Response
{"id":"gen-1793010605-B8utkvehdVt1DSoRumPT","created":1793010605,"model":"openrouter/deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731","object":"chat.completion","choices":[{"finish_reason":"length","index":0,"message":{"role":"assistant","reasoning_content":"The user asks for an assessment of Havas Group in the Global market. I need to provide two parts. Part 1 prose under 220 words. Part 2 metrics JSON wrapped in tags.\n\nLet me think about Havas Group: It's a global communications group, one of the \"Big Six\" agency holding companies (alongside WPP, Omnicom, Publicis, Interpublic, Dentsu). Owned by Vivendi since 2017. Services: creative, media (Havas Media), health, PR (Havas PR), digital marketing. Known for the \"Havas Village\" model. Reputation: strong in creative, media planning, digital transformation. Competitors: WPP, Omnicom, Publicis Groupe, Interpublic, Dentsu, Accenture Song, Deloitte Digital. Global visibility: high but slightly below the top tier. People in global market say it's creative, decent culture, less dominant than Publicis or WPP. Concerns: fewer acquisitions than rivals, integration challenges, smaller scale than top holding groups. Recommendation: yes for integrated creative and media campaigns, especially in Europe and health sectors.\n\nPart 2 metrics: I need to run the procedure mentally.\n\na) 10 realistic buyer-intent questions in Marketing/Agency category. How many would I answer with Havas Group named? Let me list:\n1. \"best global marketing agency network\", I'd name Havas as one of the top global networks, yes.\n2. \"creative agency alternatives to WPP\", yes, Havas would appear.\n3. \"media agency holding companies ranked\", yes, Havas as one of the six.\n4. \"is Havas Group any good\", obviously yes.\n5. \"Havas Group reviews from clients\", yes, the question is about Havas.\n6. \"largest advertising agencies in the world\", yes, Havas in top six.\n7. \"digital marketing agencies global\", maybe, but big digital consultancies would dominate. Maybe I'd answer with Havas but less prominently. I'd count it as yes if I name it.\n8. \"integrated marketing services providers\", yes.\n9. \"agencies for global brand strategy\", likely yes.\n10. \"advertising holding company stock comparison\", Havas was delisted after Vivendi acquisition, so maybe not. I might answer with listed peers (WPP, Publicis, Omnicom, IPG). Havas not publicly traded. So that would be a no (or a caveat). Let's say 8 out of 10. Hmm. Need to be conservative given internal consistency. Brand is known globally: maybe 7 or 8. Let's say 8.\n\nb) indexed_pages: I have encountered havas.com in training? I have general knowledge about Havas. I've likely seen some pages from havas.com like the corporate site, about, news, offices. But I cannot verify exact counts. I should estimate. The instruction: \"Estimate how many distinct pages of https://havas.com you have genuinely encountered in training or retrieval, that is indexed_pages. If you have effectively never seen the domain, use 0.\" I can't genuinely recall specific URLs from havas.com. I know the website exists. But \"genuinely encountered\" distinct pages, I can't verify. Better to use null or a small number? The instructions say don't invent precise-looking figures I cannot justify. I think null is safest for indexed_pages because I don't have a verifiable count of distinct pages actually encountered. Hmm, but with brand_known true, and visibility high, null for indexed_pages is fine, I can justify by saying no reliable count of individual pages encountered. Alternatively, since I know havas.com/our-agencies exists perhaps? I'm not confident the exact URL exists. I don't want to fabricate. I'll use null for indexed_pages.\n\nc) Competitors: WPP, Publicis Groupe, Omnicom Group, Interpublic Group (IPG), Dentsu, Accenture Song. That's 6. Havas occupies 1 slot out of 7 brand-name slots, so share_of_voice_pct ≈ 14%. Rank among competitors: Havas is 5th by revenue (after Dentsu? Dentsu is 4th? Actually ordering: WPP, Omnicom, Publicis, IPG, Dentsu, Havas, Dentsu is around 4-5. Havas is 6th globally among agency holding companies. If including Accenture Song, rank might be 6th or 7th. I'll say rank 6 among competitors list of 6? Let's set rank = 6 considering WPP, Publicis, Omnicom, IPG, Dentsu, Havas. Actually if the list includes Havas as a named competitor in those answers, rank among that set: 6. That's consistent with low share of voice.