Main Page Content:
ITVRSS feed
-

ITV forecasts returns to growth: Time to hang out the flags?

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 5 November 2009 at 12:20
Tags: ITV

Perhaps we’ll look back on this week as pivotal. Last Friday, Sir Martin Sorrell attacked those who talk up ad markets on the basis of slowing revenue declines. Following his lead, I suggested yesterday that we’re not out of the woods yet.

This morning, ITV announced a forecast 4% YOY growth in ad revenues during December. The last time ITV witnessed ad revenue growth was June 2008, three months before the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Time to hang out the flags? Perhaps. So far as I know, ITV is the first big, mainstream, media owner to forecast a return to growth. Its shares were up by 7% this morning.

There will be caveats. For 2009 as a whole, ad revenues will still decline by 12%. This morning, after digesting ITV’s news, Numis Securities nixed its prediction of a 5% decline in ad revenues next year. It replaced that forecast with the prediction that the broadcaster’s ad revenues would be flat during 2010.

Not everyone, it seems, is willing to take this announcement as a signal that recession is over. Quite rightly: 2010 could still have some nasty surprises in store.

Even so, when you reach the bottom of a mountain, the obvious reflex is to look behind you and ask what it would take to scale the same heights again.

For all the talk of ITV’s structural problems, its decline hasn’t been quite as deep as other media companies have witnessed. The company’s advertising revenue base peaked in 2005 at £1.6bn.

ITV plc: Net Advertising Revenue

2004: £1.59bn

2005: £1.63bn

2006: £1.49bn

2007: £1.49bn

2008: £1.43bn

Factor in that 12% decline for the current year, and ITV’s ad revenues should emerge at around £1.25bn during 2009.

To get back to 2005 levels, therefore, ITV will need to grow its advertising revenue base by 30%.

There will be those who say that this is impossible because of audience fragmentation, online competition and the Contract Rights Renewal. Equally, there will be those who say it doesn’t matter, that ITV should instead concentrate on selling its in-house programming overseas and developing online revenues.

But ITV hasn’t exactly excelled in either area in recent years. The revenues involved are relatively small.

Here, then, is a sobering thought to add to the cautious forecast issued by Numis Securities this morning.

If ITV continues to expand its ad revenues by 4% on a consistent basis, it will equal, or beat, its 2005 performance. . . at some point during 2016.

-

Ad revenue confusion: Where does slowdown end and recovery begin?

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 4 November 2009 at 17:49
Tags: Daily Mail & General Trust, Google, ITV, Independent News & Media

Confusion stalks the land. Is flat the new up? Or is down the new flat?

Typically, recovery means revenue growth. But after two years of declining ad spend, sentiment encourages inflated claims. Disappointments seem exaggerated in their effect. Some persist in talking up a recovery. We all want the pain to end.

At the Guardian a few weeks ago, Roy Greenslade asked whether newspaper publishers might be on the “verge of a remarkable recovery”. The evidence for “renewed optimism”, Greenslade told us, lay in share prices that have “come off the floor”.

This morning, by contrast, Greenslade has noticed a Wall Street Journal piece which argues (in his words) that “there is no real recovery in advertising income”.

Greenslade goes on to paraphrase the allegation that publishers have hyped “slight moderations in the rate of decline of their year-on-year ad revenues”.

There has been some hype. But in general, this is something that chief executives and finance directors tend to avoid. Irresponsible cheer-leading is career-limiting.

Financial PRs are often less squeamish. In the face of pressure to maintain share prices, they’re paid for their promotional skills.

Of course, what matters to journalists is a new direction for the narrative. At the moment, we’re all straining at the leash to declare the end of recession.

This is visible, most of all, in the headlines that fill up Blackberry screens. One among many tells a story: “Daily Mail looks to happy New Year as advertising slide slows” (The Times, 30 September).

Dan Sabbagh’s accompanying copy spells out the facts on which this bright headline relies: a 21% decline revenue at the Mail and Metro during July and August, followed by a 10%-12% decline in September.

This big contrast between flaky summer months and back-to-school September might not tell us much. Notably, Sabbagh’s story quotes Peter Williams, DMGT’s finance director, refusing to “call the bottom, in case it turns out we are on a ledge”.

The reaction to Independent News & Media’s trading update on 29th October was similarly interesting.

