Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
P6 OFF the field - TV ratings
Author Message
slhNavy91 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,835
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 1597
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #1
P6 OFF the field - TV ratings
Football viewership. I went through the data from http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/ for regular season and conference championship games (not bowl games/CFP). For each conference, I looked at: viewers in all games involving conference teams (and per game average); viewers of conference controlled games (and per game average); viewers of intra-conference games (and per game average).

The AAC gets 12-24% of SEC/BIG10 viewership (up to 37.1% avg per rated game)
The AAC gets 21-31% of ACC viewership (up to 44% avg per rated game)
The AAC gets 27-47% of BigXII/PAC viewers over the season - as much as 62% for per game averages.

Conversely, G4 viewers of intra-conference games are 4-31% of AAC intra-conference games (higher for avg per rated game, but best G4 intra-conference per game average is 56.6% of AAC). G4s have 10-36% of AAC's viewers for all games (24-58% avg per rated game).

As a reminder, AAC Power 6 is not/not an assertion that the AAC is the equivalent of the SEC or Big10 today. P6 is an information campaign with the assertion that the AAC is closer to the five conferences ahead of us than the four behind us. The strategic goal of this information campaign is to improve the American and its members' chances of being on the right side of the next great shakeup in the college sports -- specifically college football -- landscape. The AAC's next media rights deal will be an interim objective, or an indicator of progress, for this campaign - it is neither the endstate nor a pre-requisite for P6.
Nor do we need to transform into the SEC overnight to achieve the strategic goal: we need to keep the five contract-bowl-conferences from separating from us, while at the same time separating from the other four.

Data for all games (avg per game); conference-controlled (apg); and conference games (apg).
SEC: 199,484,000 (3.2million); 166,916,000 (3.0 million); 138,767,000 (3.55million)
BIG10: 180,615,000 (2.86million); 156,679,000 (3.0million); 130,993,000 (3.27million)
ACC: 139,553,000 (2.4million); 117,703,000 (2.4million); 68,952,000 (2.0 million)
PAC12: 95,254,000 (1.76million); 85,907,000 (1.79million); 61,091,000 (1.65million)
BIG12: 93,660,000(1.7million); 72,583,000 (1.58million); 59,455,000(1.6million)
AAC: 40,675,000(.992million); 21,866,000(.729million); 17,044,000 (.631million)

MWC: 16,031,000(.616million); 7,724,000(.406million); 5,357,000 (.357million)
MAC: 10,467,000(.455million); 3,745,000 (.234million); 3,550,000 (.237million)
SBC: 5,209,000 (.401million); 2,280,000 (.253million); 1,314,000 (.164million)
CUSA:4,519,000 (.251 million); 2,657,000 (.177million); 717,000 (.071 million)

AAC's percentage of SEC: 22.3% (33.25%); 15.4% (27.7%); 12.2% (17.7%)
AAC's percentage of BIG10: 24.65% (37.1%); 16.4% (27.7%); 13% (19.3%)
AAC's percentage of ACC: 31.9% (44.2%); 21.8% (34.5%); 24.8% (31.6%)
AAC's percentage of PAC12: 46.7% (60%); 29.9% (46.3%); 27.8% (38.2%)
AAC's percentages of BIG12: 47.5% (62.3%); 35.4% (52.5%); 28.7% (39.4%)

MWC's percentage of AAC: 36% (58.1%); 30.0% (48.9%); 31.4% (56.6%)
MAC's percentage of AAC: 23.5% (42.9%); 14.6% (28.2%); 20.8% (37.5%)
SBC's percentage of AAC: 11.7% (37.8%); 8.9% (30.5%); 7.7% (26.0%)
CUSA's percentage of AAC: 10.1% (23.7%) 10.3% (21.3%); 4.2% (11.4%)

EDITED 05August2018 - in looking at my spreadsheet for another conversation, I realized that I omitted TxTech @ Houston in the AAC numbers. It was a reverse mirror game w an ACC game, but lists at 3.850 million viewers. I have changed the AAC numbers and the "all games" and ""conference-controlled games" percentages in this first post and I'll reply to/change the last post in the thread.
(This post was last modified: 08-05-2018 05:56 PM by slhNavy91.)
07-10-2018 03:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


NBPirate Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,704
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 188
I Root For: Georgetown
Location: The Hilltop
Post: #2
RE: P6 OFF the field
So if we used strictly viewership numbers, we should be getting exactly half of what the B12 gets. I could live with that.
07-10-2018 03:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,835
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 1597
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #3
RE: P6 OFF the field
(07-10-2018 03:38 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  So if we used strictly viewership numbers, we should be getting exactly half of what the B12 gets. I could live with that.

