250 old ass still images of uninterested girls.

251 people that now know DamianJ is a fake... he roles on it, he spills it & he loves it :thumbsup

I haven't seen the numbers to back this up, but I don't think the typical member of Hegre-Art logs into the members area while maniacally stroking his cock and hoping that 10 black dudes will appear out of nowhere to gangbang the model. Different people consume things in different ways. Not only that, but the level of attention people pay to details largely depends on their level of interest. If I watched an interracial gangbang scene with a big boobed blond MILF, I probably wouldn't be able to tell whether or not there were 8 black dudes or 10 black dudes or whether or not she had 42 DDs or 44Fs but you would probably know those things within seconds of hitting the play button. I also wouldn't just immediately assume that budget concerns were the driving force behind decisions to recruit male talent in the ghetto and to hire a fat chick 10+ years past her prime. I'd just assume that there must be people out there who for some reason like watching that type of crap. I don't know what the proper term is to use in describing those 'Hegre-like' galleries, but I can tell you with the utmost certainty that the good ones do indeed have a clear beginning, middle, and end. You just don't see them just like I probably wouldn't see black dude #9.

Lol. I do have a tendency to be a bit wordy from time to time, but I don't post as much as others, so it all balances out.

Does Robbie have to write a thesis citing the sociological and psychological reasons in an attempt to explain the rise in popularity of interracial gangbang porn over the past decade? No. As a businessman, he just needs to know that it works for his traffic. As a human, he just needs to know that it works for his schlong.

The job is to know whether or not something sells to whomever it is that you are targeting. It is always nice to know the 'why' but it's not mandatory. Trust me. I've wasted a ridiculous amount of time researching the 'whys' of many different things across many different industries and topics throughout my entire life and can tell you with the utmost certainty that much of the information that I've found has been completely useless.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh All joking aside, all three of you (Shap, Paul Markham, Robbie) have your own specialty that has gotten you far in this business and made you successful in your own ways. However, regarding Paul Markham, I believe he just doesn't want to change. I'm sure his content was great back in the day but looking at his content now as a 24 year old and a surfer long before I was a webmaster...his content has not aged well at all. Shap and Robbie seem like they have always gone with the times and adapted well to make their companies/projects succeed in an ever changing market. I could see myself purchasing a membership to Twisty's or Robbies paysite and I could also promote their websites and know that I was promoting good stuff that I could stand behind when trying to sell memberships. I think if Paul Markham had done that, he could have done so much more. I'm sure he's much different in person, but his style of posting makes him seem really stubborn.

You can argue photography skills, lighting, etc all day but when it comes down to it..none of that really matters much in what most customers want. The exgirlfriend content has become really popular and a lot of it is shot with crappy point and shoot digital cameras, cellphones, etc...no photographic skills whatsoever but it sells because a lot of surfers love it. A camera and camera skills don't make a good photographer, it's their mark they put into their pictures...their own perception of what they are shooting.

Take that all with a grain of salt though because I'm just a small affiliate and I don't do this for a living...it's just my opinion on all of this.

Should he... has everyone wanted to change? Doesn't old school porn turn you on?

I set my stages on DP1... (double penetration1) & 2... wow, when I see them when I was younger they got me off & they still do!

Yes, better quality is needed, less grainy & higher defination! But what about the old school chit chat & creampie finish... I still provide this where the new school want to be more careful with solo & condoms, less provocative & more detail on the backgrounds rather than the actual porn that's being shot :2 cents:

Sex sells, let's us not forget that :pimp

That's the truth. BangBus sold more memberships that Shap and me put together and it was shot with a freakin' handycam. :1orglaugh

That's what I'm trying to tell Paul...yes I'm sure that Shap COULD have spent a fortune on pictures that were laid out perfect and cost tons of money to get perfect.

And then? It wouldn't necessarily sell one more membership or retain one more member. I promoted Twistys from the time that Shap first opened it.

In my mind it was a softcore "glamour" style "babe" site. He did really well with it. Made as much money online with that concept as anybody ever has.

Could he have made a dollar or two more? Of course.

Would hiring an overpriced photographer to shoot have made more money for him?
I don't think so.