INM’s trading update was ugly. Ad revenues fell by 19% YOY during the nine months to October. Operating profits nearly halved. Worst of all, from the City’s perspective, INM cut its forecast profits for the full year, which ends in December.

Yet some of the coverage — at Dow Jones, Reuters and the Irish Times — underlined the idea that ad revenues are stabilizing.

Arguably, it was the third par of INM’s trading statement that influenced these stories and headlines:

This marginally improved year-to-date revenue performance compared to the trend for the 1st half of 2009 demonstrates a stabilising advertising revenue trend, with each region experiencing similar advertising trends to H1 2009.

The “marginal improvement” mentioned here was very marginal indeed: a 19.6% decline in ad revenues during 1H, versus a 19% between July and October. Tucked away in the 20th par of the earnings release, meanwhile, was this warning:

Based on still limited visibility, the advertising trends experienced in September and October remain challenging and are expected to continue for the remainder of 2009.

In other words: things might continue to improve very slowly, but don’t bet on it.

Stephen Miron, the chairman of Global Radio, probably thinks similarly about the prospects for his business. Last month, Miron told the Times: “Single-digit declines are the new up now — so used are media businesses to the problems of the year so far.”

It was a back-handed comment. Yet already, the game has moved on. Since Roy Greenslade raised the prospect of a rip-roaring recovery three weeks ago, the shares of DMGT, Johnston Press and Trinity Mirror have all turned downward. The markets have hit the pause button: the six month-long run-up in share prices is over for now.

This suggests that Big Media needs to generate real revenue growth, and quickly. Yet the GDP numbers for Q3 — down by 0.4% — say that this isn’t possible, not yet. Retailers, the biggest advertisers of all, are experiencing similar difficulty. Marks & Spencer may have beaten the market’s profit expectations today, but only because of canny cost management. Like-for-like non-food sales are still declining.

After Christmas, we’ll find out more about how consumers are feeling. Perhaps VAT cuts and the car scrappage scheme have simply brought forward household expenditure that would otherwise have occurred in 2010. Richard McGuire, fixed income strategist at RBC Capital Markets, is among those who think this is the case.

Last week, Sir Martin Sorrell unveiled disappointing results at WPP. He had this to say to those who (for understandable reasons) persist in talking up the market.

“I don’t want to get into that mentality where you accept that declines in negatives is good. We don’t accept that. I’m surprised at people who see sequential declines in negatives [of revenue loss] and say the downturn is over. . . We will only declare final victory when we see positive growth year on year. You can’t declare victory on improving negatives.”

The message was a stern one. As usual, though, Sorrell was on the money. We’re not out of the woods yet.

-

Forget Murdoch in Edinburgh: Let’s have a real fight about TV’s “dinosaur bosses”

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 4 September 2009 at 12:27
Tags: BBC, BSkyB, ITV, Media

Obviously, it’s a pity that Robert Peston and James Murdoch didn’t come to blows at the Edinburgh TV festival last week.

It’s also a pity that the vast murmuration caused by Murdoch’s speech overhadowed another, equally important, theme at Edinburgh: the impending clash of civilisations between the broadcast establishment and web video.

In this debate, Ashley Highfield of Microsoft (and formerly of the BBC) delivered the provocation, with his suggestion that broadcasters have just two years to create “credible, truly digital, brands” before facing what he described as an “iTunes moment”. (The parallel is with the music industry, which failed to create a digital business, leaving the way open for Apple to do it instead.)

The organisers of the Media Guardian Edinburgh International Television Festival seemed to take a different view. They chose to kick off proceedings with a feel-good survey written up by Deloitte and researched by YouGov.

Quite clearly, the first line of the accompanying press release was designed to smite the digerati: “New report reveals television advertising still packs the greatest punch”. As for the findings, well, if Lord Grade has daydreams, they presumably go something like this:

  • 64% of respondents ranked TV advertising as the format “with most impact”
  • Three-quarters of 18-24 year-olds ranked TV ads top for impact
  • Only 12% chose search as one of their top three ad formats (again in terms of “impact”)
  • 44% researched a company, product or service online in response to a TV ad.

