Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
TV markets, placing a bet on the future
Author Message
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #21
RE: TV markets, placing a bet on the future
(04-20-2013 01:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-20-2013 01:42 PM)omniorange Wrote:  
(04-20-2013 12:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-20-2013 11:36 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  
(04-19-2013 11:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If the characteristic is the population of the large market is generally indifferent to the product there isn't a lot of value.


http://winthropintelligence.com/2011/07/...rformance/

I don't buy this at all. It's a myth that is repeatedly perpetuated by those who want to promote the small, college town agenda. Let's take some examples.

Michigan has the largest stadiums in the country, which it fills ever year. It's only about 30 miles or so outside Detroit but technically not in the Detroit metro area. In the world of today's transportation, 30-40 miles is nothing. Michigan might as well be in downtown Detroit.

Penn State is out in the boondocks of central Pennsylvania. It too has one of the largest stadiums in the country, which it also routinely sells out. Is that because it's removed from a metro area? If you think so, you've never been to a Penn Stae game. The fans are all coming from metropolitan Philly and driving 4-5 hours to get to the game. Penn State would draw just as well if it were in downtown Philly.

Land grant colleges were not normally built in urban areas. They were funded to meet agricultural needs, which is why they are where they are. However, regardless of their locations, they are the state's flagship universities and are a focus of civic pride. They are old and long established with large numbers of alumni who support them with ticket purchases and outright donations. They have a football culture that in many cases goes back 100 years. It's this culture that drives the interest, not their locations.

In order to do a factual comparison, there would have to be an equal number of state flagships in big cities with pro football competition. But there aren't because that's not where most of the flagships are located. Given that flagships top the attendance lists, of course the list is going to show schools in small towns. But it's not cause & effect. It's simply a factor of where the flagships are located.

The idea that a school has o be located in a TV "market" simply ignores everything we know about markets. Professional franchises command markets because their identity coincides with their city. But this is not true of universities. Flagships in particular have statewide identities. What is important about them is that they deliver the big city markets within their states because that's where much of their alumni is located and because it's where much of their stae's population is located. The ability to deliver a market is what matters, not whether a team is physically located within that market. For a flagship, the market is the entire state, not the home town. The fact that networks track viewership by urban markets is irrelevant to the fact that flagship markets are the state and is not broken up by urban market.

If schools in or near big cities with pro teams can't draw fans, someone's going to have to explain to me how Washington and Arizona State draw 60,000 fans in competition with pro franchises in their immediate vicinity, how Florida & Texas A&M despite being within just a couple of hours of Jacksonville and Houston respectively. The 90,000 fans that each draws aren't coming from Gainesville and College Station exclusively. People today actually know how to get in a car and drive somewhere they want to go even if it's not in the immediate vicinity.

Georgia is only a little over an hour from Atlanta. Are you telling me that the power of the NFL is so great that it stifles any interst in local college teams but when you get over the city line, the NFL loses it's influence? I somehow think that a lot of those 90,000 fans at Georgia games are driving down from Atlanta. LSU is a similar distance from New Orleans and also draws 90,000. Same is true for Notre Dame (Chicago & Indianapolis) and Missouri (St. Louis).

And why are there flagships in great college towns that don't draw 80-100K? Orw even 60K? Ole Miss in Oxford doesn't draw any better than Pitt despite the power of the SEC. North Carolina in Chapel Hill doesn't draw any better than Georgia Tech in Atlanta. Oregon in Eugene doesn't draw any better than Stanford in the Bay Area. These 3 aren't examples of good college towns, they are great college towns, 3 of the best you can find in America.

Te notion that it all boils down to geography and the NFL is simplistic and ignores every other factor that goes into building a program successful enough to command large scale interest in attendance and TV viewership.

IMO, institutional culture and tradition has as much to do with explaining the success of Alabama and Notre Dame in college football as it does with explaining the Yankees and Red Sox in Major League Baseball.

Very interesting post but let me question a couple of things. First, I don't know what this small college town agenda is that you refer to? There are those who think college football succeeds better in small towns but I don't see any political agenda.

Second, while I agree completely that institutional culture and tradition explaon the success of big time programs like notrr dame, I think you ignore that same factor when discussing the impact of the NFL. Believe me, there are NFL towns, like NYC and Boston, where the regions culture is oriented to pro not college football.

True, but with NYC and Boston you have two states (New York and Massachusetts) where being THE state school means diddly.

I'm sure there are "pro cities" that are good examples of what you are referring to, but the ones you chose aren't effective examples to counter Melky's point.

