Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 15205689)

Damn....I asked you to please stay out of this. We have NEVER gotten a negative review. What was said was that once I went this route, the review sites lowered our score.

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor (Post 15205827)

Agreed, but like I stated in my post above....if we offered videos that could be downloaded and played on your computer forever, and could even be transferred to a few other devices you own (laptop, ipod, iphone, etc), but there was a limit to how many times you could copy it....you would call that DRM and put it in big red letters on the review.

When I buy a song from Itunes for 99 cents....it's mine to keep forever, but whenever I copy it to another device, it prompts me for my user/pass again and lets me know how many more times I can copy it before I have to buy it again (usually 5 times)
This is more than fair, but if I did it with a porn site you would lower my score and put DRM in big red letters on my review.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 15205840)

You're lowering scores for sites that CAN sell. And not mentioning anything at all about the benefits of the encrypted streaming. Yeah, if you want to say: "Cons: no downloads AND THEN SAY: Pros: Instantaneous YouTube-like high quality streaming and the site protects it's content from being stolen and presented for free therefore making your membership more valuable".

Originally Posted by rankscom (Post 15205880)

Talking to our users like they're theives isn't part of our business plan unfortunately. :Oh crap

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor (Post 15205827)

When I buy a song from Itunes for 99 cents....it's mine to keep forever, but whenever I copy it to another device, it prompts me for my user/pass again and lets me know how many more times I can copy it before I have to buy it again (usually 5 times)
This is more than fair, but if I did it with a porn site you would lower my score and put DRM in big red letters on my review.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 15205840)

And believe me...I have watched the sales to some very big sites dwindle to nothing from my tgp's because their stuff is everywhere for free. I've done the affiliate game for close to 12 years and my instincts have always been on the money and more importantly made me a lot of money at everything I've touched in online adult. And I think you guys are missing the marketing aspect of this.

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 15205926)

That's all these review sites are doing, letting the consumer know just how much they can get for their dollar.

Originally Posted by rankscom (Post 15205855)

Correct, DRM is a proven loser (even if you're making money, you're losing money). Users would rather a site drop English for Chinese rather than deal with DRM.

Checkout this thread: http://www.pornusers.com/forum/forum...l?threadid=117

Our users run fast the other way!!

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 15205888)

Never said that. I don't even know where you are reading that into my words. But if you think you're doing things the right way now, then carry on. I'm not the type to tell others how they should run their business. I'm simply saying that I think it's a flaw in marketing and is hurting your ability to make sales with us. As I said earlier...I'll just keep on raking in the type-ins.

Originally Posted by rankscom (Post 15205967)

It might be "possible" there were other reasons for those big sites dwindling to nothing... To counter, here are some solo girl sites that have "survived" in this business while still to this day offerring downloads (no DRM):

-Rachel Aziani (since 1999)
-Kelly Madison (since 2000)
-Club Sandy (since 2003)
-4 Real Swingers (since 1999)
-Cathy's Craving (since 1998)
-Lia 19 (since 2004)
-Lady Sonia (since 1999)
-Sammy4U (since 1999)
-Carol Cox (since 1995)
-Naughty Allie (since 2003)
-Dawn's Place (since 1999)
-Catalina Cruz (since ??)

Thes are practicially household names where I come from. :thumbsup

Originally Posted by rankscom (Post 15205993)

You suggest we post in our "Pros"... "the site protects it's content from being stolen" in regards to not offering downloads.

If we post this as a site targeted as consumer, doesn't this imply to our users that they are the ones stealing content? Who else would be stealing it?

Why would legit users care what content protection methods a pay-site uses? If anything, that's probably considered more of a red flag, not a benefit. That's not good marketing.

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor (Post 15205991)

Yes but that discussion centers on DRM that disables viewing of the video once the membership expires.

There are different types of DRM, but you and your users lump them all into one category and act as if they're being ripped off.

All I'm saying is that review sites and content producers need to find a way to work together on this or else the only thing you'll have left to review is tube sites and dating/cam sites....because that will be all that's left.
We can't sell something for $25/month that is available for free everywhere...and we can't stop the proliferation of the free stuff without some form of DRM in our members areas.

Remember your #1 source of income is selling memberships. When membership levels drop, so does your income. :2 cents:

Originally Posted by rankscom (Post 15206024)

there is no expiration and the license doesn't interfere with the playback.

Originally Posted by CarlosTheGaucho (Post 15206025)

I always thought no downloads would discriminate members with dial up, but how many dial up users do we have now?

