“Fixing” MSNBC…

Mediaite’s Joe Concha offers up a plan to fix MSNBC’s ratings woes.

MSNBC has now finished in fourth place for two straight months.

Being in the Top 4 of most categories is usually a good thing. But when the horse race consists of, well…four horses…that may a problem.

Conservative media, of course, is reporting the news with the same glee anytime the letters I-R-S are mentioned in consecutive order.

After all, the Lean Forward network—now at a seven-year ratings low– is as loathed by the far right as much as Fox News is despised by the far left. As a result, it’s schadenfraude on steroids from Newsbusters to Breitbart to Drudge.

But to use this column to simply point out details around the obvious would be a tedious, repetitive exercise (See: MSNBC is struggling mightily, here are the numbers, film at 11). So instead, let’s use this space to explore how to fix the network’s programming issues via unsolicited (and humble) advice to Mr. Phil Griffin, MSNBC President.

Some of it has merit but too much of it is just plain silly. Here’s why…

First of all, any fix of MSNBC’s ratings problems has to be preceeded by accurate analysis of what is causing the underlying condition otherwise your solution thought exercise winds up being nothing more than throwing things up against the wall and seeing what sticks.

MSNBC is caught in the middle of a perfect storm of events right now. Breaking News has dominated politics the past two months which has worked against MSNBC’s brand, political headlines are depressing for the home team it is catering to, and there’s a new show host MSNBC is trying to break in at 8pm during all of this. Any one of these things could do temporary short term or more long term damage to MSNBC’s ratings by themselves. But combined together they have inflicted tremendous ratings damage. But here’s the quandary for Phil Griffin and MSNBC which I have no doubt they are currently wrestling with: which of these problems should be the ones they are addressing?

You can’t take them all on and you wouldn’t want to. That’s a panic move and that’s something that is anathema to Griffin. His entire presidency and MSNBC’s success has been based on an incremental approach building from the ground up. Plus, MSNBC’s problems are all intertwined and that just adds more confusion about what needs to be attacked.

Let’s take 8pm since that’s what Concha and just about everyone else is looking at. A lot of people weren’t sure Hayes was a good fit for 8pm. I wasn’t sure. I’m still not sure. The only thing I am sure of is it’s all but impossible to judge Hayes’ abilities at 8pm under current conditions. With news breaking constantly the past couple of months, that works against Hayes. With Obama scandals breaking out all over the place, that works against Hayes. I want to see Hayes have a chance to get in to a rhythm first before I draw any conclusions. That hasn’t happened. Hell, it hasn’t had the opportunity to happen. How could it given what’s been going on? Hayes may have to be moved ultimately, but the current situation is a poor barometer for making a decision.
But even if Hayes had to be moved, moving Maddow and O’Donnell forward an hour, as Concha proposes, is a non-starter.

Chris Hayes…the 8:00 PM host who may ultimately be mentioned in the same breath as The Chevy Chase Show. As you may have heard, Hayes’ numbers have been abysmal (the lowest ratings MSNBC has seen at 8:00 PM since 2006; recently beaten by Bill O’Reilly by a 10-to-1 margin). Consequently, Maddow’s once-respectable ratings have taken a direct hit partially due to the small audiences Hayes is handing her.

If Hayes is the problem Concha makes him out to be, slotting Maddow in at 8 probably won’t make that much of a difference. Hayes and Maddow are two peas from the same pod. When Hayes used to substitute for Maddow it was all but impossible to notice much of a stylistic difference. If going from Ed Schultz to Chris Hayes was the equivalent of going from a hot rod to a sedan, going from Hayes to Maddow is the equivalent of going from one sedan to another sedan. If Hayes low key wonky delivery isn’t working at 8, what is to suggest that Maddow’s low key wonky delivery will work there?

No. If MSNBC has to make a move at 8, it needs to move to a firebrand. It had one there in Olbermann. It had another, albeit more unstable model, in Schultz. Both have done better than Hayes at that time (though I have questions whether either would be doing as well right now given current conditions).

