Forbes ASAP: In Your Face

From Forbes ASAP Magazine - April-June 1995

From pie to sky, the natural evolution of downsizing to looking to the future (plus some nasty mail) has refocused my efforts on how and when to deploy information technology for the big win. Appropriately so, my new moniker is In Your Face, based on the simple theorem that technology is rapidly moving from a back office restructurer to a front office tool.

How does your company acquire customers? How does your company interface with those customers once you have them. How does your company keep those customers?

You’re probably stuck in the ‘80’s. You have a large sales staff (no cologne jokes anymore)? Big marketing budget? Big ad budget? A telemarketing organization? All those are fine if not a little old fashion. It doesn’t matter if you are selling business to business or directly to consumers, what you want to be is in your customer’s face. More than just “attention K-Mart shoppers,” or “y’all come back soon, y’hear.” I mean in their face with influence peddling stuff. In my mind, that spells V-I-D-E-O, which proves itself again and again as a sales tool. It’s delivering that video that is difficult, expensive, and inefficient. But alas, technology can not only help, but offers a cost effective solution to get and keep customers.

To understand that, let’s study the mass media model. 

When it comes to media, it's all a matter of perspective. From a broadcasters point of view, television is the sacred medium for news and entertainment, embodied in the concept of public trust. On the other hand, from the computer industry view, video is just a rich data type to handle. From the markets view, (vendors and advertisers) TV is just a slick medium for selling soap. Or toothpaste or cars or whatever. As an investor, I will take this final view to determine the economic model that will help proliferate interactive video.

Come to think of it, ALL media (TV, radio, newspapers, magazines) are just platforms for selling. Medium that are not platforms for selling (movies, books, theater) are sold themselves. Even movies which for the longest time made sense on a pay per view basis (theater, cable, video rental), are increasingly merchandising selling tools. It is now obvious that the medium is not the McLuhan-esque message, instead, the medium is the market.

I am convinced more than ever that interactive video is real and the next major growth market for technology, media and communications. It is still confusing what the economic and business model will be to stimulate and proliferate IV. I am about to take a cut at it, here it comes, boiled down to one memorable phrase: 

Interactive video will be the teaser that sucks customers into the virtual market place.

In other words, it's gonna sell soap.

Broadcast TV bombards us with images and concepts to implant brands in our brains, charging on a cost per thousand, CPM, basis. When we do finally go to the market, we impulsively grab for that brand. IV, on the other hand, is impulsive in its own right, and has the ability to close the sale on-line. IV is the transaction facilitator. Slam the gavel. Sold to the man with his finger on the mouse.

The more things change, the more they stay the same: EPILIT

Why do you watch TV? To be entertained and/or access perishable information like the news, weather or sports scores. We accept the advertising/branding process in exchange for the free programming.

Why do you read the newspaper? To access perishable information like news, and to be editorialized. Editorials on politics, but also movie reviews, restaurant reviews, etc. We glance as ads in exchange for a cheap paper.

Why do you read magazines? The weeklies are just upscale newspapers, so the catch is the same. The narrowcast mags are read for editorial (product reviews), information (topical announcements) and maybe even entertainment. The ads are slicker, and harder to miss.

You may actually watch/read for the ads, but if that's the case the ads are very often full of information and editorial (although certainly biased views). AT&T actually tells you how to dial the phone (1+0+ATT+0).

Unfortunately, the medium for these indirect markets (maybe better thought of as influence markets) are broadcast only. The transaction is elsewhere.

I call this (since life is full of acronyms, I figured I would add another), EPILIT, Editorial (or entertainment) and Perishable Information Leading Indirectly to a Transaction.

Interactive video is two way by definition, and thus the potential for on-line markets. Interactive video can provide entertainment, perishable information, editorial, basically all the basic features of traditional medium. The difference, and oh what a difference, is that advertising can not only be narrowcast and therefore direct its influence at likely purchasers, but can stimulate and facilitate an impulse transaction. I want it and I want it now. 

There are two advertisers dreams here:

1. the ability to narrowcast, thus lowering the CPM, or cost per thousand to reach the intended market

2. impulse facilitation

Don't get me wrong, I'm not so naive to suggest we will all be ordering soap on line, but instead, higher priced or value added goods and services have the potential to be peddled in this new virtual market place, again the economic model will dictate what can be sold on line. 

