Author Topic: Change of Most popular (Read 26133 times)

falstafff · « **Reply #25 on:** May 12, 2013, 10:17 »

Thanks a lot. Although this constant analyzing tend to be quite a costly affair for many of us.

MisterElements · « **Reply #26 on:** May 13, 2013, 11:36 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 12, 2013, 10:17

Thanks a lot. Although this constant analyzing tend to be quite a costly affair for many of us.

Agreed......and maybe his title should be investor success?

falstafff · « **Reply #27 on:** May 13, 2013, 11:40 »

Quote from: MisterElements on May 13, 2013, 11:36

Quote from: falstafff on May 12, 2013, 10:17
Thanks a lot. Although this constant analyzing tend to be quite a costly affair for many of us.

Agreed......and maybe his title should be investor success?

Yes. shareholders my friend. Shareholders. Nothing else matters. Yet some people here thought this was the ultimate micro stock agency.
Bit shortsighted I would say.

gbalex · « **Reply #28 on:** May 13, 2013, 12:14 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 13, 2013, 11:40

Quote from: MisterElements on May 13, 2013, 11:36
Quote from: falstafff on May 12, 2013, 10:17
Thanks a lot. Although this constant analyzing tend to be quite a costly affair for many of us.

Agreed......and maybe his title should be investor success?

Yes. shareholders my friend. Shareholders. Nothing else matters.

Yes new shareholders with small ports that do not generate much income seem to be the happiest about these new search changes. Never mind the many people who used to believe in SS. These are the same people who were instrumental in SS's success. I am talking about the real people who used their own funds to buy tens of thousands of camera & studio equipment, not to mention software, props ect. so that they could work hard year after year to provide SS with quality content.

Over the years they worked hard to produce images and vectors that would reach the top50 so that they could feed their family. They made a good income because they worked hard for years and their families depend on that hard won income to eat and pay their mortgages/rent.

Now SS turns their back on the very people who assured success for those working for SS. We made it possible for SS's employees to enjoy good incomes and perks such as gym memberships, massages, free breakfasts, free drinks and weekly pizza parties.

Maybe they should come to breakfast, lunch and dinner at some of the houses they are robbing of shelter and food so that they can reduce cost of sale and bring up RPI sold.

MisterElements · « **Reply #29 on:** May 13, 2013, 12:20 »

Quote from: gbalex on May 13, 2013, 12:14

Quote from: falstafff on May 13, 2013, 11:40
Quote from: MisterElements on May 13, 2013, 11:36
Quote from: falstafff on May 12, 2013, 10:17
Thanks a lot. Although this constant analyzing tend to be quite a costly affair for many of us.

Agreed......and maybe his title should be investor success?

Yes. shareholders my friend. Shareholders. Nothing else matters.

Yes new shareholders with small ports that do not generate much income seem to be the happiest about these new search changes. Never mind the many people who used to believe in SS. These are the same people who were instrumental in SS's success. I am talking about the real people who used their own funds to buy tens of thousands of camera & studio equipment, not to mention software, props ect. so that they could work hard year after year to provide SS with quality content.

Over the years they worked hard to produce images and vectors that would reach the top50 so that they could feed their family. They made a good income because they worked hard for years and their families depend on that hard won income to eat and pay their mortgages/rent.

Now SS turns their back on the very people who assured success for those working for SS. We made it possible for SS's employees to enjoy good incomes and perks such as gym memberships, massages, free breakfasts, free drinks and weekly pizza parties.

Maybe they should come to breakfast, lunch and dinner at some of the houses they are robbing of shelter and food so that they can reduce cost of sale and bring up RPI sold.

Wow that is the best post I have ever seen anywhere! I'm sharing this with every graphic artist I know! thank you! I printed this post out and it is now on my studio wall. thank you again!

stockmarketer · « **Reply #30 on:** May 13, 2013, 12:36 »

Gang, Shutterstock is a store, and we are its suppliers.

The needs of any store's customers change over time, and if the store wants to thrive, it is constantly watching how its customers shop, and it will give more shelf space / better shelf space to the stuff that is in demand AT THIS MOMENT, not what was selling well five years ago.

Should the store worry about whether its top suppliers from five years ago can afford to buy new equipment or even feed its workers' families? Come on, chaps, this is business. Let's all think like business people. No one owes us any special treatment for being best sellers "back in the day." If we're no longer supplying product their customers need right now, you can't expect them to give us special treatment.

