Em, Lexy & Pete

[Guest]

love is blind.

[spielo]

1 hour ago, zoifan said:

 

You are in love with very wrong girl my friend. The same big mistake Sid made .

 

I am not in love and would never fuck her...

I would only give her my apartment to gather revenues with nothing. She is a real artist - even if she doesn´t know what she is doing, most probably.

[jabbath1987]

Time to get some style and sexyness back in here ❣️😇

[Houlii]

So Sid is kind of Squating here now but brings his buddy to stay there as well..huh

[KirbyFCF2]

On 5/7/2018 at 5:50 PM, pahman said:

Kyle is gone, Misty has found someone else.

Doesn't she always find someone else?  Isn't that why her boyfriends are usually referred to by number, not by name?

[KirbyFCF2]

On 5/7/2018 at 2:52 PM, jabbath1987 said:

Haha good one. Em has her awful dinosaur onesie... 

I think the dinosaur outfit is cute.  However, it is also annoying since we would prefer to see her naked.

[budda]

Yesterday morning I started to follow - hour by hour - the views in the apartment of Em & Sid until same hour of this morning.

The result is shown in the table below.

It is important to consider that:

·        There were no sexual activities throughout all the day.

·        There were no exciting moments throughout all the day.

·        The apartment has been empty for 5 consecutive hours.

 

This "dead apartment" has totaled almost 5,000 views anyway !

 

In the following table, I hypothesized the net gain of Em & Sid (from which rental costs and utilities must be deducted).

Monthly revenues are very important and, if we consider some possible sexual activities or exciting moments, they could even double.

This confirms my thesis that Em & Sid have a business agreement:
Not regular sexual between us but just a few kisses or caresses to keep Voyeurs' attention high - We are a "money machine" even if we do nothing.

 

[Arkay2]

27 minutes ago, budda said:

This "dead apartment" has totaled almost 5,000 views anyway !

This is NOT how many views the apartment has. If you are using the 'views' value shown in CC for your calculations then this has no bearing on how many times the apartment has been viewed.  It only tells you how many times the topic in CC has been viewed which does not in any way relate to their income.

[groomy]

23 minutes ago, budda said:

In the following table, I hypothesized the net gain of Em & Sid (from which rental costs and utilities must be deducted)

No.

Views - the forum does not mean anything. VH does not pay for them.

Money for apartments - are considered only PREMIUM CAMS. Free is always zero bucks.

And most importantly - you took an incomprehensible modifier of cents (if you count the average view 10 seconds - nothing happens - it's 0.013). And again you forgot the main thing - 0.013 cents with % VHTV and manager (i think 50% all).

 

You counted the approximate earnings Foxy and Polly&Ray without epic evenings.

[budda]

30 minutes ago, groomy said:

No.

Views - the forum does not mean anything. VH does not pay for them.

Money for apartments - are considered only PREMIUM CAMS. Free is always zero bucks.

And most importantly - you took an incomprehensible modifier of cents (if you count the average view 10 seconds - nothing happens - it's 0.013). And again you forgot the main thing - 0.013 cents with % VHTV and manager (i think 50% all).

 

You counted the approximate earnings Foxy and Polly&Ray without epic evenings.

None of us knows exactly what the tenant payment process is.
What I wrote was used only to demonstrate how a "dead apartment" can generate high views. The revenue count - then - can be right or wrong.
Some of you - long ago - had pointed out how the "strange story" between Em and Sid (without sex) generated more attention than the one between Lisa & Grant who had sex every day.

Have a nice day

[nounou]

Who is the Guy sleep grand on the coach?

[Coffee94]

5 hours ago, groomy said:

No.

Views - the forum does not mean anything. VH does not pay for them.

Money for apartments - are considered only PREMIUM CAMS. Free is always zero bucks.

And most importantly - you took an incomprehensible modifier of cents (if you count the average view 10 seconds - nothing happens - it's 0.013). And again you forgot the main thing - 0.013 cents with % VHTV and manager (i think 50% all).

 

You counted the approximate earnings Foxy and Polly&Ray without epic evenings.

I doubt that VH's CFO is validating the payment to the number of views.
Too fluctuating and dangerous: imagine that the number of views doubles without increasing the number of members!
On his website, VH writes that he pays 50% of the subscriptions to the participants. I think that the 50% paid to all tenants is distributed proportionally to the connection time of each apartment (prorata temporis).
This model is fairly stable for VH revenues but not necessarily for renters. Indeed, at equal number of subscriptions, when the number of apartments increases everyone is paid less in equal connection time.