|
Server : Apache/2.4.62 System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64 User : www ( 80) PHP Version : 8.3.8 Disable Function : NONE Directory : /domains/efusion1/e-visory/ |
Upload File : |
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>How Much Should You Spend on Marketing and Selling Your Training or E-Learning Offerings?</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<link href="/esfusion.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css">
<script src="/SpryAssets/SpryMenuBar.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<link href="/SpryAssets/SpryMenuBarHorizontal.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
function MM_preloadImages() { //v3.0
var d=document; if(d.images){ if(!d.MM_p) d.MM_p=new Array();
var i,j=d.MM_p.length,a=MM_preloadImages.arguments; for(i=0; i<a.length; i++)
if (a[i].indexOf("#")!=0){ d.MM_p[j]=new Image; d.MM_p[j++].src=a[i];}}
}
function MM_swapImgRestore() { //v3.0
var i,x,a=document.MM_sr; for(i=0;a&&i<a.length&&(x=a[i])&&x.oSrc;i++) x.src=x.oSrc;
}
function MM_findObj(n, d) { //v4.01
var p,i,x; if(!d) d=document; if((p=n.indexOf("?"))>0&&parent.frames.length) {
d=parent.frames[n.substring(p+1)].document; n=n.substring(0,p);}
if(!(x=d[n])&&d.all) x=d.all[n]; for (i=0;!x&&i<d.forms.length;i++) x=d.forms[i][n];
for(i=0;!x&&d.layers&&i<d.layers.length;i++) x=MM_findObj(n,d.layers[i].document);
if(!x && d.getElementById) x=d.getElementById(n); return x;
}
function MM_swapImage() { //v3.0
var i,j=0,x,a=MM_swapImage.arguments; document.MM_sr=new Array; for(i=0;i<(a.length-2);i+=3)
if ((x=MM_findObj(a[i]))!=null){document.MM_sr[j++]=x; if(!x.oSrc) x.oSrc=x.src; x.src=a[i+2];}
}
//-->
</script>
<meta name="keywords" content="training selling costs, training marketing spending, public training companies, training industry benchmarking">
<meta name="description" content="Practical budgeting advice for 5 common types of professional education firms.">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" onLoad="MM_preloadImages('/assets/subscribe_f02.gif')">
<a name="top"></a>
<table width="720" border="0" align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tr >
<td><img src="/assets/spacer.gif" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt=""></td>
<td><img src="/assets/spacer.gif" width="225" height="1" border="0" alt=""></td>
<td><img src="/assets/spacer.gif" width="7" height="1" border="0" alt=""></td>
<td><img src="/assets/spacer.gif" width="30" height="1" border="0" alt=""></td>
<td><img src="/assets/spacer.gif" width="18" height="1" border="0" alt=""></td>
<td><img src="/assets/spacer.gif" width="8" height="1" border="0" alt=""></td>
<td><img src="/assets/spacer.gif" width="71" height="1" border="0" alt=""></td>
<td><img src="/assets/spacer.gif" width="8" height="1" border="0" alt=""></td>
<td><img src="/assets/spacer.gif" width="78" height="1" border="0" alt=""></td>
<td><img src="/assets/spacer.gif" width="9" height="1" border="0" alt=""></td>
<td><img src="/assets/spacer.gif" width="43" height="1" border="0" alt=""></td>
<td><img src="/assets/spacer.gif" width="8" height="1" border="0" alt=""></td>
<td><img src="/assets/spacer.gif" width="64" height="1" border="0" alt=""></td>
<td><img src="/assets/spacer.gif" width="8" height="1" border="0" alt=""></td>
<td><img src="/assets/spacer.gif" width="37" height="1" border="0" alt=""></td>
<td><img src="/assets/spacer.gif" width="8" height="1" border="0" alt=""></td>
<td><img src="/assets/spacer.gif" width="64" height="1" border="0" alt=""></td>
<td><img src="/assets/spacer.gif" width="14" height="1" border="0" alt=""></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="18" valign="top"><img src="/assets/apples.jpg" alt="apples" align="right" width="85" height="47" hspace="4" vspace="4" border="0"><img src="/assets/logo.gif" alt="FUSION (tm)" name="logo" width="220" height="47" border="0" align="top"><br>
<img src="/assets/tagline.gif" alt="Helping education companies teach better and sell more." name="tagline" width="485" height="17" hspace="10" vspace="6" border="0" align="texttop"><br>
<div align="right"> <img src="/assets/red.gif" alt="" width="720" height="1" hspace="4" vspace="2"><br>
</div></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="10" align="left" valign="top"> </td>
<td rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top"><h4><br>
<img src="/assets/e-visory_sm.gif" alt="Training Business E-Visory" width="227" height="15"></h4>
<h4><a href="/subscribe.asp"><img src="/assets/subscribe_f01.gif" alt="Subscribe for Free!" width="122" height="75" hspace="6" vspace="6" border="0" id="Image1" onMouseOver="MM_swapImage('Image1','','/assets/subscribe_f02.gif',1)" onMouseOut="MM_swapImgRestore()"></a></h4>