Because at the end of the day...Shap could have paid the best photographer in the world an exorbitant amount of money to shoot a set of hot pics. And then Shap could have grabbed a kodak instamatic and shot a girl who just had that "it" factor...
And at the end of the day there is a 50/50 chance that just as many guys would have found that ONE picture that makes their cock hard in the "shitty" set as would have in the "pro" set.

I personally wouldn't presume to tell Shap how to market to that niche. Yeah, I have some ideas and I think I'm pretty average at selling "babe" stuff. But for me to tell Shap that he should have done something different?
Ludicrous.

Nothing wrong with arguing points in general and talking about ideas and opinions for tweaking shit. But Paul's mistake is to show the utter disrespect to people who are at a certain level in what they do.

Shap ruled his niche in online paysites.
Now you can argue a lot of things with him, but you have to realize that he is the master of that in the online world. It doesn't matter what some fancy-shmancy photog would have charged him for a set of photos that may or may not have done anything to please his members.

The bottom line is Shap set the stage, the curtain went up, and the crowd roared.
A lot of guys tried to do that...and failed.
That's all you need to know Paul.

And no disrespect to you Paul. I wouldn't begin to try and tell you that you don't know what you're doing when you shoot a scene or a set of pictures.
It's called respect and professional courtesy.

It's easy to lose track of that when you're getting attacked by clowns on GFY who don't know shit. But don't mix up clowns with real guys like Shap.

And you was buying content. :upsidedow

So in the last 5 years. As magazines declined and the options for shooters lessened. You found some were willing to work for less. Or you came up to meet the price they could earn from magazines or they lowered their standards to fit your prices?

Explain please.

I hope you get paid for views Paul because baiting Shap is not likely to gain you respect or sales. A good troll knows when to shut up and come back another day with the same pointless point worded slightly differently.

Of course I have no data to base this opinion on which kind of makes it appropriate to one of your threads. :2 cents:

So this is how I reached my figures.

Members Could be 10,000 or 1,000

Members Rev Staying 1 month or 10 months. I was based on a number of members generating this revenue with joins and retains.

Traffic Cost 50% 33% paid out to affiliates and 17% in support. A small Ma & Pa or 1/2 man band operation running from home. It's a bit less. Rent an office, take on staff, start adding lots of galleries, tools, hosting, going to shows, banners on GFY, if gets tight.

Billing 10% Yes with a merchant account could be less, cascading to CCBILL, Epoch or Verotel could be more.

Admin The day to day costs of running a site. Again 1/2 man band a bit less. Employ a support rep and it's woefully inadequate.

Set upDesign, CMS and just getting the site online.

Product $500 for solo girl (A scene with just one girl in) Or BG $2,000

Cost The total costs of

Traffic, Billing, Admin, Set up and product

Profit What's left.

Content Sale Selling the content outside the small world of online.I underestimated this.

Total Profit The total profit. However with a members area full of better content I think everyone would expect the retention/conversion figures to improve.

Now some sites did more and some did less. As I said you have to look at each case individually. Undeniably, if a site had found a good shooter, employed him to look after the content side of the business, the cost of content for the site would decrease a lot. Most instances it would be a profit side of the business with sales to DVD, cable and magazines.

So why not?

To limited in business acumen or couldn't afford to?

Shap says in the last 5 years hes given some of them work. I doubt if hes kept many afloat. Probably the top shooters have lowered their product to fit his prices. Looking at what's in the gallery Jimmy put up of Twistys and the tour of Holly's. It's obvious of the difference in class.

He has refused to answer the question, unless I missed. Does he think he could of done a lot better with a full time shooter of Holly's level in 2000 to 2008?

You do know you're arguing with someone who can't tell the difference between what I shoot and what one of the best in the game shoots? That says all you need to know.

Shows the level of your thinking. I never said my content was near the level of Twistys. Only an idiot like Damian would assume the content he posted here was mine. did you make the same mistake? :1orglaugh

So tell me where I got my figures wrong on the calculations shown. Obviously some made a lot more than what I put up and some made a lot less. When a guru of the one girl site market, that's a site based on one girl. Tells you all he can afford is $300 a scene and 40 scenes. You start to doubt his abilities. When the all start saying this, you realise few make the money they're convincing people they make. When they offer top models $25,000 a year for an exclusive contract. you realise these guys are not making enough to employ a full time model.

