Archive for the 'Hot Issues' Category

Someone (let’s call her Rachel*) asked for my advice about Facebook friending etiquette the other day. We are both friends in the real world (an old Uni pal) and we are also friends of Facebook. Rachel, who is an internet newbie who stays mainly on Facebook, had received a “friend” request from a business colleague of her husband’s.

Rachel told me, “I don’t know what to do. I use Facebook for my close friends and family and this lady is nice but she’s - well - a business contact. If I accepted, she’d be the only non- “real friend”. And I use Facebook for, you know, personal stuff that only friends and family would be interested in. But I don’t want to be rude.”

This is a dilemma I’ve come across a number of times.

With people you don’t know at all who just came across your profile on Facebook and try to “friend” you because their aim is to reach, like, wow, 1,000 friends, man - you just ignore them. That’s easy.

With friends who are your real-life friends ie you know them in the real world and they actually are your friends in that sense of the word, that’s easy too - you accept them.

It’s these in-betweeny people who are your acquaintances or business colleagues or someone you met at a party and spoke to for five minutes - what do you do about them? For me, my Facebook profile and all my public online presences are part of who I am in public and relate to my profession as a writer and social media specialist so if the person fits with that public me, then I accept them. For private personal connections, I maintain private spaces eg for family photos and videos.

For Rachel and many others like her, her presence online is not part of a public, business-related presence and she’s just having some fun with friends and family. This is where privacy settings and more “un-friendly” conduct becomes necessary - and is quite legitimate. I suggested that she explain to her husband’s business colleague that she uses Facebook for family and close, personal friends only and if she’s worried about the colleague taking it the wrong way, to make sure she knows that Rachel can be friendly in other ways that work better for the nature of the business relationship.

As we live more and more of our lives online, privacy issues are going to become more and more relevant. At the moment, there are no rules of etiquette for social interactions online and generally, what we’ve been using in the real world works too online. But new etiquette is bound to evolve as new issues and circumstances arise. In a case like this, it’s a matter for Rachel to find a way to best negotiate who she friends and what personal information she shares online - but it’s also a matter for the business colleague to respect the privacy of the person who does not wish to “friend” her online (although Rachel may be comfortable meeting her from time to time in the appropriate business setting).

So, Rachel didn’t accept the friend request. What do you think? Would you have friended this colleague anyway?

*not her real name

Photo: thanks to jennybento from flickr.com

I wrote about the dangers of the omnipresent mobile phone camera last week in my post “Losing Control”. In the same week, a video posted on YouTube.com shows a cop in Baltimore losing it with a teenager, physically manhandling the kid without good cause and abusing him verbally in an intimidating and vicious manner. The kid’s offence? Calling the officer “dude” instead of “Officer” seemed to be the trigger.

Watch the video and be appalled.

Officer Salvatore Rivieri was suspended several days after the video hit YouTube, according to the Baltimore Sun.

In cases such as these, when bullies are caught red-handed and red-faced on camera - particularly those who are in positions of trust and authority - it can only be a good thing. However, as the Baltimore Sun report says, we do not know what took place before or after the recording so caution and proper investigation is always needed in these cases.

Last week the IABC’s* EuroComm Conference 2008 took place in Barcelona, where I chaired the plenary panel discussion on social media. I was joined by co-panellists Giles Colborne of cxpartners, a web usability expert, and Marc Wright of simply-communicate.com, an internal communications specialist. We had a really good session, which was primarily the result of great comments and challenges from the 80 or so business communicators taking part in the session. I just want to focus here on one issue that emerged from the discussions, which I think reflects the main concern of businesses around social media: control.

When we asked the delegates what was preventing their businesses engaging in the social media, the main reason appeared to be an anxiety about losing control. If you have a blog or social network space, people can come and leave negative comments. If you allow your employees to use social media for internal communications, they could spread seeds of discontent internally. Social media tools also make it easier for staff to leak your internal discussions externally. If you offer spaces for user-generated content, you can lose control of the content and message.