30-40% of B12/PAC12 is safe enough to use as big-hand-small-map figure.
07-10-2018 03:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Knights_of_UCF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,980
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 88
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #4
RE: P6 OFF the field
great data collection. Really puts into detail how far behind lower tier conferences like MWC, Sun Belt, and MAC are.
07-10-2018 04:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,835
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 1597
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #5
RE: P6 OFF the field
And there is plenty more off the field to show closer to the five ahead than to the four behind.
Budgets with the USA Today annual story coming out.
Attendance.
Recruiting.
Heck, this ratings info doesn't even get into the value of basketball.

So many categories where MAYBE one or two G4s could slide into the top half of the AAC, but the G4 fans will say "Oh, we're all the same. If you're better it's only a little. And it's all cyclical." Nope. Nope. And nope.
07-10-2018 04:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ned Low Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,053
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 179
I Root For: ECU
Location: Durham, NC
Post: #6
RE: P6 OFF the field
(07-10-2018 03:38 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  So if we used strictly viewership numbers, we should be getting exactly half of what the B12 gets. I could live with that.

I would be very happy with half of what the PAC12 gets. That would roughly equal $15.1 million per all-sports school... and likly a ton for Navy and Witchita State as well.
07-10-2018 05:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Tiger1983 Offline
BBA
*

Posts: 35,125
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: Tigers - GTG!
Location: The enemy’s lair

DonatorsDonatorsDonators
Post: #7
RE: P6 OFF the field
Nice work! 04-clap2
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2018 06:06 PM by Tiger1983.)
07-10-2018 06:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalJuan Offline
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 6,899
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 517
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeach
Post: #8
RE: P6 OFF the field
(07-10-2018 03:41 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(07-10-2018 03:38 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  So if we used strictly viewership numbers, we should be getting exactly half of what the B12 gets. I could live with that.

30-40% of B12/PAC12 is safe enough to use as big-hand-small-map figure.

The "all games" figure skews things a bit. Intra-conference is where you can compare apples to apples. We average 29.26% of the other conferences when we're playing AAC vs AAC. But yeah, about 38% of PAC12, and 39% of B12.
07-10-2018 06:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
glay83 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 69
Joined: Jan 2018
Reputation: 3
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #9
RE: P6 OFF the field
(07-10-2018 03:36 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Football viewership. I went through the data from http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/ for regular season and conference championship games (not bowl games/CFP). For each conference, I looked at: viewers in all games involving conference teams (and per game average); viewers of conference controlled games (and per game average); viewers of intra-conference games (and per game average).

The AAC gets 12-22% of SEC/BIG10 viewership (up to 34.6% avg per rated game)
The AAC gets 18-29% of ACC viewership (up to 41% avg per rated game)
The AAC gets 25-43% of BigXII/PAC viewers over the season - as much as 58% for per game averages.

Conversely, G4 viewers of intra-conference games are 4-31% of AAC intra-conference games (higher for avg per rated game, but best G4 intra-conference per game average is 56.6% of AAC). G4s have 11-39% of AAC's viewers for all games (25-62% avg per rated game).

As a reminder, AAC Power 6 is not/not an assertion that the AAC is the equivalent of the SEC or Big10 today. P6 is an information campaign with the assertion that the AAC is closer to the five conferences ahead of us than the four behind us. The strategic goal of this information campaign is to improve the American and its members' chances of being on the right side of the next great shakeup in the college sports -- specifically college football -- landscape. The AAC's next media rights deal will be an interim objective, or an indicator of progress, for this campaign - it is neither the endstate nor a pre-requisite for P6.
Nor do we need to transform into the SEC overnight to achieve the strategic goal: we need to keep the five contract-bowl-conferences from separating from us, while at the same time separating from the other four.

