January 9, 2012
Report: Apple to Open In-Store Shops in Target
Apple is planning to launch a store-within-a-store at more than two dozen Target locations this year, according to Apple Insider.
Based on the report, Apple will initially place mini-stores inside 25 larger Target locations in smaller cities that aren’t large enough to support a standalone Apple Store. In all, Target has 1,752 stores in the U.S., while Apple has 359 stores globally, including 245 in the U.S.
Apple has similar in-store shops inside over 600 Best Buy locations. The Best Buy shops offer a selection of Mac gadgets, with some having Apple Solution Consultants on hand for support. Best Buy has over 1,000 total stores in the U.S.
Apple severed its retail partnerships with Sears, Circuit City, Computer City and Office Max a decade ago to narrow its distribution to CompUSA and its own stores, which were just being launched. With CompUSA liquidating, Best Buy was brought back as a store within a store retail partner in the middle of the last decade.
Target has a friendly history with Apple. In October 2002, Apple began selling its iPod at all Target stores, a month after Best Buy began offering the hot product. Walmart didn’t start selling the iPod until 2005.
In October 2010, Target became the first retailer outside of Apple and Best Buy to sell the iPad. A month later, it announced that it would begin selling Apple’s iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 in just over half of its stores. One connection is its former VP of retail, Ron Johnson, who left last year to become Penney’s CEO, was once VP of merchandising at Target.
With Apple and Target declining comment on the rumor, some wondered whether this was a test that precluded a much larger rollout or if the focus was limited to smaller metro areas. Others wondered whether Target would also be selling the new iPhone 4S and other new Apple launch products.
Comments to the Apple Insider post were divided. Some argued that the deal might tarnish Apple’s name because of Target’s discount status. Others saw it as a smart move to increase exposure to more customers.
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Discussion Questions: What do you think of Apple’s reported exploration of in-store shops in Target? Is this a smart strategy for Apple to reach customers in smaller metro areas and possibly more rural ones down the road?
Poll
Two words… BIG MISTAKE. Repeat BIG MISTAKE.
This looks like a win for both companies. There is nothing in the joint history of Apple and Target to suggest that a better in-store presentation will tarnish the brand. (After all, the product is already there and Target is not discounting it.) Provided that Target can execute close to the service standard of the Apple Store (maybe not complete with a Genius Bar), it’s a good way to expand Apple’s distribution in a controlled way.
I don’t see placement in Target tarnishing the Apple image. Target is known for “cheap chic.” No one is embarrassed to be seen in a Target, no matter how much money he or she has.
I think it’s a brilliant move — especially if there is a genius bar inside.
By the way, Costco has been selling iPods for years. Not sure why they weren’t included on the list.
I think this is a terrific strategic alliance. Apple gets efficient and effective distribution without the related capital and operating expenses of building and running its own store. Target gets a great brand name association in the form of Apple which allows for positive differentiation from Walmart and others. A definite “Win-Win” situation.
What a fantastic partnership for Apple and Target to open in-store shops at Target. Not only will this approach succeed in smaller markets, but it would also be successful in larger markets, where it makes Apple more accessible to more consumers more often. This is such a good idea on so many levels but not the least which is a shared commonality of “targeted” consumers. Winner.
Smart move. Target already carries Apple products and has not lost any of its mystical brand appeal. The only difference is the emphasis being placed on the one product. Instead of simply carrying Apple products Target will have a mini store devoted to Apple. Using Target’s existing brick and mortar is a way for Apple to extend its retail reach into smaller markets without the accompanying investment.
From a brand standpoint it is constructive, but its success for both Apple and Target is the staffing. The Apple in-store associates make the experience of buying Apple products what it is, both from sales and service standpoints. As long as Apple staffs the in-store shops in Target, they will work. It’s a total win for Target too, as they will get traffic and higher revenue per customer, especially in terms of wireless fees.
Without seeing the details of the deal, this seems like a smart move to me. It greatly expands the brand in an environment with a strong demographic that is very well-run and will be around for a long time. As to the complaints about Target being a discounter, do these folks think that Best Buy is full-price?
It makes sense. It gives Apple a chance to reach a significant number if consumers in markets that might not make financial sense for an Apple store. It gives Target another upscale brand and a way to differentiate itself from Walmart.
