You are browsing the archive for College Media News.

CMA now College Media Association

November 8, 2011 in CICM shop talk, College Media News

(This was just announced. You’ll note a change in the header, and the press release reproduced below)

College Media Advisers, the organization of professionals who train and support student-produced media on college campuses, has changed its name to College Media Association.

The change is intended to reflect the association’s broader mission, according to CMA President David Swartzlander, assistant professor of journalism at Doane College.

“The name College Media Advisers implied that we might not offer services, information or importance to someone who was not an adviser. That’s simply not the case,” Swartzlander said. “CMA strives to serve all who work with college media – professionals and educators in advertising and business, broadcast, digital and editorial.

“The new name will allow CMA to better define its role in the changing media world. Under the new name, we can become one voice for all college media professionals,” he said.

The association started in 1954 as the National Council of College Publications Advisers and in the early 1980s changed its name to College Media Advisers. CMA has more than 750 members representing colleges and universities in 50 states and Canada.

CMA offers training and support to its professional members and serves thousands of students annually at its national conferences and workshops. Details about the association’s events, services, code of ethics and more can be found at collegemedia.org.

“While CMA has changed its name, its mission remains clear – to provide services to all who advise college media,” Swartzlander said. “Those services members have known and used in the past will not disappear. And CMA plans to offer more services in the future. We’ll just do so with a revitalized, inclusive vision – and a new name.

Red & Black takes innovative print/online strategy to new level

August 30, 2011 in College Media News, hope for the future, innovation

randb20The University of Georgia’s Red & Black (previously mentioned here and here and here) has long been an innovative campus media outlet. This semester, they’ve taken that innovation to a new level, abandoning their daily print product in favor of a weekly print/online hybrid and the addition of a monthly full-color magazine. You can see what the new weekly print edition looks like here. The R&B‘s web site is still powered by the WordPress CMS.

Dan Reimold outlines the strategy in a very complete article for PBS MediaShift: Revolution in Georgia: Student Newspaper Goes Digital First.

I interviewed Red & Black Publisher Harry Montevideo about some of the behind-the-scenes details of the development of this new publishing model.

I’m including a transcript of the entire interview below the fold, but I did want to mention a few of the top-level takeaways from the discussion:

  • The Red & Black spent a lot of time looking at the issue before deciding to go from daily to weekly.
  • The staff and board of directors spent a lot of time researching the issue before making a decision.
  • Students were understanding and accepting of the change – a key buy-in.
  • The staff interviewed advertisers and received assurances that the advertising income would be similar even in a weekly format.
  • The Red & Black hasn’t had to spend a lot of extra money on equipment to upgrade.
  • The student staff structure is pretty much the same as it was, with the exception of a few fewer page designers.
  • The new Ampersand magazine is an effort to pull in students who normally wouldn’t work for a newspaper, and provide another vehicle for advertising income.
  • The primary goal of the Red & Black is still training students for their future careers in journalism, no matter what format/publication schedule they have.

Here’s a look at the cover of the first issue of Ampersand:

magazineonline

The full version will be online at the Red & Black web site next week, says Ed Morales, editorial adviser. The magazine might get its own dedicated web site next year.

Read the rest of this entry →

Q&A: CMN’s Rusty Lewis and Jon Beck about new advertising options for College Publisher

January 19, 2011 in College Media, College Media News, College Publisher

collegepublisherEditor’s Note: As I mentioned last week, I asked Rusty Lewis at College Media Network to answer some questions related to the company’s announced new advertising option for college newspapers. These responses were supplied by Lewis and Jon Beck, who recently joined CMN on the business side.

When will these new options take effect?

It is a rolling process that took effect January 1, 2011.  We are honoring the contracts we have in place with our newspaper partners.  That said, beginning this month we are giving the requisite 90-day advance notice that we will not be renewing the contract in place with current terms.  We are making one-on-one phone calls with each newspaper outlining our new options, how they would specifically impact each newspaper and outlining the next steps.

The new advertising options are available right now – it is a matter of a few settings changes.

Is the “AdGear” platform currently in use, or is this a new technology that will be used for this new system?

AdGear is currently serving all the ads (both national across the network and local campaigns on CP5) – we made the switch from mish-mash of Atlas and Doubleclick we had under MTV.  We are almost complete with the newspaper access portal to upload ads in AdGear and will begin training newspapers on that system shortly.  AdGear is a huge step forward from both a traffic and flexibility perspective.

