Professional enough for gfy? I was thinking more along the lines of just professional. You've always struck me as someone who looks to solve a situation for the best overall outcome rather than chest-beat, maybe you got out of bed the wrong side today, but whatever, you carry on.

News flash buddy.

Throwing up pictures in as many places as you can find and flooding the market with free content isn't advertising. You probably don't know 1/10th of what is advertising.

For years online porn porn has bowed down and offered it's ass up to anyone who will send a few clicks and wants to be paid top dollar for it. Plus gives a fuck about rules and regs of the people who pay them.

And we now have 1,000s viewing "advertising" :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh for free and never paying a single $ for it.

Maybe Angie could of handled it better, maybe they could of trained her better, maybe they could of sent her over to give the guy a BJ. God forbid anyone should tell off an affiliate. :321GFY

Technically, once you start to alter a porn picture, you better have the 2257 documents to hand.

Seriously you guys are up in the air and screaming blue murder when others break the rules.. Yet think you can break any you like and no one should say a squeak.

A clueless cunt more years running than arsenal have been in the Champions League, and even less likely to 'get it' than they are.

Now tell me I'm lying :1orglaugh

No spot on. Throwing up free content till the porn consumer can wank off for free to his hearts delight and calling it "advertising" is pretty clueless.

This is an advert.

http://www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/C...w7nhRiaRsl.jpg

This is slinging mud at the wall and hoping some will stick.

www.pornhub.com and www.thehun.com

Advertising it's not.

well... bad news indeed.

those guys would like to get your traffic for sure http://www.signbucks.com/sites/list/niche/115-close_ups

best of luck

I like that In The Crack has quality photography of pussy. I think it is incredibly common for people to want to be able to get a really good look at that. Surprising to me that there are not more sites focused on this. And I like good photography and a lot of people like good photography.

Why the heck would it be a bad idea to have well-shot, well-composed, nicely formatted images of something people like as much as pussy?

The reason so few sites have this level is simple. Few sites can afford to produce this level. They want complete scenes for $500 a set and video or even boast to paying $2,000 for 3. Well the people who can shoot this level aren't working for these prices. Even if they did they can't produce it at those prices.

I have seen the level of their work and technically it's very very high, not sure how complete sets come together or video so hard to tell emphatically. A lot of good shooters can do 1 to 4 good shots out of 200. Getting a whole scene right is a real skill. A lot more skill than it does to give it away for free and call it advertising.

I tried to look at the webmasters area to see if they pay 50% or whether affiliates are prepared to push real quality for less in return for a better ratio. This is why there are few sites of this quality online, it's simply not possible for most to pay out for traffic and this level of content.

To pay for it maybe In The Crack NEED the type in traffic that comes from their content being distributed around the Internet for free.

This situation isn't unique. Perfect Gonzo had a great shooter and couldn't afford to or wouldn't pay out the amount required to replace him. No one I met or spoke to online would pay the asking price when they were searching for this level of content. Same goes for Party Hardcore and other site. Alsscan has great content or did. They were able to shoot it themselves.

This will get some flames, still true. Twistys was supposed to be on the level of Playboy or Penthouse, well that was the claim. It wasn't within a mile of that level, the mistakes in the shooting were many and basic. Because I expect the site couldn't or wouldn't pay out for that level of content producer.

I get annoyed when I see people flame someone for producing a great product and talk as if they're something special, because they give content away for free, don't think they should follow rules, want to be paid a lot for it and are doing something 1,000s can.

Very well put. :thumbsup

Thanks for the endorsement Paul. If you disagree with me and don't think I know anything it confirms that I am a genius .

watermarks pulled.

Oh God. Markham found this thread. There goes quality.

Markham, you knock Twistys which Dean Capture shot a lot of yet I have never seen a single thing from you that is even 5% as good as what he shot for that site.

I might add that Playboy and Penthouse haven't been able to make money for the last many years shooting that kind of quality either. :Oh crap

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh was just thinking the same thing.

I don't think I said anything to the contrary.

Pauly-Pauly-Pauly,

Are you still jerking off to the pics in my blog postings?

I keep telling you that if you just click on the picture in the blog, it will open a gallery with 15 high resolution pictures you can wank to. These galleries are provided for me by all of the idiotic sponsors that I promote. As an affiliate, I am just stupid enough to actually use them, hoping that some jerk off, like yourself will be interested enough to join the site.

