There have been a growing number of reports recently about airlines reducing the number of ‘ex gratia’ cards negotiable within corporate agreements and I have no doubt whatsoever this will increase in future. There are a few possible reasons for this trend.
These cards started as a way of keeping the loyalty of regular travellers by giving a range of benefits from comfortable lounges and ‘free’ flights to priority for upgrades. They became a major instrument for wooing business people away from their competition, and possibly company policy by making the travellers feel special in a rapidly comoditising market.
Some corporations hated them and went to great lengths to try and cancel out their allure. A few tried with little success to confiscate the travel element (miles) for company use. Others took a different view and used the attraction of these loyalty clubs to underline and support the use of their chosen policy carrier. It was then that such awards became a significant beneficial component within corporate deal negotiations.
So all of a sudden airline loyalty clubs became valuable to corporates and a tool to sweeten a change in policy. This whole change thing became a great deal easier if you were able to hand out membership cards with substantial benefits to key travellers. As important were the top tier cards which appealed to status conscious senior executives. These Platinum/Black/Premier cards were usually allocated in very small numbers and linked to the company’s volume potential. Often you would see joint CEOs scrapping like alley cats as to who should get ‘The Card’ and TMCs being pestered to broker more of them.
Much of the above still happens now but the mood of the airlines is changing for a number of key reasons. Firstly the number of cards at high status (gold etc) has grown alarmingly causing lounges to become too full for comfort. The cost of these lounges and other benefits has risen correspondingly whilst their exclusivity has declined. I have been in some lounges which are busier and noisier than the seats outside them.
Equally there are fewer seats available for purchase with loyalty points which can cause problems.
The airlines in their quest to reduce distribution costs are now looking very closely at the value, and importantly, the cost of these schemes. They have gone from seeing these clubs as less of a marketing ploy and more of an out of control overhead. As a result they have identified the value and put a budget cost against it. This means that every time an airline salesman gives a card their budget gets debited accordingly. They now have to manage this cost in the same way that they do discount pricing and other overheads.
This state of affairs has reduced the number of cards being awarded within deals. Incidentally the same thing works within the airlines themselves. Senior airline management are having their own travel cards downgraded too and they are probably just as aggrieved as the corporate buyer. The problem is that if you take something away from someone it has at least twice the effect as giving it to them in the first place. What you never have you never miss!
I guess what everybody will have to realise is that if you drive mainstream airlines to behave like, and compete with low cost carriers you will see the continuing decline in such ‘luxuries’. Also, if you manage to finally be successful in mandating policy to your travellers then the need for such loyalty inducements disappear anyway.
Showing posts with label Negotiations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Negotiations. Show all posts
Can TMCs Really Influence Business?-Switch selling
,
In my last two pieces on this subject I explained that airline suppliers still incentivise TMCs in the belief that this will bring them greater volume and share despite the inroads they themselves have made direct with the corporate sector. Also because some fear what they may lose if they don’t as they get denied access to TMC bookers and account managers if they are not ‘in the programme’. I also explained how the shape of these deals has changed in order to react to the removal of commissions and subsequent new style management fee and transaction fee contracts.
But the real cruncher is can TMCs really move their business around between airlines and if so what impact could this have on their clients. Over the next few paragraphs I will give my honest opinion on this vexing subject and hopefully come up with a few things for you to consider along the way. Like all responses to difficult questions the answer can be ambiguous as there are so many different TMCs with varying degrees of ability and strategy so I will focus on what I see as the more professional of the grouping.
Obviously the choice of supplier is by no means only dependant on the whims of the TMC. The corporations have deals themselves that they expect their TMC to support and then we have the traveller who sometimes ignore both. In fact the travellers also have their own ‘deals’ with airlines known as frequent flyer points, upgrades, and lounge access to name a few. However the power to influence travel choices by the TMCs is growing as the market changes and they become more of an outsourced arm of their customers. Ironically many of the actions taken by airlines to remove some of the ‘rewards’ they paid to TMCs (commissions etc) is creating an increase in their ability to influence airline choice.
