Why tubes will eventually FAIL

[JohnRingo]

1. Bandwidth cost money. As more and more tube sites use provided content, the content providers will realize they aren't getting the bang for the buck and will pull embed content and the like. Even the tube sites that host their own videos will feel the pinch.

(this is where you add to this discussion...)

[Klen]

All i can say to this is : LOL

[TheDoc]

BW and hardware get cheaper by the day... and the more you use, the cheaper it gets, ie: the bigger they get, the more money they make, the cheaper it costs per user, while they spend more overall, the profit per visitor increases, thus they aren't going anywhere.

Truly, the costs are piss... if you're noticing the cost, you're doing it wrong.

[AdultKing]

Truly, the costs are piss... if you're noticing the cost, you're doing it wrong.

What he said.

Anyone keeping track of rankings etc knows that tube sites are going from strength to strength. The big tubes command awesome amounts of traffic, it's still growing.

[Wizzo]

I certainly hope your not holding your breath for this to happen based on that reason...

[Bryan G]

Lmao!!!!

[CurrentlySober]

yup, you got it... absolutely correct, and anyone who tells you otherwise? tell em to gfy !

[Fabien]

1. Bandwidth cost money. As more and more tube sites use provided content, the content providers will realize they aren't getting the bang for the buck and will pull embed content and the like. Even the tube sites that host their own videos will feel the pinch.

(this is where you add to this discussion...)

You didn't take your pills this mornin' huh ?

[CaptainHowdy]

[rogueteens]

The only way tubes will fail is when all of their advertisers have gone bust through no sales.

[Paul Markham]

So let's think about it, with some intelligence and informed replies. Rather than the usual trolls coming in with nothing.

How many surfers does it take to get a sale?

How many videos do they watch on average?

What's the cost in hosting, servers, service if needed and BW, of a 5 minute, 10 minute and 20 minute clip?

If Tubes are suffering from the same shrinking market we all are. Then they will reach a point where the conversion on actual freeloaders to ad sales or buyers. Sends them under.

Will sponsors keep providing hosted videos if a sample clip costs $5 to host, $15 to the Tube site and the return is a sign up for a month. (Figures to illustrate the point.)

If the cost is 10 cents to get a sale, no problem.

We all saw RSS feeds for blogs go out of most sponsors window. ROI wasn't worth it.

Give us real figures, not smart ass replies.

[k0nr4d]

1. Bandwidth cost money. As more and more tube sites use provided content, the content providers will realize they aren't getting the bang for the buck and will pull embed content and the like. Even the tube sites that host their own videos will feel the pinch.

(this is where you add to this discussion...)

1. Adobe is trying to implement p2p into flash video. Bandwidth costs for tubes will drop substancially while traffic remains the same.

[lazycash]

1. Bandwidth cost money. As more and more tube sites use provided content, the content providers will realize they aren't getting the bang for the buck and will pull embed content and the like. Even the tube sites that host their own videos will feel the pinch.

(this is where you add to this discussion...)

[L-Pink]

Has anyone ever made a post where absolutely no one agrees with them?

.

[lazycash]

Has anyone ever made a post where absolutely no one agrees with them?

.

I think Paul Markham and Alienq are tied for the record of those.

[Caligari]

Many tubes are failing but it has nothing to do with bandwidth and everything to do with boredom.
The same videos, ads for dick pills and live cams, popups, popunders blah blah blah is boring the shit out of people.
John Q Surfer is getting tired and needs a new interface.

And that interface is whatever Porn 3.0 will look like.

[GTS Mark]

I don't see tubes failing anytime soon :-)

[iwantchixx]

bandwidth will not hurt tubes. bandwidth is cheap enough that with influx of traffic there will be no negative affects. More viewers mean more advertising.

[chronig]

Tubes are simply modern day TGPs... expect them to last until something else comes along.

[CurrentlySober]

Has anyone ever made a post where absolutely no one agrees with them?

.

I agreed with him... For lulz...

[iamtam]

1992 called and wants their bandwidth costs back.

[seeandsee]

[Ramirez]

Can i ask you something guys: Which one pays better? the illegal porn tube or legal porn tube?

[MaDalton]

[munki]

this

[Agent 488]

i agree. time to party like it's 1999.

[TheDoc]

So let's think about it, with some intelligence and informed replies. Rather than the usual trolls coming in with nothing.