No I make it quite clear with a better model of paysites. It didn't need to spend more on content, in fact it meant spending less on content.

So telling Shap he could of employed a full time shooter to shoot content for the paysite and to sell to buyers outside the online side of porn. Is bad idea. Explain why that is.

And this goes for every single site online in mainstream niches. They could of all done the same.

Agreed. A good shooter with his iphone could produce better content than a bad shooter with the best equipment in the world. The job of a porn producer is to operate the girls and capture her performance he has instructed her to do. Thinking any guy can get a girl whose a stranger to churn out a performance similar to what she will do for her boyfriend. Is Damian's level of porn understanding.

Porn shooters operate models more than cameras. Cameras are the easy part. :thumbsup

Absofuckinglutely. I know because I spoke to them about buying the product. The pimp act went out the window as they tried to get us to shoot for peanuts.

Squealer turns up here, sees what Eva and I are running and thinks we're going to fuck around shooting cheap sets of his Russian girls. Then posts it here. But no one hear thinks there anyway we are not going to give him 1/3 or production operation for shooting his crap and losing money.

Yes you're spot on here. The big pimping act from many was just an act when it came to acquiring the product the members needed.

Well Damian in his ignorance set that path. I think I proved he could of made more.

The business model of employing full time shooters to create a commodity which has many outlets to sell to isn't one I dreamed up. It's common in offline porn. Hustler, Score, Bluebird, DD productions, Steve Hicks, us, I know for sure did this. I suspect DDF, Perfect Gonzo, Viv Thomas, Wicked, Vivid and many others did the same. Some for their own label exclusively others to sell to different outlets.

So let's assume, you're niche is the big tits niche. One of the top companies in this niche is Score. They employed in house shooters. Their London end was John Graham, him and his 2 employed shooters would shoot a lot of content of big tit girls and sell it to magazines. He employed shooter who were the right level and made a huge profit on their work, without any online sales.

Could you have employed one of these kind of guys and with your marketing expertise sell their content as a commodity to other outlets besides your paysites?
Reading my last post. Want to think he missed out along with many others?

So why would you lose money employing people who could produce a product that made a profit offline and was free to the paysite?

Yes employing someone like even us, would of put a severe dent in your profits. Employing someone like Holly, would wipe most out. Employing one of the shooters they employed would of doubled or even more the profit margins.

Semantics. Solo girl to me is a scene with a solo girl in. not narrow thinking of a site based on one girl. Of course sites based on one girl were often small fry in the world of porn. Well it was when it came to buying the commodity. How many of those sites had the girls under exclusive contracts like Wicked, Vivid and others did?

Because you think in only one field. I think of the whole porn field.

Yes Shap did very well. Could he of done better by employing full time a person who knew about the commodity this business is based on?

Huh?

You said a lie. I said prove it. Your reposte is "no, you are a liar".

Fuck me. You are so painfully stupid.

No, what we know is you lied, I asked you to prove it, and your reply was to say NO YOU ARE A LIAR!!!

Fucking retard.

This is like discussing something with a duck. A very stupid duck.

Where did I say that? For the 6th time.

Stop lying Paul.

Or I'll start lying about pictures I have of you fucking a 15 year old.

See, this is how it works. You lie. I post something proving you are a liar.

Fun, isn't it!?

http://paulmarkham.com/temp/damian_1.jpg

Liar. Pointless liar.

You sick bastard :( You have now shown how low you can go :( You need help! :helpme



Lies are lies & I have already quoted you stating Paul says his photos were BETTER than twistys, yet paul never said this... now you want to spin you horrible sick twisted mind by stating crap like this! :Oh crap

And you really do work with children yet can say or even stoop to this new all time low... you mother fucker! :Oh crap

I didn't do anything. I said I would start lying about something unless he stops lying about me. Seems reasonable.

Where?

Yes he did, as I proved.

Scroll up

I didn't say anything. Paul's already said people that teach 15 year olds need a (and I quote) "iron will" to resist fucking them.

No idea what that even means.