If you can let half of the world jack off for free why couldn't you let jack off your members the same way?

Great point.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 15206000)

I didn't word that correctly. But yes...a legit user DOES care if he is paying $34.99 and his buddy is getting it for free from a tube. Makes him feel like he's a sucker. That's the point I was trying to make. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Hope that makes it more clear as to what I'm saying. It would definitely have to be carefully worded. But you are the review site master, so I'm sure you could do it in the right way. :)

Originally Posted by rankscom (Post 15206046)

His buddy is limited to the tubes lame streaming quality and lack of "downloads"! :thumbsup

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 15205994)

Absolutely. And each and every one of those site owners are pissed about their content being stolen and the adverse affect it has on their sales. But they are afraid (as was I) of the ramifications of trying to find a solution such as encrypted streaming.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 15206049)

Hey if nothing else we actually had a spirited good BUSINESS discussion on GFY without any bullshit! Drink it in boys...these don't happen very often. :)

Originally Posted by rankscom (Post 15206125)

Nobody is debating how they feel about it. Nearly all of us have been victims of stolen content at some point, and it feels like shit. But they haven't reduced the value of their site in response. That's my point.

My point is this isn't a new problem. Even before videos, back in the 90's surfers were trading pictures and select pay-sites stopped allowing members to save images to their hard drives. They would disable the right click. You still see sites doing this?

If streaming "only" was the most profitable way to run a membership site, this would be industry standard. Maybe times will change, maybe you're the leader of this streaming revolution. Maybe our users are wrong. Maybe heaven does exist.

Originally Posted by rankscom (Post 15206024)

DRM has turned into an evil brand in the consumers eyes due to how it's been applied in the past. Even if all webmasters turned it around and used it the way you suggest, it couldn't recover in my opinion.

I've never heard users in our forums, reviews, or e-mails say ... Go signup today because this site has GOOD DRM. To them, there is no such thing.

Here's another example: http://www.pornusers.com/replies_view.html?id=1164 (small sample, but still makes the point)

Not saying what you're suggesting can't work, but it needs to be re-invented in a new package (and brand) where there is no expiration and the license doesn't interfere with the playback.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 15206135)

Okay. If that's the way you want to be. Fine. If you read my post above I told you how much of a white knuckle decision it was. I also stated that everyone is afraid of the ramifications of it. They want to protect, but aren't sure if all their members would quit. I found that mine didn't. If you want to be sarcastic, fine. I'm done here.

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor (Post 15206140)

Ok well apparently you haven't read anything I've written, you just saw the letters DRM and jumped in from there.

I specifically said that they could keep and play the file forever, on multiple devices, there would just be a limit on how many different devices it could be copied to....the way apple does with itunes.

Yet even if I did this, your reviewers would make it a point to highlight the fact that I'm using "DRM" and therefore I would be punished for trying to protect my content.....which is the point the thread starter was making.

It doesn't matter though, I'm sick of discussing this stuff....this business has been nothing but a race to the bottom and the pursuit of the quick buck for the past 10 years. The fact that people will continue to eat their seed corn and their young in this business shouldn't surprise me, yet at times I guess it still does.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 15205977)

The only negative is that people can't keep my content forever. Good. I don't want them to. I'm in this to make money and have members. So are the review sites. They should want a member to join and stay. Not just download the whole members section and then cancel.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 15206049)

Hey if nothing else we actually had a spirited good BUSINESS discussion on GFY without any bullshit! Drink it in boys...these don't happen very often. :)

Originally Posted by rankscom (Post 15206180)

I understand your point, but our users hate all flavors of DRM unfortunately. Even the one you describe. Nearly all review sites highlight DRM negatively. It's no longer worth the effort of highlighting the evil DRM from the not-as-evil DRM.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 15206049)

Hey if nothing else we actually had a spirited good BUSINESS discussion on GFY without any bullshit! Drink it in boys...these don't happen very often. :)

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 15205854)

your splitting hairs here if your score goes from an 8 to 7 that is a negative review (because your score went down)

but your missing the point i am making in that they make more money OVERALL from giving your a negative review

if they polly ann every review then their surfer will not trust them, and therefore not make purchases based on their recommendation.

since the your membership does not care about downloads and would therefore signup at the same velocity (for the reasons you gave) irregardless of you getting an 8 (polly ann) or 7 (harsh) they lose none of the sales you are talking about.