Markets already on line

 stocks, bonds and currency (Reuters, Dow Jones)

 airline reservations (Sabre, Jaguar)

Markets close to being on line

 catalogs (BeanBauer etc.)

 mail order PCs (Dell, Gateway)

 home shopping channels (QVC, Home Shopping Network)

This is not another piece pitching the Internet as a direct marketers dream, far from it. Nor am I suggesting that slapping video on a server solves provides instant productivity. Instead, I’m trying to stimulate some thoughts on how best to deploy video and information technology dollars productively, to get and keep real, revenue producing customers. Next time, a look at what to put in your customer’s face leverage their impulse nature and influence their transactions.

The medium is the market

 Last time we looked at interactive video

 On line securities trading and even airline reservations make economic sense, dollar volumes are high enough to justify the expense of the on-line system. There are at most 100,000 trading screens in the world, and maybe 200,000 airline reservation terminals. The person in front of the screen is a professional, an agent for those requiring the transaction, thus the systems are focused on the transaction itself, not getting people in front of the screen.

 media/information/transaction

1. suck customer in

2. get information

3. link participants

4. facilitate transaction collecting fees from both parties

5. use information gathered to attract next customers

 Media, in the trading case is stock and bond quotes which pull users into the system. Information about existing trading keeps them there. Once on line, the system links participants and facilitates the transaction. Then, the information from that transaction is fed back in to the system and provided as information to help link the next set of participants, etc.

 In TV-land, this is all indirect. The media side is obvious, news, sports and sitcoms, peppered with ads. Ratings determine (on a sampled basis) who is watching what show and how often, Participants are linked later (go to the drugstore for toothpaste) and the transaction is facilitated. That creates sales data, which is coupled with focus groups to determine the effectiveness of the advertising.

 As I'll show next, on-line, the linking and feedback loops are instantaneous giving advertisers justification for their costs.

 The commercial, mainstream transaction systems must find a way get eyeballs in front of their screens. This is exactly where programming(TV) meets programming(computer). I again call it EPILIT. This time, however, it stands for Editorial (or entertainment) and Perishable Information Leading to an Impulse Transaction. Interactive facilitates impulse.

 EPILIT with the last I standing for impulse does exist today, although carrying through on the impulse is still a hassle. 800 numbers are the classic impulse, read an ad, watch an infomercial (CherHairCare) and then rush to the phone and call to fulfill your impulsiveness. The phone call can be for more information, but increasingly it is to order a product or service. (Who in the NY area can ever forget, Gimbel's custom reupholstery "call Murray Hill seven, oh seven hundred, operators are standing by, call NOW!!" ) The 227 catalogs that arrive in your mail box are designed for impulse purchases, facilitated by an 800 number and a

 QVC and Home Shopping Network turned this into a 24 hour a day cable channel which to many is a form of entertainment. Maybe more importantly, the gem that Barry Diller and his partners Liberty Media and Comcast have bought into is an automated back end that eases and automates the transaction once the phone call is made. The majority of calls are answered by machines, which prompt for the callers membership number and the rest of the information is already on line.

 Canal Plus in

Europe

uses EPILIT to sell pay TV. They offer free programming for a few hours a day, with lots of promos for pay movies and events on their channel. Then the movie starts, and after 5 minutes, unless you had called up in advance, the signal becomes scrambled. Folks at Canal Plus speak highly of another type of scrambling, to the phone, to call up and order the movie, very often in progress. My point is that free programming leads to impulsive purchases.

 
Putting the impulse into catalogs

 
Let's take a look at the $50 billion catalog business, which is dangerously close to being digital and on line already. If you are a product company, chances are there already exists a catalog, maybe its for internal use only, but somewhere are great descriptions of your products. If you are a service company, I’ll get to you soon enough (next issue OK?)

 The L.L. Bean catalog arrives in the mail (two terribly analog parts, a paper catalog and a snappily dressed government employee delivery). You scan through the pages, a very interactive exercise. You are most likely prompted to flip through the catalog because you are predisposed to purchase something in the first place, I'll get back to this. You find something you like. Impulsively, you dial the 800 number (now we are starting to get digital!). A friendly voice at the other end walks you through the transaction, entering information into a PC, asking where to deliver the goods (via heavily digitized Fed Ex or UPS) and how to charge you (financial services and credit card transactions are a completely digital system). You may also receive notice of items out of stock, maybe even specials not in the catalog.

