Voyeur-House.TV - Part 2

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Amy3 said:

It depends on their economic status. But, there is no reason that VH can’t front potential tenants rent or cams as a loan or sorts. It wouldn’t be unusal for them to do this. The manager really adds nothing. The tenants still have to pay the rent and the bills for their apt. As it is, the the most the tenant can hope for is to earn 50% of the possible earnings from VH. The manager doesn’t really do anything yet they take their daily cut for simply finding the tenant.    The original idea of VH was to have tenants set themselves up with the VH network and stream their apt and a separate entity from all the other apts. I happen to think that would have created a better voyeur experience instead of this model where manager essentially hire their friends and friends of of friends and then have certain expectations of their earning potential. If Ary and George wanted to just chill for a month they could and VH wouldn’t care, but if an underling tenant tried that they get put on notice and threatened with expulsion. I think VH should prohibit managers from kicking anyone out immediately unless there is violence involved. 

Another arguement could be made that allowing a manager to carry over tenants who are no longer earning views anymore is a bad thing. I don’t like this arguement so much because it’s kinda cruel. But, perhaps it’s bad for VH to allow managers to save tenants who are washed up or simply don’t want to be here, but they have no where else to go and so they linger here. 

There are many reason why having manages is a bad model. 

And is previously mentioned your argument loses a bit of its momentum when it comes to Anna & Alex as they have shown in most cases that the tenant comes before the business, do you honestly believe that some participants would still be here if VH was managing it all themselves. IMO if VH was managing all participants then there would possibly be only half the amount of apartments there are now. And also they would still need to employ a manager to look after all these people.

What I think is that VH needs to make sure the managers are held more accountable and not allow for any sort of sub managers, if a manager needs a sub manager then they should get removed from the role as manager as they aren't fulfilling what should be a fairly straight forward role. Also I think that a manager should only be responsible for participants within a certain area so it is easy for them to be respond quickly if anything goes awry.

[Refur]

I have to guess how VHTV business model looks like but my model would look something like this.

I take half of the income and half goes to apartments participating in the project. The apt pot is then divided pending on viewing. Viewing can be measured by clicks on cam, minutes watched or whatever, as long as it gives a fair assessment of the interest an apartment is generating. At the end of the month % of viewing is calculated for each apt. and the pot divided out.

So, VHTV subscriptions income / 2 = apt pot. Each apt then gets its % of total viewing over the month. If 1000 subscribers paying 29.95 per month then, 29.95 $ * 1000 / 2 = 14.975 $, and apt with 10% of total viewing would then get 1.497,5 $ for that month.

From that, the managers take their share and rest divided among participants living in the apt.

[Coffee94]

54 minutes ago, Refur said:

I have to guess how the VHTV business model looks like, but my model would look something like this.

 

I take half the income and half goes to the apartments in the project. The pot is then divided apt waiting on the display. Viewing can be measured by clicks on cam, minutes watched, or otherwise, as it gives a fair assessment of the value of an apartment generates. At the end of the month% of viewing is calculated for each apt. the pot and divided out.

 

Thus, subscriptions VHTV income / 2 = apt pot. Each apt then gets his% of total viewing in the month. If 1000 paying 29.95 per month subscribers then $ 29.95 * 1000/2 = $ 14,975, and apt with 10% of total viewing would then get $ 1497.5 for that month.

 

From there, managers take their share and rest distributed among the participants living in the apartment.

 

That's also what I think. Simple, effective and fair.
The total view time is the sum of the connection times of the 1,000 subscribers (in your example).
Let's say 2 hours of connection per day and per subscriber -> 2 * 30 * 1,000 = 60,000 hours of monthly connection. To win 10% of the pot (the 50% dedicated to tenants) it will be seen 6,000 hours in the month by these 1,000 subscribers an average of 12 minutes daily.
This is your thinking Refur?
 

[Refur]

1 hour ago, Coffee94 said:

That's also what I think. Simple, effective and fair.
The total view time is the sum of the connection times of the 1,000 subscribers (in your example).
Let's say 2 hours of connection per day and per subscriber -> 2 * 30 * 1,000 = 60,000 hours of monthly connection. To win 10% of the pot (the 50% dedicated to tenants) it will be seen 6,000 hours in the month by these 1,000 subscribers an average of 12 minutes daily.
This is your thinking Refur?
 

Yes, that is it more or less. Of cause average viewing time per subscriber can be calculated but that is not so important. Some log in for few min. every other day while others are logged in 24/7. The important figure is the actual total viewing time of all subscribers over given period and then apt. share in that pot.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Refur

[Coffee94]

27 minutes ago, Refur said:

Yes, that is it more or less. Of cause average viewing time per subscriber can be calculated but that is not so important. Some log in for few min. every other day while others are logged in 24/7. The important figure is the actual total viewing time of all viewers over given period and then apt. share in that pot.

 

I hope this will close the substantive debate. Phantasies and other paranoid delusions should calm down.

 

[jjkopite]

11 minutes ago, Amy3 said:

Delusional? No! Everything I said is based on what VH has said already. I admit there are factors that I don't know. For example, I don't know how many subscribers VH has and I don't know the average daily viewing time. I also do not know precisely how a view is counted. I'm pretty sure that it's based on minutes watched, but it could be down to the second. I also am guessing that if a subscriber watches more then one cam that their view gets divided by how many cams they are watching. In other words, you can't double the value of your view by watching 2 cams. I do know how much a maximum sub costs and I do know that VH takes 50% of the money from each subscription. I also am fairly certain that VH is not dividing up the other 50% that's left over from a subscriber who don't watch the cams 24 hours a day, evenly across all of the tenants. No, VH pockets every amount of that, I'm pretty sure. That's why I say, if a sub is worth $1.30/day and the sub does not watch anything, then VH keeps the whole $1.30. They are not taking the other $0.65 and dividing it by the number of tenants and paying them with it. James will have to come here and tell me himself that they do that, but he won't cause they don't. That's all VH money. The tenants have a chance to earn the money by the time of views. 

In your example, let's say 1000 people with max paid subs watched a cam for 2 hours and then all 1000 people didn't watch anything else in the 24 hr period. The tenants would earn 

$1.30 divided by 2 equals $0.65 for VHTV and $0.65 for the tenant, assuming no manager cut. 

Then, since $0.65 is the total daily worth of a sub and since they only watched for 2 hours then, $0.65 divided by 24 equals $0.027/hour. 

So, if 1000 people watched for 2 hours, the tenant would earn $0.027 times 2 equals $0.054 times 1000 equals $54.00.  

But check this out. Again assuming these 1000 subscribers don't watch anything else the rest of the day. Guess how much VH made? 

Well, that would be $0.65 times 1000 equals $650.00. Plus, they also got to keep the rest of the subscribers worth that day. So, add to that the other 22 hours of viewing time that was unused by those 1000 subscribers. That would be $0.027 times 22 equals $0.594 times 1000 equals $594.00.  So, the grand total that VH earned off those 1000 subscribers that day would be $1244.00. 

So, let's recap. In this 24 hour period, the tenants earned $54.00 and VH earned $1244.00 based on 1000 subscribers who paid the max subscription rate. 

*** Feel free to subtract out the managers cut if they have a manager. I'll let you guys try and figure out how much that is. 

Don't you just love numbers! 😵

[jabbath1987]

2 minutes ago, Amy3 said:

Yes, but more so I just love knowledge! 😍

Anyone care to refute my comments? It's too bad James abandoned us. I would love to see what he would say.  

Sorry I am out of this discussion. Too much unkown variables and my crystal ball needs polishing and maintenance badly 😋

[jjkopite]

2 minutes ago, Amy3 said:

Yes, but more so I just love knowledge! 😍

Anyone care to refute my comments? It's too bad James abandoned us. I would love to see what he would say.  

A very plausible theory but unfortunately we don't have VH's figures or know what percentage they manages steal, sorry  "earn", from the tenants.

[Howard]

21 minutes ago, Amy3 said:

Delusional? No! Everything I said is based on what VH has said already. I admit there are factors that I don't know. For example, I don't know how many subscribers VH has and I don't know the average daily viewing time. I also do not know precisely how a view is counted. I'm pretty sure that it's based on minutes watched, but it could be down to the second. I also am guessing that if a subscriber watches more then one cam that their view gets divided by how many cams they are watching. In other words, you can't double the value of your view by watching 2 cams. I do know how much a maximum sub costs and I do know that VH takes 50% of the money from each subscription. I also am fairly certain that VH is not dividing up the other 50% that's left over from a subscriber who don't watch the cams 24 hours a day, evenly across all of the tenants. No, VH pockets every amount of that, I'm pretty sure. That's why I say, if a sub is worth $1.30/day and the sub does not watch anything, then VH keeps the whole $1.30. They are not taking the other $0.65 and dividing it by the number of tenants and paying them with it. James will have to come here and tell me himself that they do that, but he won't cause they don't. That's all VH money. The tenants have a chance to earn the money by the time of views. 

In your example, let's say 1000 people with max paid subs watched a cam for 2 hours and then all 1000 people didn't watch anything else in the 24 hr period. The tenants would earn 

$1.30 divided by 2 equals $0.65 for VHTV and $0.65 for the tenant, assuming no manager cut. 

Then, since $0.65 is the total daily worth of a sub and since they only watched for 2 hours then, $0.65 divided by 24 equals $0.027/hour. 

So, if 1000 people watched for 2 hours, the tenant would earn $0.027 times 2 equals $0.054 times 1000 equals $54.00.  

But check this out. Again assuming these 1000 subscribers don't watch anything else the rest of the day. Guess how much VH made? 

Well, that would be $0.65 times 1000 equals $650.00. Plus, they also got to keep the rest of the subscribers worth that day. So, add to that the other 22 hours of viewing time that was unused by those 1000 subscribers. That would be $0.027 times 22 equals $0.594 times 1000 equals $594.00.  So, the grand total that VH earned off those 1000 subscribers that day would be $1244.00. 

So, let's recap. In this 24 hour period, the tenants earned $54.00 and VH earned $1244.00 based on 1000 subscribers who paid the max subscription rate. 

*** Feel free to subtract out the managers cut if they have a manager. I'll let you guys try and figure out how much that is. 

Ouch!  That hurts the head following these numbers. 🙂

But on a side note, never...never under-estimate the amount of subscribers a company has with a world-wide audience.

Early in my career (1990s), I had the opportunity to have a product sell in all Sears stores in the southeast of the USA (Sears is (was) a large department store for those out of the US).  I declined because my profit margin would be 12% less then I needed to be a viable opportunity.  I blew it. I under-estimated their customer base after seeing a competitor do well having their product selling in Sears.

A few years later, I had another product (actually six products with little variation from one another) I 'pitched' to Walmart (a very large department store in he US). The short version is Walmart told me what they can sell the product for. Walmrts general formula is their selling price is 100% + 2 cents mark-up on what they determine should be the cost to produce. Nevertheless, *I* had to determine if my costs (and profit margin) is acceptable for my business to proceed.  We ended up with a 6 month test run in 42 locations (I accepted 17% less profit then I needed with the hope that volume will make that up).  Five of my products did well after 6 months that by the end of the 12th month, I was in 92% of all Walmarts. I was able to cut my costs based on the volume of orders, reach my original profit margin and everything went well (relationship with Walmart lasted 4 1/2 years). I sold the business and the product was in Walmarts for an additional two years.

You just don't know what volume (subscribers) VH has.  They have nearly 30 apartments so they must be doing something right (even though their streaming gets poor when there is 'action' in an apartment).  One question should be how long before a subscriber is no longer a subscriber (what's their cost to acquire more subscribers). My guess is less then 3 months - with subscriptions at their peak between April thru September.

The next step for VH should be discreet (subliminal) product placement.  But let's save that for another thread.

[golfer06]

i'm back to remind everyone that the pay will not be split relying on 24 hours of activity per apt. right away 8 hrs are for sleeping. don't make me take this to the other section to "talk" about how ridiculous that would be. remember 50% divived among the apts based on their activity!

[Coffee94]

1 hour ago, Amy3 said:

Délirant? Non! Tout ce que je dis est basé sur ce que VH a déjà dit. Je reconnais qu'il ya des facteurs que je ne connais pas. Par exemple, je ne sais pas combien d'abonnés VH a et je ne sais pas le temps d'écoute quotidien moyen. Je ne sais pas aussi précisément comment une vue est prise en compte. Je suis assez sûr qu'il est basé sur les minutes surveillé, mais il pourrait être à la seconde. Je suppose également que si un abonné regarde plus d'une came qui leur point de vue se divise par le nombre de caméras qu'ils regardent. En d'autres termes, vous ne pouvez pas doubler la valeur de votre vue en regardant 2 cames. Je ne sais combien coûte un sous-maximum et je sais que VH prend 50% de l'argent de chaque abonnement. Je suis également assez certain que VH ne se divise pas l'autre 50% qui reste plus d'un abonné qui ne regarde pas les cames 24 heures par jour, uniformément sur l'ensemble des locataires. Non, poches VH chaque quantité de cela, je suis assez sûr. Voilà pourquoi je dis, si un sous vaut 1,30 $ / jour et le sous ne regarde rien, alors VH conserve l'ensemble 1,30 $. Ils ne prennent pas l'autre 0,65 $ et en le divisant par le nombre de locataires et de les payer avec elle. James devra venir ici et me dire lui-même ce qu'ils font, mais il ne causera pas ils ne sont pas. C'est tout l'argent VH. Les locataires ont une chance de gagner de l'argent au moment de vues. James devra venir ici et me dire lui-même ce qu'ils font, mais il ne causera pas ils ne sont pas. C'est tout l'argent VH. Les locataires ont une chance de gagner de l'argent au moment de vues. James devra venir ici et me dire lui-même ce qu'ils font, mais il ne causera pas ils ne sont pas. C'est tout l'argent VH. Les locataires ont une chance de gagner de l'argent au moment de vues. 

Dans votre exemple, disons que 1000 personnes avec un max payés sous-marins ont regardé une came pendant 2 heures, puis toutes les 1000 personnes ne regardent rien d'autre dans la période de 24 heures. Les locataires gagneraient 

1,30 $ divisé par 2 est égal à 0,65 $ pour VHTV et 0,65 $ pour le locataire, en supposant qu'aucune coupure de gestionnaire. 

Ensuite, étant donné que 0,65 $ est la valeur quotidienne totale d'un sous et qu'ils ne regardaient pendant 2 heures puis, 0,65 $ divisé par 24 est égal à 0,027 $ / heure. 

Ainsi, si 1000 personnes ont regardé pendant 2 heures, le locataire gagnerait 0,027 $ multiplié par 2 vaut 0,054 $ fois 1000 $ 54.00 des égaux.  

Mais vérifier cela. Encore une fois en supposant que ces 1000 abonnés ne regardent rien d'autre le reste de la journée. Devinez combien VH fait? 

Eh bien, ce serait $ 0,65 fois 1000 est égal à 650,00 $. De plus, ils ont également pu garder le reste des abonnés d'une valeur de ce jour-là. , Ajoutez à cela les autres 22 heures de temps d'écoute qui a été utilisé par les 1000 abonnés. Ce serait 0,027 $ fois 22 équivaut à 0,594 $ 1000 fois est égal à 594,00 $. Ainsi, le grand total que VH obtenu à partir de ces 1000 abonnés ce jour-là serait 1244,00 $. 

, Récapitulons Donc. Dans cette période de 24 heures, les locataires ont gagné 54,00 $ et VH ont gagné 1244,00 $ basé sur 1000 abonnés qui ont payé le taux de souscription max. 

*** Ne hésitez pas à soustraire la coupe des gestionnaires si elles ont un gestionnaire. Je vais essayer de vous les gars et laissez savoir combien c'est. 

In fact, I do not care how much wins VH. What interests me is what wins an apartment that goes well (orgy, alcohol, debauchery ...) and an apartment that is not good (kind Bree & Drew for 4 months).
Quickly calculated from your data, Bree and Drew will need to earn about $ 250 this month, and the month before! How they pay rent, food, drinks, .....
Finally, you see that it is not possible!

You are suggesting that it is total misery for tenants because of VH. What are they still doing there?...
 

[Coffee94]

2 minutes ago, Coffee94 said:

En fait, je ne me soucie pas combien gagne VH. Ce qui me intéresse est ce gagne un appartement qui va bien (orgie, l' alcool, la débauche ...) et un appartement qui est pas bon (genre Bree & Drew pendant 4 mois).
Rapidement calculé à partir de vos données, Bree et Drew devra gagner environ 250 $ ce mois - ci et le mois précédent! Comment ils payer le loyer, la nourriture, les boissons, .....
Enfin, vous voyez que ce n'est pas possible!

Vous suggérez que la misère totale pour les locataires en raison de VH. Que font-ils toujours là? ...
 

When I say it's impossible, unless there are so many more subscribers than some people think (several thousand). But then, good apartments earn a lot of money (thousands of $ monthly).