However for those customers who do care, they send them to a site that would allow them to download it and they make a sale there (no loss of income)

On the plus side, since the downloading favorable customer, honestly warned about your no download policy before plunking down his money, they look at the review site in a positive light and will come back again and again for more reviews.



the point i am making (and you are ignoring) is that the "unfavorable light" you are talking about is irrelevant to the customer base you talking about. They would not care, and would completely ignore any negative impression caused by the lower score because it streaming only. So there is no negative impact from the "unfavourable light"

The only people who would be care about the "unfavourable light" is those who care about the right to download/backup/ keep watching the same old content after they quit. And you don't want(give no questions asked refunds) those people anyway. Which i assume results in a charge back to the affiliate as well.


giving you lower score redirects the users who actually care to a money making option for the review site, without costing them any sales from your site (based on your reasoning)



I have a right to my oppinion just like you do to yours.

I am just pointing out that if what you are saying is true, then it will make no difference to your income, or theirs (due to the charge back for the refunds) if the review sites negatively score your "no download policy"

Originally Posted by rankscom (Post 15205855)

Correct, DRM is a proven loser (even if you're making money, you're losing money). Users would rather a site drop English for Chinese rather than deal with DRM.

Checkout this thread: http://www.pornusers.com/forum/forum...l?threadid=117

Our users run fast the other way!!

Originally Posted by rankscom (Post 15205880)

Talking to our users like they're theives isn't part of our business plan unfortunately. :Oh crap

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 15205888)

Never said that. I don't even know where you are reading that into my words. But if you think you're doing things the right way now, then carry on. I'm not the type to tell others how they should run their business. I'm simply saying that I think it's a flaw in marketing and is hurting your ability to make sales with us. As I said earlier...I'll just keep on raking in the type-ins.

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 15205926)

That is exactly the reason why I use Amazon for my music purchases. They allow me to download it without any restrictions. In my book, iTunes has a lower score than Amazon because of this factor.

Sure the iTunes process is fair and works well, but as a consumer, I'll push for as much as I can get for my dollar. That's all these review sites are doing, letting the consumer know just how much they can get for their dollar.

Originally Posted by rankscom (Post 15205967)

It might be "possible" there were other reasons for those big sites dwindling to nothing... To counter, here are some solo girl sites that have "survived" in this business while still to this day offerring downloads (no DRM):

-Rachel Aziani (since 1999)
-Kelly Madison (since 2000)
-Club Sandy (since 2003)
-4 Real Swingers (since 1999)
-Cathy's Craving (since 1998)
-Lia 19 (since 2004)
-Lady Sonia (since 1999)
-Sammy4U (since 1999)
-Carol Cox (since 1995)
-Naughty Allie (since 2003)
-Dawn's Place (since 1999)
-Catalina Cruz (since ??)

Thes are practicially household names where I come from. :thumbsup

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 15205977)

I agree. They are presenting a site that is designed to be like "Consumer Reports" and it is in many ways. They are also affiliates of the sites reviewed just like I am as a TGP owner and just like any other affiliate.

And that is what I'm trying to say, but my words keep getting twisted (written word just doesn't always communicate the real meaning). I AM giving my MEMBERS more for their dollar.

I'm presenting our content on technology that is far faster than downloading and is of just as high quality for viewing. I'm also ensuring that the money they spent on a membership is worth something.

The only negative is that people can't keep my content forever. Good. I don't want them to. I'm in this to make money and have members. So are the review sites. They should want a member to join and stay. Not just download the whole members section and then cancel.

They didn't just pay $34.99 for something their next door neighbor got for free. That pisses people off.

But none of those positive things are being addressed in ANY way on the review sites. They simply say "no downloads" as a negative and NEVER bring up the very large positives of what I'm doing.

Shouldn't there at least be a mention of the positive aspects to the members? But there isn't. And as a result the marketing for my review site affiliates is flawed there. I'm hoping they will think about that and make some changes to ENCOURAGE other paysites to begin protecting their content as well so we can all make more money together.

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor (Post 15205991)

Yes but that discussion centers on DRM that disables viewing of the video once the membership expires.

There are different types of DRM, but you and your users lump them all into one category and act as if they're being ripped off.

All I'm saying is that review sites and content producers need to find a way to work together on this or else the only thing you'll have left to review is tube sites and dating/cam sites....because that will be all that's left.
We can't sell something for $25/month that is available for free everywhere...and we can't stop the proliferation of the free stuff without some form of DRM in our members areas.

Remember your #1 source of income is selling memberships. When membership levels drop, so does your income. :2 cents:

Originally Posted by rankscom (Post 15205993)

You suggest we post in our "Pros"... "the site protects it's content from being stolen" in regards to not offering downloads.

