Now I understand your position and I have to admit I can´t disagree.

i don't care what you say about my site...as long as at the end of your story, there's a link to me....I have an affiliate where the text link to my site says, "The most disgusting black porn site ever"....Do you think I give a fuck? Hell no...Cause I'd rather him have that up there than nothing...Plus the surfers will click on it anyway and come to their own conclusions.

thank you for your post! of course i understand your point and from my own "surfer" perspective i would also prefer to download and own the content.

my only idea would be not penalizing the sites with streaming with a lower score - just tell the people how the videos are presented and then let them decide if they like it or not

love that line, see sig

fuck, never mind

BB code quote is not allowed.

haha. don't be naive. They care about what makes them the most. they'll suck you dry and move to the next program. they don't give a shit about the well being of the program. If they did, you'd see them making rules to help the program. you don't.
there's a reason they're affiliates and not program owners. :winkwink:

yeah yeah yeah, Germany is always better! I know your story. :winkwink:

:moon :thefinger :xmas-smil30 :1orglaugh

I mention DRM in my reviews, but do not take points off of the overall score unless the client's scoring system requires it. Even then, I usually boost the site with bonus/extra points to give it what I feel is a fair score.

They only care for their sales,not websites:)

I could really get on board with the idea. I really could. But you look at what the majority of people want to know: how much does it cost, what do I get and can I keep it? Those are the big three. I just couldn't see at this point, with all of the other things that make up our criteria, not giving it some weight... and we only give it five percent. I think there's a strong argument for giving it more, but whatever.

Tube sites, TGPs, peer-to-peer... what a frickin mess. So much for free... and yet still so many stay in business.

This thread needed a little more German flavor to it Stefan :winkwink:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/pr/subs/s...2_hklum_07.jpg

Doc,
I don't surf review sites much but I guess we agree on the one paying for our our entire adult online bizz is still a surfer. They used to be simple and easy to figure out and handle.....Now they are smart, educated & verbally active online and they don;t take shit from anybody.
I had meetings so many times last year with all our guys about our local Dutch PPM, PPC and VOD sites to try to figure out what the hell the surfers think these days. We even got psychology experts onboard in the end and tested the weirest stuff on sites.
Let me ask you (and others); Why does Walmart go up & up & up where others fail big time no matter how big they are.
There lies the answer.

I wuz here

lol, thanks jim - heidi rocks ;)

Yes, bump 4 Steffan and the excellent content he provides

Walmart vs. Online isn't really fair. From 1/6 the people online, to everything you can do outside of porn vs. porn.

Walmart doesn't always grow, they are always expanding. Overall growth is bound to happen when you can expand and be large enough to force competing markets out as well as force products to pay your price or go out of business with th eothers.

They don't always grow in some areas, some areas they are dieing and shrinking while stores like Target take over. But globally, they are expanding and always moving into areas that 'need' a Walmart. They also have a stepping stone store, build cheap at first and expand if the foot traffic builds.

Totally different game..

I was aiming at their clear (pricing) structure and what they mass communicate (spend less, get the same quality).

Wallmart failed in Germany, miserably. Different market.

But you are right that the surfer has to make the payment. So you have to collect those willing and able to pay. The question is which percentage of your customers won´t buy a membership if streaming is the only option. I can´t answer it right now, but maybe it´s worth to check.

Another option could be streaming for the regular membership and an additional fee for downloading a clip.

:thumbsup
Cherish those :winkwink:

or maybe stream the latest 10 updates and download just for the older ones?

I'm ok with reviewers letting people know what options they have for each site.

We put a lot of work into providing our members with the content and formats they want, be it streaming or downloadable. Personally since I put this extra work into making everything available in multiple formats, I appreciate that it's noticed and seen by the consumer as a benefit.

Tell me how and I´ll do so.:1orglaugh

The Fourth Commandment: "Thou shalt honor thy paying customer."

Your sig just rocks mucho big time :)

The Madonna method of marketing - as she once put it, "They may be talking trash...but at least they're talking about me."

In the case of a review site saying, "The most disgusting black porn site ever" - I think would actually pique a surfer's interest...rather than make him turn away. However, if they made that comment and coupled it with "...with poor quality photography and cheaply shot video" - then I'd say the Madonna marketing principle isn't necessarily a good thing.

:2 cents:

A consumer will always see it as a negative point though.

Take music for instance. I buy mine at Amazon.com because there is no copyright protection that only allows me to play it on a certain number of computers or devices (like iTunes).

Sure it might not be fair, but a consumer is always going to want to get the most for his dollar. A review is written for them, not the affiliate program. It's how they get repeat traffic. Maybe it's not a negative point to you, but I'd garner that most consumers want to download and consider sites that allow it to be better.

Several factors to their formula.

My guess is they consistently offer lower prices and wide selection in a range of products and services...all under one roof. Shoppers don't have to walk through an entire 10-acre mall and visit a half dozen stores to get what they need. They tend to cater their products to the surrounding demographic - our local city has a disproportionately high number of seniors and retirees...so WalMart places stronger emphasis on pharmaceuticals and products that appeal to the needs of seniors.

WalMart also offers free parking, which further hurts the smaller 'downtown' competition stores that only have on-street meter parking or tiny parking lots that are always full.

This isn't really streaming vs not here....this is about being penalized for using DRM.

Paysites could use DRM the way apple does with itunes....where the product can be downloaded but can only be played on 5 devices total. This would prevent the piracy/tube site issues (most of them anyways) while still allowing the customer to download the product to view at their leisure, even after cancelling.

The problem is that review sites and free sites in general that coddle the surfers view DRM as a negative....as if we're somehow fucking over the customer by not allowing them to share the product with 10,000 of their closest friends.

That attitude needs to change IMO.

It's not particularly difficult to record a stream now, but it's still a hassle. I would guess that means that soon enough, people will be recording flash vids in firefox. The alpha nerd porn fans have been trading flv's of camshows etc for a while

First smart thing you've said on here in quite some time. :thumbsup

I would like to expand that statement to encompass Aryan people in general, not just those who live inside of today's German borders. :upsidedow

this sort of sounds like the bitching and whining steve did when review site exposed the fact that his solo girl had quit. And the promised live interaction was really some bubba pretending to be the girl.

you have to remember that an honest review fully disclosing a negative will give a review site repeat customers who will signup to multiple sites

while a white wash (to benefit your specific program, and a tiny portion of their income) will cause surfers not to trust the site and therefore use someone elses.


fair market economic at work.

Would love to hear from more review sites in here!

As an affiliate myself I see it like this...Some sites ARE DVD download sites. Think Videosz Yes, that is their gig. But a site like mine is exclusive and unique. I personally write, shoot, edit, and create every last thing on it. In order for MY customers to have something of value it HAS to be protected. Otherwise why did you just pay $34.99 if you could have seen the entire members area ripped on a torrent site for free?

A review site should be taking that standard and being smart about it. Yes, you want to grade a dvd download site by how good their downloads are. And you want to grade a solo girl site with exclusive content by just how exclusive it is and how well it fits the niche.

Personally if I join a big download site with hundreds of studios content that is designed for downloading...then yes it is a factor. However, as a consumer, if I join a site that is supposed to be exclusive then I damn sure don't expect to see it for free everywhere else.

That would make the consumer feel like a sucker.

I spent a lot of time and money out of my pocket to re-encode BY HAND every movie we have and re-upload all of them. And then I re-did that again as I tweaked through settings and read documentation and educated myself.

Seems to me that if presented correctly that can be shown as the positive that it is for my members and not a negative. Which would result in greater sales for the review site and would also discourage the people who want to download all of our content from joining in the first place.

For instance, I cater to the big tit guys on Claudia-Marie.Com I KNOW that niche inside and out. I know exactly what they are looking for, how to shoot it and how to present it. And most importantly how to SELL it. It's how her site got so damn big so quick.

Knowing that, why don't the review sites present it the same way? As in: Here is a site with damn near anything a big tit lover would enjoy. AND when you join your membership actually means something because you are part of an exclusive collection of people viewing content that is NOT on every tube and torrent.

That IS an honest statement. No need to bullshit the surfer. No need to make up stuff in the review. But it can be presented in a way that shows the value of our encrypted streaming as opposed to making it a negative. It really IS a positive to our true members. You know, the ones who rebill month after month.

We aren't a download site, we are an exclusive big tit site that should be reviewed as such in my opinion. But if certain of my affililates that run review sites just don't want to maximize sales with me...I can't do anything about it. I'll just keep raking in the type-ins and making 100% of the profit. :)

They are writing the review for the consumer, so of course they'd treat it as negative. It's of course not fair from the paysite's perspective, but it's how review sites are built. They're a double edged sword.

do you put "NO DOWNLOADING ALLOWED" in big red letters on the tour.

If you truly believe it not a negative from the prespective of the surfer (not cost you any sales) why not.

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup:2 cents:

I know what you are trying to say gideongallery...but as usual it doesn't come across correctly

That would be marketing it NEGATIVELY.

Using the walmart analogy...Walmart doesn't advertise in big red letters: "WE HAVE CHEAP SHIT FOR SALE" Instead they present their products as affordable and good value for the money.