This system can be used with any publishing platform.  It comes off-the-shelf with College Publisher and we have ready-made plugins for the most popular open-source CMSs.  Obviously, the advantage of this system is the support and the year-over-year continuity that comes along with the tools.

How do these options differ from the way things were done in the past?

We view this change as a reboot, a chance to make things easier and more equitable for everyone.

Ten years ago, we created a CMS in exchange for advertising rights.  Later, we responded to feedback and developed an ad-deployment tool in the CMS so that a few newspapers with good ad sales teams could deploy local online ad campaigns.

When launching CP5, we contracted a leading vendor to manage the ad system and recreated the two-tiered system in the image of CP4.  As site designs evolved, ad sizes got bigger, and CPMs got smaller it became difficult to keep all parties happy.

This entire change is about making the management of the inventory easier.  The three options break down to:
- CMN sells the inventory (and cuts rev share checks)
- The newspaper sells the inventory (and cuts rev share checks)
- CMN and the newspaper share the inventory and keep their respective revenue

These options address the variety of needs and strengths that exist in the college media sphere.  Regardless of size, we found some newspapers small and large had very good local sales teams and could sell out the inventory.  Conversely (and more commonly), we found that the newspaper focused on content and had little interest or desire for advertising (which is a missed opportunity for everyone).  Obviously, there is a great number of papers in between.  These options address those different scenarios without over-complicating the issue.

Do these options apply equally to all of the CP standard plan participants, i.e. those who are paying the fee and those who are having the fee waived?

Yes.  They are also the same for any newspaper outside CMN that want to participate in our ad network or want access to these tools.

I am not exactly certain that I understand the logistics of the 70/30 plan. Could you explain it in a little more detail, especially as it relates to the higher ad positions on the page, and the way the percentages would work in selling local ads?

The inventory split is really quite simple.  Within AdGear we can set thresholds (by percentage) of available inventory.  We will apply a threshold for newspapers who select this option such that they only have access to 30 percent of the inventory on each ad position.

For simplicity’s sake, let’s say a newspaper gets 100k page views per month on average.  That means in the old model, they had basically 300k impressions (3 ad units X 100k page views) to sell below the fold – which we were told were hard to sell.  Now, with this option, that same newspaper has 150k impressions to sell, but 60k of those can – and should – be sold at a much higher premium (because they are the top spots).

The real critical piece to this plan is that newspapers are committing to sell on a CPM basis when selecting to share the inventory.  This is a tough transition for some newspapers who have found success with the flat rate sponsorship method of online display advertising.  That said, we can share strategies we have seen work at other college newspapers.

One additional layer to this plan is that CMN will back fill any unsold impressions with remnant ad campaigns.  The newspaper will receive 20 percent of the revenue originating from these ads.

Does this preclude the plan participants from selling ads outside of those five positions?

The short answer is no.

The five ad positions are five different sets of ad tags deployed on the page.  The AdGear tools allow newspapers to use a variety of targeting methodologies and strategies to help advertisers get the most out of their placements.

If a newspaper is selling ads on a flat rate basis and their advertisers want full exposure on all pages served, well that is really a sponsorship opportunity and not advertisement.  We fully expect newspapers to offer these advertisers creative ways to have a presence on the site without using up ad impressions through the ad manager.

As to option C, is $7.50/cpm what the cpm is if CP sold the ads, or a percentage of that? if so, what percentage?

CMN underwrites the operation, support and training on the AdGear system with advertising revenue.  Option C, where newspapers pay a CPM to CMN, was designed to enable newspapers to take full control over their inventory.  The $7.50 figure represents the value of each page view if all the advertising positions were filled with ad network campaigns – which pay very modest CPMs.

In this option, the newspaper is essentially purchasing the inventory for a $7.50 CPM – which, when divided out between 5 ad units, is $1.50 CPM per unit.  We felt this was sufficiently low enough where newspapers had the opportunity to markup the CPMs as they sold the inventory.  They are then able to recoup their costs and create net profits.

Could you provide an example of how option C might work?

Using the example above, the newspaper with 100k monthly page views essentially would remit a payment to CMN of $750 per month and keep whatever they made over that.  Obviously, since this is a CPM, the payment would fluctuate with traffic.

