My Bias (again)

12 February 2016

From Hugh Howey:

When Data Guy and I put the first Author Earnings reports together, transparency was our primary goal. I think it’s because we’re both scientists at heart, but also because we are both children of the open-source, crowd-sourced, wiki generation. In addition to our complete transparency on methodology, and our sharing of the source data so others could duplicate or challenge our work, we also included complete transparency on our bias.

It’s true: We think individual entrepreneurs are cooler than mega corporations. We also think: 70% going into the pockets of artists is more awesome than 12.5%. And finally: We think a full breadth of titles being available online is superior to the draconian curation efforts of major publishers and physical retailers.

The data we gathered aligned with our biases, which we suspected ahead of time. You see, the market forces of 70% > 12.5% have made the digital disruption inevitable from the creation side. And instant access to affordable titles made the disruption inevitable from the consumption side. Down in the trenches, we heard from dozens and then hundreds of authors who were making a full-time living without being a household name. This shocked me, personally, because I worked in bookstores for years and hosted NYT bestselling authors who were making peanuts and working full-time jobs to support their craft. Something was going on. Something that aligned with my love of democracy and disdain for totalitarianism and censure.

. . . .

We didn’t manufacture what we wanted to see; we knew something was happening and we attempted to measure it. When the results came in, we were STUNNED. I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw the first pie charts. When we had to make a decision to favor the numbers one direction or the other (like where to lump the small presses that were likely self-published but it was unclear), we tilted the field toward traditional publishing. We did this to account for our bias, but also because indies didn’t need any help. They were trouncing any other method of publication.

When we released this information, we wanted our bias right up front. And we expected others to take our data and show us where we were wrong. To date, no one has been able to show our daily earnings percentages to be off. Self-publishing is simply a more viable path to earning a living and reaching readers than sending query letters to agents, and it isn’t even close.

. . . .

To say that I’m anti-traditional publishing is also a bit of a stretch. I want major publishers to stick around and thrive. I want them to improve their business practices. I’ve devoted a lot of my time and energy into these efforts. I’ve worked with three of the top publishers in the world, and 40 publishers overseas. I have books launching this week with a traditional publisher. Many of my closest friends publish with the Big 5. I’m busy working on all sides of publishing, and fighting my ass off to win better terms and conditions for all authors.

But make no mistake: I’m still pro-author and pro-reader above everything. If Amazon and the Big 5 all go out of business tomorrow, all I’ll care about is whether and how writers and readers can commune. The middlemen are only useful in how they serve these two parties.

What I don’t get is the obvious and crazy bias the publishing rags have for publishers and physical book retailers, and their complete disregard for the only parties in publishing who matter. They don’t seem to care about books, how they are written, how they are read. They only care about how both of these parties can be squeezed in the middle and profited from. How can publishers make the most off the efforts of artists? And how can retailers take advantage of readers? There’s no other way to understand their biases than this. I doubt it’s even something most of these pundits have asked themselves. It’s telling enough that their blathering rarely mentions either the author or the reader. Mostly, they spend their time angry at Amazon for catering so well to readers and writers.

Link to the rest at The Wayfinder and thanks to David for the tip.

Here’s a link to Hugh Howey’s books. If you like an author’s post, you can show your appreciation by checking out their books.

Big Publishing, Hugh Howey, The Business of Writing

51 Comments to “My Bias (again)”

  1. Of course you’re bias — you dare to use facts! Facts that the qig5 and their little friends don’t want aired — lest writers hear it and stop allowing themselves to be chained by bad trad-pub contracts.

    Keep up the good work, the more facts that get out the less the qig5 will matter …

  2. I recently read two authors blogging about their “Success”.

    One is a self publisher and the other a traditionalist.

    First the traditionalist… M.L. Brennan

    Next the self publisher… Elliot Kay

    Sure illustrates Hugh’s point that 70 percent is better than 12.5 percent!

    • I forgot the best part for the reader! The former’s books sell for $8 each and the latter’s for $4, and still the latter self publisher makes double the income and the reader gets a bargain!

      • Nice links, thanks CB. 😉

        And I loved the trad-pub being thrilled with a $116 royalty check when if they were self pub at the same cost ($8) would have been only 21 books sold (and I don’t think they’d admit to such low sales.) If instead we ‘guess’ that they were getting 15%, then that $116 was out of 97 sales — which as a self-pub 70% at $8 would have netted them over $540.