As Apple captures more market share for its computers and phones, adding to its domination of portable music and tablet devices, consumers are more desirous of having direct access to the brand, rather than going through resellers.
This could be a strong win-win, if it comes to fruition.
I discount (no pun intended) the idea that Target will somehow tarnish the Apple image. Using another retailer’s bricks and mortar can be a very shrewd way to reach consumers in an efficient manner. Target is shopped by most demographic groups and as technology continues to penetrate all levels of our society accessibility is key to manufacturers. The main issue for Apple will be staffing the departments with the right people.
Incredibly smart move on Apple’s part. What better way to further embed the Apple culture into the masses — instead of asking people to seek out Apple, they are seeking out the people.
What’s nice about Target is not the “discount positioning” mentioned above, but rather the discount positioning dressed up in on-trend, chic and fashion-forward appeal — a nice fit for Apple beyond their pristine, glass-trimmed hero stores. Strategically, Apple is probably hoping this move will increase product adoption for people who are late adopters or low-adopters of Apple products in an easy, non-intimidating approach.
I’d expect Apple to set a new bar for store-within-a-store that other brands will be aping in a few years.
I think any view that either brand would be negatively impacted is off the mark. Target, while focused on value and price, has established their brand perception as sleek, polished, and shopper-friendly. These two brands fit nicely together, and it should pay off very well for Apple to have more retail presence in the areas where they don’t have their own stores.
Bringing Apple products to markets that don’t have access to the stores will definitely give them added exposure to potential customers. Sure, you can always buy online, but the Apple brand and price point is sold best with their brick and mortar experience.
And there’s the rub. Without some version of the Genius Bar, the Apple store in store could end up a training nightmare for Target management and a nuisance for the store associates to keep clean.
It’s a good scale-building move for Apple and a much-needed CE boost for Target that is very in-brand for them. I do take issue with calling Apple’s ancillary retail plays shop-in-shops or stores-within-stores; they would be more accurately described as departments. I think Apple would be better represented by going into full-on shop-in-shops, complete with dividing walls and outside signage (ala Sephora at Penney’s). In not-so-well-maintained Best Buys, for example, the Apple departments pick up some of the taint as aisle-clogging pallets block traffic and clutter gets strewn about. Visual brand blurs, when combined with ubiquity, add up to not-so-special.
Target gives Apple another distribution channel with guaranteed, high-volume traffic. This is a very positive development for Apple product sales.
I like it. A lot. Target and Apple each have such strong brand images that this will only be about the retail experience. It adds the type of Disney experience that Target wants to constantly enhance and it gives Apple additional retail reach.
Placing Apple stores within Target is a good idea. Apple could have problems operating and servicing customers in smaller markets. This is not unlike Polo having stores within Macy’s. When the quality levels match, it works well. What is important for Apple is to offer and support their complete product line, not just iPad, iPod, iPhone or computers.
It is shrewd and makes good business sense to have your products selling in brick and mortar locations other than your own. The problem with Target is the poorly trained and poorly responsive staff on the sales floor, at least in the ones here in the South Florida area. Apple will have to staff these test locations with trained people on the floor to make this work. Without doing this, the slope will become slippery.
It’s a very good way to extend the franchise.
The role of Target in the consumer’s life in smaller metros is very different from the role in larger suburban and urban centers. Target has already been the source of Apple products at these locations, so the consumer already thinks of it as a destination for the products. It’s a smart way to merchandise an already existing relationship and offer the consumer a better shopping experience.
This is not only low risk, it’s almost no risk.
The Target demo is the Apple demo. As Apple grew among the masses, it learned the later adopters need to be educated about its products. It needs to go to the smaller markets where that mass resides.
This is a lot lower risk than some make it out to be.
Best Buy has worked for Apple, and Target has more doors and isn’t on a downward trend.
US military exchanges (AAFEs) have worked for Apple, proving non-Apple associates around the world can be trained.
CompUSA didn’t work as well for Apple, but that was before the explosion of iOS devices and HSC (Hired Sales Consultant) training.
Apple retail is no longer defined as Siena sandstone and Genius Bars. The risk here is for the non-Apple competitors in phones, PCs, tablets and music.
