Disciple of INDYCAR Weblog

April 1, 2014

IndyCar ITEs: Nonsense Spouters Extraordinaire

Filed under: The Disciple Blogs — Disciple of INDYCAR @ 4:46 pm

TKIt started early this year. Various self-appointed Internet television executives that squat on IndyCar-centric sites all day have nearly unanimously pronounced the 0.6 12+ overnight for IndyCar’s St. Pete event on ABC a certain sign of failure, and in many of their challenged noggins utter doom for IndyCar. Naturally none of those opining on 12+ overnight estimates know the first thing about what the actual numbers really mean or how they translate into revenue. They just know that the 1.1 12+ overnight estimate on ABC from two seasons ago is higher, therefore we have concrete evidence of failure. It remains a hearty source of amusement watching most blather in so utterly clueless ways.

Ratings IndyCar gets are closer to the norm for sports on television. As usual, mainstream stick and ball sports garner much higher 12+ overnight estimates just as they always have. In reality a 0.6 directly opposite NASCAR and Elite Eight college basketball is relatively good.

Do lower numbers guarantee failure? No. Last year the following MLB teams and their host networks showed pronounced declines:

-New York Yankees: DOWN 32.4%

-Florida Marlins: DOWN 35.1%

-Philadelphia Phillies: DOWN 39.4%

-Chicago White Sox: DOWN 45.2%

-Houston Astros: DOWN 59.6%

TakuAre any of these ball clubs in danger of failing? No. In any given week the WNBA averaged around 230,000 viewers on network. MLS averaged around 220,000. On NBCSN, an IndyCar partner network, Premier League Soccer and the millions that cost generates about 110,000 viewers per. Oddly, none of the doom pontificating ITEs (Internet television experts) have pronounced any of those sports failures.

A big ‘get’ for Fox Sports 1 (the former Speed) was Big East basketball. They launched out of the gate with more subscribers than NBCSN. 48 of 85 national games were broadcast on FS1. 41 of them had NO rating. 0.0. Five of them garnered a 0.1, and two had 0.2. Oddly, no screeching from any ITE.

What about NASCAR? Their ratings trend line is pointed south, and is getting steeper. No real consternation from ITEs there, either. Formula 1 on NBCSN? That partner scheduled the Malaysian replay directly opposite IndyCar on ABC. Result for F-1? 0.0. No hissy fitting from any ITE.

Perhaps one day I will offer cliff-note tutorials for ITEs. Based on tripe they post they could use it, although for most it would have to be dumbed down to fourth grade level. Perhaps time will avail itself, and the season is just beginning.

Or perhaps we should all remain comforted by actual facts. Verizon is consistently in the top five spenders for sports television advertising, and that part of the business is usually more than $10 BILLION annually. About 40% of that number is spent on cable networks. Verizon remains enthusiastic about their growing involvement with IndyCar and is putting their money where their mouths are.

Its FallingThe real key is not fretting about significant rises to 12+ overnights. The only way that happens these days is either plot lines that involve soft core porn with full frontal female nudity or a lowest-common-denominator reality approach that attracts more booger flicking, self-absorbed Americans (the majority) than other similarly insipid offerings.

If the desire is to use the product to attract a bigger audience their work is cut out for them. Homogenized spec racing obviously does not work. Walker’s propensity to mimic Euro-style non-oval racing is also a proven failure historically. If trying to be an American F-1 is the direction (and there seems little doubt these days) then they also must embrace a WWE-style (or similar) presentation to actually get a casual fan to sample the product.

Big picture: A 0.6 overnight is only good for pointing and cackling by the mentally/emotionally challenged. Here is a better approach for ITEs: Tell us when the failure will occur and what you would do to make failure not possible? That might require thought, however.

