Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Yonan wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
Do you have any evidence of this? In the thread in dakka discussions about google trends, I compared several of gw's competitors to gw in terms of web searches. I.e. a graphic comparison of the number of google searches including the terms "games workshop", "warhammer 40k", "warmachine", etc etc. Well here's Corvus Belli's graph* -

Didn't we agree in that thread that whilst interesting, it wasn't really evidence of anything?

No, Azreal said that and other people agreed with him. I happen to think that what people are googling is helpful in gauging the level of interest, especially in niche hobby products. You can't claim that profits are soaring 75% when there's empirical data showing that people are searching for them less and less.

So you belive CB was lying about the growth?

Just show him the CB graph guys, that shows that year-on-year growth as a company.

KommissarKarl wrote:
I happen to think that what people are googling is helpful in gauging the level of interest, especially in niche hobby products. You can't claim that profits are soaring 75% when there's empirical data showing that people are searching for them less and less.

How do you get from 'fewer people are googling a particular company name' to 'fewer people are interested in a particular game that company produces'?

If I was looking for information on Infinity, I wouldn't google 'Corvus Belli'... Half the time I can't even remember that name. But then, whereas 6 months ago I would have been googling 'Infinity game' when I wanted to check up on the current state of the game, now I would just click on the bookmarked website, or check the news thread here on Dakka.

The lack of google searches doesn't automatically correspond to a lack of interest.

 insaniak wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
I happen to think that what people are googling is helpful in gauging the level of interest, especially in niche hobby products. You can't claim that profits are soaring 75% when there's empirical data showing that people are searching for them less and less.

How do you get from 'fewer people are googling a particular company name' to 'fewer people are interested in a particular game that company produces'?

If I was looking for information on Infinity, I wouldn't google 'Corvus Belli'... Half the time I can't even remember that name. But then, whereas 6 months ago I would have been googling 'Infinity game' when I wanted to check up on the current state of the game, now I would just click on the bookmarked website, or check the news thread here on Dakka.

The lack of google searches doesn't automatically correspond to a lack of interest.

The fact that I see it in stores now, all over Facebook and now CB has their own sub forum is all evidence of growth. Or the fact that CB is actually open and tells everyone what they're doing and how they're growing.

 insaniak wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
I happen to think that what people are googling is helpful in gauging the level of interest, especially in niche hobby products. You can't claim that profits are soaring 75% when there's empirical data showing that people are searching for them less and less.

How do you get from 'fewer people are googling a particular company name' to 'fewer people are interested in a particular game that company produces'?

If I was looking for information on Infinity, I wouldn't google 'Corvus Belli'... Half the time I can't even remember that name. But then, whereas 6 months ago I would have been googling 'Infinity game' when I wanted to check up on the current state of the game, now I would just click on the bookmarked website, or check the news thread here on Dakka.

The lack of google searches doesn't automatically correspond to a lack of interest.

Really the issue is Corvus Belli. Although they do produce Infinity - they don't really go out of their way to get people to connect their name with Infinity. If you were to switch the search term in the trends to "Infinity Miniatures" the story is different.

Lack of Google searches can be due to more people being familiar with your company/product and not needing a Google search to find your website. I can't remember ever using Google to find GW stuff but I've spent 4 figures with them just in the last few months.

Corvus Belli started as and still make 15mm historical figures. Obviously Infinity The Game has been a huge success for them, but let's not fool ourselves that one single game involving relatively small and cheap armies could sustain a company the size of Games Workshop.

GW should do a skirmish game as an important component in a well-planned line-up of games set within their fluff background. It would provide a great introduction to the wider line-up.

Well done, Tom. You wanted to make GW the premium model company and you've succeeded. Like any luxury good, you've converted GW products from being affordable, to aspirational. We'd all like to own a Ferrari (insert picture of Porsche Pig here), but few of us can justify the expense of one even if we could afford it, and you know, the Fords, Chevrolets, and Toyotas get the job done just as well. Now Tom, you have to accept that Ferraris and Porsches aren't high volume marques, so I can only surmise that shrinking your market share was your master plan. You're doing a spectacular job of pulling it off! But don't worry; the vast amount of used product being traded at deep discounts over new product will keep us aspirational types going for years!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW should do a skirmish game as an important component in a well-planned line-up of games set within their fluff background. It would provide a great introduction to the wider line-up.

But does anyone have solid numbers concerning the number of Mordheim players that "upgraded" to WHFB players?

I think the important message we are trying to get a cross is a broad range of products has more appeal and market penetration and hold.Than a very limited product range.

A company offering a 'comfortable place to start' , for a wide range of customers, has naturally generated a positive word of mouth marketing with thier product.

Even if only 10% of people expand to the battle game, from 1000 new customers .
Thats 900 people interested in the WH game setting playing skirmish games,(Spending a £100 on average.) And 100 people playing WHFB .(Spending £500 on average.)
90k +50k= 140k revenue.

Without Mordhiem, you just get WHFB sales and that is less 50k revenue.(With out the 'easy in' of a skirmish game , many players would balk at the up front costs of WHFB.)

Now players have to go to other companies to get the 'less profitable games' , and so NONE of them are converting to 40k or WHFB.
This is one of the main reasons why GW plc has lost and is still loosing market share.

 solkan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW should do a skirmish game as an important component in a well-planned line-up of games set within their fluff background. It would provide a great introduction to the wider line-up.

But does anyone have solid numbers concerning the number of Mordheim players that "upgraded" to WHFB players?

No, and given their attitude to market research, I doubt GW ever did either.

However that is sort of missing the point, the market has moved on since the Moredheim/Necromunda days, not just the market, society.

People have less time today. The fastest growing games in the wargaming sector are all fast play games, with the fastest of all not even requiring assembly or painting of models.

That is what people are clamouring for, and quick to play games are where all the growth is. Corvus Belli and Mantic are expanding through games that take a couple of hours at most to play, indeed the new Infinity rules seem designed to make a game move a long at a faster pace, the recent video showing them playing a full 200 point game with the new starter box (about two thirds of a regular tournament sized force) in about three quarters of an hour start to finish.

Whilst all that market growth is happening, what do GW do? Release a new version of their game that takes even longer to play.

A company cannot dictate what the market wants, it must adapt to the market. GW need that fast paced game to attract people. A clever company would leverage the vast background IP and their own in house production to produce a game far superior and cheaper than everyone elses, and tie it into their main games to offer an easy route into the more time consuming versions of the game later.

GW of course, will do none of those things.

 solkan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW should do a skirmish game as an important component in a well-planned line-up of games set within their fluff background. It would provide a great introduction to the wider line-up.

But does anyone have solid numbers concerning the number of Mordheim players that "upgraded" to WHFB players?

Why? The intention is to produce a product that is standalone. If people like the background they may decide to invest in the bigger version. If not, then you had a £50 sale that you wouldn't of had anyway. It may even become a long term bigger sale if they stay with the game and buy more factions.

 insaniak wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
I happen to think that what people are googling is helpful in gauging the level of interest, especially in niche hobby products. You can't claim that profits are soaring 75% when there's empirical data showing that people are searching for them less and less.

How do you get from 'fewer people are googling a particular company name' to 'fewer people are interested in a particular game that company produces'?

If I was looking for information on Infinity, I wouldn't google 'Corvus Belli'... Half the time I can't even remember that name. But then, whereas 6 months ago I would have been googling 'Infinity game' when I wanted to check up on the current state of the game, now I would just click on the bookmarked website, or check the news thread here on Dakka.

The lack of google searches doesn't automatically correspond to a lack of interest.

You could say a similar thing about Games Workshop, yet that has held up rather better over the years. The lack of searches doesn't mean there's little interest, but it does mean there's little *new* interest. What is anyone who's new to anything's first port of call in this day and age? Yup, google. No google searches = no newbies.

And yet 'real world' data/evidence says otherwise!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Corvus Belli started as and still make 15mm historical figures. Obviously Infinity The Game has been a huge success for them, but let's not fool ourselves that one single game involving relatively small and cheap armies could sustain a company the size of Games Workshop.