The accompanying quotes from Howard Davies, media partner at Deloitte, left little doubt that the survey had been an exercise designed to deliver good news:

“Online advertising’s poor showing relative to television may surprise given that the former has often been portrayed as television’s nemesis.

“However, what television does best – display and brand building is what online struggles with. Online advertising is best at search, which previously newspapers, had excelled at, particularly for classified.”

At which point, it’s worth turning to marketing academic Mark Ritson’s demolition of the survey. In a blog post, Ritson — who currently teaches at the MIT Sloan Management School in Boston – modestly described Deloitte’s findings as “absolute and total crap”.

First, Ritson criticised the methodology:

“It’s not that consumers lie when asked a question like this. Rather, they simply do not know the answer. Self-reporting data has been proven to be invalid for questions as basic as estimating a consumer’s household income.”

Next, he criticised the survey’s relevance:

“For the past 15 years, no one has cared about comparing one media with another in this binary way. . . Comparing apples with oranges is an irrelevant endeavour in the age of the fruit salad.”

Finally, Ritson lambasted the idea of measuring “impact” without taking into account the cost of rival media and the “effective frequencies” required to yield an impact:

The last time I looked at a rate card, the price of a 30-second spot was wildly different from that of an outdoor ad. . . In the study, TV advertising was reported to have four times the impact of outdoor advertising. What if an out-door ad costs 20% that of a TV ad, and needs only two, rather than three, exposures to deliver its impact? It would work out to be a superior medium even with a lower reported ‘impact’ score.

The TV industry is in trouble, wrote Ritson, partly because it is “run by the kind of dinosaurs who think these kind of reports are good for business”.

Ouch. Perhaps MGEITVF should invite the good professor along to speak next year. He’d stand a better chance of inciting fisticuffs than the ever-so-polite James Murdoch.

Footnote: Mark Ritson (see comments) suggests that Tess Alps of Thinkbox has written a “completely toothless” response to his critique of Deloitte’s research. IMHO it’s anything but that.

We at Thinkbox prefer not to rely on claimed behaviour research, in fact, and instead use rigorous and impartial econometrics to prove that, pound for pound, TV advertising delivers more incremental profit than any other form of advertising, 4.5 times the investment according to PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Decide your yourself.

-

Who pays the bill for the boom years? You do: with your job

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 20 May 2009 at 10:55
Tags: ITV, Johnston Press

The bill for the boom years is becoming evident just as the Chancellor of the Exchequer spies light at the end of the tunnel. ‘Twas ever the way.

Johnston Press has just walked away from a deal to sell its Irish newspapers for a reported €40m –- less than one-fifth of the lavish sum it splashed out on them during 2005.

Johnston Press paid for these deals with bank debt. The value of the newspapers in question has been written down drastically on its balance sheet. But in the liabilities column, that debt still exists, emitting death rays that destroy jobs in the real world.

Or take Incisive Media, burdened with so much debt relative to plummeting profits that it resembles an upside-down ziggurat.

Incisive Media will this year attempt to service net debts of around £400m off the back of EBITDA of £45m. No doubt the pressure to cut jobs in order to support profits and thus pay the company’s interest bill has been immense. Quite how fast such a company will grow in the future remains to be seen.

As for ITV, it took last week’s AGM to put the mismanagement of recent years into perspective.

At the meeting, Leslie Hill, the retired chairman of the pre-merger ITV network, asked what benefits had been accrued by the company’s expansion of net debt from £800m to £1.25bn during the past five years.

Back came the answer: the money was spent on sports rights (fail); online businesses (fail); production (hardly a roaring success).

And yes, there was the small matter of a £250m share buyback in 2006.

So ITV borrowed £250m from its banks in order to give the cash to its shareholders?

Buying back your company’s shares from shareholders is an established ruse to support the share price. But doing this with borrowed cash smells very wrong.

In this respect, ITV resembles an athlete who couldn’t keep up with the high-octane pace of casino capitalism. The answer, of course, was the financial equivalent of performance-enhancing drugs. After injecting hot money from loose bankers into the system, ITV was ready to compete.

Companies exist to allocate capital to productive use. The greater their ingenuity in doing so, the greater the return that shareholders will receive.

Doing this is hard. Withdrawing borrowed money from a cash machine and handing it to investors is a lot easier.

I suppose that the relative cheapness of debt relative to equity during the noughties provides a technical explanation of sorts.