Anyway, back to this 30k investment you are begging on boards for Gary. You claim you will turn my 30k investment into a million. How do you plan to do that?

LOL!

Aren't you Damian, you fucking nasty little weasel :(

So you say Pauls says his pictures are better.... Paul actually says, upto the same standard....


I think you really need to stop that disgusting mind from working, stay in bed for the next few years & never speak to anyone until you wake up in the real world :Oh crap

Where do I say that?


Liar.

Broke liar begging for money on boards. Are you following Paul's lead?

You are the only one bullshitting here.... I have tried to explain on so many occasions! You do not listen to anyone, you only accept what you want to hear!

You lied as you said Paul had said something that he hadn't.... where do you get off telling anyone that they lie about you!

This is the same how you treat anyone including me & my business... all of that tracking nonsence... it was working fine, yet you & DV managed to make people think my business may have an issue... :Oh crap


You have just bought children into this thread..... man, you are a sick twisted fucker, I wouldn't let my friends near you, let alone my children :(

Where do I do that? Just put the quote Gary.

I just don't like people lying about me. I don't get off on it. I am just correcting you and Paul.

No one thought your program had an issue. Everyone in that thread was trolling you and you are just so painfully stupid, that even though people TOLD you you were being trolled you STILL carried on. Like a retarded dog.

Paul said his friends said it wouldn't be a good idea for him to be in charge of a room of 15 year olds. Not me. They clearly know why. And yet *I* am the twisted one? I don't say I find kids attractive.

Anyway, this whole thing about you needing 30k, I know a couple of people looking to do investments. How you gonna turn 30k into a million? What do you need the money for?

how did I miss this amazing thread? all these pages... will read later. lol

I'll give you the cliff notes.

Paul is a liar and posts nonsense.

There, you're up to speed.

Look up by a few posts & then some again... I do keep quoting you!

Here, I'll help you out, read your quote :2 cents:

https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=18522969&postcount=269

No, as quoted again, you lied... Paul hasn't :thumbsup

Gary. I know you left school early and are very stupid, but where do I say that in that quote?

Oh yes, I don't.

So anyway, why do you need 30k?

Stick to the thread wise arse :2 cents:


Can you really not read your own words??? "were BETTER than".... You lied, he never said this, he said of similar standard.

This is only one of your little twists to the truth! You are a liar & a horrible nasty man bringing nasty bullshit into this thread... After even thinking this for a defensive move...

YOU WORK WITH CHILDREN! WTF!... you are so fucking low & disgusting! I'm out of this thread & I'll leave you to your own messy head :Oh crap

No I don't. Stop lying. WTF?!!!........

Gary, you don't need 30k to pay wages. You get the girls. They do the cam work. You get paid. You pay the girls.

So why do you really need 30k?

For fuck's sake, Paul, it's 'could have'. Not 'could of'. I normally don't like to nitpick about stuff like that but after ignoring it in several previous posts, I just about lost my shit when you did it again despite splitting up the words with a pronoun.

Great post Robbie. I've always tried to absorb as much as possible from Shap's posts. Like when you wrote "Would hiring an overpriced photographer to shoot have made more money for him? I don't think so.", I already knew that to be the case because that's pretty much what he said in an old thread that had pictures of a model with a visible tag showing through her bra. Maybe Gemma Massey. Also I hope you know that I'm just fucking around when I make fun of the type of porn you watch and whatnot. I respect what you've accomplished and are continuing to accomplish. For what it's worth, I also like kinky shit and probably spanked it over 100 times to a Gauge gangbang scene downloaded from Limewire 10 years ago. Venus (Angelica Costello) is probably my all time favorite porn star. Taylor Rain and Katja Kassin are two other personal favorites.

BTW - I literally just noticed a sale come through for this Hegre-Art gallery. Here are six of my favorite shots from the set. Enjoy.

http://i.imgur.com/k5HzE.jpg http://i.imgur.com/YtP5o.jpg http://i.imgur.com/XWhd9.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/NmKBc.jpg http://i.imgur.com/YN2js.jpg http://i.imgur.com/stBUs.jpg

I've just figured out why you continue to think you're always right and everyone else continues to think you're always wrong. It's because the bulk of your career took place in an era where the consumer had little to no say of what was made available to them and where 'quality' was defined by whatever it was the publishers deemed to be quality. By and large, the industry as functioning as a market with fixed prices. When the internet caused the market to open up and the laws of supply and demand kicked in, wages were eventually driven down to the level that they would have been at for years had there been a more free market.

Compounding those issues was a lack of fluidity, a lack competition and a lack of communication. How did you know what your competition was doing ? Copy deadlines were probably further out from publication than they are now, so looking at a two month old Penthouse spread would only tell you what Michael Ancher or Suze Randall was doing 6 months prior. They were probably keeping their work fresh by incorporating previously unrelated elements and in doing so they were able to push their craft and the industry as a whole forward. Not having access to the same information and or the same networks made it difficult to keep up and even though publishers didn't necessarily know what it was that their consumers liked about their products, they just continued to pay the fixed rate because they didn't know any better. In a such a situation, it's easy to see why you think the way you do.

Plus the fact that the editors of magazines were pornographers not photographers and only wanted the product that fulfilled the tech requirements of color printing at the time.
Also the mags were regulated by the government, and wholesalers.

Also professional photographers were working in the mainstream media with well paid jobs. Fashion photography with much better skills, budgets and editors with an eye for culture.

The readers had no choice. Porn was as dull then as Paul Markham's pictures are today.

Today? His style hasn't changed at all.

Get girl. Grope her. Tell her she's given you an erection. (Paul thinks this is "flirting"). Then give her book of 20 standard poses and get her to do the poses. Cookie cutter, emotionless and as sexy as vomit.

interesting how i offered to show everyone here the solution and all you had to do was agree that if you used any of the techniques you would have too put your shit in the public domain.

You back peddled like a little bitch.

You might want to think about that

if it didn't work you would never use it

if it worked only marginally you could keep doing what your currently doing an still be a great success

if it worked only as well as what you were doing you would now have tons of competition but you could still do what you were doing.

The only way you could be hurt is by that offer was if what i showed you was so much a better than the best you could do that adopting it was the only way you could survive.


Your scared of taking a penalty that would NEVER apply UNLESS what i would showcase is so astronomically great that it put everything your doing to shame.

may make me look like a cock but at least i don't have to repeat myself as often

when i do i simply quote the bigger text an ask the moron

what exactly about ... do you not understand

you might want to think about that when your repeatedly arguing with AWC

that you said

"Same level as twisty" not better as he accused you of claiming.

All you do is repeat yourself.

You are absolutely 100% correct and what's funny is that I had planned on mentioning that I previous post. It's Petter Hegre's wife in those photos above. He published a book titled Luba.

http://www.amazon.com/Luba-Petter-Hegre/dp/3283004471

On that page you'll see that Hegre worked for Richard Avedon. I'm familiar with Richard Avedon, you're familiar with Richard Avedon, Richard Avery mentions Richard Avedon on his bio page (see here) and I imagine that most top glamour/babe photographers are familiar with his work. And even though Paul probably hasn't even heard of Richard Avedon, he was more than likely emulating the work of Suze Randall and Michael Ancher at a time when both were more than likely incorporating elements Richard Avedon into their work. Crossover goes both ways. You can't really blame Paul either because without the internet and without having the same networks as Ancher and Randall, Richard Avedon existed in a world that was largely inaccessible to Paul at that time. He just knew that the checks kept coming. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that so long as he knows that those who are able to successfully 'earn a living' at something are not necessarily 'experts'.

You really also can't blame him for always talking about the same sofa. I once fucked a girl on a Le Corbusier Chaise Lounge and can tell you with utmost certainty that it would be really hot to use one for a shoot, but I only know that because I've been lucky enough to live in NYC during a minimalist design furniture renaissance and with access to dwr.com.

that right there just shows how ignorant you are.

really the explain yourself then

you argued pornhub gay section got more traffic then gaytube entire site because they dominated the search engines


why does pornhub outrank gaytube for all the gay terms they win on

remember both sites are owned by the same company,

anything that is being done for pornhub can be implemented on gaytube for the niche specific keywords

http://www.google.ca/search?gcx=w&so...F-8&q=gay+porn

why does porn hub show up number 2 while gaytube doesn't even show up on the list

if it not the length of the videos and the significantly lower bounce rate what is the "magic bullet" that can't be duplicated from one site to the next.

tell us oh wise pornojew

Are you serious or just joking?

