Let’s file this under the open for discussion category. I have been having discussions of late around disruption theory as it relates to many different parts of the market. There are a number of very important general rules of thumb within disruption theory that are applicable to many markets. The problem is that there are exceptions and more importantly there are situations where it is not applicable.
History in a Vacuum
I’ve read all of what Clayton Christensen has published on the subject. And many of the things he offers in the Innovators Solution point out generally sound observations. This particular one should be of interest.
“The competitive advantage from vertical integration is strongest in tiers of the market where customers are under-served by the functionality or performance available from products in the market. Vertical integration tends to be a disadvantage when customers are over-served by the functionality available from products in the market.
There are a great deal of examples historically to justify this observation. That is why disruption theory works in a very general sense. I would argue, however, that the underlying necessary assumption is that the purchaser of these products is purchasing them with a pragmatic mindset.
In many of the examples always cited within disruption theory the underlying common denominator was a buyer mostly interested in cost using a pragmatic approach to the purchasing cycle, a.k.a trying to find the best deal in order to justify the cost.
I’ll return to this in a moment, but what I’ve concluded my issue with disruption theory is, is that when it was formed there was not a true pure consumer market for personal technology. A failure to understand the incredibly emotional behaviors of mass-market consumers is the common trap most who love to quote disruption theory fall into.
Consumers are Predictably Irrational
I love Dan Ariely’s book Predictably Irrational. I’ve read dozens of behavioral science themed books like it as well. Getting inside the mass market consumer psyche is truly an art form. It is one most companies truly fail to grasp. It is also something most disruption theory fundamentalists have a hard time comprehending.
The idea of a product being “good enough” is a very nuanced discussion. With regard to appliances in consumer markets it is perfectly applicable. When I shop for a refrigerator or a toaster oven, I do so with a very pragmatic approach. I try to find the best deal to meet my needs. Appliances, however, are not personal decisions. The kind of clothes I buy, the kind of food I eat, the kind of car I drive, these are all personal decisions and ones where price often falls lower on the totem pole of priorities. The more personal the the product, meaning one wrought with personal preference, the greater the challenge to use traditional disruption theory is to apply.
Products that are more personal by nature actually disrupt disruption theory. Smartphones, and tablets to a degree, are personal decisions and for the masses the common understanding of a pragmatic approach needed to justify disruption theory are flipped on its head. Personal decisions turn ‘good enough’ into a relative and entirely subjective term. [pullquote]This mindset of personal choice and personal preference has not been present until recently in computing[/pullquote]
This mindset of personal choice and personal preference has not been present until recently in computing. And I would argue no device in the market today or for the foreseeable future is more wrought with personal preference than the smartphone. When personal preference exists value becomes subjective. When value becomes subjective it presents a great challenge to predict when or if something is good enough.
But there is one common denominator in the markets where personal preference and behavioral quirks influence consumer decisions significantly more than just price–differentiation.
The Value of Differentiation
It seems hard to put a value on differentiation. In fact, it seems hard to put a value on many intangible benefits. For example, how much is a product worth over a competitors that comes with superior customer service? The root of that question is actually how much is peace of mind worth? I’ve long argued that familiarity is a feature. How much is familiarity worth? How much is ease of use worth? How much is convenience worth? How much is an experience worth?
All of these things are hard to place a distinct value on. But how the mass market consumer perceives value varies. They simply don’t all value the same thing and in many segments, in every consumer segment, you can find examples where price is not the driving factor.
This is what stumps so many disruption theorists with regards to Apple. Apple is the poster child for disruption theorists who are convinced their future is in jeopardy.
Disruption theorists have a hard time understanding Apple in the same way they have a hard time understanding how the mass market perceives value. When I discuss this with behavioral scientists they have a much more holistic understanding of what value means to the mass market and have many of the same issues with disruption theory and how it seems to be applied to the mass market.
The mass market values differentiation. Apple can differentiate its hardware. It does so all the way from inside out. Apple can also differentiate its software. iOS can be found on no competing products. iOS is found valuable enough by the mass market to nearly crash Apple’s servers and driving downloading the update to become more than 15% of total peak time North American traffic from one provider. iOS is found valuable enough to become the industries fastest operating system transition in our history. The Apple experience is unique and it stands out from the sea of sameness.
