Jump to content

Why I don't believe SS is raking in the bigger profits like many believe even with the new payment structure


Recommended Posts

It's quite widely believed that SS is scoring big $$$ as a result of the new payment and commissions structure that was introduced last year. I personally don't believe this is the case.

To illustrate the point I suggest the following hypothetical scenarios using a previous commission payment of say 40% compared to the new 15% following the reset. I suggest it's not the commissions SS is paying out to contributors that hurts the bottom line, but the heavily discounted sales prices under the new subscription model.

Sales Scenario One

  • $100 sale
  • 40% paid to contributor ($40)
  • 60% earning for SS ($60)

Sales Scenario Two

  • $1 sale
  • 15% paid to contributor (15 cents) 
  • 85% earning for SS (85 cents)

No matter which way you slice the pie, the new model means much less income for SS (as well a contributors). I can't see how the new model is in SS's best interest as widely believed. Sooner or later the earnings drop is going to become apparent in their quarterly financial results.

 

   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Steven Tritton changed the title to Why I don't believe SS is raking in the bigger profits like many believe even with the new payment structure

It does not really matter what you believe, because this is not a religion, where your personal believes have any significance.
Shutterstock releases sales reports for their shareholders regularly and these show that they have indeed made bigger profits since the change of payment structure.

Also,  don't understand you sales scenario comparisons. First of all, SS has not discounted sales at all. The prices for customers stayed the same, just the contributor's share was cut.
Also, how often do you get $100 sales? The majority of SS's earnings is made up by selling subscription plans.  SS used to have a minimum of 0.35$ (depending on your tire, I think it was 0.28$ for the lowest tire, but 0.35% was what I had) payout. So the proper comparison would be like this:

Former payment:
     $1 sale
    0.35$ paid to contributor
    0,65$ earning for SS

Now it's, at least for the lowest level:

    $1 sale
    15% paid to contributor ($0.15)
    85% earning for SS ($0.85 )

And let's not forget that, unlike for example iStock, SS does not pay us at all for customers who don't use all images from their subscriptions, but just keep the extra money to themselves.

A customers pays 200$ to get 750image subscription, but only actually uses 20images? Hurray, the contributors get a minimum 2$ of and SS gets to keep 198$.

How in the world do you really think they are not making any profit with the new plan? I am at level 4 and 99% of my sales, expect very rare larger SODs and Extended Licence sales earn me less than what they earned me before. Where do you think that missing money is going to?

There are so many people who have made detailed calculations comparing what they used to get for sales before and what they get now and all the missing money is ending up in SS's pockets. Even without their published sales reports it is obvious they have increased their profit greatly.

 



 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steven - it’s a question of balance. I think SS is testing where it really begins to hurt the contributors in terms of ‘how low can we go’ before the ‘big’ earners leave the building. That must be their real worry? Obviously there are always people (like us) who are willing almost to give our work away for peanuts but some are businesses depending on income from stock. And - lo and behold - some are oddly enough still earning big bucks (Doug Jensen e.g).

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, oleschwander said:

Steven - it’s a question of balance. I think SS is testing where it really begins to hurt the contributors in terms of ‘how low can we go’ before the ‘big’ earners leave the building. That must be their real worry? Obviously there are always people (like us) who are willing almost to give our work away for peanuts.

True, which means Shutterstock is stuck in a rock and hard place going forward... and they have a much smaller pie to slice and share than what they did in previous years imo.

Just to comment further about my scenarios ($100 vs $1), didn't contributors who have been around in Microstock for years receive far bigger and more frequent commissions per sale / RPD in the past? If (for example) you were to resume the former payment structure, you still wouldn't be seeing those bigger sales, in particular for ELs, SOs and ODs, would you? 

Indeed this is market forces at work but my point is, I'm sure Shutterstock is not seeing the earnings they use to. And hitting contributors up for more of the share of the dwindling income is not going to compensate. It might for a little while but it's not sustainable.   