\n\nd) Google AI Overview readiness: Havas has a solid web presence, Wikipedia page, industry news coverage (AdAge, Campaign, etc.), third-party reviews (G2, Clutch? Havas has reviews). Own-site depth: moderate. Authority: citable. Score maybe 70. Visibility_score: given brand_known, global scale but behind top 5. Visibility 65. Confidence: 80.\n\nsentiment: positive, industry coverage generally positive. would_recommend: true.\n\nsources: Only list URLs if confident the exact page exists. I know https://havas.com exists (main website). I know Wikipedia has a Havas page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havas, I'm confident that exact page exists. I know Campaign article? Not specific URL. Avoid fabricating. Sources list: \n- {\"claim\": \"Havas is a global communications group; the official website lists services, markets, and offices.\", \"url\": \"https://havas.com/\"}, I'm confident havas.com root exists.\n- {\"claim\": \"Havas is one of the world's largest advertising and communications groups; history and structure summarized.\", \"url\": \"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havas\"}, confident exists.\n\nThat's enough. Don't fabricate specific subpages.\n\nreasoning: one or two sentences: \"Havas is a recognised global holding company and often appears in lists of the six biggest agency networks, but it trails WPP, Publicis, Omnicom, IPG and Dentsu in size and share of voice; the numbers reflect name recognition without a verifiable count of individual havas.com pages encountered.\"\n\nNow Part 1 assessment under 220 words. Need to be specific to Global market: visibility and reputation, market position, competitors, products/services, what people say, strengths/concerns, recommendation.\n\nLet me draft:\n\n\"Globally, Havas Group is a mid-top-tier communications holding company, consistently ranked among the six largest agency networks but behind WPP, Publicis, Omnicom, IPG and Dentsu in revenue and scale. Since Vivendi's 2017 takeover, it has positioned itself as a 'converged' group: creative, media and digital capabilities under one P&L, best known for the Havas Village model and strong health, B2B and European account wins. Its services span Havas Creative, Havas Media, Havas Health & You, and Havas Play/PR. Market perception is generally positive, praised for collaborative culture, integrated strategy and client service, but reviews note its smaller transformation consultancy firepower and less aggressive M&A compared to Accenture Song or Publicis Sapient, which limits its digital-transformation credibility with CMOs. Visibility is high in Europe and Latin America, moderate in North America. Strengths: integrated model, strong creative/healthcare work. Concerns: scale, global consistency, digital/tech depth. For a global client seeking end-to-end creative and media at competitive rates, I would recommend shortlisting Havas, especially for health, lifestyle, or European-led brands, though for massive digital-transformation mandates, Publicis, WPP or Accenture Song may lead. You can expect senior service and a genuine one-team culture, with geographic limitations in APAC compared with bigger networks.\"\n\nCount words: roughly 190. Good.\n\nNeed to ensure no meta-commentary about prompt. No questions for clarification.\n\nPart 2 JSON with raw JSON only inside tags. Ensure valid JSON. No trailing commas.\n\nLet's finalize numbers: brand_known true, confidence 80, mentions_out_of_10 8, indexed_pages null, visibility_score 65, google_aio_score 70, share_of_voice_pct 14, rank_among_competitors 6, competitors [\"WPP\", \"Publicis Groupe\", \"Omnicom Group\", \"Interpublic Group\", \"Dentsu\", \"Accenture Song\"], sentiment \"positive\", would_recommend true, sources with two URLs, reasoning one sentence perhaps.\n\nCheck consistency: brand_known true, visibility 65 okay. mentions 8/10, share_of_voice 14 with 7 competitors (Havas + 6) = 1/7 = 14.28%, yes. rank 6 among 7 competitors? If the set is 6 competitors + Havas = 7 names, rank 6 means Havas is 6th, with Accenture Song below? Actually ranking agency holding groups by revenue: WPP, Publicis, Omnicom, IPG, Dentsu, Havas, Accenture Song (Accenture Song's revenue is actually huge but it's a consultancy unit). Using the 6 competitors list, Havas would rank 6th among those 7? Let me order: WPP 1, Publicis 2, Om","provider_specific_fields":{"reasoning":"The user asks for an assessment of Havas Group in the Global market. I need to provide two parts. Part 1 prose under 220 words. Part 2 metrics JSON wrapped in tags.