But we also discussed how control is an illusion in the brave new world of social media. There could be people out there already expressing negative views about your business or brand on other social media spaces even if you don’t have a business presence on the blogosphere. Your staff are already able to sign up to Facebook or set up their own blogs at home, even if you block them at work. Leaks occur with email as easily as via any other internet or intranet tool. Someone could be filming you or any of your executives with their mobile phone camera even now, capturing your pratfall or offguard comment to be served up on YouTube for the world to see. Employers are doing internet searches of potential recruits as an add-on to the traditional ways of doing background checks - will they find that photo of you taken by a friend at your cousin’s wedding with someone’s knickers on your head?

For businesses who are worried about controlling the message about their product or services, the least you can do is monitor what the online is saying about you even if you decide never to engage in social media. And if you do engage with a blog or other social media tool, that can actually help enhance your reputation especially if you engage in an authentic way. The community you build around your blog will come to trust, respect and like you and loyalty can count for a great deal in times of crisis.

For individuals, the question is: will we always have to be “on” not just when we engage online but wherever we are because we never know when someone may capture us unawares on digital media? This is a much more challenging issue. It is impossible to be perfectly behaved all the time - that’s just a fact of being human. And perhaps we have to trust that people know that - and that in the long term, people seeing someone’s mistake displayed on YouTube will recognise that it’s just a very human momentary lapse, especially if there are other images of that person online that counter lapse. Perhaps in this early period of the mobile phone video, there’s a lot of press and publicity about this issue because it’s novel but that in the long term, there won’t be such a hoo-ha because there’ll be so many unremarkable human failings available to view online. Or perhaps we will all have to hire public relations consultants to help us with reputation management in the future, whether we are Britney Spears or just an ordinary non-celebrity…

We did not reach any solid conclusions during the discussion, only that this is one debate that is going to contine.

What are your thoughts?

Photo: of car wreck thanks to OpenSkyMedia from flickr.com (CCL)

*International Association of Business Commuicators

Following on from my posts about the use of online video during the Australian elections and how blogs and Facebook are being used in Africa for political debate, I’ve also explored how blogs in particular have impacted on Singapore’s political scene recently.

Political blogs banned in Singapore during elections

During the elections in Singapore, the People’s Action Party (PAP) - Singapore’s ruling party since 1958 - banned online discussions during the campaign period, according to The Internet in Asia blog writing in May 2006. The article also includes a very useful link to other online articles about the ban of political blogs, podcasts and discussions online in Singapore.

The blog reports in June 2006 that bloggers and journalists tried to engage with the government to allow responsible political blogging:

“Singaporean bloggers and journalists have suggested that the government should engage with new media , instead of regulating it- as the blogosphere can regulate itself - for example, websites that feature wild, baseless accusations or irresponsible content will soon lose their readership and credibility, as readers move to other websites and that unfair criticisms will likely draw counter-arguments, sparing the original writer the need to respond to every comment. However, they also acknowledged the importance of bloggers being mindful of existing laws, and not breaking them. Popular bloggers Mr Brown and Mr Miyagi provided an example - the use of their slogan “prison got no broadband ” as an effort to educate bloggers on the importance of following existing rules.”

There was also some breast-beating over an audio parody sketch that may or may not have had a political agenda. The anxiety over this issue is quite a contrast to the Australian approach to their recent elections - most of the videos about the elections were satirical, irreverent and outspoken.

Unfortunately, this excellent blog from the Singapore Internet Research Centre seems to have given up the ghost around February this year so I will have to look elsewhere for the latest trends in Singapore’s uneasy relationship with political blogging.

If you’re based in Singapore, it would be great to hear your views about this issue. Since July 2006, has the government been more open to political debate online via blogs and podcasts? Do you think online debate of political or civic issues helpful to Singapore or unhelpful? Let me know by adding a comment or emailing me using the Contact form above.

Picture: thanks to news.bbc.co.uk

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This post and others in the category New Trends in International Public Relations is part of my research project for the book of the same name that I am co-authoring with business communications expert, Silvia Cambie. I am focusing on the social media aspects while she is working on the wider public relations issues.

To find out more about my research for this book, see my book wiki.

To see who has contributed to my research for the book, take a look at my Contributors List.

If you can help with my research for the book, please contact me via the book wiki contact link or email me via this blog.

Having researched the way that Australians were using social media (mainly videos) in the lead-up to the recent Australian elections (won by Kevin Rudd) and how the American presidential candidates are handling online engagement, I’m also looking into how social media is being used in the Africa political arena.

