What? This makes zero logic.. That block of text should never say the word streaming in it and if it did, it would sound stupid. The word streaming is a marking word, and would clearly be seen when looking at the streaming trailers done in flash.

Fact is this.. What surfers 'SEE' on the outside of a site (the tour) is what they think they are getting. If you have 10 girls, all streaming and you don't say downloads. The member doesn't think he is getting 11 girls with downloads.

Members are 'allowed' to download videos normally, so they share them. When you stream them correctly, they don't need to download them. Being so, they don't copy and rip them for download and then share them. They just assume this is how it should be.

Members don't join to steal your porn, they join to watch it. A thief in the mix isn't going to get you across all the tubes and torrents, but letting your members just openly download everything, will.

You speak from ignorance as usual. I DO give anyone their money back no questions asked.

I don't WANT anybody being a member of our site that doesn't want to be. Fuck them. We have over 2,000 members right now and I don't need ANY of them to be unhappy.

So please don't try to speak for me or my business as you don't have a fucking clue.

As far as putting "STREAMING ONLY" on the site...how many times do I have to keep telling you that we are NOT a big generic site. We are a solo girl site with exclusive content for big tit lovers who are discriminating in their tastes. They could give 2 shits about whether the site has downloads or not. They are more interested in being able to communicate with Claudia-Marie and be a member of our "family"

Look gideongallery...I don't want to go round and round with you. I know you are convinced that people should have the absolute rights to take anything they want from me for free. I get it. I can't change your mind and you can't change mine.

But when it comes to the entertainment business? Nigga please! I've been an entertainer all my life and if anybody knows what to give an audience it's me. So please stick to the threads where you can argue faux law and leave this ONE topic between people who are actually IN the adult business.

Thanks

Yes sir. I bought Adobe Flash Server and installed in on my server and we stream them encrypted. I got tired of arguing about tubes and torrents and put my money and time where my mouth is.

I don't see that streaming solves the problem. It took me 5 minutes to find a capture program and 5 minutes more to find a converter flash to avi or whatever.

My gribe with the review sites is they have one busines model in their heads and that is quantity. If you don't update or have tons of material you get lower score, you're then buried in their site somewhere and get zero traffic. They push a race to the bottom in quantity over anything creative.

Of course they don't have to know anything to start a review site.

It is surprising that it is the same sites on all the review sites that get the exposure. Do they really all like the same rather dull stuff?

Another surprising thing is that they very rarely talk about the girls. Whether they like them or not... I find a lot of websites have jsut plain awful looking woman but neevr once seen a review say it. Maybe they are all blind

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.

so why complain about a negative review, telling people your streaming only, saying it as a negative on a review site , when the members "could give 2 shits about wheather the site has downloads or not" and are "more interested in being able to communicate with Claudia-Marie" would never be turned away by the negative review anyway.

The only people who would be turned away are people who want to download the content, and since you would be giving those members 100% no questions asked refund anyway, the negative review is not costing you a dime.

Yes, you're talking about .flv's and just regular old streaming. I went with encrypted streaming. And the only way they are gonna get that is with a screen recorder and then it's gonna be bad quality. And when and if that happens and something is put on a tube or torrent...I follow that up with the "2" of my "1-2 punch" removeyourcontent.com They dmca my UNAPPROVED stuff down when and if it gets out there. Now I can release promotional vids to tubes on my terms and for the benefit of both the tube owner (as an affiliate) and myself and still keep my members part of an exclusive family.

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. I think it is self defeating on their part for THEIR sales to us to do so. I put in work and time to do something that makes our members area MORE valuable to it's members. And the review sites are not acknowleding it and are instead presenting it in an unfavorable light. gideon...I have watched your posts and have stayed away. I GREATLY disagree with EVERYTHING you say. I am asking you very nicely to please stay out of this conversation. I'd like it to have some kind of benefit for people who make a living in adult and not be a pissing contest between you and I.