How many surfers does it take to get a sale?

How many videos do they watch on average?

What's the cost in hosting, servers, service if needed and BW, of a 5 minute, 10 minute and 20 minute clip?

If Tubes are suffering from the same shrinking market we all are. Then they will reach a point where the conversion on actual freeloaders to ad sales or buyers. Sends them under.

Will sponsors keep providing hosted videos if a sample clip costs $5 to host, $15 to the Tube site and the return is a sign up for a month. (Figures to illustrate the point.)

If the cost is 10 cents to get a sale, no problem.

We all saw RSS feeds for blogs go out of most sponsors window. ROI wasn't worth it.

Give us real figures, not smart ass replies.

Your questions assume the industry will drop to no sales, which it will never do. And your math is silly, a clip's cost is pennies. A program doing a 100 sales a day uses piss for bw, a few grand a month for 300k a month in income. BW costs are a joke.

Your questions are pointless because the fact is 3-5% of the tubes traffic, from a single source, will run you $30-50k a month (and upwards of $200k+) and when you have people now renewing for 6-7 figure contracts at a time, clearly people are making an extreme amount of money.

Very few sponsors ever produced a good feed and the ones that did, greatly benefited from it and still do today, $3-$5 extra cost per gallery is what feeds cost us, which was nothing over what was made from them even for us. API's are the next phase of feeds, which are working like a champ.

This isn't a knock... you know nothing about this because you've never done it, don't do it today, and never will. It's not possible for you to see it, when you're not actually in it. Again not a knock, just the way it is.

[WarChild]

Bless your heart Paul. It's almost as if you believe that if you don't understand it, it just isn't happening.

Here's some facts for you guys.

1) Large tubes make the majority of their income on membership sales. Not dating and not cams.
2) Bandwidth cost is so small it's insignificant.
3) Sponsors, knowing the value of this traffic, fall all over themselves to get it. More than one large sponsor program has more than one full time employee dedicated to uploading content to tube partners.
4) The largest of tubes are making deep in to six figures every month.
5) Paul has no idea.

[2intense]

tubes fail

[mamaliga]

Can i ask you something guys: Which one pays better? the illegal porn tube or legal porn tube?

the first one , of course.

[WarChild]

It's still cute that you girls call tubes "illegal tubes". Which tubes are illegal and why? Just curious.

[Captain Kawaii]

Many tubes are failing but it has nothing to do with bandwidth and everything to do with boredom.
The same videos, ads for dick pills and live cams, popups, popunders blah blah blah is boring the shit out of people.
John Q Surfer is getting tired and needs a new interface.

And that interface is whatever Porn 3.0 will look like.

From what I can tell the surfers are turning to each other like reddit and other places.

[Chosen]

LuLz

[martinsc]

[JamesGw]

I think tubes will continue to do fine until a better interface replaces them.

[Ramirez]

It's still cute that you girls call tubes "illegal tubes". Which tubes are illegal and why? Just curious.

i thought you could upload clips from your sponsor to your tube site.

[WarChild]

i thought you could upload clips from your sponsor to your tube site.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

My point is that calling tubes illegal based on copyright law is a little like calling porn illegal based on prostitution laws.

Has a single large tube owner been found liable in any court to date? None that I'm aware of. The FBI isn't exactly breaking down datacenter doors to seize tube server farms.

We can all agree that CP is illegal. Try running a CP site. You'll go to jail. The same is not true for running a tube site. It doesn't matter if "everybody knows its not user uploads but site owners.". That kind of conclusion has no basis in legal fact.

I think what someo f you mean to say is immoral tube sites. Really a much better description.

[BlackCrayon]

Many tubes are failing but it has nothing to do with bandwidth and everything to do with boredom.
The same videos, ads for dick pills and live cams, popups, popunders blah blah blah is boring the shit out of people.
John Q Surfer is getting tired and needs a new interface.

And that interface is whatever Porn 3.0 will look like.

i don't know if they will fail because of this but its very true. they all steal videos from each other so not only are the videos the same but the descriptions, titles, etc are all exactly the same.

[Agent 488]

why even argue about this shit. they won. start thinking about the next wave as this is the internet, no matter how big something is, it is only a couple years before a new revolution.

[mountainmiester]

I think they will kill each other. The cost for some of the larger ones runs well into the 6 figures each month and that's with very, very low per unit delivery cost. Most, if not all use a CDN as they have to for their levels of traffic however, the cost of CDN has hit it's bottom at the large wholesale level and is more than likely going to adjust back up slightly.

