The Affiliate & the program owners
 

The Affiliate & the program owners

I notice some of you say 'the business we are in', but surly the affiliate is different to the program owner.

And surly there are two types of program owners.

1. The one with Exclusive content - shot in house.

2. The one with purchased exclusive/non exclusive content.

Often my experience is that many affiliates are naff. I go onto there sites and there blog looks bad. Full of pop ups. Not a nice design. Too many links. In fact often you leave as quickly as you arrive. Yet they will tell me **** website is cheating them as they get loads of hits but few if any sales. They get upset when I say your site looks crud, and I know people do not stay on it. I think affiliates must think that if they stick rubbish up that that will excite people. They forget that porn is a product. You must be able to sell it. Could you imagine BMW making any sales if its only promo was crappy looking blogs, with tiny pics of the car?

Also while we have vast amounts of hits to affiliate sites, I often see then still promoting the same few sites as everyone else. Again if you promote a site that's so heavily promoted, chances are many of your visitors will have already joined that site your promoting. In other words promote a site that's under promoted.

I promote many sites. Yet I get more sales for my own sites - though I promote them much less. Why? Its not that my sites are better designed, or have better content, or more content. Its for one reason, not many promote them. And from my experience more a site is promoted the harder it is for me to get sales. For instance a few years ago I put up a fling banner and got sales with ease. Now next to nothing in sales. Of course there may be other reasons, but to me it comes down to fling being promoted on every blog, tube, tgp and so on. Members will sign up only once.

Again affiliates say to me why should I promote your sites when others offer 70% or more. I point out that you were moaning that your sales ratio is 1:60000 yet surly logic would state that if you promote my sites and the ratio is say 1:500 then you will earn more.

Then program owners.

I still am amazed how many sites look dull. And seem not to offer the customer what he or she wants.

Websites need to think of themselves as a mix of DVD and magazine. You need to imagine who your site is closest to. I.e., met-art sites I would say are closest to playboy magazine. I say this as playboy sold well, so by definition you know in theory that you have a product that should sell. But often the presentation of the site is poor. If you have a playboy type site surly you should have a site that excites people. Playboy covers often were clothed, but you want to open the mag up. I wonder how many sites make you really want to enter inside the members area.

Often people launch a website and we all go, wow, great stuff. Yet the truth is the site looks great, but, you would not be too bothered to look inside. Imagine if you will it was on a newsagents stand. Would you pick it up existed. I suspect you would not. Yews the site looks hot, but nothing wants you to go to the members area even if it was free.

The re-bills.

I* notice often people post stats of how well a site sells. Yet do people post how a site re-bills. Surly its best to promote a site that re-bills month after month than a site that people join then leave. Unless your doing it of course on a single membership basis. But why promote such sites that pay well for a single sale? You know inside it will be just up sells. Sure, short term you make cash, but just think how much your loosing long term. I have members of my sites that have been members over two years.

What is the effect of tube sites and tgp's?

Yes, guess what, it will loose sites sales. But sites that have there content free all over. For years I amuse myself to see how many sites give there content away. For instance how many solo sites have free pics and vids in there own promotion of the girl using toys or having sex or whatever level she works up to. Now thing again if that was a magazine. I would not open it as I have seen the pics of the girl nude, time to move on. Now you may say you need to give content away free - so be it. But if this is the case then playboy would never have sold a copy as it for years had the model on the front non nude. Guess what - it sold.

Of course you could make the point that your free content may have lost you sales but you got for more hits from it and so got more sales. and there may be some truth to that.

However, I would put forward the augment that sites that have much less free content (i.e., you cannot find it on tubes) will have better sales ratio than those sites you find the content all over for free.

Just to finish off -

I posted an idea on another forum, to stop password trading. Basically the idea is that when someone signs up to your site, your site generates a individual personalized login page. It would have something like welcome [username and real name plus home address]. It could also contain how long there membership will last and other info. This way it would reduce the chances of people selling there password/username as if they did they would be giving out there home address and name. I would think ccbill and nats could easily add this.

In fact another idea.

I also had an idea today of pay-per-use, rather than monthly pay. Not sure if its been done but the customer would pay per gig of content, rather than a monthly use. So if for instance he may only download a film a month. His membership would last ages then once his limit reached he would just re-bill. A high user who downloads everything would pay more, as his limit would hit its limit very quickly. A bit like pay as you go mobile phones. Pay for what you use. It would mean that even if they reached the limit they could still log into the members area after even a year to see if there are updates or something else they want to see, and if they do they just pay a top up. It would mean far hipper customers and in the long term more cash for the website owner.

Some interesting perspectives.

I agree in general theory. All operators should view their sites as digital magazines. It's what they are, except with video. Not viewing an adult site this way is where problems begin.

Playboy however, has very strict rules about their material. I'm not sure it's driven by strategy so much as lawyer edict. :2 cents:

I made a thread about this but gfy "pros" are only interested in high pps and cross-sales, they have become addicted to that fast money.

interesting point

It surly is!

my thought is pay-per-use (yes vid on demad sites sort of use this methed) would be good for all.

first pay site owners could pay on per sale basis still, looking more at the long term. ie, a customer would be a customer for life rather than a set period.

Plus it would alow tries that would convert. Ie, rather than a trial set on say a day, the trial would only allow access to the site. So $1 would let them look inside but not downmload. Its more than likly one in, they will want to download, and so pay to.

This model would work well for both big and small sites.

Big sites as they will have gigs of content, so if people wanted to see it all they will pay good amount to see it.

and for small sites, it works as members will pay for the updates. so if the site is say a solo girl site who adds a film once a month, the member will not feel cheated as they will see the vids as they are uploaded, rather than havinhg to stay members for a single update per month (if you get me).

i just used playboy as an example as i know iyt sells in most countries so people know what the front looks like.

in the uk porn mags are sold in bags so you see nothing. i think its law but not 100% sure.

but my point being is porn mags sold well without alowing customers to see the content. same with dvd's. many show very little on the cover, yet they sell.

in other words why is it when it comes to the net, websites feel to sell they need to give away all the content.

the truth to me is that many affiliates see the free content as a great way to make a free site to attract people. they may make some sales to the site but i bet they make more promoting dating or webcam sites with a banner next to all the great free content.

in other words that porn site is in rreality proving a lot of great free promotional material to a free site to make money for dating sites.

or as an example in the real world its like bmw givving free cars to aafiliates to let customers to drive for a week free as a demo but the affiliate putting adverts on the dash for mobile phones and holidays and so on. the chap gets to use the car for a week, says yes, great car, i will think about it, but i am pleased with the mobile phone i bought from the advert i spotted in the car.

too much to read sorry. lol

he he

i know

bump............

You have some great points and then some others are completely naive that have been discussed millions of times over at least the last 13 years I've been around.

Just as example, you really think Russian password traders are using their own CC? :winkwink:

that may be true, but i still think it may put some people off.

i still think that you need to try.

To have your own look for your site gives character to the individual site. Affiliates are important & what ever their site looks like, should not be thought of as naff. The program owners site, is still on the net on another page.

Have you turned into fatfoo?

Adjust your script man, you are making less sense than usual.

so at least i am not the only one who failed to understand that.

I think he has lost the plot. He always used to post shit, but now it is totally gibberish. He really reads like he is a bot...

i know

i noticed he posted saying he would not ever post in my threads, then he does????

thank you