 One thing that definitely emerged from what you might call the internet revolution or whatever you want to call it, was how very few really significant innovations seem to emerge from large organisations, even those that had an existing advantage. And a little bit of this might be the innovator's dilemma, that of course in setting up anything disruptive you are competing with yourself. And so it's likely that the organisation is predisposed to kill it. But I don't think that's a full explanation. I think what happens is that large organisations with large chains of command, where everybody has to justify themselves to someone else, are forced into only adopting completely reasonable and logical behaviours. Because everything you do, the most important thing in defending your career, is not that you make good decisions, it's that you make decisions that are easy to defend. And decisions that are easy to defend tend to be both conventional and logical. And I think this particular atmosphere, unless you're very clever in nurturing a skunkworks, or some separate R&D function elsewhere, IBM did this to create the PC. They deliberately created the PC division in Boca Raton in Florida, which was a whole seaboard away from IBM headquarters in Armonk, New York. Unless you do something to create a very, very independent minded entity, that's some distance away from conventional control. What tends to happen is the default to conventional defensive decision making modes prevents you from doing the slightly weird idiosyncratic or counterintuitive things that probably lie behind most major innovations. Well, I think if you're talking about legacy companies, there's a pressure inside legacy companies, particularly in relation to their digital counterparts, because everybody's trying to move from analog or legacy to digital in virtually all industries. And we're our own Western enemy when we try and run our legacy company because we put pressure on the legacy business. And Arianna Huffington has a wonderful phrase. Failure is not the opposite of success, it's the platform to success. And I think she's dead right. What we tend to do is if the legacy part of our business is not performing, we tend to put pressure on it, which then makes it more conservative at a time when it should be more expansive. Going back to your creative question, it's the ability to take risk that is really critically important. If you're taking risk, you reduce that ability to take risk by putting constraints around the business. And if you're a listed company, you promise the street certain targets, and if they don't make it, you put more pressure on the business, so it makes them withdraw. Pure tech businesses or pure digital businesses, probably a little bit different, but I think that's the key. The organization of constraints, the fact that companies most operate in silos, those silos have KPIs built around those silos and they're not built around the whole organization. Also, it's compounded by the fact that very good creative people are often very difficult to deal with. They're good by definition, so they win more often than they lose. And then they think they're right, which is probably true, but the ability to cooperate. I mean, coming back to your question about what makes great creative, I think probably there's also not only coming up with the unusual or the heretical or the impossible or whatever, it's also being willing to listen to other people in other disciplines or in related disciplines in a constructive way. Unfortunately, and in our industry I think it's even more so, people who are good and people who are successful tend to think that they're right and they probably are on balance right, but it's really the real payoffs come from cooperating. When Accenture pays $466 million for whatever they paid at something around that level for Droga 5, the payoff will come if they can really embed that company in their processes and their opportunities, though it's getting the Droga people or the Monkeys or Sena Schrader or Karma Rama or Shackleton to work within the whole.