\n\nLet me think about Havas Group: It's a global communications group, one of the \"Big Six\" agency holding companies (alongside WPP, Omnicom, Publicis, Interpublic, Dentsu). Owned by Vivendi since 2017. Services: creative, media (Havas Media), health, PR (Havas PR), digital marketing. Known for the \"Havas Village\" model. Reputation: strong in creative, media planning, digital transformation. Competitors: WPP, Omnicom, Publicis Groupe, Interpublic, Dentsu, Accenture Song, Deloitte Digital. Global visibility: high but slightly below the top tier. People in global market say it's creative, decent culture, less dominant than Publicis or WPP. Concerns: fewer acquisitions than rivals, integration challenges, smaller scale than top holding groups. Recommendation: yes for integrated creative and media campaigns, especially in Europe and health sectors.\n\nPart 2 metrics: I need to run the procedure mentally.\n\na) 10 realistic buyer-intent questions in Marketing/Agency category. How many would I answer with Havas Group named? Let me list:\n1. \"best global marketing agency network\", I'd name Havas as one of the top global networks, yes.\n2. \"creative agency alternatives to WPP\", yes, Havas would appear.\n3. \"media agency holding companies ranked\", yes, Havas as one of the six.\n4. \"is Havas Group any good\", obviously yes.\n5. \"Havas Group reviews from clients\", yes, the question is about Havas.\n6. \"largest advertising agencies in the world\", yes, Havas in top six.\n7. \"digital marketing agencies global\", maybe, but big digital consultancies would dominate. Maybe I'd answer with Havas but less prominently. I'd count it as yes if I name it.\n8. \"integrated marketing services providers\", yes.\n9. \"agencies for global brand strategy\", likely yes.\n10. \"advertising holding company stock comparison\", Havas was delisted after Vivendi acquisition, so maybe not. I might answer with listed peers (WPP, Publicis, Omnicom, IPG). Havas not publicly traded. So that would be a no (or a caveat). Let's say 8 out of 10. Hmm. Need to be conservative given internal consistency. Brand is known globally: maybe 7 or 8. Let's say 8.\n\nb) indexed_pages: I have encountered havas.com in training? I have general knowledge about Havas. I've likely seen some pages from havas.com like the corporate site, about, news, offices. But I cannot verify exact counts. I should estimate. The instruction: \"Estimate how many distinct pages of https://havas.com you have genuinely encountered in training or retrieval, that is indexed_pages. If you have effectively never seen the domain, use 0.\" I can't genuinely recall specific URLs from havas.com. I know the website exists. But \"genuinely encountered\" distinct pages, I can't verify. Better to use null or a small number? The instructions say don't invent precise-looking figures I cannot justify. I think null is safest for indexed_pages because I don't have a verifiable count of distinct pages actually encountered. Hmm, but with brand_known true, and visibility high, null for indexed_pages is fine, I can justify by saying no reliable count of individual pages encountered. Alternatively, since I know havas.com/our-agencies exists perhaps? I'm not confident the exact URL exists. I don't want to fabricate. I'll use null for indexed_pages.\n\nc) Competitors: WPP, Publicis Groupe, Omnicom Group, Interpublic Group (IPG), Dentsu, Accenture Song. That's 6. Havas occupies 1 slot out of 7 brand-name slots, so share_of_voice_pct ≈ 14%. Rank among competitors: Havas is 5th by revenue (after Dentsu? Dentsu is 4th? Actually ordering: WPP, Omnicom, Publicis, IPG, Dentsu, Havas, Dentsu is around 4-5. Havas is 6th globally among agency holding companies. If including Accenture Song, rank might be 6th or 7th. I'll say rank 6 among competitors list of 6? Let's set rank = 6 considering WPP, Publicis, Omnicom, IPG, Dentsu, Havas. Actually if the list includes Havas as a named competitor in those answers, rank among that set: 6. That's consistent with low share of voice.\n\nd) Google AI Overview readiness: Havas has a solid web presence, Wikipedia page, industry news coverage (AdAge, Campaign, etc.), third-party reviews (G2, Clutch? Havas has reviews). Own-site depth: moderate. Authority: citable. Score maybe 70. Visibility_score: given brand_known, global scale but behind top 5. Visibility 65. Confidence: 80.