Shutterstock is doing the best it can to serve its customers' needs, and that's good for US as much as it is good for THEM. It's in our interest that Shutterstock does well, don't you think?

falstafff · « **Reply #31 on:** May 13, 2013, 12:40 »

Quote from: gbalex on May 13, 2013, 12:14

Quote from: falstafff on May 13, 2013, 11:40
Quote from: MisterElements on May 13, 2013, 11:36
Quote from: falstafff on May 12, 2013, 10:17
Thanks a lot. Although this constant analyzing tend to be quite a costly affair for many of us.

Agreed......and maybe his title should be investor success?

Yes. shareholders my friend. Shareholders. Nothing else matters.

Yes new shareholders with small ports that do not generate much income seem to be the happiest about these new search changes. Never mind the many people who used to believe in SS. These are the same people who were instrumental in SS's success. I am talking about the real people who used their own funds to buy tens of thousands of camera & studio equipment, not to mention software, props ect. so that they could work hard year after year to provide SS with quality content.

Over the years they worked hard to produce images and vectors that would reach the top50 so that they could feed their family. They made a good income because they worked hard for years and their families depend on that hard won income to eat and pay their mortgages/rent.

Now SS turns their back on the very people who assured success for those working for SS. We made it possible for SS's employees to enjoy good incomes and perks such as gym memberships, massages, free breakfasts, free drinks and weekly pizza parties.

Maybe they should come to breakfast, lunch and dinner at some of the houses they are robbing of shelter and food so that they can reduce cost of sale and bring up RPI sold.

Fantastic post!!!!! you nailed it to 110% turning their back on contributors is exactly what they are doing. Going the IS way ofcourse. Just look what happend.

Downhill race from now on. Muddy, sticky and watery. Its public knowledge whats posted here, so everyone will know. Bad PR indeed.

stockmarketer · « **Reply #32 on:** May 13, 2013, 13:31 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 13, 2013, 12:40

Quote from: gbalex on May 13, 2013, 12:14
Quote from: falstafff on May 13, 2013, 11:40
Quote from: MisterElements on May 13, 2013, 11:36
Quote from: falstafff on May 12, 2013, 10:17
Thanks a lot. Although this constant analyzing tend to be quite a costly affair for many of us.

Agreed......and maybe his title should be investor success?

Yes. shareholders my friend. Shareholders. Nothing else matters.

Yes new shareholders with small ports that do not generate much income seem to be the happiest about these new search changes. Never mind the many people who used to believe in SS. These are the same people who were instrumental in SS's success. I am talking about the real people who used their own funds to buy tens of thousands of camera & studio equipment, not to mention software, props ect. so that they could work hard year after year to provide SS with quality content.

Over the years they worked hard to produce images and vectors that would reach the top50 so that they could feed their family. They made a good income because they worked hard for years and their families depend on that hard won income to eat and pay their mortgages/rent.

Now SS turns their back on the very people who assured success for those working for SS. We made it possible for SS's employees to enjoy good incomes and perks such as gym memberships, massages, free breakfasts, free drinks and weekly pizza parties.

Maybe they should come to breakfast, lunch and dinner at some of the houses they are robbing of shelter and food so that they can reduce cost of sale and bring up RPI sold.

Fantastic post!!!!! you nailed it to 110% turning their back on contributors is exactly what they are doing. Going the IS way ofcourse. Just look what happend.

Downhill race from now on. Muddy, sticky and watery. Its public knowledge whats posted here, so everyone will know. Bad PR indeed.

Sounds like we've just elected our new union leader.

Just so we're clear. We're going to ask for pensions, right? We're going to demand that if we have images that sell well today, we expect to be supported by the agencies even when our old images stop selling, regardless of our ability to create new images that sell, correct?

When customers no longer want to download our images, and the agencies stop giving our ports preferred treatment as top sellers, we will view that as "robbing us of shelter and food."

First order of business for our union... let's meet with the old-school professional photographers who accused microstock of robbing them of shelter and food, and see what they did to hang on to their old way of life. Their complaints and accusations must have worked well for them.

