Central Perk

miercuri, 29 octombrie 2014

Seth's Blog : This is not a promotion

This is not a promotion

The internet and big media are wrestling with chokepoints.

Cable TV companies, for example, are a natural monopoly in the home. Everyone only has one provider. If the provider has an argument with a TV network, they kick them off, the signal doesn't get through, the viewer gets nothing.

One of the arguments behind the common sense of net neutrality is that chokepoints and tollbooths aren't in the interest of the users.

Now, of course, online stores, if they get big enough, can act as chokepoints. And so can Google.

If you're used to getting this blog delivered for free to your gmail account, it might be missing (I understand the irony in telling you this via a medium you no longer get). That's because Google unilaterally misfiled my daily blog into the promotions folder they created, and I have no recourse and no way (other than this post) to explain the error to them...

(But you do: follow these instructions to get it back). Here's a video on how to do something you never should have had to do...

And it's not just my email that's misfiled. I just discovered that the Acumen course I'm taking online is showing up unbidden in the same promotions folder...

Permission marketing is about delivering anticipated, personal and relevant messages to people who want to get them. It's a disservice to reader and writer when an uninvited third party decides to change that relationship.

PS there are lots of ways to follow this blog for free. My favorite is RSS, which has no chokepoints.

• Email to a friend •

It's Time to Treat Content as Part of the User Experience

Posted: 28 Oct 2014 05:15 PM PDT

Posted by wrttnwrd

Forget content marketing, SEO content, and whatever else as you know them. We need to fundamentally change our approach to content. It's not an add-on or a separate thing. It's an inseparable part of the user experience. Let's act that way.

Content: the silent epidemic

Your site's infested.

Most organizations treat content like some kind of horrific disease. They try to shove it as far away as possible from the "real" web site, like a bad case of body lice.

Where do they put it? The blog, of course:

Don't worry, this isn't another put-the-blog-on-the-site-dammit rant. Hopefully, you already understand that blog.site.com isn't as good as site.com/blog.

They also incorrectly define "content." Content isn't "stuff we write to rank higher" or "infographics" or "longform articles."

Content is anything that communicates a message to the audience. Anything.

Product descriptions? Content.

The company story? Content.

Images? Content.

That video of your company picnic that someone posted to your site three years ago and shows everyone dressed as Muppets? Content.

If it says something, shows something, or otherwise communicates, it's content.

Change your approach

We all need to change our entire approach to content. Treat it as part of the user experience, instead of a nasty skin disease:

Integrate content that can enhance the user experience
Optimize what you already have

Integrate content that can enhance the user experience

Interlink and integrate related information. That includes connecting promotional to informational and showing related visuals and text on promotional pages.

"Promotional" means product descriptions or anything else that "sells" an idea or makes a call to action to the visitor.

Companies are terrified of this. They believe it'll send customers away. But it doesn't happen.

I have never seen revenue drop because of interlinking or other integration. I have seen it generate long-term customer relationships, increase referrals and increase near-term conversions.

Link to the blog

If nothing else, link to relevant blog posts. People intent on making a purchase aren't going to click away never to return. Check out how Surly Bikes does it:

(By the way, that bike's a steal at $2,700, if anyone's trying to figure out what to get me for Hanukkah this year.)

Linking to a relevant post allows really interested visitors to drill down an additional layer of detail. They can get impressions, learn why one product might be better for them than another, and maybe even (gasp) realize that the folks behind the product are just like them.

Embed related social content

Urban Outfitters does so much right. They have an amazing Instagram account:

But, for some reason, they don't link to it from product pages.

It's OK. I'm not cool enough for their stuff anyway. But why hide all those attractive people using their products? That'll encourage all sorts of purchasers.

Also, link to related social content right from your product pages. Ideally, you want to embed examples right in the page. At the very least, link prominently to the relevant account (but seriously, embed the examples).

Here's another example. I'm definitely a Democrat, but I have to offer a tip to the other side of the aisle here: If you have someone with decent YouTube videos, include 'em. Representative DeSantis has an entire YouTube channel. Why not show a few videos here?

If you want to see someone do it right, have a look at top10.com. They're pulling Instagram images straight into their hotel information.

