Interesting video on Olyfans and premium Snapchat models

[kane]

Here's an interesting video about some of the reasons people are willing to pay for Onlyfans and Snapchat. A lot of it is basic business stuff, but there are some good lessons.

[SBJ]

yup that is so true and also true that my 2 top incomes right now it working for a phone sex company (where the girls do one on one calls and callers can talk about anything they want) and CB where girls interact with guys and they can take them private

If only I was a girl.. I'd have an onlyfans for sure.

[Paul Markham]

Onlyfans is either a great success for the industry or just for a few girls.

If it is a great success it only proves what I've said, affiliates are not necessary, over paid, over cossetted and will lead to a downfall in profits. Because if solo girls can drive this much converting traffic to their ownsites, it proves my point.

[Ferus]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Onlyfans is either a great success for the industry or just for a few girls.

If it is a great success it only proves what I've said, affiliates are not necessary, over paid, over cossetted and will lead to a downfall in profits. Because if solo girls can drive this much converting traffic to their ownsites, it proves my point.

Yes Paul - because all business ever running online, runs the exact same business-model and all traffic and cash flow are identical. And that is why you are always right and always were in the beginning.

... Just a shame you wasted all your time telling us about it of a forum, instead of banking on it yourself.

/sarcasm

[Paul Markham]

So let's assume OF is doing great and a great way to promote porn. What does that show us?

Fans, those are the people with the money that feeds the industry, love talking to girls. Either online or in person so including them in shows and opening it to the public is a no brainer if you want maximum promotion.

Anyone can drive traffic, none of these girls are webmasters, geeks or nerds. Just ordinary girls the fans want to relate to. No need to pay webmasters, geeks or nerds 50%, give them free samples, hosting, other tools etc to allow them to flood the internet with free content and put themselves between the fans and the sites selling the content.
This point is very important. Why allow affiliates to use a models name, the sites name or any term that allows them to get onto SEs in front of the sites selling that content? Why give affiliates free anything to place themselves between the buyer and seller.

The amount given to promoting the site led to not enough being spent on content. This led to loads of sub standard content that didn't convert, retain or bring back members for updates. Sites were launched with no updates, no money for updates and mediocre content. The site owners thought if they could only get enough traffic to the site someone would buy a membership. Sadly for these sites most customers saw the samples and tours and decided not to buy.

Please don't reply with "It's only possible now with social media". We've had forums from the beginning of the Internet, if that's the only option it could be used and was in places just not enough.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Ferus

Yes Paul - because all business ever running online, runs the exact same business-model and all traffic and cash flow are identical. And that is why you are always right and always were in the beginning.

... Just a shame you wasted all your time telling us about it of a forum, instead of banking on it yourself.

/sarcasm

I was working on a different market. Offline which paid me properly for my work.

With all the attention given to affiliates and the gigantic free wall they built between buyer and seller it was hard to go against the flow. Also made a lot of money selling cheap content to the clowns who thought they could make sites with cheap saturated content and if only they could get enough affiliates to drive enough traffic to convert the cheap saturated content. They could launch another site.

All this time there were sites showing them clearly how it should be done. Met-Art, DDF, Nubiles, Sapphic Erotica, etc. Imagine how great those sites would be if they didn't pay affiliates 50% to get in between the buyers and sellers?

[Roald]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Met-Art, DDF, Nubiles, Sapphic Erotica, etc. Imagine how great those sites would be if they didn't pay affiliates 50% to get in between the buyers and sellers?

Yeah, they pretty much all failed...

[plsureking]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Onlyfans is either a great success for the industry or just for a few girls.

i know its been awhile, but you don't remember what models are like? 99% are lazy as fuck. this is a great success for a few girls (the ones who want to work hard).



#

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Ferus

Yes Paul - because all business ever running online, runs the exact same business-model and all traffic and cash flow are identical. And that is why you are always right and always were in the beginning.

... Just a shame you wasted all your time telling us about it of a forum, instead of banking on it yourself.

/sarcasm

I was working on a different market. Offline which paid contributers properly for their work.

