s former 3 and, by the time of the next election, 5.

 Sarah is currently out of a job.  Let’s assume she is looking, like millions of other Americans out of work, at a range of potential new jobs, of which one is President.  She follows the Backing U! process and identifies a whole range of jobs she is passionate about.  She does a screening exercise on the dozen or so jobs with most passion.  On the top job, the one she desires most of all, the presidency, the screening shows a tentative 3 out of 5 for capability and 2 out of 5 for experience. 

 That is pretty high.  Many other new jobs – eg current affairs TV commentator, sports journalist (her original goal) – may well yield screening ratings for Sarah lower than that.  The president job looks like a starter.

 And what does she have to lose?  If she doesn’t make it, she will go on to make a fortune from the next book, the speeches, the movie script, the endorsements, the TV show…

 Let there be no doubt.  Sarah will run for President.

Image via Wikipedia

So Sarah Palin is back on the campaign trail, well, a national tour to promote her book, Going Rogue, she says, but we all know better. We missed her. Love her or loathe her, and she does seem to invite extreme reactions in people, she sure livens up the news. Last year’s presidential contest looked like being a procession until she showed up. 

She soon got hammered by the liberal media, brutally. But she still gamely showed up to joust with Tina Fey on the Saturday Night Live show. 

She’s a glutton for punishment. Her book has again set her up as a prime target. Take this blistering prose from the Sunday Times (UK) columnist, Andrew Sullivan: “The lies and truths and half-truths and the facts and non-facts are all blurred together in a pious purée of such ghastly self-serving prose that, in the end, the book can really be read only as some kind of chapter in a cheap 19th-century edition of Lives of the Saints.” 

Does Palin really believe she can make the White House? Cynics might say that she is sure to have a go, if only for the inevitable, eventual riches from Going Rogue, Volume II. 

The sad trait of many in politics is that they listen all too closely to their advisers, their followers, their sycophants, each of whom has a vested interest in their patron fighting on with maximum effort, enthusiasm and expense. 

Do any in Palin’s team actually sit her down and give her a realistic assessment of her prospects for becoming President of the United States of America? More importantly, do they advise her on whether she could make a good president, a good ruler of the free world? 

Palin is backing her passion. She is passionate about power. She craves it. She is not in politics to drive forward change, to make a difference. She is in it for the passion of power. 

So it might do her no harm to follow this blog. She has resigned her Governorship, so is jobless. Sure, she is still a mother of five, the youngest of whom has very special needs. Sure, she is an author who is very actively plugging her book. 

But she’s still a young, healthy, vibrant woman. And very ambitious. She will not settle for being a stay-at-home author mom. 

This blog will show her how to back her passion and succeed at her new job. But is that job the President of the USA? 

We’re going to be skipping ahead of the blog here – inevitable, since at the pace I’ve been writing these posts we won’t cover the main how-tos of the Backing U! books for a couple of years! But bear with me… 

Evidently, doing the job of President gets maximum ticks on the Palin passionometer. So it is certainly worthy of proceeding to the screening process. For those who haven’t read the books, jobs which you feel passionate about need to be screened for two criteria – job market attractiveness and your likely competitive standing. 

How attractive is the market for the job of US president? It is about as unattractive a market as can be imagined:
· There’s only one post available – great job if you can get it, but there’s no getting round the fact that there’s only one position up for grabs. Having said that, there was only one Governor of Alaska post and Palin landed that. Likewise with Mayor of Wasilla, the launchpad for what could still be one of the most extraordinary careers in US political history
· The market isn’t growing – in three years’ time, there will still only be one job available
· It’s highly competitive – the incumbent himself is a formidable adversary, but to even get to face him you’ve got to beat off ruthlessly an array of tough contenders from your own side
· It’s high risk – even if you land the job, the chances of you being booted out after four years are somewhere around 50% 

So it’s not an attractive market. But that doesn’t mean the job should be screened out. There’s the other criterion to be looked at. In order to pass through the screening process, Palin is going to have to rate highly on the potential competitive standing criterion. Based on her capabilities and her experience to date, how well placed is Palin to land the job and do it well? 

Have a think about that – we’ll return to it in a later post…!