Compete with Twistys/OT? Watch out Manwin!

Gideon you fucking idiot, gay tube has a ton more videos that porn hub gay.

Not only that it is a moot point. Fabian owns both and is using different models for each.

Don't you think if it wasn't making a shit ton of money he would have changed the model? That site is the top affiliate for most gay programs. Why? Because it functions as a tube should and there is actually incentive for the surfers to join.

gideongallery + paul markham = your brain implodes

Zoiks!!!

I have decided to let him rot. Tried it before and his goading brings me back down to his level. Trying again.

Still no reply from the Brno police about a dirty old man who wants to be a teacher of children yet says he thinks teachers must have an iron will to resist fucking them.

Weird?!?

I give you 3 hours tops.

I thought I was on ignore?

Clearly you are as bad as putting people on ignore as you are not being a stereotypical jericurled redneck misogynistic coke head who thinks he was a rock star because he played in a few dive bars to people who weren't listening.

the large text is so that moron like you won't miss the point

type in domains are different then search engine rank


post a 30 minute video and 5 minute video for the exact same keywords do exactly the same optimization

see which one ranks higher,

bounce rate effects search engine ranking

1. add up all the views it still way less
2. i have already explained why fabian is doing it the way he is

gaytube sells newbie before they realize they can search with the tease no please

pornhub and the other tube sites grab the users and keeps them when they finally get smarter


the first is a type in heavy traffic

the second is user submitted heavy traffic (seo, etc)

you are so clueless just stop now. you are like the paul markham or torrents and tubes.

I love how you make absolutely no room for the possibility that you are in no position to be making demands as to who a company may employ to do what. In your mind, the mighty Paul Markham will get answers! What a fucking joke.

Yeah, he said he emailed support@

Hilarious.

I AM PAUL MARKHAM, TELL ME IF DAMIAN JENNINGS IS HELPING YOU WITH SOME MARKETING STUFF.

do you realize how stupid that statement is

fabian is wrong about how to operate pornhub and robbie is right because fabian owns both and operates both successfully

rather then determine what the difference between the two sites you actually trying to make the insanely stupid argument that

fabian is wrong because he is right.

let me ask you the question your ignoring if gaytube operates the way a tube site does why haven't you guys chipped in the money bought pornhub and switched over to the right way of doing it

you should be able to make mad money by fixing the mistake

hell why hasn't fabian done the change and collected all that extra money he is leaving on the table.

remind me again who was the idiot who claimed that gay section of pornhub being bigger then gaytube.com was because of demographic difference between straight and gay population sizes.

oh wait.

you are delusional, no one agrees with you. fuck off.

have to admit it is pretty funny you try and argue your point by changing the font size like a little kid in his high chair making his point by banging his spoon on his dish.

mentally and emotionally you are stuck at that level. sad. you should see a shrink. you don't have to live like that.

These are pretty decent pics and for sure a thread fail. But not better then twistys as Paul states.

I would agree with you if the Twistys shooters had been working and shooting for magazines like Playboy and Penthouse, or even lower down the scale.

This is where the real money was for shooters lower down the scale like us.





These were the bottom payers of the magazine market. Paid $1,000 to $1500 non exclusive for a set only.

Once a shooter rises to the level of Playboy and Penthouse, he's also into areas like Calendars, post cards and other levels that paid $1,000 non exclusive for a single picture.

If an online custom shooter or content provider worked for both, the top end and online he was maximising his earnings. Working only for online is leaving money on the table. Assuming he could work for both ends.

Micheal Ancher is one of the offline shooters who worked both ends. And top of his game.

Damian in posting this thread just displayed his ignorance in not being able to spot the distinct difference between what we produced and what one of the best shooters in the glam porn market produced.

OK Paul, you are starting to make sense now, I'll give you that, but I do still disagree with your assessment of the Twistys shooters so here are a few pics. Can you tell me what's wrong with them?

Just to recap, actually, what happened was you posted saying that these two pictures were better than Twisty's and OT.




Then you lied, (imagine that, you, lying!) saying I said they were shit. Then I asked you to quote me saying that, and you couldn't. Then someone else asked you to quote me saying that, and you couldn't. Because you are a liar. A nasty, little liar.

That's all.

Bless you and your lack of suit.

