A tough-love letter to UK dairy farmers and their representatives

Part one of your problem in pursuing a fair milk price is illustrated on the soft drink shelves at your nearest supermarket. At mine, you can get two litres of Co-op rola-cola for 29p…or 1.5 litres Coca-Cola for £1.71. That’s a 7.86-fold (i.e. 786%) difference in the price per litre. In the same store for four pints of milk, the price of Cravendale at £1.99 is 45% higher than Co-op own brand’s £1.37. Clearly, this suggests a relationship between brand and pricing, and brings economics into play, particularly the law of supply and demand.

When the Co-op wants rola-cola, it has several or perhaps many potential suppliers, all of whom are more or less equally capable of assembling “carbonated water, malted barley extract, natural flavouring, phosphoric acid, sweeteners (Acesulfame K, sucralose), preservative (potassium sorbate)” and decanting it into plain, generic plastic receptacles. So plentiful supplies from an ample choice of manufacturers who can be played off against each other offers the buyer their dream dog-eat-dog scenario…which means they can sell two litres of rola-cola for 29p and still make a profit.

In contrast, there is only one supplier in the world who can combine “carbonated water, sugar, colour (caramel E150d), phosphoric acid, natural flavourings including caffeine”, then place it in an iconic bottle (albeit plastic but still a gorgeous piece of design) with distinctive red and white labelling, and stronger emotional bonds with consumers than between many courting couples. So chances are this manufacturer is making a rather bigger margin than the poor retailer from the £1.71 for 1.5 litres selling price.

Obviously, this situation has not arisen by chance. It comes about as a result of a multi-million pound/dollar, multi-national and multi-decade investment in the Coca-Cola brand. On a smaller but still significant scale, the Cravendale owner’s investment in that brand is what earns them the 45% higher selling price currently evident at my local Co-op.

Part two is human nature, in particular the innate drive to exploit power to one’s own advantage. To drive down feeds costs, some farmers join buying groups. In the auction ring, how many farmers give away how keen they are by bidding enthusiastically? When buying fertiliser, are you happy to pay more than the going rate to ease a merchant’s difficulties with narrow margins?

All today’s large farm businesses were once small ones. Along the way, the strong used their power to exploit opportunities and expand. The same goes for shops. Right now, the biggest shops clearly have rather more power than even the very biggest farms.

Part three is a curious business anomaly. A mixed farm producing cereals as well as milk will enter into grain sale contracts for a defined tonnage, specification and price. Yet the same farm agrees to sell milk under a contract that specifies neither volume nor price, and with a long notice period.

Clearly, finding a solution is a huge challenge for the farming industry. In addition to milk, this scenario also applies in eggs, pig meat, vegetables and salads. When imported products are readily available, things get even more difficult because supermarkets as just as likely to buy competitively priced imports as we all are individually with cars or tractors, clothes or shoes. So it can be argued that the liquid milk sector at least has the advantage of being ring-fenced to the UK.

For supermarkets, the need for customers to buy fresh milk every few days is a powerful vector in persuading shoppers to return more frequently that they otherwise would. That's why milk is discounted, not because supermarkets don't value it. On the contrary, their need for fresh milk is fundamental to their business model, and if it's unbranded or their own brand so much the better because that allows them to play one eager (i.e. desperate) supplier off against another. But if the availability of unbranded milk was restricted, or ideally eliminated, they'd have no choice but stock branded milks, among which the strong brands (like Cravendale milk and Muller yogurts already, for example) would earn the best prices for their suppliers.

Otherwise, most liquid milk, with the notable and minority exceptions of innovative farmers' brands like Acorn, Bowland Fresh and Jess's (see back copies of Farmers Guardian for reports on all three), continues to be anonymous generic white stuff in plastic cartons, sold at give-away prices by retailers as an important part, to them, of their customer retention strategies.

Farmers wanting to be play-makers not pawns have to act accordingly and not leave action to others. For example, those yet to join Farmers For Action, already better off as a result of FFA’s activism getting the August price cuts cancelled, could start by signing up. Every dairy farmer without exception should contact their farming union and find out what help they’re offering in getting more balanced supply contracts in place between producers and processors.

