goofy fucker

whoops

https://img.skitch.com/20110708-p37q...wf6fht7am6.jpg

I think Paul's point in this thread was to say its great to be making money out of shoots he made 25 years ago.

Astral blue will no doubt be remembered by many older guys who may well be searching Google for some pics or movies of her, as they used to enjoy wanking off to her when they were younger.

I just Googled Astral Blue and Pauls site was the top result.

Therefore, no doubt some guys are paying to look at her content.

Good call I'd say, we all have models from the past we would love to see more of, and the internet is not 100% based around guys who want to see more of Alison Angel or some other well known model from the last 5 years.

Old porn will always sell to the older guys, don't knock it. We still sell hundreds of memberships a year to guys after sets with girls we shot 10 years ago.

:)

:thumbsup

Great work, where can I buy those ?:winkwink:

I love this more than the modern versions you lot use, it's 25 years old and still sells on retro sites

this old content blows

A +2? Thats not even a "real" Spectrum! :1orglaugh

I never did have a real Spectrum, so I'll never know what that feels like. Instead I had the one that was more like an Amstrad

Before that I spent many years with my Mattel Intellivision, until my father eventually agreed to the +2


Nextdoor neighbour had a C64, so we were normally around his

Were people supposed to get off to that? None of that looks appealing, or sexy.

So glad I (mostly) grew up in the age of Internet porn.

:thumbsup

Traffic traffic traffic

Location location location

.

god stop posting.

don't have to. i understand the internet.

Congratulations in finding gold in your cupboard.

Commiserations for all the dollars that you lost in those years that you could have been making money from that old stuff in the cupboard but weren't because you were too busy typing up long posts educating everybody about how clever you are.

:girl jajaja

So basically, you're an older white version of BVF.

Well congrats Paul :pimp

From the guy who had to get out of porn and couldn't make a porn Tube work. :1orglaugh

Are you really this stupid?

Magazines were not illegal, those pictures were not illegal. Even the videos I sold were not illegal, they weren't licenses and yes I took the risk. But in the last 14 years I've only dealt in legal porn.

Now you can sit in your rented fal and worry about paying your bills.

Another truly stupid statement. If they make that much money, it's at your expense. So their gain is your loss.

But go figure how much I made in 34 years and be honest, then think what a Tube site or company would be worth making that much.

Comparing Google and what they do with online porn, made the first part look clever. Even dumber.

Traffic never was king because getting it was so easy. The problem was and is worse now. The numbers of people it takes to sell a $30 membership. Money is king and you nor I have a clue what Manwin is worth, they only put out press releases.

Grats....

Do you ever wonder how much more you would have made if you understood Internet Porn like you did the mediums in the 80's and early 90's? Serious question, it's not like we all succeed across all mediums.... make some money yes, but really succeed, no.

They were great for the time. the quality of the images is down to being shot on negatives which are now around 20 years old.

As a shooter who sold to an area in porn that few other online porn shooters could. What does that say about the rest?

Honest question. When so many custom shooters were working for $300 a scene they sold out right, why do you think none sold to magazines? Make a real honest reply, because if I was good enough, they weren't in some way.

Sad seeing a old guy hang on to his glory days. Enjoy your retirement.

Ho Gordon.

Don't bring logic into this thread. It makes the trolls think.

Just because some broad will take her clothes off doesn't mean she should be photographed. Most of these "models" look like they arrived in a shipping container. Did Frank Sobotka do your booking?

if you dont have traffic and thats all the content you have to sell things are only going to get worse for you paul

That's like the guy who owns the most land in town saying it was his great great grandfather who killed the natives, but no natives been killed since.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:thumbsup:1orglaugh

Serious question as I'm genuinely interested. :)

Did you shoot on your own and then sell sets to magazines or were you a staff shooter?

Did the magazines set the usage rights?

Could you sell a set to Club and then sell the exact same set to Barely Legal?

It truly is a great deal to retain your rights to the images you've sold with which you can then resell over and over. I thought magazines would have bought the sets exclusively to keep their competitors from getting the same material.

If Club buys the set first and then Barely Legal gets it, Club is mad because their content has been diluted and Barely Legal would be mad because their subscribers may have already seen the images ( used content ).