Even so: buying back your own shares is an admission that you can’t find anything particularly exciting in which to invest. And yet look at ITV in 2006: this was a company yearning so desperately for creative investment that it enticed Michael Grade, the master impresio, to join it as executive chairman.

Mortgaging the future to invest in the present is one thing. Mortgaging the future to fend off awkward questions about your business model is something else.

ITV’s debt-fuelled share buyback doesn’t quite qualify as a Bernie Madoff-style Ponzi scheme. But it wasn’t that far off, either.

-

Annals of crisis management: Meridian boss goes AWOL as viewers lambast local news changes

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 17 February 2009 at 14:00
Tags: ITV

The all-new Meridian Tonight has got off to a predictable start.

The show went out for the first time last week, combining what used to be three separate “opted-out” bulletins for ITV Thames Valley, ITV Meridian South and ITV Meridian South East.

The new Meridian territory stretches from Banbury in the north, eastward to Canterbury and Brighton, and westward to Weymouth.

We’re talking about a potential audience of 8m across an area that includes 12 county councils, 60 district councils and 86 MPs’ constituencies.

On the show’s blog, Robin Britton, head of news, engaged in some unwise corporate boosterism:

The new service is the culmination of months of planning and collective effort from newsrooms all over the country. We have developed new technology and work patterns that enable us to run a number of “opt” services. This will ensure “sub-regional” audiences will get the news from their area, and at the same time services will combine to keep audiences in touch with important pan-regional issues.

Eh? Oddly, Britton makes no mention of Ofcom’s decision to relax the rules on local news as they apply to ITV. Nor does he mention the slightly cash-strapped nature of ITV’s finances.

Ah well. What’s that the gurus say about blogging? The bit about authenticity of voice?

Presumably, Britton hasn’t ever encountered such gurus. Touting an “exciting new onscreen relationship” between Fred Dinenage and Sangeeta Bhabra, he sounds more like a corporate speak-your-weight machine.

This might be tolerated by employees. But viewers are a different species.

Britton’s blog post has so far attracted 379 comments. So far as I can see, every single one is negative.

Sadly, Britton doesn’t seem very interested in responding to the critics. Nor has he perceived that these complaints are actually a token of respect for the local news service viewers used to receive.

After writing that initial post, Meridian’s head of news seems to have high-tailed it. The job of responding appears to have been left to ITV Meridian’s online editor Jonathan Marland. The poor bloke has been visibly overwhelmed.

Kudos, then, to the comment poster called Media Muppet, who makes the following sensible suggestion:

Support Meridian’s talented team while you still can because unless we all start complaining to our MPs soon there won’t be local news outside of the BBC — be it a small or large region.

Hopefully, the unhappiness of viewers might be turned to good account.

If that happens, it will be despite — not because of — the way in which Meridian has handled its viewers’ complaints.

-

Sex, pizza, telly: Not everything shrinks during recession

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 23 January 2009 at 21:06
Tags: ITV, Media

Zenithoptimedia is suggesting that Five has seen its ad revenues collapse by 27% YOY during January.

At first glance, this seems consistent with the findings of last week’s Bellwether Survey of marketing professionals. Remarkably, this recorded that marketers reduced their spending on “main media” in by one-third during Q408.

Before you reach for the pearl-handled revolver, however, consider Zenithoptimedia’s accompanying suggestion that ad revenues at ITV1 will fall by 15% — perhaps a little bit more — in January. That’s nowhere near as bad as the prognosis from the marketers polled by Bellwether.

Meanwhile, here comes Kelly Williams, sales director at Five, to explain her side of the story. Williams suggests that the 27% decline is an aberration.

“This represents an artificial picture caused by a protracted negotiation season which meant some deals were still being finalised and as a result some agencies are not advertising with us during January.”

“We have subsequently concluded deals with all agencies and this will be reflected in our performance going forward.”

Let’s hope so. Meanwhile, my confusion about the state of TV ad markets was augmented this week by some interesting news from Deloitte.

UK television viewing hours were already rising in the second half of 2008 and are expected to rise another 30 minutes per week per viewer in 2009, according to the report from the technology, media and telecommunications practice at Deloitte.

This leads Jolyon Barker, head of Deloitte’s TMT practice, to suggest: “This year’s predictions show there could be a silver lining to a recession, if you are in television.”