Getting down to basics here are just some of the ways TMCs can and are moving business.
a) The SME market mainly buys on price and has few direct deals of their own therefore the TMC can choose which suppliers and fares to put towards them.
b) The arrival of online booking tools is giving TMCs a greater ability to select what to promote and exclude those they do not.
c) There are still surprisingly many people out there that seek advice and recommendation about airlines and their services and the TMCs can control what their people say far better than they used to. If a supplier is denied access to bookers then what chance do they have?
d) TMC account managers play a far bigger (sometimes unique) part in what supplier goes into their client’s programme. By working closely with a partner airline they can ensure that they offer the best package of benefits. This should end up in a win/win situation except the supplier ends up having to dig deeper in their pockets to reward all parties.
e) Corporations tend to pick two suppliers on their main routes. For example on the UK/USA sector it is most unusual not to have a two carrier policy to keep both sides of the Atlantic happy. This gives the TMC a superb opportunity to switch sell playing one airline off against the other if they choose to do so. And all this within policy.
f) Another growing area for flexing and switching is unbundling of fares. This creates an opportunity for a savvy TMC to translate true costs of journey in a proactive and rewarding way. The more airlines complicate things the more opportunities arise for the middle man.
g) As mentioned in my previous piece the top TMCs are developing their own platforms so they can choose what fares and services find their way to staff, booking screens and self booking tools. This kind of dynamic pricing will create such a sea change in TMC control and selling ability that airlines may have to think again about their distribution strategies.
h) The decision by many corporations to allow their travellers to ignore set policy and choose best fare on the day provides a further opportunity.
In conclusion I am certain that TMCs can influence business and more than ever before. I would however add that I do not think this should be too worrying for corporations. Yes, TMCs do get incentivised by airlines but hey, if they weren’t you would be paying more so I suggest that ‘sleeping dog’ should be left to lie. After all you still hold the ace card in that the principal way to move business is to offer the best price and product and no TMC would be daft enough to forget that. In the past one could move like for like business but now it has to be cost justified and done with the knowledge of the corporation who still calls the shots.
I hope you found this interesting or at least thought provoking. I plan to write a further summary on where I think all this is going. I think you will be surprised by some of it!
In my last two pieces on this subject I explained that airline suppliers still incentivise TMCs in the belief that this will bring them greater volume and share despite the inroads they themselves have made direct with the corporate sector. Also because some fear what they may lose if they don’t as they get denied access to TMC bookers and account managers if they are not ‘in the programme’. I also explained how the shape of these deals has changed in order to react to the removal of commissions and subsequent new style management fee and transaction fee contracts.
But the real cruncher is can TMCs really move their business around between airlines and if so what impact could this have on their clients. Over the next few paragraphs I will give my honest opinion on this vexing subject and hopefully come up with a few things for you to consider along the way. Like all responses to difficult questions the answer can be ambiguous as there are so many different TMCs with varying degrees of ability and strategy so I will focus on what I see as the more professional of the grouping.
Obviously the choice of supplier is by no means only dependant on the whims of the TMC. The corporations have deals themselves that they expect their TMC to support and then we have the traveller who sometimes ignore both. In fact the travellers also have their own ‘deals’ with airlines known as frequent flyer points, upgrades, and lounge access to name a few. However the power to influence travel choices by the TMCs is growing as the market changes and they become more of an outsourced arm of their customers. Ironically many of the actions taken by airlines to remove some of the ‘rewards’ they paid to TMCs (commissions etc) is creating an increase in their ability to influence airline choice.
Getting down to basics here are just some of the ways TMCs can and are moving business.
a) The SME market mainly buys on price and has few direct deals of their own therefore the TMC can choose which suppliers and fares to put towards them.
b) The arrival of online booking tools is giving TMCs a greater ability to select what to promote and exclude those they do not.
c) There are still surprisingly many people out there that seek advice and recommendation about airlines and their services and the TMCs can control what their people say far better than they used to. If a supplier is denied access to bookers then what chance do they have?
d) TMC account managers play a far bigger (sometimes unique) part in what supplier goes into their client’s programme. By working closely with a partner airline they can ensure that they offer the best package of benefits. This should end up in a win/win situation except the supplier ends up having to dig deeper in their pockets to reward all parties.
e) Corporations tend to pick two suppliers on their main routes. For example on the UK/USA sector it is most unusual not to have a two carrier policy to keep both sides of the Atlantic happy. This gives the TMC a superb opportunity to switch sell playing one airline off against the other if they choose to do so. And all this within policy.
f) Another growing area for flexing and switching is unbundling of fares. This creates an opportunity for a savvy TMC to translate true costs of journey in a proactive and rewarding way. The more airlines complicate things the more opportunities arise for the middle man.
g) As mentioned in my previous piece the top TMCs are developing their own platforms so they can choose what fares and services find their way to staff, booking screens and self booking tools. This kind of dynamic pricing will create such a sea change in TMC control and selling ability that airlines may have to think again about their distribution strategies.
h) The decision by many corporations to allow their travellers to ignore set policy and choose best fare on the day provides a further opportunity.