        Oh, that $7500 they got upfront? as a self-pub just 1340 $8 ebooks.

        Paying back the $7500 at 15%? 6250 ebooks sold …

        $7616 from 15% of $8 ebook, 6347 ebooks

        6347 ebooks at $8, at 70%? Only $35,543 …

        6347 ebooks at $4, at 70%? Only $17,772 …

        First needs of trad-pubs is writers that are bad at math …

        • Didn’t she say most sales were of the MMP at first, earning her 64 cents per copy sold? And isn’t 25% on ebooks standard with traditional publishers?

          • “A mass-market paperback copy of Generation V sold in the USA earns me 64 cents”

            Was what she said, and she claimed “on e-books my cut is higher, because the profit is also higher for the publisher” but doesn’t admit to how much.

            Let’s say it’s the 25% you think it is.

            $8 ebook on Amazon — who get’s their 30% off the top $2.40

            $5.60 goes to the publisher.

            $1.40 is 25% of the $5.60

            But the agent gets their 15% $0.21

            So ‘if’ they are getting 25% then $1.19 per ebook.

            Using the $1.40 in the ‘payout’, 5357 ebooks to pay off the $7500

            And the $116 was 83 ebooks past her buy-out. (though the agent gets $17.40 of it.)

            So 5440 ebooks sold netted her $7616 – $1142.40 agent 15% = $6473.60 to the writer.

            5440 ebooks at $8 @ 70% is only $30,464

            5440 ebooks at $4 @ 70% is only $15,232

            Since the last two are the indie/self-pub way, let’s say she pays an editor a grand, a grand for great cover art, and another grand for ads. (all of which can be much cheaper or even free/self done these days.) That would still be twice as much as she got — if the buyers were paying just half the price …

            I still think what will sink trad-pub with be writers that can do the math (and not believe the Whale Math(TM)).

            • And she said “Generation V had absolutely terrible e-sales when it first came out. Like, single-digit terrible. In the beginning, people picked it up in bookstores.”

              Also, that without the advance, it would’ve taken her two years to earn that $7500 she received as an advance.

              $7500 divided by .64 (PB royalty) = 11,719 PB copies

              From you: “5357 ebooks to pay off the $7500”

              What I’m saying is she sold MORE copies total, thanks to the combination of low ebook sales starting out and the lower royalty on the mass market PBs.

              • Also that her publisher “earned back” the full advance with somewhere between say, 1,200 to 1,400 paperbacks sold (going by her view that her publisher “made nothing” until the advance was earned back for a little comparison).

                The point being, yeah, her publisher made some bank while she was still waiting for months to earn out.

              • And I and others on this thread are just suggesting she might have done even better if she hadn’t signed that contract.

                Might her ebook sales been better if they’d been half the price? And as a self publisher she’d still have made twice the money at half the cost to the readers that had never read her before that ignored the $8 ebook for all those under $5 …

                It’s not for everyone, but when you leave the whale math(TM) behind self-publishing looks worth a shot.

                • I understand, and agree with that. =)

                  I’m just flabbergasted she worked her butt off writing three books, got such a low advance on each, and it took so long for her to earn out on the first one.

                  Also totally stunned by her thinking her publisher wasn’t making far more money in a far shorter time.

                  If that’s what drinking the Trad Pub punch is like, no thank you ever. 😉

                • @ Scath

                  Personally, I like the reports we get of the publishers trying to ‘buy into’ a self-pub’s good/great selling book — but offering an advance so small that the self-pub is already making that much — per month! 😉

                • @Allen F

                  They certainly wouldn’t like my suggestion of a “proper” advance, and I’m probably barely into the lower levels of mid-list. 🙂

          • Just me rounding off crudely in my head has Elliot making close to 200K. Nice.

    • Wow, no kidding! I don’t want to rain on ML Brennan’s parade, but I was pretty horrified at how little she’s earned on a book that’s been out for a few years and which appears to have sold reasonably well. That’s not even close to minimum wage. I hope she uses her existing reader base to go indie in the near future, since she’s in a good position to be successful.

    • Goodness! Interesting links, CB.

      Brennan has hold of some misinformation.

      …because until that day happens, the publisher has essentially lost money on the book.