When I submitted my work to mainstream magazines I was often warned by photo editors not to submit the same thing to competing magazines. They wouldn't even accept duplicate slides because of this. Their reasoning made sense to me and I didn't have a choice anyway because they set the rules.

I can see how the magazines you sold to back then would let let you keep the rights for anything but selling to competing magazines because back then the internet wasn't even a thought so they weren't worried about it. Seems like shooters today would be stuck selling exclusive due to the easy proliferation.

Now there's something I can agree with you on. :winkwink:

my sexual development as a young lad was set back to the sheer unfappability of paul markham's photos in my dad's collection of club and barely legal mags.

Hi Gordon.

Don't bring logic into this thread. It makes the trolls think.

Links to Pauls pictures from 1985 pulled.

Always been a self employed shooter. Employed staff when I was selling via mail order in the UK. Damian has posted I employed staff in the UK. When we were here in Czech we employed 8 staff. That was clearly posted and ignored in Squealers post.

It was joint negotiations. Usually the only thing the magazines were interested in was First or Second rights in the country they were publishing from.

That was the entire idea of shooting content. A very good set, like ones of the girls these trolls are flaming, Could sell First rights UK ($1,000), US $1800-$2400), in EU countries (prices ranged form $300 to $1,000, Japan, Australia, then to phone adverts, then on the Internet and now in phones. Then we gave content to Photorama who sold it to the world. With some restrictions. Earning $5,000 from a good solo girl set isn't unusual. Some of the guys at the top of the tree would earn $10,000 from a single set.

They sometimes did, but they knew the value of good content and knew it cost money. Why buy an edition of Club or Knave that month? The content inside.
No because by the time Club published it in the UK, Barely Legal might be only having it on the shelf ready to publish. Also they were different countries. Club UK, Barely Legal US. The idea of exclusive one off sales started with online porn and mainly because of the fortune Zmasters made with their discs of content and the fools who bought it because it was cheap. The idea of saturating a set inside a mainstream members are slim and to do so the sales to the creator are immense. The exclusive content was born out of the saturation on TGP sites, a mod on a TGP was seeing the same content over and over again from too many affiliates submitting.

for shooters it's about how much WE make. Not how happy your affiliates are. Nice to keep them happy, but not at our financial cost.

Also a few could produce better content by going exclusive. Most produced worse.

If you were submitting the same set to different magazines in the same countries, then you had a problem. submitting to a Club UK, Barely Legal US, Seventeen in Holland, wasn't a problem and we knew it. So shot each set with duplicate frames, which we sorted out on the light box. This was in the days of transparencies.

Yes, today with the decline of all other markets shooters have little options. The online porn guys have reduced the market to to what it is. However up until we had our set backs, there was still more money in not selling exclusive. Take these sets as an example. Each one of these sets or sets and videos have sold around 100 times from the stores. Then add magazines and DVD sales, we actually did an exchange deal with Scala for 6 scenes for one of ours. So we got 6 of their scenes to sell online for one of ours for them to sell on DVD. Also did a similar deal with a US company. Do the maths. As I said, I pay my bills with my income, not yours or your affiliates.

And that was always the situation. Custom paid very badly and I have never seen a regular off line magazine shooter shooting for online custom. Never seen an online company selling to magazines and only recently did I see online porn selling to the DVD part of the industry.

This was an enormous failing on their part. The profit that could of been earned was there ready to be taken. It could of been another arm of an existing business, it could of been a completely new stream of income. It could of meant for custom shooter giving up shooting scenes exclusive for $300 and shooting non exclusive for $3,000

Damian posted how little I understood the Internet and online marketing. Well most of online marketing doesn't pay affiliates 50%+ and supply them every single tool they need and give the product away in quantities that reduce sales.

The Internet is merely the vehicle we use that delivers the porn, clueless about printing. Because I don't need to know about it to produce porn.

The problem is many of the online porn "gurus" don't understand porn or marketing porn. And that's the business we are in.

Porn is a stimuli for the fantasy the viewer can grab onto and enjoy himself. Many imagine themselves in the situation being presented. That situation could be some Granny naked in her bed sit or a top model having sex in a mansion. What's required is reality. The viewer has to think it's real. And sadly most of the porn produced today isn't real or just cloned copies of what everyone else is doing. It's massed produced cheap crap. And the only reason fools think traffic is king is because so many of the surfers don't buy.

