Conan: What's Next?

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by dirwuf, Jan 16, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SoundAdvice

    SoundAdvice Senior Member

    Location:
    Vancouver
    Have the network ever stated their expectations or expressed concerns over his ratings? I'm only aware of different ways of interpreting the Lopez firing.
     
  2. His Masters Vice

    His Masters Vice W.C. Fields Forever

    Ah you're right. However, Conan was beating Letterman in this demo when they were head to head (as the link demonstrates) and that's not a small thing.

    If Conan did not improve on Leno's ratings when he took over, then it must be the case that Leno's ratings since he retook the show are lower then they were before. At least 21% lower, by all accounts.
     
  3. His Masters Vice

    His Masters Vice W.C. Fields Forever

    Now that's a good point. You may be right.
     
  4. Mrs. Beeton

    Mrs. Beeton Active Member

    Location:
    Canada

    I finally figured out how to access past ratings on the TVbyNumbers site. BTW, I never pay much attention to the "news stories" on that site - they read like PR written by the networks, production companies and managers/ agents. Very heavy on the spin. Can't be trusted.

    I tend to concentrate on the data numbers. And at the risk of boring everyone again (this is be my last post regarding ratings) if you look through Conan's TTS ratings he often struggled to win the 18-49 demo - and sometimes did not. That his ratings had nosedived to 2.1 million viewers before his finally death-blow bump. That in the all important November sweeps he came third in both total viewers and in the younger demo. Not good. The November sweeps was probably the point-of- no-return for the NBC execs - he had to go.

    I noticed your links were from 2010. Conan is a favourite of the critics and going through the old ratings stories they seemed to take glee with Leno's ratings struggles that first year back, from January to September 2009. But Leno's TTS ratings since the fall of 2010 has been consistently getting better. I would suggest that his current 18-49 demo is very competitive with Conan's (past or present). I just am not convinced by the argument that Conan is a better ratings draw than Leno.



    Here's some examples of ratings from Conan's TTS.

    week of August 31- Sept 4, 2009. Conan wins 18-49 demo slightly over Nightline, but is in 3rd place for total viewership.

    ADULTS 18-49

    11:35 p.m. ET

    NBC "Tonight," 1.1 rating, 5 share

    CBS "Late Show," 0.8/3

    ABC "Nightline," 0.9/4

    TOTAL VIEWERS

    11:35 p.m. ET

    NBC "Tonight," 2.9 million viewers

    CBS "Late Show," 3.4 million viewers

    ABC "Nightline," 3.7 million viewers



    September 28-October 2. Conan is basically tied with Nightline for the 18-49 demo and in distant last place for total viewership.

    ADULTS 18-49

    11:35 p.m. ET

    NBC "Tonight," 1.1 rating, 5 share

    CBS "Late Show," 1.0/5

    ABC "Nightline," 1.1/4

    TOTAL VIEWERS

    11:35 p.m. ET

    NBC "Tonight," 2.7 million viewers

    CBS "Late Show," 4.4 million viewers

    ABC "Nightline," 4.0 million viewers


    November 2009 Sweeps. Very important for setting ad prices. Conan is in 3rd place. Total viewership hovering above or below 2.4 million.

    TOTAL VIEWERS A25-54(000)/ Rtg A18-49(000)/ Rtg

    ABC “Nightline” 4,150,000 1,640,000/ 1.3 1,380,000/ 1.0

    CBS “Late Show” 4,120,000 1,670,000/ 1.3 1,310,000/ 1.0

    NBC “Tonight” 2,390,000 1,330,000/ 1.1 1,300,000/ 1.0



    (Week of November 23, 2009)

    TOTAL VIEWERS A25-54(000)/ Rtg A18-49(000)/ Rtg

    ABC “Nightline” 4,560,000 1,720,000/ 1.4 1,450,000/ 1.1

    CBS “Late Show” 4,320,000 1,800,000/ 1.4 1,490,000/ 1.1

    NBC “Tonight” 2,420,000 1,370,000/ 1.1 1,350,000/ 1.0



    Week of December 7-11, 2009. Conan is in a distant 3rd place for total viewers, but just ahead of the other 2 for 18-49 demo. His 18-49 numbers are about the same as Leno's for September 2012.

    ADULTS 18-49

    11:35 p.m. ET
    NBC "Tonight," 1.1 rating, 4 share
    CBS "Late Show," 1.0/4
    ABC "Nightline," 1.0/4

    TOTAL VIEWERS

    11:35 p.m. ET
    NBC "Tonight," 2.6 million viewers
    CBS "Late Show," 4.4 million viewers
    ABC "Nightline," 3.9 million viewers


    Week of December 28, 2009. Conan is pulling in less than 2.2 million viewers. He is only slightly ahead in 25-54 demo and in 3rd place for 18-49 demo.

    TOTAL VIEWERS A25-54(000)/ Rtg A18-49(000)/ Rtg

    ABC “Nightline” 3,894,000 1,512,000/ 1.2 1,200,000/ .9

    CBS “Late Show” 3,693,000 1,510,000/ 1.2 1,124,000/ .9

    NBC “Tonight” 2,122,000 1,159,000/ .9 1,024,000/ .8



    week of January 4, 2010. You can see Conan's total numbers are below 2.5 million. They have improved a bit because the morbid curiosity has begun regarding the controversy about his time slot moving or him being fired.

    TOTAL VIEWERS A25-54(000)/ Rtg A18-49(000)/ Rtg

    ABC “Nightline” 3,730,000 1,550,000/ 1.2 1,330,000/ 1.0

    CBS “Late Show” 4,020,000 1,530,000/ 1.2 1,230,000/.9

    NBC “Tonight” 2,490,000 1,460,000/ 1.2 1,350,000/1.0

    Source: NTI - - A25-54, Total Viewers & A18-49 – Wks. of 1/4/10 & 12/28/09 Live +SD. Live +7 (where available) & Live +SD for STD: 9/21/09-1/10/10 & 9/22/08-1/11/09


    week of January 11, 2010. You can see that Conan's getting a bump in ratings as his tenure as host is ending.

    TOTAL VIEWERS / Age 25-54(000 ) Rtg / Age 18-49(000)/ Rtg

    ABC “Nightline” 3,630,000 1,440,000/ 1.2 1,170,000/ .9

    CBS “Late Show” 4,490,000 1,740,000/ 1.4 1,350,000/1.0

    NBC “Tonight” 3,490,000 2,020,000/ 1.6 1,900,000/1.4

    Not good when you're suppose to be the hot new host and a presumed lame news show is beating you for total viewers and grabbing a significant share of the young demo you were suppose to deliver to your network on a platter.
     
  5. MAYBEIMAMAZED

    MAYBEIMAMAZED Don't think Twice it's alright

    Location:
    DFW TEXAS
    I am a Conan fan btw and David Letterman over Leno but I am wondering when these late night talk shows will disappear just like all the other decent TV has to be replaced by some boring horrible reality show. I hope they all survive there isn't much left to regular TV. A sign of times I guess but sometimes change in this case isn't always good... I am sure that is an old fashion point of view and I get advertising, and the survival rate of making it in television these days. It just doesn't mean I have to like what's on:) More people of all ages young and old enjoy the old sitcoms, comedy shows and talk shows retro is still popular and there is a reason why. Good writers and TV I hope they all survive but just my opinion:)
     
  6. czeskleba

    czeskleba Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    Actually, it was a small thing (at the time). Conan was expected to always beat Letterman in the 18-49 demo since Leno had done it consistently for many years. But Conan did not beat Letterman consistently. At some point during Conan's tenure, Letterman started occasionally winning the 18-49 demo, something he had not been able to do against Leno since about 1995. Towards the end of Conan's tenure (up until his controversy-generated ratings spike) Letterman and Conan were neck and neck in this demo, each occasionally winning. Conan's inability to keep the Tonight Show dominant in that demographic was probably the biggest reason for NBC's pulling the plug on his show, even moreso than the fact that he was drawing about 2.5 million fewer total viewers than Leno had been.

    That is true. Leno was averaging 4.75 million total viewers before leaving the show. He now averages in the range of 3.5 million (compared to the 2.5 million Conan averaged).
     
  7. Sean Murdock

    Sean Murdock Forum Intruder

    Location:
    Bergenfield, NJ
    NBC's mistake during the Conan tenure (imo) was looking at late night like a horserace, and not like a marathon. This is a TV genre where the successful hosts have 20-year stints in the same job -- you can't look at it like you're going to yank some new sitcom and replace it with another one. If they had given Conan two years to settle in -- just as they had given to Jay when Dave was crushing him in 1994 and 1995 -- he would have been all right, and Dave would have been two years older. Dave eventually would have retired, and Conan would have had an unchallenged decade on top. Then Conan would have become the "old" late night host, and someone else would have risen to prominence, and so on.

    I still say that NBC undercut Conan from the beginning, by saying, "Hey all you Jay Leno die-hards! Don't feel so bad about losing the Tonight Show -- in a few months you can have all the Jay Leno hilarity you can stand, and an hour and a half earlier!" Sure enough, Jay drew the same numbers at 10pm as he did at 11:35 -- but 4 million viewers in prime time is a disaster, whereas 4 million in late night makes you King. But the damage was done -- by 11:35 hundreds of thousands of people who might have checked out Conan out of old habits for the Tonight Show had already turned off their TVs.
     
  8. czeskleba

    czeskleba Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    I know we debated this to death a couple years ago and there's no way to prove either of us correct in our speculation, but I think a fundamental problem is that Conan just doesn't have the same sort of mass appeal as Leno. Conan's style is quirkier and his jokes subtler than the broad, obvious humor Leno uses. I don't think it stands to reason that Conan would have had "an unchallenged decade on top" if he'd been left alone until Letterman retired. During Conan's final couple years on Late Night he was sometimes being beaten by Craig Ferguson, despite the fact that he (Conan) was receiving a much stronger (2 million more total viewers) lead-in from Leno than Ferguson got from Letterman. On the Tonight Show he demonstrated vulnerability against Letterman. I think he also would have been even more vulnerable against a hypothetical Letterman replacement, if CBS was able to find someone young who had a safer, more crowd-pleasing style of humor.
     
  9. czeskleba

    czeskleba Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    Conan drew very high ratings his first couple of weeks on Tonight, which suggests viewers did check him out, didn't like the show, and switched to something else. As I've said before, I'm skeptical that people refrained from watching Conan in the summer of 2009 because they were waiting for Leno to come back in the fall. I think people make their TV viewing choices on an immediate, spontaneous basis, and knowing that a Leno show would be on in a couple months seems unlikely to have made someone not watch Conan on any night in July. If you know you're going to go to your favorite steak house in September, that doesn't mean you'd be unwilling to try a new Chinese place in July. I don't think it's fair to blame Leno for Conan's ratings in the summer of 2009, prior to the debut of the Leno 10 PM show.
     
  10. Sean Murdock

    Sean Murdock Forum Intruder

    Location:
    Bergenfield, NJ
    I agree that Conan had a narrower appeal than Jay when he took over the Tonight Show -- but then again, people "worried" that Dave had a too-narrow appeal for 11:30, and he's managed to stay on the air for 19+ years. I think Conan would have settled in and widened his audience eventually. Yes, I know that Conan was being challenged (and sometimes beaten) by Craig, but I think there was a sense of ennui caused by such a long lame-duck final "term" of Conan's Late Night, combined with Craig being fresh and different. In retrospect, though, the flattening of Conan's Late Night ratings might have had the NBC execs in pre-panic mode before he even took over the Tonight Show. Whatever the cause, they had a historically short leash for a host taking over a legendary franchise -- in comparison, Jay stumbled for three YEARS as the Tonight Show host, Conan was famously floundering for over a year in the Late Night chair, and Jimmy Fallon had to overcome a LOT of doubt that he could fill ANYONE's shoes as a late night host.

    My reasoning that Conan would have had "an unchallenged decade on top" is based purely on my hunch that there would be no bigger "names" out there to challenge him. The late night talk show club is one of the tiniest "clubs" in the world, and it's awfully tough to earn your way into it, let alone dominate it. In a scenario where Conan was left alone to settle in, and Dave retired by, say, 2018 or so (allowing him to celebrate 25 years), Conan would be the still-youngish, established host -- of the Tonight Show, no less -- with maybe Craig on CBS (a host with even more narrow appeal than Conan) and Nightline on ABC. Of course, my hunch in 2010 didn't account for Jimmy Kimmel's slow rise to prominence; nor did it account for Jimmy Fallon becoming hugely successful and maybe wanting an 11:30 slot for himself somewhere.

    While I'll go to my grave believing that Leno was the scheming villain of late night (both in 1992 and 2010), I really don't have the fire in my belly for the fight anymore. Late night IS a waning genre, and declining numbers for ALL the hosts have as much to do with viewing trends as they do with the relative quality of the shows. Jay is doing what he does, and if there's ever a musical guest on his show that I want to see, I'll DVR the last seven minutes of his show. Dave is in his twilight years, and I haven't felt compelled to watch him since the Battle of 2010. Conan is ... well, he's employed by TBS, hosting what I still think of as a "Tonight Show In Exile," to mixed results. I think he should have recognized the growing obsolescence of his chosen profession and either (a) totally re-thought the late night chat concept, or (b) done something ELSE in TV as a writer and/or producer. I think wounded pride and a scarred psyche drove him to continue with the same-old, same-old -- and I highly doubt he'll make it 10 years on TBS, let alone 20.
     
  11. Jack White

    Jack White Senior Member

    Location:
    Canada
    Conan's mistake (IMO) was that he failed to write into his contract a guaranteed protected period of transition (e.g. 18 months or 2 full seasons) to build up an audience without fear of cancellation, dismissal, or any other interference from the execs. That was a huge mistake on the part of his managers, agents, lawyers, etc.

    The late night landscape, expectations and business circumstances of NBC were entirely different at the time of Leno's assumption of TTS and Conan's. And Conan had had 15 or 16 years at his 'Late Night' talk show doing essentially the same job, plus several months to prepare for TTS and was given creative control over the show - he should have hit the ground running. I don't understand the excuses for why he didn't. And quite frankly, you're assuming Conan was the right man for the job and that it was inevitable that the audience in great numbers would eventually warm to him. There's nothing in his career to provide a basis for that. His top ratings at 'Late Night' was in the range of 2.25 - 2.5 million viewers IIRC. In fact in the last two years in his stint at 'Late Night' his rating steadily dropped to below 2 million. He had already hit his peak of popularity before taking over TTS. IMO, his appeal (and ability) as a performer/ talk show was and is rather limited and that should have been obvious. Wrong man for the job. (I understand you and others disagree - but that's my opinion.) NBC took a giant leap of faith in assuming he would have a virtual monopoly in attracting the younger demographic to TTS and therefore would garner more ad revenue and therefore was the correct financial choice as host. None of that panned out.

    Conan had three or four months on air as TTS host in a Leno free TV landscape. His debut attracted over 7 million. Within a week or two total viewership was cut in half. By the time Leno's primetime show debuted Conan's TTS viewership was already consistently below 3 million. So, people (presumably the Leno TTS audience) were willing to give Conan a chance - and at least a sizeable portion of them just didn't like what they saw and during 11:35 - 12:35 moved on to Letterman and 'NightLine'. The missing TTS audience didn't stop watching at latenight, they gave Conan a chance and then moved on to other shows. By the time NBC decided Conan had to go there was nothing to indicate he could have recovered ratings wise, and in fact a prolonged death might have damaged the franchise name irreparably. I have never bought the excuse of poor primetime lead-ins affecting talk show viewership and in this particular case that the Leno 10 o'clock show on its own prohibitively drew viewers in any significant number from Conan's TTS. The biggest single factor in late night ratings is the audience's emotional attachment or attraction to the host on a personal level. With Conan it just wasn't there in great enough numbers.
     
  12. Sean Murdock

    Sean Murdock Forum Intruder

    Location:
    Bergenfield, NJ
    We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Regardless of what I thought of Jay's show, a LOT of people loved it, and I'm sure a good chunk of them were mad that he was "pushed out" and were resentful of Conan the Interloper. How much harder would Jay's job have been in 1992 if NBC announced, before he'd even taken over, that Johnny Carson was going to host a variety hour at 10pm in September. I bet a lot of the Carson loyalists who grumbled for awhile but eventually accepted Jay would have held out and bailed on the Tonight Show.
     
  13. czeskleba

    czeskleba Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    The reason Leno, Conan (on Late Night), and Fallon got a lot of time to find an audience is of course because the networks didn't have a viable replacement for any of them, so they were more willing to tough it out. That wasn't the case with Conan's Tonight Show, since Leno was willing to come back. If Carson had been willing to return, they might have yanked Leno in the same way in 1994 (although the difference between Leno's initial ratings and Carson's was not as dramatic as the difference between Conan's and Leno's in 2009. Is it "fair" that Conan wasn't given as much time to find an audience? I suppose not, but the situation was largely of his own making, and there's never a guarantee of fairness in life. Under the circumstances, I can understand why NBC would rather return to a proven success (Leno) rather than take a chance that Conan would eventually find an audience. From a purely ratings standpoint removing Leno was a huge mistake, and I'm sure they hoped they could simply undo it. That hasn't proven to be the case, but Leno is doing comparable to Conan in the 18-49 and handily outdoing him in total viewers, so the decision to put him back seems sound.

    I don't know that it's accurate to say Ferguson's appeal is less than Conan's, given the fact he was sometimes beating Conan head-to-head despite the MUCH larger lead-in audience Conan was receiving. I think Conan would have been extremely vulnerable to a Fallon-type host when Letterman retired, just as Letterman was always vulnerable to Leno. Guess we'll never know for sure.

    IIRC, Leno didn't start talking publicly about being pushed out until the time of the controversy and his reinstatement as Tonight Show host. Prior to that, the story put out was that Leno was stepping down voluntarily. Was it even widely-known that he had felt pushed out at that time Conan was taking over? I don't think it was.
     
  14. goodiesguy

    goodiesguy Confide In Me

    Location:
    New Zealand
    We only get Letterman over here :( (at least on free to air).

    The only other ones we get (on satellite) are E!'s Chelsey Lately (awful program) and Colbert and Stewart. Oh and I just found out we get Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld on Fox News.
     
  15. Squealy

    Squealy Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Vancouver
    I'm not sure you can really look at talk shows the same way any more, given that there are far more hosts competing for far fewer viewers.
     
  16. SoundAdvice

    SoundAdvice Senior Member

    Location:
    Vancouver
    Leno has ALWAYS been a poor interviewer.
     
  17. SoundAdvice

    SoundAdvice Senior Member

    Location:
    Vancouver
    I went looking to see what was known about that contract.

    Conan was getting TTS show and would have received a $45million penalty if he did not.

    Leno's 10pm penalty buyout was $50million.
     
  18. Jack White

    Jack White Senior Member

    Location:
    Canada
    All in the eye and ears of the beholder, I guess. IMO Conan was and is still awful and awkward with the opening monologue/ stand up jokes and is generally a bad interviewer. Although with some guests he has better chemistry than others. I find Conan is always "on" during the sit down interviews and is always anxious to find any opportunity to go into a "bit", rather than placing the emphasis on the guest and the natural flow of the interview. I would have thought that as a huge fan of Carson, he should have picked up some pointers on that. In comparison, I think Leno is a better interviewer.


    Don't remember the exact figures, but IIRC even with the $45 million to Conan it was much, much less to pay Conan to go away than to pay Leno to go away. Leno is apparently his own manager. Maybe Conan should hire Leno as his manager.

    I am still bewildered why Conan did not say up front, "Look, it will realistically take me about two seasons to establish a solid audience. That's the timetable we looking at. I want a two year period, no interference, you leave me on the air for that amount of time to build up that audience. At the end of that time period, if you don't like the results - then you can fire me. But I want that guarantee in my contract."

    BTW, if he had a buy-out contingency in his contract, didn't he realize there was a possibility he could be fired?
     
  19. Captain Groovy

    Captain Groovy Senior Member

    Location:
    Freedonia, USA
    Now THAT would be a good/funny move for BOTH. Better than the Leno/Letterman/Oprah Super Bowl spot.

    Leno is a good businessman in reality. And is loyal to those loyal to him.

    I assume we all know about his manager who got him the permanent "Tonight" gig in the first place, but pissed everyone off, and although Jay was undyingly loyal (she has since passed away), has regretted publicly several of those moves she dictated.

    Especially listening to her about not mentioning Johnny on his solo debut (although he had been guest hosting to big numbers prior to it becoming permanent for years).

    Took years to dig out of that one.

