MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock  (Read 387829 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #1575 on: May 13, 2012, 18:20 »
0
I remember the 1970s, when we cut up bits of Adverkit drawings to put in adverts and the small town companies were very happy with that. "Wow! You've got a frame to put my advert in? Let me get my cheque book".

We actually sold whole broadsheet pages on the basis that there were slots in the pretty borders where people could put their words.

I guess it was cool back then (shucks, I remember waiting for the next Adverkit bundle to give us an idea to sell on). Who knows what people would settle for today, if pictures weren't cheap any more?

Part of what designers do is look for solutions to problems. If buying photos is no longer cost effective for a lot of the small designers, etc. then a new trend will arise. And many designers will start taking their own photos of apples and other inanimate objects, textures, their friends, and the like. They did it before. And once microstock came along guess where those photos ended up? :D


« Reply #1576 on: May 13, 2012, 18:22 »
0
Whatever. What do you think people were doing before microstock? They weren't buying macro.

No, they weren't buying macro. The company I worked for invested in Comstock discs that contained a bunch of stock images. We used the images over and over because the company couldn't afford to buy any more. Macro images were at least $100 a pop and there's no way small companies could afford to use stock images in monthly newsletters at that price.

Microstock changed all of that for smaller companies and individuals. If there weren't microstock? No, companies would NOT buy macro, they can't afford it. They would have their secretary take the company point and shoot out to shoot whatever image they thought they needed, or they would go over to microsoft office online and use the freebies provided, courtesy of the fools contributors  ;D who signed up for partner programs from agencies like istock, fotolia, etc. Doesn't matter that they are fairly low rez. Quality doesn't matter much anymore at smaller companies. Only the ad agencies charging an arm and a leg to their clients could afford macro.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 18:24 by cclapper »

« Reply #1577 on: May 13, 2012, 18:25 »
0
Why do you even bother with microstock? You knew what it was and what the price points were when you started, didn't you? Why don't you just put all your images at Getty in the macro collection?

That's what I don't understand about the people who are submitting to microstock who are complaining about the prices.  You are certainly free NOT to sell your best, highest production value photos at microstock prices. So instead of complaining about how you submit them to microstock and don't get a return, why don't you submit to them to macro stock instead, if you are so intent on getting a bigger return?

But, what are micro prices? I can join sites and sell images from between $1 and a hundred dollars or so. That's a large range with a lot of different models and strategies.

wut

« Reply #1578 on: May 13, 2012, 18:25 »
0

If that's true I hope for some more price rises, evenly introduced every 6 months or so. So that at least one agency is going to be selling my photos at a half decent price. I'm saying that because I've seen no decline in sales, on the contrary, I've seen constantly rising sales. The ratio between SS and IS is locked for me. I also think that P+ proves that buyers are willing to pay more, at least some and at least for some stuff. Indies are also reporting how this price rise has helped their RPD go up and consequently, earnings. We all know, as you said, that the agencies are not going to collectively rise the prices and that there's no way they're going to be quadrupled (like I hoped for), but at least they could sync the XS and S prices with exclusive (e.g. 2 cr for XS, 4 for P+ XS etc). I'm sure I'd earn more, I'd probably get a bit less sales, but my cut for XS and S files would be double, so I'd at least get 50%+ more for those sales (not 100%, because I'd get less sales)

Why do you even bother with microstock? You knew what it was and what the price points were when you started, didn't you? Why don't you just put all your images at Getty in the macro collection?

That's what I don't understand about the people who are submitting to microstock who are complaining about the prices.  You are certainly free NOT to sell your best, highest production value photos at microstock prices. So instead of complaining about how you submit them to microstock and don't get a return, why don't you submit to them to macro stock instead, if you are so intent on getting a bigger return?

So complaining about rises is ok in your books, but complaining about rises being too small or too infrequent isn't? Did you even read the post you quoted? I really can't see any relation to macro in it :o . You're replying to me in a fashion as if I'd said I wanted micro to die. But I just want it to be more fair to contributors, for all the work we've put into it, for how far it's come in such a short period of time. The quality of the libraries has risen a lot more than the price. But I can see your viewpoint as a buyer. And it looks like you fall into the category of "pnny-pinching buyers, cheapskates and scrooges" as Lageerek colorfully described them.