If 99 people in 100 don't buy, that's a big problem. When 999 in 1,000 don't buy it's become a disaster. These stats are from before the days of Tubes and not banner clicks. The only real solution is to look long and hard at the product and think why don't they buy? Then fix that problem and start converting a lot better. Throwing more traffic at the problem isn't a solution.

If members are only staying 2-3 months on average, that's a problem. It means in a few months they bored with the formula of porn on that site. Sites should be retaining a lot lot longer. The road to success is producing something that the buyer can't get in 100 other places and keeps him hanging on for the next edition. Much like Harry Potter. :winkwink:

Yes producing porn 30 years ago was a lot easier, there were far less places for the buyers to buy. The need to be great wasn't so needed. Also great in 1981 wasn't what would be termed as great in 2011. Today the buyer can get a girl being fucked on a sofa in the same or similar way on 100s if not 1000s of sites. Plus he can get 1000s of free scenes on porn Tubes.

The need to be very good, very unique and really concentrating on the customers needs are paramount. Well they should be.

Still you see people bleating the same solution to all the problems we faced years ago. Traffic. Throwing more traffic at a bad product isn't the way to get more sales. As is clear by now. Converting more of the traffic you have is the solution. Plus anyone, it seems can throw traffic at a site and it makes affiliates king if that's the model.

This solution has turned ratios from 1-50 to 1-5,000 on some sites. Brazzers for one. By not giving the product away for free, not shaping a product and industry to suit affiliates and definitely not paying them what we do. would of meant ratios back in the same realms of 2000. Imagine that with all the additional traffic we have today. Imagine the loss of income and what you could of done with the money.

Yes that's the opportunity lost. :(

thanks for the ebook excerpt.

More to say for those interested in reading the truth.

The problem with paying $500 for an exclusive solo girl scene is what the buyer gets. Usually a scene produced by a sub standard shooter, because there are far better paying market. A scene produced on a conveyor belt, the need is to get 4-5 scenes out in the day to make it pay. And the ease of opening sites. It doesn't take a lot of money to produce 40 scenes for a solo girl site at $500 a scene. When you consider many paid $1500 for 5 scenes you realise the problem.

The market becomes saturated with low quality porn sites, which the only way many think quality can be achieved is by using a HD camera. With so many surfers now getting their porn from Tube sites, it seems quality of image isn't that important.

No decent offline porn shooter has ever bothered to shoot for online porn. Unless they opened their own site. No online company has ever employed a top end porn shooter for their content production. I recently discussed this with an owner of a top company and the answer was "I don't think it would improve sales." :disgust

Separating themselves from the pack wouldn't produce more sales and retention? :1orglaugh

This is nothing to do about me. Offline there are lots of great shooters. Online there's a handful. Unless they're offline as well.

When selling a repeat buy product to a repeat buying customer retention of that customer to the product, brand or method of delivery, is paramount. We put it at the bottom of priorities, we wanted to retain affiliates more than customers, we conned, tricked, misled the customer to a point where 1,000 don't want to buy.

I said years ago that throwing water into a leaking bucket was wrong, treating surfers like sheep was wrong and that what we were doing would only last as long as the customer wasn't offered an alternative. Also stealing in any way from customers was also wrong.

Today ratios are appalling.

Surfers aren't sheep and prove it all the time.

Tubes are better alternative.

And many of you still sell to Dating sites that you know are a con. As you sold to site which banged cards or had pre-clicked boxes, to earn a few bucks.

And the market and business is shrinking, people are leaving, diversifying or asking for work on GFY in ever increasing numbers. Those who don't think it's shrinking, good luck in the future.

:(

And we have clowns like PJ and Damian giving their opinions. Which are as usual great and mind exploding. If you have the IQ of a snail.

Good luck guys getting a job when online porn spits you out.

He said pics of models and I just see faces. Models have faces?

Paul, you seem to get off on haters jumping on your deliberately controversial/provocative threads...

You complain about people trolling you, but your own behaviour is that of a classic troll...

What a way to spend a Saturday night Paulie.

I'm guessing Eva was out with friends her own age and left you at home to post essays about shit on GFY?

Fuck your life.

:)

x