Mutt posed a good point. Is there an affordable solution to the decline ip paysite sales?

the sites that got killed by the tubes were generally shit and deserved to die anyway. members areas with 12 shitty dvds and crap like that. x-art is growing, seemygf is growing. why?

Put a truck load of bottled water outside a shop selling bottled water and see what it does to shops sales. Damian got it spot on.
You hit the nail on the head with Most porn is the same shit.

That's the problem today. So much porn is the same shit. People who have sites with content that isn't the same and not shit, enjoy better conversions and better retention because of the better and different content. Not talking niches here.

Like FTV, Alsscan, Met-Art. When you apply the same or a little less marketing to it you get a far far better results. You don't have to sell so hard if you're the only guy in the mall with the great products. When it comes to visual content all you have to do is let them see the visual content. Add some nice words, but the content has sold itself.

Example. A guy selling a Ford is up against 10 other car dealers, selling a similar product. He has to work harder than a guy selling a Rolls Royce, this guy opens the door and lets you into the showroom. After maybe qualifying you can afford one.

My original question comes right back at you. Is it affordable today?

I've been around online porn for well over 15 years. And in the last 12 few people have been able to afford to employ top shooters. A lot of BS was put out, if you were around then, that the surfer wanted the content online was able to afford then. Well today we can afford better and have Twistys, Met-Art, Sapphic, Brazzers and more with good to great content and the shitty sites are sunk or sinking. Did the audience change or the ability to pay?

Fabian was telling us the porn surfer didn't want LA Valley Porn, imagine my shock when I opened Brazzers and saw LA Valley Porn.

Yes good marketing is good. Good porn is better.

Simply because the number of people who can do good marketing is large. The number of people who can shoot good porn is small. And anyone who thinks good porn has anything to do with image definition or lighting is in the wrong business. Anyone can buy a decent camera and shoot with it. Lighting for a video never was hard except at the top levels, get a monitor and check it. Lighting for film was a bit harder, but not that hard, as I could do it and it's well known I'm an idiot.

The skill in shooting porn is a skill in being able to get a model who is only there to earn money, no intentions of enjoying herself and wants to be in and out ASAP. To look like she would fuck you for a pizza and bring ice cold beers with her. That's a skill very few have.

Then having the budget to shoot some scenes. They cost money to get right. Got right they are worth to the shooter more than online was prepared to pay.

Good marketing is a field most can achieve and not costly. Good porn is a field few can achieve and costly. But the ROI on good porn used to be far better than on good marketing in online porn.

Few sites would ever pay $3,000 for a solo girl scene. But that's what top shooter could sell them for offline. So online ended with Most porn is the same shit.

And the surfer knows it and doesn't stay long and is hard to convert, no mater what you promise him.

We've been upping the marketing game for the last 12+ years and look where we are now. Loads of sites with tons of traffic and few joins. Because Most porn is the same shit.

Robbie is spot on, if you want to turn this ship around you need to up the content game, or do you still think there's room to up the marketing game after 12 years of doing nothing but?

Robbie if you're selling Rolls Royces you don't need a marketing expert. You need someone to open the door.

And that's why content is King.

It's fucking hard and expensive to get it to a good level. I shot a scene a few moths ago and you saw the state of me. I still shot a better scene than most of you online shooters. And movies is something I haven't done properly for years, concentrated on sets. Still not bad for an old invalid.

So can sites afford to shoot great content. Can they afford to make an improvement to their sites ahead of taking the joins or is it cheaper and no up front money. to just "market" more?

sig whore and troll of the year

well done paul you really have left your mark in adult

Content. Simple one to answer and proves me right.

Marketing shit sites is for fools.

Which is far more than you will, unless we're counting shit skids.

You're the only one who thinks your award was an honor when it was really a slap in the face.

He knows it's an insult. He's not as stupid as he pretends to be.

But what were his options? Show his cards and be annoyed shouting that he is only trying to help us see how stupid we all are? Or pretend being called the most annoying cunt on a board is a good thing?

Obviously the latter.