Then to support the SOS DAIRY campaign's phase two, what if all dairy farmers were to de-tune cow diets so that yields fell by two to three litres per cow per day? With feed prices where they are, immediate cost savings could go some way towards cancelling out foregone milk income. As long as de-tuning is done advisedly, with forage making up any potential feed intake shortfall, it could be done without detriment to cow health or fertility.

Empty shelves where milk should be is a spectre that should worry even the most hard-nosed milk buyer and their retailer customers. Three litres a day less milk from a million cows would be noticed very quickly in the supply chain. Together with the ongoing publicity being created by the industry, supply chain jitters could help strengthen the dairy farming coalition's negotiating position in seeking fairer contract terms and pricing mechanisms, and lasting stability for the long term.

-ends-

Making a loss? Reducing production is an option

PS to yesterday's post:
For any business producing anything at a loss, one option with immediate benefits is to produce less and reduce those losses.

How to make milk buyers & retailers sweat

Empty shelves where milk should be is a spectre that will worry even the most hard-nosed milk buyer and their retailer customers. So I wonder how long it would take them to notice that a million cows were each giving two to three litres a day less than usual?

If all dairy farmers could and would de-tune cow diets slightly to create this effect, cost savings at current high feed prices could go a long way towards making up for lost milk income. As long as it's done advisedly, with forage making up any potential feed intake shortfall, I believe this could also be done without detriment to cow health or fertility.

 

Together with the amazing publicity created be by the industry, this tactic could help strengthen the negotiating position of dairy farmers' representative in seeking fairer contract terms and pricing mechanisms, without the potentially damaging impact on public opinion of wastefully pouring milk into slurry pits.

For sanity’s sake, focus on those who want to be helped

Chewing the fat with a group of farm animal vets recently, the conversation took a particularly interesting turn: Why so many farmers fail/refuse to heed their oh-so-wise advice.

This was a knowledgeable and highly experienced group of people. Their specialism happened to be sheep, although that is somewhat incidental to what follows and could have involved any species or disease. The group’s concern boiled down to this: Some farmers allow sheep health to be compromised by poor decisions, or indeed no decision at all. So they would be losing money compared to effective or optimal strategy. They were probably inflicting pain and suffering too. And their behaviour wasn’t making sense to their genuinely concerned veterinary advisers.

These are sentiments I’ve shared on and off for more than 30 years working in the agri-supply sector. They resurfaced again recently during the launch of the National Youngstock Association and its inaugural conference, attended by more than 200 concerned individuals, at Hartpury College in June.

The NYA instigators’ noble purpose is to tackle the largely avoidable losses during the rearing phase of young cattle, dairy and beef alike. The stats are truly appalling:

·  8% of calves are born dead or die within 24 hours of birth;

·  among dairy calves, 6% of those born alive fail to reach weaning; a further 3% fail to reach 6 months old; and another 5% die before calving; in total, that’s 14% mortality from dairy heifer live births;

·  in beef calves, 8% of those born alive die during rearing;

·  and 15% of dairy heifers that do have a first calving are culled before their second.

Clearly, in helping farmers reduce calf mortality and maintain better animal health, the National Youngstock Association could create lasting gains to bottom line profits. Similarly, our group of sheep vets could help many more clients improve their flock performance, thereby making more money and improving on-farm morale, if only more farmers heeded the oh-so-wise advice that’s easily available.

However, it’s slowly become apparent to me that there is something in the agri-industry’s education, or collective mindset, or the tea we drink, that makes service-providers like us want to improve every farmer’s lot, without exception, whether they want it or not. Maybe it’s origin is envy? Some of us working in the agri-supply chain, vets included, are frustrated would-be farmers who, but for an accident of birth, would be doing things right in the first place for ourselves. So I hope it’s understandable if we get frustrated from time to time when obvious (to us) changes for the better are shunned, or mis-interpreted, or implemented half-cock.

Sometimes, of course, it will be our fault for not selling the solution effectively, not explaining a process clearly, or not understanding our farmers’ motives and priorities. We really cannot duck our responsibility to be proactive if we want to be effective and successful ourselves. However, the reality is that no matter how much we work on our persuasive skills, pitch our propositions with benefit statements, and strive to unlock farming’s mysterious collective psychology, we can only help those who want to be helped.