You can do this with any social platform that lets you: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Vine, etc. So what's stopping you?

Optimize what you already have

Your site is already stuffed with content.

You might deny it. But it's true.

So why not optimize what you've got?

Write decent descriptions

Whatever you're selling/promoting, write a decent description. That includes category pages. I'm not sure what to say about the following top-of-category page "description," so I'll go with hysterical, bitter laughter:

By the way, for those who think this kind of content is a great SEO tactic, this site's on page 2 for "jeans."

I'm not thrilled with this one, as it's buried at the bottom of the category page and a little keyword stuffed, but compared to the previous, it's a shining light in the darkness:

That site ranks #3 for "jeans."

Even if you care only about rankings, better descriptions are a better strategy.

At this time, the #1 site for "jeans" has a description buried at the bottom of their category page that's so awful I cried. I'll dig into that another time, but I doubt that travesty is helping them much, and more importantly, it sure doesn't make me want to buy anything.

Don't be ashamed

Your content is not a zit. Show it proudly. I like the way Juicy Couture does it. I can actually read the product description:

This, on the other hand, makes me think I need bifocals.

That's actual size, by the way.

Follow the same rules of typography you would anywhere else. Make sure your type is high-contrast and readable. Put it somewhere that I'll actually see it. At the very least, don't hide it, for heaven's sake.

Guide me when I'm lost

Please don't redirect me to a category page without any explanation. I'm not bashing a pinata.

Blindfolding me, spinning me around 8 times and then sending me on my way is not entertaining. It's annoying as hell.

If I search for a product you no longer sell, and click the description:

Show me the product page with a "Sorry, this product is no longer available. But you might like..." and send me along
Or show me a note explaining what just happened

Urban Outfitters does it right:

Nice!

You might be thinking, "Hey, that's not content!"

Yeah, it is. When content disappears, send me to stuff you've got. Content UX 101.

Oh, and that technology thing...

One last step: You need to enable all of this through technology. You have to be able to do all the stuff I listed above. That requires the right tools.

This is the source of teeth-grinding frustration for many content folks. If you can't edit the site, you can't do any of this stuff, right? Weellll yes and no. Here are things I've tried, and the result:

Screaming. Generally a turn-off. Never gets the desired result.
Demanding. See screaming.
Asking, with a justification. Ask for the features you need, explaining why and how they might help. If you can, show competitors who are doing the same thing. This can take.... a..... long....... time. But it works.
Getting small wins. Can't add a new page? Edit a product description. Can't add a new chunk of content to a product page? Add a little bit to the existing description, or edit it as desired. This one works pretty well, but keep asking for the other features, or you'll never make progress.
Move off the site. You can set up a separate blog, social media account, whatever. I usually punch myself in the spleen right about then, but this can get results, especially for a big brand. Record the results and use that to advocate for more. Best if used in tandem with #3. Runs directly counter to half this article, but what're you gonna do?

I'm sorry I don't have an easier solution here. Just remember you're not the only person asking the IT team for stuff, or telling your boss you're being prevented from doing a good job, and proceed accordingly.

If you are the boss or IT team, and you're reading this, please: Don't sacrifice content or shove it off the site. Listen to your marketers. They want to succeed. "Helped triple revenue" looks a lot better on a resume than "Proposed worthless ideas." So they've got significant incentive.

OK, but is this legit?

I have to admit, I don't have data on all of this. Know what? Not all marketing is data-driven. But look at some real-life examples of user experience optimization through content:

In the "real world," the environment is the content:

Starbucks doesn't just operate a bunch of walk-in, walk-out coffee shops. They provide music, comfy chairs and nice people. An experience. Not a transaction.
New car dealers have completely transformed from big lots with cheesy pitches to mini-museums.
Airlines attempt to sell an experience. Some do it better than others. And it's not about money. "Low fare" airlines like Southwest have been particularly successful.

Online, features and... well, content are the content.

Amazon feels like a purely transactional site at first. But in-depth reviews, editors' comments, lists of recently-viewed items and other gadgetry transform the site.
Woot.com lives and breathes cool content. It's their brand, and it's an intimate part of the user experience.
And check out Surly, as I said above.