« Reply #1579 on: May 13, 2012, 18:41 »
0

So complaining about rises is ok in your books, but complaining about rises being too small or too infrequent isn't? Did you even read the post you quoted? I really can't see any relation to macro in it :o . You're replying to me in a fashion as if I'd said I wanted micro to die. But I just want it to be more fair to contributors, for all the work we've put into it, for how far it's come in such a short period of time. The quality of the libraries has risen a lot more than the price. But I can see your viewpoint as a buyer. And it looks like you fall into the category of "pnny-pinching buyers, cheapskates and scrooges" as Lageerek colorfully described them.

You should probably take your beef to your agency and not take it out on the buyers though. The buyers truly have very little control over the prices. The only thing we can do is choose to shop at one place or another. None of us dictates what your commissions are or what the price points are. And as lisafx already pointed out, sales were actually much better when prices (at iStock for instance) were lower, because people buy more images, even if they don't use them, when the prices are lower. I do think the photographers get raked over the coals as far as commission cut goes. The split at iStock is criminal, really. But they try to appease the contributors by raising the prices, so there is a false sense of making more money, as sales continue to decline.

I don't really care if you think I'm cheap or penny pinching or whatever lagereek said. I have to buy photos that fit in with what I can charge my customers. Designers that serve small business have small budgets. That's just the way it is. And calling me names isn't going to change that. I'm just sorry you are incapable of listening to my points. You seem to have this invincible feeling that buyers will keep buying when there are other options to photos. There were before and there will be again.

There is a reason microstock became the phenomenon it did. I just still scratch my head at the whiners that start submitting to it and then complain that they are selling too cheaply. You knew what the business model was when you joined. If *you* want to spend your time and money doing high value production shots for microstock, you only have yourself to blame for that. And calling me names is not going to change that. LOL

« Reply #1580 on: May 13, 2012, 18:44 »
0
So complaining about rises is ok in your books, but complaining about rises being too small or too infrequent isn't? Did you even read the post you quoted? I really can't see any relation to macro in it :o . You're replying to me in a fashion as if I'd said I wanted micro to die. But I just want it to be more fair to contributors, for all the work we've put into it, for how far it's come in such a short period of time. The quality of the libraries has risen a lot more than the price. But I can see your viewpoint as a buyer. And it looks like you fall into the category of "pnny-pinching buyers, cheapskates and scrooges" as Lageerek colorfully described them.

You haven't got a clue what you are talking about partially because you weren't around when microstock took off and therefore what it was/is about.

Here's an example of how higher prices 'help' the contributor. I recently turned Emerald at FT. That enabled me to double the prices of my images and receive a higher commission on each sale. So what happened next? Both my income and my ranking (which is based on credits sold) has fallen at FT. I am not kidding __ that's what has happened. So much for higher prices.

lagereek

« Reply #1581 on: May 14, 2012, 00:26 »
0
Reading all this! its quite clear that most but a few, dont really know anything else then micro, or rather have no experience of any other form of photography then micro.
I keep reading stuff like " buyers would take their own pics, etc" , look, let me tell you, most buyers here, DO NOT, have a single clue of how to set-up, or take pictures, let alone all the raw, PP, PS and other programs,  they dont even know what is involved in post-processing, theyre punters, not creatives and all they need is a pic, to promote whatever.
Professional Stock-photographers, survived far, far better before the entrance of Micro and will continue to do so, after micro. Micro, is but one step on a ladder, no more. However, to many here, micro seem to be the only form of commercial photography, simply because they dont know any other form of photography. Further more when it comes to, buyers,  tons and tons of buyers, DONT even know about micro, theyre not even interested in micro, wouldnt know where to start, buying micro. To them, this is regarded as some sort of a joke and do not wish to be associated with it.

Trad agencies, is still and will always be the source, where "proper" buyers go, its not just money involved here, its customer-relation, service, support, know-how, expertice, design, layout, the whole god-damned package all wrapped in one AND they are prepared to pay for this.

