播放
暂停
进入全屏
退出全屏
00:00
00:00
重播请
刷新
试试视频来自网络，侵权删！
此文非常长，建议慢慢，反复看！
深圳价值1.5亿的房子
怎样，
是不是很心动，
想不想入手一套，
可惜....
有种愚昧叫想都不敢想，
人不能被说服，只能被天启！
那么核心问题来了，
怎样赚够一个亿！
一、
如何快速达到一个亿小目标？
答案是：在游戏中是最快的。
如图所示：
这个模型明显是有问题的，
41岁才成为百万富翁，51岁资产才过千万。
这个节奏过慢，真的按照这个速度达到1个亿，
那么实际的购买力早就不是1个亿了。
众所周知，赚一个亿绝非易事，绝不是一个什么小目标。
但是世界上确实有人做到了，
这些人中间很多可能也没有太多背景，这些就是我们讨论的基础，
而绝不是讨论一个想象中的业务。
我们今天提出这个问题，是要建立一种概念和坐标，
如果赚几千万、几百万、几十万，也能在这个模型中寻找相应的业务级别。
我们先简化一下模型，
比如说一年赚1个亿的业务是什么样的。
方法1：1000名企业客户每年向您支付10万元以上;
方法2：1万家中型公司每年向您支付1万元以上;
方法3：10万家小企业每年向您支付1千元以上;
方法4：100万消费者每年支付100元以上；
在销售中，有时会用兔子、鹿、大象来比喻客户的级别，
到底是打兔子还是猎大象，级别不同，业务类型差异巨大。
图中将业务级别从大到小列出，
共8种模式：蓝鲸级
雷龙级
大象级
鹿级
兔子级
老鼠级
苍蝇级
微生物级
我们先看下面的表
行业无贵贱，做什么行业都有赚钱的，
我们一个一个解读一下。
微生物级：
这个级别，实际上卖吸管和牙签也能归入这个级别，属于微利业务。
不要瞧不起微利业务，当数量巨大的时候，依然可以做到年收入上亿的。
由于这个业务利润非常低，所以不大可能通过广告推广，必须要极低的客户获取成本，最后才能挣钱。当然，有风险投资愿意烧钱打广告又是另外一回事了。
这种模式在互联网时代来临之前，非常非常难做大，因为利润微薄，但是没有非常低成本的方法获得大量的客户，只能是小生意。
在互联网时代来临后，特别是早期的获客成本非常非常低，比如微信早期、微博早期，获客成本非常低，很多早期跟着微信、微博做的人都发财了，靠的就是病毒一样的传播能力，迅速获得了大量的用户。这样那怕每个人每年支付1块钱，每年也能营收上亿了。
这类的应用基本都属于国民级的基础应用，比如微信，简直是操作系统般的存在。如果平均到每个人的话，互联网广告也基本属于这个级别，那怕是0.05%的人愿意购买，用户数量足够大的话，依然是可以挣钱的，广告商也愿意付费。
这个级别，特点就是几乎为零的获客成本，所以要研究的技能就是增长黑客，病毒传播这些互联网的黑科技。
这个现在看来，就像神话般的存在，除了这些能力，其实最重要的还是风口和运气。
苍蝇级：
苍蝇蚊子肉，积少成多。
这个级别与微生物级有些像，要求的病毒传播能力也很高，
但是一般来说，都是属于热门应用，还达不到基础应用的级别。
现在这种机会越来越少，因为基础应用已经不允许大规模的病毒传播，
必须要付广告费，留下买路钱，这样获客成本就高了。
老鼠级：
主要是工具类的刚需应用，有一定的病毒传播能力，但是没有那么强的粘性。
其实，各类明星，别看那么光鲜，也属于这个级别，对于明星的粉丝来说，百元的级别，还是愿意付费的，再多就不行了，疯狂的粉丝那是例外。
明星拍电影、电视剧，观众看一般是不付费或少量付费的，
付费的本质是还是广告商，卖的东西消费品居多，
所以明星基本上就属于这个级别。
兔子级：
一旦进入兔子级，就发生了变化，这类用户如果是在消费品侧，就是价格比较高的消费品了，通常需要广告推销。
比较大的市场，还是在给小微企业提供产品上。
这类产品具有比较强的通用性，对于小微企业来说，单价也不高，可以每年订阅。这个时候就需要渠道和大代理上来帮你分销产品了，当然口碑也比较重要。
比较好的分销方式是通过大企业OEM你的产品，再分发到各个地方。
比如你的应用预装到某个大厂的电脑或手机里面，那你就发了。
鹿级：
这个级别和兔子级比较像，
但是渠道的比重更大，
以中小企业客户为主。
大象级和雷龙级：
这个级别，一般来说都是有自己的销售组织，已经有些高大上的感觉了。
这个对于普通人来说，这个级别只有一条道路，那就是房产。
真的没想到，房产居然是雷龙级。
蓝鲸级：
普通人通常没有资格。
当然，
还有一种可以迅速建立1亿元的业务，
那就是你爸给你2亿，
你竭尽全力亏掉1亿，
还剩1亿。
二、
一个亿，到底是什么尺度？？
对于个人和家庭单位来说：
很多很多。
对于一个大点的公司或者公共事业来说：
很少很少。
前几年，一公里的高速公路的修建大概就是一个亿的水平。
现在物价涨了，可能需要的就更多。
一个普通的楼盘，可能就需要几十亿，这个楼盘的负责人管理的就是几十亿的生意。
一个大学毕业生，到一个大点的公司工作，可能他上面几级的主管，就是管一个亿的业务，说不定还经常见到。
只不过，这名大学生，是这一个亿业务中的一颗小小螺丝钉。
那么，如果问这名大学生，想不想升值加薪？
答曰：要的，要的。
能不能管理几千万的业务？
答曰：什么？几千万的业务，想都没想过啊。
有的人，一辈子都是一枚螺丝钉，
工作了十几年，对于自己所负责的业务到底是怎么运转的，
自己在中间担当什么样的角色，自己主管的压力来自哪里，和哪些部门是什么利害关系，都是搞不清楚的。
这样的人，怎么能升职呢？
所以，即使从打工的角度讲，具有这样的视角，也是对升迁有好处的。
这也就是说，如果一名大学生的志向是升到某个主管的位置，多多少少都需要这种视角和思维，而且并不是很遥远。
只是这个视角和思维，就已经难倒很多人了。
对于很多公司来说，
面试的时候就是重点就是考核毕业生的基础技能和思维，
因为一个大学毕业生会的东西实在是有限。
最近，IT圈的新闻是，
微软的重新崛起，
靠的就是全面转型云业务和移动业务。
这个和微软现任CEO Satya Nadella的坚持是分不开的。
Satya Nadella是技术出生，
但是现在却已经具有带领微软全面转型的能力。
微软是怎么招到这些人的？
微软以前面试程序员的时候，
经常有这样的考题，
比如说请给出亚马逊河每年的流量有多大？
或者，请给出中国有多少只鸟?
就是这样的面试题。
觉得很莫名其妙，是吗？
其实别人并不在乎你给的答案准确不准确。
而是看你的测算过程，建模的思路。
水平高点的，能算出一个和真实数据在一个数量级。
水平再高点的，能达到前几位数字完全和真实数据匹配的。
这玩意，能决定国运呢。
比如二战，美国对日本核爆后，日本就测算美国到底还有几颗原子弹。
因为如果美国已经没有原子弹了，那日本还是可以硬扛，扛到有条件投降。
毕竟，按照前面日本和美国在各个岛屿作战的情况来看，
美国的伤亡也会很大，所以可以谈条件。
有条件投降和无条件投降，这个差异还是很大的。
但是，那个接受任务的科学家，根据美国原材料的储量，测算出一个巨大的数字。
本来，政客们对于投降不投降，分歧很大，看到这个数字，傻眼了。
其实，美国已经没有原子弹了，再造，还是需要时间的。
再说一个栗子，NASA发射到冥王星的探测器，
其飞行时间，和预测相比，只差了1分钟。
这个并不是数学，而是对现实建立模型的能力。
对于市场，建立模型，这也是一样的。
比如，对于房产市场，有各种各样的分析，各种观点，这些观点，还往往都是冲突的，看多了就搞糊涂了。
但是你用Marketing的视角看，就清晰很多。
对于一个市场，你先打开看，看分成哪几个细分市场。
每个细分市场，对应什么样的客户，客户都有什么特征和需求。
你再测算一下，这个市场容量有多大。
在这个空间里面，玩家有多少，分别是什么分布。
再看看你的资源和禀赋，能在这个空间能占多少份额。
然后，就看看这个细分市场将来的演化、空间变化是什么样的。
接下来，就能确定你采用什么策略了。
比如，买房子，我们先看看市场上的主力，到底是外地人，还是本地人，外地人主要分为哪几种，把这些事情搞清楚。
我们现在买的房子，几年之后卖出，只要这个房子所对应的人群需求是扩大的，那你就有机会卖到高阶。
你去看一些咨询机构的报告，比如Gartner这样的，也都是这么分析的。
说起来简单，关键是要活学活用。
得在大机构混几年才能学会，一般人都没这机会，
所以，大家在市面上看到这类分析就很少了。
我们再来看这张图，再简化一下
我们将模型简化为如下几种大象级
鹿级
兔子级
老鼠级
苍蝇级
再看这个表格
我们可以看出来，
客户越是多，产品就越要通用，
传播成本就要越低，如果不是这样，随着业务的扩张，成本就会越来越高，将整个利润都耗尽。
一个字总结，就是流量。客户越是少，单价就要越高，
客户的留存率就要越强，定制化就越强，因为负担得起。
这个市场，流量反而不是那么重要，而是客户关系。
在市场上，往往是前面一种位于低端市场的公司进攻位于高端市场的公司。
像IBM这样的巨兽，想找到合适的草场，并不容易，同样的笔记本业务，它自己做，就是亏的，但是卖给联想，联想就是赚的。因为IBM就是擅长做高单价、高利润的业务，这个都写到基因里面了。
纯搞房产，更像后一种业务，别看搞房产好像很土，这是高级业务。
下面，我们举几个例子来说明一下。
一、苍蝇级
我们以微博为例，微博的粉丝，价值是比较低的，苍蝇蚊子肉。
一般来说，就单个的粉丝价值来说，
鄙视链是这样的：公众号>知乎号>微博号>头条号>UC号
微博和公众号的粉丝价值比是10:1左右，可能这个比率还要高，因为微博僵尸粉很多。一个100万粉丝的微博V和一个10万粉丝公号的V，咖位是一样的。
但是，知乎号，喜欢搞知识付费，可能还不如微博号赚钱。
为啥？架不住别人微博的粉丝量大啊。别人微博大V，直接接广告或者卖产品，粉丝多的话，赚钱多多。
比如早期微博的时候，有不少人，也没啥学历，就开始玩。具体是搞很多小号，再精选内容，互相转发，病毒式的传播。这个工作很累的，每天搞到半夜1-2点，一点也不轻松。还真有不少人做起来了，大家现在去看，微博几十万、上百万粉丝的多的是。
做的比较成功的，比如那个xx冷笑话，创始人屌丝出身，都上新三板了。这不是上亿的业务，这是什么？可惜不是你啊。
如果大家要做这方面的，
首选微博还是微信公号呢？我建议是微博。
因为新浪是个老牌门户网站，主业是媒体，微博是其核心业务，投的资源多，对培养V也比较重视。
而微信，本质是社交工具，微信公号是增加社交工具粘性的，属于附属业务。
腾讯其实游戏比较强，媒体属性弱一些。
从传播来说，也是微博范围更广，微信本质还是一个封闭系统。
这是从市场这个角度说的。
从每个人的水平来说来说，微博门槛更低，
毕竟写几百字比写几千字，门槛低多了。
公号一写就是几千字，不是每个人都能长期写几千字的。
所以，建议大家从微开始起步，多发言，多互动。
二、老鼠级
就是百元级的，这块做的好的人很多。
前几天遇见一个小妹妹，20多岁，在欧洲买了好多套房，买的都是老破大，然后租给留学生，这是行家啊。
一问之下，家里是开百元店的。所谓百元店，就是各种日常小商品，包括五金、玩具，灯具、瓷器等等，就是义乌小商品这种类型。
浙江温州、青田等地的华侨，通过几代人创业，从货源到渠道，已经垄断欧洲的百元店市场，非常的了不起。
这里面有多少背井离乡，生离死别啊。
很多人都做的非常大了，上亿的不在少数。
我去看过他们的仓库，非常让人震惊，中国人，真的是非常刻苦能干的。
但是这个模式比较传统，我们讲一个先进一点的。
我们先看一组数据。
这个是什么呢？
这是亚马逊网站上，中国货的市场份额。
根据Marketplace Pulse的研究，
亚马逊40％的畅销商品位于中国，高于两年前的26％。
在一年之内，在中国市场的卖家在英国亚马逊（http://Amazon.co.uk）的市场份额从28％增加到34％。
在德国亚马逊的http://Amazon.de上从26％增加到28％，
在法国亚马逊http://Amazon.fr上从41％增加到47％。
在意大利的Amazon.it上占41％至45％，
在西班牙的Amazon.es上占48％至52％。
合并后的平均值从37％增加到40％。
可以说，这个后面是大量的厂商、卖家，在亚马逊上攻城略地，
而亚马逊在中国却已经混不下去了。
这里面，做到上亿的也非常多，手法也非常成熟，
形成一整套跨境电商的科技树。
另外，一些美妆的代购、知识付费，也属于这个级别。
可惜不是你啊。
英文原版
Christoph Janz
Sunday, October 05, 2014 注意这个时间
Five ways to build a $100 million business
Some time ago my friend (and co-investor in Clio, Jobber and Unbounce) Boris Wertz wrote a great blog post about "the only 2 ways to build a $100 million business". I'd like to expand on the topic and suggest that there are five ways to build a $100 million Internet company.
This doesn't mean that I disagree with Boris' article. I think our views are pretty similar, and for the most part "my" five ways are just a slightly different and more granular look at Boris' two ways.
The way I look at it can be nicely illustrated in this wa
The y-axis shows the average revenue per account (ARPA) per year. In the x-axis you can see how many customers you need, for a given ARPA, to get to $100 million in annual revenues. Both axes use a logarithmic scale.
To build a Web company with $100 million in annual revenues*, you essentially need:
- 1,000 enterprise customers paying you $100k+ per year each; or
- 10,000 medium-sized companies paying you $10k+ per year each; or
- 100,000 small businesses paying you $1k+ per year each; or
- 1 million consumers or "prosumers" paying you $100+ per year each (or, in the case of eCommerce businesses, 1M customers generating $100+ in contribution margin** per year each); or
- 10 million active consumers who you monetize at $10+ per year each by selling ads
Sales people sometimes refer to "elephants", "deers" and "rabbits" when they talk about the first three categories of customers. To extend the metaphor to the 4th and 5th type of customer, let's call them "mice" and "flies".
So how can you hunt 1,000 elephants, 10,000 deers, 100,000 rabbits, 1,000,000 mice or 10,000,000 flies? Let's take a look at it in reverse order.
Hunting flies
In order to get to 10 million active users you need roughly 100 million people who download your app or use your website. This is of course a gross simplification, and the precise number depends on various factors like your conversion rate, how active your users are, churn, etc. But it doesn't change the take-away: To get to $100 million in ad revenues, you need dozens of millions of users.
I know of only two ways to achieve that (plus one mega-outlier which breaks all rules, Google). The first one is to have a product that is inherently social and has a high viral coefficient (Instagram, Snapchat, WhatsApp). The second one is a ton of UGC (user-generated content), which leads to large amounts of SEO traffic and some level of virality. Good examples of this second option include Yelp or our portfolio company Brainly.
Hunting mice
To acquire one million consumers or prosumers who pay you roughly $100 per year, you need to get at least 10-20 million people to try your application. This is – again – a gross simplification, but I believe it's order-of-magnitude correct.
To get to 10-20 million users you almost certainly need some level of virality, too – maybe not Snapchat-like virality, but some social sharing or "powered by"-virality. Great examples of this category include Evernote and MailChimp. If you're an eCommerce business you might be able to acquire one million customers using paid marketing, but it requires huge amounts of funding.
Hunting rabbits
Most SaaS companies that target small businesses charge something around $50-100 per month, so their ARPA per year is around $1k. To acquire 100,000 of these businesses you need something in the order of 0.5-2 million trial signups, depending on your conversion rate.
Let's assume that your CLTV (customer lifetime value) is $2,700 (assuming an average customer lifetime of three years and a gross margin of 90%) and that you want your CLTV to be 4x your CACs (customer acquisition costs). In that case you can spend $675 to acquire a customer.