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday I saw an impressive report on television why Kodak disappeared after the rise of digital photography and Fujifilm made it.
It had been predicted for a few years that the rolls of film would disappear, but digital photography remained very expensive and of inferior quality for a long time.
Until everything suddenly changed. Fujiifilm drew on his knowledge of chemistry and moved on to other products such as skin care and medicines. Kodak tried with digital cameras, but was too far behind.
Here you can see that too, I think. Stock sites depend on one product. Until now, the offer has increased, but more customers have also arrived.
With the improvement of cameras and telephones, more and more high-quality photos are appearing on the internet. Often available for free. Stock sites already have a lot of similar photos of the same subject besides the news photos.
It is difficult to look into the future. But it seems to me that news photos, videos will continue to do well for a long time and the professional photographers, videographers and artists who make beautiful photo edits can continue to sell their material, but the rest will have little value. The question of how Stocksites respond to this. Are they looking for new ways? Like Fujifilm and also Adobe. Just falling in price does not seem like a solution to me in the long run.
They may also be working on this by, among other things, the grading of the photos. For example, a customer must be able to select from photos 10/10. Only the grading needs to be improved. 🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steven Tritton said:

Just to comment further about my scenarios ($100 vs $1), didn't contributors who have been around in Microstock for years receive far bigger and more frequent commissions per sale / RPD in the past? If (for example) you were to resume the former payment structure, you still wouldn't be seeing those bigger sales, in particular for ELs, SOs and ODs, would you? 

Indeed this is market forces at work but my point is, I'm sure Shutterstock is not seeing the earnings they use to. And hitting contributors up for more of the share of the dwindling income is not going to compensate. It might for a little while but it's not sustainable.  

 

Shutterstock isn't thinking about contributors but about their own balance sheets. They're doing just fine financially, probably better than they ever have and their balance sheets confirm that. The whole idea of moving from an individual image based package to a subscription structure is brilliant from a profit point of view. They don't care about bigger sales, but about a bigger volume of sales that give them a steady stream of money. A customer who pays 250$ a month every month is far more valuable than the one who spends 100$ on an image once every few months. And as @Firn mentioned earlier, absolutely nothing has changed for big corporate customers who pay the same that they used to before even if they hardly ever use up their monthly quota of images. SS is a habit they're used to. So they aren't really losing out on the customers they want.

The only losers in this game are contributors but as we have seen in the past year, despite the earning cuts, we all still contribute because for many contributors, even a dollar is something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Thijs de Graaf said:

Fujiifilm drew on his knowledge of chemistry and moved on to other products such as skin care and medicines

Yeah I was very surprised a couple of months ago when we received human cardiac cells* from Fujifilm in my research lab! They moved far away from their original field but they are so successful that they are leader in other fields too obviously! 

*Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells, they don't experiment on human beings...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think there is many things that come in the same time for the contributor and SS and it make everything complicated to analyze. 

1) The first one is there is more and more contributors, and more and more contents, so more and more "competition" between us and that result in less sales. This can be visible or not, depending on the niche and the trend... In order to compensate, we would need more buyers and buyers buying more content. But the more they buy, the less they want to pay per content (=subs). Especially with the financial circumstance and the arrival of free content via free stock and social platform like Insta.

2) SS had to change their contributor earning structure. Like it or not, it wasn't viable for them. People that were there for a "long time" were all receiving 0.36 or 0.38 per subs while SS was only paid 0.33. And judging by the number of 0.10 sales we've got, it was probably making a huge difference, making it hard to predict what would happen in the future and make a reasonable company strategy from there. Plus, with more and more contributors, it was just a matter of time to be all in that last tier. Now do I think this new earning structure is fair? No way. They took the minimum as iStock did ie 15% and I still believe that this is very negative for us, especially because they also change their pricing structure, resulting in a drop of income per download, which is my point 3)

3) In order to have more buyers and keep the high ground of microstock, SS choose to reduced their price, give free content away (10 pics for a new account  ie for a new email adress), start video subscription for almost nothing, discount content for web use and other choice like that. It might be a good survival strategy and I can't judge that but for us, it reduces our income now that we are on a percentage basis... The worst is for video sale. 15% on subs that are already very low, with a huge gap making it very hard to reach level 4 where you earn what we used to earned before ie 30%. For me, this is clearly a crime. SS is making huge profit there on the back of video contributors. 