Its a gigantic fools paradise, to even start believing that the micro model will sustain or present itself as a major, upper, supplier to all industries.

best :)

« Reply #1582 on: May 14, 2012, 06:34 »
0
I wish all the business tried to do al least once the photos they need (and, hey, the designs too) by themselves. It's the best way for them to understand that microstock, and even general stock prices, are a steal and a bargain. By the time  the "secretary" is finished with her "point and shot", after all the hassle of finding a suitable model and possibly props , and trying to get the photo tecnically accepatble and with some kind of impact,  and then retouching it without really mastering any retouching software, they just have to look at the results and add up the money spent, including the working time invested, to understand it instantly.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2012, 06:37 by loop »

lagereek

« Reply #1583 on: May 14, 2012, 06:49 »
0
Thats what it is, and thats how it is regarded by 80% of micro buyers, we go out with P/S and hope for the best. They are not even aware of that images has to go through a computer, etc.

Few months back, a buyer in Germany is on my private mail. He wants 8, of my pics for his compny profile, high-res and enough quality for a middle-spread and 6, A4 size prints, to go into this profile, i.e.  a glossy big promotional printing job and package, add to this he wants me to do the graphical work, fit the pictures and with falling in text, etc, etc, etc.

This he wants done for micro prices ::)

this is what the average micro buyer takes us for. No wonder.

« Reply #1584 on: May 14, 2012, 08:24 »
0
Arr..? Maybe not fully true.

The whole picture business is changing:
1..Books are often issued globally with generic microstock content.
2..Microstock pictures are often far better than pictures found from traditional sources.
3..Keywording and content in microstock pictures is often incorrect, and the customer does not care - or know.
4..The demand for large size images is falling as more and more communication is channeled via the net.
5..The target group of many web based publications is global, hence the demand for generic pictures. Common lowest denominator.
6..Everyone is a publisher, traditional media are being pushed aside, both by peer to peer news and advertising via social media.
7..Picture quality is not so important as availability and relevance. A cellphone shot can be much more relevant (and valuable) than a photograph taken by a professional photojournalist.

« Reply #1585 on: May 14, 2012, 09:21 »
0
Reading all this! its quite clear that most but a few, dont really know anything else then micro, or rather have no experience of any other form of photography then micro.
I keep reading stuff like " buyers would take their own pics, etc" , look, let me tell you, most buyers here, DO NOT, have a single clue of how to set-up, or take pictures, let alone all the raw, PP, PS and other programs,  they dont even know what is involved in post-processing, theyre punters, not creatives and all they need is a pic, to promote whatever.

As a former graphic designer/art director at a small company, that doesn't sound so unusual. I'm by no means a photographer, but I used to take some of our product shots. Then, tweak them in Photoshop and isolate them out. Sometimes things have to get done (now) when you're running a project, so graphic designers have to wear a lot of hats.

« Reply #1586 on: May 14, 2012, 09:36 »
0
Reading all this! its quite clear that most but a few, dont really know anything else then micro, or rather have no experience of any other form of photography then micro.
I keep reading stuff like " buyers would take their own pics, etc" , look, let me tell you, most buyers here, DO NOT, have a single clue of how to set-up, or take pictures, let alone all the raw, PP, PS and other programs,  they dont even know what is involved in post-processing, theyre punters, not creatives and all they need is a pic, to promote whatever.
Professional Stock-photographers, survived far, far better before the entrance of Micro and will continue to do so, after micro. Micro, is but one step on a ladder, no more. However, to many here, micro seem to be the only form of commercial photography, simply because they dont know any other form of photography. Further more when it comes to, buyers,  tons and tons of buyers, DONT even know about micro, theyre not even interested in micro, wouldnt know where to start, buying micro. To them, this is regarded as some sort of a joke and do not wish to be associated with it.

Trad agencies, is still and will always be the source, where "proper" buyers go, its not just money involved here, its customer-relation, service, support, know-how, expertice, design, layout, the whole god-damned package all wrapped in one AND they are prepared to pay for this.

Its a gigantic fools paradise, to even start believing that the micro model will sustain or present itself as a major, upper, supplier to all industries.

best :)

You seemed to think microstock was enough of a market to sell in, however. Why do *you* bother if macro is the end all, be all?

