Archive for April, 2008
By Kyle Austin
The economy and the “idea” of being in a recession are on everyone’s mind. You don’t have to flip past page one in any major daily or the cover of any business publication to be reminded by it.
Although I recognize that the current economic situation is sub-par I do somewhat believe that we are talking and writing ourselves into a recession. I’m obviously not the only person that believes this. In a quick Google search I found three articles from the last two months titled or closely titled “Talking Ourselves into a Recession.” – Newsweek, BusinessWeek and Huffington Post.
At least these journalists are raising the question. Everyone else seems happy to hop on the bandwagon by finding a new negative economic story to write about every day. Yes, I realize journalists aren’t the only ones to blame. We’re all to blame. Especially us PR folk who are hoping on any angle we can spin into a recession story – sorry that’s just our jobs.
Suddenly we’ve become so glass-half-empty that I feel like I’m living a Ken Burns film on the great depression. Honestly, I’m nauseated with hearing what dire conditions we’re in. I’m tired of being told on a daily basis that I can’t afford to blow some disposable income on a weekend in Vegas or even a Sunday afternoon matinee.
I own a miniscule amount of stock (none of the company’s listed in this story) and yet I’m constantly thinking more about the stock market’s collapse then the Celtic’s first round playoff match-up. So much so that I had yesterday – April 17th circled on my calendar. No it wasn’t my Mom’s birthday or even another Red Sox vs. Yankees series. It was Google’s Q1 earnings call.
Why was it so important? Well for one there was a lot of stock in that call and I’m not just talking about Google’s stock. If there is one company that has become a measuring stick for where the economy is right now - it is Google. When comScore made numbers public in early Q1 that advised that Google’s paid clicks, which measures how often Internet users click on its text ads, were essentially flat – Wall Street nearly threw in the towel. If Google can’t continue to stay strong in the current economic conditions, then nobody can they said. (Translation = We are all in a damn recession).
So yesterday was a big day, not only for Google to fire back at comScore (A Red Sox vs. Yankees type rivalry is brewing there) but also for those of us who would like to avoid the negative talk for once and point to some positive numbers. Google wasted no time addressing “their” updated numbers on paid clicks to open up the call. Google’s paid clicks were up 20% from a year ago. That was a far cry from the 1.8% growth rate for the first quarter that research firm comScore had reported. Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt took even less time to summarize those numbers:
“It’s clear to us that we’re well-positioned in 2008 regardless of the business environment,” Schmidt said. “Paid click growth has been higher than speculated by third parties.”
Yi-Wyn Yen at Fortune runs through the rest of the numbers here:
“Google regained investors’ confidence after it reported profits that rose 30% to $1.31 billion, or $4.12 per share. Its total revenues of $5.2 billion, which includes ad sales it shares with partners, grew 42% from the same period a year ago. The stock shot up 17% in after-hours trading Thursday and rose above $500 mark for the first time since Feb. 22.”
Kevin Delaney of the Wall Street Journal, who set the stage for the importance of yesterday’s call with a preview on the front page of the Marketplace section, followed up today on the front of the Marketplace section once again with this lead-in sentence:
“Google Inc.’s go-go era apparently isn’t over.”
I for one will take the positive news in stride. In addition to Google: eBay, Intel and IBM all posted positive earnings this week. Yes, I understand a lot of this is being accredited to each of their strong presences in international markets (Skype unit in eBay’s case), but I’ll take it as a glass-half-full nonetheless.
So this weekend spend less time counting your pennies and a bit more time enjoying the nice weather (nice for once on the East Coast, which I assume means it’s nice everywhere else).
Google is “Google” once again and all is well in the world.
April 18th, 2008
By Ben
An article in today’s New England Journal of Medicine warns that although there are many benefits to Microsoft and Google’s potential involvement with electronic health records, there are privacy risks that people should be aware of.
Sarah Rubenstein of The Wall Street Journal reports, “Both technology giants have unveiled online personal health records that patients can use to store what could be treasure troves of data — for the patients as well as everyone from clinical researchers to marketers. But a critique in this week’s issue of the New England Journal of Medicine points out that the two companies aren’t “covered entities” under the major federal law, HIPAA, which has patient-privacy protections. Translation: They don’t have to follow it.”