Political blogs in Africa

Africa is a huge continent and I cannot hope to cover all of it in the short book that we are working on. However, I am aiming to llook at a selection of countries to see how social media is being used there for political debate.

This is what I’ve found so far:

In Burkina Faso, journalist Ramata Sore writes (on Global Voices) in her article “Blogs Help Burkinabe Skirt Censorship”:

“In a country where there is still so much secrecy, blogs free minds. In a country where censorship reigns and traditional media live in the shadow of power, bloggers are often the only real journalists. They are the only ones who can publish information offensive to the government.”

However, on a politically sensitive anniversay, the government cut internet connections to silence bloggers. Sore gives the details: “…from October 11th to the 17th, during the 20th anniversary of the assassination of Thomas Sankara, Burkina Faso’s internet connection was cut in order to prevent those commemorating the assassination from making their voices heard.”

In South Africa, the current political hot issue is the ANC succession with the current ANC president (and President of the country) Thabo Mbeki and Deputy President Jacob Zuma as the main contenders. It has been reported that there are 59 Facebook groups where the succession debate is being argued out.

The Facebook group “Help us stop Jacob Zuma becoming South Africa’s next president” has 31,529 members at the time of writing. Its wall has over 5,000 postings. To promote the group, they even have an official Zuma Group ring tone….

The Thabo Mbeki Facebook groups seem less popular with the highest membership at 227 members (”Buy Mbeki a Brain“).

Since businessman Cyril Ramaphosa emerged as an alternative, there have been two Facebook groups supporting him with 71 members and 19 members respectively.

I am curious to know how effective these groups are likely to be in impacting on the succession. Is this a new form of mobilization that is going to be the equivalent of the old-fashioned door-stepping of voters to sway them in the final voting? Or is it just a lot of hot air (hot postings?) with no real impact on the real world? Are you a South African or a Facebook aficionado - what do you think?

Are there other ways that Africans are using social media eg video, blogs, podcasts etc for political debate or protest? Please share any links or thoughts you have by adding a comment or emailing me using the Contact form above.

Pictures: thanks to news.bbc.co.uk, anc.org.za

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This post and others in the category New Trends in International Public Relations is part of my research project for the book of the same name that I am co-authoring with business communications expert, Silvia Cambie. I am focusing on the social media aspects while she is working on the wider public relations issues.

To find out more about my research for this book, see my book wiki.

To see who has contributed to my research for the book, take a look at my Contributors List.

If you can help with my research for the book, please contact me via the book wiki contact link or email me via this blog.

The Australians are not known for their reticence or their polite turns of phrases. With the Australian General Elections coming up, the Ozzies have taken their outspoken and vigorous style of public debate online. Videos on YouTube and other platforms have been the media of choice with shows by established satirical magazines like The Daily Grind and The Ministry of Truth alongside clips by outspoken individuals. The political parties have also taken to the e-waves with their own channels on YouTube.

Here is a quick romp through the Ozzie political videoscape:

Government supported satire

The satirical The Ministry of Truth has uploaded an episode on their Ning-based online platform. The video features sketches laughing at the obsession with Australianness. The sketch about the Australian barbie made me laugh out loud (possible because I’d make a good Ozzie carnivore if I weren’t already British).

It’s striking that the show is sponsored by the Queensland Government Arts Board. I can’t imagine an Asian government sponsoring this kind of satirical show on their national channels.

Party Political Broadcasts

The Australian Labor Party has its own YouTube channel. The only problem with their very slick videos is that - well, they are very slick. They feature actors playing “ordinary” Australians talking about their “lives” and negative “responses” to John Howard’s statement that “Australians have never been better off”. The series of videos are all typical party political broadcast style ads that don’t sit very well on YouTube where the millions of other user-generated videos are have more quirky, spontaneous content. Take a look at this one featuring a “housewife”:

I reckon they would be more credible interviewing a few real people with all the “ums” and “ers” and a less slick presentation.

Amateurs join the fray

This one is a satirical song featuring Elvis and animated collages of the main electoral candidates John Howard and Kevin Rudd by someone(s?) called Captain Rant and the Knee Jerk Reactions. I couldn’t find out much more about them on the net - so if you know who they are and what else they’ve done, let me know by adding a comment.

There are plenty more satirical videos of this nature on YouTube - try typing in the candidates names in the search box and then follow links and related videos to explore them for yourself.