Heheh.

xoxoxox

interesting how you keep dodging the question asked of you guys

let me repeat them

It's even worse than that. Ever been to England? If so, been to a pub? They start fist fights and stabbing all the time about nothing. The worst football hooligans are in England. Something is terribly wrong with the Brits and their society. It's hatred and violence all over. A lot of Brits moved to France and other countries already, why do you think Paul moved to Czech Republic?

Better still, tell me why that are working for a few hundred bucks a set?

Posting 5 pics of what is basically 2 poses isn't "set" photography. It's Calender photography which is another level all together.

This is what Micheal shoots as a set. Not all of the set is shown in some of these thumb pages that would get submitted.

http://www.paulmarkham.com/details.p...120%29&id=6000

http://www.paulmarkham.com/details.p...120%29&id=6008

http://www.paulmarkham.com/details.php?id=6011

http://www.paulmarkham.com/details.p...120%29&id=6012

http://www.paulmarkham.com/details.p...120%29&id=6002 Least spread of poses required IMO

http://www.paulmarkham.com/details.p...120%29&id=6009

http://www.paulmarkham.com/details.p...120%29&id=6009

My work

http://www.paulmarkham.com/details.p...+120%29&id=251

http://www.bargainbasementcontent.com/details.php?id=56

http://www.bargainbasementcontent.co...x+120%29&id=57

http://www.paulmarkham.com/details.p...120%29&id=1138

http://www.bargainbasementcontent.co...+120%29&id=902

http://www.bargainbasementcontent.co...120%29&id=1135

Studio assistants work.

http://www.paulmarkham.com/details.p...120%29&id=1814

Just a few.

Now if they did shoot this level they have to explain why they left a fortune on the table by shooting for online. Because in now way did online pay anything like what offline paid. We earned more from the stores than we would of by selling the scenes once.

I know from looking at sets in paysites, including Twistys, the spread of shots, repeated poses and missed poses. Would of got a set rejected.

This from an online site.



70 images with what is basically only 13 shots. Why? Because online was obsessed with quantity. Put that on your computer and play it in a slide show and it's just repeat after repeat.

The same goes for video. Few wanted 3 good solo girl scenes for $500 a scene. They wanted 5 poor scenes for $300. No one would pay $1500 for one great solo girl scene. So members areas were boring a lot of the times and retention sucked, then conversions slid. Because surfers became more and more wise that a members area wouldn't deliver.

I know you were doing 100 sign ups a day and they were staying 3 months. Think of doing 1,000 a day and staying 6 months. What ever the numbers were, they should of been better.

Consider maybe as many as 90% of offline shooters are like me. Freelance guns for hire. Ask us to shoot a scene and we will nod yes. Tell us $500 to $700 a solo girl scene exclusive and we will say no. I've no doubt some spent more than $700 for solo girl, but that was to cover the cost of the models. What ended up in the shooters pockets wasn't enough, IMO, to get the Viv's, Steve's and Micheal's of the business shooting for them consistently.

In no way do I blame the shooters. This is purely down to the sponsors.

You saw guys throwing money around like it was confetti, we saw a different picture when it came to buying the product.

I don't hate any one on a message board. They're not that important.

Dislike, think apathetic, think they're losers, feel sorry for them. These are better ways to describe them.

I just use strong language when expressing myself online and off. But no, don't hate Damian.

No one minds strong language, it's just he ad hominem attacks and name calling when you are faced with proof, again, that you are lying that get tedious.

The thing that is striking is how dull and repetitive all the pictures are.

How lacking in any new creative ideas, any real use of photography.

Like passport photography one type of lighting/ one set up, same stupid poses.

It would be really good to cut down the quantity and up the quality.

That's because Paul says there are only 20 or 30 poses used in porn and he has them in a book and shows the model, as he is groping her and talking about how she has given him an erection, and tells her to do the same poses that all the other girls he has shot do.

This is why his work is so samey. Cookie cutter porn that absolutely anyone could do after reading about lighting for 5 minutes.

These are not my photos, they were just some I came across today.

I think they make the point about how tired and boring most porn pics are. And how Paul Markham has no idea about photography.

I only posted 5 from the Twistys set because there are only 5 are available for promotion. See here.

http://girls.twistys.com/preview/du/...Tg4ODEwOjE0OjE

With that being said, though, I was somehow able to track down 15 additional photos from what is clearly the same shoot on the ad tools page for the website of the photographer, or as you like to say, 'shooter'. Here you go.

http://www.hollyrandall.com/freephot...OjU,0,0,0,2449

I'm surprised that you didn't immediately recognize the Twistys photos given that Holly's work has appeared in more than a few magazines over the years. See here.