In conclusion I am certain that TMCs can influence business and more than ever before. I would however add that I do not think this should be too worrying for corporations. Yes, TMCs do get incentivised by airlines but hey, if they weren’t you would be paying more so I suggest that ‘sleeping dog’ should be left to lie. After all you still hold the ace card in that the principal way to move business is to offer the best price and product and no TMC would be daft enough to forget that. In the past one could move like for like business but now it has to be cost justified and done with the knowledge of the corporation who still calls the shots.
I hope you found this interesting or at least thought provoking. I plan to write a further summary on where I think all this is going. I think you will be surprised by some of it!
Can TMCs Really Influence Business? - Deals
OK, so we got to the point where we ascertained that TMC/agents still get incentives from suppliers, albeit presented in a different shape. I also mentioned that, in my opinion, this need not necessarily be a bad thing for corporate customers if managed right. What I did not go into in any detail was a) what these deals are b) how TMCs do (or do not) shift business and c) how such deals could benefit all. So let me address at least one of these points now and deal with the others another time.
What kind of deals?
There are three main types which are growth percentage rewards, net fares that can be marked up and increase share payments.
Payments for growth are usually a percentage of net ticket value sometimes paid back to zero and sometimes just for the growth element compared with previous year. Percentages paid vary enormously depending on supplier size, their importance/share of the local market and their strategic need to buy a way into the region. I have heard of deals ranging around 2% from a big volume airline to 50% from someone trying to make inroads into a market. Such deals are pretty unfashionable now in most primary markets but do still happen in numerous places around the globe especially from suppliers who have no effective systems to measure performance.
As time passed some of the more major airlines started to get concerned that TMCs might simply start doing growth deals with all their competitors as, in a growing market, the prospects of growing volume with everyone was high. Also volume could vary greatly simply by the losing or winning of a major volume corporate account. This ultimately got addressed by airlines ‘red ringing’ the biggest clients which meant their volumes were taken out for volume and payment purposes.
There have always been a few net fare deals about. This is where an airline offers a fixed net price to specific agents who can mark it up by as much as they think they can get away with. These net fares were targeted towards specialist agencies who were involved in markets such as ethnic or tourist travel. In the main the plan was to gain this business but not dilute their yields by exposing such discounts to the corporate market. Nevertheless there has been growing overlap which usually manifests itself by corporate travellers that gets hold of the fare and demands to know why his TMC cannot match it. This has been going on for many years but in recent times some USA airlines have dallied in this area too by offering net business prices to TMCs instead of overrides.
In an attempt to make future deals work airlines started introducing rewards based on share increase. This is infinitely more difficult to measure and depended on the airline itself to produce the results with no way for the TMCs to verify them. Some of these deals became so very complex that it was almost impossible for anyone to predict what would be paid. .Another issue was that, for some dominant airlines such deals were considered by the authorities as anti-competitive and thereby illegal. However these deals are still widespread today.
Most modern deals are far more sophisticated and linked to ‘service level agreements’ (SLAs) although this term is a misnomer in my view. What they effectively do is reward TMCs for performing (or allowing) certain activities. These activities vary from allowing access to their staff, account managers and senior management to shifting share, providing key MI on their clients, promoting the airline’s campaigns and supporting a particular strategy. All such activities are measured and rewarded accordingly. These ‘incentives’ seem to work reasonably well for both parties as the airline usually sees more volume and the TMC gets it’s money in a way that negates them having to pay it straight on to the corporation as extra client income/overrides.
Originally TMCs used to negotiate SMAs with individual airlines but even that has moved on. Now the suppliers are trying to do deals by Alliances rather than individual members. These usually manifest themselves as umbrella incentives paid only if the TMC performs with a certain minimum number of their partners. This way the dominant airline in any alliance group can demand TMC preferred status for their smaller partners that would not otherwise register on their radar screen. Such deals are highly unpopular with most eligible TMCs for obvious reasons and particularly because many airline partners are either unable to provide accurate data or simply not a product they want in their portfolio especially if they clash with another preferred supplier.
Consolidation by alliances is one thing but the ability/desire to agree a global incentive agreement is even harder and suppliers have, in the main, been reticent to do this either with TMCs or corporations. Don’t get me wrong, there are some prototype deals out there but I am highly sceptical of their current value to anyone. After all the airlines still work on a system where they cannot tell their overseas offices what to do as they are cost centres in their own right and have the authority to say no.
Finally I expect to see a new type of deal arriving and it is not a million miles away from the net concept. Well actually it is here now but only in it’s formative state. The arrival of TMC specific fares is here and expanding. In the past, probably as a result of past legacies, airlines have stuck to treating all TMCs the same as each other as far as fares are concerned. This is changing with the arrival of new generation TMC technology platforms that can be very specific about who sees what fare where and when.. This will enable them to drive business to (and from) airlines at the press off a button. Airlines will be able to flex the fares they offer depending on need and thereby have a tighter grip on their yields in a similar way to what they do on their own dot com sites…if the TMC is incentivised enough to support them. As I say, it is early days but worth watching.
This subject is vast and worthy of a day seminar rather than a brief blog entry however I hope it gives some a basic grasp of what is going on in this somewhat secretive area. More on how such deals are supported and how I think all could benefit next time.
What kind of deals?
There are three main types which are growth percentage rewards, net fares that can be marked up and increase share payments.
Payments for growth are usually a percentage of net ticket value sometimes paid back to zero and sometimes just for the growth element compared with previous year. Percentages paid vary enormously depending on supplier size, their importance/share of the local market and their strategic need to buy a way into the region. I have heard of deals ranging around 2% from a big volume airline to 50% from someone trying to make inroads into a market. Such deals are pretty unfashionable now in most primary markets but do still happen in numerous places around the globe especially from suppliers who have no effective systems to measure performance.
As time passed some of the more major airlines started to get concerned that TMCs might simply start doing growth deals with all their competitors as, in a growing market, the prospects of growing volume with everyone was high. Also volume could vary greatly simply by the losing or winning of a major volume corporate account. This ultimately got addressed by airlines ‘red ringing’ the biggest clients which meant their volumes were taken out for volume and payment purposes.
There have always been a few net fare deals about. This is where an airline offers a fixed net price to specific agents who can mark it up by as much as they think they can get away with. These net fares were targeted towards specialist agencies who were involved in markets such as ethnic or tourist travel. In the main the plan was to gain this business but not dilute their yields by exposing such discounts to the corporate market. Nevertheless there has been growing overlap which usually manifests itself by corporate travellers that gets hold of the fare and demands to know why his TMC cannot match it. This has been going on for many years but in recent times some USA airlines have dallied in this area too by offering net business prices to TMCs instead of overrides.
In an attempt to make future deals work airlines started introducing rewards based on share increase. This is infinitely more difficult to measure and depended on the airline itself to produce the results with no way for the TMCs to verify them. Some of these deals became so very complex that it was almost impossible for anyone to predict what would be paid. .Another issue was that, for some dominant airlines such deals were considered by the authorities as anti-competitive and thereby illegal. However these deals are still widespread today.
Most modern deals are far more sophisticated and linked to ‘service level agreements’ (SLAs) although this term is a misnomer in my view. What they effectively do is reward TMCs for performing (or allowing) certain activities. These activities vary from allowing access to their staff, account managers and senior management to shifting share, providing key MI on their clients, promoting the airline’s campaigns and supporting a particular strategy. All such activities are measured and rewarded accordingly. These ‘incentives’ seem to work reasonably well for both parties as the airline usually sees more volume and the TMC gets it’s money in a way that negates them having to pay it straight on to the corporation as extra client income/overrides.
Originally TMCs used to negotiate SMAs with individual airlines but even that has moved on. Now the suppliers are trying to do deals by Alliances rather than individual members. These usually manifest themselves as umbrella incentives paid only if the TMC performs with a certain minimum number of their partners. This way the dominant airline in any alliance group can demand TMC preferred status for their smaller partners that would not otherwise register on their radar screen. Such deals are highly unpopular with most eligible TMCs for obvious reasons and particularly because many airline partners are either unable to provide accurate data or simply not a product they want in their portfolio especially if they clash with another preferred supplier.
Consolidation by alliances is one thing but the ability/desire to agree a global incentive agreement is even harder and suppliers have, in the main, been reticent to do this either with TMCs or corporations. Don’t get me wrong, there are some prototype deals out there but I am highly sceptical of their current value to anyone. After all the airlines still work on a system where they cannot tell their overseas offices what to do as they are cost centres in their own right and have the authority to say no.
Finally I expect to see a new type of deal arriving and it is not a million miles away from the net concept. Well actually it is here now but only in it’s formative state. The arrival of TMC specific fares is here and expanding. In the past, probably as a result of past legacies, airlines have stuck to treating all TMCs the same as each other as far as fares are concerned. This is changing with the arrival of new generation TMC technology platforms that can be very specific about who sees what fare where and when.. This will enable them to drive business to (and from) airlines at the press off a button. Airlines will be able to flex the fares they offer depending on need and thereby have a tighter grip on their yields in a similar way to what they do on their own dot com sites…if the TMC is incentivised enough to support them. As I say, it is early days but worth watching.
This subject is vast and worthy of a day seminar rather than a brief blog entry however I hope it gives some a basic grasp of what is going on in this somewhat secretive area. More on how such deals are supported and how I think all could benefit next time.
Why small is becoming big in Business Travel.
In many of the key driver markets like the UK the desire by TMCs to move back into the SME market has grown and grown without any sign of let-up. A strange phenomenon one might think considering they have spent the last few years actively trying to get them off their books. There must be a good reason for this re-think and of course there is. It’s because of that good old trio economy, technology and supplier strategy. As a result there is never a better time to be a small customer in business travel.
You see the big organisations have lost the allure they used to have. They now become harder to win and are on longer contracts. They demand more and pay less and the suppliers have done their deals direct with them which make the TMC more marginalised than ever. At the same time the TMCs have caught up with each other to the point that a competitive edge to swing an account gets smaller. So, in the main, TMCs get to keep what they have got (especially with the advent of globalisation) and, if they actually lose something big it hurts real badly. It is often more expensive to lose an account than the benefit you get if you keep it, if that makes sense, which is another reason why little moves!
So what is left out there that is flexible, relatively easy to handle yet very valuable cumulatively especially to suppliers. The answer of course is the SME who demand a good deal but does not carry all those bespoke costs of a large client. If you win one then great, but if you lose then it doesn’t hurt much. TMCs can use all those fancy gizmos created for (and funded by) the major clients to provide added value for peanuts to SMEs. The SME also can be a great deal easier to handle in both operational and financial terms and TMCs resources can be flexed to move this business to the optimum point in their structure. Another consideration is that, in a growing market, the big TMC is beginning to realise that today’s SME is tomorrow’s mega client. Finally, TMCs still need suppliers and suppliers want the SME market but cannot afford to go after them so a consolidation point via an agent is very attractive.
So what is a SME supposed to do? Well, if I was them I would shop around. I would be less interested in the transaction fee I was being charged and more impressed in what supplier savings and efficiencies I would get. I would go to the big TMCs and ask what extra value they can give by sharing out some of those big client products benefits. I would then ensure that I would get agreed levels of service continuity and not have my team poached every time there is a staff shortage with a bigger client.
So simplicity, flexibility and small are all beautiful……for now.
The large corporations? If I was them I would sit on my ego and work out how to make myself more attractive and important again.
You see the big organisations have lost the allure they used to have. They now become harder to win and are on longer contracts. They demand more and pay less and the suppliers have done their deals direct with them which make the TMC more marginalised than ever. At the same time the TMCs have caught up with each other to the point that a competitive edge to swing an account gets smaller. So, in the main, TMCs get to keep what they have got (especially with the advent of globalisation) and, if they actually lose something big it hurts real badly. It is often more expensive to lose an account than the benefit you get if you keep it, if that makes sense, which is another reason why little moves!
So what is left out there that is flexible, relatively easy to handle yet very valuable cumulatively especially to suppliers. The answer of course is the SME who demand a good deal but does not carry all those bespoke costs of a large client. If you win one then great, but if you lose then it doesn’t hurt much. TMCs can use all those fancy gizmos created for (and funded by) the major clients to provide added value for peanuts to SMEs. The SME also can be a great deal easier to handle in both operational and financial terms and TMCs resources can be flexed to move this business to the optimum point in their structure. Another consideration is that, in a growing market, the big TMC is beginning to realise that today’s SME is tomorrow’s mega client. Finally, TMCs still need suppliers and suppliers want the SME market but cannot afford to go after them so a consolidation point via an agent is very attractive.
So what is a SME supposed to do? Well, if I was them I would shop around. I would be less interested in the transaction fee I was being charged and more impressed in what supplier savings and efficiencies I would get. I would go to the big TMCs and ask what extra value they can give by sharing out some of those big client products benefits. I would then ensure that I would get agreed levels of service continuity and not have my team poached every time there is a staff shortage with a bigger client.
So simplicity, flexibility and small are all beautiful……for now.
The large corporations? If I was them I would sit on my ego and work out how to make myself more attractive and important again.
A different approach to TMC negotiations?
I think one of the most disappointing outcomes from contract negotiation is that between corporations and TMCs. You can practically guarantee that one side or the other, or in time both, are not enamoured with the end results. The corporation wants total priority and service delivery at the lowest unit price whilst the TMC spends its time trying to figure out how to comply whilst clawing back profitability elsewhere in the deal or through caveats.
Another disappointment is that many of these negotiations are so combative. It is almost like trying to play a game of poker where the TMC has to play with his cards face up and the corporation with theirs to their chest. How can you get a good result when the beginning is riddled with various levels of speculation and possibly deceit? There really must be a better way.
I would really like to see such methodology turned 180 degrees. The RFP should be changed to an IFB (information for bidders). This IFB would say ‘look, this is what we think we really want’ and ‘here is a list of the important things in priority. Can you think of anything you could add to improve our service and savings? Here are the problems we currently have and how can you help resolve them’. The corporation would then receive an inflow of pertinent and creative ideas rather than getting a load of bland ‘comply/not comply’ answers to a bunch of sometimes irrelevant questions.
Having narrowed the field down to those TMC that have shown the right level of flair and innovation one could then move on to what they are hoping to achieve from winning the contract in both money terms and ongoing partnership. This would be much better than dragging in a TMC that has been cut to the bone and is frankly going to favour the client that brings more revenue and longevity.
Having now discovered what both parties want it is time to sit down together and thrash out how both can be achieved with as little compromise as possible. I can think of lots of ways to doing this in a way that protects commits and rewards.
Otherwise I guess people can continue what they are doing now. Issuing an RFP the size of a small book to TMCs who will be initially judged on how they answer a bunch of questions that really do not address the real issues. After all, the large TMCs can answer the questions any way they think you want to hear them and are probably already handing numerous Fortune 500 companies who asked the same.
So there we have it. Naïve? Workable? Or both?
Your guess is as good as mine!
Another disappointment is that many of these negotiations are so combative. It is almost like trying to play a game of poker where the TMC has to play with his cards face up and the corporation with theirs to their chest. How can you get a good result when the beginning is riddled with various levels of speculation and possibly deceit? There really must be a better way.
I would really like to see such methodology turned 180 degrees. The RFP should be changed to an IFB (information for bidders). This IFB would say ‘look, this is what we think we really want’ and ‘here is a list of the important things in priority. Can you think of anything you could add to improve our service and savings? Here are the problems we currently have and how can you help resolve them’. The corporation would then receive an inflow of pertinent and creative ideas rather than getting a load of bland ‘comply/not comply’ answers to a bunch of sometimes irrelevant questions.
Having narrowed the field down to those TMC that have shown the right level of flair and innovation one could then move on to what they are hoping to achieve from winning the contract in both money terms and ongoing partnership. This would be much better than dragging in a TMC that has been cut to the bone and is frankly going to favour the client that brings more revenue and longevity.
Having now discovered what both parties want it is time to sit down together and thrash out how both can be achieved with as little compromise as possible. I can think of lots of ways to doing this in a way that protects commits and rewards.
Otherwise I guess people can continue what they are doing now. Issuing an RFP the size of a small book to TMCs who will be initially judged on how they answer a bunch of questions that really do not address the real issues. After all, the large TMCs can answer the questions any way they think you want to hear them and are probably already handing numerous Fortune 500 companies who asked the same.
So there we have it. Naïve? Workable? Or both?
Your guess is as good as mine!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