With all the attention given to affiliates and the gigantic free wall they built between buyer and seller it was hard to go against the flow. Also made a lot of money selling cheap content to the clowns who thought they could make sites with cheap saturated content and if only they could get enough affiliates to drive enough traffic to convert the cheap saturated content. They could launch another site.

All this time there were sites showing them clearly how it should be done. Met-Art, DDF, Nubiles, Sapphic Erotica, etc. Imagine how great those sites would be if they didn't pay affiliates 50% to get in between the buyers and sellers?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by plsureking

i know its been awhile, but you don't remember what models are like? 99% are lazy as fuck. this is a great success for a few girls (the ones who want to work hard).



#

How many models have you known over the years? I'll bet I've more.

It doesn't matter if only 1% want to work hard, they're the ones with the converting traffic and who cares about the rest?

What they want is a good return for their work, like us top content producers. That would clearly motivate another 5% to work hard posting online. Had to laugh that you consider posting online hard work.

Models and top content producers were given little for their work. $300 for a solo set and video. $1,500 for hardcore. We earned more from producing solo amateur readers wives pictures and a lot lot more for hardcore.

Models were offered as little as $25,000 per annum to go exclusive if they would do hardcore. A hardcore model was earning a minimum of $1,000 per scene $100,000 per year was easy and required little work.

The problem came from the approach webmasters adopted. They wanted nothing to do with the fans, except take the money. The buyer was stupid because he jerked off. They thought anyone can point a camera and any girl who flashed some pussy was hot, one only has to look at the replies to the pictures posted here to see what people thought was "hot".

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Roald

Yeah, they pretty much all failed...

Most are still going. So tell me what great sites you launched that are still going?

[Paul Markham]

Roald brings up a good point. Why did good sites eventually fail?

Was it because fans no longer wanted to consume porn? No we have the biggest consumer group ever.

Was it because the sites no longer kept the loyalty of the fans because other sites offered a better deal and for free?

Was it because of the industries general approach to fans. Thinking them stupid, they would buy anything becausethey jerked off, they could be conned in various ways, etc?

Was it because good models were reluctant to work for an industry that was hell bent on giving away their content for free and exposing them to the ridicule of family and friends?

Was it because the balance between the money paid out to promote a site and the money paid for the content (the thing the buyers wanted) finally became unprofitable?

I think you'll find it is a combination of all the above, except for the number of consumers. A billion people now consume free porn imagine converting those at 1-100. you can tell us no one wants to pay for porn. /irony

[Paul Markham]

So let's go positive.

What the video assumes is Snapchat, OnlyFans etc get as much traffic as Pornhub, Xhamster etc. We all know that's wrong. Even if both were free or paid for there's still a very sizeable that doesn't want solo girl, two girl, BG camera on a tripod porn. Stats tell us a lot of people want authentic, well shot, directed porn be it Amateur or Penthouse. Don't be fooled that anyone can create good porn.

SC, OF get a % of the audience.

Girls are supposed to be making high 4,5, 6 figure incomes monthly. Don't tell me it's because they get the traffic. All the traffic in the world won't convince enough enough buyers to buy shit when better is on offer. It's because the content is good enough to convert, retain and return customers. Good or bad content is a combination of model and shooter working together.

So how many of these 5 and 6 figure girls can elevate themselves up a notch by getting a professional to shoot them? Not saying that girls with a camera on a tripod won't work, I'm saying that's what 95% offer. If a model wants to be in the top 5% she needs to offer something different. Better lit Amateur or Penthouse, no shadows over the action, better angles and posed, better cropped, better length. A professional shooter can and will offer all that.

Yes girls offer a better experience, happier performers make better porn, fans get to think they know them and girls will put in a better performance than what they did for some shooter paying minimum and rushing them through the work. Shooters who accepted that were crap. Why didn't sites offer the same, it's no secret fans love seeing models in real life.

So why have so few professionals shooters entered the market, why do so few girls get a professional? Same amount of promoting, same way of promoting, just tapping into a different market than the other 95%. Which is clearly a big market as Tubes prove.

[celandina]

Originally Posted by kane

Here's an interesting video about some of the reasons people are willing to pay for Onlyfans and Snapchat. A lot of it is basic business stuff, but there are some good lessons.