"I?ve shot for Penthouse, Hustler, Playgirl, High Society, Club, Cheri, Genesis, to name a few." - Holly Randall

Photographer Holly Randall's photo of GiGi has landed on the cover of Hustler magazine and now her work has graced the cover of every major adult magazine - a rare feat. - AVN

Not to mention a few books. Real, actual books which are available for purchase.



http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss...x=holly+randal

This thread is closed.

Yeah, online photography sucks. Look at this rubbish.

OMG the level of retard in this thread is unbelievable.

Jimmy...From what I read Paul say, he merely asked why a photographer that good wasn't shooting for Playboy.

Looks like they are at magazine level.

As for why a semi-retired guy in Europe didn't "recognize" that photographers work...I have to admit I've never heard of Holly Randall either. I just don't make it my life's work to find out who is shooting magazine stuff in 2011.

But Paul's point that most still photography these days is the "photographer" snapping 300 pics so fast that it's just the girl moving one millimeter at a time from photo to photo is dead right.

I personally won't do that. I REFUSE to take the same pic over and over and over. I try to compose a different picture each time that tells a story.
And I'm just a a piss-ant.

Paul is correct to say WHY would major sites have those kinds of sets of photography (the cameraman just snapping as fast as he can) instead of carefully composed shots?
It's like you could print them out on index card size photo paper, and flip them with your hands and you'd have animation! lol

maybe because the consumer wants volume in age of the internet?

not rocket science here.

The magazines more started to really decline in 2005. After 2008 shooters had little options, work for what online paid or don't work very much. Today it's more or less all that's left. If Holly played in both camps then good for her, she's one of the bright ones.

I played in both camps. Holly looks like an offline shooter who came to online to increase or slow the decrease in her earning.

Had never heard of her.

Most sponsors paid so little that getting the quantity right was paramount to getting the quality right. Even Dean said his biggest pressure was getting it all done in the time and for the money. Magazine shooters never had that problem. We had to get it right to get paid.

That's how my training was based.

Same goes for video. Churn them out and fill the site and keep it in budget.

So did you pay the price to compete with others sectors of porn consistently. Or not?

$3,000 a scene would be a fair price.

As Robbie says, this isn't about me or Twistys. It's about the amount of importance we put on the product. And the effect that had on earnings. Today it's screwed and the good days are long gone. You and I had a good innings and walked away with something. Most didn't and a lot more won't.

Looking at Holly's site she's definitely one of the good ones. The stuff I saw on that site, basing an opinion n the tour it's above Twistys.

http://girls.twistys.com/preview/du/...Tg4ODEwOjE0OjE

BG stuff, well over exposed and on a pale girls.

Comparing http://girls.twistys.com/preview/du/...alexisford.wmv and http://girls.twistys.com/preview/du/...alexisford.wmv

To the solo girl and BG here. Well it hammers home my point.
Different level entirely. http://www.hollyrandall.com/free2/to...0,2449#updates

One site is churning it out. The other is producing a quality product. Where would you prefer to be sending traffic Jimmy?

And that's why content is King, if you can produce that level. If you can't then you need tons of traffic to get a sale. After the affiliates have worked sending traffic their best paying sites.

This is just top level stuff, still the same rule applies right the way down to amateur. To convert it has to knock the viewer off his chair enough to make him get out his CC. He doesn't give a shit if you paid $3000 or $300. He needs an erection. And that's why so many times, the surfer moved onto the next gallery. He wasn't impressed enough by the content.

Paul your posts are too long. Try to say the same thing in a post that would take <1 minute to read. You are too long winded.

Paul you don't know wtf you are talking about. It's not about judging sales tools, judging a tour, or judging 5 pictures from a set. You are viewing Twistys as a photographer and webmaster instead of a surfer or member. I didn't get rich with Twistys by accident. I delivered what the members wanted.

Best is I think we bought from the guy Paul is saying is too good for Twistys MUAHHAHA

You forgot that you ran it into the ground, not that you sold it on a high.

Yeah we bought ever picture he's ever had for sale. That's what happens when you judge a site without even logging into the member's area.