About these ads

16 Comments »

  1. From the same time two years ago, the St. pete race has lost nearly half of its total television viewers. People simply aren’t buying the product indy car is selling. Those are unquestioned facts.
    Editor’s Note: Actually, and more correctly, they are oversimplified, generalized interpretations of even more oversimplified, generalized numbers by folks without the first clue of how the numbers are actually used or what they actually mean. That is the primary reason I am prone toward laughter while wading through comments. If these numbers are actually life and death why has death not overwhelmed IndyCar, or for that matter the vast majority of sports programming with similar or lower ratings? Why would Verizon waste even $12 million of their dollars on sponsorship and activation every year? I have yet to see intelligent analysis here or anywhere from ITEs about the breakouts, how deals are stewarded against guarantees, how these ‘woeful’ ratings translate into dollars or anything even remotely resembling the business sense required to be taken seriously. Just simplistic taunting. And it remains hilarious. Meanwhile, sponsors involved in the series know what they have. The base audience for IndyCar remains static and about the size it has always been. Hope for higher ratings rests with attraction of eyeballs from other places. IndyCar always hopes for and often gets NASCAR crossover viewership when NASCAR is not head-to-head with IndyCar. This past week NASCAR fans watched NASCAR at Martinsville. Kurt Busch winning that race is probably good for IndyCar come May. IndyCar also hopes for casual stick and ball enthusiasts, but when the best eight college basketball teams are fighting to get to four and it is on directly opposite IndyCar, forget it. You finger waggers ought to try and add substance to your taunting occasionally. Perhaps you could also delve into when these ‘halved’ numbers mean the end of either the series or its sponsorship, both of which seem to consistently defy your oversimplified, generalized implications.

    Comment by Bob Chinn — April 2, 2014 @ 2:29 am | Reply

    • Well, the numbers are simplified, but they’re far from interpretations.
      Editor’s Note: Obviously, as indicated by the shrill bleating of most who choose to opine.

      As I said initially, roughly half the audience tuned in for St. Pete this year compared to two years ago. Again, that’s a verifiable fact.
      Editor’s Note: Actually, from a statistical standpoint and using measurement protocol actually utilized in the commerce of television advertising there is little difference in St. Pete from two years ago or St. Pete on NBCSN a year ago or basically any IndyCar event other than Indy for the past few years. When you claim ‘half the audience’ as ‘verifiable fact’ what, specifically is the result from a business standpoint? This is usually the point at which genital waving stops and befuddled obfuscation by ITEs begins. That in turn usually makes me laugh out loud.

      As for the breakouts and how the numbers are used, perhaps you could enlighten us with facts rather than generic, unsupported supposition.
      Editor’s Note: Actually, I have. Many times. When time allows I will put together the primer again and attempt to avoid what has thus far been inevitable. Technical observation based on industry standards generally flies right over the heads of the ITEs after about a sentence and a half, so my challenge is to, for lack of a more accurate description, dumb it down enough to make it palatable for the critics to understand while simultaneously avoiding the aforementioned befuddled, defensive obfuscation that inevitably follows after a sentence and a half. That will require a little more time than I have at the moment.

      And, finally, no one argues why indy car remains alive today. In spite of 20 years of red numbers, the H-G family has elected to absorb those losses in an effort to keep the series alive (as is their prerogative). That is the singular reason it lives, however.
      Editor’s Note: Why would you think that is? The answer is obvious. They want control of the entire sport. Most of the critics espouse a position in which someone else has control. Several coup d’état attempts have occurred over the course of the past 69 years of their ownership, the most serious occurring following the death of Tony Hulman and a bunch of dead USAC officials aboard a crashed plane. That was fun while it lasted but their tutelage resulted in their own death by their own hand. Twice. That is the quandary with which we are faced, and it appears the rapidly maturing new generation of Georges and Krisiloffs that are Tony Hulmans great grandchildren intend to keep it in the family. That may cause chagrin to those outside looking in, and occasionally they have express valid points. Even I do not agree with one current strategy based on nickel and diming existing customers airline style, inventing new ways to rifle through pockets especially in May and the like. Race ticket prices needed to be raised five years ago. But $15 for a practice day? That is neither sane nor rational. But I digress. If that is a lynchpin strategy to get out of the red time will tell. If it does not work they will probably still be in charge. Then it comes down to figuring out how to make it better within dysfunctional confines or vamoose as so many have supposedly already done.

      It doesn’t live due to Northern Lights, Pep Boys, Izod or Verizon (who is “investing” less than 1% of it’s advertising budget in indy car). Again (and as usual), I’m offering facts, rather than interpretations.
      Editor’s Note: Wow. Sponsors come and go. There is a shocker. As if it never happens. When is the next Busch race? Who will win the Winston Cup this year? Or the Nextel Cup? Who will replace Nationwide when their sponsorship concludes at the end of this racing season? The fact is given IndyCar’s relative size and marketplace position, $12 million in cash and activation annually will go a long way. We all know it is a fraction of Verizon’s budget. Verizon is one of the top five spenders every year in sports media. I see that as a good thing.

      On a happier note, the race organizers were very pleased with the walk up crowds for both Saturday and Sunday. Unfortunately, the advance sales were not as positive, but the race continues to have good local support from political and business leaders.
      Editor’s Note: In the voodoo economics of street festivals o’ speed that is the main thing that matters.

      Comment by Bob Chinn — April 2, 2014 @ 2:31 pm | Reply

      • Quite a bit of deviance from the original topic, but I’ll happily reply in spite of that:

        1. No, statistically (and based on the current scientific methods accepted in the industry, the St. Pete audience of 2014 is nearly half of what it was just two short years ago. That’s a fact;
        Editor’s Note: Completely wrong again. You have simply taken two numbers that are actually never used in such commerce, subtracted the smaller from the larger, and opined the audience is cut in half. Applying current actual methods accepted for use in that business is the precise reason actual television advertising professionals laugh at the relative simplicity and cluelessness of such ITE proclamations. The best thing we can say is that you look severely retarded. Yet you continue. Willful retardation is generally less compassion worthy than involuntary retardation, which cannot be helped.

        2. As for the breakouts, I have yet to see any detailed analysis from you. I’ve seen you mention it and offer derisive comments to those who would ask you to support your generic positions, but I haven’t actually seen any detail. Given your promise to provide it, I’ll look forward to it with anticipation;
        Editor’s Note: Caveat…I cannot/will not discuss specific breakouts without A) payment for the research (Nielsen and media clients take people who steal such information to court) or B) expressed written consent from entity(s) that purchased the data that I may use it. When my answer is ‘…to educate and appease otherwise clueless ITEs…’ I am likely the one who will get laughed at for a change. What I AM willing to do as time allows is re-publish earlier work that states precisely how such commerce works. My expectation is that it will sail right over the heads of ITEs.

        3. As for the sole reason the series exists today, it’s comforting to see that you agree with my assertion that the H-G family’s willingness to subsidize long term losses is the only reason it remains active today. The point I made was that no sponsorship, television ratings, or attendance could accomplish that, since all are either in decline and / or have failed to stem the overal decline of the series, the marquee event, or the venue at which said event is held. And, to borrow from your reply, while onsors come and go, the clear trend in indy car is that they go much more often than they come. Thankfully, one of the owners brought Verizon in to assist;
        Editor’s Note: Hmmm. IndyCar has had four title sponsors in 18 years. NASCAR’s A-league has had three in that same period. So have their B and C leagues. I am thankful the Hulman-George family is able to soldier on despite the malaise they get straw manned into by those without the first clue about what is inside their books. LOL.

        4. Finally, it’s sad that the series must continually rely to a greater and greater degree on “voodoo economics” type events to survive. Hardly the hallmark of a successful endeavor, as the attendance and television ratings (the original topic) make clear.
        Editor’s Note: Personally I do not believe any assertion that street events are ‘necessary to survive.’ I believe they get forced down our throats because their are no pesky track operators to deal with and IndyCar can control about everything. In doing so they miss the point of sport.

        Comment by Bob Chinn — April 2, 2014 @ 9:52 pm

  2. Once again, you’re simply wrong about the numbers you say you understand. Nearly half of the audience is gone from two years ago. I won’t engage in your typically childish and immature conduct by calling you “severely retarded” . . . I’ll simply say that you’re not correct in any way on this point. That’s a fact.

    As for the detail, it’s not surprising that you would back away from providing any detail, as you have consistently failed to do in the past. You said you would put something together “when time allows”, yet now you quickly back away from that commitment. Not shocked that you are unable to follow through in any meaningful way.

    Unlike NASCAR (which I never brought up), each of the previous indy car sponsors chose to no longer be associated with the sport, often prior to the end of their title sponsorship tenure. Sadly, the value they sought from the series did not materialize and they chose to leave. That the H-G family’s stewardship of the sport has resulted in significant drops in popularity, television ratings, sponsors and attendance (all absolute facts) is telling to those of us who actually understand sports and business.