The problem is MSNBC has cleared the deck of all its firebrands. The guy who should have gotten the job was Cenk Uygur but that ship has sailed, run against the rocks, and sunk. Who else is out there that could make a dent? More importantly, is there anyone out there Phil Griffin would take a flyer on? Remember, Griffin preaches incremental-ism. He brings prospective talents on as other shows’ guests and sees how they do. Then if he likes what he saw he gives them a shot as a guest host. Then he evaluates whether to give them a show. That’s essentially how it worked for Maddow, O’Donnell, Hayes, Kornacki, Wagner, and Harris-Perry. I can’t see him circumventing that process to get in a firebrand quick.

Concha then moves from the world of the non-starter to the world of the ridiculous…

So what to do with 10:00 PM?

Two options…

The first is to simply go the Shawshank route. Lockup, MSNBC’s prison documentary series, currently gets better numbers for MSNBC on weekend nights than the aforementioned weekday primetime lineup. And since it’s simply a matter of finding a tape in a vault and hitting a play button, it’s a cheap and easy alternative.

Or better yet…

Put together a compelling Best of MSNBC Today 60-minute highlight program to run at 10:00 PM.

What were the top sound bites, confrontations, analysis, and features from Morning Joe to The Cycle to Hardball to Maddow to O’Donnell? Here it is…all in one neat package. And with some creative editing and a steady host to steer the ship, this would be a great way for MSNBC viewers to catch whatever they missed that day (and for pennies to produce).

Host: Contessa Brewer, still a member of the NBC family via a local New York affiliate.

Both of these solutions are equally horrible for different reasons. Going back to crime tape would be too huge a public defeat for Griffin to admit. Whatever positive press MSNBC still had would end instantly.

A wrap up show is also silly. The one person who could have pulled it off is now working on NBC at 9am. Brewer? As much as I thought she got a raw deal there’s no way Griffin takes a Mulligan on her. He already took one with Chris Jansing. He won’t take another. Besides, a tape wrap up show goes completely against MSNBC’s primetime brand (so does crime for that matter). If Griffin attempted either he might as well admit that his branding idea of “smart political POV analysis = ratings” is unworkable. It may yet come to that but Griffin isn’t going to make it easily come to that.

Where Concha and I are more in line is in regards to Hardball…

Still, giving Matthews two hours of programming per day (a live 5:00PM show and a repeat at 7:00 PM) is the definition of insanity (doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result). For example, in the key 25-54 demo, Matthews recently hasn’t even drawn 100,000 viewers in either his 5:00 or 7:00 PM slot. To put that number into context, Fox’s The Five breaks 300,000 in the same demo regularly at 5:00 PM. And to make matters worse, May wasn’t exactly a quiet news month: there was still plenty of political meat to chew on (albeit, Obama-unfriendly meat) via big controversies surrounding the IRS, AP/James Rosen/Eric Holder and Benghazi.

But Matthews struggling to attract a big audience is nothing new, which begs the question: Why does Griffin continue to repeat a show that doesn’t perform?

This is a sore point for me. For years I have railed about double slotting Matthews with a repeat show at 7pm. But why single out Matthews for “struggling to attract a big audience”? What about Bashir? Wagner? Mitchell? The rest of dayside? Everyone is down.

The reason Griffin keeps Matthews on twice is because the second show usually outperforms the first considerably but the first show is the live show. Moving Matthews to 7pm only means Matthews working late every night because 7pm would now be live, something I guess he doesn’t like doing. Moving Hayes to 5pm might be a solution though it does mean Hayes will get pummeled by The Five. Matthews can take the pummeling; he’s nearer the end of his career than the beginnning. Hayes can’t. Or, rather, Hayes can’t afford to…not after having been shown to be ineffective at a key time period (which is what moving him off 8pm will do). Realistically, Hayes…if he is to be moved…needs to go somewhere where there isn’t a 10 ton gorilla in the same timeslot so he can start over and build again.

None of this is what I would preach. I would preach patience. Things need to settle down on the breaking news front in order to see what’s going on with Hayes’ show. That still leaves Obama’s scandals to vex MSNBC but those at least can be spun by the hosts (how successfully is another question). You can’t spin breaking news. And breaking news is of no benefit to your political POV analysis brand.