 The trick is cutting out the analog pieces, and in effect, tie the digital version of the catalog, (before its printed), and the digital back end, (order entry, delivery and finance), directly to the customers PC. I’m not talking about a consumer sitting at home, but a customer sitting at a desktop PC.

 If you think this is hard to implement, think again. Existing on-line services, from

America

On-Line to Compuserve can facilitate these transactions. So can your own internal MIS department, using your internal machines connected to the Internet, for example. Still not convinced, Microsoft’s new on-line service appears structured specifically to connect businesses to their customers.

 As you can see, video (albeit computer generated and interactive) will merely expand its existing usage...selling.

 Next, we’ll look at the economic model behind In Your Face.

 

 In the last two columns, I have tried to define a new media influenced business model for the burgeoning interactive media market, one based on the notion of EPILIT, or entertainment and perishable information leading to an impulse transaction. While this is a natural extension of the classic influence peddling magazine and television advertising models, the economics couldn’t be more different. While traditional media, which influence transactions, maybe even stimulate them, do it indirectly, you must go to a store to fulfill your desires. Thus the economic model for advertising is based on how many eyeballs or impressions are created, and typically vendors will pay 1/10th of a cent for each pair of eyeballs (they usually come in two’s) impressed with their message. Since no one but stock brokers deal in fractions anymore, the common fees are calculate in cost per thousands, or CPM (roman influence here), and a buck is a good central number per thousand.

 Since interactive media is based on a network of compute devices, impressions are relatively meaningless, since they will pale in comparison to mass media for quite some time. The worse watched show on the big three networks has 10 million viewers in a half and hour. The best Web site on the internet has 1 million hits per day, and that may be overcounting users by one or two orders of magnitute.

 Thus the economic model for interactive media is not mass advertising, but direct advertising. On its own, without the help of a technology driven media, direct advertising has steadily grown in overall advertising market share. My guess is that what is now close to a third will be the dominant for of advertising as new technology driven media are created over the next 3-5 years.

 So let’s study the direct advertising economics. First, direct advertising is a name much like sanitation engineering, the real direct market is mostly known as junk mail. Having said that, the best description is by example. Years ago, a gentleman came to my office with the intent on learning what technology can offer. He pumped me for 15 minutes or so on the virtues of PCs and CD-ROMs, with the main questions centered on what he could learn about the user of these products, specifically if he could discern a users preferences or tastes or even choices by how they used the PC, what they clicked on , etc. My response made him happy, as I suggested that a correctly set up application can leave a paper trail (or mouse droppings as I like to think about it) of every choice made during the programs use. He said thanks, and then got up to leave.

 “Whoa, sit down, its my term to ask a few questions now, first off, who the heck are you and why do you want to know all this stuff?” He proceeded to explain, which I later correctly verified, that he invented affinity credit cards, the ones with corporate logos or airline frequent flier mile tie ins, etc. 

 

In

Your Face - Part III

In the last two columns, I have tried to define a new media influenced business model for the burgeoning interactive media market, one based on the notion of EPILIT, or entertainment and perishable information leading to an impulse transaction. While this is a natural extension of the classic influence peddling magazine and television advertising models, the economics couldn’t be more different. While traditional media, which influence transactions, maybe even stimulate them, do it indirectly, you must go to a store to fulfill your desires. Thus the economic model for advertising is based on how many eyeballs or impressions are created, and typically vendors will pay 1/10th of a cent for each pair of eyeballs (they usually come in two’s) impressed with their message. Since no one but stock brokers deal in fractions anymore, the common fees are calculate in cost per thousands, or CPM (roman influence here), and a buck is a good central number per thousand.Since interactive media is based on a network of compute devices, impressions are relatively meaningless, since they will pale in comparison to mass media for quite some time. The worse watched show on the big three networks has 10 million viewers in a half and hour. The best Web site on the internet has 1 million hits per day, and that may be overcounting users by one or two orders of magnitute.Thus the economic model for interactive media is not mass advertising, but direct advertising. On its own, without the help of a technology driven media, direct advertising has steadily grown in overall advertising market share. My guess is that what is now close to a third will be the dominant for of advertising as new technology driven media are created over the next 3-5 years.So let’s study the direct advertising economics. First, direct advertising is a name much like sanitation engineering, the real direct market is mostly known as junk mail. Having said that, the best description is by example. Years ago, a gentleman came to my office with the intent on learning what technology can offer. He pumped me for 15 minutes or so on the virtues of PCs and CD-ROMs, with the main questions centered on what he could learn about the user of these products, specifically if he could discern a users preferences or tastes or even choices by how they used the PC, what they clicked on , etc. My response made him happy, as I suggested that a correctly set up application can leave a paper trail (or mouse droppings as I like to think about it) of every choice made during the programs use. He said thanks, and then got up to leave.“Whoa, sit down, its my term to ask a few questions now, first off, who the heck are you and why do you want to know all this stuff?” He proceeded to explain, which I later correctly verified, that he invented affinity credit cards, the ones with corporate logos or airline frequent flier mile tie ins, etc. Turns out this gentleman was in the junk mail business, which he went on to explain is driven not by CPM, but by hit rates. The typical $400 cost per thousand mailings, would break even if 2% or 20 of the receivers bought a product with a $20 net profit. Any higher hit rate than 2% and you are into some serious money. The more you know about the potential customer, the more you can focus the mailings to help bump up the hit rate. This is why companies buy mailing lists. So to make a long story short, this guy went to a credit card company and asked if he could get a better rate for a large group, and if he could get the groups logo on the credit card. Hearing yes, he then went to the Teacher’s

