Censor pussy and ass in solo girl FHG's?

[AmeliaG]

I kind of think I've seen some solo girl sites star out the naughtiest bits in FHG's. Some even star out or black bar nipples. Do you think this is better or worse for sales? What do you think is best?

SpookyCash is about to launch a new solo girl site for affiliates and I'm wondering which option to go with.

[Captain Kawaii]

Less is more.

[freecartoonporn]

if the girl/site is exclusive then less is good.
let them crave to see babe's pussy,nipples
it works for me., i have joined sites just to see the babes pussy .
2 cents.

[JeanJ]

Yup, I tend to be a little more intrigued when the fun bits are covered up.

Human nature I suppose.
You want what you can't have, you want to see whats behind the curtains.

[AmeliaG]

I'm pretty sure SpookyCash affiliates will try the galleries either way and see what makes money, but do any of you all know whether there are any major TGP's which won't take censored galleries? Maybe I just mean The Hun and should check there . . .

[seksi]

What I think & (my experience bears out) is better is a mix of non-nude and softcore that clearly signals what you get from purchasing the membership. That way affiliates stay clear of any secondary producer 2257 liabilities and you can focus on unique text descriptions and personal testimonials. I also think cropping to remove the focus on graphic sex works well and stars/blurring is cheesy. But that's experience with my own galleries, FHG's from sponsors were a waste of time for me. Everyone had them. I suppose FHGs would be useful today in avoiding 2257 secondary producer problem, but it would hard to find a sponsor provided gallery that I could endorse and through traffic at.

I saw very few actual affiliate mangers for sites I would probably promote at internext. I interviewed a couple of new faces that will have really compelling sites to promote when they have affiliate programs, if they ever need those at all.

[arock10]

Originally Posted by seksi

What I think & (my experience bears out) is better is a mix of non-nude and softcore that clearly signals what you get from purchasing the membership. That way affiliates stay clear of any secondary producer 2257 liabilities and you can focus on unique text descriptions and personal testimonials. I also think cropping to remove the focus on graphic sex works well and stars/blurring is cheesy. But that's experience with my own galleries, FHG's from sponsors were a waste of time for me. Everyone had them. I suppose FHGs would be useful today in avoiding 2257 secondary producer problem, but it would hard to find a sponsor provided gallery that I could endorse and through traffic at.

I saw very few actual affiliate mangers for sites I would probably promote at internext. I interviewed a couple of new faces that will have really compelling sites to promote when they have affiliate programs, if they ever need those at all.

Pretty sure softcore or NN doesn't exempt you from 2257. Anything sexual oriented even if there isn't T and A

[k0nr4d]

Some countries - for instance UK - require that you do this otherwise you can be fined...

[Tofu]

Just tossing my little in, but some of my highest CTR banners have been ones with the face or coochie blurred out.


.

[Klen]

Well,there are no definitive answer to this,but one thing is sure-it is good to have both nude and nonnude option in fhg's.Since somewhere can work good,somewhere not.

[Best-In-BC]

Originally Posted by Captain Kawaii

Less is more.