If the newspaper is successful and has a sophisticated staff, they can command CPMs in the neighborhood of $5-10 across each individual ad position which more than covers the cost of the inventory.

For the opportunity to have free run of the ad inventory, we are asking the newspaper to assume the risk of selling it out.

How will the ad prices be set for the various ad placements? and will CP be sharing information re: advertising rates with CP5 customers?

The ad prices are set as high as the advertisers will bear.  I cannot publicly disclose specifics around this as it would jeopardize active negotiations with Access Network partners and potential advertisers.  Obviously, when sales close I can privately discuss figures with those newspapers with which we share revenue.

Would a college that opted to go with the WordPress option have the option to join this ad network plan?

The AdGear solution is compulsory with the CMN WordPress package.

Please keep in mind that we are offering the WP solution as an alternative to College Publisher CMS.  Similarly to CP5, we are providing a service to manage the environment and provide a full-service solution for a newspaper’s digital publishing needs.  The ad systems, email newsletter systems, traffic reporting systems, and other core services for content distribution remain the same between the WP and CP5.

To that end, the three ad options remain the same for CMN WordPress package.

What about the hosting option?

The hosting option is literally just a hosting option.  A newspaper has free reign to use whatever set of solutions/plugins/ad tags they prefer.  This hosting option is simply out there so newspapers know they have an option with CMN if they do not want CP5 and are priced out of our WP managed solution.

As a benefit of using this service for hosting (be them WP, Drupal, etc), the access to CMN plugins such as AdGear exists.  In those situations where a newspaper wanted to use AdGear while maintaining their own site, a setup fee would be assessed.  Again, all three options exist and come with training and support.

And, per Daniel Bachhuber’s comment the other day: Are those advertising options the same as what’s available to the lower-end Polopoly users or different? If different, what are they?

AdGear is the same 5 ad spots no matter what content management solution is used.

To be clear, these changes we are making to the CMN business separate the content management solution and the advertising system completely.  CMN is providing them as a package for CP5, but the ad software solution can be licensed as an a la carte option for any newspaper using any hosting facility on any CMS.

On a related note: How do these options affect advertising on mobile?

We have the capability to schedule and deploy mobile ads through AdGear.  This is part and parcel of the AdGear service.

Anything else you would like to add at this point?

Banner advertising is still a useful way to drive revenue for publishers, but its best days are in the rear view mirror.  Banner ads will never have the value they once did.

The vision for revenue at CMN looks for opportunities beyond traditional display advertising.  CMN, in sort of a newspaper holding company capacity, can enable sponsorship opportunities with major brands across the entire network that can be lucrative enough to share revenue with every network member.

We will be looking for beta testers for these revenue sharing programs.  When we have seen some success, we will share the data and begin applying these measures across the network at large.

Enhanced by Zemanta

CICM Interview: Rusty Lewis on new CP5 advertising options

January 13, 2011 in College Media News, College Publisher

collegepublisherIn the wake of College Media Network‘s announcement in late December that they were changing their business model, most of my attention focused initially on the fee structure that would exist for current and new clients. See interview here. Now, I turn attention to the second part of the announcement, the change to the College Media Network ad revenue sharing structure. Here’s the part that deals with the advertising revenue splits.

Newspapers will have more choice with managing online ad inventory by selecting one of the following on an annual basis:

A. CMN and the newspaper will share the inventory among all 5 ad units with a 70/30 breakdown.  The newspaper will be able to utilize each ad placement up to 30% of the page impressions.  Each party will retain 100% of the revenue made off the campaigns placed on the site, but any unused inventory on the newspaper-side will be filled with remnant ads (of which the newspaper will receive 20% of the revenue).

B.
CMN will sell all 5 spots and remit a payment of 20% of the total revenue to the newspaper.

C. The newspaper can buy the entire inventory from CMN at a rate of $7.50 per 1,000 page views.  Naturally, the newspaper would retain all the revenue from the advertisements placed on site.

While license fees are billed up front on an annual basis, revenue sharing provides an opportunity to offset that cost acreoss the year.

I have an e-mail in to Lewis with a number of questions related to the new revenue sharing options, and will post it as soon as he responds. In the meantime, any thoughts on the new structure?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Q&A: Rusty Lewis on CMN’s new business model

January 3, 2011 in College Media News, College Publisher, Content Management Systems, Media Companies - College Related

collegepublisherUPDATE: Additional questions appended after publication.