What is impressive is the standard of the animation and satire - although many are made by amateur film-makers they are pretty watchable and also clever and funny. They seem to be made by people who are older than the usual teenagers who populate user-generated spaces like these and who have a message they want to get across. The tone is also particularly Australian, I think - there’s no earnestness in these videos though clearly many of the creators feel strongly about their nation and the issues being debated and their irreverent humour and wit is what really comes across. In contrast, the American presidential debate currently taking place online is much more serious and earnest with bloggers - rather than film-makers - taking the lead.

The year of social media

2007 seems to be the year for social media to be taken seriously in the political arena, from what we’ve seen in America and now in Australia. This will be increasingly common around the world and will no longer be “news” in itself. I think that social media has the potential to engage populations in political debate in a fresh way and hopefully, this will mean less apathy and more involvement in the electoral process. In particular, peer-to-peer discussion and debate may prove to be a very powerful way for drawing otherwise uninterested citizens into the issues.

I am also currently exploring the use of social media for political debate in Asia and Africa and will be blogging about that in the future.

What do you think? If you’re an Australian, have these videos made you more interested in the elections and/ or politics?

Share your thoughts and add a comment.

Other resources

For a great review of other satiricial videos about the Australian elections, you can check out Australia’s ABC Radio National’s Street Stories podcast. Their show notes page also gives a list of links to various film-makers featured in their programme such as Shan Jayaweera who uses John Howard and Kevin Rudd puppets.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This post and others in the category New Trends in International Public Relations is part of my research project for the book of the same name that I am co-authoring with business communications expert, Silvia Cambie. I am focusing on the social media aspects while she is working on the wider public relations issues.

To find out more about my research for this book, see my book wiki.

To see who has contributed to my research for the book, take a look at my Contributors List.

If you can help with my research for the book, please contact me via the book wiki contact link or email me via this blog.

The speed of communications is ever increasing, especially now that online messages can be zipping round the world virally via digital word of mouth in the time it takes you to type an email message or blog post.

Now that anyone can be pundit or citizen journalist who has a mobile phone, camera, laptop or just an opinion and access to the internet, anyone out there can share their views or stories about you in moments. Equally, anyone can express an opinion or a view or tell a story without deliberating over it or checking the factual basis for it - and indeed, online social media encourages that rapid action and reaction because of the ease of uploading content easily, cheaply and quickly.

For those whose every move makes news - like high profile politicans, world leaders, celebrities and the like - this trend is becoming a huge challenge. How do you control misinformation or misinterpretation of your actions and words in this rapid response world?

Taking legal action or sending out cease and desist letters can make you the “heavy” in the drama, causing more damage than good. Legal processes can also take time - and through that very process could keep the issue in the news more than you would like.

Hilllary Clinton’s campaign has come up with a clever way to deal with misinformation about her and her campaign for the US presidency, reports The New York Times. She has “introduced a Web site dedicated exclusively to the instantaneous rebuttal of charges or news reports it deems offensive or wrong”, called Fact Hub.

On the Fact Hub, Clinton’s team painstakingly sets the record straight wherever she has been misinterpreted or where others have got their facts wrong about her statements and actions. For example, it corrects Barack Obama with an statement headed Obama Misrepresents Hillary’s Views On Social Security and there is a rebuttal of a claim that Clinton and her team did not leave a tip at a diner where they had a meal (which is the subject of the New York Times article I just mentioned).

It looks like the website uses a blogging platform and includes an RSS feed so you can subscribe to it to receive the latest updates - another example of innovative ways to use blogging technology and blogging without calling it a blog.

For those of us of less grand profiles, it is still useful to keep an eye on what is being said about you online and to consider carefully how you would respond to any erroneous claims being made about you or your business. I am curious to know what processes you are using to monitor what is being said about you on the online grapevine at the moment and what plans you have in place to deal with any erroneous claims about you or your business. Please add a comment or email me using the Contact form above.

Photo: thanks to sskennel from flickr.com (CCL)

This post also appears on the EuroComm Blog today, where I am one of the blogging team

When I was writing my article Blogging Thrives in Malaysia for IABC’s journal, Communication World, I was struck by how quickly news of events travels in the new era of online communications.

