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.

Of course all those who would rather have something ordinary to market, sell or own. That costs more to produce can disagree with me. LOL

no one cares any more. this thread has jumped the shark.

Those are the things I believe I have a firm grasp for.

And I have the equipment too. I think where I'm at now is adding the off camera mic on the boom. And being more careful to NOT catch my light stands in the shot when I get carried away shooting different angles and get caught up in the scene.

I've always been a big believer in NOT shooting 400 pictures of a scene. I HATE it when a shooter just clicks away and it looks like you could hold the pictures in your hand and flip through them and it would be animated. lol The model moves 1/4 inch CLICK, the model moves another 1/4 inch CLICK! lol

I've always made sure to make each photo a completely different composition based on what the target audience is looking for.

I think you're 100% on about that. And the shooting a 30 minute scene when 20 minutes is what it should be. I think one of the differences between what I do and what others do is I let the scene dictate the length of the scene itself.

We try to keep the sex as "real" as possible without making a big deal of getting "x amount of minutes in one position and x amount in the next position" so the sex actually flows. Which I think is an advantage we have.

If it's a hot sex scene in 20 minutes so be it. If it's a 45 minute fuck-a-thon....again, so be it.

Wow, I find myself finally agreeing with this guy!
Fabian, come back and set Paul on his path!

I agree with you about letting the scene, which usually means the girl, dictate the length of the scene. Anyone who sets the length over long like Manwin does is clueless. Very very few solo scenes are worth 30 minutes. The girls just don't have enough personality to carry it off. Hardcore can go that long but it's rare it needs to go further. If you can't get a guy up and off in 20 to 25 minutes then you won't get him off in 30 to 40 minutes. I've offered before, if you want an appraisal of your content hit me up on ICQ.

Like the number of stills it's this belief that quantity is so important that makes people think like this. Sites adding too much mediocre content when for the same money they could add less but better content.



ReggieDurango I think Fabian has got scared or changed his mind. I questioned this clause .

He won't stipulate what a timely factor is and letting him or his company decide what a "form satisfactory to both quality and creativity" is. Leaves me open to him saying it's not acceptable go and shoot it again. And again and again.

He said he wouldn't come to Czech to sue me, but won't put that in the contract and won't promise not to ask me to shoot is again.

My agreeing to this means me giving my word. That obligates me.

Shame as I was really looking forward to shooting it. Had got a couple of models in mind, spoken to someone about equipment and I planned to shoot it in a hotel we've used.

So the big contest has gone down the plug hole.

Agent, no one has replied to my last posts because they don't have a reply. I've made similar points before and got the stupidest of answers. Like "I couldn't be asked." "Was making so much money I didn't need to." Which means "I didn't want to earn more money.

So cutting there content budget, raising the level of the content and giving the job of content to a skilled person, was something they weren't interested in.

Go tell their affiliates that.

like watching a broken record spinning. this thread sucks. mods lock this shit up.

By running all there tube sites with everybodies members areas in them they destroyed most of their affiliates already. None of us have any traffic to use to promote anymore. All the surfers are at Pornhub enjoying free full scenes

I can't make a sale on Jug Cash to save my soul.

Yep...I called this BS pages and pages ago....NOBODY will do anything except type even more pages and pages of theories and arguments.

Hey guys I have a great theory that I'd like to argue and....DOH!

It would be nice if a shooter that is currently working or is familiar with contracts speak up as to whether the clause Paul has stated above is either normal, standard operating procedure or is unusual, suspect and unreasonable as Paul believes.

I don't understand the problem now either. Didn't Fabian already offer to pay Paul in advance, give him very loose guidelines and accept whatever content was shot, even if it was awful, lol? This really is a joke at this point. I could have shot six of these kind of shoots in the time that was spent so far pontificating and parsing the language of the contract.

No....What I, and what a lot of other people are starting to realize what you're selling:



Also, who is to say that you won't deliver them some BS and give them the finger just to say that you fucked over some pirates?...Who here would give a fuck and hold you accountable for that if you did it?

JUST SHOOT THE FUCKING SCENE YOU OLD LYING BASTARD!

A lot of people would have done 6 semi-exclusive shoots for the amount of money being paid for one.

i expected some scene samples by now. what the shit have y'all been doing?!