These brands all do pretty well, yes? Good content UX sure doesn't hurt.

Another example: We worked with a major fashion brand. We got them thinking about the content user experience. They integrated, and optimized their product descriptions. Our technical recommendations had to wait for release cycles. It didn't matter. They immediately hit number one for the most competitive phrases in their industry. Coincidence? I think not. So, even if rankings are your only goal, content UX is a powerful tool.

Get to work

Practice user experience optimization through content. By "optimization," I don't mean "stuffing in keywords until readers want to puke." I mean "optimal combination of promotional and informational content."

Content optimization drives interest, engagement and yes, rankings. It also takes visitors from transactional to loyal.

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

Seth's Blog : But what do you do?

But what do you do?

Do you make your own paper? Do you start with wood pulp and mix and bleach and set and produce the sheets you use? My guess is that you save time (and a lot of money) and just go to Staples and buy a ream or two.

The theory of the firm shows us that when people work together in an institution, they are able to produce more than if they work separately. Pareto optimality makes it obvious that if one person mixes the dough while the other bakes the loaves, they'll get more done than if each did the whole job.

This explains one reason why big companies keep getting bigger. They gain economies of production and marketing as they specialize their workforce.

But what about the small enterprise, the freelancer, the soloist?

The web now makes just about every task outsourceable with a click. Not only don't you have to make your own paper (or hire a paper maker) but you can have someone process payroll and bills, design a website, answer customer calls, schedule appointments and a thousand other things you used to need to do on your own.

Which leads to the key question: When you can outsource everything, what do you do? When you can choose the kind of value you create, you are also choosing what you're going to outsource and what you're going to do yourself.

Here are three reasons to do something as part of your work, from worst to best:

0. Because you are the cheapest available worker. Because you need to do something, and it's more profitable for you to do this task than to pay someone else to do it. Because you can't find something more beneficial or profitable to do.

1. Because people (clients) will notice when you do it. That might mean that they notice your presence, or they notice the unique nature of what you create (your art) or they will notice that you've learned something doing this when it leads to you doing something great later on. Mario Batali doesn't cook for 99% of his customers (physically impossible), and they can't tell. And he doesn't design 99% (or 5%, I have no idea) of his recipes, because we can't tell. In fact, the only thing people can tell is that it's him on the TV, and that his decisions are guiding what his organization does next.

2. Because you love it. Because the work matters to you, and this task, right now, is the best version of the work you can find.

Every time you hire yourself to do something (make paper, pay a bill, change a logo design), you've just decided not to do something else instead.

The first step: your job is to make decisions about what you do. And my guess is that what you do is make decisions.

• Email to a friend •

marți, 28 octombrie 2014

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Durable Goods Decline Second Month; Key Take-Aways
El-Erian: "Europe Is One or Two Rounds of Sanctions From Recession"; El-Erian Far Too Optimistic
Most Expensive Housing Markets in US are Liberal: Correlation or Cause?

Durable Goods Decline Second Month; Key Take-Aways

Posted: 28 Oct 2014 01:25 PM PDT

Inquiring minds are digging into the Census Bureau Advance Report on Durable Goods Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories and Orders for September 2014 for hints at 4th quarter GDP.

The headline data shows new orders for manufactured durable goods in September decreased $3.2 billion or 1.3 percent. This follows an 18.3 percent decline in August.

However, transportation (especially commercial and military plane orders) are so large and volatile, the overall results are nearly useless.

For example: In June, new orders were up 22.5% with transportation orders up 73.3%. Nondefense aircraft and parts orders were up a whopping 315.6%. Last month, nondefense aircraft and parts was down 74% and this month another 16%.

Key Components

Instead of focusing on the headline numbers, let's dive into the report to isolate key components.

The report itemizes all the categories, but it's not easy to scroll through. This table I put together should help.