The view among sheep vets reached this conclusion really quite quickly. They happened to be discussing control of gastrointestinal worms, and the very real threat posed by the development of resistance to anthelmintics in those parasites. Early on in the conversation, this was regarded as a macro, pan-industry problem in need of an equally pan-industry solution. However, even if government were to introduce legal requirements for treating sheep, the vets saw that a few rogue or “idiot” sheep owners would still not comply, thereby putting at immediate risk their close neighbours and via them, the remainder of the sheep farming sector too.

The solution, of course, is obvious once we drop our naïve mission to help every farmer become a potential Sheep Farmer of the Year or RABDF Gold Cup winner. It’s a matter of individual responsibility for each farmer to take effective steps to minimise the threats and risks to their assets and production systems. And the vets’ conclusion? “Concentrate your energy, skills and experience to help those who want to be helped; and for the sake of your own sanity, ignore the rest.” Pragmatism rules, OK!

This ambitious initiative offers great opportunities for UK farming

This article was commissioned and first published by Feed Compounder magazine. Although written for readers in the animal feed trade, I hope it's relevant to others in agribusiness and farming.

If you haven’t already scrawled in your diary KEEP FREE across 26th to 29th September 2013, now is the time to do so. As you may know, it is proposed to stage a major exhibition of British farming, food and countryside to the Great British Public in Hyde Park, London, on those four days.

The event will be free to enter and regular readers of the farming press will be aware already that it’s the brainchild of some ambitious farmers. Having set up Farming in the Park Ltd (FITP) to promote it, they claim the proposal “has been warmly received across the farming scene,” and has also elicited a message of support from His Royal Highness, The Duke of Edinburgh.

An early list of supporting organisations is posted on the FITP website, including JCB and John Deere, NFU and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Ocado and The British Christmas Tree Growers Association. As yet, the animal feed industry doesn’t appear to have troubled the website manager, but hopefully that’s about to change.

Essentially, the proposal is to repeat and eclipse the successes of two such events in 1989 and 1992, each attended by nearly a million people. The 2013 instigators are challenging every county in Britain to stage a one-acre exhibit showing off their farming, food and countryside. Clearly, the resulting nation picture will allow visitors to explore and enjoy a diverse variety of the farming industry’s aspects and outputs.

Suspending cynicism and scepticism for a moment, supporting this event seems like a no-brainer to your correspondent. It’s been done before successfully. It taps into a healthy interest among a good proportion of the public in food and how the countryside is being managed. At the end of the 1992 event, more than 90% of exhibitors said another event should be held soon and FITP says “20 years later this is long overdue.” And as their website points out, “across Britain, from county shows to open farms, there has been an impressive amount of activity and initiative to engage with all age groups. We now need to tap into this communication renaissance.”

Building on existing success, the proposal’s aspiration to utilise activity and funding streams that are already up and running looks particularly sensible in today’s climate of government austerity. It cites a feature called ‘Why Farming Matters in Kent’ at the county show, where a mini-orchard, shearing demo with Romney Marsh sheep, and a replica oast house drying hops for real, have all been created using funds from the Rural Development Programme for England, locals charitable trusts and corporate sponsorship.

According to the proposal, similar initiatives to this are taking place in other parts of the country that are equally worthy of a shop window in the nation’s capital. Also, perhaps dropping a hint to the farming unions, it suggests “the possibility of national organisations helping a county organisation put on a display.” Pledges received already include a state of the art combine harvester and a NABIM baking demonstration that could feature in a field to plate story about bread staged by one of the eastern counties. Notably, and here is an opportunity for our sector, the website doesn’t yet contain an equivalent proposed livestock feature.

Meanwhile, continuing with positive attitudes, the company that organised the 1989 and 1992 event – whose business involves organising large scale outdoor events such as Proms in the Park – has done a feasibility study. This was paid for by the NFU and Singer Foundation, and found the proposal to be viable. The Royal Parks and Westminster City Council are reported to be “agreeable, indeed enthusiastic, about an event similar to 1989 and 1992.” Factors including security and access, staging and management, traffic and transport, setting up and dismantling, daylight length and weather contingencies, and the dreaded elfinsafety, have all been considered.

Back in 1989, 500,000 was the predicted attendance and it turned out to be 940,000, and next year Farming in the Park are estimating on the cautious side at one million. Given the mainstream position now occupied by food production and its security of supply in the country’s governmental and media consciousness, the FITP proposal also suggests “good media attention both regionally and nationally.” The regional mention here is quite important here because one wouldn’t want this event to be exclusively London-centric, and modern media enable this not to be the case more easily than ever before.

