It's harder to shoot porn today than it was back in the old days.

One would think a better product would sell better than one of lesser quality.

However, it's about business so the question is would spending the extra money for better content result in enough sales to offset the added operating costs and still continue with a desired profit margin.

What you need to understand is very few if any of the people here think the reason their sales have declined is because their content sucks.

( What he wrote above me sounds good too )

If his clients can make $9k profit a month with a cheap CMS plus some content which I assume wasn't a fortune.

Can you imagine how much we make with 2 paysites, one 90% exclusive and unique, the other with 3,000 full videos or sets, plus 2 content stores. Make a month.

$9k would be a weeks earnings.

man you make my points for me.

Just so we can keep everything in perspective, if you claim to make about $30K a month with just 2 paysites, one 90% exclusive and unique, the other with 3,000 full videos or sets, plus 2 content stores wouldn't that be about a half days earnings for Manwin with it's network of sites

I never disagreed with you one bit.

Matter of fact it is ONE of the tools in my arsenal of success: Giving our members EXACTLY what they want in a porn scene with a whore with giant tits. Doing all the things right that I feel others do wrong.

Which is why I am going to up my game on the technical side of the shoot. I think you are 100% right on that.

In my case, I'm only debating you on how to market porn. It's something I'm REAL good at. And I just don't want someone like you...whom I do respect...to lump me in with a bunch of cookie cutter tgp script sites.

I just wanted to try and explain what I do and how I do it in hopes of getting a bit of your respect, and maybe even giving you some different ideas on how to market.

Not sure I am gonna succeed on either count. But at least I did take the time to give it a shot.

And you still won't get a single bad word out of me in disrespect towards you.

Again I am misunderstood here...Let me set that straight.

It was almost like WATCHING a sale happen every couple of seconds. But I didn't mean it was every couple of seconds 24 hours a day. Sorry for saying it like that.

What I meant was there were times in the office when we would have something hot going on (Like when the Ed Powers website first hit) where we were watching the numbers move every couple of seconds. That was in the middle of the day and "no" they didn't sell every second for 24 hours straight.

But I was personally making a bit over $3,000 a day as an affiliate. So I think that comes up to $2.08 every minute 24 hours a day.

No matter how you slice it...that was KILLER money.

Not the kind of money that companies like Naughty America and Nasty Dollars and Max Cash and ARS were making as companies...but damn good for one guy putting it in his bank account.

Sorry if I didn't make that completely clear. My fault. It was just a very heady thing and made us joke that we made money everytime we blinked and I was in the middle of typing and didn't think it necessary to fully explain the whole boring story. My bad.

the point flew over your head as always.

most PornCMS customers are solo models operating their website alone or with a spouse. i never compared the business or profit of my customers to your business - nor did i ever make a statement about my company's earnings. my point didn't change, even though you tried as usual to use my words for a completely different argument.

$9k a month profit is a good earning for a solo model or small time operator and we have several customers hitting that mark. i don't give a fuck how much money the cancer ward of Paul Markham's house is earning. i only care about my customers, and they prove that there IS money in porn.

Ah, so because it is hard, that is bad?

Not impossible, right, just a bit more work.

I think all you are moaning about is you had it fucking easy for 20 years in the UK. There were 6 or 7 shooters and you made money REALLY easily. Now, people have to work.

However, the good people in this biz aren't afraid of hard work. Some are used to it. You seem pissed there is no gravy train anymore.


Of course there were fewer sites. There were fewer people online too.

Not sure how you work out 448% increase is bad?

Only 28.3% of the population has the ability to buy porn. This is growing massively every day. This is good.

The fact YOU don't believe the internet population is growing, the fact YOU think the market is closed now is hilarious.

Nothing flew over my head, love. I just disagree with you in every way on this. You think we've reach the end of the population and I see we've only got 28% of the world connected.

I agree with you. The majority of people can buy, want to buy and will buy. And they're growing. Hourly.


None of what you said has anything at all to do with demographics, and the word doesn't need capitalisation. It's just you lying saying that the new people coming to the internet are not buying porn. Which is a huge lie. Just one of my clients has the majority of their income from 18-25 year olds. And of that, 18-19 year olds are a huge percentage.

These are people that you think have been trained to think porn is free. They are all happy to pay. I promise. You just need to market to them properly and create a service they think is worth paying for. Oh and you need to work a bit.

--

Nice one for trying though. It's amazing how you are keeping this bs going.

Upping the technical quality of your porn is something anyone can do. That's one of the reasons so many sites have the same to similar quality of content. Anyone can buy the latest camera, good lights and learn how to use them. Upping the PORN quality of porn is a lot harder.

It needs a shooter who can operate a model/models. Knows how to direct them, knows how to pull the best out of them and knows which ones to shoot and which ones are a waste of time. No matter how good your equipment is a crap scene is a crap scene even if it's shot on equipment more at home in a Hollywood studio.

Then there's the task of knowing angles, how and where to shoot, looking at a scene prior to shooting and seeing the problems, like not shooting a 3 girl lesbian scene in a room too small for it and the bed with a large bedstead at the bottom of the bed that will hide the action and distract the viewer.

Knowing not to shoot countless pictures all the same, not to have girls in a couple scene grinning into the camera time after time, using the image set as a way to get the models or models into what they're going to do on video or even bond and warm up each other. Also good at showing the models the positions for the video.

Then when the shooter shoots is it shows him what to do on the video, the problems he might come up with, the angles he needs to cover, the shots he needs to get and how to construct the video scene.

All this is second nature to professional shooters with years of experience. They learnt it by making mistakes, having them corrected and learning how to do it right. There's no college or book that teaches to shoot porn, because it's like teaching someone to play football without letting them onto a field.

The bigger question is why didn't more of the richer players employ better shooters. So separating themselves from the Ma and Pa side of the industry?

Why did so many fill their sites with content shot by people who couldn't sell to a better paying market?

When Paul Markham speaks.. you listen

those days are long gone never to return again

OK I read it as you wrote it and now you've corrected it.

But it brings us back to my last question. Why were sponsors filling sites with content shot by people who couldn't operate in a better paying market? You as an affiliates were making $3,000 a day. I assume that was every day. So over $1m a year. And as an affiliate I would assume a large % of that was profit. And that the people you mentioned were making far far more. So why didn't they raise their game to a level where every Tom, Dick or Harry with a camera could compete with them?

Some did and made huge bank with it, but a vast number didn't and now compete with every other site out there and never had the extra income from the other sectors of the industry.

I see economics and business management aren't your strong point. Tripling their content budget from 5% to 15% doesn't have to increase their sales by 300% to make it worthwhile.

Go do some calculations on what it would cost to make better content and what extra retention, conversions and traffic would be needed to cover the cost.

I think the last part is the closest to the truth. People have for years believed the only way or the best way to increase sales was to throw more traffic at a site. Often at the expense of the site itself.

After 15 years where has that got us?

1,000s of sites with the same or similar poor to average content. Very little to make a member stay another month or in some cases make a surfer become a member. They're all competing with each other for the same rare customers. Who can find similar for free everywhere.

And competing in the traffic states is pretty easy, just a matter of copying what the next person is doing. When the Gallery came on the scene in a short while everyone had galleries, same with TGPs, FHG, blogs and Tubes. There is little skill in doing any of that. Or there are a lot of very skilled people all doing the same. Which negates the effort.

So why didn't people who could afford $1,000 a solo girl scene pay it?

Kiopa_Matt is clueless if he thinks it would of cost a website any extra to employ me and Eva exclusively than paying $300 for a scene from a custom shooter. He obviously is another "inside the box" thinker.

Let's say 10 years ago someone like ATK had employed a shooter like me and Eva and got them to shoot exclusive for them. That would of cost them NOTHING and added NOTHING to their content budget, if they had a clue. But they didn't do it so you have to wonder why.

For the vast majority here they never existed. They are Ma & Pa operations and I would imagine $1,000 a day is well beyond their dreams. I've met them at shows and they never came across as people making $1m a year. More like $100k a year. LOL

I hope you're wrong Tantrixxx!

I believe he said that because Nathan was going to pay you $1,000 ( his normal rate ) for doing a shoot and you demanded your normal rate @ $3,000 which would have been a 300% increase to Nathan's content budget. Or something to that effect.

Well by raising the content in Mofos it would inevitably lengthen retention rates, give affiliates better tools and help them earn more money if only from longer retention. That would mean they had more affiliates sending more traffic.

With a good shooter shooting for the site it would also give him a lot better tools to market the site with.

Everything starts with marketing. The more exceptional, innovative and different to the norm content is the better it will aid marketing. When a surfer sees it, he'll be more inclined to watch it, more inclined to click the link, more inclined to look closer at the tour and more inclined to sign up.

Once signed up he's again more inclined to stay longer. Even when he leaves. He will remember the site as one of the great sites and is more inclined to come back for the new updates.

It doesn't have to triple his turn over or profit. It's not 100% of his total budget. That's why I took the piss out of his economics and management skills.

Or do you think trying very very very hard to market average porn is a better route?

Than trying very very very hard to market great porn is a better route?

*******************************

Let's look at this as a business decision and leave the increase in sales alone. Let's go back to where I said employing someone like me would of been a great way to go and wouldn't of cost a penny more.

Firstly it's only online I get any praise for my work. In the magazine market I'm an average shooter, if that, who hit pay dirt when a young Czech girl fell in love with me and took me to Czech. Colby said I'm the only guy who went to heaven without having to die. So to them my only skill was in being able to find a constant stream of good new girls and get the best out of them. Nothing exceptional.

So what would it of cost to employ a full time shooter like me or Eva, or Steve Colby, or Scott Ward, or Jack Harrison, etc?

I reckon $150,000 to $200,000 would of been tops. The return on 50 to 70 sets sold to magazines. A shooter like me could find the girls, knew where to sell the content and knows how to shoot. Shooting 50 to 70 sets is nothing for a good shooter. While here Eva and I shot 2000+ sets in less than 8 years. Yes 250 a year, plus maybe a 1,000 amateur Ex Gf or Readers Wives type sets. Plus 800 videos, because we had a limited market for videos.

Any decent shooter could easily turn out 3 scenes a week that would easily clear his wages and probably all the other costs. Hiking the quality of the members area, giving affiliates something really good to sell and providing it all at $000,000 cost to the sponsor.

So why didn't all the people who were rolling in money back in 2000 to 2005 think of it?

Some of them clearly couldn't afford it. I spoke to so many that were clearly not able to afford us. Then there were people who clearly didn't realise there was a way to fund their content. AND I wasn't going to tell them for sure.

I think it comes down to thinking inside the box. That box being online.

The same could of been done with video, DVD and cable sales would easily of paid for a top shooter.

Too my knowledge, Viv Thomas, John Graham, Steve Hicks, Us and probably more offline shooters employed shooters who could sell in these markets. This idea isn't mine. It's something offline has done for years. Online could never figure it out, even when I was sitting here telling them I'm not working for peanuts they still didn't think why and investigate why.