4) Among the choices SS made, the minimum % is where they actually take their profit. Between 60 to 85% of what the buyer paid goes directly to SS. When you remove SS need for management, hosting, advertisement, etc., you have their profit, and it is huge obviously (according to 2020 Earning Per Share and 2020 Revenue that are both higher than 2018 and 2019). You have to consider that most company had a drop in 2020 because of covid, but not SS. Think about how many companies can be hosted in the Empire State Building... 

Now a sign of respect from SS would be to adjust the earnings structure for contributor. A higher minimum %? The share of the "unsold" pics from the subs? A change in the video level, making level 4 and higher levels reachable? A free training program or something similar to AS giving free license on their product? 

Other issue that give contributor the feeling they are not taken into consideration: thief and license abuse. There is not one month without someone finding its images stolen and being sold by some other contributor. Which means that someone is probably getting paid from someone else work and SS doesn't seems to care to much. It would be a nightmare for SS to find the original image sold and give the money back to the original contributor, plus they would need to be paid back by the thief which might not be as easy as it appears... But come on, we are playing everyday on SS roulette with stupid refusals, but SS AI don't see when an image is already in their database, sold by another contributor? One image OK but usually it's thousands of them...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I think that people need to recognize is the false assumption that all of our "subscription" sales are from actual subscriptions. The whole, someone pays for 750 images and only uses 50, is pretty distant from reality as well. What kind of business is so foolish to pay for a months worth of images, when they only need 50? Yeah, OK in theory we aren't paid for any unused sub payments, and the other side is, when someone uses the entire subscription, SS loses money, because they pay us more than they make.

But there's more.

API partners and special deals where the details are not known, but we can also see ODs that are way below what they were or any package prices. What I'm getting at is this. Most of our downloads now, marked "subscription" are not subscriptions. They are pay as you go for special contracts, API partners, unlimited (hey remember unlimited?) at a set payment. If they resell 100 or 1,000 they pay that same "subscription" price and we get our percentage. Distributors at the POD sites get a special rate, and we get a small percentage.

True subscriptions are not as much of the current sales as they might have been ten years ago. Now the volume is resellers and partners.

Look at your sales and commissions and all the 10c payments. There can't be that many businesses buying the annual pay, 750 a month subscription packages. Who needs, or uses 750 images a month? These are the rates for API partners and re-sellers. That's where the mass of "subscription" downloads come from now.

Unlimited and open contract downloads are the new subscription. No minimum, no limits, no maximum. They only pay for what they take.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, HodagMedia said:

Something I think that people need to recognize is the false assumption that all of our "subscription" sales are from actual subscriptions. The whole, someone pays for 750 images and only uses 50, is pretty distant from reality as well. What kind of business is so foolish to pay for a months worth of images, when they only need 50?

 

I get what you're saying. SS probably makes a lot more money from non-subscription sources like affiliates and deals we don't know of.

But as for companies not using up the quota of subscription downloads, it's truer than you think. I've worked in many news and ad agencies who had big accounts at both SS and Getty where I had to source images and I don't remember a single instance where we used up the monthly quota of images. In fact, it's only rarely that we ever used more than half our subscription quota. Now why do companies have these big accounts that they don't utilize fully? Because it's barely a blip on the budget and when they need a ton of images for a project close to a deadline, they're easy to source and find. Also, companies don't have just one account. There are multiple 750 sub accounts spread across different departments. That's because when, say, someone in graphics needs an image, they can just go to their account, add the images they like to their collections etc. and work on it without worrying about someone from client servicing cluttering up their boards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Firn said:

It does not really matter what you believe, because this is not a religion, where your personal believes have any significance.
Shutterstock releases sales reports for their shareholders regularly and these show that they have indeed made bigger profits since the change of payment structure.