Editor’s note: These are the responses I received from College Media Network’s Rusty Lewis in response to questions I e-mailed him about their new business model/fee structure.

Since the announcement says that papers with an average of 25,000 page views/mo. will not be charged a fee, how many of your papers do you expect would be charged? What percentage of the total client list is that?

Approximately 100 CMN news sites are above the 25k threshold; this is about 20 percent of our network. We attempted to create several lower cost options for the publications with traffic below this mark, as we know many of them have limited resources.

When it comes to paying fees, there’s never a great time to implement such a change or make this sort of announcement. We understand many student publications use the spring and early summer to budget for the upcoming school year, so the start of the calendar year was as ideal as any time. This announcement allows CMN a full semester to explain and educate the market about the new options with enough time for publications to understand what they need to budget for in the coming school year.

What kind of feedback have you received since announcing the licensing fee?

While it feels like a sudden change, many of the publications or individuals we have reached out to expressed that this change makes sense In an industry full of semester- and year-based turnover, CMN’s success is largely due to the continuity our staff and services provide college media. We wanted to remain in existence, and so far our partners understand that desire.

That said, we have received a some very positive feedback in our efforts to provide multiple options/packages.

Today is actually the second wave of social activity. A CP partner tweeted the initial post within 12 hours of posting it to our site, and we saw an initial buzz for a few hours after that. Overall, though, a surprising amount of the conversation we’ve seen has taken place between people beyond the college media circuit.

Why the difference between the standard CMN/College Publisher package ($1995/yr) and the WordPress package ($4500/yr)?

College Publisher software relies on already existent infrastructure designed to share resources and provide streamlined support. This allows us to spread costs across the entire network. Our WP option is an individualized installation enabling the newspaper staff to customize their site (through themes and plug-ins) in ways network-based software can’t do as easily.

Will you charge $150/hour to support WordPress, and what sort of support is offered in the yearly plan?

The $4,500 annual license fee covers support related to CMN services related to server environment operation, DNS services and integration of CMN plug-ins. Many of the CMN plug-ins –advertising system, traffic reporting, city guide publisher, e-mail newsletter – power the core functions for a news site.

This support package does not include CMN digging into the custom code web editors write. If the site is experiencing failures, we will make sure that CMN plug-ins are not causing the error and then roll back to previous versions in order to isolate what is wrong.

CMN will be responsible for deploying WP core updates, which can be frequent, but are essential to assuring security and stability of the site. Compatibility development post-update for themes and plug-ins (non-CMN plug-ins) is solely the responsibility of the newspaper.

Any supplemental charges for support (at $150/hr) would be discussed and approved in writing in advance of any work being done. These charges would be limited to requests for review of custom code, design work or staff training.

Is there a cost associated with moving to WordPress on the CMN network? (i.e., from CP5 to WP on your system)

Data migration projects can vary from publication to publication so we are not setting a policy on costs for archives. CMN will tackle these requests on a case-by-case basis.

Will you assist in the site design for WordPress as a part of the yearly fee?

No. Our design services are available for our core platform, CP5.

What would be the advantage to having CPPro? ($8995/yr)

This system has dedicated resources (from a hardware, software and personnel standpoint.) A publication choosing this option can expect a high level of customization for any convergence type of project or newsroom work-flow situation. All customization would be unique to this instance (as opposed to CP5) and tailored to the specific needs of the news organization(s) on an ongoing basis.

Why was this announced Dec. 20, when most college media are on holiday break?

It was really simply an unfortunate byproduct of the way the calendar fell with regard to the new ownership of CMN. It took almost three months to fix, assess, plan and announce. The Access Network Co. felt it was the most responsible thing to announce plans for the CMN business as soon as they were finalized (as we would look to start implementing these changes early in 2011.)

The posting of this policy change on our site served as a reference point. In contacting our partners via phone and e-mail, we have somewhere to refer folks to dig into the details. When considering the alternative – “sitting” on the story until the New Year – we hope the news hounds out there understand the decision to post the information as soon as it was ready.

Beyond the business model, what is the overall vision here?

CMN is a collection of niche sites serving the college community. When we started, there was a great need for getting online quickly. We filled that need the best we could. In the previous decade, needs changed and spread to reflect the diversity that exists in college media.

This change is long overdue. College media is unique in that all of our partners serve the same purpose in their local markets, but they do it in a variety of ways. We needed to offer options and customization.

In order to provide college media with more services and more distribution channels, we needed to make tweaks to the business that allowed for client customization. Now, college newspapers can be a member of CMN and use one or all of our products.

This major change in our business model was always an internal discussion point, but only until the most recent change in ownership has the capability from an accounting perspective existed to make this adjustment possible. The Access Network Co. is a technology provider to publishers and brands – they have the infrastructure to help CMN navigate this change.

Innovation is essential to college media’s survival, and ultimately ours, too.

Our goal is allowing students and faculty to focus on storytelling and information dissemination. This doesn’t have to exclude the handful of students who have a passion for custom development. While this is a growing number of students, it’s not nearly a critical mass. We are looking to create an ecosystem that allows publications to experiment with that minority of student developers and easily transition to something else when those students move on.

Anything else you’d like to add that I haven’t asked about?

All of the prices and packages came from competitive analysis of various providers to the college market. When it came to pricing CP5 and CP Pro, we really took a look at the costs we are incurring to support and develop these systems to determine the price tag. We need to cover costs.

Our focus in 2011 is generating revenue, not just for us, but for our partners. The Access Network Co. is looking to create new revenue programs and hopefully get more digital advertising dollars to college media.

We thrive on feedback and sincerely want partners to let us know if they have any concerns or questions about this model change, our services or anything else related to our goals for 2011.

——— ADDITIONAL Q&A ———–

When did CMN begin looking at charging for the product?

This has been an idea kicked around for years going back to Y2M days. The issue was we never really had the infrastructure to execute this type of business model and client tracking. Investment was put off at several points in the past for a variety of reasons, but the economy definitely made our budgets lean (at least in recent history.)

How soon will this begin affecting existing customers?

We are contacting some newspapers now.

As stated in our communications, we are honoring all existing contracts. Our process involves giving 90 days advance notice to our partners that we are not renewing the existing agreements under the current terms. We have only just begun the process, but under the new set of options, we feel that newspapers will be getting more than they were under our older agreements.

How do you plan to get the word out to your partner news outlets?

We are using all the means at our disposal.

Collegepublisher.com is the hub of info newspapers can use for research and information gathering. We are beginning outreach via email and phone this week and will continue to do this all through the semester, prioritizing newspapers by the renewal date of their contract.

We definitely appreciate CICM for covering the story as it helps clear up any confusion. However, if a newspaper has any questions, we are available through email (support@collegepublisher.com) , phone (866.733.9231) and twitter (@collegepublish).

College Publisher changes business model

January 3, 2011 in College Media News, College Publisher

UPDATE: Interview with Rusty Lewis is now up here.

collegepublisher

Well, during my self-imposed exile from all things journalism related over the holidays, College Media Network dropped a bombshell.

Most notably, newspapers using CP5 under an Access Network affilate agreement will be invoiced  an annual payment* of $1,995 for the services rendered by CMN.  …

This cost is most attributable to user support and training.  There is an option to reduce this cost and be invoiced for training and design services as needed – click the pdf for details.

Any support or training would be billed at $150 per hour.  Support hours billed would relate to issues that resulted in user error and would be communicated in advance of invoicing.

*If a college publication averages over 25,000 page views per month, all of these fees are waived

They are also going to start hosting WordPress installations, and additional open-source CMS’s. There are additional details related to advertising splits at the link above. I have an e-mail in to Rusty Lewis at CMN to ask some followup questions, and I’ll be examining the pricing structure more in the next few days.

For now, it should be obvious that this is a game-changing move by College Publisher.

Enhanced by Zemanta

College Publisher and ad content filtering

October 13, 2010 in College Media News, College Publisher, Media Companies - College Related

collegepublisher

Unless there is major news forthcoming, this will be the last I will post about the recent sale of College Media Network by Viacom/MTVu (see below for links to our previous coverage). However, the issue that was raised in the comments to my interview with Rusty Lewis is worthy of front page treatment.

As background, the College Publisher content management system is used by a number of private school student media outlets (we used it when I worked at North Greenville College/University). Some of these private universities have more stringent standards regarding what they consider acceptable advertising content on their sites.