Because that's only fair, right? Anyone who doesn't adapt to change should be supported forever by the people who used to buy or sell their work. Just want to make sure I'm reading you correctly, if you're going to be representing my interests.

falstafff · « **Reply #33 on:** May 13, 2013, 13:47 »

Quote from: stockmarketer on May 13, 2013, 13:31

Quote from: falstafff on May 13, 2013, 12:40
Quote from: gbalex on May 13, 2013, 12:14
Quote from: falstafff on May 13, 2013, 11:40
Quote from: MisterElements on May 13, 2013, 11:36
Quote from: falstafff on May 12, 2013, 10:17
Thanks a lot. Although this constant analyzing tend to be quite a costly affair for many of us.

Agreed......and maybe his title should be investor success?

Yes. shareholders my friend. Shareholders. Nothing else matters.

Yes new shareholders with small ports that do not generate much income seem to be the happiest about these new search changes. Never mind the many people who used to believe in SS. These are the same people who were instrumental in SS's success. I am talking about the real people who used their own funds to buy tens of thousands of camera & studio equipment, not to mention software, props ect. so that they could work hard year after year to provide SS with quality content.

Over the years they worked hard to produce images and vectors that would reach the top50 so that they could feed their family. They made a good income because they worked hard for years and their families depend on that hard won income to eat and pay their mortgages/rent.

Now SS turns their back on the very people who assured success for those working for SS. We made it possible for SS's employees to enjoy good incomes and perks such as gym memberships, massages, free breakfasts, free drinks and weekly pizza parties.

Maybe they should come to breakfast, lunch and dinner at some of the houses they are robbing of shelter and food so that they can reduce cost of sale and bring up RPI sold.

Fantastic post!!!!! you nailed it to 110% turning their back on contributors is exactly what they are doing. Going the IS way ofcourse. Just look what happend.

Downhill race from now on. Muddy, sticky and watery. Its public knowledge whats posted here, so everyone will know. Bad PR indeed.

Sounds like we've just elected our new union leader.

Just so we're clear. We're going to ask for pensions, right? We're going to demand that if we have images that sell well today, we expect to be supported by the agencies even when our old images stop selling, regardless of our ability to create new images that sell, correct?

When customers no longer want to download our images, and the agencies stop giving our ports preferred treatment as top sellers, we will view that as "robbing us of shelter and food."

First order of business for our union... let's meet with the old-school professional photographers who accused microstock of robbing them of shelter and food, and see what they did to hang on to their old way of life. Their complaints and accusations must have worked well for them.

Because that's only fair, right? Anyone who doesn't adapt to change should be supported forever by the people who used to buy or sell their work. Just want to make sure I'm reading you correctly, if you're going to be representing my interests.

Ahhhhhhh! great post but you forgot the dole que.

gbalex · « **Reply #34 on:** May 13, 2013, 14:14 »

Quote from: stockmarketer on May 13, 2013, 12:36

Gang, Shutterstock is a store, and we are its suppliers.

The needs of any store's customers change over time, and if the store wants to thrive, it is constantly watching how its customers shop, and it will give more shelf space / better shelf space to the stuff that is in demand AT THIS MOMENT, not what was selling well five years ago.

Should the store worry about whether its top suppliers from five years ago can afford to buy new equipment or even feed its workers' families? Come on, chaps, this is business. Let's all think like business people. No one owes us any special treatment for being best sellers "back in the day." If we're no longer supplying product their customers need right now, you can't expect them to give us special treatment.

Shutterstock is doing the best it can to serve its customers' needs, and that's good for US as much as it is good for THEM. It's in our interest that Shutterstock does well, don't you think?

You are talking to a few of the suppliers, who over a large number of years consistently supply large numbers of NEW improved content THAT SELLS and their numbers are down drastically. They are on the front page searches precisely because they can produce content that customers want.

Take a good long look at what is showing up on the first page of new searches. I will leave the who, what and why to private discussions.

stockmarketer · « **Reply #35 on:** May 13, 2013, 14:20 »

Again, Shutterstock will do what proves to serve its customers' needs the best. (Yes, in turn this will serve shareholders as well, as a properly run business should.)

If your great-selling images are removed from front pages and customers buy less from Shutterstock, you can be sure Shutterstock will readjust and you'll be back in front. But if Shutterstock's adjustments results in MORE downloads, then the stuff they shifted in front of yours sold better than yours, and the best-selling stuff SHOULD be front and center, no matter who created it.

