Originally Posted by DeanCapture (Post 18387345)

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.....

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon (Post 18388011)

perhaps people like yourself and inthecrack shouldn't have open affiliate programs. obviously affiliates don't get all the concerns the content producers have and the content producers don't get all the concerns affiliates have.

Originally Posted by xenigo (Post 18384603)

This absolutely is NOT the case. NOT "technically", and NOT in any court of law. You can't trim a pixel off the height and width and call it your own, you fucking tool.

You aren't legally allowed to use anything you didn't produce yourself without the permission of the person who created it. That is the letter of the law.

The color of the law is that your business can't profit off the sweat of another business. That's the basis behind all IP laws including trademark, patent law, and laws governing domain misspellings, etc.

I'd love to see you trim a millisecond off a pop music track and go against the RIAA in court with that defense. They'd rake you over the coals. :thumbsup

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon (Post 18388011)

perhaps people like yourself and inthecrack shouldn't have open affiliate programs. obviously affiliates don't get all the concerns the content producers have and the content producers don't get all the concerns affiliates have.

Originally Posted by bigluv (Post 18387722)

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.

Originally Posted by MPGdevil (Post 18387995)

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.

Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18387387)

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.

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 18388109)

Holy shit, I agree with you on something.

At the end of the day, if you aren't sending sales to the program your argument means nothing.

If it were some huge review site sending dozens of sales a day ... I'm sure ITC would be willing to meet halfway or at least hook them up with a watermark so they can edit with credit.

Originally Posted by inthecrack (Post 18387269)

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.

Originally Posted by inthecrack (Post 18388293)

Why the big obsession with cropping watermarks anyways? In 10 years of inthecrack I have not once had a customer say "I can't whack off to your pictures because I'm too distracted by the watermark". For that matter I don't think I've ever had someone make a comment of any kind about the watermark. It simply does not bother people. Perhaps the affiliate really had to reduce the picture but that could have been done without cropping. The cropping of a copyright watermark only suggests ulterior motives. You better believe our customers are going to see watermarks on all the images in our members area so it sure would be nice if you were to present the product exactly as they will see it after they pay for it.

Originally Posted by looky_lou (Post 18382903)

Originally Posted by inthecrack (Post 18388293)

Why the big obsession with cropping watermarks anyways? In 10 years of inthecrack I have not once had a customer say "I can't whack off to your pictures because I'm too distracted by the watermark". For that matter I don't think I've ever had someone make a comment of any kind about the watermark. It simply does not bother people. Perhaps the affiliate really had to reduce the picture but that could have been done without cropping. The cropping of a copyright watermark only suggests ulterior motives. You better believe our customers are going to see watermarks on all the images in our members area so it sure would be nice if you were to present the product exactly as they will see it after they have payed for it.

Originally Posted by DeanCapture (Post 18387345)

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.....

Originally Posted by inthecrack (Post 18388293)

Why the big obsession with cropping watermarks anyways? In 10 years of inthecrack I have not once had a customer say "I can't whack off to your pictures because I'm too distracted by the watermark". For that matter I don't think I've ever had someone make a comment of any kind about the watermark. It simply does not bother people. Perhaps the affiliate really had to reduce the picture but that could have been done without cropping. The cropping of a copyright watermark only suggests ulterior motives. You better believe our customers are going to see watermarks on all the images in our members area so it sure would be nice if you were to present the product exactly as they will see it after they have payed for it.

Originally Posted by looky_lou (Post 18382955)

So true.

BTW, Thank you for running good clean programs. I'm making some sales with the Alluring Vixens site from my bikini niche sites and seems to be re-billing well also. Always nice to have some good sites for bikini lovers.

Originally Posted by looky_lou (Post 18388135)

I stated that the particular blog was new and had not generated any sales yet. Fairly low traffic at this point, maybe sending 5-15 hits per day to the tour at this point.

I have been an affiliate of InTheCrack since 2006 and I have made sales. Not a ton, but some.

Whats funny is, I was checking stats today. When I first became their affiliate in 2006 I made 26 sales in a few months. Out of those 26 I got 0 rebills on them. This year they are rebilling at 2 to 1 to sales, so I know it re-bills well. I think back in 2006 maybe they had their re-bills set to (rebills expire after no re-bills) or something. Based on this years stats, those 26 sales would have got me 52 re-bills.

Originally Posted by Tempest (Post 18388318)

You yourself said that you spend hours post processing your photos to give the customer the best quality you can... Affiliates do the same thing except that we crop/resize an image in order to get the surfer "hot" so that he clicks the link to your site and garners everyone some cash... You deliver a final product to your customers... Affiliates deliver content as a promotional means to get you the customers. The mind set between what your customers would like and what's required to entice a surfer to click through are two different animals. Your expertise is in creating a high quality end product. Affiliate expertise in converting a free loading surfer into a paying member.

When we're cropping an image we're trying to take just the absolute best part of an image and use that to promote the site. We look at that image in terms of how enticing we can make a single image to the surfer. In order to do that, and include your watermark, we'd have to add it back in after the fact which is too much work for the amount of promotional posts/pages etc. we have to make in order to generate traffic. What you're telling your affiliates to do is just take your image, resize it and use it as is. That's simply not as effective as making something that's "optimized" to sell.

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 18388370)

I can't tell you how frustrated I get when a sponsor sends me a 1600px wide pic that I need to make work in 540px for a blog and the main focus seems to be the background and the models take up 300 of those 1600px. If you resize it you hardly see anything and surfers have too many choices and will move on to something they can actually see... and buy from that site.

Originally Posted by Tempest (Post 18388318)

You yourself said that you spend hours post processing your photos to give the customer the best quality you can... Affiliates do the same thing except that we crop/resize an image in order to get the surfer "hot" so that he clicks the link to your site and garners everyone some cash... You deliver a final product to your customers... Affiliates deliver content as a promotional means to get you the customers. The mind set between what your customers would like and what's required to entice a surfer to click through are two different animals. Your expertise is in creating a high quality end product. Affiliate expertise in converting a free loading surfer into a paying member.

When we're cropping an image we're trying to take just the absolute best part of an image and use that to promote the site. We look at that image in terms of how enticing we can make a single image to the surfer. In order to do that, and include your watermark, we'd have to add it back in after the fact which is too much work for the amount of promotional posts/pages etc. we have to make in order to generate traffic. What you're telling your affiliates to do is just take your image, resize it and use it as is. That's simply not as effective as making something that's "optimized" to sell.

Originally Posted by inthecrack (Post 18388399)

This is probably the the most coherent presentation of your side of the argument so far. I have seen portions of our pictures at 200 pixel sizes that link to unaltered inthecrack content on a page which which in turn links to inthecrack. I'm cool with that.

To be clear? if we are only talking about thumbnails then this whole thread is a giant misunderstanding. We don't have readable watermarks on the thumbnails on our site either. However, if the thumbnail links to a full size image with the watermark removed then I have a bit of a problem with that. If I recall correctly the affiliate in question had resized the images to perhaps 75% of their original size and called them "giant thumbnails" so as to justify removing the watermark. Pardon the pun but that is a bit of a stretch. I don't think there was any unaltered content to be found in the links.

Originally Posted by will76 (Post 18388429)

Ok, so be clear. It is ok to mess with your "works of art" to reduce them down to say 25% of their original size, but it is not ok to mess with your works of art to reduce them down to 75% of their original size. Perhaps you should be more clear in your TOS, what is the acceptable size to mess with your works of art. :upsidedow

Originally Posted by inthecrack (Post 18388399)

This is probably the the most coherent presentation of your side of the argument so far. I have seen portions of our pictures at 200 pixel sizes that link to unaltered inthecrack content on a page which which in turn links to inthecrack. I'm cool with that.

To be clear? if we are only talking about thumbnails then this whole thread is a giant misunderstanding. We don't have readable watermarks on the thumbnails on our site either. However, if the thumbnail links to a full size image with the watermark removed then I have a bit of a problem with that. If I recall correctly the affiliate in question had resized the images to perhaps 75% of their original size and called them "giant thumbnails" so as to justify removing the watermark. Pardon the pun but that is a bit of a stretch. I don't think there was any unaltered content to be found in the links.

Originally Posted by inthecrack (Post 18388399)

This is probably the the most coherent presentation of your side of the argument so far. I have seen portions of our pictures at 200 pixel sizes that link to unaltered inthecrack content on a page which which in turn links to inthecrack. I'm cool with that.

To be clear? if we are only talking about thumbnails then this whole thread is a giant misunderstanding. We don't have readable watermarks on the thumbnails on our site either. However, if the thumbnail links to a full size image with the watermark removed then I have a bit of a problem with that. If I recall correctly the affiliate in question had resized the images to perhaps 75% of their original size and called them "giant thumbnails" so as to justify removing the watermark. Pardon the pun but that is a bit of a stretch. I don't think there was any unaltered content to be found in the links.

Originally Posted by will76 (Post 18388429)

Ok, so be clear. It is ok to mess with your "works of art" to reduce them down to say 25% of their original size, but it is not ok to mess with your works of art to reduce them down to 75% of their original size. Perhaps you should be more clear in your TOS, what is the acceptable size to mess with your works of art. :upsidedow

Originally Posted by looky_lou (Post 18388487)

The TOS is quite clear that I received in the original email:

Bullet # 2
Any content taken from our affiliate content page for promotional use may NOT be altered in any way. You may NOT remove or alter the copyright information. You may NOT crop or further compress the sample video or pictures.

When I proposed the question of thumbnails on my TGPs it was never addressed in the responses as you can see.

Originally Posted by inthecrack (Post 18388399)

This is probably the the most coherent presentation of your side of the argument so far. I have seen portions of our pictures at 200 pixel sizes that link to unaltered inthecrack content on a page which which in turn links to inthecrack. I'm cool with that.