Cost-wise, with fingers crossed that the escalating Olympics model hasn’t been used, an event budget of £3 million is estimated, to be covered by sponsorship and sales. The organisers are seeking farming and industry organisations “with the resources, profile and creativity to portray the farm to fork story and work with others to ensure the result gives visitors [and as many people as possible not there in person but seeing it reported*] a positive and vibrant view of British farming that lasts.” (*Author’s addition)

In addition to sponsors, turning this from dream into reality requires people “with commitment, drive and organisational talent” and the organisers are “keen to hear from anyone who has the necessary resources, skills or contacts.” They offer “an opportunity for individuals and organisations to shine and add immeasurable value to British farming.”

So here’s the deal. For the avoidance of doubt, I currently have no role, formally or informally, with Farming in the Park Ltd, not even as a pro bono volunteer (though this may change…if they’ll have me). It is my view that this event offers companies in farm supply a great opportunity to demonstrate their significant commitment to farmers on whom their business depends for its very existence. For those with deep enough pockets and clear enough vision, a national sponsor’s berth is the obvious and probably easiest option. Others with regional boundaries to their business interests, many feed firms included, might be able to support the counties they cover with local sponsorships.

Alternatively, rather than handing over a big lump of your company’s hard-earned, an easy-payment option could be to make some organisational horsepower available to FITP from your workforce. Long before the event takes place, there would be an ongoing dividend on this investment in the form of professional development, and a significantly expanded contacts book, for those involved. Personally, I’d recommend making one director and one junior member of staff, selected on merit by an open-to-all process, available for up to one day a week each. The rationale and justification for two volunteers is that a director can offer experience and should capture new contacts for the company’s network rather than just their own; and a junior would supply energy in abundance and should gain markedly in personal growth.

Last month, the Institute of Agricultural Engineers (IAgrE) declared their support for the proposal. Quoted in Farmers Guardian, chief executive Chris Whetnall regretted how the gap between farmers and consumers had widened and expressed hope that this could be reversed. “This event will help to educate the general public and showcase how advanced agricultural technology has become and how it is being applied to achieve efficient, sustainable, food production,” he said.

The IAgrE chief also lamented how the Royal Show’s demise had left farmers without a flagship event to show the general public where food came from. Notwithstanding how that event’s confused targeting was arguably a factor in its closure, this column was saying a similar thing four years ago. To recap, under the optimisitic headline ‘Breath of fresh air, one hopes, at RASE’, plaudits were being offered to the Royal Show organiser when they announced successful restaurateur and now BBC Masterchef talisman John Torode as its president-elect. Sadly, he never got to wear the gold chain due, it was said at the time, to other commitments.

At the time though, it was hoped this media-savvy public figure could make his year in office an unprecedented success in the annals of the RASE’s work “promoting rural excellence” as it said on their website at the time. Although his year in office wasn’t due to begin until October, this column hoped he would stick his blender into the 2008 Royal Show and its commitment “to promoting the best of British farming”.

For a start, we suggested he get them to bite the bullet and make the Great British public their one and only target audience for the event. Then, in recognition that the GBP aren’t really interested in farming per se, he could change the Royal’s commitment to “promoting the best of British food”. Another suggestion was to align the event with the incredibly successful BBC Good Food Shows. In addition to the four incarnations at the time (Summer, Scotland, London and Birmingham), this column proposed a fifth one, perhaps called the Good Food and Farming Show, concentrating on where it all comes from.

Back in 2008, this column signed off with: “Of course, such a radical departure would probably require the RASE to give up some of their sovereignty over the existing (and sadly declining) Royal Show. But it’s my belief that the time for this event to move on by quantum leap rather than evolution is at least ten years overdue. The easy view to take would be the cynical one that it will never happen. However, I’d prefer to believe that the appointment of a maverick like Torode might just signify a radical shift in attitude and approach. Well done, RASE, on landing such a good catch. Now let’s see what you can do with him.”

So you read it here first, of course. QED.

PS If you do approach Farming in the Park about getting involved, please mention that you read about it here in Feed Compounder. Thank you.

Vet setting the pace in agribiz customer relations

This article was commissioned and first published by Feed Compounder magazine. Although written for readers in the animal feed trade, I hope it's relevant to others in agribusiness and farming.

The veterinary profession as a whole may not be renowned for setting the pace in managing relationships with customers, but it does have one or two beacons of excellence. A recent conversation with one of these has made me aware for the first time of the Net Promoter Score (NPS) concept.[1] Although a quick Google search finds critics as well as supporters, NPS is genuinely helping drive this practice’s client service towards consistent excellence and may well have uses in the animal feed sector.

As explained by proponent Mike Thorne from FarmVetSolutions in Leicestershire, the concept involves asking customers a single ‘Ultimate Question’ defined by the system’s creator Fred Reichheld: “On a scale of zero to 10, how likely is it that you would recommend [Company X] to a friend or colleague?” where 0 = no chance and 10 = definitely.

Clearly, the question needs asking by someone independent from the company and at least 30 customer responses should be obtained each time it’s done, which is twice yearly in the vet practice’s case. Responses of nines and tens are classified ‘Promoters’; sevens and eights are ‘Passives’;  and the remainder, ‘Dectractors’.

Based on the system’s extensive research base rather than hunch, Promoters are loyal customers, enthusiastic even, who will keep buying as long as product/service quality and value for money are maintained, and the need it satisfies endures. They may also pass on positive word-of-mouth endorsement to others. Passives are unenthusiastic, not particularly loyal and therefore vulnerable to better offers from other suppliers. Detractors are unhappy customers who are probably spreading negative word-of-mouth right now and likely to take their business elsewhere soon. Types of business likely to have lots of Detractors are banks and mobile phone firms, who manage to stay in business largely because of the perceived pain to customers of changing. Those with many Promoters would include Apple, Alfa Romeo and Keenan.

However, much more important than how others fare is putting the system to good use in your own firm. I’ve criticised benchmarking here previously and return to the same theme: The best benchmarks to use are your own targets and aspirations for the business. They can be truly useful for trend spotting, staff alignment and promoting internal change-for-the-better.

This is how our vet friend uses it. The practice gets an independent person to contact a random sample of clients every six months until they have 30 responses. To Detractors and Promoters, they also ask one follow up question and transcribe the responses verbatim. This question is, “That’s quite high/low, can I just ask please why you give that score?”

The Net Promoter Score is simply Promoters minus Detractors. Another user in the UK farm arena is Bill’s Fine Feeds, where the latest results were 40% Promoters, 35% Passives and 25% Detractors, giving a NPS of +15. This is down by five since last time and has already prompted re-training for all staff and directors, together with dual-calling by a director with the reps to all Detractors and Passives to attempt, before it’s too late, a break-out from the mediocrity rut in which the feed supply relationship is clearly stuck.

The targets now at Bill’s Fine Feeds are 25 then 35 in six and 12 months’ time respectively. The NPS system was adopted there because Bill felt it was easy for everyone to understand that they were striving simply to create more Promoters and fewer Detractors as a result of consistently high quality products and service, good value for money and caring, supportive relationships with every customer. “These are much more tangible things than any other customer satisfaction indexes I’ve seen,” says Bill.

Where the system perhaps falls down and attracts its own detractors is in making comparisons between different businesses and sectors. It also may be less relevant to washing powder sales than animal feeds and veterinary services. But within a business like Mr Thorne’s or Bill’s, it’s routine use has value.

Crudely, it can keep staff on their toes. More strategically, it can also be used to align everyone’s efforts in the right direction towards healthy profits (when you make money and strengthen loyalty and goodwill) rather than unhealthy profits (exploiting customers at the expense of goodwill and loyalty)…hence the Apple and banking metaphor.

In a survey of 1,256 UK adults and their buying behaviour, the London School of Economics found that word of mouth advocacy (as measured by NPS) and negative word of mouth were statistically significant predictors of sales growth.[2] It suggests achieving the target of a 20-point increase in NPS at Bill’s Feeds could be worth a 3% increase in annual sales growth. Over and above existing growth in BFF’s £12 million turnover, that’s about £360,000/year of additional sales at negligible increase in overheads. Readers know better than me how much additional gross margin from this is likely to find its way to the bottom line.

Moreover, the LSE boffins also suggest that the NPS arising from asking employees whether they would recommend working for the company to friends, and investors on investing likewise, are predictors of productivity and share performance respectively.