It's good business, really, pure and simple.

gbalex · « **Reply #36 on:** May 13, 2013, 14:28 »

Quote from: stockmarketer on May 13, 2013, 14:20

Again, Shutterstock will do what proves to serve its customers' needs the best. (Yes, in turn this will serve shareholders as well, as a properly run business should.)

If your great-selling images are removed from front pages and customers buy less from Shutterstock, you can be sure Shutterstock will readjust and you'll be back in front. But if Shutterstock's adjustments results in MORE downloads, then the stuff they shifted in front of yours sold better than yours, and the best-selling stuff SHOULD be front and center, no matter who created it.

It's good business, really, pure and simple.

Do you work for SS or own large quantities of stock, you seem to fear Union organizers lurking in every corner.

Smart companies support merit and when they don't they quickly lose the very thing that made them a success.

falstafff · « **Reply #37 on:** May 13, 2013, 14:37 »

Quote from: stockmarketer on May 13, 2013, 14:20

Again, Shutterstock will do what proves to serve its customers' needs the best. (Yes, in turn this will serve shareholders as well, as a properly run business should.)

If your great-selling images are removed from front pages and customers buy less from Shutterstock, you can be sure Shutterstock will readjust and you'll be back in front. But if Shutterstock's adjustments results in MORE downloads, then the stuff they shifted in front of yours sold better than yours, and the best-selling stuff SHOULD be front and center, no matter who created it.

It's good business, really, pure and simple.

Thats fine. I have no problems with that. However they do not need the suppliers to participate. Do they? I mean we are expendable. Right? since as you put it, " they do not provide"

I have not been at the MSG for long but I have been shooting stock for almost fifteen years. Dont you see? this whole thread, posts, comments and so on. What does it remind you of? ......... the epic fall of another well known micro agency of which you surely can not defend.

stockmarketer · « **Reply #38 on:** May 13, 2013, 14:42 »

Quote from: gbalex on May 13, 2013, 14:28

Do you work for SS or own large quantities of stock, you seem to fear Union organizers lurking in every corner.

No, but I took a few business courses in college, and just remembering the 101 stuff. As for unions, I used to be in one. I support them in general, as long as they don't get in the way of a business adapting to the laws of supply and demand. When that happens, they are a lead weight pulling a company down into an abyss.

Quote from: gbalex on May 13, 2013, 14:28

Smart companies support merit and when they don't they quickly lose the very thing that made them a success.

Smart companies constantly test new products and watch customer feedback, and are nimble to meet customers' needs better than any of their competitors. From where I sit (on the outside, not inside) this is exactly what SS is doing.

falstafff · « **Reply #39 on:** May 13, 2013, 14:48 »

Quote from: stockmarketer on May 13, 2013, 14:42

Quote from: gbalex on May 13, 2013, 14:28

Do you work for SS or own large quantities of stock, you seem to fear Union organizers lurking in every corner.

No, but I took a few business courses in college, and just remembering the 101 stuff. As for unions, I used to be in one. I support them in general, as long as they don't get in the way of a business adapting to the laws of supply and demand. When that happens, they are a lead weight pulling a company down into an abyss.

Quote from: gbalex on May 13, 2013, 14:28
Smart companies support merit and when they don't they quickly lose the very thing that made them a success.

Smart companies constantly test new products and watch customer feedback, and are nimble to meet customers' needs better than any of their competitors. From where I sit (on the outside, not inside) this is exactly what SS is doing.

Test new products? what are we talking about? Ketchup, mustard, spam?

gbalex · « **Reply #40 on:** May 13, 2013, 14:48 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 13, 2013, 14:37

Quote from: stockmarketer on May 13, 2013, 14:20
Again, Shutterstock will do what proves to serve its customers' needs the best. (Yes, in turn this will serve shareholders as well, as a properly run business should.)

If your great-selling images are removed from front pages and customers buy less from Shutterstock, you can be sure Shutterstock will readjust and you'll be back in front. But if Shutterstock's adjustments results in MORE downloads, then the stuff they shifted in front of yours sold better than yours, and the best-selling stuff SHOULD be front and center, no matter who created it.

It's good business, really, pure and simple.

