If tubes like pornhub are so great for sponsors then why are sites still closing?

[ThePornTubeGuy]

A top expert tests to hone his results. A guy without a clue, is groping around in the dark. Testing will never replace knowledge.



Exactly what I thought. ThePornTubeGuy's reply was basically BS. Taking 90% of what online porn producer shoot and teaching them to edit. Is like teaching a kid how to cook a sponge using sawdust. Most online porn producers simply don't have the raw goods. They can only cut a 20 minute scene in half and give a Tube more free porn. Teaching them to edit, take time out to edit and submit to a Tube on a promise of traffic.

Hi Paul, none of my posts contain the BS you refer too, All I have done is talk facts and looked to help those who want it. I actually have agreed with you in all your posts, specifically re the 90% who produce the sawdust. Even in my last reply to you, I finished with agreeing with you saying: But as your previous post stated, the content obviously has to be up to a certain standard.

So I don't quite know where your little outburst came from

[ThePornTubeGuy]

As I said I don't doubt Ruseful's honesty. I only doubt whether his interpretation of his stats is accurate. Saying that over 95% of the traffic hitting his sites is due to tube campaigns is an extraordinary claim as is a 3% ctr and 1:833 ratio from such tube sites which are loaded with pirated full scenes from every niche.

You'll find that Ruseful is saying that he gets a 1% average CTR from his promotional banners/texts on the tubes he uploads too. The additional 2% is derived from direct type ins from the same exposure on the tubes. This is the 3% traffic he gets, NOT 3% CTR on his promotional banners.

A major factor you may be overlooking is that please don't forget, some smaller tubes (thousands of them) rip the best performing content from the main tubes each and every day, so with strategically placed watermarks, and pre rolls and post rolls on their videos, they actually get significantly more exposure than they can account for. This is a big part of the 2% that they refer too as direct type ins. Hope that clears up where the 3% comes from that they refer too.

[Paul Markham]

A more succinct way to say the above is: better products sell better

I'm not sure that will ever change, and I can't see how we pin that on the tubes. It pre-dates them by 11,000 years.

I was saying that here 10 years ago and that's when the haters started hating. They don't like the truth. The problem is simply budgets. If you can afford it the quality content is there to be had. There are loads of offline shooters who will turn out movies of the quality of Orgasm.xxx. but not for $2,000 a scene. Anyone who wishes to question that need only hit me up on ICQ for a list of shooters.

However, the other adage is: Location, Location, Location

Is a Tube site the best place to sell quality porn today? If so, the money isn't there. Or ThePornTubeGuy wouldn't be asking people who don't have the raw product to edit, to do it for free.

I have been inside a lot of websites shot by people who are lauded here. These guys are simply not good enough. They shoot hardcore dull porn that all blends into one. The scenes all start to look the same and follow the same format time after time. No comedy, no closure, no reason for the fucking, and the girls mouthing the same sound bites over and over again. No matter how clever a person is with the latest equipment, the vital skill in porn isn't camera's, lighting, etc.

It's the shooter seeing the fantasy in his head and getting the model to perform as he needs. We sell fantasy. If we can produce it.

The biggest sex organ is the brain.

It's not "I would fuck her". It's "Would she fuck me?"

[signupdamnit]

You'll find that Ruseful is saying that he gets a 1% average CTR from his promotional banners/texts on the tubes he uploads too. The additional 2% is derived from direct type ins from the same exposure on the tubes. This is the 3% traffic he gets, NOT 3% CTR on his promotional banners.

I understand that. I only went ahead and put the additional type-ins he claimed and figured them in as the ctr to make things simple. One thought if type-ins are really that high as the result of a watermark then affiliates are really getting screwed though, aren't they? 1% actual ctr and 2% type-ins. That would mean the affiliate is getting credit for roughly 33% of the sales they actually drive assuming tracking is otherwise perfect. But I guess this is subject to what you state below when looking at numbers.

A major factor you may be overlooking is that please don't forget, some smaller tubes (thousands of them) rip the best performing content from the main tubes each and every day, so with strategically placed watermarks, and pre rolls and post rolls on their videos, they actually get significantly more exposure than they can account for. This is a big part of the 2% that they refer too as direct type ins. Hope that clears up where the 3% comes from that they refer too.

That is significant. I'm not sure whether it is a pro or con though as this means the majority of those scraper tubes will not be showing the pay site's banners or links as the original tube might. You will be fully relying on the watermark to drive type-ins or perhaps pre or post rolls should they be included somehow on these other sites.

The typical legal tube usually has two banners and a link or two in addition to the existing watermarks. Presumably the effective ctr will be 3-4 times what it would be with tube where you are relying on watermarks to drive traffic. Plus the legal tube likely has a significantly better conversion ratio due to less full scenes. This might tie in with "2. Affiliate sales effect" in my previous post.