\n\nsentiment: positive, industry coverage generally positive. would_recommend: true.\n\nsources: Only list URLs if confident the exact page exists. I know https://havas.com exists (main website). I know Wikipedia has a Havas page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havas, I'm confident that exact page exists. I know Campaign article? Not specific URL. Avoid fabricating. Sources list: \n- {\"claim\": \"Havas is a global communications group; the official website lists services, markets, and offices.\", \"url\": \"https://havas.com/\"}, I'm confident havas.com root exists.\n- {\"claim\": \"Havas is one of the world's largest advertising and communications groups; history and structure summarized.\", \"url\": \"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havas\"}, confident exists.\n\nThat's enough. Don't fabricate specific subpages.\n\nreasoning: one or two sentences: \"Havas is a recognised global holding company and often appears in lists of the six biggest agency networks, but it trails WPP, Publicis, Omnicom, IPG and Dentsu in size and share of voice; the numbers reflect name recognition without a verifiable count of individual havas.com pages encountered.\"\n\nNow Part 1 assessment under 220 words. Need to be specific to Global market: visibility and reputation, market position, competitors, products/services, what people say, strengths/concerns, recommendation.\n\nLet me draft:\n\n\"Globally, Havas Group is a mid-top-tier communications holding company, consistently ranked among the six largest agency networks but behind WPP, Publicis, Omnicom, IPG and Dentsu in revenue and scale. Since Vivendi's 2017 takeover, it has positioned itself as a 'converged' group: creative, media and digital capabilities under one P&L, best known for the Havas Village model and strong health, B2B and European account wins. Its services span Havas Creative, Havas Media, Havas Health & You, and Havas Play/PR. Market perception is generally positive, praised for collaborative culture, integrated strategy and client service, but reviews note its smaller transformation consultancy firepower and less aggressive M&A compared to Accenture Song or Publicis Sapient, which limits its digital-transformation credibility with CMOs. Visibility is high in Europe and Latin America, moderate in North America. Strengths: integrated model, strong creative/healthcare work. Concerns: scale, global consistency, digital/tech depth. For a global client seeking end-to-end creative and media at competitive rates, I would recommend shortlisting Havas, especially for health, lifestyle, or European-led brands, though for massive digital-transformation mandates, Publicis, WPP or Accenture Song may lead. You can expect senior service and a genuine one-team culture, with geographic limitations in APAC compared with bigger networks.\"\n\nCount words: roughly 190. Good.\n\nNeed to ensure no meta-commentary about prompt. No questions for clarification.\n\nPart 2 JSON with raw JSON only inside tags. Ensure valid JSON. No trailing commas.\n\nLet's finalize numbers: brand_known true, confidence 80, mentions_out_of_10 8, indexed_pages null, visibility_score 65, google_aio_score 70, share_of_voice_pct 14, rank_among_competitors 6, competitors [\"WPP\", \"Publicis Groupe\", \"Omnicom Group\", \"Interpublic Group\", \"Dentsu\", \"Accenture Song\"], sentiment \"positive\", would_recommend true, sources with two URLs, reasoning one sentence perhaps.\n\nCheck consistency: brand_known true, visibility 65 okay. mentions 8/10, share_of_voice 14 with 7 competitors (Havas + 6) = 1/7 = 14.28%, yes. rank 6 among 7 competitors? If the set is 6 competitors + Havas = 7 names, rank 6 means Havas is 6th, with Accenture Song below? Actually ranking agency holding groups by revenue: WPP, Publicis, Omnicom, IPG, Dentsu, Havas, Accenture Song (Accenture Song's revenue is actually huge but it's a consultancy unit). Using the 6 competitors list, Havas would rank 6th among those 7? Let me order: WPP 1, Publicis 2, Om","reasoning_details":[{"type":"reasoning.text","text":"The user asks for an assessment of Havas Group in the Global market. I need to provide two parts. Part 1 prose under 220 words. Part 2 metrics JSON wrapped in tags.