The simple and foundational truth is that it is much easier to understand when a product is ‘over-serving’ or ‘under-serving’ when all buyers approach the process from a pragmatic standpoint. Consumers are not pragmatic. They more often than not enter the buying process with a much more emotional driven mindset than a pragmatic one. Disruption theory was never designed to address pure consumer markets with highly emotional buyers.
“Value”, as defined by markets is hugely influenced by behavioral quirks. Any definition of “over-served” that does not take this into account does not actually know the true meaning of “served” and therefore cannot know the true meaning of over serving a market. ((John Kirk gave me this line))
A lot has changed since Adam Smith proposed the theory of supply and demand. Just because alterations have been made doesn’t mean it is any less valid. Disruption theory is valid and useful in the market. However to be relevant to speak to and apply to consumer markets, it needs to be refined to include the practices of behavioral economics.
If this subject is of interest. I strongly recommend also reading Ben Thompsons article on Stratechery called ‘What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong.’ It will come as no surprise that I agree with him 100%.
Computing is no longer generic. It has shifted to personal in a way unseen before in this industry. This is key to understand where personal computing goes from here and who the winners and losers will be.
When I hear “disruption theorist” I guess I normally think of Horace Dediu of Asymco, since that is where I first heard about it and continue to read about it. But I guess Horace also has his differences with his mentor Christiansen (I believe that is how he views him in some ways).
“This is what stumps so many disruption theorists with regards to Apple. Apple is the poster child for disruption theorists who are convinced their future is in jeopardy.”
OK, so am I right that both you and Horace seem to disagree with “disruption theorists who who are convinced their future is in jeopardy”? — that neither of you think Apple’s future is particularly in jeopardy?
Apparently “classic disruption theory” views Apple as being in a very tenuous position even though we always think of Apple as the “great disruptor”?
Perhaps you are both coming at this from different angles, but with similar conclusions (about Apple’s future not being particularly in jeopardy). Horace is presenting Apple as the “serial disruptor” as a company that is somewhat (perhaps uniquely) immune to the “natural forces of disruption” that Apple should be facing whenever its products begin to “overserve”; rather, Apple at that point begins to somehow consciously disrupt itself. While you think that the whole notion of “overserving” needs to be looked at in the light of irrational consumers making highly personal decisions?
The interesting thing to me is that Disruption Theory seems to (be used to) explain both Apple’s success, and the very reason that Wallstreet and pundits have no confidence in Apple whatsoever — they somehow think that Apple’s businesses are perpetually at risk of disruption by others along every line of its business disproportionately more than Apple’s competitors are at risk from any form of disruption! Somehow, being innovative and creating the best product you possibly can is a sure-fire recipe for getting disrupted; and everyone else’s strategy somehow puts them in the driver’s seat.
Thanks for making it even more interesting by bringing the consumer mindset into it. All this, and Horace’s quest to quantify Apple’s traits and playbook, makes this subject extremely fascinating.
1) I have little faith in anyone predicting company X to be disrupted for sure. If disruption could be so easily predicted by a theory, there would be a lot less of it, because measures could and would be taken against it.
2) I agree, that even if mobile hardware becomes a commoditized, low margin affair like with PCs, it fails to take into account the intangibles that Apple is monetizing, and that users are clearly willing to pay for.
There are many aspects to this. One of the many things that I find Apple does better than its competitors, is simple and consistent product-naming: Apple would never name a laptop the “HP Pavilion TouchSmart 14z-f000 Sleekbook”, and have fifteen different (and confusingly named) versions of comparable products. When you use the words “MacBook Air” and “iPad” you use words that are part of the language, and that conveys meaningful information to other people. You don’t need a HP Procuct guide to translate the code into human language.
That is simply an amazing advantage: When Apple invests in improving a product, it not only invests in said product, it invests in the name of all future iterations of that product line. HP has no such advantage because of their own opaque product naming scheme.
Asus and Google is doing some af the same with the Nexus line of tablets. When they made the second revision of the Nexus 7 tablet, they improved on the product without renaming it. And if they do that a couple of times, maybe the sentence “it’s a Nexus” will have the same high signal-to-noise ratio as the sentence “it’s an iPad”. Nexus could then be to small tablets what Nescafe is to instant coffee or Xerox used to be to photocopiers.
3) A counter-argument could be that Apple has already been disrupted by Android outside of the US, and that Apple could slide to 15-20% market-share in the US if carrier subsidization schemes were be rolled back. Apples products intangibles are valuable to consumers. But it appears that with more transparent pricing only around one fifth of buyers are willing to pay the full markup that Apple is demanding. At least outside the US, where the mean purchasing power is often less.
