GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Demonstrated superiority of the TGP2 model

ADL Colin · 10-16-2001, 06:36 AM

Why TGP2s are better than TGP1s.

TGP2 galleries, as we have previously shown, have CTR rates that are about 10x better
than TGP1 galleries. These TGP2 galleries actually convert quite a bit better than TGP1 also.

I have stats to present to everyone regarding the comparison of TGP2 compared straight to
TGP1s. These are for the sites themselves and NOT the galleries. Many people have already
presented evidence of the superiority of the TGP2 gallery to the TGP1 gallery. The stats are for two of my TGP2s combined compared to one of my largest TGP1s. The link and sponsor are exactly the same on both and have the same placement. The number of clicks to sponsor was statistically significant.

On the TGP2s, CTR to sponsor was 1.5%
On the TGP1s, CTR to sponsor was .3%

This was actually somewhat surprising to me. Even though CTR on TGP2 galleries is 10x higher than on TGP1s, I expected that CTR on the TGP2s themselves would be much more in line with that on TGP1s. It was surprising to find the same link in the same spot on TGP2s with 5x the CTR.

The conversion rates for these links were as follows:

On the TGP2s, sign-up ratio was 1/700.
On the TGP1s, sign-up ratio was 1/1500.

This was for a significant amount of traffic. I have been tabulating these results for over
six weeks to get fair data. At present, I conclude that the value of a TGP2 surfer on the TGP2 itself is 10x that of a surfer on a TGP. This is the factor of 5x better CTR
and 2x better sign-up ratio.

My data now shows that TGP2 surfers are 10x more valuable than TGP1 surfers on both the
galleries and the TGP2s themselves. I believe the superiority of the TGP2 model to the TGP1 model has been clearly demonstrated. A model that depends on giving away 1000s of the same free pics that one intends to later sell and intentionally restricts the clicks sent to the sponsors is seriously flawed.

10-16-2001, 06:36 AM
ADL Colin Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Tube Titans, USA Posts: 11,929	Demonstrated superiority of the TGP2 model Why TGP2s are better than TGP1s. TGP2 galleries, as we have previously shown, have CTR rates that are about 10x better than TGP1 galleries. These TGP2 galleries actually convert quite a bit better than TGP1 also. I have stats to present to everyone regarding the comparison of TGP2 compared straight to TGP1s. These are for the sites themselves and NOT the galleries. Many people have already presented evidence of the superiority of the TGP2 gallery to the TGP1 gallery. The stats are for two of my TGP2s combined compared to one of my largest TGP1s. The link and sponsor are exactly the same on both and have the same placement. The number of clicks to sponsor was statistically significant. On the TGP2s, CTR to sponsor was 1.5% On the TGP1s, CTR to sponsor was .3% This was actually somewhat surprising to me. Even though CTR on TGP2 galleries is 10x higher than on TGP1s, I expected that CTR on the TGP2s themselves would be much more in line with that on TGP1s. It was surprising to find the same link in the same spot on TGP2s with 5x the CTR. The conversion rates for these links were as follows: On the TGP2s, sign-up ratio was 1/700. On the TGP1s, sign-up ratio was 1/1500. This was for a significant amount of traffic. I have been tabulating these results for over six weeks to get fair data. At present, I conclude that the value of a TGP2 surfer on the TGP2 itself is 10x that of a surfer on a TGP. This is the factor of 5x better CTR and 2x better sign-up ratio. My data now shows that TGP2 surfers are 10x more valuable than TGP1 surfers on both the galleries and the TGP2s themselves. I believe the superiority of the TGP2 model to the TGP1 model has been clearly demonstrated. A model that depends on giving away 1000s of the same free pics that one intends to later sell and intentionally restricts the clicks sent to the sponsors is seriously flawed.