Paul doesn't come to GFY to write about weekend trips to Karlovy Vary or how he can no longer do more than three shots of Slivovitz without wetting the bed, he writes consistently and cocksurely about the state of industry and how the quality of modern online content pales in comparison to quality of print content back in the day. Seeing as a British photographer by the name of Suze Randall has been shooting for magazines such as Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler since the 70s and that Paul seems to be going for more of the 'expert' label than the 'semi-retired guy from Europe' label, I guess I just felt that it was reasonable to assume that he would be aware of the fact that Suze has a daughter named Holly who has been shooting for 10 or so years, has a few sites which can be categorized as falling under the realm of his purported expertise, and who's work has appeared in the magazines that he continues to this day to regard as being the gold standards of an industry in which he knows more about everything than almost anyone else. Silly me. I guess I'm the one that's been taking all those crazy pills.

Art is not static nor are the wants and needs of the masses. Those facts have been magnified by the rate at which technology has evolved over the past 10-15 years, especially in a field such as photography and in the mediums in which it is consumed. I seriously doubt that any of the well respected photographers who do sets in such a way, maybe like a Hegre, are doing so just so they can finish quickly and call it a day. It is clearly an intentional style that probably has more to do with how they have adapted to the new technologies or because of influences from fashion photography. Who knows. It is what it is and many people like that style.



I'll try to get to this tomorrow because I really do want to help you be better at understanding things.

I did an extensive review of the content on Twistys and pointed out some very basic problems. Nothing to do with surfers or members. Just basic problems. Would you like me to post the reviews of what I found and our email discussions?

The difference between the gallery Jimmy posted and the latest updates on Holly's site is so easy to see, I'm staggered you're trying to defend it.

You could of been a lot richer.

Yes you bought all the non exclusive Micheal shot. Because Micheal was able to make more shooting non exclusive or because you couldn't afford to employ him full time, or even freelance as a custom shooter?

This high lights the narrow thinking of online guys.

Many site owners are clearly great at setting up traffic flow, dealing with affiliates and running a site. Yet when it comes to the product, it's production, areas other than offline to monetize it and keep it above the level of many others. Lacking.

How much more could of been made by people with one set of skills forming a partnership with a person with another set of skills?

Yet online porn's view of content under values it to the level where it allows many to compete. Effects conversions and hurts retention. While paying out the maximum to get traffic, spending loads of time to cultivate this area.

The money, time and attention spent to produce the actual product that success or failure ultimately depends on. Is sadly lacking. Taking even a cursory look at Holly's site. It's clear she is a great shooter. Yet not the most visible of people when it comes to traffic generation.

I met many people who were good at setting up sites. Few made enough to pay us what we could earn elsewhere. Or thought we would shoot for peanuts. None wanted a clear and open partnership that could of benefited both. None could offer us enough to take the non exclusive license from us and make the stores close. The magazines that were paying $1,000s for a 1 year exclusive license in their country, wanted non exclusive Internet rights. No paysite could compete with that. They simply would never pay the price.

Yet in practice what did they do with they do with the non exclusive Internet rights? Very little. In fact the online guys boasted offline was clueless about online. So taking our production for just the non exclusive Internet rights. Excluding us from reselling via the stores. They would of made more money.

Ultimately some were unwilling and most unable to pay what we and Michael earn from selling sets to all comers.

The lack of vision on the product made a lot of peoples jobs a lot harder.

Galleries that inspired surfers to keep looking longer than others. You know this to be true because of the different success of some companies galleries. Tours that converted far better than others. And you came up with every excuse but the obvious. It was the design, the join button wasn't big enough, the text wasn't good enough and anything to hide the obvious. The content is no different than content in 1,000s of other galleries.

Yes judging a gallery and tour is what it's all about. If people don't take the first step you fucked at getting them to take the last one.

Shap like most online guys was too obsessed with traffic and had a lower than warranted opinion of the product. He did well, but could of doe a lot better is what I'm saying and this applies to many online guys. Buy cheap content and throw expensive traffic at it. Because the content simply doesn't inspire enough. Whoops!!!!!

Now with second vision, online porn paysites had 10 good years. If that, 2000-2010. Now the effect of cheap hosting, speeds and BW will kill it off. Slowly but surely. During the good years very few really capitalized on them.

This is hilarious.

Shap, he doesn't believe any of the bollocks he types. He is just a desperately sad, ill, lonely, failure who's own wife choses to leave the house every day to get out of his way.

He is seeking attention and you are giving it to him.

He trolled Fabian, now he's trolling you.

Well done Paul!

I have no idea who Hegre is. But I do know that when I see photos in a set that were just being snapped as fast as the camera would shoot that there was no time taken in composing that photo and looking for something. It's just laziness.

I can tell you 100% that it is a LOT easier to point a camera and just shoot every second than it is to compose a photo and try to make each shot tell a different piece of the story.

Maybe it's because our scenes we shoot tell a little story that I try to follow with the storyline of each scene in the pictures. I just see no use at all to have 30 pictures a minute of a girl moving one millimeter in each photo. They all look the same.

I like to shoot pics of the intro (pretty girl shots if you will). Each one different. Then a handful of pics of each progression of the sex ending with two or three shots of the cumshot at the end.

If I shoot 50 to a hundred still pics during a scene I may have shot too many! lol

I guess it's just a preference on my part. But as a SURFER...I sure don't like having to wade through 3 or 4 pages of pictures that all look alike. If I'm jerking my cock I want a page of pictures in front of me that are moving through the sex act so I can quickly click one to the next to see what I want instead of the frustration of page after page of the cock moving a millimeter out of her mouth at a time.

your extensive review :

shap was obsessed with traffic and as a consequence recently sold a site for several million dollars

paul was obsessed with posting shit on forums and recently sold a set of content for $1

Paul is now just obsessed with getting attention.

You know when you have a 3 or 4 year old and then you get a new baby and the toddler will do anything to get attention. Even shitting on the floor?

Paul reminds me of an annoyed toddler shitting on the floor.

Did you miss my post saying both are viable models for tube sites? Porn Hub surfers are used to full length videos supported by ad revenue. Gay Tube surfers are used to mostly promo clips with links to the corresponding site. Why change either when both work and both sites are cash cows in their own respective ways. There are plenty of ways to make money in this industry as evidenced by all of the people making money different ways.

A guy making three million a year off free joins isn't going to convince a guy making three million a year off of full joins that his way is better.

Obviously Holly had training at the best academy in the world fr the porn she shot, in the studio of a handful of other top shooters. Should of put the two Randall's together.

So clearly out of the league of Shap and maybe all others until the industry was brought down.

So let's look at a picture of what it took to run a solo girl site. I've had to pull the figures out of best guesses, still think it's interesting to see.

Members are sign ups and retention.
Members Rev is X $30
Traffic Cost 50% this includes all costs to generate traffic. 33% payout the rest support and marketing.
Billing 10% With top sites it's cheaper, but with lesser it's not. Yes Merchant account is cheaper.
Admin Fixed cost of $15k
Set up Fixed cost of $10k
Product Fixed cost of $40k
Cost Total of costs

Profit. Is what's left before taxes.



As you can see, not a lot of room for maneuver.

40,000 members = 3,333 sign ups or retains a month.
111 a day and was doable in the good times for a good solo girl site.
Still only an income of $235,000 a year.

This sounds entirely logical when you sit my side of the industry and hear people tell you they simply can't afford $500 a scene, 80 scenes. Which isn't going to make for a great retaining site. They were always saying the same thing. Can't afford to pay that.

Now before you flame me, do some thinking of what a site needs to do to kick off with 100 scenes, add 365 during the year and have a level of content that warrants those figures without spending a fortune on traffic.

Don't just say "we were doing this a day. Justify it.

Many did and many didn't and with solo girl sites getting 3,333 a month to sign up was hard going for most. For a one man band it's a nice living. For a proper business. The income sucked. The idea of us throwing away what we did, to open a paysite to make $235,000 a year.

Because it would mean splitting the $235,000 down the middle to get a good partnership. $117,500. Isn't going to impress me. Holly would laugh at it and do the figures for her level of content and my $500 a scene is very wrong.

And that in a subjective look at online is why paysites couldn't go to offline shooter and offer enough to make them come over 100% to online.

Hope I did my figures right.

Some will look at them and laugh, some will look at them and weep. Most will look at them and come up with stupid replies.

Ain't that the truth.

Good trolling Paulie! I taught you well.

xoxox

What training was that? A good photographic school ?

You're spot on with the Holly Randal being the daughter. I should of realised she had training from the top levels. Silly of me. Makes it even more obvious why she was out of the reach of so many.

You took a lot of typing to say that. Shap will be telling you off.

You're in porn. It's your job to know why.
Please do.