To be clear? if we are only talking about thumbnails then this whole thread is a giant misunderstanding. We don't have readable watermarks on the thumbnails on our site either. However, if the thumbnail links to a full size image with the watermark removed then I have a bit of a problem with that. If I recall correctly the affiliate in question had resized the images to perhaps 75% of their original size and called them "giant thumbnails" so as to justify removing the watermark. Pardon the pun but that is a bit of a stretch. I don't think there was any unaltered content to be found in the links.

Originally Posted by inthecrack (Post 18388439)

I think we can all just use common sense to determine what a thumbnail is. It's a small version of a picture that links to a full size version of the same picture. Do we really have to spell everything out for you or are you are just deliberately trying to be difficult?

Originally Posted by looky_lou (Post 18388477)

See, that's the problem here. You obviously do not know what I was doing or even looked at the blog.

I had no ulterior motives.

My objective was simple. Sell as many memberships to In TheCrack as possible. How will I do this?:

1. register a domain pussyncrack.com that relates to the subject the best I can with out infringing on the original name or TM.

2. Set up the hosting for the domain on my server.

3. Install WP and configure for best SEO for the subject, in this case InTheCrack.

4. Select an attractive, professional looking theme and modify it to best show off and represent InTheCrack.

5. Start by writing 10 200-300 word descriptive posts that are keyword rich towards the subject and InTheCrack.

6. Put these posts into categories and tag them with keyword rich words including InTheCrack.

7. Crop 2 photos from the FHG featuring the highlight of the photo for best representation in the smaller format to get the surfer to click it. (Getting clicks on the photos is essential to keep bounce rate as low as possible. This is one of the key factors for ranking well in Google.) Link those photos directly to the FHG containing the full size sample photos in hopes that they will then click through from the gallery to InTheCrack and buy a membership.

8. Place a large H3 text link at the bottom of each post linking directly to the InTheCrack site, stating SEE MORE! or JOIN NOW!. Most of these links contain the name InTheCrack right in the link.

9. Place hard links from my already established, relevant sites to get indexed immediately by all of the search engines.

10. Submit to as many blog directories as possible for more back links.

11. Feed some traffic from my existing sites to get it some exposure to start it out.

12. Continue writing 2-3 posts per week indefinitely. (If it takes off and starts to produce some sales, up it to 3-5 posts per week.)

Then tweak, tweak, tweak constantly to improve quality and relevancy in the effort to rank better in the Search Engines and build as much traffic as possible. Sell more memberships.

This is how I try to obtain my objective. And my objective was to sell as many memberships as possible to InTheCrack.

Originally Posted by will76 (Post 18388572)

Apparently you need to spell it out since you are the one telling affiliates that they have 24 hours to change the images or they will be banned. You are the one being vague, you are the one coming up with these rules that the majority of programs either don't have or don't enforce. So yes, I think it would be wise for you to clarify the specific size *YOU think* is small enough that it was ok to edit and not have a water mark on it. Some TGP sites have really big "thumbnails".

Especially since your TOS says one thing (can't alter anything) and you are here saying another (*thumbnails* are ok).

Originally Posted by will76 (Post 18388572)

Apparently you need to spell it out since you are the one telling affiliates that they have 24 hours to change the images or they will be banned. You are the one being vague, you are the one coming up with these rules that the majority of programs either don't have or don't enforce. So yes, I think it would be wise for you to clarify the specific size *YOU think* is small enough that it was ok to edit and not have a water mark on it. Some TGP sites have really big "thumbnails".

Especially since your TOS says one thing (can't alter anything) and you are here saying another (*thumbnails* are ok).

Originally Posted by inthecrack (Post 18388575)

It is a bit unfortunate that you felt the need to start a shitstorm of negativity in public before I had a chance to address this. I'm sure I could have directed you in creating a blog that works for everyone. Assuming you are willing to make the necessary adjustments, work within the rules and not cause any further trouble then I would be more than willing to work with you to create the ideal blog. Why don't you put your blog back together and let me review it in a more professional manner AWAY FROM GFY. I know you at least believe in our product and we can always use an additional affiliate so it behoves us to burry the hatchet and get things worked out. info at inthecrack dot com.

Note that I am going to be shooting in Palau and staying on a boat without internet for 2 weeks starting Sept 1. We'll have the pleasure of 4 great Budapest models but unfortunately no internet during this time which means I cannot contribute to this forum or work on your project then.

Originally Posted by looky_lou (Post 18382903)

-snip-
I had a 3-4 month old blog pussy-n-crack.com that was originally 100% dedicated to the promotion of InTheCrack.

-snip-along with 2 500x700 pixel cropped photos from their FHGs in each post.

-snip-
I had not received any sales from that blog for InTheCrack, so I figured I would try adding other sponsors to the mix to see if I could generate some income from the blog.