[porno jew]

there is some great info in here with real world experience and stats to back it up.

on the other side we have wall of text theorizing on why that can't really be possible.

educational thread for sure. in more ways than one.

[Paul Markham]

Hi Paul, none of my posts contain the BS you refer too, All I have done is talk facts and looked to help those who want it. I actually have agreed with you in all your posts, specifically re the 90% who produce the sawdust. Even in my last reply to you, I finished with agreeing with you saying: But as your previous post stated, the content obviously has to be up to a certain standard.

So I don't quite know where your little outburst came from

Because, I suspect, you will let anyone submit to your tube. Knowing they are not one of the 10%. So you're prepared to take the 90%ers content knowing they won't make the grade.

However with offline DVD producers. You go to the people who can supply the raw product and in niches you need.

There's no shortage of great porn to acquire, just a shortage of people who can afford it.

[DamianJ]

It's not "I would fuck her". It's "Would she fuck me?"

And the answer is always, always no, unless you pay her money.

As you learned from that nasty business with your ex assistant.

[signupdamnit]

there is some great info in here with real world experience and stats to back it up.

on the other side we have wall of text theorizing on why that can't really be possible.

educational thread for sure. in more ways than one.

I've seen both sides provide experiences. Thus far it has seemed about 50-50 as far as experiences go. As I said I would be curious to see what others see. Especially people who are more independent.

[Ruseful]

https://www.youporn.com/watch/770922...-be-porn-star/

This is a FakeAgent clip that we put on YouPorn just today. Its had 350k views already in around 18 hours, very high rated (93%) and has 6 great comments. The clip is 12 minutes 4 seconds long. Has a great pre roll, great post roll and watermarked very well, so it is easily identifiable on the tubes.

http://www.youporn.com/partner/fake-agent/2265/views/
This link will show we had over 80 videos online on YouPorn since mid January and have had around 50million views.

When that clip is ripped from Youporn by users and placed in their profiles on other tubes or ripped by the other tubes, yes, some may remove the watermark, but most do not bother removing the pre roll and post roll parts of the video, so the FakeAgent clip remains branded, and attracts direct type ins.

This traffic is GOLDEN, its affiliate free, but you can't account from where its coming from, but no complaints of course.

[Three.Thousand]

Testing will never replace knowledge.

My testing and tracking will prove what works best. Your knowledge, will only forfeit your right to complain about falling ratios.

[porno jew]

I've seen both sides provide experiences. Thus far it has seemed about 50-50 as far as experiences go. As I said I would be curious to see what others see. Especially people who are more independent.

if someone knows how to work the tubes, tells you exactly how to do it and shows you stats and screenshots to back it up and one still writes wall of texts on why it is not possible i guess there is no hope for some.

adapt or die in it's purest sense.

[Ruseful]

I understand that. I only went ahead and put the additional type-ins he claimed and figured them in as the ctr to make things simple. One thought if type-ins are really that high as the result of a watermark then affiliates are really getting screwed though, aren't they? 1% actual ctr and 2% type-ins. That would mean the affiliate is getting credit for roughly 33% of the sales they actually drive assuming tracking is otherwise perfect. But I guess this is subject to what you state below when looking at numbers.



That is significant. I'm not sure whether it is a pro or con though as this means the majority of those scraper tubes will not be showing the pay site's banners or links as the original tube might. You will be fully relying on the watermark to drive type-ins or perhaps pre or post rolls should they be included somehow on these other sites.

The typical legal tube usually has two banners and a link or two in addition to the existing watermarks. Presumably the effective ctr will be 3-4 times what it would be with tube where you are relying on watermarks to drive traffic. Plus the legal tube likely has a significantly better conversion ratio due to less full scenes. This might tie in with "2. Affiliate sales effect" in my previous post.

Here is a screen grab from GA for the last 30 days on Orgasms.xxx
You'll see the sheer amount of direct type in traffic that I am continually referring too.
Reason for edit was to post the actual image, not just the link

[Trend]

Quite possibly the best post I have read for a very long time.

Off topic but ... Did you guys start out in 2002 with paysites?

[ThePornTubeGuy]

Off topic but ... Did you guys start out in 2002 with paysites?

If you are asking me personally, then no. We started YouPorn late August 2006 and sold in May 2012. I launched my first pay site in July 2011. I own the network that has Casting.xxx and FakeAgent, Lesbea, DaneJones and Orgasms.xxx

I joined the team at Dreamstar Cash in Jan 2012 and we run PornTube, 4Tube and Fux

[DamianJ]

My testing and tracking will prove what works best. Your knowledge, will only forfeit your right to complain about falling ratios.

oh, as they say, snap.