+ Review Site Owners: Why do you punish people who want to protect their content?? + - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

gideongallery · 12-16-2008, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

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.

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

Quote:

I think it is self defeating on their part for THEIR sales to us to do so.

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.

Quote:

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.

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)

Quote:

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.

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"

rankscom · 12-16-2008, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

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.

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!!

rankscom · 12-16-2008, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

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".

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

Robbie · 12-16-2008, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rankscom

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

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.

pocketkangaroo · 12-16-2008, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

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.

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.

rankscom · 12-16-2008, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

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.

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.

Robbie · 12-16-2008, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

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

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.

Snake Doctor · 12-16-2008, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rankscom

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!!

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.

rankscom · 12-16-2008, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

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.

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.

Robbie · 12-16-2008, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rankscom

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.

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...

Robbie · 12-16-2008, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rankscom

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.

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.

rankscom · 12-16-2008, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

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.

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.

CarlosTheGaucho · 12-16-2008, 06:44 PM

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.

Robbie · 12-16-2008, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rankscom

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

That would indeed be the holy grail

pocketkangaroo · 12-16-2008, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarlosTheGaucho

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.

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

rankscom · 12-16-2008, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

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.

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

Robbie · 12-16-2008, 06:51 PM

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.

Robbie · 12-16-2008, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rankscom

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

Thank God he can just use the tubes as a directory to choose the scenes he wants to download for free from the torrents.

oops I mean:

rankscom · 12-16-2008, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

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.

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.

rankscom · 12-16-2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

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.

I'll drink to that!!

Robbie · 12-16-2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rankscom

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.

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.

Snake Doctor · 12-16-2008, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rankscom

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.

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.

rankscom · 12-16-2008, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

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.

No disrespect, sarcasm is fun sometimes.

For real, I do respect your choice. It takes balls to make a huge move like that in the spirit of content protection.

We got off topic some and made our arguments. It's a controversial subject, there are no winners here. Cheers!

rankscom · 12-16-2008, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

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.

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.

gideongallery · 12-16-2008, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

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.

again missing the point completely

surfer goes to a site , signups downloads and then cancels = review site gets paid

surfer trust review site goes back signup again = review site gets paid.

They don't give a flying fuck if the user is forced to stay a member forever to keep watching the same movie over and over again.

Because if the person truely wants to be a member for the reasons you gave , they would not be Deterred from signing up.

By giving you a negative review they lose nothing
but gain thos subsequent signups

CarlosTheGaucho · 12-16-2008, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

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.

It's not that hard, you really just need to have a clue and talk something some of the GFY heroes making 200 $ a month out of internet have a hard time to reply to.

Well, now I'll sure get some troll replies, sorry that I made this thread go to at least 5 pages.

CarlosTheGaucho · 12-16-2008, 07:37 PM

Makes me think about the Escorbiz's thread stating that there's more disk space than ever, as crazy as it may sound - who really ever wasn't limited by his disk capacity?

TheDoc · 12-16-2008, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rankscom

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.

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.

MaDalton · 12-16-2008, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

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.

i am surprised actually ;)

well, i have learned a lot today. i still wish there could be some kind of cooperation between paysite owners and review sites on this thing so that more paysite owners can make the switch without having to worry about getting penalized. selling it as "tube style instant watching" is actually a good point.
i also like Fuzebox idea of offering downloads on an individual pay per clip basis while streaming is included in the monthly price. i would really like to know the percentage of members that do that.

montel · 12-16-2008, 07:58 PM

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

Juicy D. Links · 12-16-2008, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

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"

Quote:

Originally Posted by rankscom

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!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by rankscom

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rankscom

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rankscom

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rankscom

I'll drink to that!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by montel

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

I wuz here 2008

Shap · 12-16-2008, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

and paid by the paysite owners

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

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

MaDalton · 12-16-2008, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by montel

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

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

Shap · 12-16-2008, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

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

That is 100% not the case on the best porn. Rick ranks everyone regardless if he gets paid or not.

TheDoc · 12-16-2008, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shap

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

The basic idea of a Tube Player, is DRM. From here you can encrypt, you can offer downloads that appear like normal downloads that do or don't shut off.. it really depends on what DRM solution you go with and even the player, but almost all are seamless to the user.

This includes youtube, youporn, hulu, megavideo, illegal and legal tubes of adult and mainstream movies. It's all a basic level of DRM, some just have more protection than others. But it's all seamless.

I think it's safe to say potential and existing members have no clue what DRM is other than a word that scares them when it relates to DVD's or Music. Oh, and our Industry when they think of the technology we had 10 years ago.

rankscom · 12-16-2008, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

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.

You are correct about the success of these sites, but it's never been our target audience. We simply don't do much business with any of those sites, never have. Sorry if I'm unclear in my past posts, but when I spoke of DRM, I'm referring to our feedback we get from our customers. The majority of our users aren't VOD consumers.

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

VOD can be an exception to the DRM rule, but I would guess most of their business is per minute streams versus DRM rentals. Users know up front what restriction the rental video has, so there's no surprise when the video stops working.

VOD's success has nothing to do with DRM and everything to do with the widest selection in porn. Users can limit their spending while enjoying some of the most exclusive (high budget) latest porn flicks or more obscure DVDs in almost any imaginable niche. They have to use DRM, studios wouldn't have it any other way. They have no control over that.

