Mindful Marketing
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Meter & Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Engage Your Mind
    • Mindful Ads? Vote Your Mind!
  • Expand Your Mind
  • Contact

Individual Accountability in Wells Fargo's Sales Sham

9/30/2016

12 Comments

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence
John Stumpf, the CEO of Wells Fargo, America’s fourth biggest bank, recently returned to Capitol Hill for the second time in two weeks to explain how his firm allowed as many as 2 million fake accounts to be created over a five-year period.  While it’s fitting for the House Financial Services Committee and others to question the systems that allowed such widespread abuse, one shouldn’t overlook that in every instance, an individual made the decision to do the wrong thing, possibly with superiors’ support, but against better moral judgment.  Those personal actions also deserve some scrutiny.
 
About 5,300 Wells Fargo employees have been implicated in setting up the fake accounts, many of which were based on the information of real Wells Fargo customers.  Over a period of several years, low-level bankers and tellers did things such as moving funds from customers’ existing accounts to fabricated ones “without their knowledge or consent.”  These schemes resulted in some customers incurring a variety of unwarranted charges, including overdraft fees because their actual account balances were lower than they should have been.  In other cases, Wells Fargo employees created “phony PIN numbers and fake email addresses to enroll customers in online banking services.”  They also set-up 565,000 fake credit card accounts.
 
Those 5,300 employees have been fired, Wells Fargo has been fined $185 million, and the company has agreed to refund customers $5 million, but those remedies haven’t stopped the outrage over the illicit acts from spreading to persons not directly affected, including members of Congress who have grilled Stumpf about his role in the scandal.  Some have compared Wells Fargo to Enron and suggested that the CEO is running a “criminal enterprise,” which should land him behind bars.
 
Stumpf, who is forfeiting at least $41 million in compensation as a result of the scandal, has apologized, saying he is “deeply sorry” for Wells Fargo failing its customers.  At the same time, he has “rejected lawmakers’ attempts to cast the scandal as a consequence of broader failings in Wells Fargo’s leadership and corporate culture.”  Instead, he has suggested that the 5,300 former employees each suffered from an individual ethical lapse.
 
How could over 5,000 people working for one company just happen to make the same moral mistake?  The fact that so many precipitated the swindle, in the same organization, over a relatively short period of time, suggests that either something was being done to encourage the fraud, or there was a glaring lack of control for preventing it.
 
Some have suggested that the company’s product sales goals may have encouraged employees to fabricate accounts in order to meet their quotas.  Although overly-aggressive goals could have contributed to the corruption, it’s unlikely that such a system was the sole cause.  Many companies provide their salespeople with performance-based incentives, yet they don’t make-up orders.  There must have been either other institutionalized efforts to cheat or shared negligence in preventing it.
 
However, whatever the corporate compromises were, they don’t absolve the individuals directly responsible for the fraudulent acts.  In other words, Stumpf was right to suggest that there were thousands of individual ethical lapses—there had to be in order for the problem to multiply the way it did.
 
Each Wells Fargo employee who opened a fake account, borrowed a real customer’s email address, or invented a PIN, knew that what they were doing was wrong.  It would have been impossible for them not to.  Banking requires mental acuity, and a company doesn’t become the fourth largest in a very competitive industry without hiring sharp people.
 
Of course, cognitive ability doesn’t always translate into moral sensitivity; however, no Wells Fargo employee should have missed one major moral standard: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” or, treat others the way you want to be treated.  Virtually everyone can understand and appreciate the Golden Rule, which is found in every major world religion.
 
At some point, each person who participated in Wells Fargo’ sales sham must have thought to themselves, “I’m creating a fake account for someone, which will cost them money, compromise their identity, etc.;  I wouldn’t want anyone doing that to me,” yet they went ahead and did it anyway.  Did a corrupt corporate culture or misplaced incentives encourage or pressure employees to make the wrong choice?  Probably.  Still, each individual had a choice.  Even if doing the right thing came at great cost to them, e.g. their job, that alternative should have been preferable to intentionally harming others and sacrificing their personal integrity.
 
Poor company policies and individual impropriety both likely led to Wells Fargo’s sales scandal.  Regardless the cause, creating fake accounts cost stakeholders’ value and compromised societal values like fairness and respect.  Consequently, all those responsible, from the bottom up, are answerable for “Mindless Marketing.”
​
Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
12 Comments

EpiPen Pricing Plunder

9/24/2016

1 Comment

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence
Are there products you just can’t do without—maybe your morning coffee, a certain online social network, or your smartphone?  Of course, you can survive without those things if needed, but what if there were a product you absolutely had to have in order to live?  Mylan Pharmaceuticals makes one of those life-or-death products, the EpiPen, which increasingly has its users trapped between a rock and a hard place.
 
