Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutt
And let's go back 10 years ago when the magazine business was still good, you were scoffing at guys who were shooting for ATK and Karups. The magazinrs already had their contributing photographers, you were one of them. Magazines only need a certain amount of new sets a month/year - no need to buy from a new photographer shooting girls in Czech, Hungary or the US, the magazines already had enough shooters in those places they were satisfied with. And the guys in smaller cities - they might get one model a year that the magazines would want considering they're competing to get models accepted against guys in places with lots of agencies recruiting new girls.
|
This is wrong. Magazines loved new girls and would listen to a new shooter over the phone. He then had to visit them to prove he was serious. Sending a set in the post or Fed Ex wasn't the best way. This was even more relevant in the Teen market. OK Hustler, Playboy, Penthouse and that end aren't going to see you. Naughty Neighbors, Hometown Girls, Barely Legal and the rest of the teen mags would.
But what you're implying is the Internet had lower standards.
Quote:
|
Shooting for magazines made sense for established photographers who were already regular contributors to magazines long before the Internet - you, Suze Randall, Stephen Hicks, Earl Miller. Suze and Stephen used the magazine sales to cover the high production costs of their shoots and overhead of their studios - they stocked their paysites with the content from those shoots essentially for 'free'. And they both made millions. You did the same, but instead of a paysite you created a licensed content business that did well for you. That opportunity wasnt really available to guys like AaronM, Brian Bradley, and the rest who have shot for ATK and other paysites. AaronM was in Portland, no matter how good his photography is or isn't, at most he'd find two or three girls a year who BarelyLegal, Hawk, Tight, etc would want. Brian is in LA, the magazines already had 10 photogs in LA shooting the same girls.
|
Yes few could compete at that level and no site does unless it's a feed off the magazine business. Like the shooters you named. Yes the magazines did fund far higher shooting budgets than the Internet ever did and ever will.
Our style matched what ATK and Karups were trying to do. They bought enough from us.
Aaron did have a content store and closed it.
Here you are saying the Internet accepted a lower standard. The Internet accepted girls from shooters who couldn't find enough good ones or could only find them after everyone else?????
To say Steve and Suzies content didn't sell on the Internet and then say they made millions, and we made a few $$$ along the way, means their and our style sold on the Internet.
Quote:
|
The Internet brought democracy and variety to porn - before then when it came to adult photography consumers were offered what the magazine publishers gave them, and that was your style of photography. When MikeAI from Amateur Index and ATK and Karups started shooting real amateur girls next door and coeds, real girls from every state and province not just LA and Prague the surfers flocked to those sites by the millions. Hustler's paysites never have come close to the number of members those companies had. And don't even try to use your old argument against affiliates - MikeAI never even had an affiliate program and ATK and Karups never put much emphasis on theirs, they didn't need to. The surfers found their own way to those sites - they wanted that kind of content not your magazine style content.
|
No it didn't bring democracy and variety to porn. Except it accepts a lower standard. Even today with a site trying to aim high it's accepting low standards.
We shot first timers all the time, in fact more first timers of a higher standard than most. To my knowledge at one time there were 10 shooters here in CZ and HU shooting for ATK.
So when sites could afford to move up in quality, all of a sudden they want magazine style.
What governed what they had on their sites was what they could afford and had little to do with what the surfer wanted. 99.9% of surfers wanted it for free. As the stats on a TGP views, not banner clicks, proves.
Quote:
|
Your path worked for you, be happy for that, it wouldn't have worked for others.
|
If they could of followed us on our path it would of worked. You are wrong about it being a closed shop. Very wrong.