Data for all games (avg per game); conference-controlled (apg); and conference games (apg).
SEC: 199,484,000 (3.2million); 166,916,000 (3.0 million); 138,767,000 (3.55million)
BIG10: 180,615,000 (2.86million); 156,679,000 (3.0million); 130,993,000 (3.27million)
ACC: 139,553,000 (2.4million); 117,703,000 (2.4million); 68,952,000 (2.0 million)
PAC12: 95,254,000 (1.76million); 85,907,000 (1.79million); 61,091,000 (1.65million)
BIG12: 93,660,000(1.7million); 72,583,000 (1.58million); 59,455,000(1.6million)
AAC: 40,675,000(.992million); 21,866,000(.729million); 17,044,000 (.631million)

MWC: 16,031,000(.616million); 7,724,000(.406million); 5,357,000 (.357million)
MAC: 10,467,000(.455million); 3,745,000 (.234million); 3,550,000 (.237million)
SBC: 5,209,000 (.401million); 2,280,000 (.253million); 1,314,000 (.164million)
CUSA:4,519,000 (.251 million); 2,657,000 (.177million); 717,000 (.071 million)

AAC's percentage of SEC: 20.3% (31%); 13.1% (24.3%); 12.2% (17.7%)
AAC's percentage of BIG10: 22.5% (34.6%); 13.9% (24.2%); 13% (19.3%)
AAC's percentage of ACC: 29.1% (41.3%); 18.5% (30.1%); 24.8% (31.6%)
AAC's percentage of PAC12: 42.7% (56.3%); 25.4% (40.7%); 27.8% (38.2%)
AAC's percentages of BIG12: 43.4% (58.3%); 30.1% (46.1%); 28.7% (39.4%)

MWC's percentage of AAC: 39.4% (62%); 35.3 (55.7%); 31.4% (56.6%)
MAC's percentage of AAC: 25.7% (45.8%); 17.1% (32.1%); 20.8% (37.5%)
SBC's percentage of AAC: 12.8% (40.4%); 10.4% (34.7%); 7.7% (26.0%)
CUSA's percentage of AAC: 11.1% (25.3%) 12.2% (17.8%); 4.2% (11.4%)

Great work! Shows how far we are ahead of G5 conferences, but also how far behind we are of P5. I believe American is on the rise and proud UCF is a member.
07-10-2018 06:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
templefootballfan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,586
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 151
I Root For: TU & BGSU & TEX
Location: CLAYMONT DE Temple T
Post: #10
RE: P6 OFF the field
B-12 & Pac-12 are 44 games
AAC are 31 game avg
every conf takes a bump for new contract
i guess were satified with Witcha St & couple Navy games
07-11-2018 01:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,405
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 173
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #11
RE: P6 OFF the field
It is really fun to watch this conference grow stronger every year
07-11-2018 06:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


KnightNasty Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 823
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 36
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #12
RE: P6 OFF the field
(07-10-2018 03:38 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  So if we used strictly viewership numbers, we should be getting exactly half of what the B12 gets. I could live with that.

Unfortunately the market for our content is not completely dictated on viewership numbers...
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2018 08:52 AM by KnightNasty.)
07-11-2018 07:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Def Berkkat Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,185
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 219
I Root For: UC
Location:
Post: #13
RE: P6 OFF the field
The AAC is a strange animal that I think no one knows what to do with.

We're not quite P5...

... but we're clearly above the G4.

We're a viable product for the networks... yet we never seem to have any leverage.

We can compete with the big dogs... yet no one respects us.

I think we're just misunderstood.
07-11-2018 08:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hurricane Drummer Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,784
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 231
I Root For: Tulsa
Location:
Post: #14
RE: P6 OFF the field
(07-11-2018 08:30 AM)Def Berkkat Wrote:  The AAC is a strange animal that I think no one knows what to do with.

We're not quite P5...

... but we're clearly above the G4.

We're a viable product for the networks... yet we never seem to have any leverage.

We can compete with the big dogs... yet no one respects us.

I think we're just misunderstood.



07-11-2018 09:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TU4ever Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,941
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 169
I Root For: Tulsa
Location:
Post: #15
RE: P6 OFF the field
(07-11-2018 07:40 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  
(07-10-2018 03:38 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  So if we used strictly viewership numbers, we should be getting exactly half of what the B12 gets. I could live with that.

Unfortunately the market for our content is not completely dictated on viewership numbers...