Also, I'm betting many more people think their snap shots with their phones and point and shoots are adequate and aren't interested in hiring a professional photographer, setting up a proper photo shoot, or care about post-processing. I can't tell you how many clients send me such photos. Or just go out and look at websites of most small businesses. They know absolutely nothing about macro or micro. Nor do they care. Most of them can't afford photos from the macros, so they'll just use their own photos or do without. A few can be convinced to hire a professional photographer. But some don't even want to use a microstock photo, as they would rather use their own photos, as bad as they may be.

Sure, big ad agencies and corporations have the budgets for macros, but there are a lot of other businesses out there who don't. And not every single designer in the world works for a big ad agency or services big corporations with million dollar advertising budgets. Not sure why you don't get that. And your scorn and disdain isn't going to change that. That is why the micro market originated, because the world of photography was an elite club, closed to many business and photographers alike. Look at how many NEW photographers were able to sell their photos who would never have been accepted to Getty or other macro clubs. Without microstock they would not have had a channel to sell their photos - Lisa Gagne, lisafx, Sean Locke, etc... It's unlikely that microstock is going away, even if the current agencies go "mid stock". That will just open the door for someone else to start another microstock site. Always remember, iStock originally started as a sharing site, because the macros were out of reach of so many people.

lagereek

« Reply #1587 on: May 14, 2012, 09:50 »
0
Youre not reading the post properly or dont understand it!  Im looking at the micro industry from a photographers perspective, im a commercial freelance photographer, dayrate, etc. Micro, is extremely good to me, Im earning a bundle, no complaints there at all.

You seem to be under the impression that if micro ended, everyone would go out and take their own shots or stop buying, the entire globe would stop buying, right, pics would just fall from the sky and free of charge. I suppose if the entire car-business collapsed, yeah, right, people would ofcourse start building their own cars. I forgot,  silly me.
Nah,  youre dreaming mate, dreaming.

« Reply #1588 on: May 14, 2012, 09:58 »
0
You seem to be under the impression that if micro ended, everyone would go out and take their own shots or stop buying, the entire globe would stop buying, right, pics would just fall from the sky and free of charge. I suppose if the entire car-business collapsed, yeah, right, people would ofcourse start building their own cars. I forgot,  silly me.
Nah,  youre dreaming mate, dreaming.

I'm under the impression that people would just go back to what they were doing *before* micro. Remember those times? And I never said I thought pictures would fall from the sky free of charge. That's in your own imagination. Nor do I expect people to start building their own cars. You seem to be the one with reading comprehension problems. Besides, taking a photo is a far cry from building a car. LOL
« Last Edit: May 14, 2012, 10:00 by caspixel »

« Reply #1589 on: May 14, 2012, 10:08 »
0
Could you two guys, not begin to find out what you agree on and produce some important material, instead of fighting over what you dont agree on.
Its easy enough to disagree.
Its harder and much more productive to find the things you agree on.

We need people who agree to fight the greedy monsters.

lagereek

« Reply #1590 on: May 14, 2012, 10:12 »
0
You seem to be under the impression that if micro ended, everyone would go out and take their own shots or stop buying, the entire globe would stop buying, right, pics would just fall from the sky and free of charge. I suppose if the entire car-business collapsed, yeah, right, people would ofcourse start building their own cars. I forgot,  silly me.
Nah,  youre dreaming mate, dreaming.

I'm under the impression that people would just go back to what they were doing *before* micro. Remember those times? And I never said I thought pictures would fall from the sky free of charge. That's in your own imagination. Nor do I expect people to start building their own cars. You seem to be the one with reading comprehension problems. Besides, taking a photo is a far cry from building a car. LOL

Yeah well, thats my entire point, thats why micro should move much, much closer to macro or at least midstock. To stop this penny-pinching attitudes from buyers, etc. Give it a few more years and they will have us down to selling pics for 0.5c. and the agencies will ofcourse do nothing, just, yes sir, no sir.
So, we lose some buyers, so what, heck! thats the kind of buyers we dont want anyway, can do very nicely without them.

I have been with the Getty-RM-housecollection since 93 and yes I have seen pics getting cheaper and cheaper but not at the micro rate, pics within the RM, might fall but it still good revenues but with micro? when they fall from pittens to the bottom of the barrell, too much.

lagereek

« Reply #1591 on: May 14, 2012, 10:14 »
0
Could you two guys, not begin to find out what you agree on and produce some important material, instead of fighting over what you dont agree on.
Its easy enough to disagree.
Its harder and much more productive to find the things you agree on.

We need people who agree to fight the greedy monsters.

neither me nor Cas, invited you to butt in here ;D, go have a beer!

« Reply #1592 on: May 14, 2012, 10:18 »
0
As a real world example, the last image I bought was a paintbrush with paint on it. It was $3 at Canstock. If it was $50-$100, I would have just got my camera out and some supplies from the closet and taken it myself. But if it was $10-$20, I would have still bought it.

My point is that buyers will pay more for the images up to a point. I don't think there is anything wrong with the agencies increasing prices to find that sweet spot. Most images have way more value than a couple dollars, so there really isn't any reason they should cost that much.

« Reply #1593 on: May 14, 2012, 10:20 »
0
As a newcomer from outer space I have the privilege of not knowing the history.
I also have the privilege of seing what is going on without taking part.

And I see.
"Dividera et impera"

you are fighting eachother, and such others are left in peace, that maybe are more fightsworthy.

lagereek

« Reply #1594 on: May 14, 2012, 10:24 »
0
As a real world example, the last image I bought was a paintbrush with paint on it. It was $3 at Canstock. If it was $50-$100, I would have just got my camera out and some supplies from the closet and taken it myself. But if it was $10-$20, I would have still bought it.

My point is that buyers will pay more for the images up to a point. I don't think there is anything wrong with the agencies increasing prices to find that sweet spot. Most images have way more value than a couple dollars, so there really isn't any reason they should cost that much.

Yes but this is not really a good example and I tell you why. I know an enormous amount of ADs and Art-buyers, etc, and some of them know how to use a camera and in fact take their own shots but they are the real small-fry, that have got the time for all that.
Most ADs, AD-agency people I know havent even got the time for the lunch, let alone learning how to shoot.
Have you ever been up to just an average sized AD-agency?  its total chaos and mayhem, and everything should have been done like yesterday.

« Reply #1595 on: May 14, 2012, 10:31 »
0

Yeah well, thats my entire point, thats why micro should move much, much closer to macro or at least midstock. To stop this penny-pinching attitudes from buyers, etc. Give it a few more years and they will have us down to selling pics for 0.5c. and the agencies will ofcourse do nothing, just, yes sir, no sir.
So, we lose some buyers, so what, heck! thats the kind of buyers we dont want anyway, can do very nicely without them.

I have been with the Getty-RM-housecollection since 93 and yes I have seen pics getting cheaper and cheaper but not at the micro rate, pics within the RM, might fall but it still good revenues but with micro? when they fall from pittens to the bottom of the barrell, too much.

Except that there are plenty of photos in micro that aren't worth midstock prices. Isolated objects, textured backgrounds, older, outdated photos with poor lighting, etc. I do agree that the shots with the models in specific settings should be priced higher. But someone who is taking snap shots of their friends in their backyard - nope. Look through the micro collections and can you *really* say *every single shot* should be at mid stock prices? I tend to buy a lot of textures and things like that. I do it because I like to buy the photos, but if it gets cost prohibitive, I can create my own textures without it costing me that much in time.

The other problem I see is that it seems like nearly every single mid-stock photo option fails. iStockPro anyone? So if the current microstock agencies move to midstock, I've no doubt more microstock agencies will just pop up. Again, you seem to forget how iStock started...with FREE photos.

Maybe you don't want the low-end buyers, but the low-end buyers helped many people succeed in microstock. You yourself say that you make a nice return on your photos in microstock, so how about you stop bashing the people who are putting money in your pocket? That's really just rude.

lagereek

« Reply #1596 on: May 14, 2012, 10:35 »
0

Yeah well, thats my entire point, thats why micro should move much, much closer to macro or at least midstock. To stop this penny-pinching attitudes from buyers, etc. Give it a few more years and they will have us down to selling pics for 0.5c. and the agencies will ofcourse do nothing, just, yes sir, no sir.
So, we lose some buyers, so what, heck! thats the kind of buyers we dont want anyway, can do very nicely without them.

I have been with the Getty-RM-housecollection since 93 and yes I have seen pics getting cheaper and cheaper but not at the micro rate, pics within the RM, might fall but it still good revenues but with micro? when they fall from pittens to the bottom of the barrell, too much.