    I think Leno idolizes Bob Hope in more ways than just his comedic presence - although Bob came off more money hungry than Jay does, Jay learned...

    Jeff
     
  20. czeskleba

    czeskleba Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    I can't imagine any network would be willing to give someone an absolute guarantee of two years on the air regardless of the ratings. The best they might offer is a guarantee of a large payout if cancellation occurs before a specified time. That's apparently what Leno had for his 10 PM show. As to the contingency buy-out in his contract... of course Conan realized there was a possibility of being fired. On network TV there's always a possibility of being fired, no matter who you are. I would bet everyone has a buy-out contingency clause in their contract.

    I don't know that Conan would have been able to sell the network on the concept of needing two years to build an audience, anyway. He was expected to be an immediate success, at least in the 18-49 demographic. I think the network's expectation was that he would hold onto, if not improve, Leno's dominance in that demographic, even if he might lose some total viewers. His failure to do that was probably the biggest reason they yanked him.
     
  21. jupiter8

    jupiter8 Forum Resident

    Location:
    NJ, USA
    I agree- i doubt they really were willing to give a guy who'd already been doing a talk show for so long an extended period of time to "find himself".
     
  22. Jack White

    Jack White Senior Member

    Location:
    Canada
    Sarcasm on my part. I thought I was being obvious.



    Still, (part of) his reaction upon being let go was - "Only 9 months, I can't believe it; I thought I would be here 20 years. I needed more time to build an audience." If that was his expectation going in, it surprises me he didn't ask for a guaranteed transition period [fill in your choice of length of a time limit - a season, 18 months, two seasons].


    I wrote much the same thing in a previous post. I think the November sweeps was the final straw.

    " ... Conan had had 15 or 16 years at his 'Late Night' talk show doing essentially the same job, plus several months to prepare for TTS and was given creative control over the show - he should have hit the ground running. I don't understand the excuses for why he didn't ... NBC took a giant leap of faith in assuming he would have a virtual monopoly in attracting the younger demographic to TTS, therefore would garner more ad revenue, and therefore was the correct financial choice as host. None of that panned out."
     
  23. czeskleba

    czeskleba Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    I guess sarcasm is never obvious on the internet, unless you point to it and say "hey, this is sarcasm." Sorry it went over my head in this case...

    I suspect Conan did think he would be an immediate success (at least in the younger demographic) and did not expect that he would need a significant transition period. It was only when it became clear that he was losing viewers that the "I need more time" excuse began to surface, since the alternative would be to admit failure.

    Also, I suspect that when Conan (or his management) sold NBC on giving him the Tonight Show in 2004, they guaranteed pretty much immediate success. If they'd gone to NBC and said "We want you to give Conan the Tonight Show in five years, but then we will need two years to build it back up to the success level it has now under Leno" I'm skeptical NBC would have gone for the deal. I'm guessing that they had to convince NBC that Conan would do as good or better than Leno in the younger demographic right away.
     
  24. Sean Murdock

    Sean Murdock Forum Intruder

    Location:
    Bergenfield, NJ
    Just as Kushnick and Leno surely believed that Jay would be an immediate hit in 1992 -- heck, they probably even told NBC that Jay would BUILD on Johnny's numbers (which were seen as declining at the time). Didn't happen that way, though, did it?

    What TV show is ever put on the air NOT expecting immediate success? We can dance around this all you want, but NBC gave Jay time to grow in 1992, and didn't do the same for Conan in 2010 -- largely because they knew that Jay (cancelled but still under contract) was ready and willing to step back in. These are FACTS and quite separate from whatever flaws Conan's Tonight Show might have had (debatable), and indeed whether he was ever the right guy for the job (arguably not).
     
  25. czeskleba

    czeskleba Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    I don't think anyone disagrees with that. I certainly don't. Any area of disagreement centers around whether or not one thinks Leno is an evil bastard for being willing to come back.

    I was simply responding to Jack's suggestion that Conan should have asked up front for a guaranteed transition period, by pointing out that I don't think it would have been realistic or possible for him to have done so. Networks only give shows time to find an audience when they feel like they don't have a better alternative. Leno was fortunate to be in that situation in 1993, whereas Conan was unfortunate in that he was not in 2010.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine