Don't think anyone is taking a pay cut...... It's no different to free hosting
really, except the right person is paying so as not to pollute the whole thing.
From another board:
Quote:
It's just a change in delivery method really... Good for all in the end.
MPEG galleries weren't economically viable for affiliate webmasters not so
long ago. Most who were in the game were using geocities and other free
hosts for their clips. Sponsors however were able to come in and offer FHGs
with MPEGs by using their larger bandwidth deals to reduce costs. Somewhat
merging the freehost market and getting rid of the need for dirty tricks and
banners that come along with free host bandwidth.
Now adult is catching up with Web2.0 on the interactivity front. The code is
getting fast enough and manageable enough for us to use on our fast
loading, high traffic porn sites. While bandwidth gets cheaper for those
burning a lot of it.
So the distribution model is evolving again. With tube sites there is a great
motivation for sponsors to take responsibility for content serving and
bandwidth. While allowing affiliates to focus on growing niche markets around
selections of sponsor content, aggregated and presented in that affiliates
unique way.
This further opens the way for sponsors acting as smart content repositories,
with the ability to serve content while also protecting it. Serving content to
affiliates traffic in much the same way it is to paysite members. With token
systems to protect the location of files and a proxy script to output the
content. Even DRM systems could then be layered in. However I think for
now most sponsors would be happy to distribute their watermarked gallery
clips. Saturation of this type of content shouldn't be a problem as it's in clip
format, while paysites still have the full scene to offer. The more saturated it
gets the better really, as long as it's all the same content and the paysite
offers more, conversation ratios may drop but the bottom-line always goes
up.
This being said nothing about the spec I've set out says that sponsors
must use their bandwidth, this is just the medium for transmitting the
information. The remote site can download the content and repackage it
using FFMPEG or hotlink it, any restrictions on this would be up to sponsors.
However I'd imagine the best way forward is hot-linking. If it's abused in any
major way sponsors can implement token protection on-top of that.
The main benefit for sponsors would be the ability to quickly push out new
release content onto affiliate sites, meaning blitz promotion of major DVD
releases or new paysites will be much easier.
|
If sponsors want the traffic they'll need to provide the tools, surfers like the
Web2.0 and YouTube thing, it's more usable and easy to manage for all. It's
where the surfers are, affiliates are following, sponsors need too as well.
A sponsor can offer a feed of movie locations and still require the affiliates
script downloads the video, but how many affiliates can afford to serve that
kind of video and support growth without problems. While which sponsor do
you think affiliates will choose......
Sure it might take awhile for some to catch on, but really it's unavoidable.
It's just the way the market is going. Just a matter of who the early-
adopters are going to be, some have done this for a long time, just not in a
structured way.
-Ben
__________________
Cyberwurx Hosting
After trying 5 different hosts, I found the best.
Since 1997 I've had 2 hours of downtime.
Fast support, great techs, no hype, no gimmicks.
<- I in no way endorse whatever just got stuck on the left of my post.