Winning!

You're dead right. Free has finally started to have an adverse effect on the Adult Internet. Well one that it can clearly see.

I think this is the most telling and greatest point you've ever made.

As Robbie points out this business has never been harder and yet no one has a clue or even wants to have a clue how to fix it. They just keep doing the same thing they've done for the last 15 years. Putting more sites online and loading those sites with more of the same lo quality similar porn that isn't working like it used to.

The saddest thing is I've come up with a possible solution to separate some sites from the rest by investing on what's inside the sites. Give members a better product, give affiliates a better product to sell and give everyone a better ROI.

And everyone disagrees it will work. They want to keep playing the failed game.

That is a very standard contract clause. There is nothing wrong with this contract.

Everything in a general contact like this is held to a "Reasonable Person Standard" The reasonable person standard holds: each person owes a duty to behave as a reasonable person would under the same or similar circumstances. While the specific circumstances of each case will require varying kinds of conduct and degrees of care, the reasonable person standard undergoes no variation itself.


"Timely Maner": Would be looked at by any court under the "Reasonable Person Standard".


Example: you get money wired onto your account for a scene on xxx Date and the average person takes 3 weeks to shoot it and turn it in, the 3 weeks+ 1 week will be deemed reasonable.

6 Months to shoot the scene or never shooting the scene will be deemed unreasonable.




"Form satisfactory to both quality and creativity": This would be judged on a "Reasonable Person Standard" As well.

This pretty much means don't turn in the footage in SD if its agreed that it was so-pose to be HD. Or don't turn in footage way over or under exposed. Don't turn in footage with a shot of your thumb in every shot. too.



These are way bull shit excuses because every time we as content shooters pick up a camera and shoot, these exact contracts that are written into this contract are "implied" on every contract that they are not written in.


"Implied" terms:
A term may either be express or implied. An express term is stated by the parties during negotiation or written in a contractual document. Implied terms are not stated but nevertheless form a provision of the contract.


Man, i can go on and on about this, but this is me keeping it simple and to the point. Sorry about boring you guys with legal mumbo jumbo, but its funny to me when people use what they think is correct law as an excuse to do or not do something.


There is nothing wrong with this contract what so ever. NOTHING! NOTHING! NOTHING!




YUP, YUP AND YUP! I totally agree with Jim Gunn.


I like Paul and respect Paul, but he has shot enough to know this is standard contract shit.

Natan isn't coming after Paul legally for 3K if the scene is piss poor(don't believe it will be piss poor). And I know 3K is like a bar for Nathan. Furthermore it will also be a tax write off for Nathan's business.


Seeing people point out problems when there is no problems is pretty lame. But then again, i have to respect Paul for not taking Nathan's money and not turning in the agreed upon scene.


Then again, I would never expect that from Paul



Lets see what happens...

Do you know he will accept it. If so how?

Then why doesn't he want that clause removed?

This is a no off shoot. Afterwards he will go back to shooting the crap he's already shooting in Mofos. You would reshoot it to keep him buying.

I HAVE TO RE-SHOOT BECAUSE I GAVE MY WORD.

Nice to see you will shoot it 6 scenes for that price. I don't have to.

Just Dave. That's not what it says and it's down to me giving my word that's important.
If my stuff is standard contract shit. Then you lost a ton of money working for peanuts. You and Jim.

You are correct about the "Reasonable Person Standard" which is the most important part of a contract as viewed by the law...regardless of the language used in the contract.

Apparently Markham is as clueless about contracts as he is about almost every other subject he posts about.

not only is Paul the best shooter on gfy, the best website marketer on gfy, and the best content seller on gfy, now he is the best lawyer on gfy.

any real professional (who gave more than a fuck about a standard contract) would pay a lawyer $50 to negotiate the contract rather than arguing about it on go fuck yourself.com like an idiot.

Paul you are an idiot. there is 700+ posts of proof here. any replies will be further proof. stick to what you know.

Another GFY lawyer.

Then maybe I should reword it to say that, sign it and wait for the money to come.

If that's what it means that's what it should say.

It's not about what it means in court, it's about what I give me signature to.

As someone who is so clueless, it's nice to see I made so much more than some of the clued up people here.

That's exactly the kind of post I was hoping for when I asked someone to speak up about the contract clause. It's to the point and simple to read. Thanks for posting that

One would think Paul would now understand what it means and why it's there but he still doesn't and has clearly shown who is being unreasonable

To argue about the contract is so lame after all this.

If you want to make your point and don't want to sign the contract just shoot it and post it here.

You have all bragged about how much money you all earn, so why is this a factor.

I for one find little difference in the quality of Markhams porn and any of the rest.

The only thing this would accomplish is getting yourself the fee you feel you deserve for your work.

It has been pointed out several times why your idea would have little to no effect. Robbie explained it perfectly in post #700. Read it again. Comprehend it. That's all you need to know.

The only failed game being played here is yours.

So I read Robbie's post and most of it is him telling us how rich he is. So I've deleted that BS and will come up with the main points.

Tgps were just the first step.

It doesn't matter what most were, it mattered where the most traffic was. CJ scripts and trading pissed off customers who wanted to see what they might buy. So they went to the sites that didn't piss them off.

Yes he lives in the past wishing Tubes hadn't taken his traffic.

Once you start on the route of giving away free content to get traffic there's no stopping. Because anyone can give away free content. As is clearly proved by the numbers of people giving it away.

That seems to be perfectly legal from the Tubes side. So they are legal.

Which was free porn.

And a hosted gallery with 15 pictures and 4 45 minute clips will get more traffic. And many TGP owners went for the galleries with the most HC content. There's no stopping once you go that route. It just escalates. The only limit is afford-ability.

Then stop trying to sell what can be given away for free. Start realising it's 2011 and the clock goes forward.

And he would know that because?????????????

Well he doesn't so it's guess work.

Today the convenience of a Tube site is killing paysites. The Illegal bit is a red herring he clings to. IF and it's a big if. There was some way that they would and could enforce no pirated content was allowed onto Tubes. Then Manwin would buy up all the cheap porn they could and still have a massive site that would still be better than a paysite. This is in addition to all te sites giving them free porn. The notion that today that the clock can just be turned back is laughable. It's 2011.

And thse paysites could be Tubes charging $1 for a lifetimes membership. Or does Robbie think this dream of a law will stipulate the cost and length of membership.

True. But it started the route of giving away free porn to get 1,000s of surfers so 1-2 would buy. Tubes escalated the game to where it would inevitably go.
I seem to have done a lot better than any other online shooter. The content stores made us more money than they can get.

I would love him to give me a login to his site so I can verify how good his content is. He ignores that request.

If all I could do is shoot good porn then I would be working for Fabian for his lousy money. But as it's very clear I've more skills than that.

I can run a business and have done for longer than most here. As for marketing, well for a guy who can't do it I seem to have done fairly well. As for selling I seem to have sold enough as well. I had the skills to sell our content in many ways, ways that no one here seems to have manged. I also understand marketing porn a lot better than most online porn guys do.

Porn is mostly a repeat buy product. The best selling porn mags ever could hardly hope to get a million sales a month. 1% of the US male population. The secret, not that it was a secret, was to sell to the same people monthly. The same with porn videos/DVDs. Wicked, Private, Evil Angel, etc. Sold to the same guys month after month because these buyers trusted the product to deliver. Very few crap publications lasted. Brand/Title loyalty was everything.

The adult Internet thought they knew a better route. Throw tons of traffic at a poor product that retained for a few months and then replace the guy going out the back door with a guy coming in the front door.

Shame it only worked when the customer had little option. But even then, ratios proved that more traffic was needed to get the same result. Then the "free" concept became a real threat. Tubes didn't kill or hurt the business. The cost of giving away a scene to 10,000s of surfers to get 1 sign up on a dating site did that.

I explain marketing porn here in more depth. http://www.gfy.com/showpost.php?p=17996050&postcount=33

The reaction from the paysite is industry was what?

Still waiting for it apart from the moaning. There has been no reaction. For a few sites that can afford it there is a better way. To up the quality of the members area to grab more of the dwindling number of customers left. It's not a solution for many. As few can afford it.

Many are moaning that it was easier 5 years ago. They live in the past. It's 2011 and the time is now to stop and think of how to change to compete with Tubes. Not moan that it's not like it used to be.

That's my job on GFY.

The cost of hosting, BW and speed is killing the online porn business and nothing else.

If the most a site could afford to put out as promotion was something like these.

Paul Markham Teens.





Online porn would be worth billions of dollars, and not 1 or 2, more like $20 billion to $30 billion.

Sadly the cost of giving it away for free has hurt this business. And will continue to hurt this business. Even Manwin will get hurt. Because free is so cheap to give away free to 100,000s when a sale on anything, will pay for it. And that anything, won't be a porn paysite. Eventually not even the very best. Eventually even micro niches may get hit. Someone will start a Fetish Tube site, if it's not already done. Probably is.

And all the marketing expertise in the world isn't going to change it.

We done goofed yet?

I'm actually embarrassed for you. This is the first time Ive actually felt sorry for you. You pretty much had no credibility at all here, the VERY little you had has gone

Oh and when you keep putting after every post it makes you look desperate, very desperate to make someone think your not just a disillusioned old "never been"

this thread is just sad now. send it to the glue factory or take it behind the woodshed and put it out of it's misery.

Paul, don't you realize that the only thing that would be better than you delivering a great shoot is to deliver a horrible shoot, lol? Manwin won't be looking for you to re-shoot any scenes. This is all a goof and an experiment anyway. As a general rule, producers in the biz who don't do a good job don't get asked to do re-shoots by companies hiring them, they just don't get hired again. The language in the contract about delivery & timeliness is basically just to prevent a producer from taking the studio's money, delivering nothing at all and simply disappearing. By the way, I wouldn't shoot six shoots for the price of one, silly. The point was that I could have shot and delivered similar content with multiple models and got paid the full rate for each shoot several times in the time that this discussion has taken so far.

Don't feel sorry for me. I'm happily retired, comfortable, getting back to full fitness and surrounded by a loving family.

I even have started a project that might make me a few shillings and might be a new avenue for me.

As for the shoot don't you think it strange Fabian isn't in here to gloat. Maybe this was his reason for including a clause I would never agree to. Maybe he wanted to get out of it.

Maybe I should rewrite it to what the GFY lawyers think it should say or is saying and sign that.

In the end it really doesn't matter if I am or was a better shooter than others. I'm a better paid one than they were and that in business is what counts.

Not bad for a never been.

I was actually thinking of doing a great shoot with the girl in a Paul Markham Teens T-Shirt like this. Making sure it was in shot all the time.



And reading this magazine at the beginning.



But Eva said it was mean and said I should shoot it properly.

I had the girl lined up and was going to shoot 30 minutes by doing it in 2 segments. And 2 lots of climaxes. The girl I had chosen could do it I'm sure and shooting it wouldn't of been a problem for me. I'm sure I can do a decent job. Just not going to have Fabian on my back telling me it's not good enough. For what ever reason he can think of.

I trust him about as far as I can throw him and maybe not even that much. That was why it was cash up front and I want those clauses out. A contract is a 2 sides affair.

As for pleasing trolls here, I never have tried to, never will and will never care.
I'm ready to shoot as soon as it's ironed out. I take longer now as I have to get everything organised. 4 years ago we could shoot just as fast as anyone.

I'm not going to take his money, nor deliver anything but my best work. Just thought it would be a giggle to do it in one of our T Shirts, let's face it Manwin has no problem making money from other peoples content. Would be nice if he put it on his sites.

I leave for Vegas for 4 days come back to a 16 page thread and nothing is set up and nothing got resolved?


WOW!!! Just WOW!!


Got to love GFY for that.





Well, if sig views are worth something, Paul Markham would be a millionaire.

Sadly Fabian has backed out. If he made the clauses I mentioned more specific it would be a go situation.

I'm thinking of doing it myself to prove I still can.

Will need to hit up some friends to use their locations, equipment etc.

I was really looking forward to doing this and seeing where I am today. Have been taking long walks to build up stamina.

As for working, I don't ever see myself coming back to shooting porn, maybe advising people how to. But not shooting unless the business really turns around.

Anyway I think I've a new career ahead of me.

Not shooting.

So it made page 17, even if it was me helping it.