Fitty honest questions :Graucho

Agreed, but it's not as huge as you might think. Instead of looking at what you're losing, look at what you're gaining, by using the sponsors content. The outcome is *exactly* the same whichever way you look at it, except you don't feel hard done by, because there's nothing to feel hard done by about :thumbsup

As for the losing 40% - well, you gained 60% because without that content, you'd have no page/site/video/whatever to show the surfer, submit your gallery, rank your blog, whatever...

Personally I don't care if there is a logo. But having the url there starts to cross the line depending on how blatant it is. I've even seen some where they display the url in huge letters at the end and tell the surfer using the audio to type the url in.

I always laugh too when I see an affiliate with a sponsor banner up which consists of mainly the sponsor's url in huge letters all the way across the banner. I've seen this on some huge niche blogs and it always made me scratch my head as far as wondering what the affiliate was thinking in putting up those banners.

I guess that used to be true. I admit I used to monetize those sites a bit using other banners and things like mobile redirects as well. So it goes both ways. But truth be told I would never have used these other monetization methods had the paysites converted better and an improvement in my numbers of 20-40% would have made a huge difference with that. The main purpose of most affiliate sites was always to sell paysite memberships. Affiliates started turning to other things more when the numbers went south in order to survive.

On new sites I've moved away from most sponsor content (and most porn content) completely and am focusing on other types of sites with a different draw. In my mind they can get that anywhere and the tubes offer the full scenes so why should the surfer check out my sites if that's mainly what I offer? I wish it were different.

Until the affiliate moves on or decides he can get more $ by sending the traffic from that URL to another sponsor, or to their own site in the future.

IMHO the program should own all domains that gets watermarked on their content. To do so otherwise is just begging to get fucked. Provide domains for the better affiliates and let them go to work. If they don't trust you enough or won't let you own the domain, then that should tell you all you need to know about them and their future plans with your content.

Well that is where the 100% trust comes into it I do agree. Problem is when the sponsor closes, changes hands, etc - we've all seen this a boatload of times - as the aff you have zero recourse if the sponsor owns the domain as well. The trust has to work both ways, which is why it's so few and far between that these arrangements are set up. Which is a shame, because it really is win-win for both parties.

Valid point, as sponsors do close up shop.

Unless I really knew someone, and I mean knew them for a while in the business, I would not allow my content to be watermarked with a URL I didn't own. As luck would have it, they are never the ones asking for tube clips they can watermark on their own. It's always guys who ask and then get offended if you don't let them have their way with your content. That always throws a red flag for me. If it was that important to them, they could buy their own content the way affiliates used to do. Then they could do with it as they pleased, and promote whoever they want with it.

The #1 problem here is MARKETING INTELLIGENCE. Because honestly here's what I feel:

Give ME a watermarked, 2 min clip that gets sent out to 10,000 affiliates and I - ME - I will still make sales. This is how confidant I am in my own bullshit. LOLZ!!

Seriously tho: water is free, people still buy it in droves. Porn is free? Great - then why do they buy my shit? Ratios ain't what they used to be, sales ain't what they used to be - fine. But I am still MAKING SALES. So I believe - rightly or wrongly - that I could make sales with over-saturated Brazzers/Reality Kings content if I wanted to.

How? Marketing - when a surfer hits your site you, the Webmaster, are now assuming he's "seen it all, he only wants free, he's just looking, he won't buy..." But these are all LIMITING BELIEF SYSTEMS and turn out to be self-fulfilling prophecies. Let's break it down and make it super-simple:

The surfer CAME TO YOUR SITE. He clicked a link, he typed in a URL he clicked a banner, SOMEhow HE CAME TO YOUR WEBSITE. For however long he is there - 5 seconds, 30 seconds, 2 minutes, 10 minutes, - YOU are now responsible to SELL HIM SOMETHING. He's seen it all before, you say? Then why the fuck did he even bother to visit your website in the first place? He's horny NOW so maybe, after seeing it all before a million times, he's ready to buy NOW. From YOU. That's your ONLY job: sell him something NOW, while he's on your website. He may come back (bookmarker), he may click on that link again to get there, or he may never visit again so SELL HIM SOMETHING NOW.

He left your website without buying, you say? DO A BETTER JOB OF SELLING HIM WHILE HE'S ON YOUR WEBSITE. He'll never buy, you say? THEN WHY DID HE BOTHER TO COME TO YOUR WEBSITE IN THE FIRST PLACE? "he's just looking, he doesn't know it's a paysite, he's just fucking around...." Excuses. ONCE HE IS THERE you MUST do a better job of capturing his attention, keeping him there and making a sale.