We are all just silly :angrysoap

What kind of silly redneck comment is that? So we should shoot in the same four walls as every other production, throw up pictures straight off the camera and basically make no effort at all to produce quality just because the girls are spreading their cracks open. As if anything a little bit graphic does not deserve to be anything better than amateur. It is "pretentious bullcrap" to think that we could, heaven forbid, shoot some quality content of gaping pussies and close up butt cracks. Porn is not worthy of having a nice scenic background instead of a scruffy old couch in a basement. Really?? Come on. We all know that to do well in this saturated market you have to do something that no one else is doing. The nice locations and extra care in post production are two of the things that we like to do to get that edge. We have a niche. Just because it isn't your niche is no reason to bash it.

If perhaps what you really mean is that it is pretentious to feel the need to mention that we do this stuff?. Believe me I wish that I didn't have to say this. I have gone 10 years without ever suggesting or even giving the slightest hints about our methods. People don't need to know this stuff and the product looses some of it's mystique when you do blabber about it. I feel my hand has been forced by the rampant ignorance being displayed in this thread.

Well said. Interesting that the only 2 people that "get it" in this thread (Paul and Dean) are the only two that are legitimate content producers (there may be others but sorry that I don't know of you).

90% of our affiliate sales come from review sites and other membership sites (who coincidentally feel no need to alter our pictures or crop out watermarks) simply because of the quality of traffic, not quantity. It seems that most people here want us to just sell out on our principles of quality control and copyright protection in order to cater to the remaining 10%. We'll gladly take all affiliates of any type but if you are planning to deliberately ignore the TOS or bend them to your own desire then you've probably come to the wrong place.

Interesting that the 3 people who don't get affiliate marketing are the 3 that aren't affiliate marketers. Thing is, the affiliate marketers who don't 'get' what goes into shooting don't need to - they just need to know a couple of things about the end product: does it look good; will it sell.

Shooters need to 'get' what goes into aff marketing to a degree, because then they can differentiate between markham's inane and way off target ramblings about exactly *what* is being given away for free. Cropped pics on a blog getting SE traffic that link either to a tour or to a FHG is going to help your bottom line, not hurt it in any way, shape, or form. Anyone who tells you different has zero idea about surfers today.

You presume that making money is the primary goal. Actually it is not. Taking pride in a quality unique product and customer satisfaction is our primary goal. Making money is secondary for me. If it were only about making money then I would not fly the crew and models to exotic locations or spend the countless hours on post production (which coincidentally costs the affiliates nothing). I could make a shitload more money if I didn't do that. I sacrifice a lot to get what I have. I do what I do because it is what I am passionate about. I enjoy the adventure and the rewarding experience of creating something unique. To have thoughtless affiliates that think they own us then go and butcher it is an insult.

If you are under the impression the OP is a thoughtless affiliate who thinks they own you, you need to close up your affiliate program, because you don't understand it. It's great that you take pride in your work, it really is, and I really do get that, as I do your passion coming above the desire to make as much $ as possible. Thing is, passion for your work, and making $ aren't mustually exclusive. You obviously want to make more money, otherwise you wouldn't have the aff program in place - the second helps you achieve more of the first.

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isc...l927 l0.6l6l0 Does Google think it 'owns' you? This affiliate (and many affs, across many programs), juggle text, advertising, placement, the best pic for the type of traffic their particular site gets, size, compression, calls to action, and a bunch of other stuff that I can't be bothered to try and recall right now, to make the best overall advert for the site they are sending to. They don't do these things so they can sit there thinking they 'own' anyone.

I'm not sure if you mean the 'niche' of good photography, or of the content.

Your photography and attention to detail is fine, laudable in fact. I love the nice, if cliched, locations (there are plenty of beautiful locations in Canada, not just scruffy couches in basements, which would make an interesting change, IMO, to tropical locations) and the quality photography.

So yeah, maybe it is just that I think it's 'wasted' on that kind of content; not sure. I admit I can't comprehend how jaded you have to be to need to see the uterus of a woman to get off, but I'm willing to generalize long enough to say that such people are unlikely to be too fussy about the background, which they can't see anyway staring up a cunt.

Furthermore, I think if that's your target market (fair enough) your site does not suggest it. If I signed up based on 90% of the sample pics, which are 'soft', and found out the emphasis was actually on gaping orifices, huge 'insertions' and/or urination, I would be demanding a refund, and certainly would not be renewing.

In fact I think the fact you don't emphasize what your 'niche' is on your site, preferring instead to show off the locations you shoot in, demonstrates that you yourself believe that the niche is 'ugly'.

Sorry you think that Dean and Paul are the only ones that get it. You must have missed a few of the comments in this thread including:

Oh, but that was just coming from a lowly affiliate. Not an artist / content producer.

Wow, just wow... :helpme

Rather than going all gestapo on an affiliate that is actually trying to promote your site, perhaps your time would be better spent policing the file sharing sites to get your content removed. Your updates (full sets) appear within hours of release and most downloads are still working weeks/months later. There is where your precious art is really being given away free. :Oh crap

Yes, but I think he said he was mainly in it for the art, the money is secondary. The file lockers, torrents, and tubes are just more exposure for the art.

Do you suppose I am happy about file sharing? We do what we can but I am not God. Just because there's a major problem in our industry doesn't give people license to do the lesser crime.

Agreeing with Paul is further proof that you are totally out of touch with affiliates and how to run an affiliate program. :2 cents:

This is a bit over the top eh? " sell out our principles" because one of your affiliates wants to use your images and crop them, thus leaving off your watermark *gasp*.

PS the two people "who get it" are content producers like yourself and also don't understand being an affiliate. Apparently to you all of the affiliates here who disagree with you are just rednecks. Congrats on pissing on an entire population of people who can send you more sales.

Sure there are some nice places in Canada. Consider that there are only 2 months of the year when there is a remote possibility of being comfortable while naked outdoors if the weather cooperates. Then consider that there is no industry and no model agents in our neck of the woods. Since I would have to fly the models here anyways I might as well go to a tropical location that the models really appreciate.

Exactly, sounds like the cops who are hardcore at giving out parking tickets yet there are drug deals and murders going on all around them. Not to mention he makes nothing from the people who steal his content, yet his AFFILIATES who crop his images are sending him sales.

This sounds like someone who jerks off, daily, to his own content. He is so worried about his precious content, that getting rid of affiliates who shave off a couple pixels or removing a watermark is more important than actually making money. Priorities... :upsidedow

This thread is just preposterous. Reminds me of AppleSky.

Disassociating the legal copyright from it's owner and creator is trivial to you because you didn't create it.

The only people that could be pissed off are those that want to deliberately abuse the TOS and those that might send lots of traffic but generate next to no sales. That still leaves 90% of our affiliate sales. If you read my previous comments you will see that the thickness of my wallet is not my priority here.

Once again you've completely missed the point. I'm not saying you're happy about the file sharing. I'm saying that you're not doing enough to get the posted content removed. The fact that the downloads are still functional after weeks/months tells me that. If you were also putting forth the same effort to police your content on file sharing sites as you are with policing affiliates I'd be less inclined to see the issues with this affiliate as dick waving.

Just because you have the authority to act, doesn't me you have to. Working with the affiliate, as has been suggested already in this thread, rather than making demands with a deadline that was impossible to meet, would have likely saved you an affiliate and kept this thread from happening and costing you even more affiliates.

This was addressed on page one. Please read.

I'm very sensitive to InTheCracks plight here. There are plenty of producers in this industry who are only in it for the money. They don't care what the content looks like and they don't care what happens to it after it leaves their hands. Obviously, InTheCrack is not one of those kinds of producers.

I never got into photography for the money...and I didn't get into shooting nude girls for the money. Sure, the money is fine... but first and foremost, I want to produce good work. I want to be proud of it. Some of you guys have never created anything of value in your whole life. You don't have a creative bone in your whole body. I'm not knocking you...that's fine. Our world would not survive without non-creatives.....

I can't tell you how many people have told me over the years that if I shot "this" way, or "that" way...I'd make a lot more money. One of my producer friends has told me for years that I'd make a lot of money if I'd start shooting boy/girl. Well, it may surprise some of you to know that there are actually producers in this industry who have a desire and a passion to produce good work. They've studied their craft for years, want to do the best that they can do and be proud of their accomplishments. The money is important, but it's not "the most important thing".

For the uncreative affiliates out there (you know who you are) whose only purpose is to make as much money as they can, they may have a hard time understanding this. But for anyone out there who has a passion for creating a quality product, and have spent hundreds if not thousands of hours practicing their craft and learning the skills that are required, it should make more sense.