This is a concept which Apple should be exploring on a larger scale. Retailing their products to the mass market is critical to Apple remaining competitive in the future. It is time for Apple to give up on their old niche model of exclusivity and start to recognize that for Apple to grow to the next level as an organization it needs to have retail representation in more stores.
This strategy does allow Apple to reach a wider audience, like it does with the Best Buy store-within-a-store concept. They can present a more Apple-like environment without the full investment. However, this environment carries with it higher expectations of service and product availability, which will not materialize. Best Buy and Target employees cannot deliver that level of service, so there will always be something lacking.
Will it hurt Apple’s brand? The Best Buy concept hasn’t seemed to, but further proliferation of the strategy could cause fragmentation without careful management on Apple’s part.
It is a smart move on several levels. Greater reach yields bigger unit volume without having to invest in more physical store locations. As products near the end of their lifecycle (weaker processing, memory, fewer features), Target is the perfect place to push the inventory. Over time, my prediction is that you will see Target exclusive merchandise developed by Apple. A word to the wise, commit to having informed, well trained, Apple-like associates on the floor – otherwise their image may take a hit. The cellular phone reps on the floor at Costco, Best Buy, etc. are not as “swift” as those at the corporate Verizon store – learn from what is present, and protect what is cool about shopping an Apple store.
Strategically, it may be a good move. What will determine its success is execution at the same level as the Apple experience in their own stores.
My local Target stores are unable to execute the Starbucks experience to a level even close to a company-owned Starbucks location. Will they be able to execute with Apple when they seem to be unable to do so with Starbucks? I’m not sure. Starbucks has one of the most strict and comprehensive training and follow-up programs in the retail industry. If they aren’t able to manage these locations close to the level of experience as their own, will Apple be able to do better?
After all, part of the psyche of Apple is its experience. That’s also true with Starbucks. However, the question is, when you set goals of ubiquity, does the emphasis on experience matter? I think that Starbucks would likely tell you it does, based on what they’ve been through over the past several years.
If Apple is able to develop the infrastructure necessary to manage their experience to the level necessary, it may be a very successful move for them. If not, it could be very harmful.
Time will tell. In their market, it won’t take a long. It’s only been five years since the launch of the iPhone itself.
Great move for Target and Apple. Target understands that in today’s online world, large brick and mortar stores are under pressure to drive traffic. Creating a store-within-a-store using Apple solutions can help them drive traffic into their locations and drive incremental sales from those shoppers. Apple, on the other hand, can expect to use these locations as not only a sales outlet, but a new educational location for consumers that may not already be using Apple solutions.
Apple has always been smart in selecting their partners; Target and Best Buy are two great choices for this model.
Like all success stories, Apple may foresee an inflection point where it transitions from exclusive and edgy into the big middle. This alliance with Target seems like an admission that the inevitable life-cycle happens even to them.
In the near term, Apple-Target seems like a good way to sell more i-products to more shoppers, especially those who may have felt intimidated by the upscale ambiance of the Apple Stores or who live too far away.
Over the longer haul, I wonder if the deal also signals the inevitability of price erosion in the mobile handset, tablet, and laptop businesses. (Music players are virtually over, IMHO.) Time to turn those stars into cash cows?
There’s still lots of money to be made, but I suspect that with the benefit of future hindsight, we’ll come to regard this as the moment when Apple began to level off.
(Apple-Target. Anyone beside me humming the William Tell Overture?)
Last night, one of my Corporate Reputation class teams made a presentation of Toyota’s product recall blunders. They included a film clip of the Japanese company’s President apologizing to its American customers. In the apology, he stated how growing too fast and not keeping an eye on quality control contributed to their products’ failing. While increasing the number of Apple outlets by opening shops in Target stores may on the surface seem like a good idea, making and selling more Apple products to Middle America may reap unknown calamities. Be careful Apple. Maybe it’s best to keep your narrow cult following. What would the workers at FoxComm say?
When brands establish relationships with retailers, it’s generally a good move, as long as the relationship is managed properly, and the identity and value of each brand is strengthened as a result.
In Apple’s case, they have retail stores, but only in big cities. So from a reach standpoint, Target provides a definite opportunity. I also think Target’s hip, fresh image falls in line with Apple’s. So I don’t think either brand’s identity will be tarnished.