Thats fine. I have no problems with that. However they do not need the suppliers to participate. Do they? I mean we are expendible. Right? since as you put it, " they do not provide"

A good number of us are buyers as well sellers. It has been demonstrated @ another site that we don't buy from stock companies that do not treat us or our fellows fairly. So yes companies quickly become expendable when they do NOT treat their suppliers fairly.

stockmarketer · « **Reply #41 on:** May 13, 2013, 14:48 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 13, 2013, 14:37

Thats fine. I have no problems with that. However they do not need the suppliers to participate. Do they? I mean we are expendible. Right? since as you put it, " they do not provide"

Companies need suppliers to participate in supplying stuff that sells. Companies don't need suppliers who supply stuff that doesn't sell.

If your stuff sells great, it should get great placement. If your stuff sells OK, it should get OK placement. If your stuff sells little to none at all, it should be pushed to the back or dropped altogether.

Blank CDs used to sell by the boatload, getting prominent placement on the endcaps at Target, Best Buy and similar stores. When times changed and they stopped selling, what happened? They slowly moved from the endcaps to spots down the aisle, and in many stores now, they're gone completely. Did these stores forget how much those CD suppliers supported them in the past? Should they still give those companies prominent shelf space to recognize those past contributions? If those blank CD companies didn't adapt and put out another product that Target customers want today, they don't deserve the shelf space.

stockmarketer · « **Reply #42 on:** May 13, 2013, 14:55 »

Quote from: gbalex on May 13, 2013, 14:48

A good number of us are buyers as well sellers. It has been demonstrated @ another site that we don't buy from or stock companies that do not treat us or our fellows fairly. So yes companies quickly become expendable when they treat their suppliers fairly.

This is what I don't get... how are you not being treated fairly?

SS is testing to make sure the pics that used to be good sellers are still good sellers. If it turns out that different pics sell better, then they are doing a better job serving the needs of their customers.

Should their priority be to support the needs of suppliers over customers?

These tests are the ultimate fairness. The cream will rise to the top, no matter who produced it -- the veterans who sold well in the past, or the rookies with new ideas. I'm certainly not saying all the "cream" will be produced by rookies... people who have been at this a long time, and taking careful notes along the way, should be adept at sensing the changing needs of customers. Theoretically, SS is treating everyone equally here... elevating stuff that may be popular among its customers but otherwise might not get seen because the veterans have been getting all the limelight.

(FWIW, I'd put myself in the veteran camp... the recent changes have resulted in different pics in my port selling better, but my total sales have been about the same.)

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #43 on:** May 13, 2013, 15:02 »

Hi All,

Just wanted to concur with everyone here my ShutterStock sales that have been solid ( within $100 a month for years, averaging about $1400-$1500 a month ) have taken a dramatic drop for the first time ever this month, sad to see the best of Micro following the pack. ShutterStock was the one micro agency that gave me hope in this model of stock, now ...they can talk about adjustments but this one was a doozie.

Cheers,
Jonathan

stockmarketer · « **Reply #44 on:** May 13, 2013, 15:07 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on May 13, 2013, 15:02

sad to see the best of Micro following the pack.

Following the pack as in sales going down, or as in sticking it to contributors?

I'm assuming you mean the former... as there is zero evidence to suggest SS is engaging in anti-contributor shenanigans as we've seen at sites such as IS and FT.

falstafff · « **Reply #45 on:** May 13, 2013, 15:10 »

Quote from: stockmarketer on May 13, 2013, 14:55

Quote from: gbalex on May 13, 2013, 14:48
A good number of us are buyers as well sellers. It has been demonstrated @ another site that we don't buy from or stock companies that do not treat us or our fellows fairly. So yes companies quickly become expendable when they treat their suppliers fairly.

This is what I don't get... how are you not being treated fairly?

SS is testing to make sure the pics that used to be good sellers are still good sellers. If it turns out that different pics sell better, then they are doing a better job serving the needs of their customers.

Should their priority be to support the needs of suppliers over customers?

These tests are the ultimate fairness. The cream will rise to the top, no matter who produced it -- the veterans who sold well in the past, or the rookies with new ideas. I'm certainly not saying all the "cream" will be produced by rookies... people who have been at this a long time, and taking careful notes along the way, should be adept at sensing the changing needs of customers. Theoretically, SS is treating everyone equally here... elevating stuff that may be popular among its customers but otherwise might not get seen because the veterans have been getting all the limelight.