If your signup-to-paying conversion rate is 10% that means you can spend $67.50 per signup (assuming a no-touch sales model where your CACs can go entirely into lead generation).
So how can you get one million signups for less than $70 each? Most SaaS products aren't inherently viral, there usually isn't enough inventory to make paid advertising work at scale, and cold calling usually doesn't work at this ARPA level.
There's no silver bullet, but the closest thing to a silver bullet is inbound marketing – besides having a fantastic product with a very high NPS (net promoter score) and being obsessively focused on funnel optimization.
I've written about this in more detail in my "DOs for SaaS startups" series: Create an awesome product, Make your website your best marketing person, Fill the funnel, Build a repeatable sales process. Another option is a an OEM strategy (i.e. getting your product distributed by big partners), which can work but comes with its own challenges.
Interestingly, hunting rabbits looks much less straightforward than hunting flies or hunting elephants. Why we have a strong focus on rabbit hunting SaaS companies nonetheless is something for another post.
Hunting deers
If you're a deer hunter and want to acquire 10,000 customers paying you $10k per year each, most of the rabbit hunting tactics still apply. An ARPA of $10k per year usually isn't enough to make traditional enterprise field sales work, and you likely still have to get 100,000 or more leads.
The main difference is that when you're hunting deers you can use an inside sales force to close leads, potentially also to generate leads. It also means that you can pay VARs and channel partners an attractive commission, although I've rarely seen this work in SaaS.
SaaS companies sometimes start as rabbit hunters and expand into deer hunting over time. This can work very well and we're very excited about these types of businesses, but to successfully execute this strategy, SaaS founders with a product/tech/marketing DNA usually have to bring in an experienced VP of Sales who has built an inside sales organization before.
Hunting elephants
Like it or not, most of the biggest SaaS companies derive most of their revenues from selling expensive subscriptions to large enterprises. Workday, Veeva, SuccessFactors, Salesforce.com, you name it. Jason M. Lemkin, another friend and co-investor, once said (I'm quoting from memory) that if you have a good solution for a significant problem experienced by large enterprises, building a $100 million business is relatively straightforward.
After all, you only need 1,000 customers, and the $100k you need from each of them is less than they spend on the salary of one executive. I think there's a lot of truth in that.
The other part of the truth, though, is that it may take you several years and millions of dollars to find out if you really are solving a problem (a.k.a. product/market fit), and once you're at that point, you still need tens of millions of dollars or more to finance the enterprise sales cycle.
This does not at all mean that elephant hunting isn't attractive. It just requires very different skills, which usually means a founder team with enterprise sales DNA.
That leaves me with the million dollar – sorry, one hundred million dollar – question: Which other ways to build a $100 million business are there that I've overlooked? Let me know!
_________________________
* If you have $100 million in annual high-margin revenue, you will likely be able to exit for $500 million to $1 billion or more. That's the kind of exit most venture capitalists are looking for, although we as a small fund can achieve a great fund performance with somewhat lower outcomes.
** For eCommerce companies, which naturally have a much lower contribution margin than purely digital businesses like SaaS and are therefore valued at much lower revenue multiples, it makes more sense to target $100M in contribution margin.
二、
Sunday, April 07, 2019
Five years later: Five ways to build a $100 million SaaS business
Back in 2014, I wrote a post titled “Five ways to build a $100 million business”.
If you haven’t seen it yet, the central idea of the article was to look at how many customers you need, for a given ARPA, to get to $100 million in annual revenue and what this might mean for your sales and marketing strategy.
That post went kind of viral, which led us to create a follow-up piece, an infographic, a poster (which you can order here), and a PlayPlay video.
What did I learn from that experience? First, if you want to write a killer blog post, it helps if you take a difficult question and simplify it drastically, give it a catchy headline, and add pictures of cute animals. ;-)
More importantly, though, using my five little animals as a simple framework has helped me challenge (and hopefully occasionally provide sound advice on) the scaling strategies of numerous startups over the last couple of years.
Based on my learnings in the last years, here is a slightly updated version of the chart:
Here’s what’s changed.
Bye-bye, dear little fly!
In my original post, I spoke about five ways to build a $100 million Internet company. The post wasn’t specifically about B2B SaaS companies, which is why two of the five ways dealt with customers with an ARPA of $10 and $100, respectively.
I will keep the $100 ARPA customers (AKA mice) for now, but today it’s time to say goodbye to the $10 ARPA flies. Bye-bye, dear fly, you’ll always have a special place in my heart. Thank you for adorning so many slides and posters – maybe someone will resurrect you for a consumer-focused version of this framework.
Hail the whale!
Five years ago, I thought it would make sense to use a $100,000 ARPA elephant as the largest animal on the chart. The main reason is that I grew up as a consumer software and consumer Internet founder, and even though I had already spent about five years as a SaaS investor when I wrote the post, my experience was heavily skewed towards SMB SaaS.
I did include two larger animals in a follow up post, but meanwhile, I think that the $1,000,000 ARPA whale deserves a place as one of the five prime SaaS animals. While there are only a few SaaS companies with an ARPA of around $500,000 (not quite a whale yet, but definitely much larger than an elephant) across the entire customer base (Veeva, Workday, Demandware, Opower,...), there are quite a few SaaS companies with a significant whale customer segment.
Most public SaaS companies, unfortunately, don’t report any data broken down by different customer segments, but it’s pretty safe to assume that Salesforce, Box, Zuora, and a number of other companies derive a significant portion of their revenue from whale customers.
Why y is now x and x is now y
This is a smaller, somewhat technical change. The original chart showed the number of customers on the x-axis and the ARPA on the y-axis.
Since it’s more customary to use the x-axis for the independent variable (and as I think it makes more sense to think of ARPA as the dependent variable), I have switched the axes. I had made that change in the poster already and have now updated the chart here as well.Some animals are more equal than others
One thing I’ve learned over time is that just because there are five ways to build a $100 million business, it doesn’t mean that those five ways aren’t equally promising.
To quote the pigs in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” (one of the very few books that we had to read at school that I liked): All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Let’s take a step back. The key take-away of my “5 animals framework” is very simple: if you want to get to $100 million in annual revenue you’ll have to find customer acquisition channels that are highly scalable and profitable. Otherwise, you’ll never get to the number of customers that you need at your given ARPA.
The problem is that most customer acquisition channels are either scalable orprofitable but not both at the same time (which is why early CAC/LTV metrics can be so misleading, more about that here). Now, it seems like in some ARPA regions it’s easier to scale profitably than in others.
This is certainly what we’ve seen in our portfolio: Several of our SaaS portfolio companies successfully went upmarket – oftentimes from rabbits to deer or even elephants – when they saw that they would hit a growth ceiling in their existing segment.
One of the underlying reasons is that in order to get very large, you have to get your churn rate close to zero (or better yet, achieve negative churn), which is usually not possible if you’re selling only to SMBs;
the other reason is that outbound sales doesn’t work if your ARPA isn’t large enough, which sort of limits your addressable market to companies that are more or less pro-actively looking for a solution like yours.
If you take a look at this analysis by Sammy Abdullah of Blossom Street Ventures (a VC with the tagline “We’re the anti-VC”, by the way) you’ll see that although Sammy points out that most SaaS companies don’t have an ACV of $50k or more, the vast majority of the 61 publicly traded SaaS companies from his list are deer or elephant hunters.
Only 15 of the companies from the list had an ACV of less than $5k at the time of their IPO, and for some of them, the average is misleading because a large part of their revenue comes from customers with a much higher ACV (e.g. Zendesk, Box).
A recent analysis of private SaaS companies by Nathan Latka suggested the same. In his analysis, Nathan looked at 369 companies at around $1M in ARR. 186 of those (50%) are focused on rabbits or smaller animals (he really used those animal analogies).
Of the 20 companies with $100M in ARR that Nathan looked at, on the other hand, only 6 (30%) are focused on low ACVs. If you are a successful rabbit-hunting SaaS company and you think you can keep growing in your current segment, these numbers shouldn’t discourage you, though.
First, especially the numbers from private companies need to be taken with a grain of salt. And second, even if there is a statistically significant clustering of mid-market and enterprise SaaS companies at the $100M ARR mark, the data also shows that it’s possible to get thre with a low ARPA!
作者博客地址：
http://christophjanz.blogspot.com/
PS：
1.感谢挨踢牛魔王 无往不利的白话编译！
2.英文好的人尽力去看英文，因为内容不同，建议看原文！
3.来自国际空运学习 15019262980.