The main benefit to electronic health records is that they would be quickly accessible to any doctor. This saves patients and practices a lot of time transferring records from doctor to doctor. RT Image’s Keri Forsythe, a supporter of electronic medical records wrote in her blog, “Our medical records are one of the most important items we can have. They tell our life stories – the medications, illnesses, etc., that we’ve had since birth. So they should definitely be put in a safe – and non-flammable – place.”
Just today Health Imaging News reported that WellPoint, the largest membership insurer in the United States, has notified its 130,000 insurance plan members that their personal information, including Social Security numbers, pharmacy or medical data, were accessible online to unauthorized users over the past year, because of unsecured servers being used by an unidentified technology vendor partner. This is a clear example that electronic information is not always secure – no matter how private it is.
Dana Blankenhorn from ZDnet is another supporter of electronic health record. He wrote today that “Each doctor’s office I visit, each hospital, each clinic, has a file on me. It’s behind the nurse’s station. Usually it’s on paper. Sometimes it’s in a computer. But it’s not going anywhere — control resides with the physician. And I’m not really given access to it, although by rights I should be. In these debates Google and Microsoft are stand-ins for the loss of data control to the customer.”
What’s your opinion on electronic medical records?
April 17th, 2008
By Kyle Austin
There was some great debate in the blogosphere last week on how a lack of exit strategies for start-ups, that need to return on venture money, is killing innovation. The debate was spawned by a post from Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures. In his post Wilson opinions that the IPO market is currently closed, leaving only mergers and acquisitions as viable ways out. While this option is making Fred, a lot of other VC’s and entrepreneurs rich; it’s also a killer of innovation.
As Fred notes:
“We’ve sold three in the past couple years out of our Union Square Ventures portfolio, delicious, FeedBurner, and TACODA, to Yahoo!, Google, and AOL, respectively. Were we happy to take their money? Yes. Were we happy with the outcome? Yes. Were they good buys for their new owners? On the face of it, yes.
But if you look deeper, I wonder. Delicious grew nicely for a while under Yahoo!’s ownership but recently the user base has fallen off pretty dramatically. I double checked this chart in compete and alexa and they all show the dropoff. Well, what about FeedBurner? Clearly Google has done a good job with that acquisition. Well I am not sure. I don’t see any integration between Adwords and FeedBurner yet. I can’t buy FeedBurner inventory through Google’s text ad interface. I honestly don’t see any additional money flowing to me, the publisher of the feed, since the Google acquisition. There’s no way to know what the rate of signup by publishers has been since the acquisition, but I wonder if it’s increased much.
And TACODA? I know that TACODA had an incredible fourth quarter post the acquisition by AOL, blowing way past the numbers we were projecting in our annual budget. But in the first quarter, AOL fired Curt Viebranz, TACODA’s CEO, and many of the top members of the TACODA team are now gone from AOL. Another acquisition messed up.”
His basic point being that start-up services never reach their true potential once they are acquired. Umair Haque at Harvard Business Online added to these thoughts with his post later last week:
“Let’s revisit the spectre haunting venture capital. Why aren’t there more Googles? The answer’s very simple. Because every company that had the potential to be economically revolutionary over the last five years sold out long before it ever had the chance to revolutionize anything economically.
Think about that for a second. Every single one: Myspace, Skype, Last.fm, del.icio.us, Right Media, the works. All sold out to behemoths who are destroying, with Kafkaesque precision, every ounce of radical innovation within them. Let’s replay the Google story. Google, despite serious interest from Microsoft and Yahoo - what must have seemed like lucrative interest at the time - didn’t sell out. Google might simply have been nothing but Yahoo’s or MSN’s search box.
Why isn’t it? Because Google had a deeply felt sense of purpose: a conviction to change the world for the better. Because it did, it held on and revolutionized the advertising value chain – and, in turn, capital markets gave Google an exuberant welcome.See the point? If all Larry, Sergey, and Google’s investors had wanted to do was to sell out fast to the highest bidder, they could have done so at any time. But they didn’t: they chose to revolutionize something that sucked - and so a tsunami of new value was unlocked. That’s how Google was made.”
So what current start-up(s) have the resolve to pass on a billion dollar short term exit strategy and the conviction to keep a close hold to the company mission statement(s) that they want to implore? I could probably count them with one hand. Entrepreneurs may fault impatient investors (But Wilson and other’s I’ve heard chat about the topic say that’s just a myth). The truth may be a more somber tale.