Item	Sep	Aug	Jul	Aug-Sep %Chg	Jul-Aug % Chg	Jun-Jul % Chg
Total New Orders	241,633	244,864	299,862	-1.3	-18.3	22.5
Ex-Transportation Orders	168,186	168,603	167,491	-0.2	0.7	-0.6
Ex-Defense Orders	230,654	234,273	289,442	-1.5	-19.1	24.9
Transportation Orders	73,447	76,261	132,271	-3.7	-42.4	73.3
Capital Goods Orders	91,353	95,345	144,635	-4.2	-34.1	52.5
Non-Defense Capital Goods Orders	81,985	86,625	136,323	-5.4	-36.5	60.9
Defense Capital Goods Orders	9,368	8,720	8,312	7.4	4.9	-17.9
Core Capital Goods Orders	71,824	73,078	72,836	-1.7	0.3	-0.1
Core Capital Goods Shipments	70,238	70,390	70,307	-0.2	0.1	2.0

Line items (except the last line which shows shipments) are new orders, in millions of dollars, seasonally adjusted.

Key Take-Aways

The last two lines are the ones to watch.

Core Capital Goods are non-defense capital goods excluding aircraft. It's a measure of business investment and business sentiment. The 1.7% decline in orders is the largest since January.

Shipments factor into GDP estimates. Core capital goods shipments were down 0.2% this month. Core capital shipments and orders suggest that 4th quarter GDP is not off to a flying start.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

El-Erian: "Europe Is One or Two Rounds of Sanctions From Recession"; El-Erian Far Too Optimistic

Posted: 28 Oct 2014 10:51 AM PDT

In a speech on BRICs at the Peterson International Institute of Economics former PIMCO co-head El-Erian made the claim Europe Is One or Two Rounds of Sanctions From Recession.

The West, and Europe in particular, is one or two rounds of sanctions and counter-sanctions away from entering into a new recession, chairman of President Barack Obama's Global Development Council Mohamed El-Erian stated Monday.

"We are one or two rounds of sanctions and counter-sanctions away from the European politics over the Ukraine tipping Europe into a recession," El-Erian said in a speech on the BRICS economies at the Peterson International Institute of Economics.

He noted that the impact of level three sectoral sanctions against Russia is "taking the West into a recession through sanctions to the energy sector."

Arguing against the notion that Western economies are managing to keep pace after the crisis and despite the sanctions against Russia, El-Erian stated, "It may be chugging along in the United States, but Europe is looking at flat growth."

According to Obama's global development adviser, Ukraine continues to be a problem. El-Erian concluded, "The current state of play in Ukraine is lose, lose, lose" for Ukraine, Russia, and the West.

El-Erian Far Too Optimistic

It is not going to take another round or two of sanctions to tip Europe into recession.

France, Italy, and Spain are already there by any realistic set of measures, and Germany is in serious decline.

Unless one uses the strict definition of two consecutive quarters of declining growth, Europe is arguably in recession right now. Greece, Spain, and Italy are actually in economic depressions.

El-Erian is far behind the curve, especially if he thought he was making a dramatic statement.

But yes, sanctions are inane and they will make matters worse. And no, the US will not decouple from the global economy.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Most Expensive Housing Markets in US are Liberal: Correlation or Cause?

Posted: 28 Oct 2014 12:47 AM PDT

Here's an interesting article thanks to Jed Kolko, Chief Economist at Trulia Trends via Washington Post Wonkblog: The most expensive housing markets in the U.S. are also the most liberal.

The relationship between housing affordability and politics in the US is startlingly strong as these charts by Jed Kolko shows.

Median asking price in dollars per square foot is on the vertical axis. Margin for Obama over Romney in the 2012 election is on the horizontal axis.

With the exception of Orange County California, all of the high priced counties voted for Obama.

The Washington Post notes ....

Nine of the 10 bluest markets had median home asking prices above $130 per square foot. All of the 10 reddest markets had prices below that. In the dark blue markets, housing cost almost twice as much ($227 per square foot) as in the red ones ($119). In metro Washington — this is not just the District — the average home asking price was about $177.

Trulia notes ...

Households in blue markets tend to have higher incomes. But those higher incomes are not enough to offset higher home prices. Our middle-class affordability measure, which reflects the share of homes for sale within reach of a median-income household, is significantly lower in bluer markets. Furthermore, blue markets have lower homeownership and greater income inequality than red markets.