How much 'window shopping' do YOU do in 'real life"? Hmmm? How many stores do you wander into, look around, then wander out without buying something? Would you visit 50 stores in a day and do this? Maybe some do but most do not. MOST will buy SOMEthing SOMEwhere at one of these stores otherwise THEY WOULD NOT BOTHER ENTERING THE STORE.

So we're ALL overthinking this here folks. When the customer is IN YOUR STORE (on your website) the ONLY person responsible AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME is YOU and YOUR MARKETING SKILLS. Sponser content notwithstanding, type-ins notwithstanding - he's there NOW so sell to him.

Really, at the end of the day, what I just laid out above is the whole ballgame. Anything else is just excuses. Ask Evian or Poland Springs, those companies know what I'm talking about.

Brick 'n' Mortar stores attract people with money willing to spend it precisely because most are designed to make the average consumer's experience simple and pleasant. The less the shopper is distracted or annoyed, the more likely he will grab something from a shelf and end up paying for it in the checkout line.

What would be decent ratios are going to be shit if the Brick 'n' Mortar equivalent of your website is a fucking carnival funhouse.

If your online stores are built to reflect the type of shopping experiences available offline, you will have no problem making sales ..... even with Peabody type products.

Yup, cartoons and characters and fun times and a sense of playfulness is what does the trick, brick 'n mortar or online. At least for me. I gotta enjoy and laugh at what I do otherwise I'd be an old grumpy fuck like most people. LOL

Must say MPeabody is a super nice dude who has offered to help me a number of times and has said, "feel free to ask me for help any time" and I have never taken him up on it either, for whatever boneheaded reason.

Also, regardless of what happens with your sales, micropayments would add 10x to sales, because they are impulse friendly, and 99% percent of adult purchases are in the small window when nothing seems important other than dropping loadage.

MP, I suggest you apply a small portion of your energy and intelligence to firming up a buy-in IP-Hash-Pword based microwallet. There is no resistance at $.10, which is why MFC does so well. 10 seconds and 10 cents, that is the magic formula.

Thanks for the compliments - and the offer of "help" (whatever i could do) is always open. :)

I haven't tried micro-payments but my feeling is this after I've played around with price points and SMS billing (which is similar to micro-payments in that a surfer can join via phone, pay per minute, etc). What i found, for MY sites, is that given the choice between buying a Membership for $30 (average) vs. paying $1 (or $0.10 or some very tiny price) the surfer will take the cheaper option, join, look around then cancel in 10 seconds. LOL So what would've been $30 ended up being $1 (or less).

The number of transactions did not go up but remained the same, only my revenue went down. So since I'm offering such a unique product/presentation, have tons of Bonus content for added value and being a small company that cannot absorb PPS-type deals or micro-payments I keep my prices relatively high. People will pay more if they perceive the product is worth more; lowering prices or adding micro-payments is, in my opinion and for MY company, shooting yourself in the foot (or leaving money on the table, use whatever cliche you like).

I'm totally with you there - your sites are optimized for what is today. With micropayments, the total revenue would increase but it would probably be a "hypertube" with super search, notification, feedback, premium content partners, interviews, forums, auctions, etc.

I think whenever a surfer sees a $1 paysite price they are conditioned to cancel as soon as possible to avoid the typical $80 in full membership and cross sale charges which would normally follow. :) True micro-payments and where that kind of thing is not a concern (or even really possible) would probably show different results.

I agree with you though for what we have now. I always used to hate it when a great site did $10 memberships because I knew I would usually never make as much as I did when they were $30.

How does the user fund their microwallet?

Same way MFC does, creating a balance from an innocuous payment (American Media, or Specialty Grocer NYC) with an online order history.

User sends funds via wire, check, money order, Bitcoins or CC. Once in account, currency is irreversibly changed into Web Bucks or something like that at 9-$1 or 10-$1.

Accounts are device based, IP based, and PWord based with device authentication like Bank of America and many other banks.

"Fund cam tips, buy video endings, upgrade to HD, talk to this video performer now while you watch her video", etc.

Vendors submit and confirm totals via receipt and hash, and receive payment as an affiliate would.

And you think a higher percentage of users will do this over pay for a single recurring membership?

I would think a percentage of people would...since a large percentage isnt paying at all.