But I would venture to say that a great deal of Apple buyers test the products in the retail store, and then purchase online. I’d be interested to see statistics on online purchasing versus in-store, by which we could then determine how much opening in additional retailers helps. Of course, in either case, you can argue that if people are testing the product in-store, it’s smart to have more opportunities around the country for people to do this.
Retailers can provide a strong and, at times, necessary support system for a brand. But I think Apple was smart in limiting the number of retailers they selected to carry their lines, because the relationship needs to be thought out and defined.
As a consumer, part of the demand for Apple products is created through counter intuitive means. One factor is they can be hard to find and purchase in the brick and mortar world.
By aligning with Target while limiting its relationships with other retailers, Apple sends a more clear and direct message to consumers. Now I know exactly where to go to purchase and Apple product and will be more inclined to visit and browse as I don’t have to seek out a sometimes scarce Apple store and endure mall parking in the process.
Good move!
More Discussions
How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…Should Costco Be Opening Members-Only Gas Stations?
Is this the right move for the warehouse club?As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…
Two words… BIG MISTAKE. Repeat BIG MISTAKE.
This looks like a win for both companies. There is nothing in the joint history of Apple and Target to suggest that a better in-store presentation will tarnish the brand. (After all, the product is already there and Target is not discounting it.) Provided that Target can execute close to the service standard of the Apple Store (maybe not complete with a Genius Bar), it’s a good way to expand Apple’s distribution in a controlled way.
I don’t see placement in Target tarnishing the Apple image. Target is known for “cheap chic.” No one is embarrassed to be seen in a Target, no matter how much money he or she has.
I think it’s a brilliant move — especially if there is a genius bar inside.
By the way, Costco has been selling iPods for years. Not sure why they weren’t included on the list.
I think this is a terrific strategic alliance. Apple gets efficient and effective distribution without the related capital and operating expenses of building and running its own store. Target gets a great brand name association in the form of Apple which allows for positive differentiation from Walmart and others. A definite “Win-Win” situation.
What a fantastic partnership for Apple and Target to open in-store shops at Target. Not only will this approach succeed in smaller markets, but it would also be successful in larger markets, where it makes Apple more accessible to more consumers more often. This is such a good idea on so many levels but not the least which is a shared commonality of “targeted” consumers. Winner.
Smart move. Target already carries Apple products and has not lost any of its mystical brand appeal. The only difference is the emphasis being placed on the one product. Instead of simply carrying Apple products Target will have a mini store devoted to Apple. Using Target’s existing brick and mortar is a way for Apple to extend its retail reach into smaller markets without the accompanying investment.
From a brand standpoint it is constructive, but its success for both Apple and Target is the staffing. The Apple in-store associates make the experience of buying Apple products what it is, both from sales and service standpoints. As long as Apple staffs the in-store shops in Target, they will work. It’s a total win for Target too, as they will get traffic and higher revenue per customer, especially in terms of wireless fees.
Without seeing the details of the deal, this seems like a smart move to me. It greatly expands the brand in an environment with a strong demographic that is very well-run and will be around for a long time. As to the complaints about Target being a discounter, do these folks think that Best Buy is full-price?
It makes sense. It gives Apple a chance to reach a significant number if consumers in markets that might not make financial sense for an Apple store. It gives Target another upscale brand and a way to differentiate itself from Walmart.
As Apple captures more market share for its computers and phones, adding to its domination of portable music and tablet devices, consumers are more desirous of having direct access to the brand, rather than going through resellers.
This could be a strong win-win, if it comes to fruition.
I discount (no pun intended) the idea that Target will somehow tarnish the Apple image. Using another retailer’s bricks and mortar can be a very shrewd way to reach consumers in an efficient manner. Target is shopped by most demographic groups and as technology continues to penetrate all levels of our society accessibility is key to manufacturers. The main issue for Apple will be staffing the departments with the right people.
Incredibly smart move on Apple’s part. What better way to further embed the Apple culture into the masses — instead of asking people to seek out Apple, they are seeking out the people.
What’s nice about Target is not the “discount positioning” mentioned above, but rather the discount positioning dressed up in on-trend, chic and fashion-forward appeal — a nice fit for Apple beyond their pristine, glass-trimmed hero stores. Strategically, Apple is probably hoping this move will increase product adoption for people who are late adopters or low-adopters of Apple products in an easy, non-intimidating approach.