And icing with a cherry on top is that NPS is very low cost and easy to get under way. If you’re interested in more details, look up reference 2.

New knowledge transfer paradigm: A whole brain at a time

For any business or sector of business to remain vibrant, innovative and competitive, dead wood needs to be cleared and replaced with vigorous new growth. In the worlds of hairdressing or fast food take-aways, motor repairs or indeed animal feed supplies, this is a fairly simple matter: Those not good enough to be able to pay their bills go out of business; and the barriers to entry are low enough to allow ambitious start-ups to have a go in their place.

One consequence of this is that knowledge transfer, and the improvement it creates, happens automatically and in the most effective way there is…a whole brain at a time. However, the contrast in farming is illustrated on two facing pages of the 19^th November Farmers Guardian (FG) and couldn’t be more stark.

On page six is a report that the Princes Rural Action Programme to reduce the number of dairy farmers leaving the industry. Put this another way, it seeks to keep current farmers farming, regardless of whether this is deserved, by benchmarking costs through Dairyco’s Milkbench+ service and working with experts to reduce costs and improve performance. All very laudable too, until you see on the facing page a story from the NFU Tenants’ Conference where, according to FG, president Kendall said that for the industry to change with the times, ‘the best people’ were needed to meet the challenge of producing more and impacting less. Dead wood and new growth indeed.

An arguably realistic conclusion is that, with a handful of notable exceptions, farming is more or less a closed shop. A sitting elite (tenants and owner-occupiers alike) is being helped to preserve their occupancy at the expense of potential new entrants…except that some of those in situ are not very elite at all. Why else would the same issue of FG need to carry an article titled “Simple steps to reduce forage, straw and concentrate wastage” containing advice from the first year of a dairy OND course. Moreover, farmers who do want to improve performance can surely avail themselves of Milkbench+ and experts without the help of a ‘programme’.

In a similar vein, the industry has numerous knowledge transfer teams working diligently to push knowledge upon farmers, regardless of whether they want it or can see its merits. How much easier would it be for the industry to open up genuinely to survival of the fittest (actually, I think Darwin said it was adaptability that really mattered rather than fitness)?

Then, as opportunities open up for new entrants to take the places of those no longer adaptable or fit enough to earn their own survival, knowledge transfer can take place automatically, a whole brain at a time. For those who might feel threatened by such competition for places in the industry, it could be a whole lot worse; just spare a thought for corner shop proprietors with a new Bestco Local opening for business in the next street. Now that would test anyone’s survival skills. 

More from Bill’s Fine Feeds: Dirty tricks or legitimate competition?

Meanwhile, there’s actually a bit more to tell about what Bill’s Fine Feeds are up to. In parallel with pulling their own socks up using the NPS system, they’re working on giving rivals some rather tougher competition that they’re used to.

Bill has engaged a specialist agri-trade market research and direct marketing contractor to investigate and define their trading area’s customer base in detail. In addition to establishing livestock types, numbers and production systems by farm location, the project involves finding out who is/are the main feed suppliers. Can you see where this is going yet?

Once this is known, a different contractor is engaged to ask each farm with more than a certain number of livestock the Ultimate Question about their main supplier, then the ‘why?’ follow up. The resulting knowledge means Bill’s sales team is armed to the teeth with a unique insight into their rivals’ customers. They will know which are the Promoters and so can avoid the futility of trying to turn a loyal customer against their preferred supplier, no matter how attractive their 360-cow dairy unit might appear on the surface. Instead, they can target the soft underbelly of their competitors, confident in the knowledge that Detractor customers are not particularly loyal and so should be easier to win over with genuinely high quality and value-for-money products, an excellent service ethic and a supportive and respectful relationship.

Dirty tricks or legitimate competition? Depends on your viewpoint I suspect. Not in doubt is that this may be coming to your region sooner rather than later, if it’s not happening there already.

-ends-

References

---

[1] Mike Thorne, 5 December 2011. Interview with the author. FarmVetSolutions, Uppingham, Leicestershire. Net Promoter, NPS, and Net Promoter Score are trademarks of Satmetrix Systems, Inc., Bain & Company, and Fred Reichheld.

[2] Dr Paul Marsden et al, September 2005. Advocacy Drives Growth. London School of Economics.