But Chris Hayes can’t be blamed for the rest of dayside being down and neither can Matthews. For that, take a look at what Olivia Nuzzi argues in The Huffington Post…

With the inclusion of Maddow, MSNBC’s primetime lineup consisted of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” followed by “The Rachel Maddow Show,” followed by a replay of “Countdown,” followed by a replay of “Maddow.” Expenses were low, and both shows could be counted on to beat CNN in their own live time slots and do the same or nearly with their reruns at no additional cost. The network boasted two successful progressive shows, but two successful programs does not necessarily a successful network make. And when management decided they had to have a third progressive program at 10pm, the cloth was suddenly cut three ways and it just kept getting smaller. With the implementation of “Now With Alex Wagner,” “PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton” and “Melissa Harris-Perry,” it was no longer necessary for viewers to watch the 8pm show or the 9pm show, because they could get the same thing if they watched on the weekend or during the afternoon or at 10pm. As a source told me, “the draw for them [MSNBC] was that people were tired of only seeing two things on TV: an all right-wing channel like Fox or something like CNN where they were afraid of being branded any one thing. The value of MSNBC was they were presenting something different. It’s not different anymore – it’s now repetitive, it’s formulaic, it’s now as ass-kissing as Fox is.”

We’ll ignore the snarky elbow at the end of the anonymous source’s quote. Everything else is spot on. Phil Griffin is great at spotting trends and running with them. POV analysis is what Griffin has put all over MSNBC (I documented how it went down in excruciating detail here). News has been gutted. So now not only do you have a network where POV analysis talks about the same things all day long from morning to primetime but the POV analysis brand has been drilled into viewers skulls to such an extent that they instinctively tune MSNBC out when breaking news breaks. Why watch Maddow on the streets of Boston when you have two veteran journalist newsmen in Shepard Smith or Anderson Cooper to turn to?

More Nuzzi…

As Countdown had sacrificed its guest host to create Maddow’s show, MSNBC repeated the move with its next guest host, Lawrence O’Donnell, so he could do his own show at 10. In the same time fram management also tried to expand not just later but earlier. Ed Schultz and then Cenk Uygur and finally Al Sharpton were brought in to do 6 PM shows. A variety of daytime hosts – ranging from Martin Bashir to Alex Wagner – were given hours and expected to take the same political line as the weeknight hosts. Weekend programming, long an afterthought, soon had liberal shows with Chris Hayes and Melissa Harris-Perry, and more recently Steve Kornacki.

It may have seemed a natural expansion, but it all may have spread MSNBC’s “products” too thin. The urgency of ‘having’ to watch the 8 or 9 PM weeknight shows was affected by the simple reality that they were no longer the only places to see any left-of-center products. And staffing them began to resemble the old premise of the network sitcom spin-off of the ’70s and ’80s. “Maude” was spun off from “All In The Family” and “Good Times” was spun off “Maude” and then “The Jeffersons” was spun off “All In The Family” and “Checking In” was spun off from the “Jeffersons” and then “Gloria” was spun off from “All In The Family” and nearly a quarter of a century later CBS was still trying it by spinning off a show called “704 Hauser” in which the only connection to Archie Bunker was that both shows were set in the same house.

I have felt kind of an “Entertainment division programming” aspect to what Griffin has been doing with MSNBC for a while now. As more and more POV analysis shows popped up at the expense of dayside news programming it felt an awful lot like the kind of series franchise expansion we get on broadcast TV where you get four CSIs, three Law and Orders, etc, etc…

MSNBC essentially lives and dies by political news relevance now. All the networks rely on politics to some extent to keep viewers but MSNBC has gone…All In…to coin a phrase and make a pun…on politics so it can’t adjust as easily as FNC and CNN can. 80% of the time that probably isn’t an issue for them. But we are currently in an extended section of the 20% of the time it is an issue for them.

MSNBC has been awfully quiet. Too quiet. I’m actually surprised I haven’t seen anyone try to get Griffin on the record about what he thinks is going on and why. Maybe they have but they’ve been rebuffed? Whatever the case, this has created a situation where speculation is allowed to run rampant without anyone from the network out there to try and at least blunt some of the commentary. Griffin allowing Hayes to twist in the wind like this is inexcusable. If Griffin really believes in Hayes and his show at 8pm he needs to get out there and push it and him, now more than ever. The silence is deafening and it portends nothing good.


43 Responses to ““Fixing” MSNBC…”

  1. Pour a can of gas on it. Toss a match.

  2. Exactly what I was thinking, Larry. It’s time for the insurance fire.

  3. I think Hayes and Wagner will be out of the deck before all this sorts itself out. Hayes’ show is awful. It’s not that his show debuted during all this, it’s that his show blatantly ignores big news stories. I don’t see Alex Wagner being around much longer either.

  4. To me, MSNBC having Thomas Roberts and Milissa Rehberger anchoring last night tells the tale. Maddow isn’t going anywhere but it sounds like they do know there might be a problem.

  5. “I think Hayes and Wagner will be out of the deck before all this sorts itself out. Hayes’ show is awful…. I don’t see Alex Wagner being around much longer either.”

    ^^ Andy you’re confusing your personal dislike of a show with it being a reason a show should be cancelled. I hate Bashir’s and Sharpton’s shows but sadly both shows are still on the air. 😉

  6. They just unleased Wagner’s first Lean Forward ad. She’s not going anywhere. Unfortunately…

  7. I wish MSNBC would be newsy and less opinion. I think it’s a they can’t do breaking news well , especially who wants breaking news from Al Sharpton?

  8. I agree with some of Spud’s thesis but not all.

    I think MSNBC being forth is a product of a number of factors most of which are out of the networks control. FNC is first and will be first for the foreseeable future, HLN has been turned into a sensational true crime network and as long as that continues will continue to beat MSNBC. CNN has benefited recently from a series of breaking hard news stories (Boston bombing, Obama scandals, tornado coverage etc.) and they always do well in crisis coverage.

    As well many regular viewers of the network, like me, tune in for political analysis and not to watch LOD or Maddow do tornado coverage. I for one have watched much less primetime MSNBC coverage lately and tuned to other networks; and not necessarily CNN or FNC.

    Re Hayes new show I think all the navel gazing is just that – navel gazing. He’s only been on a few months and all I see his poor ratings proving is that Ed’s audience was not transferable. As to a solution; Moving Maddow up against Billo just hurts her ratings by comparison and LOD has said repeatedly he’s not doing Fridays so he’s not moving either.

    If, as suggested above, you need a firebrand then move in Bashir or Sharpton into the slot. Personally I think that would make the situation much, much worse.

    I’d either try and make the show work with Hayes – maybe with a different format; try out different hosts, like Ezra Klein, Joy Reid or even Chuck Todd.

    Then again I hear Olbermann is looking for a job.

  9. Klein is another Hayes. Reid isn’t a big enough name. Todd would sooner slit his wrists than do opinion (which is what primetime predominately is).

  10. They ought to think outside the box. Prison based cartoons.

  11. I’d watch Bashir at 8 just to see Rachel try to handle the hand-off without choking him.

  12. “Klein is another Hayes.”

    ^^Klein is a much better Hayes.

    ^^Reid isn’t a big enough name.”

    ^^ Neither was Maddow until she got her own show.

    “Todd would sooner slit his wrists than do opinion (which is what primetime predominately is).”

    ^^Maybe it’s time (as Nixon says) to think outside the box. Political news and analysis, as opposed to political opinion, in primetime. BTW, there’s lots of opinion on Daily Rundown; it’s just not done by the host.

  13. If you are making programming judgement simply based on the last couple months, Maddow should be fired and Piers Morgan should be the next face of CNN. Yeah, that wouldn’t be stupid or anything. Really, breaking news has nothing to do with CNN’s rating success?!?! Really?!?! Morgan beat Maddow – that only happens in an alternate universe. Cooper’s success is completely deserved and in light of recent events it is no surprise he would kick the crap out of MSNBC in the midst of a crisis.

    “Andy you’re confusing your personal dislike of a show with it being a reason a show should be cancelled. I hate Bashir’s and Sharpton’s shows but sadly both shows are still on the air.” — Fritz, my sentiments exactly (especially Bashir – geez what a partisan hack he is)!! Olberman was very successful but I never watched his show cuz I couldn’t stand the jerk.