I started researching and writing the article in July this year and as I finished it and was about to send it to the journal editor, Malaysian blogger Nathaniel Tan was taken into custody and I had to quickly update the article with that latest news.

Just after I sent it off to the editor, I got an urgent email from one of my interviewees, Asohan Aryaduray, the New Media Editor at The Star newspaper in Malaysia saying that there had been “some serious and troubling changes in the political landscape” and giving me an update on further crackdown and potential changes in the laws affecting blogging.

I had to recall the article and revise it yet again with these latest updates.

On Saturday, I was building on the research I had so far on blogging in Malaysia for the book I am working on about New Trends in International Public Relations and came across reports online of riots in Kuala Lumpur during a political rally for electoral reform, within hours of it happening. A link was posted on the Facebook group “Save the Malaysian Judiciary” to a YouTube video of an Al Jazeera TV report showing police spraying demonstrators with chemicals during the march.

When I first found it on Saturday afternoon, it had been viewed 240 times. When I checked back 3 hours later, it had been viewed over 8,000 times.

Some further digging led me to more videos around the event, including a video from a little while back that was one of the rallying calls for the protest.

More and more, the way we receive news and information is going to be a mix of traditional news media and citizen communication - people passing on news around the world through emails, social networks and social media tools. Right now, it’s still new and worth commenting on but soon, it will be the norm. We’ll still most likely turn to the journalist-produced content for news that has been fact-checked and produced according to professional standards and guidelines (though journalists can still get things wrong!) but alongside will be a stream of information passed on by non-professionals. The trick will be identifying the non-professional sources you can trust and those that may be scaremongering, gossiping or pushing their own agendas.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This post and others in the category New Trends in International Public Relations is part of my research project for the book of the same name that I am co-authoring with business communications expert, Silvia Cambie. I am focusing on the social media aspects while she is working on the wider public relations issues.

To find out more about my research for this book, see my book wiki.

To see who has contributed to my research for the book, take a look at my Contributors List.

If you can help with my research for the book, please contact me via the book wiki contact link or email me via this blog.

I’ve been taking longer than I planned researching a section on Conversation and Democracy for my bookproject, New Trends in International Public Relations. What I’ve been finding fascinating is the different attitudes that the East and the West have to social media in the world of politics.

Western politicians and social media

The main presidential candidates in the US are all embracing blogs, YouTube and Twitter and many observers say that this is the first presidential race where social media is playing a major role. The televised debate between the Democratic candidates, for example, included questions posted on YouTube by members of the public - these videos were played on a giant screen in the hall where the debate took place and the candidates took it in turn to answer the questions. Critics of this have said that this does not truly show political leaders “embracing” social media in its truest form ie as a free-for-all, open dialogues between equals and peers. The questions were carefully vetted and chosen beforehand instead of being an open, forum where anyone can take part (in the way that people can add their comments more freely on a blog, say). I think it’s very naive to think that politicians will ever hand over that level of control - they might be willing and comfortable having a “town hall” meeting where they roll up their sleeves and have an impromptu chat with the audience (who are no doubt carefully selected by invitation in the first place) of several hundred but it’s a different matter of scale where anyone in a population of several hundred thousand could send in a video. There will always be a hierarchical structure of some kind even in the most modern of democracies and those hierarchies will always seek to manage the flow of information. To me, what is significant is that they are using this medium at all and making an attempt to engage with their constituents in as open a way as they are able, given those hierarchical constraints.

Asia’s discomfort with social media

This attitude of acceptance - that social media is a force to be reckoned with and a new medium to reach out to voters - is all the more striking when I look at the attitude towards social media in Asian nations. Awhile back I researched an article on Blogging in Malaysia, with the input of Kevin Anderson, the Blogs Editor at The Guardian, UK and Asohan Aryaduray, the New Media Editor at The Star, Malaysia on the issue of political blogs there. Many outspoken political critics who blog their views find themselves arrested. There is a general anxiety and unease about this new medium that allows ordinary people to voice their opinions freely. For examples of more repressive and authoritarian Asian nations’s attitudes to bloggers, we only have to look at China, which routinely censors blogs and most recently, Burma, which restricted internet access during this summer’s protests.