Just proves that the world has many losers willing to pay for make believe girlfriend, the rest of the world wants a real content. That is why MetArt at al are here to stay

[BaldBastard]

Bella Thorne says she’s made $2M on OnlyFans in less than a week

https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...onlyfans-movie

It hasn’t even been a week since Bella Thorne joined OnlyFans, and the 22-year-old says she’s already made $2 million from her page.

The actress became a part of the subscription-only social media platform Wednesday, charging users $20 a month for access to her feed. The site — which allows influencers, adult entertainers and celebrities to share content that might be too X-rated for Instagram or Twitter — also hosts pages from Cardi B and some members of Bravo’s “Real Housewives.”

[RyuLion]

Great video! Thanks!

[Paul&John]

Interesting video ;)

[CurrentlySober]

Originally Posted by kane

Olyfans

OlyFans...

[ilnjscb]

Just like all the cam sites, only a few top models make over 100k on onlyfans. Most make nothing, and a few make a few hundred.

[badgirlfilms]

I liked you better when you were "DEAD"

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

So let's go positive.

What the video assumes is Snapchat, OnlyFans etc get as much traffic as Pornhub, Xhamster etc. We all know that's wrong. Even if both were free or paid for there's still a very sizeable that doesn't want solo girl, two girl, BG camera on a tripod porn. Stats tell us a lot of people want authentic, well shot, directed porn be it Amateur or Penthouse. Don't be fooled that anyone can create good porn.

SC, OF get a % of the audience.

Girls are supposed to be making high 4,5, 6 figure incomes monthly. Don't tell me it's because they get the traffic. All the traffic in the world won't convince enough enough buyers to buy shit when better is on offer. It's because the content is good enough to convert, retain and return customers. Good or bad content is a combination of model and shooter working together.

So how many of these 5 and 6 figure girls can elevate themselves up a notch by getting a professional to shoot them? Not saying that girls with a camera on a tripod won't work, I'm saying that's what 95% offer. If a model wants to be in the top 5% she needs to offer something different. Better lit Amateur or Penthouse, no shadows over the action, better angles and posed, better cropped, better length. A professional shooter can and will offer all that.

Yes girls offer a better experience, happier performers make better porn, fans get to think they know them and girls will put in a better performance than what they did for some shooter paying minimum and rushing them through the work. Shooters who accepted that were crap. Why didn't sites offer the same, it's no secret fans love seeing models in real life.

So why have so few professionals shooters entered the market, why do so few girls get a professional? Same amount of promoting, same way of promoting, just tapping into a different market than the other 95%. Which is clearly a big market as Tubes prove.

[Paul&John]

Btw the comparison is a little off/misleading in the video, because they compare porn shoot with onlyfans.. With porn shoots they can do many in a row then take a rest/go on vacation, but with onlyfans they need to be constantly online updating their profile / talking to people.. otherwise they risk losing some hardcore fans.

[Roald]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Most are still going. So tell me what great sites you launched that are still going?

1 great site we launched and still does great is SinfulXXX.com Female and Couple Friendly Porn!

Mediocre sites we launched that do great:
Grandmams.com - Older Women fucking Young Guys
FamilyScrew.com One Fucked up Family!
LetsGoBi.com - Bi Sex Adventures
GrandparentsX.com
www.swhores.com

Other mediocre sites we launched in the last months:
www.summersinners.com (top selling atm)
www.cuckoldest.com
www.pegging4k.com
www.mymilfz.com
www.fetishprime.com


And all the sites above are still updating. Thing is, mediocre is fine with me. I don't need to be the best in 1 niche. I rather spread out my luck

Any other questions?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by celandina

Just proves that the world has many losers willing to pay for make believe girlfriend, the rest of the world wants a real content. That is why MetArt at al are here to stay

Don't run down customers.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Roald

1 great site we launched and still does great is SinfulXXX.com Female and Couple Friendly Porn!

Mediocre sites we launched that do great:
Grandmams.com - Older Women fucking Young Guys
FamilyScrew.com One Fucked up Family!
LetsGoBi.com - Bi Sex Adventures
GrandparentsX.com
www.swhores.com

Other mediocre sites we launched in the last months:
www.summersinners.com (top selling atm)
www.cuckoldest.com
www.pegging4k.com
www.mymilfz.com
www.fetishprime.com


And all the sites above are still updating. Thing is, mediocre is fine with me. I don't need to be the best in 1 niche. I rather spread out my luck

Any other questions?

How much more would you have made if those sites were great sites?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by MrBaldBastard

Bella Thorne says she’s made $2M on OnlyFans in less than a week

https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...onlyfans-movie

It hasn’t even been a week since Bella Thorne joined OnlyFans, and the 22-year-old says she’s already made $2 million from her page.

The actress became a part of the subscription-only social media platform Wednesday, charging users $20 a month for access to her feed. The site — which allows influencers, adult entertainers and celebrities to share content that might be too X-rated for Instagram or Twitter — also hosts pages from Cardi B and some members of Bravo’s “Real Housewives.”

The test will be in 6 months, when we see how much of the initial membership has stayed.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by ilnjscb

Just like all the cam sites, only a few top models make over 100k on onlyfans. Most make nothing, and a few make a few hundred.

I think you're right. The 1,000s of girls on OF, SC etc are all plugging into the same market. Guys who like what a girl can produce on her own. Weall know that flooding a limited market with 1,000s of suppliers only brings down the profits for all.

[Paul Markham]

The Tubes phenomenon destroyed the industry as we know it. Giving so much away for free, paying top dollar to do so allowed Tubes to take over most of the porn traffic.

Could they have made a profit if the industry had paid 10% to promote itself? There's no reduction in the customer base just a huge reduction in the size of the free porn base.

We'll never know because most live in a small bubble where slinging out loads of mediocre sites is a great way to make a buck and creating a few great sites is beyond some people's perception.

[Roald]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

How much more would you have made if those sites were great sites?

Hard to tell. Making them great would mean bigger investments as well. Spending more time and resources on them. I don't think it would matter much for our bottomline.

Besides, define great. They are great already since they (mostly) have little investment and great returns.

[Jel]

lol, this cunt still trolling everyone? These days I can't tell whether he has just lost the plot for years, or is an evil genius hell bent on making everyone else waste precious time. A bit of both, I suspect.

[celandina]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Don't run down customers.

Losers who wank off to some chick telling them how she likes them (.... not), deserve to be run down. With a truck if I had one

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Roald

Hard to tell. Making them great would mean bigger investments as well. Spending more time and resources on them. I don't think it would matter much for our bottomline.

Besides, define great. They are great already since they (mostly) have little investment and great returns.

If the industry wasn't spending so much on throwing traffic at content that didn't get a click to sites that didn't convert, retain or bring customers back. There is no bigger investment.

If companies did all the promoting in house, people wouldn't need to compete with 1,000s of affiliates to get their content seen. One of the hardest things is to get seen by enough people to get a single conversion. A 1,000 views on a TGP site might result in 200 clicks to a tour and one sale.

Imagine an industry with no more than 50 TGP sites, because companies employed someone to submit. You don't need to be great at SEO because you're not competing with 100s of others for a good spot.

The biggest problem online faced is the number of people competing for a limited number of buyers. How many program, sites, affiliates and free tools are there? They didn't add a single customer in fact they took more away. They distributed free content, launched mediocre sites, conned customers, etc.

Unlike McDonalds they didn't offer a cheaper alternative. Customers are expected to pay the same for Brazzers, Met Art, etc as they are for a mediocre site.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Jel

lol, this cunt still trolling everyone? These days I can't tell whether he has just lost the plot for years, or is an evil genius hell bent on making everyone else waste precious time. A bit of both, I suspect.

And as we are talking of mediocre sites that tried to con affiliates to send waste traffic on lousy samples, to send traffic to a lousy site that didn't convert because the owner was some shitty guy who couldn't afford decent product.

How's your interacial lesbian site doing these days?

The sites Roald lists as mediocre aren't really that bad. Jel's site was.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by celandina

Losers who wank off to some chick telling them how she likes them (.... not), deserve to be run down. With a truck if I had one

So you prefer to wank off to a girl who doesn't communicate with you. Thankfully the market isn't all like you. Otherwise Cams wouldn't exist.

[Roald]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

If the industry wasn't spending so much on throwing traffic at content that didn't get a click to sites that didn't convert, retain or bring customers back. There is no bigger investment.

If companies did all the promoting in house, people wouldn't need to compete with 1,000s of affiliates to get their content seen. One of the hardest things is to get seen by enough people to get a single conversion. A 1,000 views on a TGP site might result in 200 clicks to a tour and one sale.

Imagine an industry with no more than 50 TGP sites, because companies employed someone to submit. You don't need to be great at SEO because you're not competing with 100s of others for a good spot.

The biggest problem online faced is the number of people competing for a limited number of buyers. How many program, sites, affiliates and free tools are there? They didn't add a single customer in fact they took more away. They distributed free content, launched mediocre sites, conned customers, etc.

Unlike McDonalds they didn't offer a cheaper alternative. Customers are expected to pay the same for Brazzers, Met Art, etc as they are for a mediocre site.

Oh ok, thanks!

[CaptainHowdy]

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Roald

Oh ok, thanks!

No worries.

It was strange you were arguing that the way the industry went, 10,000s of affiliates, giving away increasing amounts of free content, getting over paid and building a huge alternative to buying porn. Was the best way to go.

Like Cam girls and OF girls a few made a lot of money, some made a reasonable living. The majority made very little.

You work for one of the companies who would have made far more with a better way of promoting itself.

[Roald]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

You work for one of the companies who would have made far more with a better way of promoting itself.

Paul, you really have no idea what you are talking about. Let's start with the fact I am one of the two owners and I would say we do fairly well

But it's ok, you can't know it all. Even though you still think you do.

Have a great weekend, bingo tonight?

[celandina]

This video has been removed for violating YouTube's Terms of Service.

I guess BBC "Hard Talk" is to controversial for the censor bunnies at Youtube

[ilnjscb]

Originally Posted by Roald

Paul, you really have no idea what you are talking about. Let's start with the fact I am one of the two owners and I would say we do fairly well

But it's ok, you can't know it all. Even though you still think you do.

Have a great weekend, bingo tonight?

Roald you need to do another master class. Freeones was easy to understand. Your new gig less so.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Roald

Paul, you really have no idea what you are talking about. Let's start with the fact I am one of the two owners and I would say we do fairly well

But it's ok, you can't know it all. Even though you still think you do.

Have a great weekend, bingo tonight?

As you know we sold to Seventeen and were dealing with Photorama long before we worked online. I assumed it was still owned by the same company, Bookpress, did they sell you the rights or did you buy the whole company?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by ilnjscb

Roald you need to do another master class. Freeones was easy to understand. Your new gig less so.

Yes Roald teach more people your skills so more people can compete with you for traffic.

This is one of the dumbest things online porn did, the rest I'll list.

Pay affiliates 50% plus
Give them tools and free everything.
Teach them.
Shape sites to suit affiliates needs rather than buyers needs.

The above only made it easier for affiliates to drive traffic, something we now know isn't hard when selling porn. The difficult part is in driving 100s to get a a signup with all the other affiliates scratching a living doing the same.

As we know, it isn't rocket science to get people to view and buy porn. If there isn't 10,000s of others doing the same and the product is good. Over paying affiliates, free everything, teaching, etc guaranteed there were 10,000 of little fish swimming in a small pool. Where only a few made a lot and the majority made very little.

Because most of the sites on offer weren't funded enough, because the affiliates needs were paramount to the buyers.

[Roald]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

As you know we sold to Seventeen and were dealing with Photorama long before we worked online. I assumed it was still owned by the same company, Bookpress, did they sell you the rights or did you buy the whole company?

The daughter took all over and made me a partner few years ago. So basically still the same family/company.

[slapass]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Yes Roald teach more people your skills so more people can compete with you for traffic.

This is one of the dumbest things online porn did, the rest I'll list.

Pay affiliates 50% plus
Give them tools and free everything.
Teach them.
Shape sites to suit affiliates needs rather than buyers needs.

The above only made it easier for affiliates to drive traffic, something we now know isn't hard when selling porn. The difficult part is in driving 100s to get a a signup with all the other affiliates scratching a living doing the same.

As we know, it isn't rocket science to get people to view and buy porn. If there isn't 10,000s of others doing the same and the product is good. Over paying affiliates, free everything, teaching, etc guaranteed there were 10,000 of little fish swimming in a small pool. Where only a few made a lot and the majority made very little.

Because most of the sites on offer weren't funded enough, because the affiliates needs were paramount to the buyers.

After all this time do you still see it as mistakes? I was there from 2001 on and I saw it as trying to get part of the pie. Some people copied and others innovated but it was all moving so fast, it was hard to tell what was right.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by slapass

After all this time do you still see it as mistakes? I was there from 2001 on and I saw it as trying to get part of the pie. Some people copied and others innovated but it was all moving so fast, it was hard to tell what was right.

Yes I still see overloading the industry with crap sites, affiliates and making it easy for more to join as a mistake.

Imagine an industry that still converted at the same rate as Newsgroups or link lists did, with the millions of more surfers we have.

Okay a lot of the growth is in countries with a low income, but anyone who can afford a computer, laptop, mobile phone and wathes porn is a target to sign up.

A few did speak up and say we were on a slippery slope giving away as much porn as possibe and calling it marketing. They were ignored and look at where we are today.

[adultmobile]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

How much more would you have made if those sites were great sites?

Wow you can miss even replying to Paul Markham if you log in only twice a year in gfy. About "great" and "quality" you mentioned Met-Art vs some Roald's random stuff he say is not great but yet it sells. I happen to have worked for Met-Art since early to pre-2010 era, then independently, then ended up sellng to Roald in 2016, so I'll tell my 2 cents.

In the old times at Met-Art, I was picking the cam girls (yes it was me doing casting but it was mostly remote if someone wonders how lucky this guy or something) to be within the site standards and skipping 90% of applicants. I been cruel with old-looking, little fat, large nose etc. models - I left out 90% of fetishes, including tatoo'd, this was Met-Art in early 2000s!

In studios (mostly Ukraine, Russia, some Czech - only much later in Romania too), we had 3CCD Sony/Panasonic cameras on tripods, lights to make those artsy shadows, and the girls were acting shy and teasing all the time, often with theme shows including special clothes (even costumes) and items.

Almost no girl worked from home, for quality control but also since no internet connection was cheap+fast enough at the time. We paid girls a nice fixed amount per hour + tips. The photoshoot and the live shows were alike: softcore and long for today's standards. 1+ hour private shows were common, $250+ cost and up so we had almost only whales and ages of customers were mostly 40-60 yr old - shows were all pre-paid appointments of minimum 30 minutes or so without free chat, a dream for models. They all miss those days and still cry about it when I hear from them.

Then myfreecams and tubes and so on. Then the 2008 crisis, then chaturbate and so on. Met-Art subsiding artsy public shows was no more feasible and switched to streamate whitelabel (smart move honestly), and I spun out to continue the stuff independently in stubborn way.

However, except for mainstream celebs like Bella Thorne, things changed forever about quality/price thing. I made some updates in modern directions, introduced a tips site (tubecamgirl - nice name lol), started to accept more kinds of models from their messy homes, but still with some limits on weight and looks... (called me nazi in cam girl forums...) and did not allow boys on cam (even Hegre had introduced that)... I been so conservative.

Like before, I still decided what models and content the user's will see, rather than register everyone and let the free market's demand-offer rule all automatically, whatever weird the home page caps would have been looked.

When I sold to Roald, I told them that "the site's customers are not used to see boys in cam, no b+g action there ever happened", and they replied: "They will get used" - LOL... that's a so natural and I missed to see it myself for like 10 years.

In adult the concept of "great quality" is subjective and only money talks - someone is bored by artsy perfect shy models and would rather pay for trash-looking gonzo punk rock fatties. If you run an adult company today is better to provide everything for everyone's taste - you more likely get lucky if you try many small things; limiting to one niche only and strictly curated models/content is quite ambitious and requires 100 times the luck, financially.

Ok these were many cents.