GW should do a skirmish game as an important component in a well-planned line-up of games set within their fluff background. It would provide a great introduction to the wider line-up.

Yes, exactly!

I still remember how excited people were when we thought we might be getting a 28mm Inquisitor skirmished based game...

Tears in rain now, of course, but oh, the potential!

 Alpharius wrote:
And yet 'real world' data/evidence says otherwise!

Google trends *is* real world data. Regardless of what a company says about its profits, if there are so few people searching for it that google can't even display the results...I can safely say that they are not very popular. They also aren't big enough to show up on alexia either, for what it's worth.

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
And yet 'real world' data/evidence says otherwise!

Google trends *is* real world data. Regardless of what a company says about its profits, if there are so few people searching for it that google can't even display the results...I can safely say that they are not very popular. They also aren't big enough to show up on alexia either, for what it's worth.

No, you can't. What you can say is that X number of people have goggled it over Y amount of time.

That means nothing in the face of an actual announcement of massive growth from the company themselves. If you want to argue that CB where lying when they brought out that graph go ahead and make a case, but stop trying to pretend that what people are googling is empirical data of how well a game is growing.

It is odd that he keeps banging that 'can't see the forest for the trees' drum, but, OK, whatever.

GW is in trouble - are they going to shut down tomorrow?

No.

Are they in trouble?

Yes.

 Alpharius wrote:
It is odd that he keeps banging that 'can't see the forest for the trees' drum, but, OK, whatever.

GW is in trouble - are they going to shut down tomorrow?

No.

Are they in trouble?

Yes.

The other interesting thing is is that new people are always still coming into the Warhammer hobby. Look at the introductions to the forums and you see a lot of the traffic flowing in is new Warhammer players.

Trouble they may be in, but they can still attract business.

 jonolikespie wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
And yet 'real world' data/evidence says otherwise!

Google trends *is* real world data. Regardless of what a company says about its profits, if there are so few people searching for it that google can't even display the results...I can safely say that they are not very popular. They also aren't big enough to show up on alexia either, for what it's worth.

No, you can't. What you can say is that X number of people have goggled it over Y amount of time.

That means nothing in the face of an actual announcement of massive growth from the company themselves. If you want to argue that CB where lying when they brought out that graph go ahead and make a case, but stop trying to pretend that what people are googling is empirical data of how well a game is growing.

I'm not saying they're lying, I'm pointing out that the hard data we *do* have access to contradicts what they say - unless they are so small that 75% growth is insignificant.

If you think the internet is irrelevent that's great for you...unfortunately we are in the 21st century now. The data behind what people search for is so important that some companies will pay millions of pounds in tracking and monitoring it. Of course it is dismissed by you because it contradicts your narrative that other games are growing while 40k is dying (the data seems to suggest that 40k is declining, but their competitors are failing to attract the lost interest, though that obviously doesn't mean that they aren't getting custom from gw, it just means there's not as much interest).

KommissarKarl wrote:

I'm not saying they're lying, I'm pointing out that the hard data we *do* have access to contradicts what they say - unless they are so small that 75% growth is insignificant.

If you think the internet is irrelevent that's great for you...unfortunately we are in the 21st century now. The data behind what people search for is so important that some companies will pay millions of pounds in tracking and monitoring it. Of course it is dismissed by you because it contradicts your narrative that other games are growing while 40k is dying (the data seems to suggest that 40k is declining, but their competitors are failing to attract the lost interest, though that obviously doesn't mean that they aren't getting custom from gw, it just means there's not as much interest).

Apart from the fact you are discussing searches for Corvus Belli and transposing them as data on a game called Infinity of course.

Besides, if you want empirical data, how about sales data from the biggest retailers in Europe, who just posted this about the Infinity starter box.

rich1231 wrote:


We are not a distro of Infinity. At the moment Ice storm is outselling 7th edition in its first few days.

NoggintheNog wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

I'm not saying they're lying, I'm pointing out that the hard data we *do* have access to contradicts what they say - unless they are so small that 75% growth is insignificant.

If you think the internet is irrelevent that's great for you...unfortunately we are in the 21st century now. The data behind what people search for is so important that some companies will pay millions of pounds in tracking and monitoring it. Of course it is dismissed by you because it contradicts your narrative that other games are growing while 40k is dying (the data seems to suggest that 40k is declining, but their competitors are failing to attract the lost interest, though that obviously doesn't mean that they aren't getting custom from gw, it just means there's not as much interest).

Apart from the fact you are discussing searches for Corvus Belli and transposing them as data on a game called Infinity of course.

Besides, if you want empirical data, how about sales data from the biggest retailers in Europe, who just posted this about the Infinity starter box.

rich1231 wrote:


We are not a distro of Infinity. At the moment Ice storm is outselling 7th edition in its first few days.

Uh, that's not empirical data, that's anecdotal. Has he published sale numbers? How many stores does he sell to?

Infinity the game on google trends is about a third as popular as Warmachine. It has grown significantly over the past two/three years though I'll concede that. It's still microscopic though.

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
And yet 'real world' data/evidence says otherwise!

Google trends *is* real world data. Regardless of what a company says about its profits, if there are so few people searching for it that google can't even display the results...I can safely say that they are not very popular. They also aren't big enough to show up on alexia either, for what it's worth.

Just want to add something here since I own an internet business.

Those search term rankings mean diddly when the customers come from other sources, including directly to your website. Our UMV and engagement numbers on my company are far beyond the "search term rankings". In addition, multiple search terms can lead to a site. So for Corvus Belli, for instance, it can be Corvus Belli, Infinity, Infinity the Game, Infinity miniatures game, etc.

When most people buy a product from Corvus Belli (or any manufacturer) you can get the site right off the product and go directly to the site. No Google search terms needed in between. All search term rankings do is determine how many are "searching" for your site and does not account for other methods of hitting the site, including directly entering it in the browser.

As far as Alexia and Compete, I have given up on those personally because on our site, they have been so far from the reality it isn't even funny. I've talked with quite a few other CEOs at conferences who own internet companies as well and they have experienced the same thing with these rankings (so has Techcrunch which dropped Alexia rankings from the standard information display on companies as well).

TL;DR Search rankings have very little to do with the reality of any business today as it is only ONE way to get to a business.

So there is not much interest in Corvus Belli, but Infinity (what is the google interest in the actual game?) Is growing and catching up with the big boys. 75% growth rate every year is nothing to ignore. How soon till they equal PP at that rate?

 Wayshuba wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
And yet 'real world' data/evidence says otherwise!

Google trends *is* real world data. Regardless of what a company says about its profits, if there are so few people searching for it that google can't even display the results...I can safely say that they are not very popular. They also aren't big enough to show up on alexia either, for what it's worth.

Just want to add something here since I own an internet business.

Those search term rankings mean diddly when the customers come from other sources, including directly to your website. Our UMV and engagement numbers on my company are far beyond the "search term rankings". In addition, multiple search terms can lead to a site. So for Corvus Belli, for instance, it can be Corvus Belli, Infinity, Infinity the Game, Infinity miniatures game, etc.

When most people buy a product from Corvus Belli (or any manufacturer) you can get the site right off the product and go directly to the site. No Google search terms needed in between. All search term rankings do is determine how many are "searching" for your site and does not account for other methods of hitting the site, including directly entering it in the browser.

As far as Alexia and Compete, I have given up on those personally because on our site, they have been so far from the reality it isn't even funny. I've talked with quite a few other CEOs at conferences who own internet companies as well and they have experienced the same thing with these rankings (so has Techcrunch which dropped Alexia rankings from the standard information display on companies as well).

TL;DR Search rankings have very little to do with the reality of any business today as it is only ONE way to get to a business.

Okay I will clarify my point then - clearly google trends does not correlate directly with a business's revenue, *but* it is a very handy way of gauging how much new/fresh interest there is in your product. I can't think of anything that would skyrocket in popularity without a corresponding increase in google data. There is a clear correlation between sales in a company and interest in a company, a correlation that exists in video games, movies, web stores...even GW's own performance roughly corresponds to google trends data. And yet apparently none of their competitors do?