West v. East

The cultural and political roots go much deeper than a mere suspicion of social media on the part of Asian authorities. There has been a much longer history of citizen protest and action being tolerated in the West and every year, there are marches and demonstrations in London and major American and European cities for all manner of causes. I remember as a student taking part in a march through the streets of Oxford in solidarity with my co-students. Although I did not feel very strongly about the cause they were protesting about, I wanted to see what it was like to be part of a protest march. It felt dangerous and rebellious and anarchic for me, coming from Malaysia where such protests were banned. In reality, it was rather tame and boring as we strolled down the High Street and various student leaders ranted through their megaphones.

So in the last few weeks as I’ve been researching this topic, I found myself getting side-tracked thinking about the cultural roots of Western political discourse and engagement versus the cultural roots of Asian nations who generally seem more comfortable with authoritarian government, and also authoritarian versions of democracy. That’s a whole separate book in itself, I expect, but I’d be interested to know your thoughts about these two differing political heritages.

To see my research in detail, check out my book wiki where I have posted my research online in the Conversation and Democracy section.

Do you know any Asian politicians who blog?

I am not aware of any politician in the ruling party in Malaysia who blogs - if you know of anyone, can you please correct me and let me know the URL of their blog? I’d also like to know if any politician in a ruling party in any other Asian country blogs or engages in social media eg via videocasts or podcasts. I want to ask them why they blog and what benefits they see coming from engaging in social media. And what might be some of the disadvantages.

From those Asian politicians who don’t blog, I’m curious to know why they don’t and what they think about their citizens using social media for political commentary.

If you are a professional communicator in Asia, what are the issues around politics and social media if you are advising politicians or business leaders about their communications strategy.

You can add a comment or email me using the Contact form above. If you prefer to remain anonymous, I can understand and respect that and I will not publish your name or email address* on my blog or in the book (or book wiki).

*The email address is a required field but it is not visible to visitors to this blog. As a matter of policy, I do not disclose email addresses from comments or emails to me in any event.

Photo: thanks to pietroizzo from flickr.com (CCL)

I set up my International Public Relations bookproject wiki a few weeks back but I’ve been hesitating about announcing it on my blogs. I finally blogged about it a few days ago and invited comments and input - and I hope very much that you will help me with my research by getting involved in this project. But the reason I hesitated is that having set up the wiki online, I found that I have a strong streak of “command and control” in my character.

I wrote my two novels all by myself and did not show them to anyone until I had finished typing “The End” on the last page. I did invite input from experts on some of the background information that I needed to create a real world for my characters to inhabit and I did occasionally discuss motivation and plot points with my writer friends. But I kept the bulk of the story and text to myself during the 18 months or so that each book took to write. And I felt very much in control as the author and creator.

So while the “social media”, open and transparent part of me is all for having a go with writing a book via a wiki online, the old-fashioned author in me has been feeling somewhat uncomfortable about this new way of doing things. Will people nick my ideas/ thesis? Will people give me unsupportive criticism? Will I feel pushed and pulled by others’ input? Will I no longer feel like the author of the work?

My worries took me by surprise as I had always considered myself an open and trusting sort of person. (Though perhaps my years of training as a lawyer has overlayed that with an armoury of suspicion…?) Friends and colleagues gave me differing views. Some advised, no way should I put it up online as people might steal my work. Others were more of the attitude: well, try it and see. The advantage is that I can invite the help of others who may have more expertise of a particular issue than I have and I always liked the saying, “two (or more) heads are better than one”. And since I may be approaching experts with whom I have no personal connection, I can refer them to the work online for them to get a sense of what the book is about and whether they feel comfortable contributing to it. Also, as I would like to include a strong cross-cultural focus, having an online presence accessible from all over the world can only be a good thing.

A number of much more well-known authors than me have shared their books online while they’ve been work in progress. Chris Anderson blogged his book The Long Tail and developed it with readers’ input. Marc Wright over at simply-communicate.com is also using a wiki for his book Handbook for Internal Communication, due for publication in March 2008. So I reckon, if it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for me.

So far, I’ve put out a few feelers to a number of experts and I hope to speak to an Italian writer next week and also a Korean social media / tech CEO based in Japan.

Do go and check out the bookproject wiki - and let me know if you have any thoughts on any of the issues I’m researching. Drop me an email via the Contact form above or add a comment.

Photo: thanks to smackfu from flickr.com (CCL)