Whether it’s lack of faith in turning out consistent and predictable growth and earnings quarter over quarter (for years), that rightly shies then away from public markets, or a lack of a sense of business purpose to change the world that creates the itch to sell – today’s entrepreneur seems happy to “settle” for a quick payday, even if that means signing off on the slow death of the enterprise that they have shed blood, sweat and tears on.
That may make a lot of “us” rich but it doesn’t create game changing businesses. Further more when we turn to put on our consumer shoes we’re left with seeing our favorite applications and platforms slowly evolving into unrecognizable and disinteresting shells of their former selves under their new leadership. Or worse, we’re greeted with a combination of our favorite applications becoming a corporate mega-merger-smorgasbord.
NewsMicroHoo!OogleBook anyone? May the force be with you Mr. Zuckerberg.
April 17th, 2008
By Ben
There was some interesting back and forth this afternoon between TechCrunch and Valleywag, about why former Valleywag writer Jordan Golson was fired.
Michael Arrington of TechCrunch wrote a post detailing how Golson was fired because of a negative blog post he wrote on April 1 about his employer. Golson then told Arrington that his negative post had nothing to do with his firing, and asked him to correct the article (Arrington put an update at the bottom of the post).
Following that conversation, Valleywag’s Paul Boutin wrote a post about how Arrington flubbed the story but said he couldn’t ‘go back on it now.’
April 16th, 2008
By Ben
The oldest and most famous marathon in the world is making room for advertising.
The 112th Boston Marathon will be run on Monday, and for the first time ever, the Boston Athletic Association (BAA) will allow ads along the course, and the start and finish lines. The BAA has had longtime sponsors of the marathon that provide money, merchandise, fluid stations, etc., but this is the first time that some of these sponsors will have actual advertisements infiltrated with the race.
The Boston Globe reports that there will be a total of 26 spots along the course featuring the logos of longtime sponsors John Hancock and Adidas, but that no additional money was paid for the ads.
Guy Morse, executive director of the BAA told the Globe:
“We have been thinking about this for some time. In the year 2008, people understand you need sponsorship at this level to compete. For the BAA to provide the level of prize money and attract the elite athletes, and for the BAA to provide all the merchandise for 7,000 volunteers, you need corporate involvement and support to do that. It was time that we could make their support a little more visible.”
The Associated Press reported that prize money for the marathon has been increased by more than 38 percent, from $575,000 to $796,000, which makes the Boston Marathon the richest of the World Marathon Majors events.
April 16th, 2008
By Ben
It’s hard to find something that’s trendier then ‘green’ right now, and marketers are taking notice.
BusinessWeek’s Heather Green reported that a survey released by consultant Cone LLC and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship found that many Americans are not deciphering between the key words that are used in green marketing.
Over the past few months, just about everyone has been trying to jump onto the green bandwagon. From Sun Chips, Wal-Mart, and even Marriott, so many companies are trying to trying to show consumers their environmentally friendly side.
On this topic of appealing to consumers, the survey had some very interesting findings:
- 48 percent of Americans believe that environmentally friendly products actually have a positive impact on the environment.
- 39 percent of Americans buy products that they think are environmentally friendly.
- 22 percent of Americans correctly understand that an environmentally friendly product means that its impact on the environment is less negative.
While it’s clear that a reusable shopping bags and hybrid cars create ways for us to limit our negative impact the earth, it’s understandable that some companies may try to confuse consumers with their messages. However, what’s really beginning to become a grey area is what ‘green’ means.
So many businesses are claiming to be green, but there can be so many different variations of being green. While one company may change its lighting to environmentally friendly light bulbs, another company could vastly enhance their IT infrastructure, use ‘green’ printers, and change their light bulbs. Both of these companies can still call themselves green – but they’re clearly at different levels.
The bottom line is that competition between companies to become ‘greener’ is great for everyone, and the better we understand what type of affect each product actually has, the better it is for our environment
April 15th, 2008
By Ben
As the summer Olympics are approaching and the torch is making its way around the world, advocates for a Free Tibet are leveraging public relations to help make their cause known.
As soon as China was named as the host of the Olympic Games seven years ago, Tibet supporters began planning an aggressive PR strategy to use the worldwide event as an opportunity to have its message heard.