As I said previously...if it's a big DVD download site with dozens of major studios inside that is designed for download then yeah! Or if it's a site that does advertise to download as much as you want.

But if it's an exclusive site then the content needs to remain exclusive. We have the technology to allow our members to watch the movies faster than downloading them. I'm selling them a membership to a private club online. Not the rights to my content.

What I am doing makes their membership more valuable than it would be if all of the members area were available for free (like it was before I went this route) on every tube and torrent. And in the case of the tubes...they sure do seem to like to watch stuff streaming there for free. heh-heh So far 99.99999% of my members are more enamored with the girl and not so much about whether or not they can download our scenes.

I just wanted to drop in and give our feedback and answer some of the questions in this thread. There are a bunch of issues being discussed here and I am happy to answer any questions about our philosophy on them. However, in this post, I just want to address the main topic presented by MaDalton.

First of all I would like to state that we are all for content producers and providers to protect their content. We in no way support content piracy of any kind. We don?t? want your content out there for free either. We 100% support you.

Yes you are right, we do score sites that offer downloads slightly better than sites that are streaming only. However, the reduction in points is extremely small.

When we do the reviews, we try to evaluate the member?s area from a consumer perspective. The feedback we have gotten for our traffic and outside sources tell us that the majority of consumers want the ability to download the videos onto their computer and watch them easily and freely. Because of this, we will comment in the reviews about both the pros and cons of what download or streaming options the site offers.

Offering streaming only content as a means of loss prevention will only get you so far. The honest consumer is not going to try to figure out how to hack the files and download them. The dishonest consumer will and can still get your content. There are several programs on the market that will allow you to download flash and WMV streaming files. They just rip the content via the software right onto their computer. We just don?t look at streaming videos from a loss prevention point of view.

Our review criteria is an evolving process. As our users tastes change, so will our reviews. If down the road we feel that users prefer streaming only sites over download sites, you will see things change in that direction in our reviews.

If you ask your traffic (take a poll) if they like streaming flash videos, they almost all say no. If you change the words to "do you like streaming you tube videos", more say yes. Why, simply because they don't know what it is and the threat of no downloads bothers them.

But if you put an embedded video with a download link and a flash streaming movie up, that are the same and ask them to rate it. The flash stream kills the download, in rating, views, likes, uses, everything. The download... isn't even downloaded.

The real problems is "you assume" you know what the surfer wants.. when you have no idea yourself, just like them..

Exactly. Vegas Ken, what you are experiencing in my opinion is a failure in marketing. It's all about presentation.

You are presented to the surfer as a "Review Site" When the internet was young, we tgp's were presented as just "nice guys who want to share our porn"

But in the end we are all affiliates trying to make a sale. You CAN present it to your surfers in a way that is beneficial to them, to you, and to me. But you're not doing it. We are not a download site. And if you asked your surfers if they would rather shell out $34.99 for a site that everybody else can see for free OR if they would rather spend that money on something exclusive then as TheDoc said...the answers would be much different than the ones you are quoting now.

It's the same way that polls are skewed. You can't get the right answer it you're not asking the right questions. And you aren't going to make a sale if you don't present the site correctly and truthfully. And penalizing a site like ours for doing encrypted streaming only is not correct or truthful. The truth is it is to the BENEFIT of our REAL members. Not the fly by nights who join, download, and then chargeback. But the members who have been faithful members since the day we opened the doors.

As I said earlier...almost all of our members are in love with the girl. They LIKE being a member. They support her and want to do things for her. It's a different ballgame than the big generic sites out there and should be treated as such.

your still hiding the fact that it is streaming only, in fact you don't even mention that streamed.


"Jack Van Patrick decides to have some fun and hires Claudia-Marie for a private show. After the lap dancing is over the REAL fun begins. Seems Jack got aroused while Claudia-Marie was grinding her round ass in his lap and now she wants to see if his cock is really as big as it felt through his jeans."

why not say "streamed to your computer in blab blab "
whatever positive way you want to say it.

Your walmart example is not really applicable because unlike walmart who makes the point with a positive spin you are completely hiding the fact that it is streaming only until AFTER the join happens.

IF you offered 100% money back guarrentee if you were not satisfied with the streaming experience, then you could argue the point you are making.

Because you would actually have numbers (those that took advantage of the 100% money back guarrentee) vs those who simple accept it because it the only offer they have.

Hey Robbie,

Are your streaming videos secured/encrypted in some way, so they cannot be downloaded, or are you just assuming that streaming the videos will inherently cut down on stolen content?

If a visitor can record and save the streaming scene as it plays, then theives will steal and trade clips regardless.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for making it more difficult for sure.