Sorted Data

Trulia made the data available. I sorted by price per square foot high to low. Here are the results.

U.S. Metro	Vote margin: Obama vs Romney, 2012 (positive #s = blue markets; negative #s = red markets)	Price decline in housing bust, peak to trough (FHFA)	Year-over-year price change, Sept. 2014 (Trulia)	Median asking price per square foot, $, Oct. 2014 (Trulia)
San Francisco, CA	58%	-23%	9.9%	613
Honolulu, HI	39%	-11%	4.1%	439
San Jose, CA	42%	-26%	8.6%	430
Orange County, CA	-6%	-33%	4.8%	363
Long Island, NY	6%	-20%	2.9%	350
Oakland, CA	50%	-39%	11.9%	342
Los Angeles, CA	42%	-35%	6.9%	334
New York, NY-NJ	49%	-18%	4.3%	320
Ventura County, CA	7%	-39%	12.4%	305
San Diego, CA	8%	-35%	1.8%	296
Fairfield County, CT	11%	-21%	-0.5%	237
Middlesex County, MA	27%	-13%	7.8%	236
Boston, MA	25%	-17%	4.5%	229
Peabody, MA	16%	-18%	4.0%	212
Seattle, WA	35%	-26%	8.9%	197
Bethesda-Rockville-Frederick, MD	34%	-22%	2.6%	189
Sacramento, CA	9%	-48%	10.1%	188
Edison-New Brunswick, NJ	3%	-22%	6.2%	180
Miami, FL	24%	-47%	14.0%	180
Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV	37%	-25%	3.2%	177
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA	4%	-50%	10.6%	164
Providence, RI-MA	25%	-26%	2.8%	162
Baltimore, MD	18%	-22%	-1.1%	161
Portland, OR-WA	23%	-25%	7.5%	157
Denver, CO	13%	-8%	9.4%	152
North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL	-10%	-50%	9.6%	150
New Haven, CT	22%	-21%	-0.6%	146
Worcester, MA	9%	-23%	4.9%	146
Philadelphia, PA	31%	-11%	4.3%	146
Fort Lauderdale, FL	35%	-48%	6.9%	143
Hartford, CT	23%	-14%	-0.4%	143
West Palm Beach, FL	17%	-49%	11.7%	138
Springfield, MA	32%	-14%	2.5%	137
Albany, NY	16%	-6%	-0.7%	135
Tacoma, WA	11%	-32%	7.5%	134
Charleston, SC	-5%	-21%	7.7%	134
Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL	-17%	-56%	9.8%	133
Newark, NJ-PA	21%	-20%	1.9%	133
Fresno, CA	2%	-49%	8.5%	133
Austin, TX	7%	-4%	9.9%	130
Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI	9%	-27%	11.3%	130
Chicago, IL	32%	-28%	10.0%	129
Salt Lake City, UT	-21%	-22%	4.7%	129
Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC	11%	-19%	4.4%	129
Bakersfield, CA	-17%	-52%	8.2%	126
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI	12%	-26%	10.0%	125
Phoenix, AZ	-11%	-51%	3.8%	123
Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ	24%	-20%	3.8%	123
Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI	3%	-37%	7.8%	117
Camden, NJ	24%	-23%	0.6%	116
Richmond, VA	5%	-20%	2.7%	116
Milwaukee, WI	5%	-15%	5.8%	116
Pittsburgh, PA	-1%	-2%	6.9%	116
Allentown, PA-NJ	2%	-21%	2.6%	114
Las Vegas, NV	15%	-61%	9.0%	113
Raleigh, NC	6%	-9%	4.2%	113
Dallas, TX	-10%	-6%	7.7%	112
Tucson, AZ	7%	-38%	1.4%	111
Orlando, FL	8%	-48%	7.7%	110
Albuquerque, NM	13%	-17%	0.6%	110
Nashville, TN	-16%	-9%	5.6%	109
Jacksonville, FL	-19%	-38%	7.0%	109
Colorado Springs, CO	-21%	-12%	4.0%	107
San Antonio, TX	-8%	-4%	4.5%	107
Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL	3%	-43%	5.0%	106
Houston, TX	-12%	-4%	10.7%	106
New Orleans, LA	0%	-11%	7.5%	102
Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL	-13%	-50%	13.1%	100
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN	-16%	-10%	9.0%	100
Baton Rouge, LA	-12%	-3%	1.3%	100
Charlotte, NC-SC	2%	-16%	7.0%	99
Oklahoma City, OK	-27%	-3%	4.0%	98
St. Louis, MO-IL	7%	-12%	4.3%	98
Knoxville, TN	-34%	-8%	2.1%	98
Birmingham, AL	-20%	-13%	11.5%	96
Buffalo, NY	14%	-2%	3.1%	96
Atlanta, GA	1%	-26%	11.1%	95
Louisville, KY-IN	-3%	-6%	11.0%	94
Fort Worth, TX	-23%	-6%	6.4%	94
Columbus, OH	7%	-10%	6.5%	94
Omaha, NE-IA	-10%	-5%	5.4%	93
Greenville, SC	-30%	-8%	5.9%	92
Kansas City, MO-KS	-3%	-12%	6.6%	92
Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL	-7%	-46%	11.1%	92
Gary, IN	21%	-11%	6.8%	91
Little Rock, AR	-11%	-4%	-6.0%	90
Tulsa, OK	-32%	-4%	7.3%	90
Syracuse, NY	17%	-3%	4.1%	90
Memphis, TN-MS-AR	12%	-14%	4.6%	89
Greensboro, NC	1%	-10%	2.6%	89
El Paso, TX	32%	-8%	-0.9%	88
Rochester, NY	11%	-2%	2.0%	87
Grand Rapids, MI	-9%	-22%	9.1%	87
Cleveland, OH	24%	-18%	4.1%	86
Akron, OH	13%	-16%	6.9%	84
Columbia, SC	2%	-11%	-0.9%	83
Toledo, OH	21%	-20%	12.5%	81
Indianapolis, IN	-8%	-7%	7.8%	80
Detroit, MI	47%	-40%	11.4%	75
Dayton, OH	-7%	-13%	8.8%	74