(FWIW, I'd put myself in the veteran camp... the recent changes have resulted in different pics in my port selling better, but my total sales have been about the same.)

You make me laugh

been sitting here reading your stuff and my word, you do sound as if you are on the SS payroll. Lets be open, frank and honest, shall we. SS is doing exactly what is expected of them. Trying desperately to find a way to satisfy the shareholders. Manipulating the search for quick and speedy gain. Thats all.
Here is something interesting for you. My wife is a fairly wealthy woman and stock-broker, she actually lobbied for this media and so far its a big flop as far as dealers look upon it, not private individuals, there is a difference I believe. Thats her words and she is a senior dealer since twelve years.
I mean come on. This is just another IS beginning. A downhill race.

falstafff · « **Reply #46 on:** May 13, 2013, 15:12 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on May 13, 2013, 15:02

Hi All,

Just wanted to concur with everyone here my ShutterStock sales that have been solid ( within $100 a month for years, averaging about $1400-$1500 a month ) have taken a dramatic drop for the first time ever this month, sad to see the best of Micro following the pack. ShutterStock was the one micro agency that gave me hope in this model of stock, now ...they can talk about adjustments but this one was a doozie.

Cheers,
Jonathan

Thanks Jonathan! you just underlined it all.

stockmarketer · « **Reply #47 on:** May 13, 2013, 15:17 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 13, 2013, 15:10

SS is doing exactly what is expected of them. Trying desperately to find a way to satisfy the shareholders. Manipulating the search for quick and speedy gain. Thats all.

Yes, exactly as they should. Shouldn't every company want to increase its profits as quickly as possible, as long as it's not doing anything illegal or unethical? (You'll say SS is being unethical with these changes, but how so? Because your stuff is selling less?)

Quote from: falstafff on May 13, 2013, 15:10

Here is something interesting for you. My wife is a fairly wealthy woman and stock-broker, she actually lobbied for this media and so far its a big flop as far as dealers look upon it, not private individuals, there is a difference I believe. Thats her words and she is a senior dealer since twelve years.

Actually, I don't find this interesting. How does this prove your point? If I were investing, I'm not sure I'd invest in any micro -- SS or otherwise -- as I think there are many more changes coming soon for this industry and the big players today may not be the big players (or even still around) tomorrow. Do you still think I work for SS?

stockmarketer · « **Reply #48 on:** May 13, 2013, 15:21 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 13, 2013, 15:12

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on May 13, 2013, 15:02
Hi All,

Just wanted to concur with everyone here my ShutterStock sales that have been solid ( within $100 a month for years, averaging about $1400-$1500 a month ) have taken a dramatic drop for the first time ever this month, sad to see the best of Micro following the pack. ShutterStock was the one micro agency that gave me hope in this model of stock, now ...they can talk about adjustments but this one was a doozie.

Cheers,
Jonathan

Thanks Jonathan! you just underlined it all.

Yes, he underlined that sales for many people are down. That settles it.

gbalex · « **Reply #49 on:** May 13, 2013, 15:24 »

Quote from: stockmarketer on May 13, 2013, 15:21

Quote from: falstafff on May 13, 2013, 15:12
Quote from: Jonathan Ross on May 13, 2013, 15:02
Hi All,

Just wanted to concur with everyone here my ShutterStock sales that have been solid ( within $100 a month for years, averaging about $1400-$1500 a month ) have taken a dramatic drop for the first time ever this month, sad to see the best of Micro following the pack. ShutterStock was the one micro agency that gave me hope in this model of stock, now ...they can talk about adjustments but this one was a doozie.

Cheers,
Jonathan

Thanks Jonathan! you just underlined it all.

Yes, he underlined that sales for many people are down. That settles it.

You are trying to hard; to not be invested in some way stockmarketer.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Change of Most popular (Read 26133 times)

falstafff

MisterElements

falstafff

gbalex

MisterElements

stockmarketer

falstafff

stockmarketer

falstafff

gbalex

stockmarketer

gbalex

falstafff

stockmarketer

falstafff

gbalex

stockmarketer

stockmarketer

Jonathan Ross

stockmarketer

falstafff

falstafff

stockmarketer

stockmarketer

gbalex

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors