camming Site - Percentages

[Jack]

Not sure if anyone here can answer this, I know this is a downstream crowd and an upstream question.

What is it that cam sites do that they can claim 40%-50% of the revenues? I know, there is code to write and servers to pay and marketing, still someone like MFC or streamate.com take a really high percentage from hundreds of models seemingly for keeping the lights on.

"take video, show video" can't be *that* complicated a model to program. Pretty sure I had a friend do it as a college term project.

Is it a matter of that is just the percentage of what the industry takes and since that is where your choices are you take them? Is there a site offering 80% and you just don't go because there are no good clients or too much downtime?

Or is it the features of the sites you work with (like what?) that have you going back for a "smaller" percentage?

BTW I am not talking studios and the 10-20% of your cut they may take, I mean the video delivery cam sites you sign up on.

Just seems like at $4 a minute * 100 models * 7 days a week even a 10% cut of that more than pays the bills and makes someone very rich. Yet, in a competitive industry no one (seems to be) faltering from that percentage range.
Some has to say "hell even 10% of 10 girls at any time making $4 a minute 20 hours a day make me extremely happy." ($4800 a day if my math-in-my-head is right just on that brain experiment)

 

[mynameisbob84]

Businesses like to make money.

Even at a 50% payout, cam girls have the opportunity to earn more money in a month, than what many people earn in a year.

I reckon your answer lies in one or both of those statements

 

[Jack]

Businesses like to make money.

Even at a 50% payout, cam girls have the opportunity to earn more money in a month, than what many people earn in a year.

I reckon your answer lies in one or both of those statements

Certainly there is that high percentage. However, I have to think someone has thought they can tweak the model a bit. I mean, if a model can get say 25% paid minutes per hour at $4/minute and keep 50% of it, vs 40% of her time filled at $2 a minute and keep 80% of it, that is significant. I am guesstimating percentages and downtime, of course. As an average looking dude no one is paying me to be on camera so I can't say if those are at all accurate.

 

[Kunra9]

Hosting is a big part of it for sure. Without sites like MFC or whatever, each model that wanted to do this would have to have her own website, and alllll of the pain that comes along with it.

The 2nd biggest thing is traffic.

Sure every model realistically COULD do this themselves. But then there would be thousands and thousands of individual web sites with 1 girl playing with herself from home. How are you supposed to stand out and draw in customers? Not to mention, what kind of guy(yes the primary target is men), what kind of guy wants to have 10 different logins to 10 different websites with 10 different methods of payment, etc etc. If there are thousands of these websites, nobody would visit them. If there is 5 sites hosting thousands of models, it just makes it easier for everybody involved.


So a model COULD pay for her own website, her own advertising, her own tech(internet, servers, computers, etc), be her own support staff, pay companies to provide financial services (paypal, credit cards, etc), and HOPE she has people show up to her website to make a little money.

OR

She can sign up for MFC, let them do all the pain in the ass work, and make some money from home with her laptop and webcam.

 

[Evvie]

Businesses like to make money.

Even at a 50% payout, cam girls have the opportunity to earn more money in a month, than what many people earn in a year.

I reckon your answer lies in one or both of those statements

Certainly there is that high percentage. However, I have to think someone has thought they can tweak the model a bit. I mean, if a model can get say 25% paid minutes per hour at $4/minute and keep 50% of it, vs 40% of her time filled at $2 a minute and keep 80% of it, that is significant. I am guesstimating percentages and downtime, of course. As an average looking dude no one is paying me to be on camera so I can't say if those are at all accurate.

I have noticed a direct correlation with payout percentages. It is,

The more a website pays out, the shittier it is. The less the website pays out, the better it is.

LiveJasmin, which can pay out up to 80% (I believe) is widely reputed to be one of the worst cam sites to work on. Models must eat chargeback fees and I have heard stories of models being penalized because they did not want to engage in extreme fetishes. Their rules were ridiculous, and a model would get in trouble for being off of camera for 30 seconds to get a glass of water or use the restroom.

MFC, which pays out around 60 to 65%, is well known for crashing almost on a daily basis. Their ranking system is easily manipulated and punishes the models who earn the most overall in favor of models who earn the most per hour. MFC has a very low percentage of paying traffic. If a model has 500 people in her room, she can expect that 4 or 5 will be willing to pay for a show.