Thing that I don't get is his end game.

anybody who can afford to spend that much time writing on gfy has no future and/or current value to this business.

btw his 'solo model' advice from the other thread is plagiarized from my pdf:
PornCMS Guide to Solo Model Profits
http://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1009157

he claimed it as his own because he is a worthless piece of shit.

here's another more up-to-date article i wrote on the same subject:
http://ilovebs.masteryan.com/theres-no-money-in-porn

i am giving proper advice to solo models because i actually work with solo models. Paul is a loser troll that has never spent a day trying to make money on a solo site - much less build software to help solo models make money.

he is clueless and his advice is worth less than his colostomy bag.

You will be remembered as an idiot who thought he knew everything but who actually knew very little.

I would rather not be remembered at all

It's probable the voters were fellow trolls, so not that insulted.

My end game.

When I first came online to sell content direct I was truly shocked at the level of most of the content. It was abysmal. Only a very very few could of moved up to the higher paying markets of offline porn. The mistakes were simple and many.

The emphasis was on giving away as much free porn as possible and selling sites full of crap. The "If you have enough traffic you can sell anything." Was the rule. This is totally true. But if you have a great product, you can sell more to the same traffic and keep them buying longer.

The problem was no one was willing to compete with what offline paid shooters or spent in house on shooting a good to great product. It costs money to invest in a good shooters to shoot good content and online simply couldn't invest that kind of money. So the went the other route of giving away free porn to sell to a tiny minority.

12 years later the wall is clearly in view. There was no light at the end of the tunnel. There was a wall.

Where 1,000s consume free porn for every one who buys. This has cost the whole industry billions. It's costs sponsors billions. The only people who made money were people like you, people like Robbie, people whose only job was to give away free content. They were over paid, over indulged and over valued.

And the sales method of online porn us now slowly killing it.

Now you can see it. And it's cool to sit here and remind you. That's my end game.

Damian I have enough money to sit back and not worry about the future. I could pay for your ticket, my reason is simply I don't trust you to turn up. I could sell you the site for the best 6 months, let you have access to CCBILL to verify it. Why don't I? I don't trust you to keep you word, just get access to our CCBILL account and troll. Anyone who can write I'm a pedophile isn't someone to be trusted.

In the business world. If you see a product which you think is a bankable goldmine and is run by a fool. You look closely at the product. Think of what you could do with it and make an offer. Not come up with some formula based on what you think others pay for a product. It's about what it's worth to you to buy and me to sell.

PK I know it's yours, I never said it was mine. I said I had it.

It's very very basic marketing and it shows how easy it is to learn marketing. Read an article, book, etc. And away you go. I was waiting for others to tell me what shit advice it is. Guess you never thought of that.

And here's more advice on marketing. http://ilovebs.masteryan.com/theres-no-money-in-porn it's that easy to find.

Shooting porn is a lot tougher. Unless you shoot your wife, at home, with a camera from the cupboard.

It needs equipment, $1,000s worth. Models at $300 to $3,000 a day. And more, like location, make up, etc every time a shoot happens. Above all you need real skills that can't be picked up from a book. Because you're working with people who can be easy or a nightmare to get the best from.

I guess you're not even bright enough to figure out why I didn't spend all my time making a solo girl site.

I could see enough Ma & Pa operations like yours to see I was better off doing something you couldn't.

So far no one has come up with a reply to my question.

Is there a solution and is it an affordable solution to the decline in paysite sales?

Nor has anyone countered my post of why good content is more important than good marketing. Because of the difficulty of creating good content and the ease of creating good marketing. Seems enough of you just in this thread who claim to be experts at it to prove that right.

If this is marketing advice I'm a brain surgeon. http://ilovebs.masteryan.com/theres-no-money-in-porn

It's a great case for "Content is king" but doesn't go a single step in how to create it.

The traffic info is about as basic as it goes.

Getting traffic is easy. Don't give me the bullshit, that you need 10,000s to make a living. That proves how easy it is to get it.

Marketing is about the product, it's presentation, setting it apart from the competition and then closing the sale.

Not go onto the is site of that site, blah, blah like in the first one. Here is the best you can do.

That's like me saying "Get a camera" to shoot porn.

Please show us some real marketing. Not this level. I will do it if you can't.

Yes post on GFY.

two words paul

Product Placement

Of course the clueless copyright holders here would say that it won't work because MAINSTREAM companies would not want to advertise in porn.



if you can't figure out how to adapt a proven revenue source to a MARKET that it not a perfect fit, your never going to figure out the completely new ways either.

Producing content that sells is not hard, hell their is an entire market where crappy self shot shit is making huge money. (exgf niche)

Why wouldn't I come? I go to all the gatherings I can. You said I couldn't afford to come, I agreed, you offered to pay, then you change your mind because you are too scared to be in the same room as me. OK. Whatever.

Why do you keep saying you will sell it to me then?

If you're that embarrassed about how little money it makes, I will sign a legal contract saying I will keep that information private.

You clearly don't want to work the site. The tour you did yourself shows that. Let someone who understands marketing do it.

(I'd need the original images too, in order to replace the ones you badly scanned on that fisher price scanner).

OK. I reckon over the best 6 month period you netted 2 grand. So I offer you that. USD. And frankly, that is generous.

Why would you beat up this old man?

I did not change my mind. I will pay you when you get here. Not giving you money up front.

Never said I would sell it to you. I was waiting for an offer.

If it's only worth 2 Grand, I can bundle it up and sell it 10 times at $500 and make more. You see the selling price is governed by how much I can sell content for and what others are will to pay for it. not what you think you will pay.

If it's only worth $2,000 in your hands. Then you're not that good.

Thank you for your offer of $2,000. I will decline it.

What? When did I mention beating you up Paul? Please quote me.

Well, you said you would pay for my flight. If you want to renege on that, it's your prerogative I suppose.

Gosh, this is hard Paul. It was only yesterday you said you would sell it.

Why don't you then?

The selling price is governed by how much someone is prepared to pay. Full stop. If you are too ashamed to let someone see your stats, one has to bet blind. If you get a better offer, go for it. If not, my offer stands. I can paypal you the cash right now.

Maybe, but I can't see anyone else offering you jack shit. So...

So some advice on how to advise a girl to run and create her own solo girl site.

She needs to decide what she will do and if she will do it on her own or with partners, same or multi.

Then look at who she is.
What makes her special and different.
What she really like to do in her sexual life, what she would like to do online, what her fantasies are.

Then start to look at what others do and see how she can make her offering more about her. Not to copy them, to adapt them to her personality and what she can offer.

Now is the time to start thinking in terms of the market. Who will want what she has to offer, how is the best way to fill their needs. To contact them and more importantly get herself through to them. The avenues she uses to do this are well know and already used, taking a look at what others do is good. Improve on it.

Telling someone to use the freeway from LA to Las Vegas, isn't teaching them to drive, that's what she needs to learn. How to drive through her message. Not the URL of Facebook.

So armed with all this, now it's time to start writing her ideas of how to approach this down. It needs variation, needs some depth, needs some lure, selling and closing.

Then practice in front of a camera. Review it and improve. When happy start shooting content and the marketing material.

That's how you create a non vanilla product that shows a person individuality. Telling them to go on a site is about as low level as telling them to turn the computer on. It's about what they do when they get on the site that's what real marketing is about.

Flame away.

you sad old little man.

my target audience enjoyed the article and it wasn't all obvious advice to them because they aren't gfy trolls like you. they don't sit on gfy all day reading this garbage. most of them have real jobs, and most of them have more sales than you.

it wasn't an article on "how to create content". it is clearly labeled as a marketing article. why would i cover content creation in a marketing article unless i was a broke, UNretired, out-of-work shooter trolling gfy? you are the only one that mixes up subjects in a single post.

my marketing advice is REAL WORLD advice with proven numbers and its being used in the actual marketplace. its not some pathetic old man telling everybody how he knows everything but doesn't do anything except bullshit on gfy all day.

i put it back to you - show me someone taking YOUR advice in this marketplace? i have plenty of positive references and testimonials.

Just to check here, can you post some URLs of solo girl sites you have given this advice to so we can see them in action?

Or is this another hypothetical "if I had ever consulted on a solo girl site I would have said this" scenario?

from someone who has never built or run a solo site? ever?

you are a dipshit Paul.


EDIT: fucking exactly..

Than what's to be scared of?

When you get here.

I will, for the right offer. Make one.

Thinking of doing it if no one buys it.

No it's not. But you're a small fish. There are bigger fish. Not taking the first lame offer.

Well then it's my loss. I can afford it.

Now that's it closed book. Get the ticket and come, or are you scared of me and my dog.

Make a better offer or STFU.

When did I suggest I was scared?

I said you were scared because you are now bottling it and taking back your offer after we agreed. Same old.

Sure. You will just laugh at me and say you were trolling. Send the money or book the flight yourself.

I'm the only person I can see offering you anything. I'd be biting my hand off if I was you.

I'll call Fabian and ask him if he's interested.

Paul, you posted saying I couldn't afford the ticket over, and you are right. You offered to buy my flight and now you are going back on that deal. That's fine. I can understand why you would feel worried.

Guess I won't be coming and you won't be selling your old content. Shame.

The invention of the incandescent light bulb has a history spanning from the early 1800s. Until that time, available light sources consisted of candles, oil lanterns, and gas lamps. In 1809, an English chemist, Humphrey Davy, started the journey to the invention of a practical incandescent light source. He used a high power battery to induce current between two charcoal strips. The current flowing through the two charcoal strips produced an intense incandescent light, creating the first arc lamp.

In 1820, Warren De la Rue made the first known attempt to produce an incandescent light bulb. He enclosed a platinum coil in an evacuated tube and passed an electric current through it. The design was based on the concept that the high melting point of platinum would allow it to operate at high temperatures and that the evacuated chamber would contain less gas particles to react with the platinum, improving its longevity. Although it was an efficient design, the cost of the platinum made it impractical for commercial use.

Throughout the 1800s, many scientists and inventors strove to create a cost effective, practical, long-life incandescent light bulb. The primary hurdle was creating a long-lived, high-temperature filament--the key to a practical incandescent light. Many high-melting-point materials were explored in inert/evacuated chambers in the process.

Men such as William Robert Grove, Frederik de Moleyns, W.E. Staite, John Daper, Edward G. Shepard, Heinrich Gobel, C. de Chagny, John T. Way, Alexander de Lodyguine, Joseph Wilson Swan, and Thomas A. Edison dedicated their time and efforts in the race to develop the first practical incandescent light bulb. Breakthroughs for Edison and Swan came in 1879, when they independently developed the first incandescent lamp that lasted a practical length of time -- at best a mere 13.5 hours. Their separate designs were based on a carbon fiber filament derived from cotton. The next stage of development focused on extending the practical life of the carbon filament bulb. Edison developed bamboo-derived filaments in 1880 that lasted up to 1200 hours.

The efficiency of an incandescent lamp design centers about attaining high filament temperatures without degradation and loss of heat. Edison?s early selection of carbon, the highest melting temperature element, with a melting point of 3,599 oC or 6510 oF seemed the obvious choice. The problem with carbon is that at high operating temperatures it evaporates, or sublimes, relatively quickly at 0.1 torr at 2,675 oC, resulting in short filament life.
The early solution to this dilemma was to operate the filament at lower temperatures to attain reasonable life. However, the incandescent brightness of the bulb was sacrificed in the process.

Other light bulb inventors tried two new filament materials to improve bulb brightness. In 1898, Karl Auer used osmium, which has a melting point of 2,700 oC / 4,890 oF. Then in 1903, Siemens and Halske worked with tantalum, which melts at 2,996 oC / 5,425 oF. These elements drew attention because they could operate at higher temperatures with longer life and less evaporation.

Because of its strength, ductility and workability, tungsten can readily be formed into the filament coils, used to enhance performance in modern incandescent bulbs. Due to its high melting point, tungsten can be heated to 3000oC / 5,432 oF, where it glows white hot providing very good brightness. However, the early tungsten filaments still sublimed too quickly at such high temperatures. As they sublimed, they also coated the bulbs with a thin black tungsten film, reducing their light output.

Then the invention of ductile tungsten, a much improved filament material, sparked the development of the modern tungsten filament incandescent light bulb by the General Electric Company and William Coolidge in 1906-10. This is the light bulb we know today.

Inert gases such as nitrogen and argon were later added to bulbs to reduce tungsten evaporation, or sublimation. While these gases reduced evaporation and increased filament life, they also carried heat away from the filament, reducing its temperature and brightness. Winding the wires into fine coils, as used in modern incandescent filaments, reduced convective heat loss, allowing the filament to operate at the desired temperatures.

Modern incandescent bulbs are not energy efficient, only four to six percent of the electrical power supplied to the bulb is converted into visible light. The remaining energy is lost as heat.

You really are a dumb ass.

.

He's in a good place then, GFY is full of them.

his thoughts dont matter, because he doesnt own any paysites, its like someone giving advice on running a law firm, when they are a garbage man.

You are one of the biggest ones on here.

You are at the end of your life.

34 years of shooting content.

You don't make any kind of money from it.

Your content, at best is just cheap filler crap for old, outdated TGPs.

That's how your entire career can be summed up.

That's how your lifes work will be remembered.

Then don't bother reading the thread.

Actually I own 2. They were just sidelines and not that good. Much better safer markets in porn for us.

I've been in porn 34 years and might have a few ideas to give.

Which is more than the trolls have. They never have anything to contribute.

Those who can't do, teach. Right?

Seriously Paul, it would be like you advising CERN on neutrinos. Comical. You've never had a successful website, yet you feel you can advise on how to have one. Surely, and this is not a tricky thought, if you knew what you were doing, you'd have a successful website?

Unless you is just trollin'?

;)

Fixed it for you.

didnt you win troll of the year?

kettle black

I can't understand how they were not that good. You have all the content already right, and of course content is king and all that so... Therefore your marketing was not that good? or you had no idea how to get traffic?

Yeah... he's been very clear.

1) Content IS King
2) He has 34 years of content
3) Traffic IS easy to get

Yet, he's a failure with no traffic, that makes no money from content and that's lecturing others on success, how to make money and "how to do things right".

His is a stupidity that is so stupid it almost demands the creation of a new word to describe it.

So I missed the follow-up. Whatever happened with the whole Paul shooting for Manwin? Where can I check out his fine video and still?

They did nicely considering the effort we put into them. Was a sideline for us. Still 3 years of doing nothing they're still up and running.

If site owners had an idea how to get traffic, they wouldn't need affiliates. But they don't know, so need the brains of affiliates to do this massively complicated task of giving content away for free.

epitome it's been posted a lot of times. The lack of complaints shows the old man still has it. Fabian had all the trolls licking their lips with glee when he said it was slow coming out due to the quality.

When released the 2 complaints were, I should of put a rose in the background and the sofa was too cheap. From 2 trolls who were dying to find some real faults.

The saddest thing about the scene was. 3 years out of the loop, my physical state which was confirmed in the documentary and I still was able to pull off a good scene. Better than some guys who are younger, fitter and working all the time.

Probably because of the years of experience and not having to shoot 5 scenes in a day.

As was pointed out to you the scene was no better than hundreds of thousands of scenes and was worse than hundreds of thousands of other scenes. It was typical every day porn...boring...boring...boring...nothing special at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusio...iose_delusions

You see how easy it is to learn marketing, pick up a few books and learn.

To learn how to shoot with a camera is pretty easy. To learn how to shoot good porn and get the best out of a model is tough.

Which is why being a good marketing man is such a flooded profession and pays poorly. Whereas being a good porn shooter is a lot less crowded and pays better.

Damian could read all the books on porn and shooting there has ever been printed. But he would be bankrupt long before he had a clue how to work a model. And that goes for many other people.

So it's back to the old supply and demand rule. If it's abundant, the ROI is low. If it's rare the ROI is high, for the same amount of sweat and toil.

And you're still wrong.

Water was not in short supply when it was put into bottles and sold for a premium price.

Everyone has access to unlimited water for free.

Almost everyone pays for water in bottles.

Some bottled waters sell for 3-4 times as much as others.

It's all H2O.

It's all the same thing.

All that was required was for marketing experts to change the perception of what was in the bottle, to create imaginary distinctions of quality/benefits for buyers and people were willing to not only pay for it, but to pay a lot for it.

Whats inside all these bottles that cost money, some cheap, some very expensive?

The same H2O.

In the end, its all just marketing.

Water?

Uhmmm...I was in Tijuana, Mexico and Los Cabos, Mexico a few times this year. I was VERY grateful for bottled water while there.

I was born and raised in Florida. And yeah, I drank the phosphorous filled water near my little hometown in central Fla. as a youth. Once bottled water came out and I was able to stop drinking that nasty stuff...I did.

When I lived in Atlanta...I actually enjoyed the water there. So I didn't drink bottled water.
Same in South Carolina when I lived there throughout the 1990's up until 2008.

Here in Vegas? The water comes from the Colorado River. They say it's not bad to drink. BUT...every home in Vegas has a water softener because it will destroy your water heater, clothes washer, dish washer etc.
And when I forget to put salt in the water conditioner...everythihg that gets water on it is covered in big white spots.

I have to take a bucket of water from the inside tap to wash my car off. If I use the outside water hose, my car is covered in the white spots from all the mineral deposits in the water.
So again...I drink bottled water here as well.

So yeah, there are some good reasons to drink bottled water. If nothing else...just because it's been run through a filter.

It's not the "same H20"

If you don't believe me...then come with me next time to Mexico and drink a couple of gallons of water out of the tap. lol

EDIT:
My water bill here in Vegas is almost $200 a month. Water is VERY expensive here.

..... When i was a little kid in Englewood Florida I was taught to never drink water you can smell. By habit I've been drinking water from a bottle ever since.


.

Robbie, I fully understand there are exceptions and that in some areas, bottled water is preferred to tap water for more than one reason.

Within the context of this discussion and the marketing analogy, that's not the primary driving factor behind 70+ Billion in bottled water sales in the USA. The marketing is. The image they are selling is. There would not be brands getting 3-4X the price as other brands... according to Pauls "logic", they would all be equally cheap and getting cheaper by the day.

I agree. But for me and everyone I know who drinks bottled water...it comes down to what my senses tell me. Bottled water tastes better, it doesn't have a smell, and I know it's been run through a filter. So that means at the very least the sediments are no longer there.

In most places, bottled water is a superior product to what comes out of the tap.

I know that marketing people out in the mainstream sometimes think that everyone is dumb. But in the case of bottled water, I think it's more a "better safe than sorry" idea in people's minds that sells the water.

Porn has no such health value. So it really can't be compared in my opinion.

I think that we all know that as long as porn was NOT free to the majority of people...it sold like hotcakes. We all got rich off of it.

And now that anybody can have full scenes for free? It requires that sites do a lot more than what they did before...(mostly live interaction via webcam and/or messaging, etc.)

That's why we make more sales with CM's blog at http://theclaudiamarieblog.com working synergistic-ally with her twitter and facebook accounts& our band website than all of our affiliates put together can bring in.

People think it's all free. And the actual marketing of it now requires a more "real" and "viral" type approach.
Folks have already been there and done that with TGP's, review sites, and even tubes now. They don't seem to even want to think about clicking a link on one of those sites anymore.

But you plant it in their heads (like the movie "Inception") and SUGGEST it to them...and then they go out of their way to google it up themselves and find the site? NOW you got something.

Just listening to the tributes from people at Apple for Steve Jobs on CNN.

Someone just said that Jobs was one of the only top businessmen who NEVER tested or did focus groups. He went with this gut feeling and created what HE liked.

He is probably the greatest businessman and marketer of all times. And he was one of the ones who went with gut instinct and an ability to entertain and promote as opposed to crunching numbers...he followed his instincts and heart.

Which is an example of that style of marketing. No, it is THE example I would think.

Obviously someone who is clueless of the real world. Lives in a parallel universe where nonsense is logic.

When you're out in your car, shopping in a mall, walking through the scrub lands or even outdoors. No one, if you missed it, NO ONE has free water to drink. In fact access to free drinking water is very scarce.

It's in rivers that run down the side of mountains. Filtered by nature through the rocks. Drinking from waters anywhere near civilizations is risky, you have no idea what you're drinking. Troops in desolate places are issued tablets to make "natural water" safe to drink. My dog can drink from the river for free, he has the constitution that allows him to, for me to drink the same water is risky.

We all have water on tap in our homes. It's not free.

So in the real world water for drinking isn't free. If we choose to do what we have done we filter the water we use to for drinking and cooking, it costs money to filter. We put it in large bottles and for Eva and our daughter we often add a flavoring. Not free. The water we use to water the garden isn't free. The lady came yesterday to read the the water meter in the front of our cottage.

What the bottled water company do is professional marketing, they create the need to buy bottled water.

The idiot marketing people in online adult destroy the need to buy online porn. And then show proof they have done this thinking it proves the opposite. IE "I can convert 1-800 off clicks from tube sites." Thinking that is proof the the online marketing industry has a clue is astounding. It's saying "Out of the 800 who can be bothered to go look at the the tour, I can't sell to 799 of them." Yes that's proof it doesn't work. Arguing it does with me is pointless, because the only people who will back you up are the people that believe the same. Doesn't make losing 799 out of 800 interested people is good.

Test if the online porn marketing theory works. Stand outside a shop and give away free bottled water and see how long before it slows down the sale of bottled water.

Marketing is extremely important, I've been in sales long enough to know that. Also been in sales and marketing to know creating a reason not to buy isn't marketing. The job of marketing is to do what the bottled water industry do and create a need to buy.

We've just lost Steve Jobs. He created a repeat buy product from a normally one off buy product.

He didn't give the product away to do it. He created the next model slightly better than the last model and created the panache of owning the new gadget he built. Even the iPad wasn't a great tool, it often did less than than a mini laptop, but people had to have it, same with his newest phone version, or what ever he turned his hand to.

What he did to the mobile phone industry is amazing. By improving the next product on the last one. Old fogies like me never got it, to me a phone is a phone. But I see clearly what he did and have great respect and admiration of hi. He did this by not giving his product away and making buying it bothersome.

Could write a book to describe the stupid of online porn "marketing". but you idiots involved in giving the product away to lose sales, will never listen. Keep giving the product away and calling it marketing.

He took a product we bought once a couple of years and turned it into a product we bought repeatedly as soon as the new version came out.

This was what offline porn was about.

People went to buy the next version of an Ed Powers, Buttman, Private, Wicked, or magazines, series. Looking to see what they were getting up to this month. Wanting another months supply based on last months supply. We killed that.

Steve Jobs took a one off buy product and by improving it every time, with a few more extra gadgets and nice design, then big launches he created this need to get the latest version. Never gave the product away, never gave free updates and never intentionally went a step backwards with the product to pay for the marketing. He largely let the product market itself. he did some pushing, but ultimately people bought the next one based on the last one.

In online porn porn people don't buy the next one, this is based on what the last one was like. And the fact the free one is better. Because that's where we spend our money and concentrate our efforts.

Sorry, no, that's just marketing bullshit you sucked up like a little jericurled bitch.

Penn and Teller proved it on bullshit by giving everyone tap water in fancy glasses and telling them it was posh. Everyone, like you, bought the bullshit.

No. He invented personal computing.

Tempted to read what Damian said. I'm thinking positively again.

Thinking he might have something worth reading and taking him off ignore.

No I can't be bothered it's probably, most likely his standard pointless dribble.

Shit stupid me. I was dead right. It was more of his pointless dribble.

Why did I open it just to take this thread to another page I suppose. LOL