Whether you realize it or not, you probably know someone who is at high risk of anaphylaxis, “a potentially severe or life-threatening allergic reaction” that happens within minutes of exposure to a specific allergen.  A wide of variety of items can trigger such potentially fatal reactions, for instance: latex balloons, biting or stinging insects (e.g., bees), and certain medication, such as penicillin.  The most prevalent and perilous trigger for anaphylaxis, however, is food in the form of such common edibles as peanuts, shellfish, milk, and eggs.

It’s believed that as many as 15 million Americans have food allergies, which have increased dramatically in recent decades among children.  In fact, “every 3 minutes, a food allergy reaction sends someone to the emergency department,” and children under age 18 alone account for over 300,000 food-allergy-related ambulatory care visits each year.
 
When at-risk individuals contact their allergens, they have only a matter of minutes to receive treatment before potentially fatal symptoms spread.  That treatment should involve a trip to a hospital emergency room and a shot of epinephrine, a chemical that counteracts the tightening of blood vessels and relaxes the muscles of the airways.  Obviously two or three minutes are not nearly enough time for most people to reach a hospital, so enter a genuine life-saving device, Mylan’s EpiPen.
 
EpiPens are life-savers because they provide a portable, measured dose of epinephrine: A standard EpiPen contains .3 mg of epinephrine, while an EpiPen Jr. has half the dosage (.15 mg) for smaller children.  At the first sign of symptoms, the EpiPen is struck against a person’s outer thigh and held in place for 3 seconds, allowing the epinephrine to enter the body and stemming the symptoms until the person can receive professional medical treatment.
 
So, what’s the price of this potentially life-saving device?  Mylan has chosen to charge consumers $600 for a two-pack of EpiPens.  On one hand, the price seems like a bargain—a few hundred dollars to save one’s life is a small price to pay.  On the other hand, in 2009 a similar two-pack cost just $100, a price increase of 500% in about 7 years.

Of course, many products increase in price over time—that’s the nature of inflation.  It’s virtually unheard of, however, for a product to rise in price so much so fast, especially when most other prices are holding steady.  During the same time period U.S. inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), ranged from a high of 3.16% in 2011 to a low of 0.12% in 2015, yielding an average inflation rate of just 1.39% for the seven year period.
 
Those types of macro comparisons can be helpful, but they don’t tell the whole story.  If for some reason raw materials or other specific production costs rise precipitously, a manufacturer has no choice but to hike its prices.  That scenario, however, doesn’t describe Mylan’s cost structure.  Experts in the pharmaceutical industry estimate that one EpiPen likely costs Mylan $30 and might run as low as $20 per pen.  Of that total, the epinephrine costs only $1 and the injector parts just $2-$4.  The balance goes to manufacturing royalties.
 
Even if these estimates are low or other costs need to be added in, Mylan would appear to easily clear over $200 per device.  That kind of profit margin in conjunction with huge price increases is likely to upset many consumers.  Add the fact that EpiPens have shelf-lives of just 18 months and that users, many of whom are children, have few or no alternatives to the life-saving product, people become understandably angry, including those in Congress.
 
On September 21, the House Oversight Committee summoned Mylan CEO Heather Bresch to Washington to testify about EpiPen’s unseemly price increase.  As expected, legislators lambasted Bresch, but she held her ground, suggesting that the “‘complexity’ of the health-care system” misrepresented Mylan’s real profit margin, which she claimed was a more modest $50 per EpiPen.  This estimate didn’t exactly reconcile with another statement Bresch gave on CNBC in which she suggested that Pharmaceutical Benefit Managers (PBMs) were capturing much of the profit margin, and Mylan’s intake was about $275 per twin-pack of EpiPens.
 
Healthcare intermediaries do also affect price; although, Mylan’s actions appear to have had by far the biggest impact.  It’s also important to note that those at risk of anaphylaxis have other options:  Amedra Pharmaceuticals makes a similar product called Adrenaclick, and there is a generic epinephrine auto-injector.  One must wonder, though, about the availability and/or viability of these alternatives, given that most consumers haven’t heard of them and, according to Mylan, EpiPen “has been the most prescribed epinephrine auto-injector in the U.S. for more than 25 years.”
 
In a free market system, suppliers are able to set the prices they want, and buyers are welcomed to pay them, or go elsewhere.  Likewise, no individual or organization is obligated to make epinephrine injectors or any other product.  So, is Mylan any more answerable for producing EpiPens at a high price than you and I are for not making them at all?
 
The answer to this question, which involves more than just pure economic interactions, is “yes.”  Beyond the relationship of supply and demand, Mylan and other producers of life-saving medicines have a moral obligation to treat consumers fairly and not take advantage of their firms’ inordinate supplier power, which far exceeds their customers’ minimal buyer power
 
Mylan did a noble thing in deciding to produce EpiPens; however, that choice also comes with a responsibility to treat consumers right, especially given the med market’s unique characteristics.  The presence of a premier supplier with overwhelming market share discourages competitive entry into any industry.  In a heavily regulated one like pharmaceuticals, where FDA approvals can take decades, those barriers to entry are even higher than usual.
 
Given the very inelastic demand for epinephrine auto-injectors (consumers have to have them), Mylan’s momentous price increase will likely create stakeholder value: the company profits and people receive a life-saving device.  Still, the company should not have leveraged its asymmetrical supplier power to pressure consumers to pay so much.  Mylan’s methods resemble price gouging and consequently represent “Single-Minded Marketing.”
​

Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
1 Comment

Wells Fargo Insults the Arts

9/16/2016

21 Comments

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence
 One of the reasons our world works is because different people are able to do different jobs.  Not everyone can be a plumber or a police officer; we also need electricians, EMTs, etc.  Still, aren’t there some occupations that are just more important than others?  That’s the message Wells Fargo seemed to suggest in its recent, controversial ad campaign.
 
In order to promote its Teen Financial Education Day on September 17, the nation’s leading mortgage lender created two different print ads, both featuring young people in their future careers.  One was of a girl entering engineering, the other of a boy beginning botany.  At first glance, the ads seemed edifying.  A closer review of the copy, however, raised the ire of many:
     “A ballerina yesterday.  An engineer today.”
     “An actor yesterday.  A botanist today.”
 
Both ads also contained the tagline “Let’s get them ready for tomorrow,” alongside the pictures of the talented  teens.  So, weren’t the ads a nice way of encouraging young people to pursue their dreams?  Although some may have had that interpretation, many others saw condescension aimed at acting and dancing, as well as at an entire segment of society:  the arts.  Among the many negative reactions were the following tweets:  
  • “Apparently @WellsFargo doesn't think that an actor or a ballerina require any work at all! Shame” (@CynthiaEriVo).
  • “Dear @WellsFargo: This ad stinks. Sincerely, An actor whose mortgage you hold #theatre #dance #grownupscanbeactors” (@JK_Ready).
  • “*whispers. We make more money than your botanistttttttttttt.  Wells FarGoooooo... awayyyyyyy” (@ChrisMzCarrell).
 
In addition, a variety of well-known artists condemned the ads.  Among those speaking out were: songwriter Robert Lopez (“Frozen”), singer Josh Groban, and actors Anthony Rapp(“Rent”), Cynthia Erivo (“The Color Purple”), and Jenna Ushkowitz (“Glee”).
 
The last thing most companies want to do is to upset current customers or repel prospective ones.  Perhaps, therefore, Wells Fargo had a noble purpose in mind for the ads.  Many believe that STEM occupations (science, technology, engineering, and math) are the key to America’s economic future, yet many STEM-related jobs go unfilled because of too few qualified candidates.  So, maybe Wells Fargo was trying to help reverse the trend and better position our nation for the future?
 
Unfortunately, there were at least three problems with Wells Fargo’s approach:
1) If Wells Fargo wanted to support STEM occupations, there are better ways to do so than by highlighting them in ads at the expense of other careers.  The company has annual income over $22 billion and cash and cash equivalents over $713 billion.  It would be easy, therefore, for Wells Fargo to write a check for several million dollars to support STEM education.
 
2) Even if nations need more STEM-educated workers than they now have, they still need others as well.  What would a world look like without actors, dancers, musicians, painters, and other artists?  By practicing their trades and sharing their talents, they make life more colorful and enjoyable for most of us.  As suggested at the onset of this piece, every job is important in some way, and arts occupations make a very special contribution to society.
 
3) Just as not everyone is gifted to be a professional athlete or artist, not everyone is cut out to be a scientist, engineer, or mathematician.  “Science is not something that you can just do. It requires [unique] talent and ability.”  Rather than encouraging people to embark on career paths that are not right for them, we do better for individuals and society by “matching the appropriate talent with the appropriate opportunity.”
 