Streamate, which pays out 35%, has only been down once, for fifteen minutes, in the six months I've been using it. Their percentage of paying traffic is extremely high, and a model can expect that out of every 5 people in her room, 2 to 3 of them will be interested in paying for a show. Streamate recently came out with a huge update that expands model's ability to earn money by doing live television shows. Streamate pays out 35% because they are spending a shitload of money advertising and sending customers to your room. They also spend money on maintaining and improving their site. Despite Streamate paying out 35%, I take home more per hour than I did on MFC, which pays out twice as much.

Many people (especially, I have noticed, members and not models) don't quite get why a model is willing to sacrifice money in exchange for a secure, high-traffic, low-maintenance, convenient platform to work. The truth is that despite simple appearances, maintaining a successful webcam site is extremely expensive, and I am willing to take home $75 an hour (even though I only made 35%) instead of $20 an hour (even though I would be making 65%).

In general, investing a large percentage of money back in to the site pays off for both models and the site. That is why models are willing to take a smaller percentage in exchange for a better platform and bigger profits.

 

[AmberCutie]

Basically all that Kunra said. But in plain simple terms:

Hosting, advertising/traffic, intuitive controls/platform for the performer (technology), community, support, financial transactions taken care of.

Is there a site offering 80% and you just don't go because there are no good clients or too much downtime?

Or is it the features of the sites you work with (like what?) that have you going back for a "smaller" percentage?

There have been a couple sites pop up that offer 80%, but you may only find a handful of girls there due to the lack of traffic and lack of features on the site that are actually fun and useful.

 

[LaceyRoyce]

Traffic... the reason I am happy to take a lower % cut on mfc than sites that offer higher ones is simply traffic.

 

[Evvie]

As a side note, I feel it should be mentioned that some models will stay on a site because they like it, with payout percentage or overall profit being less important. The first comment models seem to make on a new site is usually about the "vibe" or atmosphere, and if they dislike a site, many models are unlikely to stay regardless of earning potential. I think that payout percentage is a poor indicator of how much a model can make; I think models should consider total earning potential and whether or not they actually enjoy working on the site instead.

 

[Kradek]

"take video, show video" can't be *that* complicated a model to program. Pretty sure I had a friend do it as a college term project.

Anytime I see this kind of statement, I know the person has no idea what they are talking about. Simple concept. Now do it for thousands of models at a time, with tens of thousands of viewers, while attracting traffic, managing the money, managing the tech stack, and doing customer support. College term project indeed.

 

[Jessi]

If I had my own camsite, Id still be spending 50% (maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less) for servers, programmers, advertising, designers, whatever. Except Id be arranging and managing all that as well as the financial/legal stuff myself. And thats time that could be spent camming.

I'm happy to give the site a cut for this. I don't work for MFC - I'm an independent using their tool to conduct my business.

 

[Shutterbuck]

A hair stylist walks into a salon that says they'll rent her a booth at $20 per $100 she makes. She looks around and sees that there are two clients... one of which is balding.
Next door is a salon that says they'll rent her a booth at $50 per $100 she makes. The difference is that this particular salon is filled to capacity with clients desperately needing their hair cut.
Why the hell would she care to make $160 a day off her two gentleman callers at Shabby Cuts next door when she has the potential to make many times more at Popular Pomps?

I don't understand why members view MFC (or any site for that matter) as "taking a cut" from the models. The way I view it, the models are renting a booth so to speak. They don't have shell out the bucks to build and or maintain the place... they just rent some space.
I should also add that I doubt very much that anyone cares what their barber/hair stylist is paying for their booth.

 

[snolyn4]

I don't begrudge(sp?) MFC for taking their cut....I pay 8 cents a token- the model gets 5, and MFC gets 3....I would have never found the model if not for MFC. I find it to be an equitable transaction. ( Yay, first post!!)

 

[Rose]

From a model's point of view: I would much rather make 35% of something than 50% (or 100%) of nothing.

Shutterbuck's description about renting a booth at a hair salon is really spot on. :thumbleft:

 

[curvyredhead]

Hosting is a big part of it for sure. Without sites like MFC or whatever, each model that wanted to do this would have to have her own website, and alllll of the pain that comes along with it.

The 2nd biggest thing is traffic.

Sure every model realistically COULD do this themselves. But then there would be thousands and thousands of individual web sites with 1 girl playing with herself from home. How are you supposed to stand out and draw in customers? Not to mention, what kind of guy(yes the primary target is men), what kind of guy wants to have 10 different logins to 10 different websites with 10 different methods of payment, etc etc. If there are thousands of these websites, nobody would visit them. If there is 5 sites hosting thousands of models, it just makes it easier for everybody involved.


So a model COULD pay for her own website, her own advertising, her own tech(internet, servers, computers, etc), be her own support staff, pay companies to provide financial services (paypal, credit cards, etc), and HOPE she has people show up to her website to make a little money.

OR

She can sign up for MFC, let them do all the pain in the ass work, and make some money from home with her laptop and webcam.

This seems to sum it up for me!

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I think one of the reasons that MFC is successful is because they pay out a high percentage ~60% to the models. To me a good comparison something like an app store or iTune which pay 70% of the revenue to the developer or musician or record label. Both App stores and MFC have to provide technical support to app developer and artist, or cam girls. The have to spend a ton of money, marketing and advertising the site to draw eyeballs to the site. They also host a lot of free content.

The difference is the bandwidth cost. It cost a tiny amount of money to deliver a few megabyte application or a song. A few pennies to deliver TV show or movie. However, I saw one analysis by a guy, who seemed to know what he was talking about, that estimated it would cost $3-$4 an hour to purchase the bandwidth to broadcast a model HD cam at 24 FPS.
You figure that gross revenue for MFC is around ~$25/hour per model so even $2.50/hour cost decreases their margins to 30%, which puts MFC right in line with an App store or iTunes.

The good news is there is a definitely a perception from lots of people like yourself that opening a cam site is surefire way to make millions. Consequently we do see a steady stream of new camsites, I love competition so I hope some more succeed. Right now I am rooting for chaturbate to make it, since it seems to fix most of my issues with MFC. But if anything it looks like is really struggling.

 

[Shaun__]

I think one of the reasons that MFC is successful is because they pay out a high percentage ~60% to the models. To me a good comparison something like an app store or iTune which pay 70% of the revenue to the developer or musician or record label. Both App stores and MFC have to provide technical support to app developer and artist, or cam girls. The have to spend a ton of money, marketing and advertising the site to draw eyeballs to the site. They also host a lot of free content.

The difference is the bandwidth cost. It cost a tiny amount of money to deliver a few megabyte application or a song. A few pennies to deliver TV show or movie. However, I saw one analysis by a guy, who seemed to know what he was talking about, that estimated it would cost $3-$4 an hour to purchase the bandwidth to broadcast a model HD cam at 24 FPS.
You figure that gross revenue for MFC is around ~$25/hour per model so even $2.50/hour cost decreases their margins to 30%, which puts MFC right in line with an App store or iTunes.

The good news is there is a definitely a perception from lots of people like yourself that opening a cam site is surefire way to make millions. Consequently we do see a steady stream of new camsites, I love competition so I hope some more succeed. Right now I am rooting for chaturbate to make it, since it seems to fix most of my issues with MFC. But if anything it looks like is really struggling.

Apple is nowhere near as nice as MFC. Apple would demand a 30% cut of a model's privately run website as well if she gave people a subscription link in her profile, PMs, or public chat.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Apple is nowhere near as nice as MFC. Apple would demand a 30% cut of a model's privately run website as well if she gave people a subscription link in her profile, PMs, or public chat.

LOL probably true, and would demand the model pay thousands of dollars just to get listed in their store, would require approval for all of her content and not engage in pornographic activities. :naughty: But there is a reason that Apple is the world's most profitable and valuable company, they are really greedy

 

[ComicOzzie]

Apple is nowhere near as nice as MFC. Apple would demand a 30% cut of a model's privately run website as well if she gave people a subscription link in her profile, PMs, or public chat.

LOL probably true, and would demand the model pay thousands of dollars just to get listed in their store, would require approval for all of her content and not engage in pornographic activities. :naughty: But there is a reason that Apple is the world's most profitable and valuable company, they are really greedy

As a customer, my attitude towards Apple is :angry4:

As a stockholder in Apple, my attitude is

 

[IsabellaSnow]

What I'd like to know is why is it always members who bring these things up? I don't complain about it, why should anyone else?

I remember recently a member said he had £300 to spend on me that night as a special present and it was my choice how he gave it to me. I had a think about it, although paypal isn't an option for me, I thought about the extra £150ish I would get if it weren't in tokens. But then I knew if I came online and he used some of his tokens then, I would make that extra £150 in the room. What do you know? I did make that extra £150 in the room.

I tend to never really think about the cuts etc. I get that it's probably more frustrating for members, but then in the hairdresser example, that's the thing, how many people would care that their hairdresser wasn't getting all their money? It's often made such a big deal of on mfc. I've found all the people who are making a big deal about it, if they ever send me a voucher, or wanted to send me money over paypal, they wouldn't send nearly as much as they give me+mfc in tokens when they send me tips.
If someone complained about sending money on mfc, they would have tipped say, 2000 tokens, but they get to send a voucher, so say they send $200 in a voucher, then great! it's got my "cut" and mfc's "cut" in there, and a bit extra as it's not going towards bills or my camscore.
Most will send more like $100 as that's the cut that I would get.
In fact a lot of the time members who complain about mfc getting so big a cut, they actually want to send you less money than what you would have earned on mfc!

 

[BobbyB]

I guess you really have to look at MFC as a service provider that charges you a percentage for using the services, not much different to an internet cafe where you pay by the hour for using the equipment....

As a member for me it hurts a bit that my favorite model gets only half of the money I pay for a token, but I can send a present or so if it really bothers me...

In my humble opinion MFC is the best Camsite in regards to design and functionality, when I check other camsites not one even comes close, but that is of course based on my personal taste....

 

[Kradek]

However, I saw one analysis by a guy, who seemed to know what he was talking about, that estimated it would cost $3-$4 an hour to purchase the bandwidth to broadcast a model HD cam at 24 FPS.

Seems high to me. I'd estimate MB/hr at ~200MB based on past experience. Using Amazon Web Services pricing, with all that MFC transfers, they are easily in the last tier shown ($.05/GB). So, napkin math says about $.01/viewer/hr. You'd have to have 300-400 users in your room all the time to reach the numbers you're stating, and clearly some models do, but they are by far in the minority. Across the board for all models online at a time, I'd say the numbers are closer to 10 or 20 viewers per room, which is 10 or 20 cents per hour.

That's not to say it's an insignificant cost. It's not hard to find 35,000 viewers at a time on the site, so 35,000 * .01/hr * 24 hrs * 30 days = $252,000/month in bandwidth.

 

[Jessi J]

I've noticed a trend of members asking how much a model makes per token (most never understand that 1 token does not translate to $1) and then complains that that "isn't very much" or "not fair'. There's also a plethora of members asking why the models do not build their own cam site, because they would make all of the profits rather than splitting it with a cam site run by another company.

No matter who runs it, there's always going to be someone else that gets a portion of the revenue - the host, the domain (purchasing and renewing), the website developer (not all cam models can code and maintain their own website/pay site) - which can easily cost a model at least $1,000, the credit card processor (fees per transaction as well as set up fees - i.e. CCBILL requiring $750 fees for set up), etc.

The fee per model is small when there's thousands of models - allowing models to all get paid the same percentage per token, the fees would be higher for a model running her own pay site, because the total cost of running the site and the amount of self generated revenue is less - less customers (because traffic doesn't appear from thin air and most cam sites do not allow you to advertise your own sites through their services), less people to stumble upon your site (whereas MFC is advertised and well known because of how long it has existed successfully and is reputable), the cost of advertising, maintaining, etc. is all paid by one model, whereas on say myfreecams, they are splitting it between models - allowing the model to make a pretty high percentage and never taking "fees" for their regulars/customers to buy tokens.

Someone told me that creating and running a successful cam site would be simple - saying he wanted to pay out something like 80% to the model, not understanding that most new cam sites have failed in less than a year - especially with how the sex industry has been lately (I am sure there are others that can attest to the recent shortage of tippers/tokens coming in - of course not all are totally affected). There's going to be start up costs and if the website cannot cover what they put into the website, then not only are they losing all of the money they invested, but there's a higher chance they will skip out on paying the models - leaving them in the dust when they close the website down and abandon all hope.

