Tube channels: more harm than good?

[kesha1]

Hi,
now all the major (and probably minor) tubes have the "channels" with all the videos uploaded by certain producer. What good does it do? Whoever searches for that site will get those "channels" right away and whatch all the videos for free.
Isn't the point of advertising on a tube just to give a taste of what's inside of the members area to generate more signups? Otherwise it's just a willing giveaway!
Please let me know what possibly good side those "channels" might have for the producers?
Thank you.

[DamageX]

Tubes were never meant to make producers money.

[kesha1]

Originally Posted by DamageX

Tubes were never meant to make producers money.

They are still a way of advertisement, considering that the TGP's are going away, not too many sources of advertisement has left, right? What else the producers submit their videos to tubes for?

[DamageX]

Originally Posted by kesha1

They are still a way of advertisement, considering that the TGP's are going away, not too many sources of advertisement has left, right? What else the producers submit their videos to tubes for?

You complain, they don't give a fuck. Be happy they allow you to submit and make the odd sale, instead of stealing your content without giving you jack shit.

[bean-aid]

Originally Posted by DamageX

You complain, they don't give a fuck. Be happy they allow you to submit and make the odd sale, instead of stealing your content without giving you jack shit.

I'm not sure which is worse, porn or music stealing shit. I think it was music by they are getting their shit together,

Stealing porn is still like the wild, wild west.

[kesha1]

Folks, this is not exactly what I was trying to discuss, my point was that an accasional appearance of a SINGLE video with watermarks might create an interest to the site and hopefully create a sale, but these "channels" where all the "occasional" videos gathered together make the whole function of the members area questionable.
I hope this time I made my point clearer. It is not about stealing or anything, it is about those "channels" where all the videos from the same producer gathered in one place.

[DamageX]

kesha, I didn't misunderstand your point.

My point was they don't care about you as a producer, they care about their surfers and traffic. Most sell traffic/ads, so the more traffic they have, the better off they are. Putting content in channels sorted by producers makes for a better experience for surfers who like content from certain producers. Surfers like more = they return more often = more traffic = more money from ad/traffic sales.

[kesha1]

That I understand, but is there anything positive in "channels" for producers? No, right?
So, the best way will be to dismantle those "channels", so, the surfers will not see all your videos in one place, but keep the videos them selves, in case largeporntube or other "leaching" tubes have linked to the major tubes videos, right?

[DamageX]

Originally Posted by kesha1

That I understand, but is there anything positive in "channels" for producers? No, right?
So, the best way will be to dismantle those "channels", so, the surfers will not see all your videos in one place, but keep the videos them selves, in case largeporntube or other "leaching" tubes have linked to the major tubes videos, right?

It seems to me you keep missing the point. Absolutely, there's NOTHING positive for producers by putting each in their own channel. And there's NOTHING positive for paysites to have all their videos on a tube grouped by the paysite name.

HOWEVER, by doing so, there's a lot positive for tubes. First, as mentioned above, it enhances the surfers' experience on the site. Second, they actually end up ranking very high in the search engines, for producer names and paysite names. So more traffic for them.

Now you can argue that if they don't cater to the needs of producers/paysite owners, they won't get content uploaded. Which is pure wishful thinking. There are so many content producers and paysite owners out there hurting for those few sales, it's not even funny. And they lost the sales because of tubes to begin with.

Tubes have the traffic so they can dictate the terms. Worst-case scenario, producers/paysite owners really stop uploading their content to tubes. Fine, they'll just start stealing it again. Which is how they got big in the first place. Sucks to be in your shoes, but unfortunately there's very little you can do about it.

[sojproductions]

I do post vids to tubes (max 5 per site), but I would not post to a particular channel and I rarely use the models name in the title or description, I want them to find 1 or 2 of our vids on tubes, get a taste and come for more, if the models name was on every vid it would be a pointless exercise, I don't want them to have 25 vids on one page, that what my members area is for. Right or wrong, that's the way I do it. Having a channel dedicated to one site or one model who owns a site, imo is stupid.

[sojproductions]

Originally Posted by DamageX

It seems to me you keep missing the point. Absolutely, there's NOTHING positive for producers by putting each in their own channel. And there's NOTHING positive for paysites to have all their videos on a tube grouped by the paysite name.