It’s unlikely that Wells Fargo’s antagonizing campaign created stakeholder value.  The public backlash described above pretty much guaranteed the ads’ inefficacy in terms of moving people into mortgages or building brand equity.  At the same time, the ads also failed to show respect for a key people group: those learning and working in the arts.
 
To Wells Fargo’s credit, it realized its mistake and apologized.  The company tweeted: “Wells Fargo is deeply committed to the arts, and we offer our sincere apology for the initial ads promoting September 17 Teen Financial Day.  They were intended to celebrate all of the aspirations of young people and fell short of our goal . . . Last year, Wells Fargo’s support of the arts, culture, and education totaled $93 million. ”
 
The company’s mea culpa was certainly a good thing; however, such remorse cannot reverse the damage already done.  Wells Fargo’s alienation of the arts, therefore, will be remembered as an act of “Mindless Marketing.”


Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
21 Comments

Apple's Headphone Highjack?

9/10/2016

18 Comments

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence
Has Apple cut the cord too soon?

After Apple holds its much anticipated Special Events, the buzz is usually about new features added to its popular products.   The most recent revelation, however, was most notable for what the world’s most profitable company will remove from its iconic iPhone.

Apple’s newest smartphone, the iPhone 7, will no longer feature the audio output that consumers have come to expect in all manner of technology for more than a century: a headphone jack.  Apple’s rationale for the removal is multifold: eliminating the output will allow the phone to feature a second speaker, improving sound quality; without the jack, the phone can become a little thinner; and most significantly, there are more advanced ways to listen to personal audio.
 
Even for people who pride themselves in embracing the newest tech, saying goodbye to something as time-honored as wired headphones isn’t easy.  Consequently, consumer reactions to Apple’s announcement have been mixed.  While some have supported the change, many others have called it a big mistake, and still others see it as a thinly-veiled ploy for profit.
 
The pro-jack people, over 300,000 of whom have signed a petition to keep the analog output, offer several compelling arguments why the headphone hole should stay, for instance: compatibility with other products, the reliability of a wired connection, and less restrictive digital rights management (DRM).

​Then there’s the suggestion that Apple’s cord-cutting is aimed at selling more expensive wireless headphones.  Apple’s own line of wireless headphones, called “AirPods,” will retail for $159, but there's more to the story.  In 2014, Apple bought Beats, a market leader in headphones.  Beat’s wireless earbuds start at $200, while its wireless headphones start at $300.  Sales of millions of jack-less iPhone 7s, therefore, also potentially mean purchases of millions of pairs of expensive Apple or Beats wireless headsets.

So, two questions remain:  By removing the headphone jack from the iPhone 7, has Apple make a major marketing misstep, or has it found a sly way to compel customers to prematurely go wireless, for the benefit of its own bottom line.  The answer to both of these questions is “No.”
 
Virtually any technology, no matter how good it is or how long it’s been used, will one day be replaced by something that’s more effective and/or efficient.  That’s the nature of innovation.  Apple has helped consumers get out of the old and into the new several times before, e.g., “Apple eliminated CD and DVD drives from computers, cutting unnecessary weight as the world was moving to streaming media.”  Such changes are often hard to swallow at first, but once we make the change and adapt our behavior, we rarely look back.  In fact, we wonder how we ever managed without the improvement.
 
In terms of the headphone jack, its removal is another step in the right direction, away from analog and toward digital technology.  Yes, wireless headphones tend to be high-priced, and sometimes have “spotty quality,” but like any new technology, those deficiencies will disappear over time.  And, if iPhone 7 consumers eschew wireless headphones, they can still have a hardwired, digital headset connection through their phone’s lightning port.
 
Still, isn’t Apple pushing people too far too fast, forcing them to adapt to new technology that they don’t really need?  First of all, no one has to buy an iPhone 7, or any other iPhone for that matter.  People purchase them of their own accord, in favor of many other smartphone alternatives.  What’s more, no one who buys an iPhone 7 and wants to use headphones has to have wireless ones.  The new phone will come with a 3.5 mm headphone jack adapter, which will allow users to plug almost any wired headphone into the phone’s lightning port.
 
Some may decry the waste of wired headphones that people will abandon in favor of new wireless ones.  Unfortunately that kind of product obsolescence happens almost every time there’s a major technological advance, e.g., more streaming of video has meant more unused DVD players and DVDs.  Ultimately, though, the production of fewer headphone cords should represent a net savings of resources.
 