Kalaya’an Mendoza, a coordinator for Students for a Free Tibet, told The New York Times, “At first there was a profound sense of despair after the Chinese government was awarded the honor. But after five minutes passed, we realized this would be a monumental opportunity for the Tibetan people to be put in the international spotlight.”
China was has been slow to react, but there are reports that the government recently began a PR search, to help them manage this growing problem.
The New York Times reports:
Students for a Free Tibet, a member of the international organization, sends out its own talking points, press release templates and protest plans to its 650 chapters. That is supplemented by two Students for a Free Tibet Facebook cause pages, which now have about 37,900 members and a YouTube page where organizers post reports and footage from protests.
Every other month, Students for a Free Tibet holds conferences for members of pro-Tibet groups, where media training is a focus. The sessions cover everything from giving a good sound bite to answering reporters’ questions artfully.
The Olympic torch has been a focal point of the Tibet protests. From large banners hanging across the Golden Gate bridge, to a protestor trying to steal the torch – it has been an aggressive campaign aimed at calling attention to Tibet and human-rights issues in China.
In fact, security around the Olympic torch has become such an issue that when it reached Pakistan on Wednesday, the government elected to close off the torch relay from the public.
China – which recently blocked YouTube because videos showing protests in Tibet were posted on the site – has said that the problems with Tibet are internal issues.
April 14th, 2008
By Ben
How integrated has Facebook become in our culture? The popular social networking site is now seen as a threat to Israel’s national security.
According to the Associated Press, “Israeli defense officials say soldiers have inadvertently revealed sensitive information on Facebook…The rules allow soldiers to create pages on networking sites as long as they do not identify themselves as soldiers or reveal information about what they do.” The sensitive information that soldiers have revealed reportedly includes pictures that identify themselves as part of the Israeli army, along with images of equipment that is classified.
Although there was a recent Facebook security lapse that allowed the Associated Press to access photo albums of any user, Facebook has prided itself on providing a plethora of privacy options. However, the security issues that the Israeli army is looking at go way beyond social networking sites, and need to address mobile devices as well.
I was recently in Israel and was lucky enough to spend some time with Israeli soldiers. During this time I learned a few things:
- For Israelis, being in the army is the equivalent of an American student attending college – it’s a rite of passage.
- There are pictures of them in uniform everywhere.
- Pictures go beyond Facebook – cell phones are loaded with images too.
My point is that I support the crackdown on sensitive and classified information that’s being accessed through the internet. However, it’s going to extraordinarily difficult to expect these young soldiers not to identity themselves as such when it’s an ingrained part of their culture.
Back in March, Facebook faced conflict in Israel when users were assigned to the Palestinian network automatically, instead of being allowed to choose the Israeli network.
More then anything, this shows how the world is just beginning to adapt to social networks, and just how far Facebook has come from being a network for college students.
April 11th, 2008
By Ben
BusinessWeek’s Stephen Baker had an interesting post today about the future of journalism, and how it’s ‘heading into agolden age.’ Stephen shares a conversation that he had with BusinessWeek’s Chief Economist Michael Mandel and describes Mandel’s assessment:
His thesis is that we’re going through a jolting disruption and shake-out now, but that those of us who hold on will find ourselves thriving in five years. (He compares it to the shakeout in the chip industry in the mid-80s, from which a repositioned Intel emerged as a giant.) The idea is that in the information economy, the need for reporting, editing and analysis will be acute. Much of this work is and will remain (for at least a while) beyond the range of algorithms. He says there’s no telling which institutions will survive, what shape they’ll assume or which business models they’ll adopt (details, details). Despite such fogginess, the glad words from this dismal scientist washed over me like a tonic.
RaceTalk has covered changes in the media, ranging from the Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, and Boston’s (former) local sports anchor Bob Lobel, and just yesterday RaceTalk spoke with Newspaper Death Watch’s Paul Gillin about his view on newspapers and new media.
April 10th, 2008
By Kyle Austin
We recently had the opportunity to connect with Jeremy Caplan, who writes about business and technology for TIME magazine. In 2007, Jeremy was awarded the Knight-Bagehot fellowship in economics and business journalism from Columbia University for the current academic year, and is currently serving as a fellow there. He was just awarded the Wiegers Fellowship to complete his MBA at the Columbia Business School.