HOWEVER, by doing so, there's a lot positive for tubes. First, as mentioned above, it enhances the surfers' experience on the site. Second, they actually end up ranking very high in the search engines, for producer names and paysite names. So more traffic for them.

Now you can argue that if they don't cater to the needs of producers/paysite owners, they won't get content uploaded. Which is pure wishful thinking. There are so many content producers and paysite owners out there hurting for those few sales, it's not even funny. And they lost the sales because of tubes to begin with.

Tubes have the traffic so they can dictate the terms. Worst-case scenario, producers/paysite owners really stop uploading their content to tubes. Fine, they'll just start stealing it again. Which is how they got big in the first place. Sucks to be in your shoes, but unfortunately there's very little you can do about it.

sad but true, they bit us then we feed them again for another bite

[kesha1]

Originally Posted by sojproductions

I do post vids to tubes (max 5 per site), but I would not post to a particular channel and I rarely use the models name in the title or description, I want them to find 1 or 2 of our vids on tubes, get a taste and come for more, if the models name was on every vid it would be a pointless exercise, I don't want them to have 25 vids on one page, that what my members area is for. Right or wrong, that's the way I do it. Having a channel dedicated to one site or one model who owns a site, imo is stupid.

But you think it's better to keep the uploaed ones there, so, the leaching "tubes" wont lose the links to them? And if possible simply get rid of the "channels"?

[Dirty F]

Originally Posted by kesha1

That I understand, but is there anything positive in "channels" for producers? No, right?
So, the best way will be to dismantle those "channels", so, the surfers will not see all your videos in one place, but keep the videos them selves, in case largeporntube or other "leaching" tubes have linked to the major tubes videos, right?

Man, can't you read?

[Roald]

Stop listening to the people who have no idea and live in the past. Just some free advice

Ps, get me your videos and I will make you a channel. Long videos without our link code straight to your domain. Create some brand awareness using the tubes ;)

[kesha1]

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Man, can't you read?

dirty, r u high? I am talking about a completely dufferent side of it now: keeping the videos on tubes for the sake of the links to the leaching galleries.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Roald

Stop listening to the people who have no idea and live in the past. Just some free advice

Ps, get me your videos and I will make you a channel. Long videos without our link code straight to your domain. Create some brand awareness using the tubes ;)

= Give me more content so I can sell more of the traffic that comes to see it. To other people.

If he removes all the ads from all his pages with your content on, it's a plus. If he lets surfers see other peoples ads on other pages, he's just adding content to get more traffic to sell cheap.

And give you nothing in return but some crap traffic.

Roald, go buy some content to attract surfers to sell clicks to who's left.


kesha1
Unless your content is so bloody marvellous surfers will have to buy it, Tubes are not going to be a great way of advertising it. Extreme example. When was the last time you saw an advert for shit that you had to go buy?

[Roald]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

= Give me more content so I can sell more of the traffic that comes to see it. To other people.

If he removes all the ads from all his pages with your content on, it's a plus. If he lets surfers see other peoples ads on other pages, he's just adding content to get more traffic to sell cheap.

And give you nothing in return but some crap traffic.

Roald, go buy some content to attract surfers to sell clicks to who's left.


kesha1
Unless your content is so bloody marvellous surfers will have to buy it, Tubes are not going to be a great way of advertising it. Extreme example. When was the last time you saw an advert for shit that you had to go buy?

Well guys you read it from the one and only, don't send us your content please we have nothing but crap traffic and sell it all anyways

[tony286]

Originally Posted by Roald

Stop listening to the people who have no idea and live in the past. Just some free advice

Ps, get me your videos and I will make you a channel. Long videos without our link code straight to your domain. Create some brand awareness using the tubes ;)

A very honest statement from manwin
http://nymag.com/news/features/70985/
"Manwin, in fact, has studied the question of optimal clip length. ?We tested one minute, three minutes, five minutes,? Antoon says. ?The best converting for the content owner is three minutes. The best for the tube sites?for the surfer to come back and back?is five minutes. So we always ask for three to five. We don?t mind if they send us seven to nine.? "

Mainstream spends 60 to 100 million to make a movie and most trailers are 30 secs, now and then there is a special extended 2-3 min trailer. But porn knows better lol

[PR_Phil]

Originally Posted by tony286

A very honest statement from manwin
http://nymag.com/news/features/70985/
"Manwin, in fact, has studied the question of optimal clip length. ?We tested one minute, three minutes, five minutes,? Antoon says. ?The best converting for the content owner is three minutes. The best for the tube sites?for the surfer to come back and back?is five minutes. So we always ask for three to five. We don?t mind if they send us seven to nine.? "

Mainstream spends 60 to 100 million to make a movie and most trailers are 30 secs, now and then there is a special extended 2-3 min trailer. But porn knows better lol

I don't want to be part of this debate, but you are wrong about mainstream trailers, not just about the length, but about the idea that you can compare the two in any way.

a mainstream movie trailer is the length is it for several reasons that have nothing to do with showing the audience what they are going to see.

First off, when a big budget movie is announced, the average trailer is 90 seconds for the first several weeks, then shortened to 45 seconds (obviously this varies). This is not because they only want you to see that much! It's because it costs $105,000 to show a 90 second trailer once on a network during prime time. That 45 second trailer, still costs $52,500 to air once!

Porn producers don't pay $100,000 to show their trailer once! I've seen trailers for big movies 10 times during prime time in 1 night, that's $1M they spent that night, just on the channels I was watching.

now, take away the cost, and assume that they could show their trailers for free, would they do the same? NO, their trailers would be exactly 2 minutes and 30 seconds every time, why? Because it is mandated by the Motion Picture Association of America, they aren't allowed to make them any longer.

[Roald]

Originally Posted by tony286

A very honest statement from manwin
http://nymag.com/news/features/70985/
"Manwin, in fact, has studied the question of optimal clip length. ?We tested one minute, three minutes, five minutes,? Antoon says. ?The best converting for the content owner is three minutes. The best for the tube sites?for the surfer to come back and back?is five minutes. So we always ask for three to five. We don?t mind if they send us seven to nine.? "

Mainstream spends 60 to 100 million to make a movie and most trailers are 30 secs, now and then there is a special extended 2-3 min trailer. But porn knows better lol

No no I agree, please don't send us your long videos. Paul set that straight already

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Roald

Well guys you read it from the one and only, don't send us your content please we have nothing but crap traffic and sell it all anyways

Well guys you read it from the one and only, don't send us your content please we have nothing but crap traffic and sell it all. For very little money because it converts so badly and after seeing your video they won't be coming to you, so we will sell it to someone else and you will get nothing from the ad sales.

By the way, he can't afford to buy content.

[Roald]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Well guys you read it from the one and only, don't send us your content please we have nothing but crap traffic and sell it all. For very little money because it converts so badly and after seeing your video they won't be coming to you, so we will sell it to someone else and you will get nothing from the ad sales.

By the way, he can't afford to buy content.

That's correct too. Damn you are on a roll today Paul!!!!

Let me help you spread the word a bit http://m2.gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1083905

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by tony286

A very honest statement from manwin
http://nymag.com/news/features/70985/
"Manwin, in fact, has studied the question of optimal clip length. ?We tested one minute, three minutes, five minutes,? Antoon says. ?The best converting for the content owner is three minutes. The best for the tube sites?for the surfer to come back and back?is five minutes. So we always ask for three to five. We don?t mind if they send us seven to nine.? "

Mainstream spends 60 to 100 million to make a movie and most trailers are 30 secs, now and then there is a special extended 2-3 min trailer. But porn knows better lol

Do you remember the days when people were screaming too many images, or hard core on a gallery hurt sales?

Now we have traffic sellers telling us the more content they can give away the better it is for everyone. Which in truth means them.

now, take away the cost, and assume that they could show their trailers for free, would they do the same? NO, their trailers would be exactly 2 minutes and 30 seconds every time, why? Because it is mandated by the Motion Picture Association of America, they aren't allowed to make them any longer.

MPAA are all fools, ask Damian.

Still this thread proves to you guys once and for all CONTENT IS KING. Give it away and the traffic follows. Shame it's value then becomes $3-$5 per 1,000 clicks. But don't worry we have millions of surfers.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by PR_Phil

I don't want to be part of this debate, but you are wrong about mainstream trailers, not just about the length, but about the idea that you can compare the two in any way.

a mainstream movie trailer is the length is it for several reasons that have nothing to do with showing the audience what they are going to see.

First off, when a big budget movie is announced, the average trailer is 90 seconds for the first several weeks, then shortened to 45 seconds (obviously this varies). This is not because they only want you to see that much! It's because it costs $105,000 to show a 90 second trailer once on a network during prime time. That 45 second trailer, still costs $52,500 to air once!

Porn producers don't pay $100,000 to show their trailer once! I've seen trailers for big movies 10 times during prime time in 1 night, that's $1M they spent that night, just on the channels I was watching.

now, take away the cost, and assume that they could show their trailers for free, would they do the same? NO, their trailers would be exactly 2 minutes and 30 seconds every time, why? Because it is mandated by the Motion Picture Association of America, they aren't allowed to make them any longer.

They mandate trailer length? Please show where that says that?

[SKUP]

Referring to the question: change the question mark into a exclamation mark and you have your answer. But then again you might want to ask: "or are there any exceptions"?

[PR_Phil]

Originally Posted by tony286

They mandate trailer length? Please show where that says that?

yes, they do, for television and in theater, which is their medium. they can be longer on the internet and often are.

"The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) mandates that theatrical trailers not exceed 2 minutes and 30 seconds in length, and each major studio is given one exception to this rule per year."

if you are watching trailers on the internet, and they are around 90 seconds, they were shot for television (in most cases) if they are around 2:20 - 2:30 they were shot for viewing in the theater (theatrical trailers); if their length is longer than 2:30, they were specifically shot for internet promotion.

[DamageX]

Originally Posted by PR_Phil

yes, they do, for television and in theater, which is their medium. they can be longer on the internet and often are.

"The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) mandates that theatrical trailers not exceed 2 minutes and 30 seconds in length, and each major studio is given one exception to this rule per year."

if you are watching trailers on the internet, and they are around 90 seconds, they were shot for television (in most cases) if they are around 2:20 - 2:30 they were shot for viewing in the theater (theatrical trailers); if their length is longer than 2:30, they were specifically shot for internet promotion.

Learn something new every day!

[kesha1]

Don't you juz luv how a gfy thread can get carried away to wherever it is it gets carried away?
Pplz, the questions were (are):
1. Should the channels be unconditionally dismantle because there is only harm to the producers and no good what so ever?
2. Should the videos remain on the tubes for case that some TGP alike "tubes" have them liked. Then only a seldom videos are exposed, not the whole bunch, which is more like advertising, not a give away, right?

[TampaToker]

Originally Posted by Roald

Stop listening to the people who have no idea and live in the past. Just some free advice

Ps, get me your videos and I will make you a channel. Long videos without our link code straight to your domain. Create some brand awareness using the tubes ;)

Is this offer open to everyone?

[helterskelter808]

Originally Posted by PR_Phil

yes, they do, for television and in theater, which is their medium. they can be longer on the internet and often are.

Presumably they don't classify the first ten minutes of a movie as a 'trailer', because Hollywood has done that a few times. There is, of course, as you said, no comparison at all between porn movies and feature films for reason that are obvious.

Originally Posted by kesha1

Don't you juz luv how a gfy thread can get carried away to wherever it is it gets carried away?
Pplz, the questions were (are):
1. Should the channels be unconditionally dismantle because there is only harm to the producers and no good what so ever?
2. Should the videos remain on the tubes for case that some TGP alike "tubes" have them liked. Then only a seldom videos are exposed, not the whole bunch, which is more like advertising, not a give away, right?

Basically anyone who complains about tubes should not be supplying videos to tubes. Anyone who supplies a video to a tube can fuck right off if they then want to complain about them, because they (suppliers to tubes) are part of the problem.

It's already been pointed out that tubes don't give a rat's ass what's good for a paysite, they just want free content. I mean, shit, when did that become news? So, again, it's up to people who produce the porn to change things.

If you don't support tubes then don't support them, and take action against them to stop using material without permission. It's that simple. But people would rather just talk and whine about it impotently instead.

It's laughable. You get threads here about Japan cracking down on music downloads, and the same bunch of dipshits jacking each other off about what a win it is, when it makes no fucking difference at all to porn downloads.

The music and music industry does not give a single thought to porn and the law doesn't give a single shit. Do people seriously think the law/police are going to treat downloading porn clips the same way as downloading TDKR? Yet people seem to think Hollywood or the music industry is somehow their shining knight.

Point me to a tube site that hosts, openly and categorized like a porn tube, Hollywood movies or full music albums. Why don't they exist? Maybe because the music and movie industry is not licking the balls of tube sites, while whining about it through a mouthful of dick.

You know exactly what to do. Stop supporting tubes, and spend less time whining about them and more time cracking down, if they really are stealing your content.

Otherwise just shut the fuck up about tubes and quietly roll over and die.

[SKUP]

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

Presumably they don't classify the first ten minutes of a movie as a 'trailer', because Hollywood has done that a few times. There is, of course, as you said, no comparison at all between porn movies and feature films for reason that are obvious.



Basically anyone who complains about tubes should not be supplying videos to tubes. Anyone who supplies a video to a tube can fuck right off if they then want to complain about them, because they (suppliers to tubes) are part of the problem.

It's already been pointed out that tubes don't give a rat's ass what's good for a paysite, they just want free content. I mean, shit, when did that become news? So, again, it's up to people who produce the porn to change things.

If you don't support tubes then don't support them, and take action against them to stop using material without permission. It's that simple. But people would rather just talk and whine about it impotently instead.

It's laughable. You get threads here about Japan cracking down on music downloads, and the same bunch of dipshits jacking each other off about what a win it is, when it makes no fucking difference at all to porn downloads.

The music and music industry does not give a single thought to porn and the law doesn't give a single shit. Do people seriously think the law/police are going to treat downloading porn clips the same way as downloading TDKR? Yet people seem to think Hollywood or the music industry is somehow their shining knight.

Point me to a tube site that hosts, openly and categorized like a porn tube, Hollywood movies or full music albums. Why don't they exist? Maybe because the music and movie industry is not licking the balls of tube sites, while whining about it through a mouthful of dick.

You know exactly what to do. Stop supporting tubes, and spend less time whining about them and more time cracking down, if they really are stealing your content.

Otherwise just shut the fuck up about tubes and quietly roll over and die.

Right between the eyes

[Harmon]

This thread is making me lol.

[kesha1]

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

Presumably they don't classify the first ten minutes of a movie as a 'trailer', because Hollywood has done that a few times. There is, of course, as you said, no comparison at all between porn movies and feature films for reason that are obvious.



Basically anyone who complains about tubes should not be supplying videos to tubes. Anyone who supplies a video to a tube can fuck right off if they then want to complain about them, because they (suppliers to tubes) are part of the problem.

It's already been pointed out that tubes don't give a rat's ass what's good for a paysite, they just want free content. I mean, shit, when did that become news? So, again, it's up to people who produce the porn to change things.

If you don't support tubes then don't support them, and take action against them to stop using material without permission. It's that simple. But people would rather just talk and whine about it impotently instead.

It's laughable. You get threads here about Japan cracking down on music downloads, and the same bunch of dipshits jacking each other off about what a win it is, when it makes no fucking difference at all to porn downloads.

The music and music industry does not give a single thought to porn and the law doesn't give a single shit. Do people seriously think the law/police are going to treat downloading porn clips the same way as downloading TDKR? Yet people seem to think Hollywood or the music industry is somehow their shining knight.

Point me to a tube site that hosts, openly and categorized like a porn tube, Hollywood movies or full music albums. Why don't they exist? Maybe because the music and movie industry is not licking the balls of tube sites, while whining about it through a mouthful of dick.

You know exactly what to do. Stop supporting tubes, and spend less time whining about them and more time cracking down, if they really are stealing your content.

Otherwise just shut the fuck up about tubes and quietly roll over and die.