The problem is, surfers "think" they want downloads because that is all they know. The truth is when you introduce flash streams, the 'care, need or want' for downloads goes away.

When review sites knock you for that, it creates an opinion about the product before they try it. A product they may very well like but won't try because of an opinion.

And now for logic, refunds cost programs money!

its the surfer that makes it a neg point. I would think they are writing it by the feedback given to them from the customers.

I see, that does sound as if it works. Sadly I don't think it would work for us as we want to deliver very high quality and that would not be streamable...

I love "streaming" giz all over a nice pair of big natural titties. I also love the same pair of tits rubbing "down" my shaft just before I drop my "load". Hmmm, tough call... how much for both?

Check out this site: http://www.hulu.com/

Exact same technology we use. h264 mpegs Different kind of compression and PERFECT for high def streaming. Watched any Hollywood major motion picture trailers online lately? Same thing. It IS something that you can use. Some of our movies are 30 minutes long and over half a gig in size and they start streaming within 2 to 3 seconds. And then you can move the cursor on the timeline ANYWHERE in the movie and it will begin streaming from there instantly. No need to wait for a download or buffering. Add that to a CDN (which I currently do not use because I'm rather small compared to some of the bigger sites) and you have a perfect streaming solution.

Rick, I think I can get you hooked up for the cost of a couple of jaegerbombs on a Friday night :1orglaugh

QFT :thumbsup

I would bet that half or more surfers think that when they watch a movie on youtube, they're "downloading" it.
I've heard people talk about "downloading" stuff off of a CD to their computer. It's not a good word to use when asking people what they want from a porn site, that's for sure.

Again, I think offering videos with DRM similar to what Itunes does is the way to go. Surfer can keep the movie and watch it even after his membership expires....but it will only work on "X" number of devices....so that it can't be shared with the masses via tubes or torrents. :2 cents:

Two comments...

1. Bandwidth and encoding is to the point where streaming is almost a "must" for any pay-site. Streaming if done well, can add a lot of value to their site.

2. The point of downloads is to offer "higher" quality videos than what reliable streaming can provide. That's its primary benefit. The other benefit is the ability to play it back from any media/computer at any later date, blow it up full screen, with no internet connection or membership required.

Both have its positives and slightly different purpose. Not providing a solid method of delivering both can be taken as a negative to some. Protecting your content (like Robbie has chosen) is perfectly valid. But you can't knock review sites for pointing out the "lack" of options that most users normally expect when shelling out the plastic.

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.

I'm not knocking it. I'm saying that getting a lowered "score" and not one mention of how we are protecting the content and keeping the membership valuable to the MEMBERS isn't a good way for you to make sales. 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.

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"

Then yeah. I would say that's good marketing. As it stands now it is presented as "No downloads" and as a complete negative with NO mention of the positive result or the much better presentation of the content.

I'm just saying, you're missing out on sales to sites that you should be making good money with and pushing sites that aren't gonna satisfy the consumer as much and are almost a generic blur.

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"

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!!

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

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.

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.

Believe me, it was not an easy decision because I was scared of what members might do. And if you ask any of those above sites what they think about it, they will tell you the same thing. They WANT to do something about it. But they aren't sure what will happen.

I finally became fed up with it and tossed the dice. I make enough money as an affiliate with my TGP's (even though our traffic has been decimated by illegit tube sites) to roll the dice and see what happened. If it failed I still had my affiliate income which was more than enough.

But why should any of them try to protect their content when their "reward" would be a negative light from their own affiliates and not even one mention of the positive aspects? Just sayin...

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. :)

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.

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.

That would indeed be the holy grail

I think it's 12% still on dial-up. Not sure what percent of those actually even consider joining a porn site with videos.

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

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. :)

Thank God he can just use the tubes as a directory to choose the scenes he wants to download for free from the torrents. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh oops I mean: :(:(

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. How long did that brilliant idea last?

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.

I'll drink to that!! :drinkup