With InTheCrack, you have a producer with a passion for creating a beautiful product that is very unique in our industry. Someone who pays big $$$ for high-quality models, locations and post-production. His years of study & practice have made him a skilled composer of the image. He crops the pictures the way that he thinks looks best, that gives his images the most impact. Then an affiliate comes along with no experience in art or photography, recrops the images so that it fits within his blog, crops out the watermark and thinks that should be fine. Yea, it may be fine if your pushing BigSausagePizza.com, but when you're pushing a highly stylized, high quality product that features the work of one producer whose work is known the world over, have a little fucking respect. His work to him is just as important as your work is to you.

No, I'm not an affiliate, so I'm looking at this primarily from one angle. Those of you who are affiliates, arguing in this thread are probably not producers of high-quality, premium unique content either, so I realize that my thoughts are falling on deaf ears. You think that your opinion is the only one that makes sense... and the only one that matters and that anybody who doesn't think like you is a retard. The fact is that if you have ever created anything of value in your whole life, anything that took years to learn how to do and someone came along and started fucking it up, you'd be angry too.

Seems to be that both sides could show a little more sensitivity towards the other. In this particular situation, the watermarks should not have been removed and ITC could have handled the situation with a little more tact. Both sides could have done a better job with this issue but it's easy to look back and say "should'a - could'a".

Now, I know that some of you are just fuming because I've taken the time to post my opinion and of course, your opinion is so much more important than mine so....feel free to release your anger. Some of you will even stoop to calling me names because well, you're not mature enough to convey your thoughts without going all "trailer-trash" and shit. But this will be my last post on this matter. I've said my part - no need to argue with those who disagree with my opinion.

Carry on.....

Alphasky or whatever, the appletwins dude that bitched about using more than a couple galleries on your sites. Not that it matters anymore, the affiliate model is dying anyway. :2 cents:

I doubt he missed it. I'm sure he read it as I did.
Translated it goes something like this:
I appreciate all of your hard work. since I can't duplicate it, I simply remove the watermark to make it seem like mine.
Then it will make it easy to use to promote another site as there won't be any of that confusing watermark stuff with the wrong url in it. If I get caught, I can just say, "oops! rouge link."



did you mean con artist?
There's a watermark on there for a reason.
being a lowly affiliate, you should have taken the admonishment as a learning experience, not an opportunity to have people laugh at you.

yeah. I'm sure he'll miss this guys.......sorry, how many joins was it, ZERO?
yeah, he'll miss his zero joins.

If I went to a site and saw resized pics to remove the watermark and zero joins, I'd know what I'd be thinking and it wouldn't be,"hey, lets work with this guy. He obviously knows his stuff"

but then, I've only been paying affiliates since 1998.

Agreed, rightfully so.

So YOUR work is art, and YOUR art fits YOUR vision, but if an affiliate wants HIS work to be HIS art, and HIS art to fit HIS vision, he is a "non-creative". Which BTW I am VERY creative, however I think that my work outside of adult internet marketing is irrelevant to the topic and frankly nobodies business. So I hope you weren't directing that towards me alone, which I don't think you were primarily. Also, I respect both you and ITC as credited photographers and artists in your own right.

Again, a bit hipocritical, narcissistic and cynical no?

OK.

:Oh crap again... OK for YOU but NOT for US! Apparently YOU are important and artistic and valued and creative, but WE are NOT...

O'rly?

I feel like we are spinning in circles here... So, YOU are GOOD... WE are BAD! I get it.

Ahh... finally. Some reasoning.

Agreed, but is this now becoming about the watermark or the artistic views of the original uncropped images... I am getting confused at this point.

And YOUR opinion is SO much more important than mine...

I never called YOU anything, but yet YOU have called ME names, I think I will cry to my mommy!

That is what you said earlier, but you continue to post this "It's ok if I say shit, but you can't because you are just a troll affiliate" type shit. OK.

Whew... thank you!

some people just have never ran affiliate sites and dont understand wtf is going on

Cliff Notes: Owner comes in, says really he could care less about this instance, does nothing to rectify problem or make amends, pats overzealous employee on the back.

Won't be a program I'll be promoting although I was considering it.

Was one of the sites I had in mind promoting, but if affiliates who in all honesty trying to send new members are regarded as criminals just because of a missing watermark on thumbs then I think I'll pass.

Reading the first reply from sponsor I got the impression it was ok after all as everything linked to the paysite, but as the discussion have gone on i am confused.

Are affiliates actively promoting ITC with text links and ads put in the same category as the 100s of tubes, P2P and boards that don't give a shit about the sponsor, all just because of a missing watermark?
That is the impression I get when reading the rest of the thread.