  14. I think Spud is right on this one – patience is in order. Besides, if MSNBC wants to liven things up, I don’t think rearranging personalities is the issue (although the Hardball rerun is a dumb crutch). People like some consistency in programming. CNN has tried the personality gambit and it hasn’t paid off. MSNBC could try getting their anchors out of the studio more. I don’t mean storm chasing per se. Remember, Matthews used to do the Hardball College tour – Maddow or Hayes could totally do something like that! Or Ratigan who did that bus tour. Cover stories and go to the source instead of phoning it in from New York. Yes, getting out of New York on occasion could be very helpful for perspective. I was kinda impressed the extent to which Morning Joe sent people to OK post tornado. Do more of that. Secondly, maybe they need a good newsperson in the mix. Someone like Cooper, Blitzer, Smith, or Tapper. The nonpartisan anchor doesn’t need to have a primetime show but someone that people could count on and turn to in a crisis. Shep Smith isn’t primetime but he is known and respected. Breaking news happens, put the serious news anchor on to handle things. Chris Jansing has sort of been that person but for whatever reason she hasn’t caught fire and become a name that people know. Just a thought.

  15. As Chuck Todd’s program is the only one I DVR, I’d watch him do his show in the evening. Sadly for the reason I like it, others in the madding crowd won’t. Yes, the opinion guests are there, but more thoughtful and reasoned with Todd keeping an even keel. Not bombastic enough nor hammering enough of enemies.

  16. Comcast should think of their shareholders and sell off MSNBC.

  17. Their shareholders? You mean the extreme minority who are conservative and show up at shareholder meetings just to make noise? Those shareholders?

  18. Yep, God bless ’em.

  19. I agree with much of what you said Spud, but I disagree about Hayes. His show IS a problem. The problem with Chris Hayes during this news cycle is that he often times ignores big news stories. I like that MSNBC seems to let their shows do their own thing instead of making everyone tow a company line but they do need to reel Chris Hayes in just a little.

    I’m not downplaying the importance of having to discuss sexual assaults in the military but, when there’s three other political stories going on that are dominating the news cycle, you can’t justify leading off and spending almost an entire show discussing sexual assaults in the military.

    I don’t see Hayes lasting long. And they made a huge mistake not launching his show right after Ed left for weekends. They basically gave a lot of Ed’s viewers two weeks to find something else to watch.

    And I’d be shocked if MSNBC kept the Wagner experiment going. As for Mediaite’s suggestions that they should try her in primetime – ain’t gonna happen. They already tried her in primetime and her ratings were beyond terrible.

  20. Fritz, my sentiments exactly (especially Bashir – geez what a partisan hack he is)!! Olberman was very successful but I never watched his show cuz I couldn’t stand the jerk.

    There’s a difference between Olbermann and people like Bashir and Wagner. People actually watched Keith Olbermann.

  21. If I were in charge, I’d put Melissa Harris-Perry on at 8pm. She’s already got a good little fanbase with progressives but, even more importantly, Conservatives hate her more than they hate Maddow. Conservatives would actually tune in to her show just to go on the internets and rage about what she says. They already do cling to everything she says and rage about it. And when someone’s hated that much by the right, the left will support them.

    It’s kind of like when Rush went after Sandra Fluke and she became a celebrity. Honestly, Olbermann had terrible ratings until O’Reilly and others at FOX News began with their stuff.

  22. Also, getting it right is a noble thing to lose viewers over. Realistically, the media watchdogs should be stating that certain networks get it right and others don’t and people will start tuning in to the networks who get it right. But the “watchdogs” are worse than the television media now. They’re partisan hacks who’s sole purpose is to draw viewers away from the “liberal media” and towards FOX.

  23. Also, getting it right is a noble thing to lose viewers over. Realistically, the media watchdogs should be stating that certain networks get it right and others don’t and people will start tuning in to the networks who get it right. But the “watchdogs” are worse than the television media now. They’re partisan hacks who’s sole purpose is to draw viewers away from the “liberal media” and towards FOX.

    Yes, Andy, it’s a massive conspiracy to take viewers from MSNBC by FOX. Actually, “partisan hacks” pretty much describes MSNBC’s current line up. Or commie stooges. Whatever works for the reader.

  24. That’s not what I said, Nixon, but thanks for shoving words in my mouth. Most of the media watchdogs are Conservative and believe the media is Liberal. Because FOX News represents their ideology, they think FOX is down the middle and, as a result, drive viewers that direction by criticizing everyone else.

    Newsbusters is more likely to come out praising Obama for the IRS targeting TEA Party groups than they are to come out and say FOX got a story wrong and MSNBC got it right. That’s the nature of the media watchdog business now. And FOX News Watch, which used to be a good show, has become an extension of that with their standard “FOX good, everyone else bad” presentation.