Neil, Melky's point is that those who claim that a college program can't draw big crowds if it is in a big city with NFL teams are wrong. But who has ever claimed that? Obviously, as programs like Arizona State and USC (in the past, when LA had NFL teams) prove, they can.

Melky does make a second point that makes more sense: He notes that there are also big-time football programs that are located in small towns but that are actually in close proximity to big cities - like Michigan/Detroit and Notre Dame/Chicago so it would be wrong to call those "small town" programs, and I agree with him.

Nevertheless, I believe he pushes his point too far when he fails to acknowledge that there are in fact some big cities that are pro-oriented and where it would be very difficult for a college program to succeed. Cities that have a pro-culture as opposed to a college one. New York and Boston are in fact good examples, because big flagships are not the only kinds of big-time programs - see Notre Dame, USC, and Miami, for example. So it is wrong to limit his claim to only flagships. For his point to stand it has to be true of other types of schools as well, and NYC and Boston have plenty of those. Heck, NYC used to be a college football hotbed, until the NFL matured.

As an aside, one example that is often used to support small town concept that is NOT a good one is Tampa. USF fans like myself often justify USF's weak fan interest by saying "Tampa is a Bucs/NFL town". That it is, but, it is also a Florida and FSU town too. If you drive around Tampa in the fall, you will see tons of cars flying UF and FSU flags, very few flying USF fans. So even though Tampa loves its Bucs, it embraces college football too - just not so much USF. 03-banghead

As I noted on another board, Miami is a larger market than Orlando or Tampa/St.Pete but look at the attendance of college programs within 150 miles of Miami vs. Tampa or Orlando. Both the Tampa/St.Pete and Orlando markets successfully support two bowl games while the second bowl concept failed in Miami.

If you look at pro attendance in Miami, I think it all leads to the conclusion that Miami is a very tough market for sports in general, it isn't a pro vs. college scenario.
04-20-2013 04:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mikeinsec127 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,988
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 118
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #22
RE: TV markets, placing a bet on the future
(04-19-2013 11:29 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The primary reason why CUSA makes the money it does over G5 conferences like the MAC and SBC has to do with salary history. Its much easier to negotiate from a starting point of 1 million per school and end up with a TV deal valued at 1 million per school like they've done for every contract in the leagues existence.

What has impressed me is how the MWC was after losing BYU, Utah and TCU not only able to resign with ESPN it did so at the tune of 1.8 million dollars per year (about double the MWC received before on ESPN). Most of the schools in the MWC play in tiny markets except SJSU, SDSU and UNLV. The raise pool makes the TV deal even more lucrative for the top football schools

Is Boise a Top 50 TV market? I don't know. Is Boise a Top 50 FB school in popularity? The answer has to be yes to that.
Your last point hits it all about the MWC TV deal. It was all about Boise. It is a ratings darling that ESPN loves. That is also why Boise was able to strong arm the MWC into a special association deal giving it more revenue than other conference members.
04-20-2013 06:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,111
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #23
RE: TV markets, placing a bet on the future
(04-19-2013 11:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If the characteristic is the population of the large market is generally indifferent to the product there isn't a lot of value.
But generally more value than a small market that is equally indifferent to the product.
04-20-2013 08:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ODU2003 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 206
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 15
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #24
RE: TV markets, placing a bet on the future
My take on everything is simple; brands rule college sports with markets being a distant second. In football you have names that carry weight; Notre Dame, Texas, USC, PSU, Alabama, FSU, OSU, etc. In basketball (yes, a distant second in terms of revenue) you also have brand names that stand out; Duke, UNC, Kansas, Kentucky, UCLA, etc.

Someone mentioned the land grant schools and they do typically bring the state. Said differently, the primary state schools have a regional brand. So while VT football might not carry the same weight as Texas in terms of national brand, they have a regional relevance that has lots of value. (BTW, VT has awesome fans - they are almost cult like in their support of VT).

Now in the absence of a brand on the regional or national level, that is where markets become important. And since revenue drives realignment, schools with a brand or a market have a huge leg up on schools with neither.
04-20-2013 09:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
omniorange Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:

Donators
Post: #25
RE: TV markets, placing a bet on the future
(04-20-2013 01:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Neil, Melky's point is that those who claim that a college program can't draw big crowds if it is in a big city with NFL teams are wrong. But who has ever claimed that? Obviously, as programs like Arizona State and USC (in the past, when LA had NFL teams) prove, they can.

Melky does make a second point that makes more sense: He notes that there are also big-time football programs that are located in small towns but that are actually in close proximity to big cities - like Michigan/Detroit and Notre Dame/Chicago so it would be wrong to call those "small town" programs, and I agree with him.

Nevertheless, I believe he pushes his point too far when he fails to acknowledge that there are in fact some big cities that are pro-oriented and where it would be very difficult for a college program to succeed. Cities that have a pro-culture as opposed to a college one. New York and Boston are in fact good examples, because big flagships are not the only kinds of big-time programs - see Notre Dame, USC, and Miami, for example. So it is wrong to limit his claim to only flagships. For his point to stand it has to be true of other types of schools as well, and NYC and Boston have plenty of those. Heck, NYC used to be a college football hotbed, until the NFL matured.

As an aside, one example that is often used to support small town concept that is NOT a good one is Tampa. USF fans like myself often justify USF's weak fan interest by saying "Tampa is a Bucs/NFL town". That it is, but, it is also a Florida and FSU town too. If you drive around Tampa in the fall, you will see tons of cars flying UF and FSU flags, very few flying USF fans. So even though Tampa loves its Bucs, it embraces college football too - just not so much USF. 03-banghead

Well, to be fair, I should have said one of Melky's points, since he had a few. But overall, I think you may have missed the point in dispute since Melky's point, to me anyway, wasn't that an NFL city couldn't get interested in a college football team, but rather that said interest in college football is focused on the state's flagship university, which by how these institutions developed tend not be located in metropolitan areas.

The article seemed to be indicating that it was a detriment for any college football program to be located in a large population center which also had NFL franchises. Melky's counter argument, as I understood it, was that if the history of flagship universities had developed in such a way that the University of Michigan was in Detroit instead of Ann Arbor, PSU in Philly instead of State College, etc., the argument would correctly be non-flagship universities located in large population centers with NFL pro franchises hurt attendance.

Professional franchises command markets because their identity coincides with their city. But this is not true of universities. Flagships in particular have statewide identities. What is important about them is that they deliver the big city markets within their states

Your response that I thought was suppose to be a counter to the above was this:

Believe me, there are NFL towns, like NYC and Boston, where the regions culture is oriented to pro not college football.

In this regard, choosing those two cities was not a good counter example since neither state has a flagship university that the state itself, including the bigger cities within said state rally behind. So by default, those cities culture is going to be more oriented to pro rather than the college football.

Although in reality, I believe most NFL cities are more oriented to pro football than college football since pro football is overall the more popular sport.

But let's take Philly. That is a pro football town, but games featuring Penn State played at the Linc would do well and draw interest, so the gap between pro football enthusiasm and college football enthusiasm in Philly is less than that gap is in either NYC or Boston, imho.

Dallas would be another example. The Cowboys are the main show, but interest in a Texas game would be larger in that city than interest in a Notre Dame game in either NYC or Boston, the Irish being the most popular college football team in both cities.

Cheers,
Neil
04-20-2013 10:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #26
RE: TV markets, placing a bet on the future
(04-20-2013 09:48 PM)ODU2003 Wrote:  My take on everything is simple; brands rule college sports with markets being a distant second. In football you have names that carry weight; Notre Dame, Texas, USC, PSU, Alabama, FSU, OSU, etc. In basketball (yes, a distant second in terms of revenue) you also have brand names that stand out; Duke, UNC, Kansas, Kentucky, UCLA, etc.

Someone mentioned the land grant schools and they do typically bring the state. Said differently, the primary state schools have a regional brand. So while VT football might not carry the same weight as Texas in terms of national brand, they have a regional relevance that has lots of value. (BTW, VT has awesome fans - they are almost cult like in their support of VT).

Now in the absence of a brand on the regional or national level, that is where markets become important. And since revenue drives realignment, schools with a brand or a market have a huge leg up on schools with neither.

Brands are far and away the ball game (see Nebraska to Big 10).

The market theory is built on a "default viewer" strategy. It assumes that there are people who are going to watch any game. Nationally there is some number of people who are going to watch a game no matter what. But there are others who live within a market who don't buy tickets or seriously follow a team within the market who will tune in out of local interest if their primary team isn't playing or a game that impacts that team. Market theory almost certainly failed the day Tulane hosted Memphis on CBSS with LSU hosting Auburn on CBS at the same time.

It works to a degree. If Arkansas State draws 33% of the Jonesboro "market" UNT needs only draw 1% of the Dallas market to match. Even with Little Rock, if Arkansas State draws 10% of the two markets, UNT needs only 2.5% of the Dallas market to match. Those default viewers matter and they are what drives the market theory.