If we post this as a site targeted as consumer, doesn't this imply to our users that they are the ones stealing content? Who else would be stealing it?

Why would legit users care what content protection methods a pay-site uses? If anything, that's probably considered more of a red flag, not a benefit. That's not good marketing.

Originally Posted by rankscom (Post 15206133)

I'll drink to that!! :drinkup

Originally Posted by montel (Post 15206292)

The surfer pays the review sites income, not the affiliate program

Originally Posted by MaDalton (Post 15203920)

and paid by the paysite owners :2 cents:

i just think time has changed and its not a negative point anymore

Originally Posted by montel (Post 15206292)

The surfer pays the review sites income, not the affiliate program

Originally Posted by MaDalton (Post 15206305)

hmm... and if the paysite has no affiliate program like someone mentioned here earlier?

then the sites get no review...

but i don't want to bash the review sites, i find them very useful. i would just like to see all of us working together on preventing content from being stolen :thumbsup

Originally Posted by Shap (Post 15206302)

It is a very negative point amongst potential and existing members.

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 15206244)

That's so incorrect, it's almost mind boggling that it came from you.

AEBN, Yappo, Hot Movies, Adult Rental, Game Link... Hell, stack these guys on top of one another and they are larger than the largest 100 paysites. AEBN and VOD in general is some of the largest paychecks Webmasters have and add in Cams and dwarfs any standard paysite affiliate program.

Crazy talk saying users hate all flavors of DRM... pfft, they don't even know it has it.

Originally Posted by rankscom (Post 15206325)

Membership sites are a different story. How many sites do you know today that still use DRM? Even major sites like Danni.com, Ten.com have removed it. I believe Hustler has plans to remove it as well. DRM is almost extinct on the membership side.

Originally Posted by MaDalton (Post 15206305)

but i don't want to bash the review sites, i find them very useful. i would just like to see all of us working together on preventing content from being stolen :thumbsup

Originally Posted by rankscom (Post 15206325)

Here's a poll we had about VOD: http://www.pornusers.com/replies_view.html?id=2880

Originally Posted by MaDalton (Post 15203679)

Robbie posted something in another thread that made me think cause i have been through this "problem" myself in the past:

More and more people want to protect their content by offering only video streaming, no downloads. With CDNs and Flash Streaming its nowadays not a performance problem anymore and the experience for the surfer is nearly as if it's played locally. Plus it helps the retention which should make the affiliate more money as well.

but still sites get better reviews that offer everything for download. wouldn't it be a cool thing if the review sites help the site owners (which are the ones that help the reviews sites making money) who want to protect their content by not making streaming only a negative point?

any thoughts?

Originally Posted by AaronM (Post 15206382)

I couldn't agree more. :thumbsup


Accepting protected content in the review sites would certainly make a difference in sales instead of talking negatively about it. That would be a nice first step forward on solving the content theft issues as an industry too.

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 15204566)

This means to me, that they will not review my sites because they will not benefit from doing so.

Originally Posted by rankscom (Post 15206363)

We don't send any traffic to tube sites, that's something! :thumbsup

Much like our support of ASACP, if there was a solid organization who's primary goal is to fight and protect copyrighted content from being illegally published/traded (illegal tubes, torrents, etc), we would definitely financially contribute.

It is definitely in our interest to stop it. We're losing money on the illegal tubes like everyone else.

Unfortunately altering our reviews isn't the solution. :(

Originally Posted by J. Falcon (Post 15206458)

I would never pay for a membership to a site that does not let you download their videos. Unfortunately sites don't let you know in advance. Sites that want to protect their content by screwing their members deserve a low rating IMO.

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 15206475)

So a site that chooses not to have downloads, now has to inform the member that they don't have downloads or they are screwing the surfer over?

Hahahaha... How stupid.

Originally Posted by fuzebox (Post 15205651)

On my next site I was planning to do this :) Regular subscription would be streaming, and if you wanted to download you had to pay per clip like clips4sale.

Originally Posted by J. Falcon (Post 15206517)

Ok they are not "screwing" the members, but I know that if I dished out 30 bucks or whatever for some porn and I realized once I'm in the member's area that I cannot keep the movies I would feel as fucked as the girls in those movies.

It depends on how you want to run your review site. If you want people to actually read your reviews and give them any credit, then you most likely have to call such a thing out. Anyone who reads it will definitely think twice about signing up.