It’s obvious, really: as recession takes hold, people go out less and spend more time indoors. Typically, they order more pizza and have more sex. Unsurprisingly, they also seem to watch more telly.

Of course, the only problem with a swelling audience is that you’ve got to make money by selling it. As Kelly Williams of Five knows, that’s problematic.

-

Do the regionals stand a chance of getting £50m to produce local news bulletins for ITV?

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 23 January 2009 at 20:01
Tags: ITV

So Ofcom has proposed that consortia of “established UK-wide and regional news providers” could bid for contracts to supply ITV with regional news.

Who might be up for this £30m-£50m job?

At the Guardian, Chris Tryhorn and Mark Sweney suggest all sorts of people: ITN, Reuters, the Press Association and “national newspaper groups, many of which have fledgling online video operations”.

Weirdly, their stories don’t mention regional newspaper publishers.

Perhaps if the regionals had invested more in online video (and the web generally) during the boom years, they might be considered natural bidders in this race.

Admittedly, the prospect of regional publishers getting involved does occur to Dan Sabbagh at the Times.

But only “outside England”, and even then, the regional press would be –- in Sabbagh’s scenario — relegated to supporting ITV. (Providing “extra resources” and gaining “some cross-promotional benefits”.)

Sounds like a fairly constrained little game to me.

-

Return from Happyclappland: TV ad revenues take a big hit in January

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 6 January 2009 at 15:49
Tags: ITV

Have the UK’s media agencies embarked on the long march back from Happyclappyland?

In recent months, I’ve lambasted optimistic ad growth forecasts from the likes of Zenithoptimedia and Group M.

In December, WPP-owned Group M forecast a mere 6% decline in TV advertising revenues during 2009. Delivered at around the same time, Zenithoptimedia’s forecast felt similarly optimistic

Just a few weeks later, Mark Sweney of the Guardian has been talking with unnamed “media agency sources”.

These Deep Throats of Soho are now predicting ugly year-on-year declines for UK-based commercial broadcasters of between 12% and 20% in January. One of the sources has this to say:

“At the moment there is an extremely short term market; at best we are seeing minus 10% or 12% and at worst minus 15% or even more.”

How does this tally with Zenithoptimedia’s forecast that advertisers will channel more and more of their spend into TV during a recession because of the medium’s “power to build brands”? 

Not particularly well, I suspect.

But it’s still early doors. January is a thin month. It wouldn’t be sensible to extrapolate too far from these numbers. 

All the same, with financial chaos accelerating on the High Street, I’d lay odds that Zenithoptimedia and Group M will soon need to rethink their numbers.

-

Dept. Of Quixotic Studies: The culture secretary who wants to regulate the internet

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 29 September 2008 at 16:30
Tags: ITV, Trinity Mirror

While we’re on the subject of commercial Armageddon, take a look at the speech delivered by culture secretary Andy Burnham at the Royal Television Society on Friday.

Perhaps aware of Ofcom research which suggests that the TV advertising market could collapse by 2020, Burnham suggested it was time to “even up” the balance of regulation between the web and TV.

The rise of web, said Burnham, had eroded the “confidence” of broadcasters and diminished “innovation, risk-taking and talent sourcing” on TV.

The solution, it seems, doesn’t involve telling TV executives that change is good. No. Instead, Burnham is keen to “lighten up” regulatory burdens on the television industry. He also wants to “tighten up” regulation of the web.

Huh? How exactly? Copyright was mentioned. Taste and decency, too.

Hare-brained stuff, of course. If Burnham really is intent upon regulating t’internet, he might as well go fishing for cod in the North Sea wearing a blow-up rubber ring and carrying a £2.99 kitchen sieve from IKEA.

All the same, it’s significant that the culture secretary is promising to regulate the web on behalf of broadcasters but not (apparently) newspaper groups, whose print-based ad markets will probably disintegrate sooner than those of commercial TV.

You’ve got to hand it to the boys and girls of TV Land. Outside the Beeb, their web strategies might be gossamer thin. But dealing with regulators over the decades has left them skilled at the dark arts of lobbying.

The timing of Channel 4’s announcement of 15% redundancies was superb (a few days before a big announcement on the future of public service broadcasting from Ofcom).