Change is good, but it also can be hard to handle at first.  By eliminating the old analog headphone jack on the iPhone 7, Apple is again encouraging consumers to adapt to new technology that represents the future of audio.  Purchasers are free to opt in or out of the wireless experience with no real fallout.  Either way, Apple’s jack-less approach represents “Mindful Marketing.”
​
Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
18 Comments

Helping Moms Reenter the Workforce

9/2/2016

4 Comments

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

​Even with a good education and experience, finding the right job can be difficult.  Add-in a few years out of the job market, and securing employment becomes really challenging.  Unfortunately, that’s the situation faced by many of the best potential employees, mothers, but one innovative organization aims to alter that trend.
 
After several decades that saw the percentage of stay-at-home moms decline, the trend bottomed out at 23% of all mothers in 1999, and by 2012 the number had risen to 29%.  Likewise, it’s reported that 43% of highly qualified mothers (ones with greater than average education and experience) are taking significant leaves from their careers in order to be with their children. 
 
While such planned workforce absences tend to be very positive for these women’s families, the hiatuses often play havoc with a woman’s career.  For many prospective employers, a gap in employment is a red flag, as they reason that competent and productive people will continually be employed.  So, when managers review resumes with gaps of a few years, questions start to cross their minds like:
  • Didn’t they want to work?
  • Did no one else want to hire them?
  • Have their job skills deteriorated?
  • Are they capable of using new technology?

​These are challenging perceptions for any prospective employee to overcome, and the longer a mother stays out of the workforce, the harder it becomes for her to get back in.  Fortunately, one innovative agency has recognized the folly of forgoing the contributions of so many qualified workers and resolved to help these and other women regain employment outside the home.
 
Gwen Wunderlich and Dara Kaplan, founders of Wunderlich Kaplan Communications (WKC), a public relations firm based in New York City, had repeatedly witnessed the workforce reentry challenge, so they decided to do something about it.  They created the “Enternship,” a six-week paid internship for women over forty, who want to re-enter the workforce.  The program, which is open to all women 40+, not just mothers, teaches them things like how to: use digital technology, leverage social media, write press releases, create PR campaigns, pitch media, blog, and network.
 
Besides the Enternship, WKC also offers a variety of seminars and courses with similar aims, for instance: Everyday PR for your Personal Brand, LA Weekend Intensive, Girlfluence, and SEO to CEO.  The costs of these programs range from $595 to $1,450, depending on their duration and location.  The Enternship and other offerings have generated considerable buzz, grabbing news coverage in media such as the New York Post, Forbes, and the Huffington Post.
 
Some may wonder, however, if it’s right for a program to be so exclusive?  By targeting just women, WKC turns its back on half the population, i.e., men, and by only embracing women over forty, WKC excludes the nation’s largest age cohort:  75 million+ millennials.  Don’t these people deserve the same support?  Isn’t it unwise for WKC to ignore them?
 
First, most millennials, who range in age from 18 to 34, have not experienced significant employment interruptions from which they are looking to reenter the workforce.  Similarly, while there are men who sit out of the job market for some time, relatively few of them miss years of work because of child-rearing responsibilities; although, those numbers have increased.  In short, WKC has identified the market segment most likely to want and need its services.
 
Furthermore, a fundamental principle of market segmentation and targeting is that no organization can be all things to all people.  It goes without saying, but different groups of consumers have different desires.  If a company tries to craft a marketing mix that appeals to everyone, it usually ends-up satisfying no one.  Furthermore, very few organizations have the resources to try to do so.  Consequently, it’s in everyone’s best interest, companies’ and consumers’, for firms to focus on their main target market(s) and allow other organizations to satisfy other shoppers.
 
Helping women over forty, especially mothers, reenter the workforce is a noble undertaking that stands to benefit not just the recipients of the support, but also the organizations that hire them and our society as a whole.  WKC seems to be effectively and efficiently meeting this specific segment’s need, which makes the Enternship and its related programs “Mindful Marketing.”
​
Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
4 Comments
    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

    David Hagenbuch,
    founder of
    Mindful Marketing    & author of Honorable Influence

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    + Decency
    + Fairness
    Honesty7883a9b09e
    * Mindful
    Mindless33703c5669
    > Place
    Price5d70aa2269
    > Product
    Promotion37eb4ea826
    Respect170bbeec51
    Simple Minded
    Single Minded2c3169a786
    + Stewardship

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2020
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly