You content producers are all broke because the girls you shoot are ugly as fuck - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

MaDalton · 02-09-2011, 07:45 AM

100 broke content producer

DEA - banned for life · 02-09-2011, 07:46 AM

any drama in here? i skipped pages 1 and 2 ?

Paul Markham · 02-09-2011, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bm bradley

so look I'm just here to fucck around and post nasty pictures and read funny shit. what are you here for? to remind us all of how fucking wonderful you used to be? you need to sit down and figure it out because you surley are making a fool out of yourself.

He didn't read my post. Or made the wrong assumption. So let me state what I was trying to say.

I'm reminding content producers of how fucking wonderful IT used to be for shooters.

I don't blame shooters for the lousy prices they have to work for. I blame sponsors for it and their attitude that they can fill sites with low quality content and so long as they throw enough traffic at it, someone will sign up. That attitude was obvious from the very beginning.

In 2000 I met, at a show, 2 of the biggest people around at the time. One offered Eva and I a full time job and the other offered to buy all our production. The wages/prices they offered were a joke. They were clearly shocked when told what a solo girl set was worth to a magazine shooter. Those prices carried on until 2005, then mags started to suffer and a few closed, a few cut back on budgets and some employed in house shooters. Even today some magazines shooters are still able to sell to magazines. Yes the magazines listed are still buying.

So why don't some of the Internet shooters, especially those in the CA or NY go and see some editors with some sets? Either not good enough shooters or not good enough businessmen.

The excuse of "I can't be bothered" is a cover up and only the foolish believe that. There's still a small market left and it still pays money. Even if it's only $500 a set, the possibility of selling it twice makes that $1,000. The last set we sold to Barely Legal made $2400 non exclusive. We gave up because of the accident, my illness, that we had enough to retire on and not business problems. The business is still going well considering neither of us have shot for 2.5 years. No custom shooter will have that pillow to rest on.

SPONSORS ARE TO BLAME FOR THE PRICES PAID. Shooters today who can't sit back and retire or take their skills into a far better field of shooting are stuck with working for the prices offered.

If you're not reliant on sucking up to people on GFY, you can even sit back and make a fool of yourself.

**************

I do have a clue how it works in the Valley. You find a girl, you shoot her, you sell the work. Exactly the same as it works everywhere for shooters. If you rely on agents to find girls you're far down the pecking order unless you pay top $$$. And that's not good for shooters. If you advertise you get to see a lot of frogs before you find a princesses. If you rely on other girls to find girls, you get any girl they met on a shoot and a couple of friends. If you walk up to girls in a mall or street, you risk getting slung out or punched on the nose by an irate BF. No method comes without it's good points and bad points.

And to shoot in the Valley, you should have a permit. Maybe someone will tell me if I missed anything.

Paul Markham · 02-09-2011, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bm bradley

yes I would like to see charley move forward etc...

You still don't get it.

I don't have to move forward. I'm 60 and no need to work anymore.

Like most webmasters looking back at 2005 I can do the same. 2005 was a good year for us as well.

DEA - banned for life · 02-09-2011, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

He didn't read my post. Or made the wrong assumption. So let me state what I was trying to say.

I'm reminding content producers of how fucking wonderful IT used to be for shooters.

I don't blame shooters for the lousy prices they have to work for. I blame sponsors for it and their attitude that they can fill sites with low quality content and so long as they throw enough traffic at it, someone will sign up. That attitude was obvious from the very beginning.

In 2000 I met, at a show, 2 of the biggest people around at the time. One offered Eva and I a full time job and the other offered to buy all our production. The wages/prices they offered were a joke. They were clearly shocked when told what a solo girl set was worth to a magazine shooter. Those prices carried on until 2005, then mags started to suffer and a few closed, a few cut back on budgets and some employed in house shooters. Even today some magazines shooters are still able to sell to magazines. Yes the magazines listed are still buying.

So why don't some of the Internet shooters, especially those in the CA or NY go and see some editors with some sets? Either not good enough shooters or not good enough businessmen.

The excuse of "I can't be bothered" is a cover up and only the foolish believe that. There's still a small market left and it still pays money. Even if it's only $500 a set, the possibility of selling it twice makes that $1,000. The last set we sold to Barely Legal made $2400 non exclusive. We gave up because of the accident, my illness, that we had enough to retire on and not business problems. The business is still going well considering neither of us have shot for 2.5 years. No custom shooter will have that pillow to rest on.

