Fiddy Konrad zingers

:pimp

You obviously aren't married with kids :1orglaugh

I am not sure about the married part, but I know Konrad has a live in lady and at least one child.

:2 cents:

My point is

#1 guys who join sites have a very different mentality than those who don't join. One key factor is they are people that pay for what they want and pay for an ease of use. That ease of use includes being able to access that content anyway they want. Some like to download a bunch of scenes and watch them on the big screen. Why deny them that pleasure? Instead it's important you know what they want and deliver that and then deal with any problems that arise from providing that. You don't not offer something because it may get downloaded shared by the file sharers. That is ridiculous.

#2 i'm sure konrad was being funny but reality is mobile porn is very usable. Iphone and ipad screens are awesome and suitable for viewing porn. Not only that they are suitable for transporting porn as well (ie download to phone/tablet and then stream on tv). I find a lot of people think whatever they ASSUME a paysite member wants then that's what they want instead of actually studying paysite members behaviour to determine that.

True dat top notch.

:thumbsup

Have signed up to several adult sites over the years, and would not sign up to one that did not let me download.

Wow that was some horrible english by me LOL glad you understood :)

It's the Queen's English mum. Chip chip cheerio, and all that. :pimp

Shap has taken up Engrish after the sale. Good skill to have. My Renglish (Russian English) is flawless!

I'm not sure if you're trolling or not. You of all people must know how big mobile porn is nowadays...

For the record, I've been a bathroom phone jerker for years.

Depending on the size of your company and the amount of Members you have, streaming-only is a big expense in terms of hosting and bandwidth.

The tubes are teaching people to expect streaming BUT they are also expecting shitty quality via that streaming (since most tubes convert their vids to 320x240). So downloading "higher quality" is a sales point.

I think you have to do what's best for your own company and not chase what others are doing. Bottom line: does streaming vs. downloading produce MORE REVENUE FOR YOU or vice versa? Are your rebills stronger via downloads or streaming?

For me it's downloads.

I would love to hear of one person that has done done a proper download vs streaming test and streaming has resulted in better rebills and more overall revenue.

Correction.

1. Streaming only = Net Revenue
2. Streaming + Download + Lost Sales to Piracy + DMCA Enforcement Costs = Net Revenue

You can't factor in download unless you factor in piracy and enforcement costs. That INCLUDES the cost of hiring these companies to enforce your copyrights and removal service, which would be removed from your perceived profit. Once you start adding in THOSE COSTS as well, you start getting down to what is the actual NET revenue once you lose money to piracy, cost of enforcement, etc. and so forth compared to a streaming only business model.

:2 cents:

Sure throw in enforcement costs. But there is no such thing as lost sales to piracy in this equation as that would be factored in anyhow. The truth is nobody knows if you lose from piracy or gain from it. There could be an argument that you gain more than you lose from piracy.

Seriously? I think it's been at least 10 years for me where bandwidth affected my revenue significantly, and that was the MGP days. If your bandwidth costs aren't negligible, I feel you're doing your hosting wrong.

Anything is possible.

As I said before, everyone is free to run their business as they see fit and what works for them and their members. I can assure you that one person's experience is not universal to the rest of us.

This thread, or some of those in it, seem to be fighting back and forth looking for an 'absolute' answer one way or the other. Well ladies, sorry to disappoint, but there isn't one. Additionally, it sounds like many have not bothered to even do any research or testing on their sites to make any claims one way or the other in the first place.

That being said, we can all have our different opinions as to how best run out business.

:2 cents:

It's super easy to capture a stream and save it for probably most people who ever tried to do it once. So I say study it on your own members and track how many download versus stream only. Post a survey question if you want. It's your members area. No need to guess at anything.

You are too kind. I was going to say if bandwidth is a problem you are in the wrong business :winkwink:

But you are right. Some people don't have the right deals in place to allow them the ability to grow to their potential.

*pip pip, cheerio.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...ip+pip+cheerio

Comparing feature film content that cost millions to produce with content that cost a few hundred dollars.

I can buy a blu ray of a $10 million dollar movie for $10 and yet you complain that someone doesn't want to pay a 2nd month at $30 for the same content.

When I join a paysite I want to download the scenes that have some interest and keep them.

As for our site we let our members keep the movies.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

Why pay $10 for the Blu Ray when you can type "[moviename] online free" ?

I think that's the comparison really.

I buy my movies on itunes. Why? Because I honestly can't be bothered to waste time trying to find it online. I think that is the point as well. There are those who pay and those who don't. Thinking both think the same is a big mistake. They are very different.

This is GFY remember :1orglaugh :thumbsup :pimp

Same could be said for netflix, playboy TV and youtube paid movies. When signing up for service that streams-only, you pay for access to the members area, not for download rights.

1. Unfortunately, you cant watch netflix or youtube while out at the cabin.
2. Select lower quality stream.
3. It's not impossible but for most users who rip members areas, secured streams and offering no downloads makes it so they can only really share compressed screen recordings.

Streaming-only or not, there's still the DCMA enforcement costs, we offer streaming only and we still catch member area screengrab rips. Albeit, they dont stay up long and doesn't happen often due to the loss of quality they get from screen-ripping but it still happens.

I wish we could prove if streaming-only really truly helps, but we'll never truly know. We feel more comfortable having it set up this way, though.

Because I watch a blu ray film on a HD projector with 5.1 sound and it is superp quality and the price of $10 for a movie that cost < $5 million to make is very reasonable.

Are your downloads that quality? Do you want films to be made in the future?


Also I am not a cheapskate.

While bandwidth costs have come down it's still a consideration for a smaller company and hosting has a lot to do with it. But what I meant was: if it costs MORE to stream-only (and it does) yet you do not see an uptick in rebills (or more revenue) then why bother? Let them download and save yourself the extra expense.

The issue tho is there's no real way to "know" how piracy and downloads affect revenue so therefore those who go with streaming-only are doing so because it makes them FEEL BETTER. ok.....I don't run my business based on "feelings" or "hunches". I know what streaming would cost me and I know what downloads (with limits) costs me. Now if someone has streaming-only and they can show me rebills of many months beyond what I get now with just downloads then I would be convinced to switch to streaming. LOL

Thank you for parroting what I have already said on page one. :pimp

This is simply pure ignorance or lack of reading comprehension. :2 cents:

We were streaming only for a while, then allowed some downloads, did a LOT of testing on this. The end result was that most members were happy with the streams. However, a good handful did complain and we lost some business over it. We had ZERO piracy issues for almost two years. ZERO.

So we added a single download. The collectors got a video to download, streamers got their stream. Piracy increased, but so did member retention. The only complaints then were that we didn't offer enough streaming options, as we only had one video to stream and it was too big for some people.

We changed again and now offer two streaming options (plus a mobile stream for the mobile cms) and two download options, one being a mobile and a large mp4 download. Piracy once again has increased but we now get ZERO complaints and retention is increasing. This is the system we will stay with for a while.

Having gone though all of that, don't believe anyone who says you can't beat piracy. You can. Anyone who says you can't is either a pirate or a clueless idiot. We did for almost two years. And I mean not a single video was shared, not one. But at what cost? We feel that having tried the other ways, the current method is the best for us so far. We just have to stay on top of piracy now and police certain sites, choosing our battles carefully.

You can't offer streaming only unless it's encrypted and can't be ripped. Any other way is a waste of time, as most browser plugins can pull the videos down. Not sure if that's what you're doing or not, but given the rate I see your videos on pirate sites, I'm guessing no?

One thing you can do in the event I am wrong and that is what you are doing, is stamp the user data on the video and have it appear here and there at a time you know. You will then figure out who is sharing them. Doesn't mean much for the guys who use stolen cards, but with a little sleuth work you can weed our what is what and who is who.

True dat.

To clarify: I am not saying you cannot combat piracy. Of course you can (and should). But this discussion began as a streaming vs. download argument, not a "split the baby" argument (my personal choice; meaning give downloads AND do streaming). And, to that end alone, as Shap has stated, you cannot calculate exactly the cost/benefit of piracy (exposure etc) vs streaming-only.

As stated endless times: a pirate will rip away regardless of what you do. MOST Members are not pirates tho. So we're talking percentages here (in the end): how much and how many. As DWB pointed out above, it's how much you can tolerate and what works best for your company (sorry to be a parrot again).

Bottom line (for me) is this: do what you can to prevent piracy but thinking "streaming only" is the solution is wrong. It takes more than that. But all it takes is ONE Mem Area rip uploaded illegally, then downloaded and re-uploaded endless times by surfers, and your shit is EVERYWHERE. Streaming makes it harder but only a little. And just because you don't see your videos on a tube site doesn't mean you haven't been pirated. Just sayin'.

:thumbsup

Yeah - encrypted they are, but screen recorders will still record.

We've actually done the member stamp before.. they just blur it..

though, I will say that I feel most of the piracy came about from people getting upset that we don't offer downloads, so they go out of their way to screen record a shitload of scenes and uploaded them for others. I can't prove this is why, but that's my feeling.

With encryption in place to protect the file, the ip checks, everything.. it doesn't stop piracy, though it does alleviate it a lot.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

It is very easy to download a streaming video, with some plugins. Also, it is very easy too to record what you are seeing in the monitor.

Not letting people to download does not stop piracy, as "pirates" probably already know about all the methods to download streamings; but it does disappoint common users that wanted to get their videos downloaded.

:Oh crap

OK. If they are going through that much hassle, then you've got some hardcore pirates. Probably coming in on stolen cards as well. Some of these guys work in teams.

Though, I'm really surprised to hear they blurred the member data. I've never seen them do that before. I've seen them try to crop it out and chop the video size down, or blur a watermark, but never a blur. That blows. Did you try moving watermarks or data, showing up in different places?

Don't know. I haven't watched a movie in years, but I'm not sure that everyone has $10 to blow on a movie. $10 is certainly cheaper than a night at a movie theater, but still more than cheapskate free.

I wonder if the people who have money to burn are the ones who would abuse a download privilege? Are they the ones uploading entire members areas to free porn communities and the like?

I have run mobile stuff for years, the spike in sales mid morning and mid afternoon has been around forever, and it is exactly what you refer to above. Guys at work wanking in the toilet when they are supposed to be taking a break from work.

Never under estimate the motivations of the average Joe.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

I love this post.

1. It's based on stats you've studied.
2. it ends with simple truth that so many people make a mistake with.

I used to love my mid-morning jerk in the handicap restroom. Too bad my working days pre-dated smartphones :(

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

I think we just moved on instead of trying to refine it and making the members experience lesser by having an ID in a terrible spot on the video.

This. What do you define as a 'proper' test though?

I'd imagine you'd have a flag in your cms which either enables or disables downloads on that member, and assign it randomly upon join. The only tricky part is determining at what point to stop collecting data. It could very well be that you don't see the longer term retention effects for several months.

You'd also need a decent amount of volume to be able to determine a retention pattern is genuine.

Interesting.