As for Michael Grade, he signaled today that the argument has moved on from the death of regional TV news (yesterday’s argument; it’s already doomed).

This morning, at the Royal Television Society conference, on the same day that the Treasury nationalized the Bradford & Bingley’s mortgage book, Grade suggested that carrying national news on ITV might become too much of a burden within the next decade.

He’s right, of course — not least because TV news-gathering will become more expensive as the number of reporters churning out exclusives on newspapers dwindles. The prospective cost of doing their own reporting must terrify TV executives.

Meanwhile, Sly Bailey and her peers must find themselves marveling at the benign environment reserved for bankers and broadcasters in the corridors of power.

For years, the newspaper industry has thrived on minimal regulation. Now, even the modest pleas voiced by Bailey & Co for a relaxation in regulation are apparently falling on deaf ears.

The grim truth: if you live by the sword of free markets, you’ll probably die by it at some point. Or at least be forced to mop up after a few flesh wounds. . .

-

Morgan Stanley hails Roger Parry as King of the Bears: Prepare your handbasket for hellish ordeal, say bankers

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 18 June 2008 at 12:47
Tags: Daily Mail & General Trust, Future, ITV, Johnston Press, Trinity Mirror, United Business Media

Nasty. Morgan Stanley has slashed its profits forecasts for the media sector in 2009 and 2010.

In an aggressively-worded note, the bank’s media analysts foresee distress spreading from consumer-facing media companies to their B2B counterparts. Like this:

Away from the consumer-related areas we see pressures mounting in the corporate environment.

Finance directors looking into the second half of 2008 and into 2009 are likely to seek to reduce controllable costs whether in advertising, marketing, information costs, travel and other expenses.

This means that, while the thrust of this note is to reduce expectations for consumer-related companies, we also take down numbers for those exposed to B2b markets and professional publishing.

Morgan Stanley has cut its profit forecasts for what it calls “advertising inventory companies” (I guess this means anyone who sells advertising) by a whopping 17%.

Advertising and marketing agencies have been cut by 12%. BSkyB is down by 10%. And “professional publishers” are down by 6%.

Morgan Stanley is very bearish on what it calls the “cyclicals” (ITV, Trinity Mirror), which remain dogged by “a combination of structural deterioration, heavy downgrades and, in some cases, leverage fears”.

One possible exception is Johnston Press. Having endured the pain of an early rights issue, the company “could produce very attractive returns on a 2 year view”.

(Note that reference to “heavy downgrades”: The point here is that share price collapses haven’t yet been “heavy” enough to generate buying signals. The implications of this are fairly scary.)

Among the few positives, Morgan Stanley regards United Business Media and DMG&T as “safe” and “interesting”.

A big shake-out is predicted for adland, as revenue growth moves from 3.75% in 2008 to -1% in 2009. As Morgan Stanley puts it:

In 2008, boosted by a strong start to the year and by the ‘super quadrennial’ factors (Beijing Olympics, US Presidential elections, Euro 2008) most forecasters have assumed organic revenue growth of around 5%.

In 2009 estimates for organic revenue growth tend to range in the vicinity of 3-4%. Our starting point is now to ask why there should be any global advertising growth in 2009.

Losing 1% of growth (in revenues) might not sound like much. But when that 1% falls down to the profit line, it becomes a very big number. In organisations with large fixed costs (including employees), it’s also a very threatening number. . .

Scrabbling around for corroboration on this, Morgan Stanley alight upon Sir Martin Sorrell of WPP, who has been warning of a 2009 slowdown for as long as anyone can remember.

But who is the uber-bear identified by Morgan Stanley as supporting their arguments? Step forward Roger Parry, chairman of Johnston Press, Future Publishing and Media Square, the troubled marketing services company.

No doubt Parry’s unvarnished honesty horrifies the financial PRs who have to work with him. Last week, he explained Media Square’s disappointing results by commenting upon “the amazing speed with which the advertising economy has tanked out in the last six months”.

For good measure, Parry added that “the level to which confidence has fallen is really scary.”

At the time, I was rather hoping that no-one would notice his comments.

Too bad: Morgan Stanley did.

Previous Posts

-

Advertisement

E-mail Newsletter Signup

-

Advertisement

-

Advertisement