Quote:
Originally Posted by justinsain
I believe he said that because Nathan was going to pay you $1,000 ( his normal rate ) for doing a shoot and you demanded your normal rate @ $3,000 which would have been a 300% increase to Nathan's content budget. Or something to that effect.
|
Well by raising the content in Mofos it would inevitably lengthen retention rates, give affiliates better tools and help them earn more money if only from longer retention. That would mean they had more affiliates sending more traffic.
With a good shooter shooting for the site it would also give him a lot better tools to market the site with.
Everything starts with marketing. The more exceptional, innovative and different to the norm content is the better it will aid marketing. When a surfer sees it, he'll be more inclined to watch it, more inclined to click the link, more inclined to look closer at the tour and more inclined to sign up.
Once signed up he's again more inclined to stay longer. Even when he leaves. He will remember the site as one of the great sites and is more inclined to come back for the new updates.
It doesn't have to triple his turn over or profit. It's not 100% of his total budget. That's why I took the piss out of his economics and management skills.
Or do you think trying very very very hard to market average porn is a better route?
Than trying very very very hard to market great porn is a better route?
*******************************
Let's look at this as a business decision and leave the increase in sales alone. Let's go back to where I said employing someone like me would of been a great way to go and wouldn't of cost a penny more.
Firstly it's only online I get any praise for my work. In the magazine market I'm an average shooter, if that, who hit pay dirt when a young Czech girl fell in love with me and took me to Czech. Colby said I'm the only guy who went to heaven without having to die. So to them my only skill was in being able to find a constant stream of good new girls and get the best out of them. Nothing exceptional.
So what would it of cost to employ a full time shooter like me or Eva, or Steve Colby, or Scott Ward, or Jack Harrison, etc?
I reckon $150,000 to $200,000 would of been tops. The return on 50 to 70 sets sold to magazines. A shooter like me could find the girls, knew where to sell the content and knows how to shoot. Shooting 50 to 70 sets is nothing for a good shooter. While here Eva and I shot 2000+ sets in less than 8 years. Yes 250 a year, plus maybe a 1,000 amateur Ex Gf or Readers Wives type sets. Plus 800 videos, because we had a limited market for videos.
Any decent shooter could easily turn out 3 scenes a week that would easily clear his wages and probably all the other costs. Hiking the quality of the members area, giving affiliates something really good to sell and providing it all at $000,000 cost to the sponsor.
So why didn't all the people who were rolling in money back in 2000 to 2005 think of it?
Some of them clearly couldn't afford it. I spoke to so many that were clearly not able to afford us. Then there were people who clearly didn't realise there was a way to fund their content. AND I wasn't going to tell them for sure.
I think it comes down to thinking inside the box. That box being online.
The same could of been done with video, DVD and cable sales would easily of paid for a top shooter.
Too my knowledge, Viv Thomas, John Graham, Steve Hicks, Us and probably more offline shooters employed shooters who could sell in these markets. This idea isn't mine. It's something offline has done for years. Online could never figure it out, even when I was sitting here telling them I'm not working for peanuts they still didn't think why and investigate why.