This has been something that College Publisher has been sensitive to, filtering ads to specific student media outlets that might have a problem with particularly racy content, for example. In my time at NGU, I was tasked with asking CMN to remove a couple of ads from our student newspaper site, and they had no qualms in doing so.

So, reader Yada123 asked in the comments:

I’m concerned about the “guides” Access Network keeps referring to in its press releases and your podcast interview with CP5 staff.  Blackbook, one of Access Network’s guides, has some racy content about sleazy clubs such as Voyeur, and the stories and links blend content with boosterism, including for Voyeur.  Will these racy guides be forced upon college newspapers?  Will college newspapers’ existing advertising screens be maintained now that CP5 is with Access Network?

I asked Rusty Lewis of College Media Network to respond to the comment, which he did, and I’m reprinting his response in full here for wider dissemination.

Our contracts are not going to change.  The advertising policy that governs those agreements will be honored and continue with The Access Network’s representation of the national ad units across CMN.

The guides we have discussed are going to be a separate product that the newspapers will power.  We don’t have definite product details that will outline the functionalities of the tools yet, but [should the newspapers contract this service] the newspapers will have full control over what to feature in the city guides.

If there is an appetite to feature content from Black Book, it will be made available.  As a software solution, the City Guide Publisher will be a tool for the newspapers to feature listings of businesses and restaurants in the area with reviews.  The tool could be re-purposed for housing guides or any type of guides that are relevant to the college audience.  What you see in the blackbook guides speaks to their audience.  We don’t assume to know better than you on what your audience is looking for – that is why we are putting the tools in your hands.

Enhanced by Zemanta

CICM Interview: Ari Horowitz, CEO of Access Network

October 12, 2010 in College Media News, College Publisher, Interviews, Media Companies - College Related

Friday, Oct. 8, I interviewed Access Network CEO Ari Horowitz about the sale of College Media Network to a private investment firm (previous coverage here and here). During the interview, Horowitz discussed what the Access Network does currently, how CMN fits into their business strategy, and some of the technical and advertising challenges the network will be working on in the future.

The interview was conducted via Skype, and the edited version is about 13 minutes long.

For those who can’t see the Flash player, here’s a link to download the mp3.

Enhanced by Zemanta

CICM Interview: Rusty Lewis on sale of College Media Network

October 4, 2010 in College Media News, College Publisher, Interviews, Media Companies - College Related

As mentioned Friday, MTVu/MTV Networks sold College Media Network to a private investment firm last week.

Saturday afternoon, I interviewed CMN’s Rusty Lewis about the sale, and other related topics (like the College Publisher CMS). Below is the mp3 of the interview. It’s about 11 minutes long, and was conducted via Skype.

Here’s a link to the mp3 if the Flash player isn’t showing up.

I hope to find out more about the private investment firm and other details if I can arrange an interview with Access Network CEO Ari Horowitz soon.

Also, as of today, College Publisher sites (and collegepublisher.com) are still branded with MTVu/MTV Networks logos in the footer.

Enhanced by Zemanta

College Media Network sold, under new management

October 1, 2010 in College Media News, College Publisher

accesslogo

UPDATE (Monday, 10-4-10): I spoke with Rusty Lewis from CMN this weekend, and will have audio of the interview up later today.

College Media Network, which provides an online content management system (College Publisher) to around 600 college news media outlets around the nation, has been sold by MTVu/MTV Networks.

In a blog post, CMN’s Rusty Lewis announced the sale:

College Media Network is trading hands from MTV Networks to The Access Network Company. While our ownership is changing, our staff is not. You can still count on the same names and faces you’ve relied on for more than five years. Our commitment and service to you remains unwavering.

However, the ownership situation is not quite so clear from the partner publication letter (PDF) sent out by MTVu’s Carlo DiMarco:

Starting today, Access Network Company, the leading online city guide content management software platform for premium brands, publishers, and local merchants, and the owner of BlackBook Media, will take over operations of College Media Network, which has been acquired by a private investment firm from mtvU.

I have e-mailed CMN to find out more information about the private investment firm, and hope to find out more about this deal in the coming days.

Here’s the official Access Network press release via PRNewsWire. Here’s the partner publication letter from Access Network CEO Ari Horowitz.

(via Vince Filak on CMA Listserv)

Enhanced by Zemanta