Union

, and horse traded the ability to get their logo on a card in exchange for an up to date membership list. He then spent his own money and sent out tens of thousands of offers, figuring instead of the typical 2% hit rate, he would see 3 or even 4%. The actual number was closer to 30%, and that was it, he retired.Back to interactive media, networked PCs provides two benefits to a direct marketing approach. First, the media cost can be a lot lower than $400 per thousand, it’s just bits being shippped around, after all, lowering the break even hit rate. More importantly, by carefully analysing users click trail, my so called mouse droppings, a direct marketing program can be very tightly focused on users with a propensity to buy a specific product, therefore raising the potential hit rate. Lower costs, higher productivity, means being able to price goods and services below others, raising the potential hit rate even further. This is the business model that will drive interactive media’s rollout. Don’t be spooked by the thought of electronic junk mail overtaking our lives, quite the contrary. Go back to the EPILIT model, which says that it is clever programming and information access that pulls customers into the medium, its just the payoff and economics are a lot different than the current mass media model.And don’t think its toothepaste or razors that will be sold. History shows that new products and services are created to take advantage of a new mediums selling power. Nike probably doesn’t exist without television, nor do half the brands at P&G. Look for a whole new set of companies to arise who understand the power of this new medium, and its ability to sell directly, whether it be cars or car insurance, the economics will drive what is in your face.Al runs the general store on

Main Street

, took over the business from the old man, Big Al. Like his dad, he didn’t understand technology beyond refrigeration, didn’t like it, and figured it didn’t affect his life. This computer stuff was for kids.Al didn’t know what hit him when WalMart moved to town. He wrote editorials in the local paper on predatory pricing by big bad Sam Walton, but in reality, he got nailed by a technology oiled distribution system. And you, no matter what business you are in, are about to be nailed by the next wave of distribution upheavel.Commerce has always been a one to one experience. Buy my wares, try on my suit, let me paint your house, eat my tastefully prepared cheeseburger. Oh yeah, and have a nice day.

 The advent of the mass media has changed all that, from a local one to one experience to a one to many. Michael Jordan suggests your sneakers, not the funny guy in the referee costume at the Foot Locker. 

 Tehnology has a funny way of turning things upside down, and inside out. No one believes the 1984 big brother scenario anymore, the centralized power controlling all compute cycles. Distributed PCs have taken care of that and created little cousins vs big brother. We are all related when interconnected. But it is exactly that installed base of 100 million or more PCs, networkable (able, but not yet networked) that form the basis of a new distribution system.

 Technology has permanently transformed the landscape of business. Up until now, it has all been “inside” companies. First, the back office was automated with mainframes and minicomputers, removing legions of clerks and low skilled workers, allowing pricing leverage on products and services. Now, front office white collar tasks are being automated via desktop computers, local area networks and client-server applications, at the expense of middle level, do nothing management. This has caused major eruptions in the financial service, insurance, even legal industries.

 That is all child’s play compared to what is about to take place as video moves onto a compute platform. More than the corner grocery store will be affected. The explosion of demand, the sales productivity from disintermediation and major corporate restructuring will redistribute wealth to those with the vision of how to harness this technological transformation. Those with the vision of using technology to acquire customers, not just service them will be the elite of tomorrow.

 Video on computers, on-line networks and the Internet fabric are all combining to create a new interactive medium, one that transforms how businesses deal with each other, or how businesses actually reach consumers. Compute based video is finally real in 1995. Go buy a copy of the CD-ROM “The 11th Hour” from Trilobyte. Besides a great game, you will see full screen, full motion video coming off of your average PC, yeah, that same PC that last week only played postage stamp size video. Software is a wonderful thing. 

 This breakthrough is critical because for interactive media to take hold, the key ingredient is video. Why? Because video sells. It sells cars, toothpaste and disposable douches. A $120 billion advertising industry exists to influence purchases by getting in consumers faces. The natural progression of print, radio, then TV; an interactive medium is next. Not just toys for geeks, it is clear the professionals on Madison Avenue are coming. The sheer power of influencial video selling and network computing form an unstoppable combination that will be IN YOUR FACE, and have you reaching for your wallet in nanoseconds. 

 
Old view (circa 1993): Multimedia or interactive media is about CD-ROM publishing, video on deman, interactive encyclopedias, data superhighways, broadband full service networks, home shopping, new video game standards,..., ad naseum. In other words, multimedia is an adjective that gets attached to just about anything and everything to increase its value to either raise capital (3DO, Broadband, Starsight Telecast, Time Warner) or to sell outright (TCI).

 
New view (circa 1996-7): Interactive media is an evolutionary form of traditional media (TV, radio, newspaper, magazine, yellow pages) that derives its revenues not from branded advertising, but direct advertising. Traditional media is about entertainment, editorial and perishable information sucking in eyeballs, facilitating a branding process to sell goods and services. The sale is done in the media, the transaction takes place elsewhere, in retail shops, restaurants, bars, auto dealers, over phone lines, etc. The economics of traditional media are based on cost per thousand impressions, the more impressions, the more money the medium makes. Note, with maturity, it has been the media players that makes most of the money, not the provider of entertainment, editorial, etc.

Interactive media begins to fill the same role, providing entertainment, editorial, and perishable information, yet because the medium is interactive, can facilitate an impulse transaction, and thus the economics are very different. Revenues are based on costs per sale, impressions don't count unless they create a sale.

The limited view that interactive media affects traditional media is wrong, instead its effects will be felt in traditional goods and service distribution channels, as interactive media is looked on as a distribution channel. The analogy is that catalogs affected retail, not magazines.

Wall Street will do tumbersaults in the next several years when they figure this out, after than the dust will settle. New companies will emerge that create interactive media channels. Developers, service companies and enabling technology companies will all prosper, with huge multiples on real earnings, not hoped for earnings. As importantly, Wall Street will focus on existing industries, retail, insurance, auto, any and all consumer durable and non-durable on how they prosper/faulter with the existance of new lower costs means of distribution. Either you take advantage of the new media, or you fight it, unfortunately, the real answer won't be known until the dust settles, much as the mainframe/PC confusion took years to settle. Fortunes were made and lost in the mainframe/PC argument, but it was more than technology companies that won or lost market share, real businesses made good and bad decisions that affected their 10 year performance, not just quarterly earnings, Walmart the obvious winner in a "loser" industries.

 

 

 

In Your Face - The Final Edition

So In Your Face, the idea of digital networks as a marketing and distribution medium, is starting to crawl under your skin. Don’t fret, it’s not all bad. Certainly the availability of a digital technology in the form of 100’s of millions of PC forming a new distribution channel, conveniently placed in the hands of professional marketers with a profit motive is scary. Heck, commercial television is In Your Face enough, who needs this stuff invading your computer screens. Turns out there may be some pretty interesting consumer benefits that should not be overlooked.

Subsidization - Today, our video entertainment is free, or close to free on television. Consumers merely pay a premium for early access to high budget items like feature films or prize fights. Everything is eventually available gratis over network television. It may take years, but if there is demand, it will attract advertising and hence subsidization for free access to consumers. The same scenario is bound to play out on digital networks, with high value items available for a fee, but items of lower entertainment value, or even better perishible information like weather, sports scores available in a digital medium for free or near free, with sponsorship. My view is that sponsor ship will be in the form of direct marketing, that is, pull you into a site with the intent of closing a transaction, as you’ll see in a second, the programming to pull you in will be as or more important than the price of the transaction.

Volume discounts - The computer industry has already taken advantage of advances in consumer electronics. The video monitor is an obvious beneficiary of 50 years of TV production. CD-ROM players benefited from the volumes of audio CD players sold. CD-ROMs themselves are manufacturable for $0.65 each at the same plants that crank out million selling Paula Abdul albums. With 100 million networked PCs in sight, I think consumers will see the benefit of computer and digital communications in “real life.” As data communications drives higher volumes on fiber optic links, even regulated tariffs can come down quicker with more revenue to offset a rather fixed, er static, fixed cost infrastructure. Already, consumer devices like phone answering machines are cheaper based on semiconductor advances. What the real benefit may be is the lower distribution costs of goods and services to consumers, and the inevitable passing along of these lower costs to consumers. Budweiser won’t get cheaper because you still have to haul kegs to bars, but if I can get access to life insurace without the multiple markups through an agent channel, or sweaters without a retailers markup, my price as a consumer is bound to drop. Catalogers started this trend, but still have high physical costs, paper and postage, that go away in a digital medium. Economists all laugh, but the lowering of inflation or outright deflation at the consumer level of a large networked economy is tough to analyse but means great things for all players.

Perfect information - Unlike the 3 or 4 television networks, or 1 or 2 local newspapers, a digital media, especially one that is Internet based is as big and distributed and multifaceted as the last computer that attaches itself to it. Thus there is the ability for consumers to generate perfect information. Search engines, Web crawlers that visit any site, or even the elusive intelligent agent technology can easily gather as much information as is stored on networks. Pricing information, as an example, is always up to date, and on-line markets quicky adjust to the most desirable price. For example, if ten companies are on the Internet selling best selling books, if one charges more than the others, his sales will certainly deteriorate as customers shop for the best price. In this case, shopping does not necessarily mean browsing through all ten sites and picking the best price, but sending a relatively simple piece of software out to poll all the sites and report back. This perfect information means that competition will be based on other factors.

Increasingly sophisticated visuals - Today, on-line networks offer text and graphics, and just the smallest amount of audio and lousy video. Certainly no match for network televisions televisual appeal. While this will change over time, the truth is that compute platforms are not very good at video, which is large amounts of dumb data, and computations needed to compress or decompress this stream of bits. Computers are actually better at creating imagery, with the ability to do lots of computations in a small amount of time, and manipulate these graphics images. Even more interestingly, these images can be even higher resolution than broadcast TV. Computer graphics of 640 by 480 pixels (VGA) blows away the best and most expensive TV images. 

So what is funny is that the biggest users of digital imagery today is not computer delivered product, but is commercial television. I should correct that, its commercials for television, not so much broadcast. Brandon Tartikoff, long time NBC programmer and now at the helm of New World Communcations, laments that programming for TV is still stuck in the 70’s, in terms of technical innovation, while commercials have advanced into the ‘90’s.

I would venture that close to 90% of commercials today use digital techniques to enhance their message. It can be as simple as flying logos, to as complex as Paula Abdul dancing with Gene Kelly or Shell gas pumps that dance (couldn’t get on Paula’s dance card). The benefit of all this is that lots of talent is already working in digital media, and those people, databases, engines and techniques are much easier to transfer to a networked medium than sitcoms. Tony the Tiger in digital form can pitch cereal on TV, and pitch baseballs on computers. The data is the same.

Just as TV is not all bad, just watch a little PBS why doncha. Networks of computers will form a powerful medium for profit, but some good will emerge as well. The Internet do-goodies living off of university grants who are offended that “their safe haven” is being commercialized, are already seeing free access disappearing, and should look forward to a day of much cheaper access. In addition, we as consumers MAY benefit from access to near perfect information, when we aren’t hypnotically entranced by ever sophisticated In Your Face visuals. If you’re not careful, it’s during this hypnosis that your wallet will be picked, but you’ll have a smile on our face. Don’t say that I did not warn you.

 

 

Comments

[Louboutin Pumps]

Christian Louboutin e YSL porta causa di nuovo guardare indietro. In realtà, Prada o Steve Madden, ogni produttore può produrre scarpe con la suola rossa.