      Um, no. The publisher starts making a profit considerably before the book earns out. I’m sure publishers would prefer that writers not know this.

      …to the assholes who pirate — yes, what you do actually hurts authors. I don’t have statistics on the extent to which illegal downloads hurt this series, but for every copy that was stolen, that made it slower for the book to earn out, it made the publisher see lower sales numbers and lose faith in the series, and it contributed to the early death of the series and to less money for me, which hurt my ability to write more books…

      Not exactly. I certainly do not support piracy, but the vast majority of people who stole Generation V would never have bought a copy. It’s likely that sales of the book were not appreciably lower because of the thieves.

      I’ve seen the numbers on my series — Generation V had absolutely terrible e-sales when it first came out. Like, single-digit terrible.

      How was it priced upon its release?

      Frankly, talk to the people who have become the greatest supporters, champions, and all-around fucking HEROES of this series getting as far as it did, and 90% of them will say that it was word-of-mouth that got them to, very reluctantly, pick up Generation V and give my slacker vampire a shot.

      Surely word of mouth would have worked just as well, if the book had been indie published. :: lifted eyebrow ::

      Finally, a few people have asked me whether this means that Roc will be publishing the fifth Fortitude Scott book. While I certainly remain hopeful that interest in the series continues to grow, and that more people find their way to picking up Generation V, at this time the position of publisher has not altered.

      So the publisher declined books 5 and 6, and the author is writing something else that the publisher will take. Have to love the freedom of the indie world.

      I wish Brennan all the best as she works within the constraints of the tradpub world.

      • I noticed the reader comment criticizing the cover as being a generic guy with a gun, and the reader thought this misrepresented the mood of the book. Since cover design is one of the services of tradpub, I thought that very telling.

        • I clicked over just to see what you meant. Yep, cover says this is a generic action hero story where the tortured good guy kicks — wait, this is supposed to be a screwball comedy? I honestly would not have guessed that. The cover artist must not have read the book. Which I hear is not atypical in tradpub.

          Well, maybe she’ll find out about going indie and then republish them with the proper treatment.

          • The cover artist rarely reads the book, trad or indie. No one pays an artist to read for a few hours. Artists make do with what information they get.

            • Agreed, I misstated: I gave the cover artist I hired short excerpts so she could get the description of the characters I wanted on the cover, the setting, and the general mood of the story. It seemed that should be standard; otherwise how they would she understand what I want? She nailed it.

              What I understand though is that it’s not a given that the cover artist will get even that much. Which is why it’s annoying how little input the author gets.

            • Michael Whelan, one of my all-time favorite cover artists, read the books he created covers for.

              • Whelan’s great. I got his art book when it came out years ago (as well as Powers’, Palencar’s, Craft’s). SF covers, when they are excellent, beat all other genre covers for me.

                I still prefer Whelan’s The Martian Chronicles cover above all others.

      • Hmm. Looks like the formatting got lost from my first quote. Should have been:

        …because until that day happens, the publisher has essentially lost money on the book.

        Um, no. The publisher starts making a profit considerably before the book earns out. I’m sure publishers would prefer that writers not know this.

      • @ J.M.

        “I wish Brennan all the best as she works within the constraints of the tradpub world.”

        She has chosen, and apparently continues to choose, to do so.


    • thanks for those links CB, very interesting.

    • Brennan says:
      “Earning out” is what every author is eagerly awaiting as soon as that book goes on sale — because until that day happens, the publisher has essentially lost money on the book.

      That is just wrong, yet it seems to be a widely held idea.

      The publisher starts making money on the book when his share of revenue equals his direct costs for the book.

      • It boggles my mind that there are still authors who don’t understand this.

        At a 25% royalty, the publisher has already made back their advance four times over, before the author’s book finally “earns out”.

        Considering that most traditionally published books get zero marketing money spent on them, the publisher is already making a profit by the time the author is only a quarter of the way to having “earned out.”

        *shakes head*

        Someone, take Brennan’s contract-signing pen away before he hurts himself.

    • “as a self-publisher has to — if you self-publish, you’re financially in the hole at the point that you have your pile of books ready to sell — and you have no guarantee that you’ll ever sell a single one”

      I’m amazed that she still believes this in 2016. Has no one explained?