SPONSORS ARE TO BLAME FOR THE PRICES PAID. Shooters today who can't sit back and retire or take their skills into a far better field of shooting are stuck with working for the prices offered.

If you're not reliant on sucking up to people on GFY, you can even sit back and make a fool of yourself.

**************

I do have a clue how it works in the Valley. You find a girl, you shoot her, you sell the work. Exactly the same as it works everywhere for shooters. If you rely on agents to find girls you're far down the pecking order unless you pay top $$$. And that's not good for shooters. If you advertise you get to see a lot of frogs before you find a princesses. If you rely on other girls to find girls, you get any girl they met on a shoot and a couple of friends. If you walk up to girls in a mall or street, you risk getting slung out or punched on the nose by an irate BF. No method comes without it's good points and bad points.

And to shoot in the Valley, you should have a permit. Maybe someone will tell me if I missed anything.

Paul Markham · 02-09-2011, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEA

Yep. Why should I move on?

DEA - banned for life · 02-09-2011, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Yep. Why should I move on?

nah ..you usually have very good points

im just being the typical lazy american who would rather look at the picutres than actually read the book

Paul Markham · 02-09-2011, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEA

nah ..you usually have very good points

im just being the typical lazy american who would rather look at the picutres than actually read the book

So here's something for you. Can you spot me?

Cherry7 · 02-09-2011, 02:13 PM

I think that all porn photography is pretty poor and always was...

The photos for mags although having a minimum technical standards the photography was routine, done to a formula, and pretty boring...same photos different girl....repeat....

The internet and digital cameras has led to fall in standards...but most of all the lack of ambition of photographers and webdesigners, also the piss poor attitude of review sites that live in a porn world where they have never seen a mainstrean photograph or movie.
The fact that a major photo site earns a shit load of cash - the photography is ok but just ok. Quantity over originaliy or creativity. and yet gets top marks from review sites....

If porn now exists in a legal state in many countries and in cyberspace why is it not evolving in to a high quality, customer friendly and artistic venture ?

Its roots of criminals filming prostitutes is long gone, is it not time porn grew up and entered mainstream culture ?

Grapesoda · 02-09-2011, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

You still don't get it.

I'm 60 and no need to work anymore.

Paul Markham · 02-10-2011, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherry7

I think that all porn photography is pretty poor and always was...

The photos for mags although having a minimum technical standards the photography was routine, done to a formula, and pretty boring...same photos different girl....repeat....

The internet and digital cameras has led to fall in standards...but most of all the lack of ambition of photographers and webdesigners, also the piss poor attitude of review sites that live in a porn world where they have never seen a mainstrean photograph or movie.
The fact that a major photo site earns a shit load of cash - the photography is ok but just ok. Quantity over originaliy or creativity. and yet gets top marks from review sites....

If porn now exists in a legal state in many countries and in cyberspace why is it not evolving in to a high quality, customer friendly and artistic venture ?

Its roots of criminals filming prostitutes is long gone, is it not time porn grew up and entered mainstream culture ?

Very few of us porn shooters are good photographers. It's not the required skill. We're pornographers not photographers.

Some like Suze, Joanie Alumn, Jack Harrison, Steve Hicks, Hank London, etc. Could turn their hand to being creative sometimes. But the wankability often suffered and men buy porn to wank over.

The governing factor is it has to sell to the end user. He wants to jerk off to it not sit back and admire the photography.

The difference the porn Internet made was Site Owners ability to know the difference between porn and naked people, budgets and their acceptance level.

I posted a thread a long time ago about the failing of Site Owners to buy or create good content. I never made that kind of post during my time shooting. Why is obvious, the last thing I wanted were Site Owners realising they could make their content free by selling it outside the Internet.

If some of ATK's content had been good enough to sell to magazines they could of swamped the magazine market and made it very hard for those in that field. Especially us who they would of directed competed with.

Think about it, for their $1500 to $2,000 a day shoot they could of sold 1 set that paid for the entire days work. It would of been tough for them to sell 365 sets every year, but we managed to sell over 200 every year.

The harsh truth isn't that they couldn't be bothered. Because I know the truth. They did try to sell to magazines. And got turned down.

Does it apply to DVD sales? Well try and name a few Internet sites who sell or market INTO the DVD market.

So the product webmasters were trying their hardest to sell wasn't acceptable in a better paying market. Imagine what that did to customer loyalty.

You asked a very good question, to which there is only one answer.

"If porn now exists in a legal state in many countries and in cyberspace why is it not evolving in to a high quality, customer friendly and artistic venture ?"

Michelangelo couldn't paint the Sistine Chapel on a house painters budget.

Internet sites pay poorly for content, so webmasters get poor content to sell. 10 years ago the myth was the surfer wanted more and more amateur content, the more amateur the better. As companies started to get more money and shooter got more skill. It all changed, Then Twistys, Only Tease, etc. Were producing what the surfers wanted. I don't suppose it had anything to do with the ability to pay or create better content.

MaDalton · 02-10-2011, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Some like Suze, Joanie Alumn, Jack Harrison, Steve Hicks, Hank London, etc. Could turn their hand to being creative sometimes. But the wankability often suffered and men buy porn to wank over.

The governing factor is it has to sell to the end user. He wants to jerk off to it not sit back and admire the photography.

you know what i dont understand, paul? while you acknowledge the obvious (see above) you ask me about f-stop on a blurry pic from an exGF set. think about it...

Grapesoda · 02-10-2011, 05:52 AM

Some like Suze, Joanie Alumn, Jack Harrison, Steve Hicks, Hank London, etc. Could turn their hand to being creative sometimes. But the wankability often suffered and men buy porn to wank over.

******* these shooters are struggling right now

The difference the porn Internet made was Site Owners ability to know the difference between porn and naked people, budgets and their acceptance level.

********** I read lots and lots of member email and see the set and model rating from a a wide range of models and photography... I think you don't really see what's going on. and I've pretty much pointed this out several times.

If some of ATK's content had been good enough to sell to magazines they could of swamped the magazine market and made it very hard for those in that field. Especially us who they would of directed competed with.

Think about it, for their $1500 to $2,000 a day shoot they could of sold 1 set that paid for the entire days work. It would of been tough for them to sell 365 sets every year, but we managed to sell over 200 every year.

The harsh truth isn't that they couldn't be bothered. Because I know the truth. They did try to sell to magazines. And got turned down.

********** as usual completely wrong again... think about it Charley... you're sitting 7 thousand miles away in a different country telling me what I'm doing on a daily basis.... are you posting drunk? the fact is shooting for atk on a work for hire agreement as an independent contractor doesn't allow the sale of the content to anyone else... several have tried that and been dropped, just as the photographers that do not meet the member needs have been dropped...

Does it apply to DVD sales? Well try and name a few Internet sites who sell or market INTO the DVD market.

*** atk videos are moving 5000 plus units on titles. so there I've named one.

*** http://business.avn.com/charts/Top-5...ateur-Rentals/

Internet sites pay poorly for content, so webmasters get poor content to sell. 10 years ago the myth was the surfer wanted more and more amateur content, the more amateur the better. As companies started to get more money and shooter got more skill. It all changed, Then Twistys, Only Tease, etc. Were producing what the surfers wanted. I don't suppose it had anything to do with the ability to pay or create better content.

********** you are confusing a market segmet with the market Charley. isn't only tease out of business? I'm done interacting with you... good luck and best wishes to you and your family

Paul Markham · 02-10-2011, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bm bradley

Some like Suze, Joanie Alumn, Jack Harrison, Steve Hicks, Hank London, etc. Could turn their hand to being creative sometimes. But the wankability often suffered and men buy porn to wank over.

******* these shooters are struggling right now

Joanie's retired, Jack, to my knowledge, is working for Private (ATK couldn't afford him) Suze and Steve have probably like me made enough to retire on.

And from there your post went down and down and made less sense.

I am surprised and pleased about the number of sites I see selling DVD. About time they moved across. All free money for them, after the boxes and duping is paid for. 5,000 has to bring in $10,000.

scarlettcontent · 02-10-2011, 06:23 AM

TheDoc · 02-10-2011, 06:38 AM

Funny thread.... funny because the OP is talking about people like Paul.

Straight up, if you can't make it shooting content today - it's because you're stuck on a 30 year old business model - and bitching about it wont change shit.

Several programs running around where the owner shoots the porn, is in the porn, produces it in house etc... and overall they're pulling down millions a year. If you're still a content producer and not making millions - you're doing it wrong.

02-09-2011, 07:45 AM	#101
MaDalton I am Amazing Content! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 39,822	100 broke content producer __________________ AmazingContent.com - providing only the best content and service since 2003 Monetize your content on Veegaz.com - one of Germanies largest VOD sites Got German traffic? We convert it into money for you! Skype: madalton02826 - Email: oltecconsult [at] gmail [dot] com

02-09-2011, 02:13 PM	#109
Cherry7 Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: UK Posts: 3,564	I think that all porn photography is pretty poor and always was... The photos for mags although having a minimum technical standards the photography was routine, done to a formula, and pretty boring...same photos different girl....repeat.... The internet and digital cameras has led to fall in standards...but most of all the lack of ambition of photographers and webdesigners, also the piss poor attitude of review sites that live in a porn world where they have never seen a mainstrean photograph or movie. The fact that a major photo site earns a shit load of cash - the photography is ok but just ok. Quantity over originaliy or creativity. and yet gets top marks from review sites.... If porn now exists in a legal state in many countries and in cyberspace why is it not evolving in to a high quality, customer friendly and artistic venture ? Its roots of criminals filming prostitutes is long gone, is it not time porn grew up and entered mainstream culture ? __________________ My Neighbour Butterfly PORN-The Musical The Long Goodbye Cinema Erotique

02-10-2011, 06:23 AM	#115
scarlettcontent www.scarlettcontent.net Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Pleiades Posts: 6,031	__________________ Scarlett Content - Adult Content Provider - High Quality Adult Stock Content for your Websites, Mobile Media and Print. Over 3 Million Images (14,000 photo sets) over 5000 Videos - Many Niches, US-2257, Awesome Prices. Over 40 years in the adult industry. [email protected] Follow us on twitter.

02-10-2011, 06:38 AM	#116
TheDoc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Currently Incognito Posts: 13,827	Funny thread.... funny because the OP is talking about people like Paul. Straight up, if you can't make it shooting content today - it's because you're stuck on a 30 year old business model - and bitching about it wont change shit. Several programs running around where the owner shoots the porn, is in the porn, produces it in house etc... and overall they're pulling down millions a year. If you're still a content producer and not making millions - you're doing it wrong. __________________ ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825 It's all disambiguation

02-09-2011, 07:46 AM	#102
DEA - banned for life V.I.P. Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: InYour Head Posts: 7,886	any drama in here? i skipped pages 1 and 2 ?

02-10-2011, 05:52 AM	#113
Grapesoda So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Montana Posts: 46,238	Some like Suze, Joanie Alumn, Jack Harrison, Steve Hicks, Hank London, etc. Could turn their hand to being creative sometimes. But the wankability often suffered and men buy porn to wank over. ***** these shooters are struggling right now The difference the porn Internet made was Site Owners ability to know the difference between porn and naked people, budgets and their acceptance level. ****** I read lots and lots of member email and see the set and model rating from a a wide range of models and photography... I think you don't really see what's going on. and I've pretty much pointed this out several times. If some of ATK's content had been good enough to sell to magazines they could of swamped the magazine market and made it very hard for those in that field. Especially us who they would of directed competed with. Think about it, for their $1500 to $2,000 a day shoot they could of sold 1 set that paid for the entire days work. It would of been tough for them to sell 365 sets every year, but we managed to sell over 200 every year. The harsh truth isn't that they couldn't be bothered. Because I know the truth. They did try to sell to magazines. And got turned down. ****** as usual completely wrong again... think about it Charley... you're sitting 7 thousand miles away in a different country telling me what I'm doing on a daily basis.... are you posting drunk? the fact is shooting for atk on a work for hire agreement as an independent contractor doesn't allow the sale of the content to anyone else... several have tried that and been dropped, just as the photographers that do not meet the member needs have been dropped... Does it apply to DVD sales? Well try and name a few Internet sites who sell or market INTO the DVD market. * atk videos are moving 5000 plus units on titles. so there I've named one. * http://business.avn.com/charts/Top-5...ateur-Rentals/ Internet sites pay poorly for content, so webmasters get poor content to sell. 10 years ago the myth was the surfer wanted more and more amateur content, the more amateur the better. As companies started to get more money and shooter got more skill. It all changed, Then Twistys, Only Tease, etc. Were producing what the surfers wanted. I don't suppose it had anything to do with the ability to pay or create better content. ******** you are confusing a market segmet with the market Charley. isn't only tease out of business? I'm done interacting with you... good luck and best wishes to you and your family