When you had a few tubes out there, it was easy but now everyone is in the game and many are stealing content from each other.

Between law suits, competition and infrastructure cost, I don't foresee the same model we've been seeing as sustainable. What I do see as successful are the Tube/MGP morphs that are being created to drive traffic back to specific programs meaning that yes, Tubes as we know them, will see incremental declines in traffic per site while overall the market could see some significant attrition of sites but not from user popularity.

[Joshua G]

tubes will be damaged when ISPs start charging users for the bandwidth they download. Right now users can download all they can eat for one low price. When the broadband bill rockets to $500/month from all the video streaming, the users will become selective about what they download.

[lazycash]

tubes will be damaged when ISPs start charging users for the bandwidth they download. Right now users can download all they can eat for one low price. When the broadband bill rockets to $500/month from all the video streaming, the users will become selective about what they download.

Those days are long gone, isp's continue to give surfers faster speeds all the while dropping prices.

[Paul Markham]

Bless your heart Paul. It's almost as if you believe that if you don't understand it, it just isn't happening.

Here's some facts for you guys.

1) Large tubes make the majority of their income on membership sales. Not dating and not cams.
2) Bandwidth cost is so small it's insignificant.
3) Sponsors, knowing the value of this traffic, fall all over themselves to get it. More than one large sponsor program has more than one full time employee dedicated to uploading content to tube partners.
4) The largest of tubes are making deep in to six figures every month.
5) Paul has no idea.

Without figures it's all Blah, Blah.

I'm not disputing you. I'm saying no one has ever shown any figures.

Did you read this in my post?

Give us real figures, not smart ass replies.

I guess you went for the smart ass reply.

They obviously make money, otherwise they would die off.

Do sponsors pay to get videos on them?

Will sites continue to buy ad space?

Will you talk sense and come up with a real reply?

Do you have a Tube and the figures or just guessing (proof required for the affirmative).

One thing we have all learned in the last few years is this business changes faster than we can predict.

[lazycash]

Bless your heart Paul. It's almost as if you believe that if you don't understand it, it just isn't happening.

Here's some facts for you guys.

1) Large tubes make the majority of their income on membership sales. Not dating and not cams.
2) Bandwidth cost is so small it's insignificant.
3) Sponsors, knowing the value of this traffic, fall all over themselves to get it. More than one large sponsor program has more than one full time employee dedicated to uploading content to tube partners.
4) The largest of tubes are making deep in to six figures every month.
5) Paul has no idea.

Exactly, with emphasis on point 5.

[WarChild]

Without figures it's all Blah, Blah.

I'm not disputing you. I'm saying no one has ever shown any figures.

Did you read this in my post?



I guess you went for the smart ass reply.

They obviously make money, otherwise they would die off.

Do sponsors pay to get videos on them?

Will sites continue to buy ad space?

Will you talk sense and come up with a real reply?

Do you have a Tube and the figures or just guessing (proof required for the affirmative).

One thing we have all learned in the last few years is this business changes faster than we can predict.

You still don't get it. Nobody is going to show you anything. It doesn't matter what you believe is true there's nothing to be gained by any of the large tube owners disclosing their business on GFY. Especially to you who really has nothing at all to offer.

I don't own a tube. I make money selling paysite memberships on many tubes. I know first hand what the numbers are like. In addition, I've been an active affiliate for more than 10 years. I have many friends that once owned/ran TGP then MGP sites and now have tubes. I have seen their numbers first hand. With my own eyes. None of that changes if I don't proove it to you.

Frankly, it shows how out of touch you are with reality when that you're arguing based on your own beliefs, which you fully admit are nothing more than speculation and all the while discounting what people with actual first hand experience are telling you.

For example, Manwin's tubes make an enormous amount of money. They know the tube game but because they won't turn over their books to you for a Paul Markham audit you pretty much dismiss everything they have to say.

By all means continue on with the misguided belief that if you don't understand it, it just doesn't exist. It's funny to have you around as the laughing stock of GFY.

[NickB.]

Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 45

[cooldude7]

i agree with people, tubes are just like 90's tgps, they are here to stay, and tubes are making shitload of cash.

