How do sponsors feel about websites charging surfers to see their FHG's?

[BV]

How do sponsors feel about other webmasters making a type of paysite that charges surfers to access sponsor hosted galleries?

I'm curious to know what the general consensus on this is.


BV

[spooky181]

As long as I can signup under them and make money sending traffic to them. They wouldn't make any money anyway, why would a surfer signup when the tgp/mgp model is so established....

[NinjaSteve]

If people use hosted galleries in their members area I don't see a problem. It's like a free paysite plugin that advertises another site. The current members are qualified buyers and when they cancel their membership they'll be done for now or get a new password at another site.

[BV]

Originally Posted by NinjaSteve

If people use hosted galleries in their members area I don't see a problem. It's like a free paysite plugin that advertises another site. The current members are qualified buyers and when they cancel their membership they'll be done for now or get a new password at another site.

Not what I am talking about.

I mean a whole paysite with sponsor content on the tour (thumbs) then when you click on the thumb it sends you to a payment page.

[BV]

Originally Posted by spooky181

As long as I can signup under them and make money sending traffic to them. They wouldn't make any money anyway, why would a surfer signup when the tgp/mgp model is so established....

well no, you can't sign up and send traffic to them, basically a private site that sells access to fhg's

[Sly]

Is this anything like that myfreepaysite, site... except you pay for it?

[Agent 488]

what's the site? hard to make a judgment without ...

[BV]

Originally Posted by Sly

Is this anything like that myfreepaysite, site... except you pay for it?

not really

it's a tgp/mgp style layout except the thumbs go to the join page where they have some type of phone biller

[bobby666]

that sounds not just fair

[rowan]

I can see some advantages of this model. If the webmaster has a traffic source outside of the TGP "circle" then they've already helped push the surfer along towards the ultimate goal of signing up at a paysite, rather than just looking at free pr0n all day. Both the TGP webmaster and sponsor save on bandwidth since the freeloaders only ever see the tour for the TGP.

The one sticking point is that the TGP webmaster is using sponsor content to generate direct income. So long as it's a reasonable price (eg a few bucks - and not competing with a paysite by promising 100,000 images for $19.99 a month) the qualified traffic sent to the sponsor should make that content issue moot. IMHO.

I toyed with this idea a few years ago, including trading qualified traffic with other webmasters running similar sites, but I don't really have any alternative sources of TGP traffic.

[BV]

Originally Posted by rowan

I can see some advantages of this model. If the webmaster has a traffic source outside of the TGP "circle" then they've already helped push the surfer along towards the ultimate goal of signing up at a paysite, rather than just looking at free pr0n all day. Both the TGP webmaster and sponsor save on bandwidth since the freeloaders only ever see the tour for the TGP.

The one sticking point is that the TGP webmaster is using sponsor content to generate direct income. So long as it's a reasonable price (eg a few bucks - and not competing with a paysite by promising 100,000 images for $19.99 a month) the qualified traffic sent to the sponsor should make that content issue moot. IMHO.

I toyed with this idea a few years ago, including trading qualified traffic with other webmasters running similar sites, but I don't really have any alternative sources of TGP traffic.

I think the screening out the freeloaders might be good, but it also might cut out a lot of educated surfers that are too smart to pay for tgp galleries but would still buy something if it struck their fancy. so you will loose them because they will just go elsewhere.

I guess the part that makes me feel a bit uneasy is that they make money off of sponsor content by charging for it.

Sort of like a 3rd party webmaster setting up a shareware download site of all the shareware programs but charging access to it.

or I guess it could be compared to a webmaster building AVS sites out of sponsor content, which is pretty common, (or used to be), but usually only one sponsors content is on an avs site. and I don't really allow avs sites to use my content these days.

[pornguy]

Its called filtering. You are filtering out the payers and non payers, and is some aspects for the program it's a good idea. the bandwidth bill drops. But its also something that has to be watched closely.

[rowan]

Followup thought: charging by dialer probably isn't the best way of qualifying traffic.

[gandalfuy]

if they leave the FHG template i give to them.. its fine for me.

[Vick!]

Originally Posted by Sly

Is this anything like that myfreepaysite, site... except you pay for it?

My ignorance. But what actually myfreepaysite have inside its members area? Free hosted movie and picture galleries?

[maxjohan]

Originally Posted by Vick!

My ignorance. But what actually myfreepaysite have inside its members area? Free hosted movie and picture galleries?

I joined a few years ago and they have lots of long clips and good stuff. I guess they want to make the money on return vistors in the long run, on which they upsell to dating sponsors like AFF and other stuff.

I think it's a good way to make money if you have a budget to advertise your site and know your conversions and specially upsell ratios.

what maxjohan said