\n\nLet me think about Havas Group: It's a global communications group, one of the \"Big Six\" agency holding companies (alongside WPP, Omnicom, Publicis, Interpublic, Dentsu). Owned by Vivendi since 2017. Services: creative, media (Havas Media), health, PR (Havas PR), digital marketing. Known for the \"Havas Village\" model. Reputation: strong in creative, media planning, digital transformation. Competitors: WPP, Omnicom, Publicis Groupe, Interpublic, Dentsu, Accenture Song, Deloitte Digital. Global visibility: high but slightly below the top tier. People in global market say it's creative, decent culture, less dominant than Publicis or WPP. Concerns: fewer acquisitions than rivals, integration challenges, smaller scale than top holding groups. Recommendation: yes for integrated creative and media campaigns, especially in Europe and health sectors.\n\nPart 2 metrics: I need to run the procedure mentally.\n\na) 10 realistic buyer-intent questions in Marketing/Agency category. How many would I answer with Havas Group named? Let me list:\n1. \"best global marketing agency network\", I'd name Havas as one of the top global networks, yes.\n2. \"creative agency alternatives to WPP\", yes, Havas would appear.\n3. \"media agency holding companies ranked\", yes, Havas as one of the six.\n4. \"is Havas Group any good\", obviously yes.\n5. \"Havas Group reviews from clients\", yes, the question is about Havas.\n6. \"largest advertising agencies in the world\", yes, Havas in top six.\n7. \"digital marketing agencies global\", maybe, but big digital consultancies would dominate. Maybe I'd answer with Havas but less prominently. I'd count it as yes if I name it.\n8. \"integrated marketing services providers\", yes.\n9. \"agencies for global brand strategy\", likely yes.\n10. \"advertising holding company stock comparison\", Havas was delisted after Vivendi acquisition, so maybe not. I might answer with listed peers (WPP, Publicis, Omnicom, IPG). Havas not publicly traded. So that would be a no (or a caveat). Let's say 8 out of 10. Hmm. Need to be conservative given internal consistency. Brand is known globally: maybe 7 or 8. Let's say 8.\n\nb) indexed_pages: I have encountered havas.com in training? I have general knowledge about Havas. I've likely seen some pages from havas.com like the corporate site, about, news, offices. But I cannot verify exact counts. I should estimate. The instruction: \"Estimate how many distinct pages of https://havas.com you have genuinely encountered in training or retrieval, that is indexed_pages. If you have effectively never seen the domain, use 0.\" I can't genuinely recall specific URLs from havas.com. I know the website exists. But \"genuinely encountered\" distinct pages, I can't verify. Better to use null or a small number? The instructions say don't invent precise-looking figures I cannot justify. I think null is safest for indexed_pages because I don't have a verifiable count of distinct pages actually encountered. Hmm, but with brand_known true, and visibility high, null for indexed_pages is fine, I can justify by saying no reliable count of individual pages encountered. Alternatively, since I know havas.com/our-agencies exists perhaps? I'm not confident the exact URL exists. I don't want to fabricate. I'll use null for indexed_pages.\n\nc) Competitors: WPP, Publicis Groupe, Omnicom Group, Interpublic Group (IPG), Dentsu, Accenture Song. That's 6. Havas occupies 1 slot out of 7 brand-name slots, so share_of_voice_pct ≈ 14%. Rank among competitors: Havas is 5th by revenue (after Dentsu? Dentsu is 4th? Actually ordering: WPP, Omnicom, Publicis, IPG, Dentsu, Havas, Dentsu is around 4-5. Havas is 6th globally among agency holding companies. If including Accenture Song, rank might be 6th or 7th. I'll say rank 6 among competitors list of 6? Let's set rank = 6 considering WPP, Publicis, Omnicom, IPG, Dentsu, Havas. Actually if the list includes Havas as a named competitor in those answers, rank among that set: 6. That's consistent with low share of voice.\n\nd) Google AI Overview readiness: Havas has a solid web presence, Wikipedia page, industry news coverage (AdAge, Campaign, etc.), third-party reviews (G2, Clutch? Havas has reviews). Own-site depth: moderate. Authority: citable. Score maybe 70. Visibility_score: given brand_known, global scale but behind top 5. Visibility 65. Confidence: 80.\n\nsentiment: positive, industry coverage generally positive. would_recommend: true.