Congratulations to California

California has seven of the top-ten least-affordable metro areas.
New York managed two top-ten least affordable spots.
Massachusetts garnered three top-fifteen slots.

Congratulations (of sorts) go to California.

Top 10 Cities by Population in 2013

City Rank	City	Population	Cost per Sq Foot	Cost Ranking
1	New York, New York	8,405,837	320	8
2	Los Angeles, California	3,884,307	334	7
3	Chicago, Illinois	2,718,782	129	42
4	Houston, Texas	2,195,914	106	66
5	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania	1,553,165	146	29
6	Phoenix, Arizona	1,513,367	123	47
7	San Antonio, Texas	1,409,019	107	64
8	San Diego, California	1,355,896	296	10
9	Dallas, Texas	1,257,676	112	57
10	San Jose, California	998,537	430	3

I created the above table by combining City Size data with Trulia data.

Top 10 Red vs. Blue

Of the 10 largest Metro Areas in the US, five voted for Obama and five for Romney. Note: The above table shows city population not metro area.

The Texas Metro Areas (Houston, San Antonio, Dallas) and the Arizona Metro Areas (Phoenix and San Antonio) voted for Romney.

The highest ranking red Metro Area in the list was Phoenix. It placed 47 out of 100 in cost, with a median cost per square foot of $123 vs. San Jose, California with a median cost of $430 per square foot.

Correlation or cause? Union work rules, land availability, and building restrictions (or lack thereof) are all likely in play.

Correction

I stated 5 of the top 10 cities voted for Romney. The Trulia data is for Metro Areas. The above paragraphs modified accordingly.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Damn Cool Pics

The Cast of 'Back to the Future' Then and Now
Amusing Photoshop Trolls from Russia
50 Unusual Animals You Won't Believe Aren't Photoshopped

The Cast of 'Back to the Future' Then and Now

Posted: 28 Oct 2014 02:46 PM PDT

It's been almost 30 years since the original "Back to the Future" was released and some of these actors are looking like the could definitely use a time machine.