Quote:
Originally Posted by bm bradley
Charley.... try and get the fuck over yourself will ya?
|
Is that your best response.
One of the problems of this part of the porn industry is clowns who are completely clueless about what is happening in it and not even able to think through what they post.
The fact that very few if any of the old time shooters have been employed by Site Owners leads to the conclusion that the money on offer wasn't good enough. Even Eva who I and aren't great shooters found that working freelance paid far more than selling our wares outright to people who paid $100s on sets we earned $1,000 on.
We found that selling content on the stores returned more money than selling out right to Site Owners. Work out what selling a set at $35 x10 and a video + set at $60 x 10 makes. Remember when everyone said non exclusive is saturated? That's the game for content producers. To sell 1 scene over and over again.
Anyone with a grain of sense would see we shot 2,000+ sets, 600+ videos in the last 10 years and not shooting 4-5 a day. We shot 2 a day. Plus we had a 3,500 studio. That takes money to fund. Money that comes from sales. Not at $500 for an exclusive solo girl scene.
But BM Bradly, who now has his link to a customer and not his site, knows better. Does he even have a site these days?
Am I alone in going down the non exclusive route and making money?
Only a fool would think that. There are maybe as many as 100 stills shooters, world wide who went the same route. From Suze Randall across to the likes of me. Yes there was that many of us earning our full time living shooting for mags. BM, I'm just 1 of 100 who found a better route than working for someone else for a day. And selling your work outright, whether your self employed or freelance, means you work for someone else if you're a shooter.
Maybe if you had my success you would be full of yourself as well. Or an arrogant bastard like me.
And it's CHARLY, Not Charley. The spelling was wrong because a French Director got it wrong on the box cover.