Our Q & A follows:
RaceTalk: Jeremy, nice to talk with you again. I know we worked together last before you started your fellowship last September. Can you tell us how that is going so far?
JC: It’s fantastic to be back in school. The fellowship basically provides a time-out from day-to-day writing so I can focus on doing MBA coursework at the Columbia Business School. I’ve learned a tremendous amount thus far from terrific professors.
RaceTalk: I saw on your blog that you are focusing your studies on corporate finance, accounting and strategy.
JC: My first semester I took Financial Accounting, Corporate Finance, Strategy Formulation, Modern Political Economy, and a course on creating effective organizations. I could talk to you for hours about each of these courses. People sometimes perceive business school as dry, but I’ve found much of the material to be fascinating, and I’ve learned a lot from my classmates and study partners. Many have backgrounds in finance and consulting, while others have worked at all sorts of companies abroad, and some come from NGOs and nonprofits.
This semester I’m taking Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Economics of Strategic Behavior, and Operations. I’m also taking a course focused on corporate social responsibility. In between my own classes, I audit others at the business school, on subjects ranging from behavioral economics to retail strategy. I try to pack in as much as I can each day at school because there is so much to learn.
As part of the fellowship, I’ve also studied topics in journalism, including media law and multimedia reporting techniques. The bulk of my time, though, is spent at the business school.
RaceTalk: Did you choose this focus because of your current beat on business and technology or because they are topics that generally interest you? (Both maybe?)
JC: My focus this year has been on studying core business fundamentals to sharpen my understanding of the subjects I cover for Time. I also wanted to approximate the MBA curriculum, because I plan to complete the MBA program.
RaceTalk: I also caught on your blog that you recently participated in New York City’s Principal for a Day Program and you are making an effort to create a lasting partnership between the school you visited and TIME. It brought me back to your story on volunteerism in America that you worked on last summer entitled “The Case for National Service.” Within that same issue you and your colleague Kristina Dell reported on social entrepreneurship. Both appear to be on a rise in America. Do you see a correlation between the two?
JC: I do, and the growing significance of social entrepreneurship is evident in the growing number of innovative small companies focused on addressing social challenges. This is a subject I look forward to covering regularly in the coming years. On a personal level, I’m intrigued by organizations that draw on the private sector in creative ways that go beyond funding. An example of that trend is Citizen Schools, which brings lawyers, architects, bankers, artists and others into after-school programs around the country. The organization enables professionals to share their expertise and passion with kids while expanding the learning day for students. It’s an example of an innovative program that was effective in Boston and has expanded elsewhere, including New York City, where Citizen Schools will launch this coming fall.
RaceTalk: Is this generation more in tune with helping others through business and personal efforts?
JC: I think it’s easier to find volunteering opportunities now than it had been in the pre-Internet days, and it’s easier to learn about ways to have an impact on an issue that you care about. Some studies do show that volunteering is becoming more popular among certain demographics in some parts of the country, but I think a major change across the board is that the frictions in the volunteering market have been reduced. It’s just easier to get involved now that volunteering information is available online.
RaceTalk: You mentioned in a blog entry on this topic in September that “It will be interesting to see if a dialogue about national service gains momentum over the course of the presidential campaign season ahead.” It seems that Barack Obama has almost taken a Republican type stance on “personal” and “social” responsibility, but has managed to tie it into his greater message for hope. Here’s a quote of his from a speech in Iowa last December:
“As President, I will launch a new Social Investment Fund Network. It’s time to get the grass roots, the foundations, the private sector and the government at the table. We’ll invest in ideas that work; leverage private sector dollars to encourage innovation; and expand successful programs to scale. Take a program like the Harlem Children’s Zone, which helps thousands of kids in New York through after-school activities, mentoring, and family support. We need to make that model work in different cities around the country. And I’ll start a new Social Entrepreneur Agency to make sure that small non-profits have the same kind of support that we give small businesses.”
RaceTalk: What are your thoughts on his message of “social” and “personal” responsibility?
JC: I’m glad to hear candidates focusing attention on the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ), because I’ve long thought that it represents an excellent model. HCZ has created a tightly woven network of programs that create a kind of synergy of support. I’m hoping each of the candidates talks about national service as well as social entrepreneurship as the campaign progresses.