There was xPeeps, which ran for what? 6 months, where I made $2,500 per pay check (minimum!), but ultimately failed due to the lack of traffic/tippers and certainly a lack of advertising. There was CamFlare - which used xPeeps' template making it seem like xPeeps (of course it was not) and has since been slow enough for models to complain and quit working there - though I never worked there it was discussed on StripperWeb and very poorly. I know xPeeps was paying out something like .07 per token, which ended up being a pretty noticeable difference at the end of the pay period, but wasn't worth it in the end when you couldn't get people to tip. 0 tokens still = $0.

For MFC and Streamate there's no real comparison of percentage payout. Because of SM's rules, they HAVE to pay to see anything (from what I understand), which could mean less time spent trying to get people to take you private so even though the percentage is like...50% less than MFC there's still plenty of traffic so more than make up for the payout difference. I have never cammed on SM, but from what I hear it isn't hard to make some pretty awesome money there, especially when MFC seems slow.

I dunno, I rambled enough I think...

 

[UncleThursday]

Another thing to remember: your general everyday home broadband service simply cannot deal with the the bandwidth of a popular model if she was to try and branch off on her own. Nor could most home computers used for everything else the model does be able to run the stream and web host server efficiently. So trying to host the cam server on a home computer, on a home broadband connection would end up not beng very good.

I have a nice downstream and upstream connection. Not the fastest, not the slowest. 20 Mb/s down, 5 Mb/s up peak performance. Every time I check its connection, I am normally above 19 Mb/s down and right around 4.95-ish Mb/s up. So it is normally pretty consistent. But, I'm also not broadcasting to potentially hundreds of users at the same time.

The cost of getting business class broadband service, plus the cost of the server (setup, maintenance, etc.) would end up eating into the potential profits of a model very quickly.

Then there's the cost of advertising. After all, if no one knows she is out there, how are people supposed to find her?

As JessiJayde, said, there is also the technical parts, like programming the server, etc. that, let's face it, 99% of models or members simply could not do.

That's where the 'renting a booth' analogy mentioned earlier works. The cam site allows people to find the model. They do all the heavy lifting with bandwidth, server hosting, etc. The model is broadcasting to a single stream (the cam site), so her bandwidth isn't eaten up super fast. They put her on their page so people can find her. In many cases they allow for tags that help people find what sort of model they are looking for. They deal with the credit card processing, and chargebacks. Etc.

So, all the model has to deal with is getting on cam, and working for her money. As long as the cam site is reputable, like MFC, Streammate, etc. then they know they'll get paid according to however the site pays out. So their only concern is doing what they have to do to earn the money.

Now, as Evvie said, different sites pay out differently. And some models may find certain sites don't work the way they'd like. But, it also means there are options. A model who does well on MFC doesn't necessarily need to worry about if she would do better on Streammmate, for example. While a model who does well on Streammate might also find that even with the bigger payout percentage from MFC, she makes more on Streammate. The sites work in completely different ways, so what earns money on one site won't necessarily earn money on another.

So, when you add up all the costs involved in initial setup, plus the ongoing costs after the setup, it probably wouldn't be the most efficient way to earn money by setting up her own private cam stream. By using the cam sites, all the model needs to worry about, cost wise (from a technical standpoint, not talking about clothes/toys/etc.) is a decent computer that can handle a good cam stream (that 5 year old netbook ain't gonna cut it), decent cam (if you're still using a cam from the 90s....), and decent bandwidth broadband service provider. And those costs get factored into what they do anyway, with only the internet service being a consistent ongoing cost; the others are normally 'one time fees' that only have to be factored in when purchased..

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

What I'd like to know is why is it always members who bring these things up? I don't complain about it, why should anyone else?

I remember recently a member said he had £300 to spend on me that night as a special present and it was my choice how he gave it to me. I had a think about it, although paypal isn't an option for me, I thought about the extra £150ish I would get if it weren't in tokens. But then I knew if I came online and he used some of his tokens then, I would make that extra £150 in the room. What do you know? I did make that extra £150 in the room.

I tend to never really think about the cuts etc. I get that it's probably more frustrating for members, but then in the hairdresser example, that's the thing, how many people would care that their hairdresser wasn't getting all their money? It's often made such a big deal of on mfc. I've found all the people who are making a big deal about it, if they ever send me a voucher, or wanted to send me money over paypal, they wouldn't send nearly as much as they give me+mfc in tokens when they send me tips.
If someone complained about sending money on mfc, they would have tipped say, 2000 tokens, but they get to send a voucher, so say they send $200 in a voucher, then great! it's got my "cut" and mfc's "cut" in there, and a bit extra as it's not going towards bills or my camscore.
Most will send more like $100 as that's the cut that I would get.
In fact a lot of the time members who complain about mfc getting so big a cut, they actually want to send you less money than what you would have earned on mfc!

It is human nature to try and cut out the middleman. This is especially prevalent in the service industry. Over the years I have plumbers, electrician, cleaning ladies, tree trimmers, garage door installers, flooring installer,mechanics, body and fender guys, programmers, all offer to additional work for me at substantial discount to their normal hourly rate as long as I paid them cash, and their employer was out of the loop. I have also heard it is one of the biggest problems in the escort business, and clearly cam sites are worried about since there are so many rules that discourage cam girls exchange contact info with members, advertising website, mentioning skype etc.

This almost always works out to be a win win were the member pays less, and the cam girl ends up with more in her pocket. Take a $300 xmas gift which is what this sounds like it was. I don't know UK taxes but I'll use the example of a successful California cam girl who makes $100,000 a year. 300 dollars worth of mfc tokens will result in $180-$188.75 in gross pay to cam girl. The marginal taxes for the girl are as follows Payroll tax 15.3% CA income tax 9.3% Federal Income tax 28%= 52.3% total. Meaning the cam girl best case ends up with $90 after taxes. So even if the member gives her only $200 the model ends with twice as much money to buy herself a xmas present or if she wants family and friends xmas presents. Unlike, the examples I gave of the plumber etc where the guys are almost certainly evading taxes, this is Xmas gift so nothing is illegal. (warning I am not a a CPA, IRS may not agree).
The situation maybe different in the UK but the 40% tax rate over their kicks in at £34,000 in 2013 so that math is close.

The example of going online is largely irrelevant since you could have done that regardless if the member had tokens or not.

 

[IsabellaSnow]

It wasn't a christmas gift, it was a few months ago, and it was to pay for the month of enjoyment that said member had had watching me. and it was 300 pounds not dollars . We also do have VERY different taxes in England and I don't earn over 35k a year. My point was that when he tipped online I made a load more money because of the excitement his tipping caused, and that I was able to do more fun stuff on cam because I didn't have to push countdowns. You were present that night, and I believe you very much enjoyed the evening .

This is the thing, from the members point of view "winwin!" from the models point of view "I get the same amount of money, and it hasn't gone to my camscore and I've had to take risks getting it (or it's gone in a voucher so I cannot use it for bills)" I don't really believe in tax evasion. Our taxes go to hospital fees, school fees etc, which I am absolutely happy to pay for! Not that I enjoy paying taxes. Only time I'd ever evade taxes like that would be if I actually couldn't afford to pay taxes, and that money would be going towards the tax.
Besides, you could say it's a "gift" on paypal, but it could raise questions, and paypal takes its own fees.

I've met some models who like to cut out mfc, and yes to be fair, sometimes I humour the idea too, but when I look into it, it doesn't actually benefit me!

 

[LadyLuna]

I think almost everything could be said, except for one big thing:

customer and model support

I've worked MFC and Streamate. On MFC, support will respond only when it's polite, to-the-point, and points out how the problem I'm saying is affecting my ability to earn money.

On Streamate, support gets back to me in a few days regardless of what the problem is.

On MFC, I've sent suggestions, but the only time it was implemented was when they were specifically taking suggestions for the web browser, and again, I pointed out how the loss of a certain feature was costing me money.

On Streamate, I sent in a suggestion or two, they said "we'll look in to getting that". Two weeks later, hey look! The suggestion was implemented. And it wasn't even a "I'll earn more money" suggestion. It was a "I feel uncomfortable with a, but I'm fine with b. But I can't allow b without allowing a. Is there any way you can change that?"

Now, MFC has come out and asked us for suggestions. But streamate will take suggestions even when they didn't ask for them. It's much easier to get in touch with Streamate's support (they don't answer on a weekend, but otherwise...) than it is with MFC's support.

So, Streamate also uses their 65% to pay for the many people it takes to run the site. MFC pays five admin and some CPA's.