That seems odd. Television is about the number of viewers you can get. Can you show me an example of where that isn't true?
07-11-2018 09:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KnightNasty Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 823
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 36
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #16
RE: P6 OFF the field
(07-11-2018 09:37 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  
(07-11-2018 07:40 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  
(07-10-2018 03:38 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  So if we used strictly viewership numbers, we should be getting exactly half of what the B12 gets. I could live with that.

Unfortunately the market for our content is not completely dictated on viewership numbers...

That seems odd. Television is about the number of viewers you can get. Can you show me an example of where that isn't true?

Its a factor... but there are other things that play into it, such as supply and demand. How many available slots does said network have to play our content in, what is the projected viewership we could do in those particular time slots/channels, etc. Our viewership numbers are also tied to the slots those games were broadcast in. They aren't static (meaning, our game isnt going to draw the same # of people on a Thursday night on ESPN vs. Saturday at 4pm on ESPN2, or Saturday at noon on ABC). So, what network we get offers from, and what slots/channels they plan on broadcasting us on would effect our viewership numbers and therefore effect our value, etc.

Lastly, if there is not heavy bidding for our content between multiple parties... it doesn't matter what its potential value is. All that matters is what someone is willing to pay for it. And if there's only 1 network that really wants our content, they don't have to offer the equivalent of its value. They can offer a lowball...
07-11-2018 10:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


MechaKnight Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,734
Joined: Nov 2007
Reputation: 71
I Root For: UCF, UAB, Army
Location: Houston
Post: #17
RE: P6 OFF the field
(07-11-2018 09:37 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  
(07-11-2018 07:40 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  
(07-10-2018 03:38 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  So if we used strictly viewership numbers, we should be getting exactly half of what the B12 gets. I could live with that.

Unfortunately the market for our content is not completely dictated on viewership numbers...

That seems odd. Television is about the number of viewers you can get. Can you show me an example of where that isn't true?

There's a lot of factors involved in the value of a contract

1) Up front production costs (staff, equipment, travel, lodging, etc) have to be paid even if there's 0 viewers. Say it costs $100k to put on a game. If the revenue from the game is $150k then there's $50k profit, if the revenue is $225k then there's $125k profit. So 50% more gross revenue led to 150% more net profit.

2) Similar to production costs, they weigh the opportunity costs of not airing something else. If a game costs $100k to air on ESPN-News and gets 50k viewers, and a rerun of 30 for 30: Pony Excess at the same time costs virtually nothing and gets 30k viewers, which is a better use of that timeslot?

3) Your ratings are only worth as much as advertisers will pay for them. I won't pretend to know how all this works, but there's a reason we don't see Budweiser, Capital One, and Playstation ads for the bottom of the barrel games. If all ratings were created equal then Capital One could put ads on 15 CUSA games and get the same value as 1 SEC game, yet they prefer to spend way more for the 1 SEC game

And I'm sure many others that ESPN considers that we don't even know about.
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2018 10:28 AM by MechaKnight.)
07-11-2018 10:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TU4ever Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,941
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 169
I Root For: Tulsa
Location:
Post: #18
RE: P6 OFF the field
(07-11-2018 10:23 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  
(07-11-2018 09:37 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  
(07-11-2018 07:40 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  
(07-10-2018 03:38 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  So if we used strictly viewership numbers, we should be getting exactly half of what the B12 gets. I could live with that.

Unfortunately the market for our content is not completely dictated on viewership numbers...

That seems odd. Television is about the number of viewers you can get. Can you show me an example of where that isn't true?

Its a factor... but there are other things that play into it, such as supply and demand. How many available slots does said network have to play our content in, what is the projected viewership we could do in those particular time slots/channels, etc. Our viewership numbers are also tied to the slots those games were broadcast in. They aren't static (meaning, our game isnt going to draw the same # of people on a Thursday night on ESPN vs. Saturday at 4pm on ESPN2, or Saturday at noon on ABC). So, what network we get offers from, and what slots/channels they plan on broadcasting us on would effect our viewership numbers and therefore effect our value, etc.

Lastly, if there is not heavy bidding for our content between multiple parties... it doesn't matter what its potential value is. All that matters is what someone is willing to pay for it. And if there's only 1 network that really wants our content, they don't have to offer the equivalent of its value. They can offer a lowball...


