Actually that's not such a bad way to look at it. Except I think it's not 100% right in the comparison.
Most webmasters and sponsors rely on the marketing technique of a sandwich board man.
Except it was also more like this.
They were handing out free bowls of soup to those who needed it. hoping a small % would buy.
The big difference was the cost. It costs little to put out a cheap advert on a high street with loads of passers by. Not a massive billboard on Time Square of course. It costs little to give free soup away to those who needed it. Online porn paid far far too much for it's "marketing".
The cartel example is good. The cartel was on the affiliates side. Give us 50% minimum, all the content we need, every tool we ask for and every possible support possible. If those at the beginning had kicked off with 10% and none to little support, the profits would of been immense. If anyone tried to get in on the act and go the route we did go with marketing. The profit margins would of been able to be adjusted so fast and customers would soon learn that a $30 site offered no more than a $20 site.
a few affiliates would of survived, those who couldn't survive unless spoon fed and attached by an umbilical cord to the sponsors, would never of got off the ground. Is it even conceivable that dating and cams would of priced themselves to suit the route I suggest and Tubes would never of ever got off the ground?
The only reason a porn Tube site can exist is the massive payments it gets to make a sale.
Or is that too far out of the box thinking?