Quote:
Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd
See Paul HERE is where your entire attitude is fucked up. YOU - and only YOU - can tell what is "good porn" vs. "bad porn". Again, judging by your own work you are not in a position to comment on ANYONE'S porn quality.
But aside from that: you obviously do not understand what is "good porn". Amateur models, hot porn stars, housewives, fetishists - there is "quality" in all that. And there is crap, too. But the genre matters not.
So whenever you go on and on about content and how shitty it all is - and ONLY the "good porn makes money - you show your ignorance, bias, arrogance and cluelessness.
Carry on.  |
completely agree but there is also another thing that paul does not understand:
you can find a few billion of porn consumers out there but only a fraction of them is and was a porn buyer.
entertainment is just setting the kind of entertainment a user wants but it is not really the product. no hollywood production would ever be produced when cinema rights are the only income.
the big mass of money comes by time when they go to free tv where are millions of products are sold through advertising to the mass that will never spend a dollar for cinema.
he also missmatch things like ATTRACTING visitors and MONETIZING those visitors.
every visitor is a consumer, no matter if he likes HQ teens or LQ selfies with ugly fat ones. actually both kind of consumers are consumers for all and everything and you can not even say that one that likes LQ selfies from ugly fat ones would not be able to buy a ferrari.
he is still nailed on the 0,26% of the budget that porn visitors are spending for porn.
he does not see the 99,74 % that nobody touched before.
I do not say that we ever get much from that but if we get just 1-2% of this 99,74 we are talking about BILLIONS that are more in the pot.