Wow. So for the AAC it's completely different than any other media product?

Excecs don't go around turning down million person audiences.

Our numbers are not produced in a vacuum. This is not us introducing into a new market. We already get these numbers across a variety of channels and time slots, that's why slh has the numbers broke down the way he does, every game, conference controlled games, and only conference games.

Competition is for viewers in the media world period. This contract will be exclusively decided based on the numbers we can produce, to think otherwise discards the reality of how those numbers were produced. This is no different then a television show, which are often moved in time slots, or are picked up by another network. Our original offering was a new show, with no established stars, a shakey cast, and an unproven writer. We have pulled in the numbers against the top rated shows and been consitant about it over five years. Our value has drastically increased.

As far as competition, live content is at a premium and we already have two people bidding and most likely a third. That doesn't even get into new media.

I am continually amazed at how only the AAC numbers don't do what television numbers for everything else does by message board posters. Every new show on television starts off with a minimum of investment that grows as the show builds ratings. The show runner and cast get bumps in pay and so long as the numbers maintain and the cast remains the show continues and the pay increases.
07-11-2018 11:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TU4ever Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,941
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 169
I Root For: Tulsa
Location:
Post: #19
RE: P6 OFF the field
(07-11-2018 10:26 AM)MechaKnight Wrote:  
(07-11-2018 09:37 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  
(07-11-2018 07:40 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  
(07-10-2018 03:38 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  So if we used strictly viewership numbers, we should be getting exactly half of what the B12 gets. I could live with that.

Unfortunately the market for our content is not completely dictated on viewership numbers...

That seems odd. Television is about the number of viewers you can get. Can you show me an example of where that isn't true?

There's a lot of factors involved in the value of a contract

1) Up front production costs (staff, equipment, travel, lodging, etc) have to be paid even if there's 0 viewers. Say it costs $100k to put on a game. If the revenue from the game is $150k then there's $50k profit, if the revenue is $225k then there's $125k profit. So 50% more gross revenue led to 150% more net profit.

2) Similar to production costs, they weigh the opportunity costs of not airing something else. If a game costs $100k to air on ESPN-News and gets 50k viewers, and a rerun of 30 for 30: Pony Excess at the same time costs virtually nothing and gets 30k viewers, which is a better use of that timeslot?

3) Your ratings are only worth as much as advertisers will pay for them. I won't pretend to know how all this works, but there's a reason we don't see Budweiser, Capital One, and Playstation ads for the bottom of the barrel games. If all ratings were created equal then Capital One could put ads on 15 CUSA games and get the same value as 1 SEC game, yet they prefer to spend way more for the 1 SEC game

And I'm sure many others that ESPN considers that we don't even know about.

1) The production cost of the AAC is no different than any other cost production for the P5. Since it's all equal, this is not relevant.

2)See the above numbers by slh. Notice how they reflect against other numbers shown. Live content is sold for more because viewers sit through the commercials. All ratings have dropped for television, but live sports by less. Live sports dominate ratings. Your scenario isn't based in reality, if it was reality it also doesn't fit this situation. ESPN and CBSsports are already placing our inventory over other options demonstrating it's value.

3)Try again. The ad rates based on the number of viewers, period. That is why there were fits thrown about the cfp low ratings and ESPN gave advertisers reruns or reduced rates for future events. The marketing department bases where it puts it's ads based on the target audience, how much that ad costs depends on the number of viewers. This is why Rolex doesn't have ads on monday night football, it's not their target audience. The cost of the ad is based on number of viewers, this is why you see live event contracts paying roughly the same price per viewer.

Also your math doesn't work out, you started out by saying the cost was the same for 15 cusa games to 1 sec game. Then said the sec game costs more.

People don't keep ratings because it's fun to compare. They keep them to base a guide on how much an ad costs. You want 500,000 people to see it, the cost is x.
You want 1,000,000 people to see it, the cost is y.


Also please quit thinking what will ESPN do. The media world, even the sports media world is not controlled by one entity. ESPN will have no more say in this than the 400 other channels. This isn't a sports thing, it's a media thing.
07-11-2018 11:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HoustonRocks Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,229
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation: 40
I Root For: HoustonCougars
Location:
Post: #20
RE: P6 OFF the field
" we already have two people bidding and most likely a third"

Links please.
07-11-2018 11:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.