    • I think this author (trad) needs to recheck their math. The publisher is not “in a hole” until the book earns out. The publisher has made quite a bit by the time the author (at an 8% or 10% rate) has “earned out” the advance.

      If the book is priced at $12 and sells 6250 copies, it has made 75000, and the author at a 10% royalty rate has earned out their advance of $7500. How much has the publisher made? 75000 – 7500 = 67,500. How is this in the hole? And if they are writing royalty checks, that means they are making thousands more. (100 dollar in royalty means they made another 900, no?)

      68,000 bucks.

      That’s not in a hole. Plus they likely own the rights for life and for all manner of foreign distribution, film, etc.

      It’s lovely for the author that more monies are coming in and the company is behind the books. But the publisher is not doing this author a favor. It’s a business deal where they assumed they’d make a lot of bucks from the author’s labors. It’s not charity. And I would wager the author deserves a bigger slice of that pie.

    • A Tale of Two Mid-list Authors

      I happened to finish my first book May 2012, the same month the traditionally published author got her deal (I assume she finished writing it much earlier). I self-published June 2012. Looking at our Amazon rankings makes me think it’s a good comparison because neither of us is a big seller there (most of our ebook rankings are 100,000+…mine are much worse than hers at the moment). She says her ebook sales were dismal at first, and Amazon US accounts for less than 40% of my income. Here’s how our numbers compare for our first book: (sorry for the formatting)

      Profit AFTER expenses – Traditional
      2012 – 4250
      2013 – 2125
      2014 – 0
      2015 – 0
      2016 (accrued) – 100

      Total profit $6,475

      Profit AFTER expenses – Self-published
      2012 – 7012
      2013 – 4394
      2014 – 4962
      2015 – 4038
      2016 (accrued) – 700

      Total profit $21,106

      Her expenses are 15% to her agent ($1125 of the advance). It cost me $30 to publish that book- cover art- but let’s pretend I’m not a DIY-er with a photoshopping husband and I’d actually spent $600 to publish it. I still would have come out ahead that first year. I have spent $2800 since that first year on continued marketing expenses and an audiobook (already accounted for in the profit). I’ve gone full-time and have been able to publish 7 more books; she’s published 3 more (I’m slow!). Her publisher has pocketed $12,800 in profit assuming their expenses were similar to mine ($2800+600, and you know what they say about assuming especially since she sold more paperbacks), the author has pocketed $6475, and her agent has pocketed $1140.

      Am I comparing apples to oranges? Probably. And we really can’t know how she would have done indie, or even if she would want to (which is key). But we here at TPV/AE/HH fangirls only care about payments to authors and there is NO comparison. I am really happy being self-published and I know I could not be a full-time author today with the kind of publisher/author/agent split the traditional world offers.

  3. In psychology it’s called projection. The habitual liar assumes everyone else is lying, too.

    Anyone who has ever received a royalty statement from a trad publisher and questioned the source of the numbers will run into answers ranging from mealy-mouthed mumblings to outrage that a mere author would dare question authority. (I once had an editor scream at me for questioning figures in a royalty statement, and accuse me of being an ingrate.) I know for a fact that my experiences are from unusual.

    That’s why I think the AE detractors are so vociferous and suspicious of the numbers. They are projecting their own incompetence and/or dishonesty onto Hugh and DG.

    • Jaye,

      [The AE detractors] are projecting their own incompetence and/or dishonesty onto Hugh and DG.

      Very good. Had not thought of that.

      When I was running numbers for a living, I found it tedious and annoying that innumerates threw out criticisms that they expected me to take seriously; that is, “My ignorance is as good as your knowledge.” I chalked it up to relativism — the erroneous notion that all views are valid and worthy of equal consideration.

      (I once had the pleasure of presenting a critique of our method of determining the need for spares to two dozen statisticians who chimed in with their thoughts on the matter. It was a discussion of data gathering and analyses appropriate to the populations. Egos were left outside. Great meeting. Very productive.)

      I followed the Digital Arachnid thread with interest.

      “AE’s fatal flaw is so obvious and egregious that industry people conclude either DG was out sick the day they taught thinking, or it’s feel-good propaganda for sad folks.” –Lee Child

      I thought this statement to be both insulting and arrogant.

      When Mr Child later revealed his reason for opining that the AE report had a fatal flaw, I thought the criticism valid. If true. Aye, there’s the rub. Besides that, I realized that I did not have the data to refute it. Further, I realized that Mr Child did not have the data to substantiate his statement; it was a shot in the dark. Both of us were equally ignorant, but I knew someone had the data, and I waited for that someone to ring in.

      When Hugh Howey and Data Guy came to the party, the snark ended quickly. Mr Child entered only one comment after DG joined the fray and that was to disagree with DG. Immediately, Hugh Howey slapped down Mr Child: Actually, you have it completely backwards on how pre-orders work. They count every day, as pre-orders roll in, and there is no launch-day boost in rankings. Not on

      In my world, back in the day and still today, data trump ignorance. There is a correct view.

      I vetted AE’s first report. I was content with DG’s methods then, and I felt the results were reported reasonably well. The analyses apply only to Amazon sales. Because they are based on assumed numbers, they are only as valid as those assumptions. The results are useful for comparisons between groups — for example, Big5 versus Amazon pub versus small press — but any extrapolation beyond Amazon is inherently suspect. In the AE reports, precision is not the goal; comparison is.

      • Antares and Jaye bring up very good points. I am reminded of one of my father’s favorite quotes: It ain’t what you don’t know that hurts you, it’s what you know that ain’t so.

        Lee Child knows a lot of things about publishing, much more than I do. But he knows a few things that just aren’t true. That gets right at the heart of why the cries of bias by the legacy folks fall so flat. HH and DG approach this work from the perspective that they don’t know the truth and are trying to discover it. The legacy folks are convinced that their own view is the truth, therefore AE must be flawed, and all they need to do is find the flaws that invalidate AE’s work.

        The real insider criticism that we get from Lee Child is far more interesting to me than the nonsense from Porter Anderson and the rest of legacy punditocracy. I am very tempted to write up a line by line analysis of Child’s big reveal comment. Most of the strengths and weaknesses of the legacy system are on display in it.

      • I followed the Childs’ challenge carefully, and while his understanding of the way ranking works for pre-releases was flawed, I think his major point may stand.

        His contention was that outliers in the set of #1 ranked books led to an undercount of those books. If the #1 book is presumed to have X sales, and the outliers actually had 10X sales, then there is an undercount.

        For this to be true, a new release would have to be #1 on release day. If it isn’t, it isn’t an anomaly on release date.

        This can be tested by looking at rank on release day for bestselling authors.

        Alternatively, Howey and DG have answered the question, and I’m too dumb to realize it.

        • Terrence,

          If the #1 book is presumed to have X sales, and the outliers actually had 10X sales, then there is an undercount.

          With this statement, you struck to the heart of Mr Child’s criticism.

          My comprehension of the AE method is that precision in the count has never been the aim. The aim was, is, and shall be comparison of different paths to publication. If I am incorrect, I want Hugh Howey and Data Guy to tell me.

          Data Guy said he makes the assumption that X rank translates to Y sales. Based on my experience, it is okay to make an assumption, but you MUST validate that assumption each time you make it. Not just the first time. Every time. Why? Because things change. Assuming that Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban sold approximately the same number of units as Trigger Warning is an error that will propagate through the analyses to the results. That is why you have to validate every time. Without exception.

          So my only question to Data Guy is “Do you list and validate your assumptions with every report?”

          If yes, I’m satisfied but I would like to see the list and the validations.

          If no, I won’t bother reading AE reports.

          • There were a couple things Mr Child said that should worry you more than just DG’s numbers.

            In his claims Mr Child tried to say DG was missing 12 to 49 million ebook ‘pulse Tuesday’ sales — from a group that only reported 47.9 million ebook sales all together last year.

            So if DG was ‘missing’ that many sales the big5 could not be claiming ‘lower’ ebook sales and with Amazon claiming more ebooks sold than ever before.

            Amazon sold more ebooks, the big5 sold less — where might all those extra sales have come from? Not Mr Child it seems, unless of course his publisher is not telling him his actual sales numbers …

            • Allen,

              Mr Child tried to say DG was missing 12 to 49 million ebook ‘pulse Tuesday’ sales

              Mr Child’s statement did not worry me, because I dismissed it as puffery. Why should I worry about something that was a lie on the face of it?

              It has been suggested that Mr Child got this idea from his publisher. If true, that should worry Mr Child. They lied to him, and he believed their lie. So if they lied to him about those sales, did they also lie to him about his sales? Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus.

        • Hi, Terrence,

          Lee’s hypothesis was pretty much a three-parter:
          1. That Big Five preorders accumulate in a manner that is uncounted by AE prior to launch day
          2. That those uncounted preorders all “pile up” into the #1 ranking on that Tuesday launch day
          3. And therefore, on just those Tuesdays, the AE rank to sales prediction for just the #1 spot is off by 200,000 to 700,000

          A quick perusal of the Amazon bestseller lists is all it takes to confirm that the first part of Lee’s contention is wrong. It’s easy to find quite a few unreleased Big Five books riding high in the rankings already, because their preorder sales are getting counted daily in their rankings as those preorders roll in. In fact, in our January 10 dataset, 6.3% of ALL Big Five unit sales that AE measured and included in our Big Five pie wedges were those preorders of upcoming Tuesday releases — enough to account for roughly 120,000 of the hypothetical 200,000-700,000 weekly Tuesday Big Five preorders Lee thought AE might be missing.

          Let’s take a look at the second part of Lee’s contention: the data also shows it to be a nonstarter. Raw, Amazon-reported sales and ranking data AE obtained from both high- and low-selling authors who ran preorders shows that “double-bump” to be nonexistent. Any number of other indies who have run preorders, including some who have hit and held the #1 spot on Amazon, can also independently confirm that the second part of Lee’s contention is wrong. Preorders don’t get counted AGAIN in a book’s Amazon ranking on launch day.

          So what’s left?

          A weakened version of Lee’s part three is the only remaining piece to test. Why weakened? Because without those nonexistent uncounted preorders stacking up, the only thing left that could be skewing that #1 ranking on Tuesdays is a book’s actual, non-preorder launch-day sales.

          So let’s all do this. For the next quarter, let’s watch the “big” BPH releases over the next quarter, and see how fast they drop from #1 to #2.

          I think that’ll tell us the whole story, right there. 🙂

  4. Hugh is *totally* biased against whales and their math, which is really strange coming from a guy in a boat. What did the whales ever do to you, Hugh? 😀

    • I’ve been trying for ages to write an absurdist story that features a whale. I think I’m simply going to HAVE to name it Whale Math and throw something in the story that gives me a reason to do so.

      • @ Meryl

        LOL. Just remember that WhaleMath™ has that little “TM’ at the end! 😉

        • I thought about it, but it won’t need it in the story title. Which is definitely going to be the title now. Maybe the rest of the story will finally come out of that part of my brain that’s been hiding it. I love the concept, but haven’t been able to figure out the why of it. Can’t write a story if I don’t know what it means.

  5. Hugh wrote: ” They don’t seem to care about books, how they are written, how they are read. They only care about how both of these parties can be squeezed in the middle and profited from. How can publishers make the most off the efforts of artists? And how can retailers take advantage of readers? There’s no other way to understand their biases than this.”

    That, in spades.

    If authors who have not yet been pub’d and are trying to grab the brass ring only could overhear how they are spoken about by many many in publishing, they would hie for the hills and go indie, for several reasons, one to hold to their own dignity. Id add that publishers worldwide, including our many dozens of publishers, are, I am afraid, same and similar … but often are, in our experience, far more gracious in contracts.

  6. They don’t seem to care about books, how they are written, how they are read. They only care about how both of these parties can be squeezed in the middle and profited from.

    Of course. That’s how most business works.

    Consumer behavior indicates their satisfaction level. If consumers are buying the goods, that is an indication the supplier is meeting their needs. If they don’t buy, then their needs are not being met. Since no good satisfies everyone, consumers seek out their own satisfaction from a wide variety of available goods.

    Producers have to pay attention to consumers so those consumers will gve them money for their goods.

  7. I’m an indie author. When am I going to strike it rich? My books only sell (very few) if I market like crazy online. So much so that I stop writing, and just promo to death. Once I stop promoting, zero sales. Annoying. Lol

    • If you’re spending time and money on promotions, stop doing it. Dedicate yourself to writing. It’s a way of life. Bide your time. Your day will come. And don’t confuse making a living with striking it rich.

      Writing is for writers, not for people who want to get rich.

      Keep reading this blog, lots to learn here. Good luck!

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.