GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

2HousePlague · 03-01-2005, 09:49 PM

Reality sites are not dying, they're evolving --- or they SHOULD be, in any event.

Here's an excerpt:

"Evolution is the result of the interaction between organisms and their environment. The suppression of sexual content in America has been a consistent environmental factor long enough for evolutionary responses to be in evidence. If anyone knows that demand has not been suppressed, we surely do. Though we have failed to respond and evolve our own products, others have, and we should closely scrutinize their examples. Television, both broadcast and cable, has many.

Reality TV troubles me greatly, but I can?t help but admire what they are doing from a business standpoint and look for ways to apply those lessons online.

By ?Reality? I don?t just mean unscripted scenarios using ?non-actors? ? we have plenty of that in our own Adult Reality and Gonzo niches. What I mean specifically is the staging of scenarios where people are made to do disgusting, humiliating, at times even horrifying things in exchange for money and short-lived fame.

What message does it convey about us as a culture that we are prepared to condone what is essentially psychic prostitution of the most unusual and depraved forms, but can?t suffer the appearance of a single nipple on the Super Bowl?

The fetishistic and quasi-sexual nature of these shows cannot be ignored, either. The ?contestants? are usually chosen for their physical attractiveness (unless it is the object of the program to torture someone who is overweight or plain), they are often in scanty attire, and the acts they are made to perform (the ingestion of living insects, immersion in vats of human feces, etc.) are thinly veiled BDSM of an extreme order. But put a harmless chick in latex on the air and the sky would fall.

I see in the explosion of Reality programming during the last 5 years the outcry of consumers who have been too-long denied a healthy, tolerant perspective of their own sexuality, and the savvy opportunism of producers who recognized in these shows a way to deliver sexual intensity without the ?sex?.

The lesson for us: There is clearly demand for situational content that shocks, titillates or otherwise elicits a strong emotional reaction. We should take advantage of what has been discovered on television, and become pioneers in the creation of a spectrum of content types, that will bridge hardcore to the mainstream in fine increments.

If we do this, we?ll be able to blur the borders around ?sex? content, increase our traffic and revenues with new sites that draw clicks in their own right, are attractive to mainstream advertisers, and can be used to filter and feed over-21 traffic inward, towards the higher-converting, more explicitly sexual stuff."

j-

03-01-2005, 09:49 PM
2HousePlague CURATOR Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: the attic Posts: 14,572	Reality sites are not dying, they're evolving --- or they SHOULD be, in any event. Here's an excerpt: "Evolution is the result of the interaction between organisms and their environment. The suppression of sexual content in America has been a consistent environmental factor long enough for evolutionary responses to be in evidence. If anyone knows that demand has not been suppressed, we surely do. Though we have failed to respond and evolve our own products, others have, and we should closely scrutinize their examples. Television, both broadcast and cable, has many. Reality TV troubles me greatly, but I can?t help but admire what they are doing from a business standpoint and look for ways to apply those lessons online. By ?Reality? I don?t just mean unscripted scenarios using ?non-actors? ? we have plenty of that in our own Adult Reality and Gonzo niches. What I mean specifically is the staging of scenarios where people are made to do disgusting, humiliating, at times even horrifying things in exchange for money and short-lived fame. What message does it convey about us as a culture that we are prepared to condone what is essentially psychic prostitution of the most unusual and depraved forms, but can?t suffer the appearance of a single nipple on the Super Bowl? The fetishistic and quasi-sexual nature of these shows cannot be ignored, either. The ?contestants? are usually chosen for their physical attractiveness (unless it is the object of the program to torture someone who is overweight or plain), they are often in scanty attire, and the acts they are made to perform (the ingestion of living insects, immersion in vats of human feces, etc.) are thinly veiled BDSM of an extreme order. But put a harmless chick in latex on the air and the sky would fall. I see in the explosion of Reality programming during the last 5 years the outcry of consumers who have been too-long denied a healthy, tolerant perspective of their own sexuality, and the savvy opportunism of producers who recognized in these shows a way to deliver sexual intensity without the ?sex?. The lesson for us: There is clearly demand for situational content that shocks, titillates or otherwise elicits a strong emotional reaction. We should take advantage of what has been discovered on television, and become pioneers in the creation of a spectrum of content types, that will bridge hardcore to the mainstream in fine increments. If we do this, we?ll be able to blur the borders around ?sex? content, increase our traffic and revenues with new sites that draw clicks in their own right, are attractive to mainstream advertisers, and can be used to filter and feed over-21 traffic inward, towards the higher-converting, more explicitly sexual stuff." j- __________________ tada!