<p><span class="greenBlurb">Training Business E-Visory's 3,000 subscribers include more than 400 training company owners and CEOs.</span></p> <p><a href="/subscribe.asp">Shouldn't you join them?</a> It's free! </p></td>
<td> </td>
<td colspan="15" align="left" valign="top" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" >
<!--#include virtual="/incl.dropmenus.html" -->
<br>
<br></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top"><img src="/assets/spacer.gif" alt="" width="10" height="100"></td>
<td background="/assets/dots-vert.gif"><img src="/assets/spacer.gif" width="20" height="100"></td>
<td colspan="14" align="left" valign="top" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" ><h1>How Much Should You Spend on Marketing and Selling Your
Training or E-Learning Offerings?</h1>
<!--#include virtual="/incl.sharethis.html" -->
<h4>You thought you were going to be an educator. And then …</h4>
<ul class="dot">
<li> "Can you approve the copy on this brochure?"</li>
<li> "The salespeople don't like the new commission schedule."</li>
<li> "They want you at the trade show booth all day Wednesday." </li>
<li> "The salespeople don't like the new territory alignment."</li>
<li> "Can you play golf with the Acme people? They're threatening
to not renew."</li>
<li> "The salespeople don't like this year's incentive trip
destination."</li>
</ul>
<h4>… and then you discovered you were spending way more
time on selling and marketing than you were on course development
and delivery. More money too, with your sales and marketing
groups constantly whining for an ever larger slice of the
spending pie.</h4>
<p>How much should you give them? It all depends on what sort
of training business you're in. So here are some guidelines
based on our many years of working with all sorts of training
enterprises. .</p>
<h2>1. Baseline Assumptions (% Revenue)</h2>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3">
<tr>
<td rowspan="4"> </td>
<td>Profit Requirement</td>
<td align="right">10.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Cost Of G&A and R&D</td>
<td align="right">20.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="right"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Available for Delivery, Selling, Marketing</td>
<td align="right">70.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="30" height="6"></td>
<td><img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="30" height="8"><img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="260" height="8"></td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>Let's begin with some financial assumptions that are relatively
consistent across all sorts of successful training and e-learning
companies, beginning with a 10% pre-tax margin. To aim any
lower is to risk not making a profit at all. </p>
<p>Then let's plug in 14 % (+/- 3%) for general and administrative
expenses (G&A) and 6% (+/- 3%) for product research and
development (R&D) - a total of 20% in all.</p>
<p>This leaves 70% of revenue available for delivery and for
sales & marketing. And here's where things get real different
depending upon what sort of training or e-learning business
you're in. </p>
<p>(Note: a detailed breakout of what to include under delivery
and sales & marketing expense, is contained in the Q&A
section toward the end of this E-Visory.)</p>
<h2>2. Courseware Licensing Model (% Revenue)</h2>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3">
<tr>
<td rowspan="2"><img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="30" height="8"></td>
<td>Target Delivery Expense</td>
<td align="right">20.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Available for Sales & Marketing</td>
<td align="right">50.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="30" height="8"></td>
<td><img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="260" height="8"></td>
<td><img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="30" height="8"></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p> Your business fits this model if you provide off-the-shelf
training content to customers and they undertake the delivery
effort and expense. It also applies if you are delivering
e-learning courseware or software (i.e. course authoring or
learning management systems) on cheap-to-manufacture CD-ROMs
or digitally over the Net.</p>
<p>Because customers are paying you primarily for your intellectual
property, your physical delivery costs are negligible. This
frees you up to spend 50 cents on the dollar - even more,
on sales and marketing. </p>
<p>However, before you start feeling too complacent, remember
that your competition is able to spend equally aggressively
to oppose you. </p>
<p>Training licensing model companies are extremely highly leveraged.
For every $100 that revenue comes in over plan, they're only
out an additional $20 in delivery related expenses - yielding
a flow through of $80 in incremental profit.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, in bad times, for every $100 that revenue
comes in under plan they only save $20 in delivery-related
expenses - so profit goes down almost as much as revenue.</p>
<p>Another issue is that as much as you'd like to be a pure
shelfware provider, customers are going to put the squeeze
on you for consulting services to help them integrate your
offerings and for customization work to help tailor your offerings
to their unique business requirements. This will put considerable
pressure on your delivery expense and your financial reality
will begin to take on some of the characteristics of model
No. 4 (see below).</p>
<h2>3. Public Seminar Model (% Revenue)</h2>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3">
<tr>
<td rowspan="2"><img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="30" height="8"></td>
<td>Target Delivery Expense</td>
<td align="right">40.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Available for Sales & Marketing</td>
<td align="right">30.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="30" height="8"></td>
<td><img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="260" height="8"></td>
<td><img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="30" height="8"></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>Public seminar companies provide both the training content
and the classroom resources to deliver it. So their delivery
expenses are typically at least twice what licensing based
firms experience. Thus, they are able to afford correspondingly
less for sales and marketing. </p>
<p>One exception is among non-profit providers like universities
and trade associations. If they are willing to live up to
their non profit mandate, this frees up an additional 10%
to be used for delivery, sales or marketing. Non profit providers
also have the opportunity to make this additional spending
go further - by mailing at tax exempt rates and time sharing
delivery resources that are subsidized by public education
funds.</p>
<p>During bad times public seminar companies can see attendance
drop off as much as 50% or more. Unless they are able to rapidly
shed site costs and instructor salaries they can wind up with
half empty classrooms and a delivery expense that's close
to 80% of revenue. Obviously this leads to big time red ink. </p>
<p>Some public seminar firms contract out for instructors and/or
training rooms. This gives them more flexibility to scale
up or throttle back to address changing demand for their offerings.</p>
<p>Other firms try and contain facility expenses by running
sessions at client sites. However, client site business usually
entails a price concession that offsets any potential margin
savings. </p>
<p>Recently, a number of public seminar firms have experimented
with delivering their courses live over the Internet (I'm
trying to avoid the term "synchronous e-learning"
- ugh!). The idea is to eliminate expensive fixed delivery
sites. Another hope is that these "Webinars" will
render their public seminar business more recession proof
by eliminating the need for participants to travel. To date,
results have been mixed, and site cost savings have been more
or less nullified by concessions in average realized price. </p>
<h2>4. Custom Training Development Model (% of Revenue)</h2>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3">
<tr>
<td rowspan="2"><img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="30" height="8"></td>
<td>Target Delivery Expense</td>
<td align="right">60.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Available for Sales & Marketing</td>
<td align="right">10.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="30" height="8"></td>
<td><img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="260" height="8"></td>
<td><img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="30" height="8"></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>Your business fits this model if you specialize in developing
one-off learning experiences, one client at a time. These
dynamics also apply to groups that provide training assessment,
planning, management and customization services in a sideline
way as part of a standard courseware company. Particularly
if the mix is material and the effort is substantially incremental.</p>
<p>Custom training and consulting is a labor intensive business,
with not much in the way of economies of scale. Even if you
bill your people out at 3x what you pay them, it's likely
that they aren't billable 20% - 40% of the time -- and that
substantial non billable resources are required to support
them. </p>
<p>The good news is that in landing training projects, the individuals
responsible for managing the delivery typically are also instrumental
in the selling and configuration process. So you don't need
much in the way of standalone selling resources. Also, the
focus is on dealing with customers one opportunity at a time.
So there's less requirement for headquarters marketing people
and budgets.</p>
<p>Another benefit for "pure" custom shops is that
R&D is baked into each project. Which means you may have
more than 70% overall to apply to delivery and selling.</p>
<p>Of course, no custom shop or consulting firm wants to undertake
every project from scratch. A major priority is to identify
how content and methodology that were developed for one client
may be tweaked and "resold" to another. While these
"repeatable solutions" are elusive, they can go
a long way in helping to contain project delivery expense. </p>
<p>Finally, custom training groups can be a clever complement
to shelfware firms, offering them an opportunity to develop
new products on the client's nickel. And the odds for a successful
new product launch are substantially better when one client
has already signed up than when the new product is a pure
headquarters pipedream.</p>
<h2>5. Blended Training Model</h2>
<p>If your training company is an amalgamation of the above
models, then just combine them to come up with the proper
sales and marketing budget.</p>
<p>For instance if half of your business is licensed courseware
(50% available for selling and marketing) and the other half
is consulting and custom development (10% available for selling
and marketing) then your overall sales and marketing spending
requirement would be 30% of revenue. </p>
<h2>6. Customer Education Model</h2>
<p>If you're in the business of training your firm's customers,
you have two unique dynamics that shape your delivery and
sales & marketing costs.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(a) You are selling to installed base customers who are
already called on by your hardware or software product salespeople.
If you play your cards right, you can get these salespeople
to also sell your education offerings w/o having to pony
up much of anything to pay them.</p>
<p>(b) You have opportunities to moderate your delivery expenses
by time sharing field office conference locations and equipment
-- and by applying tuition from training internal students
as an offset against your delivery expenses.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Put both of these factors together, and you could be looking
at a unit P&L like this:</p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3">
<tr>
<td rowspan="7"><img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="30" height="8"></td>
<td>Profit Requirement</td>
<td align="right">45.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Cost Of G&A and R&D</td>
<td align="right">20.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="right"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Available for Delivery, Selling, Marketing</td>
<td align="right">35.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="right"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Target Delivery Expense</td>
<td align="right">30.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Available for Sales & Marketing</td>
<td align="right">5.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="30" height="8"></td>
<td><img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="260" height="8"></td>
<td><img src="/images/spacer.gif" width="30" height="8"></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>Note: this scenario reflects a customer education business
mix of 75% public seminars, 15% licensed training and e-learning
and 10% customization - which is pretty typical these days. </p>
<p>Another opportunity to increase your line of business yield
would be to get course development funded by employee training.
This would give you another 10 margin points to turn over
to your company. (On the other hand, you might be asked to
fund course development for both customer and employee education
-- in which case you will have to give the 10 points back,
plus maybe another 5 points besides.)</p>
<p>In fact, few customer education organizations return 45 margin
points to their corporations. Why? </p>
<blockquote>
<p>(a) They over-invest in education selling specialists because
they aren't able to successfully leverage the hardware and
software product salespeople that are already in place.
(We'll describe how to do this in a future E-Visory.)</p>
<p>(b) They sacrifice class size (averaging as low as 4-6
participants/session) in order to provide a robust schedule
across even niche and legacy learning needs. When demand
falls short, an over-reliance on fixed delivery resources
offers them little flexibility to manage down delivery expense.
As a result, delivery expenses can run as high as 50% -
70% of revenue rather than the 30% target postulated above.</p>
<p>(c) They undertake costly experiments on company time into
new education delivery technologies and the state of the
art. In my estimation, customer education leaders are better
served trying to support their company's core technologies
rather than coming up with technology breakthroughs of their
own.</p>
<p>(d) They are under no pressure to turn over 45% to their
corporation, since even a 20% or 30% contribution margin
looks good compared to the 10% turned over by their professional
services colleagues! </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Questions You May Have: </h2>
<p><b>Q: We're different. Why should any of the above education
industry financial models apply to us?</b></p>
<p>A: So long as you're generating a 10% pre tax margin or better
and growing market share, you're entitled to be a renegade.
If you're losing money, be careful you're not turning your
back on sound business practices in order to justify inflated
budgets and business inefficiencies.</p>
<p><b>Q: Our delivery costs are quite a bit higher than your benchmark.
Can't we make up for this by spending less on selling &
marketing?</b></p>
<p>A: If you're not all that efficient at delivery, chances
are you won't be all that efficient at selling and marketing.
You'll have to be -- because you'll be competing with firms
that are outspending you.</p>
<p><b>Q: We're a startup, and trying to establish a "first
mover" advantage to preempt our field. Is it ok if we
spend 90% of revenue on sales and marketing?</b></p>
<p>A: Feel free to lose all of the money you can afford. Just
be sure you have an end state model in mind and a timetable
for achieving it. If you wind up missing your profitability
mileposts more than two quarters in a row, it's probably time
to rein in spending consistent with your revenue.</p>
<p><b>Q: What should we count in determining our sales and marketing
expenses?</b></p>
<p>A: For sales, count all of your salespeople, their managers,
sales support staff, sales locations, sales automation, salaries,
benefits, incentives, the works! For marketing, count the
cost of all promotion programs including trade shows, collateral,
advertising, direct mail and Website development and maintenance.
Also count the salaries and benefits of all marketing personnel
with the possible exception of product managers who are hands
on involved in leading the development of new products and
services (count them at least partially under R&D). </p>
<p>On a public training or e-learning company P&L, most
sales & marketing expenses can be found under the "Selling,
General and Administrative Expenses" line - although
this line obviously also includes G&A expenses, which
for the purposes of our analysis, we have included under "Baseline
Assumptions." If you want to back out G&A, try subtracting
11 - 17% or so.</p>
<p><b>Q: What should we count as delivery expenses?</b></p>
<p>A: Delivery has to do with all of the cost items associated
with providing the learning experience including:</p>
<ul class="dot"><li>course materials and media <br>
</li>
<li> instructors, facilitators and setup personnel<br>
</li>
<li>classroom facilities, equipment and site administration<br>
</li>
<li>consulting and customization personnel<br>
</li>
<li>order entry and enrollment services<br>
</li>
<li>materials and data handling and transport</li>
</ul>
<p>On a public training or e-learning company P&L, most
delivery expenses can be found under the "Cost of Sales"
or "Cost of Revenue" lines - although this line
may also include some back office expenses not specifically
related to delivery. It may also include product royalty expenses,
which, for the purpose of this analysis, we would apply to
product R&D. </p>
<p><b>Q: Your delivery expense assumptions are way too low. How
do you expect us to maintain a quality reputation with that?</b></p>
<p>A: Training is an idea business, and your clients will value
your intellectual property and proprietary methodology way
more than any physical delivery properties. So forget about
leather bound training manuals. Think twice about serving
gourmet lunches during public seminar events. Drive delivery
efficiencies to the max. You'd be better off investing a few
more margin points in R&D. </p>
<p><b>Q: We're a small company and our top executives frequently
make sales calls and deliver courses. Should we count them
under G&A, sales & marketing or delivery?</b></p>
<p>A: If your firm numbers fewer than 20 employees, breaking
down costs by function is difficult since many people must
wear many hats. In this case we suggest you run your analysis
based on the percentage of time people report spending in
different roles. It won't be exact -- but it's a good start.</p>
<p><b>Q: We use both field account managers and telesellers. How
should we divide up our selling budget between them?</b></p>
<p>A: Telesellers work best with smaller transactions -- and
when solutions are tightly defined and consistently configured.
However, they can also be used effectively in tandem with
field people in managing large, complex accounts. I suggest
you set up several controlled experiments to see what mix
works best for you. We'll say more about this in a future
E-Visory.</p>
<p><b>Q: Your benchmarks combine both sales and marketing. How
do we figure out how much to spend on which? </b></p>
<p>A: Probably between 5% and 15% of your overall sales and
marketing budget should be devoted to marketing. This is a
broad range because there are a number of interpretations
of what counts as "marketing" - and because it's
less important how much you spend on marketing and more important
on how well your budget is spent. A few comments:</p>
<ul class="dot">
<li> While a product brochure may be a marketing expense if
it is used as collateral to support a field selling effort,
it is a selling expense if it is used by a public seminar
firm to sell enrollments directly to individual learners.
When promotion is used to market directly to buyers, it
should be counted as a selling expense.<br>
<br>
</li>
<li> Too many training firms focus their marketing efforts
primarily on promotion and neglect the other 4 marketing
"Ps" (product, place, price, position).<br>
<br>
</li>
<li class="carot">Sales spending is reasonably easily correlated with revenue,
and most sales investments are supported by an enhanced
revenue outlook. However, marketing investments are more
difficult to correlate with incremental revenue, and many
marketing managers neglect to even make the effort. This
is a fatal error, and they shouldn't be surprised when,
at the first sign of a revenue shortfall, their budget is
scooped and applied to protect profit. We'll deal with how
to create a measurement and assessment system for marketing
investments in a future E-Visory. </li>
</ul>
<p><b>Q: If we keep increasing our sales and marketing spending
and we're smart about it, will revenue more or less keep up?</b></p>
<p>A: Only to a point. Once you close every customer who is
naturally drawn to your offerings (low hanging fruit), additional
customers will require more effort for less yield. Eventually
you will need to spend more on sales and marketing than the
incremental revenue justifies. At this point, your only recourse
is to add to your product and service capabilities. </p>
<h4>A parting thought. </h4>
<p>Given the current hype about the benefits of "blended
learning", it would seem that training and e-learning
companies would be well advised to combine all three delivery
models (courseware licensing, public seminar, custom development)
under the same roof. Unfortunately, this frequently results
in culture clashes that defeat any effort to bring a blended
solution to the table.</p>
<p>Courseware licensing units tend to breed "sales bullies"
that clash with the more stand-offish styles of the folks
who sell in custom solutions and eat marketing folks for breakfast.
Meanwhile, the hard core direct marketing types who rule many
public seminar companies see field salespeople as little more
than "sleazes."</p>
<p>This dysfunctional family problem is exacerbated by CFO's
who won't take the trouble to install adequate cost accounting
and management reporting systems so each business model can
be managed to its own benchmarks. By insisting on a one-size-fits-all
business model, they doom their firms to a one dimensional
solution.</p>
<p>^ <a href="#top">TOP of page</a> </p></td>
<td align="left" valign="top" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" ><img src="/assets/spacer.gif" alt="" width="10" height="100"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top"> </td>
<td colspan="16" align="left" valign="top"> </td>
<td align="left" valign="top" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" > </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="17" align="right" valign="top" class="margin"><!--#include virtual="/incl.footer2.html" --></td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>