I've changed styles more times than you imagine in the last 3 decades. One look at Astral Blue shows that. And someone was saying Michaels was dated, yet Shap said he bought this content.

Twistys and Robbies sites are poles apart.

The problem with ExGF content is any clown can shoot it, or what they call ExGF. Which is usually, a style of shooting professional models. I was shooting ExGF before your Dad fertilsed the egg in your Mum. We just called it "Readers Wives." Same stuff, different name. It's the fantasy that it's a real girl doing it for kicks and not pay. A girl you could meet or might live near you. Wasn't self shot, because we didn't have cameras that did that. We had Polaroids. Wow So cool to see online breaking new ground. :1orglaugh

OK take some advice of someone who has been involved in porn since the mid 60s. www.strictly-porn.com

Very very little has changed in porn. Fashions of clothing and shaven pussies and the technology is all that changed. And it's stronger these days, because of the diminished risk of prison. And the need to buy. 15 years ago, odds were you needed to buy it to enjoy it. Or take pot luck. That's something online porn did change. Very very little need today to buy it.

Still similar rules apply. Supply and demand.

If you can produce the level of Holly Randal at her best, you're in a very uncompetitive market. If you're selling something 1,000s can produce. You're scratching around competing with 1,000s of others. This is why Shap was successful, Met-Art very successful, Robbie to a lesser degree and ExGF sites, even though this has always been a good niche. Hard to make a lot of money in. If you compare it with other sites in markets that are not saturated with options of where to buy from.

Just seen the thumbs Jimmy posted of Hegre. Few can shoot that level and those few do well. Supply and demand. Not just demand if it's over supplied. The demand is per supplier. Very low,

yawn

what an utter failure you are

you're such a good photographer paul you sell your shit for a $1 a scene

i pay more for toilet paper

The quality of porn has little to do with the equipment. It's more often about the ability of the shooter to control and "use" the model. The rest I've answered.

Not telling him how to market. At online marketing he's great. Missing the opportunity to hire someone full time to raise his content to the level where it makes a profit offline is about business management skills. Looking at other ways to monetise the commodity he was already paying for.

Nothing wrong with arguing points in general and talking about ideas and opinions for tweaking shit. But Paul's mistake is to show the utter disrespect to people who are at a certain level in what they do.

Theonline world. There's other worlds in porn. Employing someone who could get him into those other markets isn't a good ide?

And a lot of guys tried it and succeeded. Most of them coming from offline to online porn. Online thought it ruled porn. Well doesn't mean it should ignore the possible income of other areas of porn. Could he of taken a set of Deans, that he owned full rights on, and sold it to Club US and Club UK. For more than he paid Dean. Not as a one off. But 20 times a month? For sending a few Fed Ex parcels. We did it all the time.

We sold offline and online. The same content.

And marketing and selling is what I've been doing for the last 30 years. OK shit at driving 100,000 of hits and never claimed to be good. Marketing and selling content. Well the quality of my work shows how good I was at that. :winkwink: </sarcasm>
The problem is trolls posting crap and making this only about Shap. He was one of many who never maximised his potential by selling offline. You as well. Never made a fortune with our sites, but at least I opened a couple. I saw online as a place to sell content and started selling to it in mid 90s, kept increasing these sales on top of offline sales. Then opened stores, then paysites. Most paysites stayed stuck in paysites for far too long.

Few went to DVD in the good times, very few went to magazines, Shap bought some content from Holly, Subams from Simon Davies. The rest, well they're few and far between. Look at the offline shooter and companies who came online.

Hustler, Score, Swank, Private, Playboy, DDF, Viv Thomas, Steve Hicks, Suze Randall, PRO, Crescent (yes they fucked up) Paul Markham, Sullivan, Gold and more. Many many more. Some did well, some didn't. The traffic flow the other way wasn't so good.

All that was required was remove the blinkers and look.

who is writing these posts for you?

Damian has proved himself to be beyond help. Being ignorant is something that can be cured with knowledge. Being stupid is a lot harder to cure.

He was too stupid not too realise I was goading him into posting his shit here. Knowing who shot it and knowing the level of Michael's work. Michael is working at a level where shooters license a single picture for more than most online will pay for a whole set.

He took the bait hook line and sinker. If he had only stopped to think. :1orglaugh

So selling the same content that was in a paysite to offline areas of porn and making a huge profit on the content in offline. Is the wrong thing to do?

The rest of your post displays a complete lack of understanding of offline.

Consumers who wanted the "Twistys" niche had maybe as many as 10 magazines to choose from. The editors that got it right, got the most sales from a loyal audience. Yes it was restricted by delivery and wholesale. Ultimately the restrict ion was decided by it's sales. As you say online ever had that restriction and 10,000s of sites were opening. Which brought down the earnings.

The skills to open a paysite and market it, are not as high as they are to fill it with content of the level of Hegre, Met-Art, Holly Randall and others. Twistys got higher than most. Which made Shap's job easier. The majority were left all trying to stick their noses into a few troughs. Imagine 1,000 pigs trying to get a mouth full from a trough meant to feed 100. Now think of 10 pigs feeding in a trough made for 20. Who gets fattest fastest?

By improving what was inside the members area. You can do this. Most couldn't afford it only selling via their sites. Easy to do when you sell in other places.

Now is that good business or not?

I'm off to bed. Had a surreal day dealing with something else. Nice to get back to GFY for a spot of trolling. Now the day is out of my head. Thanks guys.

You get yourself very confused. It is quiet simple.

1) Porn photography was very conservative, rather dull and the photographers to make themselves feel like real professionals made up lots of silly rules so that they could pretend they were "pros". Some have evolved into Met Art etc, but even they produce photographs to a formula.

2) People like to feeling of amateur porn as it felt real without the plastic feel of over made up models being photographed in the same boring way. it is cheap to make and popular.


3) Original creative erotic photography is expensive to make taking a lot of skill, time and money, it has a small audience, mostly in arty circles. made by photographers earning money from other sources.

One other disconnect in Paul's theory is that he does not indicate where or what all these high dollar shooters who were allegedly to proud to settle for less money online are doing.

What was their alternative option?
Where are they now and what are they doing?
Are they still shooting?
Are they still involved porn ?

We know what Paul is doing, but what about the others?

Most online shooters are gone. Many of the offline shooters are gone.

Some are still working in adult, many are retired like me on the money made in the good years. Some have moved into other areas of photography. wedding, hotels and even wild life shooter in Africa. Surprised when I saw him on National Geographic.

I'm hoping to get a package of content soon from one of those who didn't shoot for exclusive liceses.

Not too proud. Just not going to give up higher paid work to shoot lower paying work. If we had gone the custom route it might of made us a bit more. As the money we made selling from the stores was often more for a scene than what was offered for custom, we declined.

Giving up time is the problem. We could do a casting in Prague with a good chance of shooting 10 small "Readers Wives" sets of 30-50 images for $300 non exclusive. Than many would ever earn in a day shooting exclusive. $3,000 for magazines. Then stores sales and the chance of finding a girl who was worth $3,000 a set.

This is just some of many who turned up on a casting. And the quick sets we hot of them.

http://www.paulmarkham.com/details.php?id=1075

http://www.paulmarkham.com/details.php?id=2159

http://www.bargainbasementcontent.co...ils.php?id=772

http://www.bargainbasementcontent.co...ils.php?id=627

Shot in a hotel room or our apartment in Prague, value of the set $3,000+ takes an hour. Give up that to shoot ATK 5 whole scenes for $1500. :1orglaugh

A shooters commodity is also his time.

Do you give up doing something that will earn you more, to do something that will earn you less? Neither do other people.

You haven't answered me.

So selling the same content that was in a paysite to offline areas of porn and making a huge profit on the content in offline. Is the wrong thing to do?

Can you please.

More nonsense. So these great shooters go off to shoot ...... Weddings !!!


No wonder people prefer amateur material, better amateur than tired shit shot in the same way it was 30 years ago.

Why didn't they go off to work in advertising, newspapers, cinema and TV ?

Because they were crap. They knew nothing about real professional photography.