Except that there are plenty of photos in micro that aren't worth midstock prices. Isolated objects, textured backgrounds, older, outdated photos with poor lighting, etc. I do agree that the shots with the models in specific settings should be priced higher. But someone who is taking snap shots of their friends in their backyard - nope. Look through the micro collections and can you *really* say *every single shot* should be at mid stock prices? I tend to buy a lot of textures and things like that. I do it because I like to buy the photos, but if it gets cost prohibitive, I can create my own textures without it costing me that much in time.

The other problem I see is that it seems like nearly every single mid-stock photo option fails. iStockPro anyone? So if the current microstock agencies move to midstock, I've no doubt more microstock agencies will just pop up. Again, you seem to forget how iStock started...with FREE photos.

Maybe you don't want the low-end buyers, but the low-end buyers helped many people succeed in microstock. You yourself say that you make a nice return on your photos in microstock, so how about you stop bashing the people who are putting money in your pocket? That's really just rude.

Well, I am a rude person and YES, I can do nicely without, pimps, pontses and panders, cheapskates, scrooges, warewoolfs and vampires,  well, maybe not vampires, they tend to live forever, suits me fine.

« Reply #1597 on: May 14, 2012, 10:35 »
0
Yes but this is not really a good example and I tell you why. I know an enormous amount of ADs and Art-buyers, etc, and some of them know how to use a camera and in fact take their own shots but they are the real small-fry, that have got the time for all that.
Most ADs, AD-agency people I know havent even got the time for the lunch, let alone learning how to shoot.
Have you ever been up to just an average sized AD-agency?  its total chaos and mayhem, and everything should have been done like yesterday.

I'd love to know the percentage of ad agencies vs freelance designers though.

« Reply #1598 on: May 14, 2012, 10:35 »
0

Yeah well, thats my entire point, thats why micro should move much, much closer to macro or at least midstock. To stop this penny-pinching attitudes from buyers, etc. Give it a few more years and they will have us down to selling pics for 0.5c. and the agencies will ofcourse do nothing, just, yes sir, no sir.
So, we lose some buyers, so what, heck! thats the kind of buyers we dont want anyway, can do very nicely without them.

I have been with the Getty-RM-housecollection since 93 and yes I have seen pics getting cheaper and cheaper but not at the micro rate, pics within the RM, might fall but it still good revenues but with micro? when they fall from pittens to the bottom of the barrell, too much.

Except that there are plenty of photos in micro that aren't worth midstock prices. Isolated objects, textured backgrounds, older, outdated photos with poor lighting, etc. I do agree that the shots with the models in specific settings should be priced higher. But someone who is taking snap shots of their friends in their backyard - nope. Look through the micro collections and can you *really* say *every single shot* should be at mid stock prices? I tend to buy a lot of textures and things like that. I do it because I like to buy the photos, but if it gets cost prohibitive, I can create my own textures without it costing me that much in time.

The other problem I see is that it seems like nearly every single mid-stock photo option fails. iStockPro anyone? So if the current microstock agencies move to midstock, I've no doubt more microstock agencies will just pop up. Again, you seem to forget how iStock started...with FREE photos.

Maybe you don't want the low-end buyers, but the low-end buyers helped many people succeed in microstock. You yourself say that you make a nice return on your photos in microstock, so how about you stop bashing the people who are putting money in your pocket? That's really just rude.

Well, I am a rude person and YES, I can do nicely without, pimps, pontses and panders, cheapskates, scrooges, warewoolfs and vampires,  well, maybe not vampires, they tend to live forever, suits me fine.

Then stop selling microstock and you won't have to deal with any of them. Simple solution. You are creating all your own problems and aggravation.

« Reply #1599 on: May 14, 2012, 10:38 »
0
I like vampires:
Here is one:


Photogrqaphed on Draculas castle:


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
17295 Views
Last post October 23, 2010, 14:12
by gbalex
18 Replies
5817 Views
Last post November 24, 2011, 15:34
by lagereek
162 Replies
33331 Views
Last post May 14, 2012, 10:27
by jbryson
20 Replies
7321 Views
Last post February 14, 2013, 17:41
by Poncke
9 Replies
4678 Views
Last post January 15, 2014, 19:56
by djpadavona

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors