Forbes article "The Porn Convention" with Seymour Butts, RealTouch, and the decline of the biz

[Bill8]

Mainstream loves to do it's pornbiz articles - this one was okay as far as it goes. by Susannah Breslin...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susannah...vention/print/

?You can?t write that,? Seymore Butts says the moment my hand moves to write down the two words he?s said, two words that summarize this story, that say everything there is to say, really, about the state of the adult movie industry, and one of the words is an expletive.

I?m sitting with Butts, born Adam Glasser in the Bronx, New York, 48 years ago, on two black plastic chairs inside of a square. Around the perimeter, porn stars sit on tall chairs at high tables signing glossy photos of themselves for patient men waiting in embarrassing lines.

The last time I saw Butts was for another story, and it was 11 years ago. I interviewed him in the living room of his ranch-style home with a kidney-shaped pool in the yard in the San Fernando Valley. His young son wandered into the room; his porn star girlfriend occupied herself in another part of the house. Back then the gonzo porno pioneer was in trouble with the Los Angeles Police Department, which had decided a movie Butts made, ?Tampa Tushy-Fest Part 1,? was obscene.

Now things are different.

In the decade since, the adult movie industry has changed completely, and although Butts has gone off the record as I listen, he is telling me the story of everything that happened in between, and it?s a doozy.

***

Once upon a time, pornographers were kings.

I remember what it was like because I was there. The rise of the Internet was spreading porn across the planet like a virus. There were big budget feature movies, stunt sex videos in which lone women competed with one another to have sex with as many men as possible, and gonzo production studios cropping up like weeds across the Valley. With lightning speed, porn crossed over into the mainstream, and consumers couldn?t get enough. Or so it seemed.

A funny thing happened, though. Over the years that followed, porn became ubiquitous, the market was flooded with product, piracy ate up the porn industry?s profits, the Feds served a series of pornographers with a succession of obscenity indictments, and a recession swept across the globe.

By the time I sit down across from Butts at this porn convention on the second floor of the Donald E. Stephens Convention Center in Rosemont, Ill., over which a steady stream of jetliners descends into Chicago O?Hare International Airport less than a mile away, the adult movie business has transformed totally.

The porn industry as I knew it is dead. And it appears a new industry has arisen.

***

Xaq Fixx is a former Air Force cryptologist and precision-guided munitions specialist. He wears glasses, has a significant scar on his forehead of undetermined origin, and sports a Lenin-esque beard and mustache, the ends of which he twirls into curls.

Fixx is the market research manager for the Adult Entertainment Broadcast Network, an online adult company that bills itself on its website as ?THE #1 ADULT VIDEO ON DEMAND THEATER IN THE WORLD!? Among other properties, AEBN owns PornoTube, an X-rated YouTube, and xPeeps, an adult webcam site that encourages users to ?xpose yourself.? It also produces the product Fixx is hawking.

I stick my finger into the rubbery, flesh-colored slit on the side of a plastic grey peanut the size of a very large loaf of bread. This is RealTouch, an ?award-winning male masturbator? designed by a former NASA engineer that syncs with adult movies to simulate sex for the male with which it is interacting through your computer?s USB port. The device retails for $325, and the package includes 120 RealTouch VOD minutes, anti-bacterial cleaner, and a 90-day limited warranty.

More recently, the company has begun marketing the RealTouch JoyStick, the lingam to the RealTouch?s yoni, which is to say it looks like a dildo. Available only to adult webcam models at this time, the joystick serves as a remote control for the RealTouch device, enabling users in remote locations to have ?True Internet Sex?!?

Per Fixx?s instruction, Savannah Steele, a busty blonde porn star in a lab coat, moves the joystick, and the mechanism tightens around my finger and increases speed.

?It feels like having sex with a robot,? I announce. I extract my finger and wipe it off with a wet wipe from the box on the table.

[Bill8]

at least realtouch is starting to realize that the real breakout market is in virtual sex.

still sounds like poor execution.

but, the virtual whore technology might crystallize this decade.

[Bill8]

breslin pretty much nails it.

Jenna Jameson?s unattainability, her Barbie-on-a-pedestal unknowability, has been replaced by an independent contractor who works from home and is paying off her college debt with your virtual tips by having virtual sex with you. She?s a bombshell or the girl next door, the naughty teacher or the punk rocker, the MILF or whatever it is that your wife isn?t, that you don?t have, that you can?t get, that brought you right here, right now, rather than watching some stale free clip on an X-rated tube site that stole their content from a porn producer who is on the verge of declaring bankruptcy in a Chatsworth office park, thanks to you.

***

?What happened? The Internet came around,? Butts said. ?That changed the game. Nobody imagined these tube sites would pop up, giving away this content we fought so hard to create.?

A few feet away, his porn star girlfriend signed another autograph.

?Will recorded sex ever go away?? Butts asked rhetorically. ?No. It?s for the collector out there.?

In theory, the porn dilemma is the same as the printed-on-paper book dilemma. Some people like the feel of the pages, the smell when they open a book for the first time. Some people like the new new thing, their porn digital and interactive.

Truth be told, nobody is sure where things are heading. The sexual appetite is a tricky thing to predict, and everyone here believes whomever gets it right will be raking in the dollars.

[Paul Markham]

A lot of the 30-40 year old guys here will be telling a similar story in 2030, about the days when someone bought something porn related. LOL

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

A lot of the 30-40 year old guys here will be telling a similar story in 2030, about the days when someone bought something porn related. LOL

Paul Markham has spoken.

[Far-L]

Another "tubes" are to blame sob story from porn valley. The LA river runs deep with those tears.

Journalists love the angle... the regicide of former kings of the industry, brought low by the tides of change.

One word.

Yawn.

Should've got a bigger boat when the sharks came swimming by... If you wanted to stay afloat.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by Far-L

Another "tubes" are to blame sob story from porn valley. The LA river runs deep with those tears.

so, you figure it is fundamentally wrong that tubes are affecting the sales of the old school video crowd?

are tubes affecting sales at all?

what do you figure they are doing wrong?

or is it just that they are complaining about the loss of the old profit margins?

[Far-L]

Originally Posted by Bill8

so, you figure it is fundamentally wrong that tubes are affecting the sales of the old school video crowd?

are tubes affecting sales at all?

what do you figure they are doing wrong?

or is it just that they are complaining about the loss of the old profit margins?

The adage "adapt or die" would be where I would start. The industry has seen sweeping change and only a handful of the old brick and mortar players were in any way prepared to meet the challenges.

My hunch is that while Seymour was doing the cable show he probably was not as focused as he needed to be about online. He is an intelligent guy, but imho as one of his peers, he also suffered during that period from the curse of pride... which goes before the fall.

I call it "rockstar syndrome".

Someone becomes highly successful. Everyone kisses his ass and tells him how great he is and how he can do no wrong. An arrogant feeling of invincibility sets in. Then the market changes and suddenly all those people agreeing to every bad idea are gone and so are the customers that don't want to be subjected to the same thing over and over by a King that no longer cares what the subjects think, or need, or want.

The king dies. A new one is born. Another shall rise. Life goes on. And people can still make money in porn.

People make money from tubes. Content OWNERS make money from tubes. Trying to blame tube content as the great green evil destroyer of the biz is simply a fallacy and an excuse for the failings of those that never rose to meet the challenge of change.

Seymour, with his broadcast deals, dvd distribution, non-online rev streams and most importantly brand recognition and loyalty was in a better position than most to realize the best profit margins ever. Don't blame the tubes, blame not paying attention when the winds of changes shift.

[Paul Markham]

The problem and quotes about changing ships is misleading

2000ish online porn really started growing and some made good money. Offline was where the old porno people were and for them the best boat. At any time an online mega earner could of walked into Seymour Butts office and made an offer he couldn't of refused.

They produced a cheap easily copied medium to mediocre product concentrating money in traffic generation. Like it was hard to get men to look at porn.

A few had another approach. Met-Art, Alsscan, Perfect Gonzo, etc. Or were they lucky enough to hook into a producer who could create such a product? Everyone knew these sites were doing well. Everyone should of known of offline guys who could produce the same product. Why didn't they go to the other boat, from their supposedly luxury liner, to make producers an offer to come across?

Viv Thomas, Steve Hicks, Suze Randall, etc. Were all guns for hire they worked for other people who paid the most. Even a lowly guy like me was able to make more shooting for offline than shooting custom online.

Switching ships meant, getting your own website, to become a publisher in a foreign world and risk losing what they had. The big labels couldn't change ships and lose the retail business. Shop chains were adamant that if the big labels went the route of selling 100s of scenes for $30 a month, it would effect their sales.

The Viv Thomas, Steve Hicks, Suze Randall, etc. level would never of got paid what Dean was happy to work for. Until very recently few bothered to look at creating a product 1000s couldn't copy.

There was nothing stopping an online big gun making them an offer. Not Homegrown, few would of worked for what they paid for content then and for them going direct online was far better than their offline sales. They bought from amateurs happy to get some money with a video of them screwing, getting shops to dedicate shelf space to that was tough, compared to what the other side of offline was doing.

Far-L will now come back and tell us their offline sales were booming, at the level of all the big guns, and online just boosted it. Which still doesn't answer my main point. Producers can be hired, they go where the biggest bucks are. They don't give a flying fuck if it's online or offline.

[Bill8]

everybody knows 'adapt or die'. and it doesn't take much looking around in this place to see that there's a fuck of a lot of dying going on.

it's hard to have sympathy for seymour butts and all the old videotape brand names. But, I recall many of the brand names brought their content to the net, from private and puritan in the beginning, to max hardcore and dirty debutantes, hustler and the like - none of them did great, especially in the middle period, 2004-2008, most are long gone.

you can count the ones who succeeded without using too many fingers.

so there must be something in the business model that doesn't work for the old videotape production content companies.

profit margin I have always assumed, big difference between 30 bucks a tape and 20 bucks a magazine, and 30 bucks a month for a hundred tapes on hard drives in a membership site, to a few cents ad revenue or a few bucks affiliate revenue for content on a modern day traffic site.

your business Far-L was always based on specialized content, even way back in the xeroxed catalog days. and low cost production.

adapt or die, but, it does not look like nearly anybody is making money hand-over-fist these days. When you have to say "there's still money in porn". the reason it makes sense is because so many have died.

[Bill8]

if the new business model looks something like this - (CONTENT producer <=> TUBES) =$$$...

with a few extras thrown in, the processors and processor services, a bit of design work and basic cms site building, legal, stuff like that...

shouldn't we be seeing an explosion of small content producers jumping on the chance to create content and monetize it fast with massive tube traffic?

are we seeing an explosion of small content producers going straight to tube?

If affiliates are carved out of the deal, how many affiliates are now becoming content producers? primary content producers, that is.

[CurrentlySober]

i cant afford to go to a Porn Convention...

[Paul Markham]

Bill, you missed my point. Adapt or die is a two way street. Online has done little of it. Maybe it's because most online start ups were guys in their spare rooms tapping away on keyboards or running out to shoot some quick porn scenes.

When they got big there was nothing to stop them poaching offline producers. Seymour was his own brand and it would of taken a lot of money to get him over.

Private and puritan and hustler. All production companies employing shooters. Max hardcore and dirty debutantes (Ed Powers), were brands based on a person. Nothing to stop the Big Sponsors coming to any from the top to the bottom and asking us work for them on an exclusive or non exclusive basis. All it took was the right amount of money.

I had loads of people in the teen niche approach us with offers to shoot for them. $1500 for 5 sets and videos exclusive. So did lots of other shooters. OK the price varied, it never ever competed with what we could earn elsewhere.

Today there are ex offline shooters around. You want them, they will work for you. Offline is so small they'll be happy. Online sites have to drop the attitude they've had towards the content for the last 12 years.

"I can get it cheaper from the guy I use in Russia."

My reply was always. "So why are you asking me?".

Their reply was "Your better."

My reply. "Not for the money you pay."

What happens when a good shooter teams with a good webmaster? DDFcash.

There was nothing to stop 100s "clever webmasters" teaming up with a great producer and making millions. Or stopping the big sponsors dropping guys shooting for peanuts and poaching someone on a higher level and making even more millions.

Even today there are some good shooters around. You don't need to hold a competition on GFY to find them. A phone will do. If you need people to vote on it to tell you, you're in the wrong business or need to employ someone who can tell you.

They couldn't adapt to the idea that cheap scenes don't set customers hearts racing.

Today a few are realising competing over traffic is a mugs game, best to compete on a field others can't get onto.

A lot of the people who I knew working for the offline guys, said I was mad building a new arm to the business by selling what I sold to mags to sites. I had the last laugh. I adapted.

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by Far-L

The adage "adapt or die" would be where I would start. The industry has seen sweeping change and only a handful of the old brick and mortar players were in any way prepared to meet the challenges.

My hunch is that while Seymour was doing the cable show he probably was not as focused as he needed to be about online. He is an intelligent guy, but imho as one of his peers, he also suffered during that period from the curse of pride... which goes before the fall.

I call it "rockstar syndrome".

Someone becomes highly successful. Everyone kisses his ass and tells him how great he is and how he can do no wrong. An arrogant feeling of invincibility sets in. Then the market changes and suddenly all those people agreeing to every bad idea are gone and so are the customers that don't want to be subjected to the same thing over and over by a King that no longer cares what the subjects think, or need, or want.

The king dies. A new one is born. Another shall rise. Life goes on. And people can still make money in porn.

People make money from tubes. Content OWNERS make money from tubes. Trying to blame tube content as the great green evil destroyer of the biz is simply a fallacy and an excuse for the failings of those that never rose to meet the challenge of change.

Seymour, with his broadcast deals, dvd distribution, non-online rev streams and most importantly brand recognition and loyalty was in a better position than most to realize the best profit margins ever. Don't blame the tubes, blame not paying attention when the winds of changes shift.

^^^^^ what he said

[AmeliaG]

I wish Forbes had someone with a clue about the internet side of the business reporting. Having someone writing like the 2001 problems of the mainstream of 818 Porn Valley porn are news is . . . well, let's say not current. And not a service to anyone interested in reading about business.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

I wish Forbes had someone with a clue about the internet side of the business reporting. Having someone writing like the 2001 problems of the mainstream of 818 Porn Valley porn are news is . . . well, let's say not current. And not a service to anyone interested in reading about business.

The problem is getting factual information from the Internet guys.

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The problem is getting factual information from the Internet guys.

why would anyone share them if they dont have to?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

why would anyone share them if they dont have to?

So how do they write the article?

Manwin issue press releases that could be real or fiction. Reading this board as a content provider knowing the other side, I see a lot of BS.

You've now progressed to a very good level, you get outsourced for work. Has anyone come to you to give you an offer to work 100% for them or to team up with you, that you can't refuse?

I'm sure you get the offers with vague promises and "sharing" deals.

So my point includes you as well.

The problem is online porn guys are very blinkered. I wasn't alone shooting magazine sets. There were many of us. It was a cash cow if you could shoot a decent set with a good new girl.

We could of bought in from any number of shooters working for $500 a scene, sold the set for $1,000 minimum and owned the scene, video as well.

Sponsors could of sold to magazines and recouped 100% of the outlay on content. No excuse they were unable to adapt or the sets were not good enough. Technically good, so long as they had a decent camera, lights and knew how to set them. The problems were deeper than that.

They missed the boat and couldn't diversify and sit here thinking it was all one sides.

People who diversified.

Score.
Swank.
LFP.
PRO.
DDF.
Us.

Still no need to cry over spilt milk. What's done is done. There's not much left to diversify or adapt to in porn.

[MaDalton]

you have no idea what we do and how much ;)

and what offers we had in the past

but obviously none of them was good enough

but we're also way beyond considering any sharing deals - those are only offered by people who have no clue how much they can make

if Manwin wants to do a sharing deal i'd listen though - hehe

but they are way too smart for that

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

but obviously none of them was good enough

My point exactly.

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

My point exactly.

yeah, but under a completely wrong assumption

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

why would anyone share them if they dont have to?

All industries Forbes covers will try to present what they want to. Even public companies invest in accountants and analysts etc. to present what they want to show.

Making educated guesses about the current business reality is what business journalists do. It is what they are supposed to do anyway. I feel that Forbes would not tolerate such sloppy, uninformed, and out-of-date coverage of any other industry.

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

All industries Forbes covers will try to present what they want to. Even public companies invest in accountants and analysts etc. to present what they want to show.

Making educated guesses about the current business reality is what business journalists do. It is what they are supposed to do anyway. I feel that Forbes would not tolerate such sloppy, uninformed, and out-of-date coverage of any other industry.

i was actually thinking exactly the same you wrote above when i read the article

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

All industries Forbes covers will try to present what they want to. Even public companies invest in accountants and analysts etc. to present what they want to show.

Making educated guesses about the current business reality is what business journalists do. It is what they are supposed to do anyway. I feel that Forbes would not tolerate such sloppy, uninformed, and out-of-date coverage of any other industry.

Which is true for companies where the accounts are never audited and people have little idea of who really owns them. So few companies of any size.

yeah, but under a completely wrong assumption

You were offered enough and turned it down?

Then it wasn't enough or the right deal. Most offline guys were the same as you and I, never was enough or the right deal. So they hired people who were happy to work for peanuts, compared with what the top guys were earning. Even if working as an outsourced outfit it was rarely enough. Now you're working on a better level.

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

You were offered enough and turned it down?

Then it wasn't enough or the right deal. Most offline guys were the same as you and I, never was enough or the right deal. So they hired people who were happy to work for peanuts, compared with what the top guys were earning. Even if working as an outsourced outfit it was rarely enough. Now you're working on a better level.

i'm afraid you still dont understand it.

only newbies would get the idea of partnering with a shooter. successful companies know that content - no matter how good or expensive - is only a fraction of their costs. giving a shooter a percentage instead of just paying them would be like Porsche giving a percentage of each sold car to Bosch for contributing the spark plugs.

i'm not delusional, i know my place.

but what i also know: Porsche knows where to buy good spark plugs

[Bill8]

I think we can all agree that a forbes article about the porn biz that starts out featuring seymore butts is going to be weak, with only a little relevance to the online sector. The article is a puff piece.

Altho I thought the realtouch stuff was interesting. realtouch is one of those things that seems like it could be a breakout product, a killer app - but it just keeps languishing, and the most notable thing about it is nobody seems to be selling it much.

---

Paul, I'm not a shooter, so I don't want to get involved in the "shooter wars".

The most interesting thing in the shooter wars to me is this question - if content is cheap, and there are plenty of shooters to make cheap content, why are paysites still failing?

---

I think everybody throws around 'adapt or die' like it means something, but, conversions are still falling, profit margins are still falling, like a rock in most cases. We are saying adapt or die in the middle of a fucking fire sale.

I don't see much adaptation, I see a lot of dying.

Anybody got examples of successful adaptation?

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by Bill8

The most interesting thing in the shooter wars to me is this question - if content is cheap, and there are plenty of shooters to make cheap content, why are paysites still failing?

content is not necessarily cheap in the sense of low costs per item, content is cheap in the total context of running a site

let's say you run a site with 52 exclusive updates per year that costs you $2000 each -thats $104,000 a year

lets say you make 1 million gross - thats about 90 signups and rebills a day - there are MANY sites that make way more.

in that case the content is only 10% of your expenses.

but typically about 30%-35% on the average are payouts to affiliates (revshare program)

and that could be a reason why people nowadays rather skip the affiliate (who then thinks the business is dying) and invest that saved money into inhouse traffic generation.

thats why some people are doing very well with their programs and some content producers still do good business.

[Bill8]

why affiliates are dying is not the question, we all know that answer, the question is, why are the paysites dying?

unless you are saying they are not?

[gabe100]

Originally Posted by Bill8

why affiliates are dying is not the question, we all know that answer, the question is, why are the paysites dying?

unless you are saying they are not?

Bill, a lot of sites died, some reinvented themselves, new ones popped up during the recession and did very well. Some left on auto pilot to collect the very last rebill. Some of course, sold to the dark side.

The old ways of marketing a paysite are dead. New forms of traffic emerged and some sites adapted and did well. Most didn't.

Survival of the fittest.

The recession left the businessmen standing. So that's what we have on GFY. The businessmen doing hundreds ( and thousands ) of sales a day, the part-timers , the guys doing 20 joins a day and surviving and the rest that cry about the past.

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by Bill8

why affiliates are dying is not the question, we all know that answer, the question is, why are the paysites dying?

unless you are saying they are not?

i say many died, many consolidated and quite a few emerged that have a totally different approach

but is the business in total dying? not at all.

[Bill8]

who would you pick as examples of the new paysite winners?

presumably these guys are now making all the money that used to be spread out over hundreds of now dead paysite companies. But, one thing you rarely see anymore is the "look at the new lambo I just bought, to go next to my ferrari" threads.

the new winners are keeping low profile, which maybe is a good idea.

or is it just that gfy is pariah now, also dead, and the new money guys don't need boards anymore?

[marlboroack]

I deleted my comment.

[corvette]

good quote from punker barbie in there

[fuzebox]

Originally Posted by corvette

good quote from punker barbie in there

Was just gonna say that

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

i'm afraid you still dont understand it.

only newbies would get the idea of partnering with a shooter. successful companies know that content - no matter how good or expensive - is only a fraction of their costs. giving a shooter a percentage instead of just paying them would be like Porsche giving a percentage of each sold car to Bosch for contributing the spark plugs.

i'm not delusional, i know my place.

but what i also know: Porsche knows where to buy good spark plugs

There's the problem. The product is a fraction of the costs. So for many they ended up with a product most could copy, most was crap and hard to sell/retain and few were Porsches and most were. Travants.



So you think the approach of Babes.com, Orasms.xxx, whengirlsplay.com, Met-art.com, X-art.com and those who don't hold your view was wrong?

Now I understand.

We should all produce cheap cut price products and pay out a fortune to affiliates to forge a new way forward.

[CarlosTheGaucho]

Originally Posted by Far-L

He is an intelligent guy, but imho as one of his peers, he also suffered during that period from the curse of pride... which goes before the fall.

I call it "rockstar syndrome".

Someone becomes highly successful. Everyone kisses his ass and tells him how great he is and how he can do no wrong. An arrogant feeling of invincibility sets in. Then the market changes and suddenly all those people agreeing to every bad idea are gone and so are the customers that don't want to be subjected to the same thing over and over by a King that no longer cares what the subjects think, or need, or want.

This is precisely what I experienced over and over and over.

Not sure if being in adult and the stigma around it (which is hard to deal with for most, no matter if they ever admit it) is an important factor, combined with a generally lower level of business experience and / or education.

Seen some ridiculous displays of grandeur and delusionality over the years from people who made money, but simply forgot that somebody still has to actually buy their product.

People that didn't get that a mentality that tells you that "the rest of the world is stupid and simply doesn't understand our vision" is a safe way to bankrupcy.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by CarlosTheGaucho

This is precisely what I experienced over and over and over.

Not sure if being in adult and the stigma around it (which is hard to deal with for most, no matter if they ever admit it) is an important factor, combined with a generally lower level of business experience and / or education.

Seen some ridiculous displays of grandeur and delusionality over the years from people who made money, but simply forgot that somebody still has to actually buy their product.

People that didn't get that a mentality that tells you that "the rest of the world is stupid and simply doesn't understand our vision" is a safe way to bankrupcy.

Sorry mate but you have it wrong. It's ENTIRELY a one way street.

Fundamentally if you sit at a keyboard punching keys, you have it right. The rest of the industry doesn't even exist. Or is doing it all wrong and not adapting. You adapt every time you change the code, colour of the site, price, traffic source, and even underwear is an adapting. </sarcasm>

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

There's the problem. The product is a fraction of the costs. So for many they ended up with a product most could copy, most was crap and hard to sell/retain and few were Porsches and most were. Travants.



So you think the approach of Babes.com, Orasms.xxx, whengirlsplay.com, Met-art.com, X-art.com and those who don't hold your view was wrong?

Now I understand.

We should all produce cheap cut price products and pay out a fortune to affiliates to forge a new way forward.

you dont understand - and by listing those sites you EXACTLY made my point

and the name of the car is Trabant

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

you dont understand - and by listing those sites you EXACTLY made my point

and the name of the car is Trabant

Shit V and B are too close to each other.

So explain it to us all. I'm sure there are others wondering what you mean. I know the business I'm wondering why some didn't raise the product game, because it worked so well. How good is your product?

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Shit V and B are too close to each other.

So explain it to us all. I'm sure there are others wondering what you mean. I know the business I'm wondering why some didn't raise the product game, because it worked so well. How good is your product?

obviously good enough to keep us very busy and growing (again)

but that was not my point - just re-read my posts:

https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=19105433&postcount=25

https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=19105709&postcount=27

nowhere i said that content needs to be cheap - i said the costs of content for a successful site are not crucial.

you should know what i am talking about - the costs of office furniture are not crucial either for a company like General Electric.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

obviously good enough to keep us very busy and growing (again)

but that was not my point - just re-read my posts:

https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=19105433&postcount=25

https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=19105709&postcount=27

nowhere i said that content needs to be cheap - i said the costs of content for a successful site are not crucial.

you should know what i am talking about - the costs of office furniture are not crucial either for a company like General Electric.

Blinkered view. Yes it's not the cost that makes the difference. It's the quality. If they have an in-house shooter, like you and others, they will be able to produce a quality product without the cost of hiring in a good shooter.

If you don't have a good shooter there are two options, buy a camera and all the gear and shoot it yourself. Or hire in.

Shoot it yourself = let's say $10,000, plus models, locations, make up, props, clothing, etc. Flaw in the plan as you now know it is takes time and a lot of hard work to get to where you are today. Few have the ability to pick up a camera and direct models to do what they need. Some like you would rather their partner does it. End product is more often than not poor to medium and even by updating cameras it lacks something. Which is why the market is flooded with poor sites.

Hire in = going out to find shooters who can do the job for you. This is a new market place. These shooters like everyone else in business work for the best money they can get. Includes highest price and continual business. Would you of shoot solo girl scenes exclusive, if you could of sold a non exclusive set for $1,000 and still sold it online from the stores? Also the stores will resell over and over again, you can open a site with it and the $1,000 sales are many a month and every month. Even on the same set selling non exclusive over and over again? You know exactly what I mean.

The adapt model = Team up with an established good shooter, either employing him or partnership deal. He's already earning a very good living, probably selling to another arm of the porn industry. The Internet guy has nothing to do with that, the partnership is on the Internet sales only. They share the costs and the work of building a site, the shooter does the parts he can advise on and the webmaster does his part. They share the wealth.

Alternative is to employ him full time and sell his work to the other markets in porn keeping the money to fund the better content for the website. The webmaster makes the wealth.

We al know great sites that just get more traffic off samples, retain and convert better. Keeping it to my list is blinkered thinking. Surfers hit the samples and tour and just get turned on by what they see. They produce a better return than what most other sites do.

[DamianJ]

If only everyone would listen to Paul, this industry wouldn't be in the mess it is!

[tony286]

I think porn isnt going anywhere but the herd is going to thinned dramatically. Porn was always a pretty small group until the internet. I think that's the true level and it will go back to that.

[MaDalton]

i give up

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

content is not necessarily cheap in the sense of low costs per item, content is cheap in the total context of running a site

let's say you run a site with 52 exclusive updates per year that costs you $2000 each -thats $104,000 a year

lets say you make 1 million gross - thats about 90 signups and rebills a day - there are MANY sites that make way more.

in that case the content is only 10% of your expenses.

Let's say it doesn't work!!!!

Yes if only it was as easy as saying, "let's say".

but typically about 30%-35% on the average are payouts to affiliates (revshare program)

and that could be a reason why people nowadays rather skip the affiliate (who then thinks the business is dying) and invest that saved money into inhouse traffic generation.

thats why some people are doing very well with their programs and some content producers still do good business.

Generally speaking you hit the nail on the head. It's absurd to pay out 30%-35% plus all the tools. To drive traffic that simply doesn't convert and retain well enough these days. It worked earlier when the alternatives to a membership were poor. Today the surfer is far more picky and educated and getting more traffic that converts, is harder.

How many people do you employ to drive traffic for you? I imagine Manwin have loads.

Ultimately it all relies on someone seeing something he/she wants to see more of and willing to buy it. The reliance on the traffic model to solve problems was always flawed. Even people telling us "Traffic is King." Were sending traffic where conversions was the reason for sending.

[MaDalton]

its pointless to discuss this any further

[V_RocKs]

Time to go make some (more) tubes.

[nico-t]

lol @ pauls horrible walls of text.

[Bill8]

It's kind of a shame this devolved into more shooter wars.

These discussions tend to collapse into certain types of dead ends, and they don't necessarily have to do so.

Does anybody know if the processors are processing more money or less money nowadays, in the tube era?

And again, I wanna ask if anybody can hold up as an example NEW paysites that are thriving under the current conditions?

We all know about manwin, and the older companies like say pinkvisual, kink, and dogfart that are hanging on. Are the last three making the same money, more money, or less money these days, do you think? (looks like less, to me.)

The chief characteristic of all the survivors is they shoot some of their own content (or at least are producing it).

so, what are the new paysites, the ones that have emerged in the last 3 years are are successful under the tubes?

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by Bill8

It's kind of a shame this devolved into more shooter wars.

These discussions tend to collapse into certain types of dead ends, and they don't necessarily have to do so.

Does anybody know if the processors are processing more money or less money nowadays, in the tube era?

And again, I wanna ask if anybody can hold up as an example NEW paysites that are thriving under the current conditions?

We all know about manwin, and the older companies like say pinkvisual, kink, and dogfart that are hanging on. Are the last three making the same money, more money, or less money these days, do you think? (looks like less, to me.)

The chief characteristic of all the survivors is they shoot some of their own content (or at least are producing it).

so, what are the new paysites, the ones that have emerged in the last 3 years are are successful under the tubes?

www.saboom.com - for example

i know our invoices and we are one of three teams. and i heard a bit about the technology behind it

they spent more on that site than most programs make in their lifetime. and they keep shooting and expanding, great new features will come later this year/next year

www.partner-cash.net