Also,  don't understand you sales scenario comparisons. First of all, SS has not discounted sales at all. The prices for customers stayed the same, just the contributor's share was cut.
Also, how often do you get $100 sales? The majority of SS's earnings is made up by selling subscription plans.  SS used to have a minimum of 0.35$ (depending on your tire, I think it was 0.28$ for the lowest tire, but 0.35% was what I had) payout. So the proper comparison would be like this:

Former payment:
     $1 sale
    0.35$ paid to contributor
    0,65$ earning for SS

Now it's, at least for the lowest level:

    $1 sale
    15% paid to contributor ($0.15)
    85% earning for SS ($0.85 )

And let's not forget that, unlike for example iStock, SS does not pay us at all for customers who don't use all images from their subscriptions, but just keep the extra money to themselves.

A customers pays 200$ to get 750image subscription, but only actually uses 20images? Hurray, the contributors get a minimum 2$ of and SS gets to keep 198$.

How in the world do you really think they are not making any profit with the new plan? I am at level 4 and 99% of my sales, expect very rare larger SODs and Extended Licence sales earn me less than what they earned me before. Where do you think that missing money is going to?

There are so many people who have made detailed calculations comparing what they used to get for sales before and what they get now and all the missing money is ending up in SS's pockets. Even without their published sales reports it is obvious they have increased their profit greatly.

 



 


 

I get paid .10 cts jjajajaj I totally agree though, those guys are swimming in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Steven Tritton said:

True, which means Shutterstock is stuck in a rock and hard place going forward... and they have a much smaller pie to slice and share than what they did in previous years imo.

Just to comment further about my scenarios ($100 vs $1), didn't contributors who have been around in Microstock for years receive far bigger and more frequent commissions per sale / RPD in the past? If (for example) you were to resume the former payment structure, you still wouldn't be seeing those bigger sales, in particular for ELs, SOs and ODs, would you? 

Indeed this is market forces at work but my point is, I'm sure Shutterstock is not seeing the earnings they use to. And hitting contributors up for more of the share of the dwindling income is not going to compensate. It might for a little while but it's not sustainable.   

 

 

Here's some sample data for you, Steve:

My biggest download day last month - compared to same day in 2016. RPD for both are around 64c. No video sales or large SODs are included in both those days. I got them on other days - just not, as it happens in these 2 examples. So we can make a fair comparison. 

I think, from a business point of view, that eventually all agencies have to pay their contributors a percentage of their sales - as opposed to a flat rate. SS would have been making big losses on some of those sub packs while they had to pay their Top Level contributors 38c (especially as the number of contributors were growing each year).

But the problem is for contributors still on Levels 1 and 2. It gets better the higher you go of course. AND the biggest problem of all for us, is the January 1 reset. It can take some of us a few months to get back to Level 5, but they are preventing everyone else, who haven't been around as long, from doing so. 

Also, take into account all those free sites (some like Unsplash that have great photography available) and iS/G who started the race to the bottom, and largely forcing other agencies, like SS, to compete - and you have a recipe for disaster for the poor humble contributor. 

2021_Screenshot 2021-04-08 053840.jpg

 

2016_Screenshot 2021-04-08 055455.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Milleflore Images said:

Here's some sample data for you, Steve:

My biggest download day last month - compared to same day in 2016. RPD for both are around 64c. No video sales or large SODs are included in both those days. I got them on other days - just not, as it happens in these 2 examples. So we can make a fair comparison. 

I think, from a business point of view, that eventually all agencies have to pay their contributors a percentage of their sales - as opposed to a flat rate. SS would have been making big losses on some of those sub packs while they had to pay their Top Level contributors 38c (especially as the number of contributors were growing each year).

But the problem is for contributors still on Levels 1 and 2. It gets better the higher you go of course. AND the biggest problem of all for us, is the January 1 reset. It can take some of us a few months to get back to Level 5, but they are preventing everyone else, who haven't been around as long, from doing so. 

Also, take into account all those free sites (some like Unsplash that have great photography available) and iS/G who started the race to the bottom, and largely forcing other agencies, like SS, to compete - and you have a recipe for disaster for the poor humble contributor. 

2021_Screenshot 2021-04-08 053840.jpg

 

2016_Screenshot 2021-04-08 055455.jpg

Hi Annie,

I guess you already know it: Unsplash has been sold to Getty Images.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

Hi Annie,

I guess you already know it: Unsplash has been sold to Getty Images.