I guess I disagree. A system really needs critical mass for micropayments to become feasible, I only see a small site or network being hurt by switching to a micropayment based system. Buying a $30 chunk of virtual currency isn't even micropayment at all, it's just spending that same $30 in a different way. It's the same uphill battle of convincing the user to pay for porn. It also provides less value to the surfer (they have to pay to watch each video, rather than being able to watch as many as they want), AND less profit for the webmaster (that $30 can be stretched over an indefinite amount of time, rather than rebilling at the same rate every month).

These are exactly the reasons i choose not to do micro-payments. I think a Program needs mass volume to be successful at micro-payments. Also, a paysite membership is totally differant from cams or buying single videos.

I do. Using the current population as a sample and basing rules on their behavior does not help us serve the segment that would be re-engaged by the employment of low time - low cost payments.

Reducing time cost and price lower buyer resistance can be aggregated into reduced interaction cost. There is a significant population that calculates time cost and cost for every transaction.

The dialog goes, "this is a hot scene, I have exactly what I want. Do I click one button and spend $.10 to see all of it in HD or do I go elsewhere and spend who knows how long? For me" (says the surfer), "10 minutes of free time cost $1 at least. Plus, what is $.10 to me, and how is that jerk on the other end taking advantage of me if I'm only giving up $.10?"

By all accounts, Mr. P is winning the current 45 and older purple squirrel population willing to pay $30/m to see what he wants and come back to the sites every time. The population of impulse buyers who want to "win" by paying you nothing or only a small amount is much larger.

Again, all respect, admiration and thumbs up to Mr. P, but there are costumers out there that could be converted. Over the next few years, mainstream will train our users for us, and they will be using micropayments.

And let me clarify, going it alone would be suicide, as mentioned above - this has to be an industry effort.

Micropayments: Would you pay 20p to read an article?

Google, Apple Expand Micropayment Systems for Web Content and Mobile Purchasing

Europe Shifting to Digital Money and Online Sales for Micropayment

I don't think anyone doubts the future of micropayments in the digital economy. The issue has and will always be processing. Trying to figure out why you are even bringing up micropayments in this thread?

While younger generations are being "trained" to get things for free guess WHAT???

They're gonna get older, too. And when they do all the aging Baby Boomers will be dead. Then what? Then the remaining souls will pay, too.

I believe giving someone a choice between ten cents and thirty dollars a sane person will almost always choose the ten cent option. Younger people - under 30 - also do not have the disposable income to spend on porn and I believe that is regardless of Generation.

Now if technology could determine a Customer's tendencies - he likes to pay full price, he likes to pay by the penny - THEN I could see your argument here. As in, send Customer A willing to pay more to $30 Tour A and Customer B willing to pay ten cents to Tour B. But until then you are shooting yourself in the foot offering ten cent options.

Think of it this way: True, there are more people willing to pay ten cents. But how do you reach them? Wouldn't your traffic need to be TWENTY TIMES what it would need to be if selling $30 Memberships just to make up for the lost volume? If you have that level of traffic it might be worth it to try it, as tubes with millions of visitors do. But under a certain amount of traffic and I would never do it. :)

I brought it up in one sentence as a suggestion, and then answered questions that were asked. Should I not have?

I believe the two models reach an entirely different segment, and need to be addressed an entirely different way. I'm not sure how I could be any clearer.

Mr. P is doing a great job with the segment that wants to buy a monthly membership. I respect and admire him for that and for his intelligence, sagacity, and helpfulness.

I believe, based on a great deal of data, that low interaction payments would add significantly to the revenue of what is essentially an impulse purchase market. I fully agree with your points and caveats Mr. P - even the one about self-selecting into different payment options, and cannibalization. I appreciate your thoughts and guidance.

Great use of the rarely-used word 'sagacity' - tho I'm so tired i thought you were talking about this shitty village i visited once in india, 'Saga City". Or maybe it was a one-horse town in Tucson. Anyway, who IS the Mayor of Saga City? But I digress...

It's totally agreed there are differant segments and groups of purchasers and man do i wish i could be the "Wal-Mart of Porn", catering to everyone's "tastes" (I use that word loosely in association with Wal-Mart). But I don't feel i can and it's based purely on traffic. Percentages are wonderful things but can also be misleading to the bottom line. :)

I wish there was a way to offer options without offering options. LOL

I agree - and I bet you're right the devil is in the details.

Most my friends live pretty decent on $3k/month after taxes here in Sweden, some get by just fine on that before tax even.

But since Swedes are all so gorgeous that 3k a month must be spent on beauty products, no? :D