Very emotional, but not about the questions being raised.
TGP's are gone, tubes are hot at the moment and used as an advertisement tool by all producers.
It all has nothing to do with stealing or sharing, all the content was submitted voluntarely, for advertisement.
The questions described above and at this time the only concern remains with the "tube" alike tgp's that linked the videos from the real tubes, for that the videos should stay on the tubes, right?

[helterskelter808]

Originally Posted by kesha1

Very emotional, but not about the questions being raised.

You asked what good is there to giving your shit away to another site. I answered: there is no good at all. It is suicidally stupid. Apparently that is not the answer you want to hear though.

TGP's are gone, tubes are hot at the moment and used as an advertisement tool by all producers.
It all has nothing to do with stealing or sharing, all the content was submitted voluntarely, for advertisement.

Then why are you even asking? If you seriously believe everyone is doing it because tubes aren't theft, and you seriously believe tubes are just an advertising platform, and not another nail in your coffin, what's the issue?

While you're at it why not torrent your shit too, or upload it to file lockers, because pirates, like tubes, also come up with that classic about it being 'free advertising'.

It's a crock of shit, and you and everyone else knows it. It's just a way of trying to feel better for caving in to tubes.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by tony286

A very honest statement from manwin
http://nymag.com/news/features/70985/
"Manwin, in fact, has studied the question of optimal clip length. ?We tested one minute, three minutes, five minutes,? Antoon says. ?The best converting for the content owner is three minutes. The best for the tube sites?for the surfer to come back and back?is five minutes. So we always ask for three to five. We don?t mind if they send us seven to nine.? "

What could they possibly know about running tube sites?

I don't usually listen to anything Manwin has to say, but when it comes to what types of tube clips are the most productive, I'm all ears. Everyone else can kick rocks.

[signupdamnit]

It's hilarious seeing people suggest that sharing 10 minute clips is good for your pay site business. Come on people. Look around. Look at the industry. Look at the pay site business. Look at all the people closing their sites. What the hell do you think is going on? Talk about having ones head buried in the sand.

Oh it's profitable still to put a bunch of 20 minute full scenes up on your tube by the thousands. For sure.....as long as you aren't the one paying to produce that content! Theft usually is profitable! LOL

[kesha1]

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

You asked what good is there to giving your shit away to another site. I answered: there is no good at all. It is suicidally stupid. Apparently that is not the answer you want to hear though.



Then why are you even asking? If you seriously believe everyone is doing it because tubes aren't theft, and you seriously believe tubes are just an advertising platform, and not another nail in your coffin, what's the issue?

While you're at it why not torrent your shit too, or upload it to file lockers, because pirates, like tubes, also come up with that classic about it being 'free advertising'.

It's a crock of shit, and you and everyone else knows it. It's just a way of trying to feel better for caving in to tubes.

Thank you, but still...
How do you people think important it is to keep the videos on tubes?
For instance pornhub has a Delete button on every video, so, as soon as it is through the front page it could be deleted and there will be nothing to gather in a site channel, but so many videos are linked to so many nitche pages, just 1 by 1, without any channels, so, it is pure advertiesmsnt.
We have our own tube and would love to host our own videos, but of course the tube alike tgp's are leaching from a major ones. That's the dilemma.

[helterskelter808]

Originally Posted by kesha1

We have our own tube and would love to host our own videos, but of course the tube alike tgp's are leaching from a major ones. That's the dilemma.

If you're talking about sites embedding videos from 'real' tube sites, then that's the 'fault' (design) of real tube sites for allowing embedding. If you don't want your videos embedded on other sites, and the tube site allows embedding, then don't upload your videos.

As for people who claim to be super mega anti-piracy, while sucking the cock of tube sites by uploading videos themselves:

[kesha1]

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

If you're talking about sites embedding videos from 'real' tube sites, then that's the 'fault' (design) of real tube sites for allowing embedding. If you don't want your videos embedded on other sites, and the tube site allows embedding, then don't upload your videos.

As for people who claim to be super mega anti-piracy, while sucking the cock of tube sites by uploading videos themselves:

Actually, it is other way around, I do want them to embed our videos, because they do it 1 by 1 and it works pretty good for adverisement. I don't want the big tubes to gather our videos together in large numbers, that's the contradiction.