Another benefit in large markets is alumni base. While Arkansas State alums represent a dramatic percentage of the Jonesboro market vs. North Texas alums in the Dallas market, Arkansas State alums are more dispersed. A North Texas graduate has a very high probability of finding a job and staying within the Dallas market. Arkansas State alums are far more likely to land outside the market going to Little Rock, Memphis, Fayetteville/Bentonville, or even Dallas to get a good job because the Jonesboro region simply cannot absorb all the graduates. That means a high probability of more raw number dedicated viewers within the Dallas market for UNT than Arkansas State can have in Jonesboro.

There are some holes in the market theory.

1. Nielsen does some strange things with markets. The DFW market is more than 260 miles across at the longest. The Jonesboro market at it's biggest is 120 miles across. There is no point that can receive an over-the-air signal with a normal outdoor antenna set-up that can receive a Dallas station signal that isn't within the market and includes many who cannot pull in any Dallas station without a tall antenna with an amplifier if at all. There are places that can receive a Jonesboro signal with a basic indoor antenna that are in the Memphis and Little Rock markets even though those places cannot receive a Memphis or Little Rock signal with a conventional outdoor antenna. There is literally a part of the Little Rock market where you can see a Jonesboro TV tower.

Small market schools often garner coverage outside their market. All four Little Rock stations with regular newscasts routinely cover Arkansas State (once you get past covering the Razorbacks, you still have time to fill in the newscast) and will be at all home games and all did live remotes from the two bowl trips. The largest paper in the state, based in Little Rock has a beat writer assigned to ASU, the #1 sports radio show is hosted by a former ASU play-by-play man. Another show is co-hosted by an ASU alum and former ASU beat writer who then covered them for the AP. There is greater brand awareness of Arkansas State in Little Rock than UNT in Dallas where TV and radio have a lot more to cover before getting to UNT. ASU coaches will be on Memphis sports radio several times a year as well.

Small markets like Jonesboro, Arkansas and Bowling Green, Kentucky are artificially reduced in size from the true reach of the signal and the true reach of viewers and people who work and shop in those markets while larger markets are favored by Nielsen and artificially inflated in size.

2. The number of potential conflicts rises in many large markets. In Arkansas if Arkansas State is head-to-head vs. an Arkansas game, you don't get default viewers and there will be some SEC games of significance that will bleed off an ASU audience. In Dallas obviously games involving Texas and Texas A&M are going to dominate but games involving Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston, SMU are going to bleed off audience as well and it is likely that even Rice and UTEP would have a negative impact were they to be shown head-to-head based on the brand value of those more established names. Being in the same league now that isn't really a risk. Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Arkansas typically pull a decent audience in Dallas and all three schools have fairly large booster groups there. In the front end of the season a Rangers game will take audience if there is a conflict and late in the season the Mavericks and Stars are a risk to do the same.

Market theory absolutely has merit IF games don't encounter a local interest conflict. San Jose is a big market but San Jose State going head-to-head against Cal, Stanford, Giants, A's, Sharks, Warriors and probably USC or UCLA isn't going to draw viewers.

The risk of market theory is improvement in audience measurement in coming years will provide data that will be helpful to some large market schools and harmful to others and some small market will be found to be more valuable than assumed while in other cases, the assumptions will prove correct.
04-21-2013 01:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #27
RE: TV markets, placing a bet on the future
(04-20-2013 10:38 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Believe me, there are NFL towns, like NYC and Boston, where the regions culture is oriented to pro not college football.

Case in point.

Arkansas vs. Rutgers was the most watched college football game on ESPNU in New York City, ever. It was seen in about 67,000 homes out of 7.3 million TV homes. While I've not seen any estimates of the audience in Arkansas I bet it did better 67,000 of the roughly 1 million TV homes spread across all or part of 7 markets.
04-21-2013 01:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
omniorange Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:

Donators
Post: #28
RE: TV markets, placing a bet on the future
(04-21-2013 01:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-20-2013 10:38 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Believe me, there are NFL towns, like NYC and Boston, where the regions culture is oriented to pro not college football.

Case in point.

Arkansas vs. Rutgers was the most watched college football game on ESPNU in New York City, ever. It was seen in about 67,000 homes out of 7.3 million TV homes. While I've not seen any estimates of the audience in Arkansas I bet it did better 67,000 of the roughly 1 million TV homes spread across all or part of 7 markets.

For the record, that quote you have by me is italicized because I was quoting quo vadis.

Cheers,
Neil
04-21-2013 02:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,019
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2374
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #29
RE: TV markets, placing a bet on the future
(04-20-2013 10:38 PM)omniorange Wrote:  
(04-20-2013 01:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Neil, Melky's point is that those who claim that a college program can't draw big crowds if it is in a big city with NFL teams are wrong. But who has ever claimed that? Obviously, as programs like Arizona State and USC (in the past, when LA had NFL teams) prove, they can.

Melky does make a second point that makes more sense: He notes that there are also big-time football programs that are located in small towns but that are actually in close proximity to big cities - like Michigan/Detroit and Notre Dame/Chicago so it would be wrong to call those "small town" programs, and I agree with him.

Nevertheless, I believe he pushes his point too far when he fails to acknowledge that there are in fact some big cities that are pro-oriented and where it would be very difficult for a college program to succeed. Cities that have a pro-culture as opposed to a college one. New York and Boston are in fact good examples, because big flagships are not the only kinds of big-time programs - see Notre Dame, USC, and Miami, for example. So it is wrong to limit his claim to only flagships. For his point to stand it has to be true of other types of schools as well, and NYC and Boston have plenty of those. Heck, NYC used to be a college football hotbed, until the NFL matured.

As an aside, one example that is often used to support small town concept that is NOT a good one is Tampa. USF fans like myself often justify USF's weak fan interest by saying "Tampa is a Bucs/NFL town". That it is, but, it is also a Florida and FSU town too. If you drive around Tampa in the fall, you will see tons of cars flying UF and FSU flags, very few flying USF fans. So even though Tampa loves its Bucs, it embraces college football too - just not so much USF. 03-banghead

Well, to be fair, I should have said one of Melky's points, since he had a few. But overall, I think you may have missed the point in dispute since Melky's point, to me anyway, wasn't that an NFL city couldn't get interested in a college football team, but rather that said interest in college football is focused on the state's flagship university, which by how these institutions developed tend not be located in metropolitan areas.

The article seemed to be indicating that it was a detriment for any college football program to be located in a large population center which also had NFL franchises. Melky's counter argument, as I understood it, was that if the history of flagship universities had developed in such a way that the University of Michigan was in Detroit instead of Ann Arbor, PSU in Philly instead of State College, etc., the argument would correctly be non-flagship universities located in large population centers with NFL pro franchises hurt attendance.

Professional franchises command markets because their identity coincides with their city. But this is not true of universities. Flagships in particular have statewide identities. What is important about them is that they deliver the big city markets within their states

Your response that I thought was suppose to be a counter to the above was this:

Believe me, there are NFL towns, like NYC and Boston, where the regions culture is oriented to pro not college football.

In this regard, choosing those two cities was not a good counter example since neither state has a flagship university that the state itself, including the bigger cities within said state rally behind. So by default, those cities culture is going to be more oriented to pro rather than the college football.

Although in reality, I believe most NFL cities are more oriented to pro football than college football since pro football is overall the more popular sport.

But let's take Philly. That is a pro football town, but games featuring Penn State played at the Linc would do well and draw interest, so the gap between pro football enthusiasm and college football enthusiasm in Philly is less than that gap is in either NYC or Boston, imho.

Dallas would be another example. The Cowboys are the main show, but interest in a Texas game would be larger in that city than interest in a Notre Dame game in either NYC or Boston, the Irish being the most popular college football team in both cities.

Cheers,
Neil

Point taken. I misunderstood Melky. 04-cheers
04-21-2013 04:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sctvman Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,097
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 46
I Root For: C of Charleston
Location: Charleston, SC
Post: #30
RE: TV markets, placing a bet on the future
Talking about AR, any game probably does a huge rating around the state. With less than 60 markets rated every day, we only find out ratings from those markets.

South Carolina moved up to the SEC because of the markets. Columbia, even in 1991/92, was a 80s sized market. South Carolina dominates Columbia. Probably 80% of the fan base, huge for college football (not just Clemson and South Carolina), plus if the basketball team is good again, the fans will be back. Their baseball team sells more season tickets than the Marlins did at the beginning of this year.

They have the largest percentage of fans in the Charleston market, quickly growing into the top 100, plus a good percentage in Greenville/Spartanburg, which even without the NC portion, is a top 60 market.

In the Charlotte area, the Panthers of course are the biggest team, but South Carolina has a ton of fans. They're the closest major college football to much of the area, unless you count Charlotte. All of the SC counties in the market are mostly Gamecock fans.

That adds up.
04-21-2013 09:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.