BETH LILLY, ANALYST, WOODLAND PARTNERS: Philosophically, Will, I wanted to get your opinion about if in fact you're able to achieve the 10 percent EBITDA targets -- and you will be generating a lot of cash, and there's cash on the balance sheet -- can you talk about down the line your priorities for the use of that cash?

WILLIAM LANSING: In the short-term, and I would say the short term is '04 and '05, that cash is going to be used primarily to fund our growth, our topline growth. And so it will be a little bit in inventory and it will be a bit more in receivables. We do a substantial amount of our business on what we call value pay, which is a pretty low-risk form of credit. It is where we hit our customers Visa and MasterCards a number of times over a number of months. We have very low bad debt associated with that, but it does wind up being a use of cash. And so as we grow the business, if we continue to rely on value pay -- which we very much intend to do -- I would anticipate our receivables financing appetite will be substantial. So that is probably the number one use of cash. Down the road, to be determined. I could imagine when we become very profitable we would use it for acquisitions and things like that. We would look at it then.

OPERATOR: Kathleen Heaney, Maxim Group.

KATHLEEN HEANEY, ANALYST, MAXIM GROUP: Will, you had made a statement earlier that you said this is a volume business. And I just wanted to take that a little bit further and talk about the average unit price, because obviously that is going to be a big driver of it. And if we looked at the number you gave, about $185 in the fourth quarter, which is probably skewed a little bit because computers could be strong in the quarter, where do you actually see that number going? What is the trade-off? How low does that go to drive (multiple speakers) volume?

WILLIAM LANSING: Great question, great question. Here's the challenge -- on the one hand we have everybody in the direct business aspires to have a high average order size. And we are blessed with a very high average order size. But the reason we have a high average order size is that we have high price points, and because we have high price points, our appeal is not as wide as we would like it to be. And that explains part of why we have 1.5 percent penetration instead of 8 percent penetration like QVC. So our strategy has been to mix in, hopefully without losing our core customer, to mix in a lot of lower average selling prices -- lower selling prices to bring down our average selling price so that our offers become more accessible to a broader audience. I think that that 185 could still go lower. I would imagine it will go lower. But there is a place where kind of you approach (indiscernible), and I'm not show where that number -- I don't know if it's $150, I'm not sure where it is. But I know that for sure we're not interested in doing really low price points, because really low price points are hard to make money on. At enough volume you can do okay, and when we get to really sizable customer counts and big audiences and big volumes, I imagine the selling price would go down even lower, like you see it on QVC. But that is years away. So I would say that we will continue to head downward slowly.
------------------------------------------------

Much has happened in 5 years...the real difference is $24M less for carriage and @20M more homes. One would hope the use of Value Pay is still the best use for cash AND that it is driving topline sales to exceed $44M/month (break-even?).....

and that we are headed toward "really sizable customer counts and big audiences and big volumes"