RaceTalk: Getting further into social entrepreneurship, I wanted to get your thoughts on a new concept proposed by Muhammad Yunus. I recently asked Steve Hamm of BusinessWeek this same question based off a book review he did on Yonus’ new book “Creating a World without Poverty.” I’m interested into your thoughts on Yunus’ concept of social businesses, which Steve defines as the following:
They’re (social businesses) supposed to be smoothly managed, efficient, and profitable. But in their case, profits are invested back into operations rather than being returned to investors or shareholders. So it’s a form of capitalism that does not reward the capitalist in the traditional way.
RaceTalk: Yunus’ example of this is Grameen Danone, which sells fortified yogurt for pennies a serving to malnourished children in Bangladesh. However, they are still turning around a 1% annual dividend for the company. First off, are you familiar with this concept and have you heard of adoption of this philosophy?
JC: This is a great example of an innovative “bottom-of-the-pyramid” type business. From a market perspective, one of the challenges of this type of “social business” approach is that it may not provide full market returns, and the flow of capital may therefore be limited, ultimately, to those willing to sacrifice potential returns for other, social benefits. One of the strengths of Yunus’ innovation in microfinance was that he grounded the programs firmly in market principles. Yunus is a brilliant innovator, and I’ll be interested in seeing how this and his other projects develop.
RaceTalk: Secondly, do you think that true social businesses with 0% dividends will take off in the next decade?
JC: For some investors, such businesses may be attractive, and the number of such enterprises may grow. What is even more promising, I think, are businesses that are able to focus on profitable areas for social entrepreneurship, because they can attract the capital needed to grow without requiring investors to adopt any particular social point of view. Profits speak for themselves, and if businesses addressing genuine social problems can create effective solutions profitably, their scale and efficacy can grow quickly and dramatically.
RaceTalk: Switching topics, as you cover business technology for TIME, I have to get your thoughts on Microsoft’s pursuit of Yahoo!. I was talking with David Kirkpatrick of Fortune about this recently and he simply said Microsoft doesn’t get involved in situations like this to loose. At this point (4/10 and Yahoo! is still exploring other options with Google and Time Warner) is it still that cut and dry, is the takeover inevitable? If the deal goes through how does it change the industry in your mind?
JC: Internet-related innovation tends to come from both giants and upstarts, and that won’t change whether or not the deal goes through. While industry-watchers are focused on the end-result of this deal bid, my hunch is that many within all the companies affected are focusing much of their attention on the competition from down below, from the small startups flying under the radar with innovative ideas about improving tools for advertising, search and social networking.
RaceTalk: Speaking of Google, I know you think they are a fascinating company. What are your thoughts on its stock price falling more then 300 points since November?
JC: Particularly in this sector, stock prices tend to reflect the temporary whims of speculators, often resulting from short-term considerations, rather than underlying changes in the long-term value of an enterprise. I’m less interested in Google’s stock price one way or another than in their strategy and how the company runs its operations.
RaceTalk: Is it just a bi-product of U.S. economic woes or has Google’s room for growth finally flattened out?
JC: Even though it sometimes seems like we’re already in the thick of the Internet age, a relatively small fraction of overall advertising dollars are spent online, both in the U.S. and overseas. It’s unlikely that the online share of ad dollars will stagnate or shrink in the coming years. That means that to the extent companies like Google, and others, are able to capitalize on online ad spending, and build up their share of that pool of ad dollars, there is still considerable room for growth.
RaceTalk: Is there hope for growth in its recently announced health data service?
JC: Google has taken a very long-term approach to health data, and I do think it holds promise going forward, as do related services from others.
RaceTalk: Finally, you wrote a piece last year on the worst jobs in America. What’s the worst job you’ve had?
JC: I delivered newspapers once - that might have been my worst job. Getting up super early and rushing around with confusing spreadsheets (detailing who gets what paper where) wasn’t a lot of fun. It did make me wonder whether an alternative delivery method might one day make more sense…
RaceTalk: And how would you rate the job of being journalist?
JC: It’s fantastic. I get to dig into fascinating subjects and to spend my time reading, writing, listening and learning. Sometimes I can inform or entertain people, or spread the word about an important issue. What could be better?
April 10th, 2008
Next Posts
Previous Posts