“If disruption could be so easily predicted by a theory, there would be a lot less of it, because measures could and would be taken against it.” – Anders CT
Well, Disruption is a Dilemma, not a simple diagnosis. The problem is that there is no solution to the problem – It’s a dilemma, not a simple error in a CEO’s reasoning.
Uhm, like Microsoft having to choose between OS-license fees or market-share? Knowing that forgoing either one would harm its bottom line?
Yes, the obvious solution is to go for the money, but then you cut off your future avenues of growth. If you focus on long-term growth, you leave money on the table which is anathema to investors and runs counter to common sense.
All companies are, and should be, subject to disruption. That’s the beauty of capitalism. There is always a challenge ready to overthrow the incumbent.
But if you’re the incumbent, you want to survive. And in order to survive, you need to do things that may appear crazy – such as cannibalizing, instead of defending, your existing successful products.
“If you focus on long-term growth, you leave money on the table which is anathema to investors and runs counter to common sense.” – John Kirk
Survival is the ultimate rational decision. I’d posit that any decision that places short-term benefit over long-term health is irrational, which is why I view “disruption” as a false dilemma. This isn’t like evolution in which an organism is limited by its genetics. Companies are comprised of systems which should be adaptable.
That being stated, I do think true disruption happens, just much more rarely than most people think.
“But if you’re the incumbent, you want to survive. And in order to
survive, you need to do things that may appear crazy – such as
cannibalizing, instead of defending, your existing successful products.”
Exactly, and there is nothing crazy about that. Change is inevitable. What’s irrational is any expectation that people shouldn’t alter when that change is apparent. If you aren’t changing, you’re dying.
“I’d posit that any decision that places short-term benefit over long-term health is irrational”
I’d posit that experience has demonstrated that very few people or companies can think past the short term pain to long-term gain.
Your statement is absolutely true. But is it rational? Definitely not from a logical sense.
What is part of the dilemma is to assume that logic is somehow solely rational. Or put another way, it is illogical to assume people will act “rationally”, or sans irrational proclivities.
Joe
Then, in the end, we still have to attribute “disruption” largely as a failure of competence or character rather than a simple inevitability. That was basically my point.
Except this, “I’d posit that any decision that places short-term benefit over long-term health is irrational”, is now totally rational.
Joe
Actually not. The point to which I agreed was that logic may not be solely rational. That is, a person can make a logical decision that isn’t rational. Your statement isn’t related to my original premise. It is still very much irrational to place short-term benefit over long-term health. Whether it is based on logic is moot. It still represents a failure of judgment.
“is it rational?” – James King
No, it’s not rational. And that’s the whole point. People are emotional beings, not rational beings, their human beings, not robots.
I don’t think I denied that. My point is that a lot of what analysts are attributing to “disruption” is actually failures in judgment. Whether a CEO is fallible or not isn’t the point, I think that goes without saying. But CEOs are paid to exhibit good judgment when running a company. When their companies fail, the failure should rightfully fall squarely on their shoulders. They are the ultimate authorities in organizations; they set the tone at all levels, from competence to corporate culture. Most importantly, many of them are compensated extremely large sums of money for the privilege. To attribute failures in judgment simply to disruption absolves CEOs of accountability. Much of the times (I’d say MOST of the times) companies are destroyed through arrogance and greed. I think the CEO holds much of that responsibility.
Is this debatable? Absolutely. I understand we don’t live in an ideal world. But actions have consequences. A person who commits a cold-blooded murder isn’t absolved just because he may have had a traumatic childhood. To claim that CEOs face extenuating circumstances is a circular position.
To clarify and reiterate, I do believe that “disruption” is a real phenomenon. But I think it happens very rarely in actuality. Much of the corporate failure I see, especially in technology, comes from people who have more than enough information and resources to make better decisions yet do not. It’s a simplification to state that we have no idea what these CEOs face… that’s the case with ANYONE. We can’t absolve people of their responsibilities simply because we may not understand their particular circumstances. Most people are not paid large sums of money to deal with their challenges. CEOs generally are. They have a privileged position in society. The should be held in the most account, not the least.
Right? Just look at how many people avoid the dentist.
Joe
“Companies are comprised of systems which should be adaptable.”
I assume you do not work for a big company. Many are in fact comprised of systems which are inherently not adaptable. Many of the failures given to illustrate disruption theory can also be explained by a company’s inability to adapt quickly.
Right. The very notion of a system steeped in Modernity is not to adapt, but enforce. So much so that the system becomes more important than what it was created to support.
Joe
I don’t see how this changes my point. It’s like blaming the problem for the problem.
Some companies simpy do not have what it takes to adapt or to adapt quickly enough. Going back to your statement about short term benefit vs long term health, the problem is that it is not always possible to know what is best long term when you are making decisions. Look at Nokia: they stuck with keyboards and did not heavily pursue full screen touch devices because all of their research and polling told them to stick with keyboards. By time the market shifted and preferences changed, they were able to adapt quickly enough.
“… it is not always possible to know what is best long term when you are making decisions.” – DarwinPhish
I can only agree with this point on principle. But the facts don’t support this in the case of Apple’s competitors.
“Look at Nokia: they stuck with keyboards and did not heavily pursue full screen touch devices…” – DarwinPhish
Nokia had a working prototype of a phone very similar to the iPhone in its labs before the iPhone was introduced. Even if you make the argument that Symbian was no match for iOS, there were various Linux-based mobile operating systems that could have served as the foundation for a more robust operating system. For that matter, Nokia could have purchased Palm. Nokia could have acted as a fast follower and been one of the first to adopt Android. The iPhone pretty much took off immediately; it was obvious within the first two years that it was a viable product, more than enough time to develop a strategy to counter. Android was originally started as a Blackberry competitor and was revamped to compete with the iPhone in about a year.
In my opinion, Nokia was a victim of Confirmation Bias. That’s a flaw in reasoning, not an insurmountable circumstance.
I had to edit my last point to say “not able to adapt”.
“Nokia could have acted as a fast follower”. Yes, but they did not. Neither did Blackberry, Microsoft nor HP (with Palm). Changing course quickly is not easy and their actions only really appear to be slow in hindsight. Going back to Nokia, they had a plan to move from Symbian to MeeGo and they had plans to introduce touch only devices. But the timing of their plans were upset by Apple, Google and Samsung. If the iPhone had flopped because Apple rushed the product and Nokia had more time, Nokia would probably have been lauded for taking a more more time.
Finally, the idea that “two years… [is]…more than enough time to develop a strategy to counter” is ludicrous. Coming up with a new strategy AND implementing it can take a long time and is very company specific. Hence my original statement, “Many of the failures given to illustrate disruption theory can also be explained by a company’s inability to adapt quickly.” Adapting quickly is very, very hard and very, very rare. At best, if you are lucky or resources in reserve, you can get more time.
“”Nokia could have acted as a fast follower”. Yes, but they did not.” – DarwinPhish
That doesn’t change the fact that they could have. As I stated before, none faced insurmountable circumstances. All had the benefit of knowledge, time, resources and opportunity. That isn’t “disruption,” that is failure, plain and simple.
“Finally, the idea that “two years… [is]…more than enough time to develop a strategy to counter” is ludicrous. Coming up with a new strategy AND implementing it can take a long time and is very company specific.” – DarwinPhish
Or it cannot. So you are back to blaming the problem for the problem.
“Hence my original statement, “Many of the failures given to illustrate disruption theory can also be explained by a company’s inability to adapt quickly.” Adapting quickly is very, very hard and very, very rare. At best, if you are lucky or resources in reserve, you can get more time.” – DarwinPhish
This is a circular statement. Adaption is part of life and part of business. If an inability to adapt is structural, who is responsible? These systems don’t build themselves. They are generally failures of judgment and failures of implementation. “Disruption” is being used as a catch-all excuse. What is “ludicrous” is giving the people responsible for making the tough decisions a pass when they don’t have the competence or courage to make them. Then “disruption” becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Read everything I wrote, especially the word “quickly” after “adapting”. Never do I say companies can not adapt. I am simply stating that when markets change, companies need to adapt QUICKLY. If they do not, they will most very likely fail.
Disruption Theory, or more specifically the Innovators Dilemma, gives one possible explanation why companies do not act quickly enough.To some extent , I agree with you — some do use the Innovators Dilemma as an excuse for why head’s of companies failed to react quickly. However, there are other explanations for why companies move slowly, many of which are not very complimentary to CEO’s. My point was to focus on the fact these companies acted too slowly not that they were Disrupted.
“My point was to focus on the fact these companies acted too slowly not that they were Disrupted.” – DarwinPhish
Agree.
Ben and I had a long discussion on this before he posted this article. Where we disagree is that I don’t think that the theory is incorrect, I think it is being applied incorrectly.
The idea is that when one company is over-serving the market, a low-end disruptor will come in with a product that 1) Doesn’t meet the needs of the high-end customers of the incumbent, 2) Does meet the unmet needs of a new, previously undiscovered customer base, and 3) is a “good enough” solution for the vast majority of the incumbent’s current clients.
The key here is determining what is “good enough”. Many people view that term from a business perspective or a from purely logical perspective. In the end, many people simply reduce it to a matter of cost. If Product X is doing 80% of what product Y is doing for half the cost, then that’s clearly good enough, right?
Wrong. Cost is only a part of value. Thus, Oscar Wilde’s famous quote that cynics know the price of everything and the value of nothing. As Ben said in his article, people are “Predictably Irrational.” We must not judge “good enough” by purely rational or business reasons because that’s not how consumers think. “Good Enough” contains a huge emotional component too.
The term “low-end disruptor” has become synonymous with “low-COST disruptor.” This is a grievous mistake. A “low-end disruptor” must have low cost AND high value – and value is defined by the emotional needs of the consumer, not by the dictates of investors, analysts, pundits and blog writers like me. 🙂
I think it was Ben Thompson on Stratechery who pointed out that the unique thing about Apple is that they are focused primarily on user satisfaction and delight, on making technology easy and fun to use. And there is no such thing as “overserving” in the realm of customer satisfaction.
It should come at no surprise that Ben and I agree entirely on this one 😉
Assuming Ben Bajarin is accurate in his assessment, wouldn’t Apple actually be in a VERY precarious position?
“It seems hard to put a value on differentiation. In fact, it seems hard to put a value on many intangible benefits.” – Ben Bajarin
Then what exactly is Apple selling and why do consumers place such high value on it? If it is all a matter of perception, then what advantages does Apple bring to the table that couldn’t be duplicated by a competitor? I don’t think it is reasonable to think Apple won’t be disrupted just because it is Apple.
“The simple and foundational truth is that it is much easier to understand when a product is ‘over-serving’ or ‘under-serving’ when all buyers approach the process from a pragmatic standpoint. Consumers are not pragmatic. They more often than not enter the buying process with a much more emotional driven mindset than a pragmatic one. Disruption theory was never designed to address pure consumer markets with highly emotional buyers.” – Ben Bajarin
I think this is the VERY reason financial (and some tech) analysts believe Apple is “doomed.” How can you sustain growth on the capriciousness of an irrational public? That type of reality should leave Apple’s corporate leadership in a state of terror.
The reality is that Apple has mastered the science of creating that “emotional” reaction in consumers. If I had to guess, Apple’s research in human factors is probably far and away more sophisticated than any of its competitors. The reality is that, for all we value our unique perception, we all process information via our senses in pretty much the same way. For instance, the color “red” uniformly inspires more assertiveness and aggression, “blue” inspires more calm and thoughfulness. In other words, with rare exception, our brains work very much in the same way. Apple designs its products literally to “please” us, in the sense that pretty much every aspect of them is designed to either be completely predictable or actually inspire positive emotion through sensory data. We are actually being “brainwashed,” which can either a positive or negative from your point of view.
This point is exactly the paradox. Wall St. can not comprehend the value the mass market puts on the Apple experience. Since they themselves can’t comprehend the value they have a hard time using that as a measurement. They will always be surprised in this regard, all the while the consumer is not. It makes sense to consumers but not to Wall St.
But the point I make is that consumers do value these things and the entirety of the experience. It is not measurable but that is what makes it sticky and desirable.
I’d argue that consumers don’t really understand it either, it is just easier for them to accept because they can’t make a fortune betting against it. I don’t think consumers really understand what it is about Apple products that make them so pleasant to use. They don’t get that they are designed for how our brains and senses actually work.
As for Wall Street and some tech analysts, the focus is on quantitative data because it is easier to understand. I can’t blame them in that regard but it won’t help them understand Apple.
“But the point I make is that consumers do value these things and the entirety of the experience. It is not measurable but that is what makes it sticky and desirable.” Ben Bajarin
It is the very fact that it IS measurable that gives Apple its unique advantage. Apple’s institutional knowledge of the science related to human factors is probably unparalleled in the tech industry.
“I’d argue that consumers don’t really understand it either”
I’d argue that consumers are VERY good at knowing what they want – they’re just not good at articulating their true reasons for wanting it.
Little bit of a straw man here. I don’t question whether people know what they want, I state that they may not understand why that is the case.
Yes, he tried to sneak in a straw man. Well spotted.
James King, yes Falkirk tried to sneak in a straw man, well spotted.
” I state that they may not understand why that is the case.”
I thought I said the same and if I didn’t, I apologize for that is exactly what I meant.
Same day as Thompson’s article.
Low end disruption and orthogonal businesses/products are often very hard to identify correctly. Christensen later admitted he was wrong about the iPhone because he thought it was a high end phone. It was really a low end mobile computer.
http://daringfireball.net/2012/07/iphone_disruption_five_years_in
Disruption works best if it is employed with great marketing design, impeccable timing and a growing distaste to the status quo. Plain and simple.
For years past, Microsoft has been tinkering with touch and tablets long before Steve launched the idevices but failed because 1. They did not have a a great marketing design 2. Timing was not good enough and 3. Everyone was growing distasteful with MS monopoly – End result of which was failure to disrupt for Microsoft.
Thanks again for the blog.
Hi techpinions.com admin, Your posts are always well structured and easy to follow.
I do agree with all of the concepts you’ve presented for your post. They are very convincing and will certainly work. Nonetheless, the posts are too brief for beginners. May you please extend them a little from next time? Thanks for the post.
Flott innlegg. Artikler som har betydelige samt informativt innhold er mye mer tilfredsstillende.
Thanks again for the post.Really thank you! Awesome.
Thank you for great content. I look forward to the continuation.
Great, thanks for sharing this blog post. Really Cool.
Wow that was strange. I just wrote an extremely long comment but afterI clicked submit my comment didn’t appear.Grrrr… well I’m not writing all that over again. Anyway,just wanted to say superb blog!
I don’t even understand how I ended up here, however I thought this put up used to be good. I don’t realize who you are however definitely you are going to a famous blogger should you aren’t already. Cheers!
Hi my family member! I wish to say that this article is amazing, great written and include almost all significant infos. I would like to peer extra posts like this .
Fantastic blog post. Great.
Very good article.Thanks Again. Awesome.
Aw, this was a really good post. Taking the time and actual effort to make a goodarticle? but what can I say? I put things off a lotand don’t manage to get anything done.My blog post – showhorsegallery.com
Hi there! This post could not be written any better! Reading through this post reminds me of my good old room mate! He always kept talking about this. I will forward this article to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Thank you for sharing!
Say, you got a nice blog post.Really looking forward to read more. Fantastic.
I’m extremely impressed with your writing skills and also with the layout on your blog. Is this a paid theme or did you customize it yourself? Anyway keep up the nice quality writing, it抯 rare to see a great blog like this one today..
Really appreciate you sharing this blog.Thanks Again. Much obliged.
I value the article post.Really thank you! Really Cool.
I really liked your article post.Really looking forward to read more. Great.
I have not checked in here for a while since I thought it was getting boring, but the last few posts are great quality so I guess I will add you back to my everyday bloglist. You deserve it my friend
Very informative blog. Awesome.
What’s up, just wanted to say, I loved thisblog post. It was funny. Keep on posting!Take a look at my blog post: find more information
Hey, thanks for the post.Much thanks again.
Thanks for this post. I definitely agree with what you are saying. I have been talking about this subject a lot lately with my mother so hopefully this will get him to see my point of view. Fingers crossed!Learn More Here
Tremendous issues here. I am very satisfied to look your post.Thanks a lot and I’m taking a look forward to touch you. Will you please dropme a e-mail?
I am so grateful for your article post.Really thank you! Awesome.
Amazing! Its in fact remarkable piece of writing, I have got much clear idea on the topic of from this piece of writing.
A fascinating discussion is worth comment. I believe that you need to publish more about this subject matter, it may not be a taboo subject but generally people don’t talk about such subjects. To the next! Kind regards!!
I really like your writing style, superb info, thanks for posting :D. “Your central self is totally untouched By grief, confusion, desperation.” by Vernon Howard.
Hey, thanks for the post.Really looking forward to read more. Really Great.
WOW just what I was searching for. Came here by searching for tỷ lệcược
¿Qué son esos puntos oscuros en la boca de un perro, de todos modos?
I just like the valuable information you provide in your articles.I’ll bookmark your blog and take a look at again righthere regularly. I’m reasonably sure I will learn a lot of new stuff right right here!Best of luck for the next!
Excellent post. I was checking constantly this blog and I am impressed! Extremely helpful info specifically the last part I care for such information much. I was seeking this certain information for a long time. Thank you and best of luck.
This is nicely expressed. .community service college essayhomework hotline
Cami Avize fiyatları, cami avize modelleri ve cami avize çeşitleri burada! Tıkla, en ucuz cami avize seçenekleri uygun fiyatlarla ayağına gelsin. Cami avizesi
Hey baby … my name is Adele Estudiantes UAEM participaron en Segundo Parlamento Juvenil de Mexico 2018 Do you want me to say in all languages ??of the world how beautiful you are?
Good facts. With thanks!online essay service essay writing services best custom writing
pc games for windows 10[…]Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine a couple of unrelated information, nonetheless seriously really worth taking a look, whoa did one particular understand about Mid East has got more problerms as well […]
With thanks, A good amount of forum posts! writing a good essay write my essay dissertation report
Your story-telling style is awesome, keep up the good work!
F*ckin’ amazing issues here. I’m very glad to look your article. Thank you a lot and i’m looking forward to touch you. Will you kindly drop me a mail?
Hi, where can I subscribe to your blog? I like it, thanksCu
dissertation writing service dissertation project
Hulqii – finasteride generic Bwqrhz bzurrf
wow, awesome post.Much thanks again. Really Great.
Im thankful for the article post. Fantastic.
Papaz Büyüsü 20 Nov, 2021 at 7:24 am Awesome blog article.Really looking forward to read more. Really Great.!!!!
Hello! I’m at work surfing around your blog from my new apple iphone! Just wanted to say I love reading your blog and look forward to all your posts! Keep up the superb work!
You might want to take a look at the first installment of this story if you’retotally new to internet radio.
Your article has proven useful to me. Nice read. Your article has proven useful to me. Interesting content.
Hi! This is my first visit to your blog! We are a collection of volunteers and starting a new initiative in a community in the same niche. Your blog provided us useful information to work on. You have done a marvellous job!
Fine way of explaining, and nice piece of writing to get facts about my presentation topic, which i am going to present in academy.
This is my first time pay a visit at here and i am really pleassant to read all at one place.
Very funny pictures dapoxetine in pakistan The space agency reported over the weekend that the reaction wheels on its Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) were successfully brought back on-line and the spacecraft operating well.
Dead composed content material, Really enjoyed looking at.my blog :: omega 3 rich foods
Wow! This could be one particular of the most beneficial blogs We’ve ever arrive across on this subject. Actually Wonderful. I’m also an expert in this topic so I can understand your effort.
I appreciate you sharing this blog post. Thanks Again. Cool.
I truly appreciate this blog article. Really Cool.
To the techpinions.com admin, You always provide useful links and resources.
Looking forward to reading more. Great article.Really thank you! Want more.
Hey there! I’m at work surfing around your blog from my new apple iphone!Just wanted to say I love reading your blog and look forward to all yourposts! Keep up the superb work!
Really informative article post.Really looking forward to read more.
whoah this blog is fantastic i love readingyour posts. Stay up the great work! You know, a lot ofpeople are hunting round for this information, you can aid them greatly.
A fascinating discussion is worth comment. I do believe that you ought to write more about this subject, it may not be a taboo subject but usually people do not talk about these issues. To the next! Kind regards!!
Great article.Really thank you! Will read on…
Hi there mates, fastidious post and nice arguments commented at this place, I am actually enjoying by these.
I am in fact delighted to glance at this blog posts whichconsists of tons of valuable information, thanks for providing such information.
discount stromectol ivermectin dosage humans
I want to to thank you for this fantastic read!! I absolutely loved every little bit of it. I have you book-marked to check out new stuff you post…
These are really enormous ideas in concerning blogging.You have touched some fastidious things here. Any way keep up wrinting.
Incredible! This blog looks just like my old one! It’s on a completely different topic but it has pretty much the same layout and design. Superb choice of colors!
Where are you from? amberoz tablet Mr Brookes told BBC News that after intervention by local MP Meg Hillier, the Home Office requested a meeting to advise management on what measures were needed to improve their systems and “be deemed good again”.
Thank you for some other wonderful article. Where else couldanyone get that type of info in such a perfectapproach of writing? I’ve a presentation subsequent week, and I’m on the search for such information.