    Clearly, indy car races on a number of street circuits because those are the only venues that will choose to host their races (in many instances). In other words, beggars can’t be choosers, especially in a sport that is struggling to the great degree that indy car unquestionably is.

    Again, I simply offer facts.
    Editor’s note: No…you simply offer obtuse palaver. Trolling. Unless and until you can actually muster something worthwhile, devoid of your oft repeated nonnsense, we’re done here. You are not breaking any new ground.

    Comment by Bob Chinn — April 3, 2014 @ 2:43 am | Reply

  3. We’re done because I’ve offered facts to which you’re unable to reasonably respond.
    Editor’s Note: Strike three. We’re done because trolls have no place in polite society. If you would like to continue, however, please answer the following handful of specific questions related to network television advertising sales and ratings data. Your grade will determine whether you possess enough basic intelligence in the subject matter to offer any opinion going forward. Any off topic meandering, whining or obfuscation away from direct answers to specific questions will disqualify you from any future commentary on the topic. Ready:

    What was the approximate amount of ad sales revenue sold last year that was based on 12+ overnight estimates?
    What are the three primary forms of television ratings data streams Nielsen can provide for its media clients?
    What are the four areas into which network ad sales rate cards are typically categorized for subsequent application?
    What values are rate cards applied against, and once so applied what two values are calculated within each?
    Network television advertising purchase is generally classified in three distinct ways. What are they?
    What is VPVH?
    What is CPM?
    What is CPP, and how does it differ from CPM?
    What is considered an acceptable CPM?

    Thanks in advance.

    Comment by Bob Chinn — April 3, 2014 @ 3:24 am | Reply

    • Ok, forgive me for some mistakes and maybe some errors of omission (been away on a somewhat extended business trip), but I’d like to tackle at least some of the questions you put to Bob.

      I’ll start from around the bottom and work my way up, because frankly I:
      A. No longer have much access or desire to know total add revenues based on ANY metric-It’s not my line of work.
      B. Don’t really care about the 12+ ratings-in a way, we aren’t really that concerned about it for the purposes of this discussion.

      So here goes…

      1. VPVH: Viewers Per Viewing Household (where there is at least one television in use)

      2. CPM: Cost Per Thousand. Generally referring to “impressions” it appears to have become an important metric when referring to print and internet advertising, but obviously applies to most, if not all advertising.

      3. CPP: Cost Per Point. In this case, the “point” is the numerical value of the Nielsen Rating Scale. A rating point (1.0) is equal to about 1.14-1.15 million viewers.

      4. Acceptable CPM: Ah… In this case, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The acceptable CPM varies based on the media (print, radio, TV, internet) we are discussing. In radio and TV it also varies depending on what time of the broadcast day we’re talking about. If memory serves me correctly (and it often doesn’t) the AVERAGE CPM for network prime-time was around $25.00, which is down about 4% from 2008 (when the US economy tanked). In any case, it does appear that CPM needs to be evaluated taking a number of factors into consideration, including (but not limited to) Total expenditures, total impressions, particularly within the demographic group that your “spend” is targeting, overall ratings, etc.

      5. Network advertising is classified: Here I think I’m stumped. Back when i had to pay attention to these things, we tended to group advertising into a couple of categories-RELATIONSHIP building/developing, BRAND (awareness) advertising, and SELLING/DIRECT SALES advertising. These activities tend to apply whenever there is a sales “activity” that forms a vital part of your day to day functions. Just as I would visit clients just to say hello, the sales/advertising activity becomes about building a relationship between you(your business) and the client. When carried out on television, it is manifested through ads that may mention the company, and how you interact with that company and its products, but often does not focus on or mention a SPECIFIC product. This ties in with BRAND AWARENESS advertising. Currently, Apple and its ad campaigns are the standout example of how this is done.

      That’s enough for tonight. I’m beat. If I can (and if it seems warranted) Ill try to cover the other items, and how I think (for what that’s worth) it applies to Indycar.
      Editor’s Note: Thanks for taking such an intelligent stab at it Skeptical1. You have my admiration. Bob, THIS is EXACTLY the kind of thing I was looking for. With this type of framework realistic discussion of ratings and what they actually mean is possible.

      Comment by Skeptical1 — April 4, 2014 @ 3:42 am | Reply

      • Well, this took longer than expected…but work IS more important than play.

        Just a follow up on my previous post regarding TV ratings: (and before I start, I have NO idea if I am interpreting the question: “What four area are network ad rate cards categorized?” correctly. And same with the “Values” portion of the subsequent question, so I’ll try to incorporate that response into an answer regarding the rate cards themselves).

        Nielsen collects three primary data “streams” or “packages” on ratings (although it actually collects additional data and/or “massages” the data from the three main sources for additional breakdowns:

        Live + Same Day (Replaced the Live Only stream)
        Live + 3 Day
        Live + 7 Day

        Nielsen also now collects data on internet delivered content, and with the earlier purchase of Arbitron (radio ratings) delivers data on local and national radio broadcasts as well. Nielsen has invested heavily in state of the art technolgies and research methodologies to (try to) deliver ever more accurate, and therefore valuable data to advertisers and content providers.

        Obviously, this does not come cheap, although the benefits of knowing who, what and where your target audience is usually far outweighs the upfront costs (but, as with all things, not always).

        Rate Cards (Fee schedules, rate schedules, etc) are, in the interest of brevity and simplification, a listing of what the networks will (attempt to ) charge for advertising. Advertising rates vary (obviously) from network to network, and also vary by time of day, day of week, season, etc. “Prime Time” rates for advertising time are naturally different, and generally higher than those rates for Daytime, Overnight, etc. Advertising rates for special events, such as the NFL Big Game (don’t want to get into trouble here!) are obviously different than the published “regular” rates.

        It is important to note that the Rate Cards are something of a loose guideline; akin to the List Price of a new car. It is quite common for advertisers to pay less (sometimes significantly) than the listed rate. Entities that purchase massive amounts of time, like General Motors, Verizon, Coke & Pepsi (to name a few) can get significant discounts off the rate card data.

        Ok, so what does this have to do with the ratings (or lack thereof) of the Indycar Series? Plenty. First off, the initial “overnight” rating is only part of the story. What is contained in that figure is, or can be, is a wealth of data on the actual audience that saw the broadcast. The raw number doesn’t give you much info regarding the demographic make up of the audience (males 18-39, females 40-55, etc). For many potential advertisers, WHO saw the broadcast is at least as important as HOW MANY saw the broadcast. (But that “raw” number IS important-more later)

        Lets look at it this way: Your intended target audience is the male age 18-39 crowd. The broadcast on which you made your ad “buy” gets a big number, say a 14.0. Great news! Well… maybe not. Because when you break that figure down, and the percentage of the actual audience was OVERWHELMINGLY female, it may very well turn out that your “buy” wasn’t particularly effective at reaching your desired group. Whereas a show that gets a small number ex: 1.0, but consists of almost 100% of your targeted demographic may in fact have been a far more valuable purchase.

        Now this isn’t to give Indycar a pass; its’ TV ratings are abysmal, when compared with most other “Major League” sports. There are other factors at work as well, such as what network it is on, market penetration of said network, etc. Another goes back to the network rate cards. Those rates are influenced greatly by the overall ratings the a networks programming generates. Generally speaking, the higher the networks overall ratings are, the higher their ad rates can be. Programming that boosts the average rating can be VERY valuable, even if that particular program, or group of programs LOSES money for the network (Think NFL-most networks actually lose money on the league broadcasts themselves. The hope is for the rating boost to be enough to offset the costs)

        And that is the aspect of Indycars’ ratings that may be hazardous to its health. Right now, the ratings boost it gives to either ABC/ESPN, and NBCSN is very small (if not entirely non existent). Verizon, at least at the moment, sees something of value there, more than likely based on the core demographic of its audience, as well as what is the relatively cheap “buy in” to be associated with the series. But the problem of consistently low ratings has to be addressed, because PERCEPTIONS(of a sport with low ratings, hence a small following) have a nasty habit of becoming REALITY, at least in the minds of those with the funds and marketing savvy to make a long term difference.

        Cheers.
        Editor’s Note: Again, good job and I do have some follow-up commentary. That will have to wait until later in the week because my job is in the way early this week in Las Vegas. Thanks again.

        Comment by Skeptical1 — April 7, 2014 @ 2:33 am

  4. Well i suppose in 2 years .3 will be embraced by you as well. Evolution, right?
    Then 4 years from now .015 is accepted….what do YOU see as “unacceptable”?
    Editor’s Note: The 12+ overnights have been unacceptable to me since around 1990. Fortunately they don’t sell advertising based on those numbers. Also fortunately those numbers have not prevented Verizon from increasing their involvement in the series in each of the past four years.

    Comment by Youowemeabeerasshole — April 3, 2014 @ 2:35 pm | Reply

    • So nothing they can do, no numbers you see, nothing in the way of attendance or anything gets you to the point of “I am done with this sportt”? There has to be some event or outcome that causes you to finally throw in the towel.
      Editor’s Note: Two things…1) in the event they actually go out of business and the sport ceases (unlikely while I am alive); 2) in the event the formula wannabe road racers continue foolishly attempting to convert IndyCar into an American version of Formula 1 I may get like I was in the late 80s and early 90s and only pay attention to Indy and a handful of other worthwhile events. Meantime I will continue working in positive ways to push evolution into a more balanced stance.

      Comment by Youowemeabeerasshole — April 3, 2014 @ 4:26 pm | Reply

      • Fair enough. So what you are saying in essence is that no matter how bad it gets, if they are running Indy and a couple other ovals /500 milers etc, you are there. To me, being a fan of this series right now is pretty much an embarrassing endeavor. Like going to a Plushie convention or a Trekkie conference. At some point you have to think “why I am even bothering with this, its all just nonsense?”. But thats me. I owe a lot of my success in life to being in the right place at the right time. I hang out with successful, fun people, and I suppose you could say it all rubs off on me. The IRL may be right for you, and you may follow it to your grave, but the average sports fan has said no to the IMS/Hulman Racing offering. .6 is a fact.
        Editor’s Note: Generally I do not care what the crowd likes and I have never been a bandwagon jumper. I also do not understand all the hysterical shrieking about low overnight 12+ estimates. It is what it is, and is normal for most sports and entertainment offerings on television. The really hysterical part for me, knowing how that business actually operates inside and out, is the colossal ignorance ITEs trot out willingly. It would be like me claiming expertise in cardiac surgery just because mine beats. We still on for BBQ and beer(s)? I get to Indy the day before the road ‘race’ IMS mercy hump, will be there for the practice and qualifying, and again Carb Day through race day.

        Comment by Youowemeabeerasshole — April 3, 2014 @ 6:01 pm

      • Spicoli will meet you for a beer. I am gone a lot in May but Memorial Day weekend looks fairly clear. See you then.

        Comment by Youowemeabeerasshole — April 3, 2014 @ 8:48 pm

  5. Ah, the final deflection by you. When the basic facts go against your agenda driven narrative, you simply change the rules of the game. Face it, I posted an unquestioned fact regarding the drop in audience size and you’re either unable or unwilling to acknowledge it. And perhaps when you get around to that long promised primer, we’ll know the answers to all your questions. In the meantime, however, it won’t change the facts of what I originally posted.
    Editor’s Note: So you ARE incapable of answering clearly stated, basic television advertising and ratings-related questions. There is really no point in your continuing to try and offer commentary on this topic in the future. Kindly take your fraudulent trolling elsewhere. IBJ’s comment section may be an appropriate toilet. Others there seem to be using it as such with impunity.

    Comment by Bob Chinn — April 3, 2014 @ 2:38 pm | Reply

    • (Off topic trolling relocated to comment thread of 12/19/13)

      Comment by Bob Chinn — April 3, 2014 @ 6:51 pm | Reply

      • (Off topic commentary relocated to 12/19/13 thread)

        Comment by Bob Chinn — April 3, 2014 @ 8:59 pm

  6. (Off topic content relocated to 12/19/13 comment thread)

    Comment by Bob Chinn — April 4, 2014 @ 12:51 am | Reply

  7. One question about ratings: What if you DVR the race for watching later in the day, but watch another event at the time the race? What counts in the ratings?
    Editor’s Note: It all has to do with the methodology used. Nielsen provides ‘C3′ or C7′ numbers to account for DVR viewing of live events later; i.e., within 3 days or a week. The problem for the ‘gotta have it now’ ITE’s is that those numbers are not released immediately. The numbers are gaining importance for television networks.

    Comment by spreadoption — May 29, 2014 @ 2:44 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: