Quote:
Originally Posted by AdultKing
I guess in your day you had to learn fast, what girls could do the job, sold, what they were acceptable for, etc. You probably also had to learn the way to shoot pornography. A front cover for a magazine of DVD box cover would have been a demanding occupation.
|
Yes, there was no way anyone could afford to pay the costs while learning about porn.
Quote:
|
Without the money shots, the video or set are not so valuable or worth less. The set or video had to comprise elements that are key. Regardless how good looking the girl was, she'd to invoke emotions in the viewer, besides the fact that she is merely another naked body doing porn.
|
Agreed. We didn't give away porn as if our life depended on it. So many could shoot a girl as another naked body doing porn. Free porn has changed that.
Quote:
|
As it's always been the traffic was there. The key was conversion and retention. Would the content please him enough to keep him purchasing that brand? We understand because some websites were streets ahead of the others this worked in pornography. Maybe they didn't convert so well for the person, they'd to be making lots of cash to run such an organisation. Even so, some affiliates declared blind micro niche sites that were barely making a profit converted.
|
The "Update" situation was a new mag with 6-7 sets or a new DVD with 5-6 scenes. The better the dick raising quality, the better the retention of an audience. Tubes prove that not because of being free because their dick raising quality is higher than paysite. My point is they only give away the money shot scenes. Very few have scenes building a model's personality. Youtube is full of them. By building that side, you target a market thart wants more than any naked body doing a porn act.
With webcams, it's an essential part of the sale and the big spenders demand it as an essential.