Itís difficult to find experienced people in this particular topic, however, you seem like you know what youíre talking about! Thanks
Hi there, its pleasant piece of writing on the topic of media print, we all be aware of media is a wonderful source of facts.
I do not even understand how I stopped up right here, however Iassumed this submit was great. I don’t know who you might be but definitely you’regoing to a well-known blogger for those who are not already.Cheers!
Great post. I was checking constantly this blog and I’m impressed! Extremely helpful info specially the last part I care for such info much. I was seeking this certain info for a long time. Thank you and best of luck.
Major thanks for the blog post.Much thanks again. Much obliged.
Appreciate you sharing, great blog post.Much thanks again. Much obliged.
Thanks for the article.Thanks Again. Awesome.
Hey, thanks for the article post.Thanks Again. Really Cool.
Thank you for your article.Really thank you! Really Great.
Hey There. I discovered your blog the usage of msn. This is a really smartly written article. I will make sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of your useful information. Thank you for the post. I’ll certainly return.
I am not sure where you are getting your info, but good topic.I needs to spend some time learning much more or understanding more.Thanks for great info I was looking for this info for my mission.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on blog. Regards
continuously i used to read smaller posts whichas well clear their motive, and that is also happening with this article which I am readingat this time.
You can certainly see your enthusiasm in the work you write. The world hopes for even more passionate writers like you who aren’t afraid to say how they believe. Always follow your heart.
I am not sure where you are getting your information, but good topic. I must spend a while learning more or working out more. Thanks for excellent info I was searching for this info for my mission.
Nice replies in return of this query with solid arguments and describing the whole thingconcerning that.
I value the blog.Really thank you! Really Great.
Fine way of telling, and pleasant articleto obtain information on the topic of my presentation subject matter, which i am going to present in institution of highereducation.
pay to write essaywriting narrative essayadmission essay writing
Major thankies for the blog article.Really looking forward to read more. Great.
Greetings! Very useful advice in this particular post!It’s the little changes that make the most significant changes.Thanks a lot for sharing!
Very neat blog article.Really looking forward to read more. Fantastic.
Thanks-a-mundo for the article.Really thank you! Awesome.
It is really a great and useful piece of information. I am satisfied thatyou simply shared this useful information with us.Please kkeep us informed like this. Thank youfor sharing.
I cannot thank you enough for the blog article.Really thank you! Fantastic.
I appreciate you sharing this blog post. Thanks Again. Cool.
I am so grateful for your blog post.Really thank you!
This is one awesome post. Will read on…
I really enjoy the blog post.Really looking forward to read more. Fantastic.
Awesome blog. Really Great.
ivermectin rx ivermectin 10 ml – ivermectin generic cream
Really appreciate you sharing this post.Really thank you! Really Great.
Let me know Vape Depot vape store in 9501 W Peoria Ave #108 offers vape juice manufactured by Big Boowie’s Home Brew? I have tried sending them an email at at magnoliavapes@gmail.com
Whoa tons of amazing data!custom essay writing services writing paper help best resume writing services nj
I do accept as true with all the ideas you’ve offered in your post.They’re really convincing and will definitely work. Still, the posts are verybrief for newbies. May just you please prolong them a little from next time?Thank you for the post.
Very neat blog.Really looking forward to read more. Really Great.
Asking questions are genuinely fastidious thing if you arenot understanding anything entirely, except this paragraph provides fastidious understanding yet.
At this time it looks like Expression Engine is the best blogging platform available right now.(from what I’ve read) Is that what you are using on your blog?
academy park apartments rentberry scam ico 30m$ raised doral view apartments
Appreciate you sharing, great blog post.Much thanks again. Really Great.
Really informative blog.Much thanks again. Great.
Itís difficult to find educated people in this particular subject, however, you sound like you know what youíre talking about! Thanks
Thanks again for the blog post.Really thank you! Awesome.
Thank you for your blog.Really thank you! Keep writing.
Thanks on your marvelous posting! I seriously enjoyed reading it, you could be a great author.I will make sure to bookmark your blog and will come back sometime soon. I want to encourage you to continue your great posts, have a nice day!
Hey, thanks for the post. Great.
Thanks for sharing, this is a fantastic post. Want more.
I appreciate you sharing this blog post.Thanks Again.
Hey, thanks for the article.Really thank you! Fantastic.
Im thankful for the blog.Really looking forward to read more. Will read on…