 

Yes, I know. A friend of mine said to me the other day: “Nothing good can come out of it for contributors. The most horrendous site that started pittance royalties now acquires a site that doesn't pay contributors at all”.  

Lol. That me me laugh. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Firn said:

It does not really matter what you believe, because this is not a religion, where your personal believes have any significance.
 

That's a bit harsh, Firn ???

I think Steve is making some fair assessments that should be considered.

In response to your other comments. I think you may be taking a more short term look at the whole situation. The problem actually started a few years back with SS competing with its main rival and bringing in all of these big discounted packs but still having to pay contributors the flat rates. 

Eventually we all should be prepared for % commissions and not flat rates anymore. But its the way that the agencies manage it, is the big problem. My only axe to grind with SS is the Jan 1 reset.

But SS could turn around and say - once again comparing themselves to iS/G - you only get 15% there, never any pay rises, and there is no 10c cutoff. 

Its a tough world at the moment for contributors, no matter which way you look at it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Milleflore Images said:

Yes, I know. A friend of mine said to me the other day: “Nothing good can come out of it for contributors. The most horrendous site that started pittance royalties now acquires a site that doesn't pay contributors at all”.  

Lol. That me me laugh. 

 

BTW: 215 downloads in one day is really incredible!

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Milleflore Images said:

That's a bit harsh, Firn ???

I think Steve is making some fair assessments that should be considered.

I didn't mean to be harsh. I am sorry if it came across that way.

But I am a facts person. (Which, I believe, now in times of Corona is more important than ever).

So, when someone makes claims that are based on his believes in opposite to facts (which are out there, in the form of the official sale reports), it really rubs me the wrong way. I did not mean to say (if it came across like this), that  Steven's opinion was insignificant. Just that making such claims based on believe isn't right in my opinion, especially since, even apart from the sales report, a lot of people have gone through the effort to compare what they used to earn before with what they earn by now and there are a lot of numbers and facts available here - Numbers that clearly show that Shutterstock has increased their earnings with the new payment structure. These numbers have been presented here for months, so when someone comes here and say "I don't believe SS is raking in the bigger profits with the new payment structure" it's sounds  a bit like those crazy conspiracy theorists that refuse to accept facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand, Firn, and I hear you. And my heart goes out to all the people who feel angry and betrayed by SS, and to the losses they have made this past year. 

But I just want to say it was a long time coming. All the 'bad' decisions (bad for the contributors, that is) that SS has made over the past 5+ years have been a direct or indirect result of iS/G undercutting the stock photography industry and undervaluing our assets. I blame G. You can clearly see that SS's plan has been based on what iS/G offers contributors and they (SS) can justify their new rates compared to that. (But I just dont understand the Jan 1 reset ) I am neither for  SS or against them - I am just resigned to it all, and moving away as much as I can from microstock. 

I am a facts person too, and I don't think Steve was straying too far from that. Anyway, I was hoping that Steve would continue.

The other thing is that when we start comparing, my question is to what? Last year, the year before that, or 5 years before? Because the answer to that, can make a big difference to our relative objectivity to the situation.

I also know people who have not been harmed by the new rates structure largely because of the type of content they are offering.

I also just want to say, when people start quoting company reports, I always have a little chuckle to myself. Back in my corporate accounting days, we used to have a little joke that there were always 3 sets of accounts - one for the shareholders, one for management, and one for what really happened. And I didn't work for a small Australian company either, it was a Fortune 500 company. I was just outside with my husband, who is a chartered accountant, and asked him if it still happens, and he burst out laughing. Of course, he said. What is reported to shareholders is often far from the truth. 

Anyway, I have too much time on my hands today and just popped in for a long overdue visit. 

I wish you all the best of luck in the future, Firn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the rest of this discussion, I look forward with anticipation to the 2020 Annual Report. I hope that it will provide some insight.

Whether the numbers have actually improved or deteriorated because of the revenue structure, we all have no way of knowing. Because there are too many factors at work here that we don't know. All large companies are making the biggest savings in the personnel area. Job cuts always have a positive impact on the balance sheet. And this is more noticeable than, for example, selling the product more expensively or making savings in purchasing.