  25. I forgot that you have no concept of sarcasm.

  26. “And I’d be shocked if MSNBC kept the Wagner experiment going….If I were in charge, I’d put Melissa Harris-Perry on at 8pm. She’s already got a good little fanbase with progressives”

    ^^ Andy here you kinda prove my point about how a personal opinion of a anchor blinds your opinion has to their possible success or failure in a particular time slot or whether or not they make a good show host.

    I don’t think Wagner is all that bad a host and can’t stand MHP. We have a similar political POV but our opinions of a host’s talent is based on what we think of their performance and not their ideology.

    Just sayin’.

  27. “I forgot that you have no concept of sarcasm.”

    ^^ And Nixon knows all about sarcasm. 🙂

  28. I have no problems with Alex Wagner’s ideology – it’s her presentation I can’t stand. I tried to give her a chance – Sandy Hook was my final straw when she’s talking about maybe we can finally discuss gun control with that annoying little smirk on her face when 20 children were dead. There’s a reason the NRA “won” the gun argument by saying liberals couldn’t wait to politicize the tragedy. That’s because, well, Alex Wagner politicized the story instantly.

    I guess there are a few hipsters that like her and watch her show – but the ratings show it ain’t many.

  29. I forgot that you have no concept of sarcasm.

    Oh, wank off. You keep making idiot statements and then, when you’re called out, you say you were being sarcastic. As I said before, it’s hard to tell when your “sarcastic” comments are just as idiotic as your serious comments.

  30. “I forgot that you have no concept of sarcasm.”

    ^^ And Nixon knows all about sarcasm.

    Yep, I can be one sarcastic bast*rd when I want to. However, I can also have oodles of charm when I want.

  31. Oh, wank off. You keep making idiot statements and then, when you’re called out, you say you were being sarcastic. As I said before, it’s hard to tell when your “sarcastic” comments are just as idiotic as your serious comments.

    Andy, did you even go past the third grade? It’s not my fault that your reading comprehension is so poor that you can’t tell what is and what isn’t real.

  32. “I have no problems with Alex Wagner’s ideology – it’s her presentation I can’t stand.”

    ^^ That’s what I’m saying; only in reverse. My view of MHP is based solely on her irritating delivery (in my opinion) and her shows tendency to deal with mostly racial and gender political stories. I liked her when she subbed for Maddow and had to deal with stories put forth by Maddow’s producers but her show and guests, for the most part, have a very limited POV.

    “I guess there are a few hipsters that like her and watch her show”

    ^^ Never been called a “hipster” before. I hope it’s a compliment. 🙂

    “the ratings show it ain’t many.”

    ^^ Not so sure about that. There are only a few ratings available about either show and I see them as inconclusive – at best.

  33. I read MHP’s book “Sister Citizen” with an open mind. It turned out that she is really full of bitterness and hate. I guess that it never crossed her mind that other groups have also faced a rough time. In some cases, the government signed multiple treaties with them that they then promptly violated, and then forcibly relocated them far from their rightful home or simply tried to slaughter them.

  34. That darn porno-kat claims ratings for Now with Alex are few and inconclusive. Ahem: scribd.com/doc/144958660/…

    Now is right at the bottom 5 at MS, where even the top 5 isn’t good!

  35. The link :

  36. The only shows doing worse than Alex Wagner are Way Too Early, First Look and Live with Thomas Roberts. If they moved, or better yet cancelled, Wagner, 9am-3pm would be much better off since they have hard news and neutral commentary.

  37. Now Larry, you are going to confuse Fritz with facts, just like the concept of sarcasm causes a butthurt badger.

  38. Get out of my self-dug hole.

  39. “Now is right at the bottom 5 at MS,”

    ^^All the shows between Jansing and ‘The Cycle’ have about the same numbers. The rankings are what they are and as I said inconclusive. I was talking about daily ratings, like what we get for PT – and not monthly rankings – but you knew that and just wanted to get in a snarky comment. Hope you feel better now.

  40. I Tawt I Taw A Puddy Tat.

  41. I tawt I taw a porno tat.

  42. I DID taw a porno tat!

  43. […] gets Phil Griffin on the record, which I argued yesterday was an absolute necessity at this […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: