zlacker

2/3 of its revenues were from the U.S. That's... sad.

>>throw7+(OP)
I wonder how much of that is from a group of lonely whales.

>>throw7+(OP)
> 2/3 of its revenues were from the U.S. That's... sad.

Probably common for a lot of luxury products; US is like 1/4 of world GDP, and a lot higher than that in personal income beyond basic needs.

>>throw7+(OP)
This just means a) the US is a huge market, and b) they haven't cracked the China market yet

>>dragon+U
But still around 4 to 5% of the global population. Every stat in the global context of usage/consumerism gets weird when you consider this, and even weirder when you account for debt-to-income ratio.

>>dragon+U
Tiktok ban mentions of WeChat just like they been saying onlyfans.

>>jimmyg+y2
> But still around 4 to 5% of the global population.

Yeah, but so? "Subsisitence farmers in sub-Saharan Africa spend substantially less per capita on online adult entertainment than Americans" is...not a surprising bit of information.

> Every stat in the global context of usage/consumerism gets weird when you consider this

Seems to me that the weird thing is the implicit premise that consumer and especially luxury spending should be expected to track population and not wealth.

> and even weirder when you account for debt-to-income ratio.

Are you assuming that the ability to borrow should be negatively correlated with luxury spending?