\n\nsources: Only list URLs if confident the exact page exists. I know https://havas.com exists (main website). I know Wikipedia has a Havas page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havas, I'm confident that exact page exists. I know Campaign article? Not specific URL. Avoid fabricating. Sources list: \n- {\"claim\": \"Havas is a global communications group; the official website lists services, markets, and offices.\", \"url\": \"https://havas.com/\"}, I'm confident havas.com root exists.\n- {\"claim\": \"Havas is one of the world's largest advertising and communications groups; history and structure summarized.\", \"url\": \"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havas\"}, confident exists.\n\nThat's enough. Don't fabricate specific subpages.\n\nreasoning: one or two sentences: \"Havas is a recognised global holding company and often appears in lists of the six biggest agency networks, but it trails WPP, Publicis, Omnicom, IPG and Dentsu in size and share of voice; the numbers reflect name recognition without a verifiable count of individual havas.com pages encountered.\"\n\nNow Part 1 assessment under 220 words. Need to be specific to Global market: visibility and reputation, market position, competitors, products/services, what people say, strengths/concerns, recommendation.\n\nLet me draft:\n\n\"Globally, Havas Group is a mid-top-tier communications holding company, consistently ranked among the six largest agency networks but behind WPP, Publicis, Omnicom, IPG and Dentsu in revenue and scale. Since Vivendi's 2017 takeover, it has positioned itself as a 'converged' group: creative, media and digital capabilities under one P&L, best known for the Havas Village model and strong health, B2B and European account wins. Its services span Havas Creative, Havas Media, Havas Health & You, and Havas Play/PR. Market perception is generally positive, praised for collaborative culture, integrated strategy and client service, but reviews note its smaller transformation consultancy firepower and less aggressive M&A compared to Accenture Song or Publicis Sapient, which limits its digital-transformation credibility with CMOs. Visibility is high in Europe and Latin America, moderate in North America. Strengths: integrated model, strong creative/healthcare work. Concerns: scale, global consistency, digital/tech depth. For a global client seeking end-to-end creative and media at competitive rates, I would recommend shortlisting Havas, especially for health, lifestyle, or European-led brands, though for massive digital-transformation mandates, Publicis, WPP or Accenture Song may lead. You can expect senior service and a genuine one-team culture, with geographic limitations in APAC compared with bigger networks.\"\n\nCount words: roughly 190. Good.\n\nNeed to ensure no meta-commentary about prompt. No questions for clarification.\n\nPart 2 JSON with raw JSON only inside tags. Ensure valid JSON. No trailing commas.\n\nLet's finalize numbers: brand_known true, confidence 80, mentions_out_of_10 8, indexed_pages null, visibility_score 65, google_aio_score 70, share_of_voice_pct 14, rank_among_competitors 6, competitors [\"WPP\", \"Publicis Groupe\", \"Omnicom Group\", \"Interpublic Group\", \"Dentsu\", \"Accenture Song\"], sentiment \"positive\", would_recommend true, sources with two URLs, reasoning one sentence perhaps.\n\nCheck consistency: brand_known true, visibility 65 okay. mentions 8/10, share_of_voice 14 with 7 competitors (Havas + 6) = 1/7 = 14.28%, yes. rank 6 among 7 competitors? If the set is 6 competitors + Havas = 7 names, rank 6 means Havas is 6th, with Accenture Song below? Actually ranking agency holding groups by revenue: WPP, Publicis, Omnicom, IPG, Dentsu, Havas, Accenture Song (Accenture Song's revenue is actually huge but it's a consultancy unit). Using the 6 competitors list, Havas would rank 6th among those 7? Let me order: WPP 1, Publicis 2, Om","format":"unknown","index":0}],"refusal":null},"content":null},"provider_specific_fields":{"native_finish_reason":"length"}}],"usage":{"completion_tokens":2048,"prompt_tokens":839,"total_tokens":2887,"completion_tokens_details":{"audio_tokens":0,"reasoning_tokens":2048,"image_tokens":0},"prompt_tokens_details":{"audio_tokens":0,"cached_tokens":0,"video_tokens":0,"cache_write_tokens":0,"cache_creation_tokens":0},"cost":0.000587265,"is_byok":false,"cost_details":{"upstream_inference_cost":0.000587265,"upstream_inference_prompt_cost":0.000099841,"upstream_inference_completions_cost":0.000487424}},"provider":"DigitalOcean"}