The artificial intelligence in the review process, the lack of shutterstock employees in the forum, the barely accessible support - all this indicates to me quite subjectively that you can present good figures to the shareholders. That seems to carry the most weight for me. But it's just a theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Milleflore Images said:

Here's some sample data for you, Steve:

My biggest download day last month - compared to same day in 2016. RPD for both are around 64c. No video sales or large SODs are included in both those days. I got them on other days - just not, as it happens in these 2 examples. So we can make a fair comparison. 

I think, from a business point of view, that eventually all agencies have to pay their contributors a percentage of their sales - as opposed to a flat rate. SS would have been making big losses on some of those sub packs while they had to pay their Top Level contributors 38c (especially as the number of contributors were growing each year).

But the problem is for contributors still on Levels 1 and 2. It gets better the higher you go of course. AND the biggest problem of all for us, is the January 1 reset. It can take some of us a few months to get back to Level 5, but they are preventing everyone else, who haven't been around as long, from doing so. 

Also, take into account all those free sites (some like Unsplash that have great photography available) and iS/G who started the race to the bottom, and largely forcing other agencies, like SS, to compete - and you have a recipe for disaster for the poor humble contributor. 

2021_Screenshot 2021-04-08 053840.jpg

 

2016_Screenshot 2021-04-08 055455.jpg

Thanks for sharing Annie. This is very interesting information. Also, good to see you return and post on the forum! :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, balajisrinivasan said:

I get what you're saying. SS probably makes a lot more money from non-subscription sources like affiliates and deals we don't know of.

But as for companies not using up the quota of subscription downloads, it's truer than you think. I've worked in many news and ad agencies who had big accounts at both SS and Getty where I had to source images and I don't remember a single instance where we used up the monthly quota of images. In fact, it's only rarely that we ever used more than half our subscription quota. Now why do companies have these big accounts that they don't utilize fully? Because it's barely a blip on the budget and when they need a ton of images for a project close to a deadline, they're easy to source and find. Also, companies don't have just one account. There are multiple 750 sub accounts spread across different departments. That's because when, say, someone in graphics needs an image, they can just go to their account, add the images they like to their collections etc. and work on it without worrying about someone from client servicing cluttering up their boards.

And I understand that there is truth in the big companies. They also have the multi-seat licenses where we get 10c all the way across forever including level 6.

I'm saying, there can't be that many of those big buyers, who pay for convince that SS is raking in all kinds of money, based on people not using the subscription. Making that out to be how we are cheated out of commissions, because people pay for what they don't take, is a minor issue. Ever go to an all you can eat buffet? The only way for the restaurant to make money is because people don't eat the value of what they paid for.  So yes, maybe years ago, there were many more subscriptions, and much more profit from those, as people mostly didn't use all the images. I think the model has changed.

All you can eat, competition: Yay, Storyblocks, Canva Pro and Evanto Elements. (I contribute to none of those) That might be why our downloads are down as well? Who knows what Getty/iStock does, I cringe when I see the Connect Sales in fractions of a cent commission. And we are locked at 15% forever, no raises. Here we are unfairly reset in January to that same 15%.

I'm suggesting that from the data and our downloads, we all can't have that much of our sales, coming from big pack subscribers. And why I say that is the 10c downloads that make up most of my sold images. There have to be other plans, unlimited or API partners who pay as they go, the minimum amount, without any subscription limits, and we get a dime for each download. So I'm trying to say, that the unused subs that SS makes money, isn't as big of a factor as the repeated "what about the subs that aren't used" complaint.

We've known from the start, as Jon was quoted as saying the same, the agency makes money when people pay for a subscription and don't use or download all the allowed images. At the same time, when we were being paid 35/38 cents, SS was charging the same as now for the 750 packs, and they lost money on every download, while hoping people wouldn't use the who allowance? The part that points that out is the actual amount collected from a 750 pack and how SS is actually losing money by paying us a dime. In the past they were losing even more, paying us 35 cents. (IF someone used their whole allowance)

There are two sides to this sub thing.  Sometimes they win, some we win.

And then other deals, the new unlimited and the API partners. We're getting a percentage of the actual price paid. And it's 10¢?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...