Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMaxwell
If some cam model can set up a $100 camera on a $300 computer she probably already had and make $60-$200 an hour WITHOUT EVEN TOUCHING ANYONE or BEING MASS DISTRIBUTED I think she's doing just damned well for her little self, there!
|
The problem isn't really with the cam sites or the models. Though between those two I'd say more with the cam sites, especially the ones that allow free unregistered chat. The cam site puts a lot of time, effort and expense into what it does, and the model puts in time, effort and energy into generating
all profit for the cam site.
Cam girls can work without a cam site; cam sites can't work without the models.
The problem is with other leeches who have appeared, especially in the last few years, who see cams as a way to make money by exploiting performers or by making their job harder.
Studio bosses sensing easy money who rip off, steal (don't pay) or force people to work, or sometimes even have underaged (unregistered) performers, which just adds unhappy, unmotivated performers to sites.
And totally clueless lazy affiliates, also sensing easy money, who send shitloads of useless third world or freeloading traffic, forcing models to put up with ten times as many fuckwits asking "open sex" or "show tits and i pvt" or other idiotic phrases, all day long in piss poor English.
Which in turn is why even willing, motivated models can end up depressed and bored looking and start to completely ignore all guests, or logged in people posting stupid shit.
The fact that most cam models have always come from poorer countries of the world should indicate that being publicly visible on a live sex site to the world (no idea what you mean by 'NOT BEING MASS DISTRIBUTED'), and worse, maybe people at home, is not only not the greatest ambition for most girls but it's also not as lucrative as the top handful of performers, or theoretical earnings, might indicate.
But if you think it's such an easy job, and so easy to make $200 an hour, what's stopping you trying?