[lazycash]

You still don't get it. Nobody is going to show you anything. It doesn't matter what you believe is true there's nothing to be gained by any of the large tube owners disclosing their business on GFY. Especially to you who really has nothing at all to offer.

I don't own a tube. I make money selling paysite memberships on many tubes. I know first hand what the numbers are like. In addition, I've been an active affiliate for more than 10 years. I have many friends that once owned/ran TGP then MGP sites and now have tubes. I have seen their numbers first hand. With my own eyes. None of that changes if I don't proove it to you.

Frankly, it shows how out of touch you are with reality when that you're arguing based on your own beliefs, which you fully admit are nothing more than speculation and all the while discounting what people with actual first hand experience are telling you.

For example, Manwin's tubes make an enormous amount of money. They know the tube game but because they won't turn over their books to you for a Paul Markham audit you pretty much dismiss everything they have to say.

By all means continue on with the misguided belief that if you don't understand it, it just doesn't exist. It's funny to have you around as the laughing stock of GFY.

Exactly, I've been trying to tell him that nobody is going to spoon feed him all this detailed information he continually requests. Its like he moved into a cave in 2006 and he's just popped his head out now and still thinks things revolve like the old TGP days. Maybe if he was the slightest bit humble about his lack of knowledge on how to generate and monetize today's traffic, he might get some answers he's looking for. However, his pompous doom and gloom know it all bs, just turns people off.

[Paul Markham]

You still don't get it. Nobody is going to show you anything. It doesn't matter what you believe is true there's nothing to be gained by any of the large tube owners disclosing their business on GFY. Especially to you who really has nothing at all to offer.

I don't own a tube. I make money selling paysite memberships on many tubes. I know first hand what the numbers are like. In addition, I've been an active affiliate for more than 10 years. I have many friends that once owned/ran TGP then MGP sites and now have tubes. I have seen their numbers first hand. With my own eyes. None of that changes if I don't proove it to you.

Frankly, it shows how out of touch you are with reality when that you're arguing based on your own beliefs, which you fully admit are nothing more than speculation and all the while discounting what people with actual first hand experience are telling you.

For example, Manwin's tubes make an enormous amount of money. They know the tube game but because they won't turn over their books to you for a Paul Markham audit you pretty much dismiss everything they have to say.

By all means continue on with the misguided belief that if you don't understand it, it just doesn't exist. It's funny to have you around as the laughing stock of GFY.

So you tell us it's true and therefore it's true.

I know people who submitted to Tubes and it wasn't worth their time. Good sites as well.

I'm sure they make money, but the question I'm asking is how much does it cost to the return?

You're not bright enough to see what I'm saying.

I remember when all the wise gurus were saying they only make a scraping and run by people in Russia who can live off little.

Now they are cash cows, well they are listening to you lot.

But all that traffic contains people who used to convert at 1-500. Surfers not banner clicks. Yes they get loads of traffic. If the ratio on spend per 10,000 visitors is getting worse, then the crunch will come.

i agree with people, tubes are just like 90's tgps, they are here to stay, and tubes are making shitload of cash.

Tubes didn't get going till 2000 and pretty much done by 2008. Yes there were a few around sooner, they killed themselves off by saturation. I think a few Tubes make a shit load of money. The rest like 90% of the TGPs make enough for a guy sitting at home working for a nice wage.

[Paul Markham]

I think they will kill each other. The cost for some of the larger ones runs well into the 6 figures each month and that's with very, very low per unit delivery cost. Most, if not all use a CDN as they have to for their levels of traffic however, the cost of CDN has hit it's bottom at the large wholesale level and is more than likely going to adjust back up slightly.

When you had a few tubes out there, it was easy but now everyone is in the game and many are stealing content from each other.

Between law suits, competition and infrastructure cost, I don't foresee the same model we've been seeing as sustainable. What I do see as successful are the Tube/MGP morphs that are being created to drive traffic back to specific programs meaning that yes, Tubes as we know them, will see incremental declines in traffic per site while overall the market could see some significant attrition of sites but not from user popularity.

We saw it with TGPs. The big ones who started early did very well, some of those that followed soon after did nicely. But loads of them were run by one/two man bands and rarely got up the ladder.

The Hun could cost more on BW than joins, others you were lucky to see a hit. The Hun you had to be good and a little lucky to get on. Others would take anything you gave them.

Same with Tubes. Problem with too many online guys is they always think every TGP did well, like every Tube does well.

We shall see.