I’d expect Apple to set a new bar for store-within-a-store that other brands will be aping in a few years.
I think any view that either brand would be negatively impacted is off the mark. Target, while focused on value and price, has established their brand perception as sleek, polished, and shopper-friendly. These two brands fit nicely together, and it should pay off very well for Apple to have more retail presence in the areas where they don’t have their own stores.
Bringing Apple products to markets that don’t have access to the stores will definitely give them added exposure to potential customers. Sure, you can always buy online, but the Apple brand and price point is sold best with their brick and mortar experience.
And there’s the rub. Without some version of the Genius Bar, the Apple store in store could end up a training nightmare for Target management and a nuisance for the store associates to keep clean.
It’s a good scale-building move for Apple and a much-needed CE boost for Target that is very in-brand for them. I do take issue with calling Apple’s ancillary retail plays shop-in-shops or stores-within-stores; they would be more accurately described as departments. I think Apple would be better represented by going into full-on shop-in-shops, complete with dividing walls and outside signage (ala Sephora at Penney’s). In not-so-well-maintained Best Buys, for example, the Apple departments pick up some of the taint as aisle-clogging pallets block traffic and clutter gets strewn about. Visual brand blurs, when combined with ubiquity, add up to not-so-special.
Target gives Apple another distribution channel with guaranteed, high-volume traffic. This is a very positive development for Apple product sales.
I like it. A lot. Target and Apple each have such strong brand images that this will only be about the retail experience. It adds the type of Disney experience that Target wants to constantly enhance and it gives Apple additional retail reach.
Placing Apple stores within Target is a good idea. Apple could have problems operating and servicing customers in smaller markets. This is not unlike Polo having stores within Macy’s. When the quality levels match, it works well. What is important for Apple is to offer and support their complete product line, not just iPad, iPod, iPhone or computers.
It is shrewd and makes good business sense to have your products selling in brick and mortar locations other than your own. The problem with Target is the poorly trained and poorly responsive staff on the sales floor, at least in the ones here in the South Florida area. Apple will have to staff these test locations with trained people on the floor to make this work. Without doing this, the slope will become slippery.
It’s a very good way to extend the franchise.
The role of Target in the consumer’s life in smaller metros is very different from the role in larger suburban and urban centers. Target has already been the source of Apple products at these locations, so the consumer already thinks of it as a destination for the products. It’s a smart way to merchandise an already existing relationship and offer the consumer a better shopping experience.
This is not only low risk, it’s almost no risk.
The Target demo is the Apple demo. As Apple grew among the masses, it learned the later adopters need to be educated about its products. It needs to go to the smaller markets where that mass resides.
This is a lot lower risk than some make it out to be.
Best Buy has worked for Apple, and Target has more doors and isn’t on a downward trend.
US military exchanges (AAFEs) have worked for Apple, proving non-Apple associates around the world can be trained.
CompUSA didn’t work as well for Apple, but that was before the explosion of iOS devices and HSC (Hired Sales Consultant) training.
Apple retail is no longer defined as Siena sandstone and Genius Bars. The risk here is for the non-Apple competitors in phones, PCs, tablets and music.
This is a concept which Apple should be exploring on a larger scale. Retailing their products to the mass market is critical to Apple remaining competitive in the future. It is time for Apple to give up on their old niche model of exclusivity and start to recognize that for Apple to grow to the next level as an organization it needs to have retail representation in more stores.
This strategy does allow Apple to reach a wider audience, like it does with the Best Buy store-within-a-store concept. They can present a more Apple-like environment without the full investment. However, this environment carries with it higher expectations of service and product availability, which will not materialize. Best Buy and Target employees cannot deliver that level of service, so there will always be something lacking.
Will it hurt Apple’s brand? The Best Buy concept hasn’t seemed to, but further proliferation of the strategy could cause fragmentation without careful management on Apple’s part.
It is a smart move on several levels. Greater reach yields bigger unit volume without having to invest in more physical store locations. As products near the end of their lifecycle (weaker processing, memory, fewer features), Target is the perfect place to push the inventory. Over time, my prediction is that you will see Target exclusive merchandise developed by Apple. A word to the wise, commit to having informed, well trained, Apple-like associates on the floor – otherwise their image may take a hit. The cellular phone reps on the floor at Costco, Best Buy, etc. are not as “swift” as those at the corporate Verizon store – learn from what is present, and protect what is cool about shopping an Apple store.
Strategically, it may be a good move. What will determine its success is execution at the same level as the Apple experience in their own stores.
My local Target stores are unable to execute the Starbucks experience to a level even close to a company-owned Starbucks location. Will they be able to execute with Apple when they seem to be unable to do so with Starbucks? I’m not sure. Starbucks has one of the most strict and comprehensive training and follow-up programs in the retail industry. If they aren’t able to manage these locations close to the level of experience as their own, will Apple be able to do better?
After all, part of the psyche of Apple is its experience. That’s also true with Starbucks. However, the question is, when you set goals of ubiquity, does the emphasis on experience matter? I think that Starbucks would likely tell you it does, based on what they’ve been through over the past several years.
If Apple is able to develop the infrastructure necessary to manage their experience to the level necessary, it may be a very successful move for them. If not, it could be very harmful.
Time will tell. In their market, it won’t take a long. It’s only been five years since the launch of the iPhone itself.
Great move for Target and Apple. Target understands that in today’s online world, large brick and mortar stores are under pressure to drive traffic. Creating a store-within-a-store using Apple solutions can help them drive traffic into their locations and drive incremental sales from those shoppers. Apple, on the other hand, can expect to use these locations as not only a sales outlet, but a new educational location for consumers that may not already be using Apple solutions.
Apple has always been smart in selecting their partners; Target and Best Buy are two great choices for this model.
Like all success stories, Apple may foresee an inflection point where it transitions from exclusive and edgy into the big middle. This alliance with Target seems like an admission that the inevitable life-cycle happens even to them.
In the near term, Apple-Target seems like a good way to sell more i-products to more shoppers, especially those who may have felt intimidated by the upscale ambiance of the Apple Stores or who live too far away.
Over the longer haul, I wonder if the deal also signals the inevitability of price erosion in the mobile handset, tablet, and laptop businesses. (Music players are virtually over, IMHO.) Time to turn those stars into cash cows?
There’s still lots of money to be made, but I suspect that with the benefit of future hindsight, we’ll come to regard this as the moment when Apple began to level off.
(Apple-Target. Anyone beside me humming the William Tell Overture?)
Last night, one of my Corporate Reputation class teams made a presentation of Toyota’s product recall blunders. They included a film clip of the Japanese company’s President apologizing to its American customers. In the apology, he stated how growing too fast and not keeping an eye on quality control contributed to their products’ failing. While increasing the number of Apple outlets by opening shops in Target stores may on the surface seem like a good idea, making and selling more Apple products to Middle America may reap unknown calamities. Be careful Apple. Maybe it’s best to keep your narrow cult following. What would the workers at FoxComm say?
When brands establish relationships with retailers, it’s generally a good move, as long as the relationship is managed properly, and the identity and value of each brand is strengthened as a result.
In Apple’s case, they have retail stores, but only in big cities. So from a reach standpoint, Target provides a definite opportunity. I also think Target’s hip, fresh image falls in line with Apple’s. So I don’t think either brand’s identity will be tarnished.
But I would venture to say that a great deal of Apple buyers test the products in the retail store, and then purchase online. I’d be interested to see statistics on online purchasing versus in-store, by which we could then determine how much opening in additional retailers helps. Of course, in either case, you can argue that if people are testing the product in-store, it’s smart to have more opportunities around the country for people to do this.
Retailers can provide a strong and, at times, necessary support system for a brand. But I think Apple was smart in limiting the number of retailers they selected to carry their lines, because the relationship needs to be thought out and defined.
As a consumer, part of the demand for Apple products is created through counter intuitive means. One factor is they can be hard to find and purchase in the brick and mortar world.
By aligning with Target while limiting its relationships with other retailers, Apple sends a more clear and direct message to consumers. Now I know exactly where to go to purchase and Apple product and will be more inclined to visit and browse as I don’t have to seek out a sometimes scarce Apple store and endure mall parking in the process.
Good move!