So far that's two online retailers who have told you exactly that. I'd tend to believe people with first hand experience over people speculating on the popularity of a search on google.

Hell, I never use google to go to my regular sites. Bookmarks are on all my devices, and I only ever search for them once, if at all. I usually find them via links on sites like dakka etc. I'm sure I'm not the only person on the internet that knows how to work bookmarks.

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
And yet 'real world' data/evidence says otherwise!

Google trends *is* real world data. Regardless of what a company says about its profits, if there are so few people searching for it that google can't even display the results...I can safely say that they are not very popular. They also aren't big enough to show up on alexia either, for what it's worth.

Just want to add something here since I own an internet business.

Those search term rankings mean diddly when the customers come from other sources, including directly to your website. Our UMV and engagement numbers on my company are far beyond the "search term rankings". In addition, multiple search terms can lead to a site. So for Corvus Belli, for instance, it can be Corvus Belli, Infinity, Infinity the Game, Infinity miniatures game, etc.

When most people buy a product from Corvus Belli (or any manufacturer) you can get the site right off the product and go directly to the site. No Google search terms needed in between. All search term rankings do is determine how many are "searching" for your site and does not account for other methods of hitting the site, including directly entering it in the browser.

As far as Alexia and Compete, I have given up on those personally because on our site, they have been so far from the reality it isn't even funny. I've talked with quite a few other CEOs at conferences who own internet companies as well and they have experienced the same thing with these rankings (so has Techcrunch which dropped Alexia rankings from the standard information display on companies as well).

TL;DR Search rankings have very little to do with the reality of any business today as it is only ONE way to get to a business.

Okay I will clarify my point then - clearly google trends does not correlate directly with a business's revenue, *but* it is a very handy way of gauging how much new/fresh interest there is in your product. I can't think of anything that would skyrocket in popularity without a corresponding increase in google data. There is a clear correlation between sales in a company and interest in a company, a correlation that exists in video games, movies, web stores...even GW's own performance roughly corresponds to google trends data. And yet apparently none of their competitors do?

Except, as people have stated, (using your Infinity example) when I want to get to Infinity website (which is a seperate one from the Corvus Belli website, FYI) I search 'Infinity'. Not 'Corvus Belli'. As I imagine most people do (not that I have any proof, just the fact is there's lots of different ways to get to any website so one search term doesn't prove anything).

Add to that things like bookmarks, links from other places, etc, Google Trends is hardly 'proper' data is it. Especially when CB have graphs and have stated their customer base has increased %75 the last 2 years... Unless are you saying that's lies from CB?

KommissarKarl wrote:

Uh, that's not empirical data, that's anecdotal. Has he published sale numbers? How many stores does he sell to?.

Yes he has published sales numbers. they are saying over 200 start boxes sold in the initial prelaunch They dont sell to stores, they are the biggest retail store in Europe.

You are still not addressing the salient point about this all powerful search data. It relates to Corvus Belli, and you are applying it to a game called Infinity, and I can tell you, as I several of them infront of me, the boxes for infinity only mention Corvus Belli twice, both in very small letters regarding copyright. The brand is Infinity, the website is infinitythegame,com. Applying searches for Corvus Belli for that product is patently ridiculous.

Apply the same search data investigation to Panoceania, Operation Icestorm or 'Infinity the game' and you will get a different story. Which is precisely why you ignore that point.

Has anyone compared the terms operation ice storm and Sanctus reach? Haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if it's already been done and I missed it.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

boyd wrote:


Where are you seeing that? Note 9 and the balance sheet show £17,550,000. Per their income statement, they didn't declare dividends in FY14 either. They match their dividends to the period they were declared they were paid in FY14 but declared as part of FY13. If you're having trouble following their cash outflows, look at the statement of cash flow and note 8 (operating activities for the statement of cash flows).

The cash accounts are based off prior years.

Page 2 says no dividend declared in FY2014.

The chart on page 6 shows a dividend.

Page 8 confirms the dividend paid of 16 pence per share (several months back it was stated as well on the investors site...forget the month).

Page 11 gives the information on the 20 pence dividend being paid out after the balance sheet date.

Page 36 enumerates the dividends paid in FY 2014 - only the 16 pence dividend shows up.

Page 39 notes what you have said (in terms of dividends being counted in the year they are declared...).

Page 47 Further confirms page 36 and 11.

Just saying...it looks a bit off to me. Things don't add up, when you add them up.

First of all, you're in the MD&A. while its not the financial statements, its discussion of what happened during the year through the reporting date (7/29/14). these are not audited but in the US, they are reviewed by the auditors and are questioned because they accompany the financial statements. Most of the MD&A is tested and reviewed in conjunction with the statements. Sometimes there is forward looking information in them as well, this cannot be audited because you can't test something that hasn't occurred. The Company paid dividends in FY14 related to FY13. The dividends were already recognized in their retained earnings and the liability was relieved when they cut the check. The 20pence dividend was declared and paid in FY15 prior to the reporting date (7/29/14) hence why they disclosed it. It is a subsequent event. Page 47 clarifies that. The UK doesn't appear to require a subsequent event footnote (usually the last or one of the last footnotes) summarizing all significant events that an investor would want to know since year end.

Note 13 (p 47):
"After the balance sheet date, a dividend of 20 pence per share, amounting to a total dividend of £6,372,000 was declared and it was paid on 4 July 2014."

*my dates are in the US format mm/dd/yy. Just so nobody complains they don't know what the 29th month of the year is

Also, I am not being combative - I read a lot of stuff that people post and I can't figure out where or how they calculate it. I'm an accountant and I have a lot of SEC experience. In my experience, review the statement of cash flows. That will show you the health of the company. Whether they are staying alive due to loans, investments from owners, and shows you how it is being spent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

boyd wrote:


Where are you seeing that? Note 9 and the balance sheet show £17,550,000. Per their income statement, they didn't declare dividends in FY14 either. They match their dividends to the period they were declared they were paid in FY14 but declared as part of FY13. If you're having trouble following their cash outflows, look at the statement of cash flow and note 8 (operating activities for the statement of cash flows).

The cash accounts are based off prior years.

Page 2 says no dividend declared in FY2014.

The chart on page 6 shows a dividend.

Page 8 confirms the dividend paid of 16 pence per share (several months back it was stated as well on the investors site...forget the month).

Page 11 gives the information on the 20 pence dividend being paid out after the balance sheet date.

Page 36 enumerates the dividends paid in FY 2014 - only the 16 pence dividend shows up.

Page 39 notes what you have said (in terms of dividends being counted in the year they are declared...).

Page 47 Further confirms page 36 and 11.

Just saying...it looks a bit off to me. Things don't add up, when you add them up.

the latest dividend wasn't issued until after the end of the fiscal year and wouldn't appear on the annual report. It will appear on the next one.

Which is what I said (more or less). The cash on hand of 17 million got reduced by 6 million right after they closed the books for FY2014. It is a bit odd though that they say none was paid though (when one was paid) and later say one was paid. Prior years have actually recorded the dividend owing on the balance sheet when one gets declared but is not paid before the time of the report. This year they did not. Goes to make the books look a bit better.

Next year, they might restate the numbers to move the dividend back into FY2014 and lower the cash on hand in order to make the FY2015 cash on hand look better (all legal - if a bit creative book keeping practices as far as I know).

That is illegal. It would be financial statement fraud. In the US, this is punishable by prison time. I would imagine the same thing in the UK. What you describe is not a restatement based on a change in accounting principle. It is directly misleading to an investor. Besides, the declaration date was subsequent to year end. Usually when things are bad and you don't meet expectations, you may as well take the hit and impair any assets on the edge. If its a bad year, make sure it doesn't bleed into the next year.

 WarOne wrote:
The other interesting thing is is that new people are always still coming into the Warhammer hobby. Look at the introductions to the forums and you see a lot of the traffic flowing in is new Warhammer players.

With respect, I think new members on Dakka are as meaningful to 40K sales as Google's Corvus Belli trends are to Infinity sales.