So let's look at two quick examples from two very different places. One is from television, the sitcom Friends. This was a huge kind of a surprise hit in the 90s. And before the show started, these six actors were essentially unknown. And as is typically done in television, they negotiated their contracts individually. However, the show really took off, and then the interesting thing that happened is that they started negotiating collectively. It was a single unit negotiating with the production company instead of six individual actors. And, interestingly, they all took equal pay. So, despite having quite a bit of disparity between the celebrity of, say, Jennifer Aniston, they were actually paid the same. So in years three through ten, this was the arrangement, and by the time they were done, they were paid $1 million per episode per actor. And they shot 20 or 24 episodes a year, so these guys were making $20 million each through a coalition. Now, why would they do such a thing? Why do you think they might accept equal pay? Do you think they were better off in the long run? Why would that be? So some people think that it changed the dynamic on the set, that it preserved the relationships in a way. Maybe they would have never made it to year ten and done as well if they hadn't gone in with that kind of equal arrangement. But by what other means, other than a coalition, would Matt LeBlanc have ever been paid the same as Jennifer Aniston? Another example is from the tuna fish freeze in the South Pacific. This example comes from a Slate magazine article. And the story with the tuna fish freeze is that historically, the big fleets have come down from Japan, or the UK, or the US, and gone in to the local waters, the territorial waters around these islands. And when you do that, you have to pay. And they would basically just auction these islands off against each other. Who's going to charge us the least to allow us to fish in their waters? And the islands, because this is one of their most important sources of revenue, didn't have much bargaining power, and they got these fishing rights bid down. And for years, this was the arrangement. And then finally they realized, well, we need to work together, essentially we need to form a coalition. And they did that, and starting bargaining as a block, and completely turned the bargaining tables. So now, they were auctioning the fleets off against each other, asking who was going to pay the most to fish in our territorial waters. And they found that they had so much bargaining power that they were able to improve the health of the fisheries. In particular, a tuna fleet can fish in international waters. Nobody can restrict that, but that's damaging to the tuna fisheries down there, because tuna don't know whether their swimming in territorial waters or international waters. If you want to manage the fishery as healthily as possible, you want to restrict in some way what's going on in the international waters. By forming this coalition, the countries had so much bargaining power, they were able to enforce restrictions on what the fleets could do even in the international waters. Fantastic example of the power of coalitions, and a smaller party seeing that and flipping the negotiation table as a result.