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.

TheDoc · 12-16-2008, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rankscom

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.

I wouldn't want to call someone out and get them a busted up review

Quick thing with VOD, they offer a huge amount of the same content found on Paysites, like Pink Visual as an example. Yet, this content is the most popular across several VOD's at once. The players extended abilities, far far far out weigh the possible issues.

Several sites are changing over to streaming solutions, and as Robbie pointed out he is using Adobe's flash server solution for his encrypted DRM. I think BV and StickyFingers use something like this too. It's not new, it's just finally starting to move forward since the technology is actually good now.

rankscom · 12-16-2008, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

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

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

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.

TheDoc · 12-16-2008, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rankscom

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

You do have VOD sites reviewed, and from what I see your traffic clearly loves VOD.

Look at the poll though, come on.. the option is "No, need DRM free downloads." <-- Is that real? Of course that is going to get the most votes.

I know VOD/PPM traffic, if you use the word Pay Per Minute it means something different than the words Porn Videos on Demand.

If you really want to test this. Take your member videos and convert them to flash, put them into a decent player and not some shit standard one. Then put a download link under it. And watch how little people download it now that you offer a kick ass stream.

Crazy thing... that stream can be DRM protected and the Member and even the reviewer wouldn't know it.

AaronM · 12-16-2008, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

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?

I couldn't agree more.

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.

Shap · 12-16-2008, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

I couldn't agree more.

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.

Review sites are supposed to represent the potential new member not the paysites. Their repeat business is based on giving the surfer all the information needed to make their decision where to spend their money. If 9 out of 10 surfers feel something is negative then the review sites have to follow the surfers lead regardless of what paysites think.

baddog · 12-16-2008, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

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

Why should they?

tony286 · 12-16-2008, 08:39 PM

what a good thread. I think going to streaming is very important for all of us. But if you think the consumer doesnt care you are kidding yourself. In the middle of 2009 we are launching our third site and it will be streaming. Since they will have access to all 3 sites they will have both and we will slowly ween it to all streaming. I think its the future.

MaDalton · 12-16-2008, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rankscom

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

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.

ok, accepted. and i thank you for your input

J. Falcon · 12-16-2008, 08:52 PM

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.

TheDoc · 12-16-2008, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Falcon

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.

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.

J. Falcon · 12-16-2008, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

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.

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 cann't 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.

BFT3K · 12-16-2008, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzebox

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.

I was thinking the same thing

TheDoc · 12-16-2008, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Falcon

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.

ok... I gotcha... Have you seen Video Box's player? I know they offer downloads too, but have you actually seen the player?

I think that is what gets most members, it's the technology of the player and the player directly. Like streaming players, you can start and stop. With Video Boxes player you get a display of thumbnails that allow you to scroll through the scene, you can then select a starting and stopping mark, and loop play the video on that mark. Or quickly jump to the exact point you want to watch.

And all while doing this.. the second you hit play, it instantly streams a high def movie on even slower dsl connections.

Right now a member wants a full movie that they can download. And why not? The difference is a crap embed wmv that you buffer and play, or download/stream clips. Of course a member wants full movie downloads.

But give them something better.. something instant, faster, cleaner, sharper, more options than before.. download simply isn't needed.

TheDoc · 12-16-2008, 09:31 PM

Don't underestimate the streaming technology that has already came out. I'm not going to claim I know everything about it, because I don't, it's way the hell past me.

I have been researching this for an article, and I thought at first it would be easy. But I have found out that DRM is like.. a thousand more times advanced than it was 10 years ago, its well past what I thought it actually was.

Streaming flash based movies, ALREADY IS the standard for the Internet. The Adult Industry is still playing catchup and 100% denying what the rest of the Internet is doing as fact. As Tubes do it and half of you argue why they are 100000x larger than you and you still think downloads mater. These illegal sites with 30-40 minute streams with huge ass views, and you still think downloads mater.

I don't even know what else I can say.. Wake up from your lala land of old school ideas that are failing around you. Don't call it DRM, call it what it is.. Better!

12-16-2008, 06:44 PM	#113
CarlosTheGaucho Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 9,520	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. __________________ CTG Media \| TG: carl_boro \| cb \|at\| ctgmedia \|dot\| net \| Read My Educational Series \| Read my Adult Biz Chronicles\|

12-16-2008, 06:51 PM	#117
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	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. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

12-16-2008, 07:37 PM	#127
CarlosTheGaucho Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 9,520	Makes me think about the Escorbiz's thread stating that there's more disk space than ever, as crazy as it may sound - who really ever wasn't limited by his disk capacity? __________________ CTG Media \| TG: carl_boro \| cb \|at\| ctgmedia \|dot\| net \| Read My Educational Series \| Read my Adult Biz Chronicles\|

12-16-2008, 07:58 PM	#130
montel Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: See sig! Posts: 2,606	The surfer pays the review sites income, not the affiliate program __________________ Barefootsies

12-16-2008, 08:52 PM	#145
J. Falcon www.AdultCopywriters.com Industry Role: Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 31,619	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. __________________ Adult Copywriters SEO Content for Porn Sites sales at adultcopywriters dot com

12-16-2008, 08:39 PM	#143
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	what a good thread. I think going to streaming is very important for all of us. But if you think the consumer doesnt care you are kidding yourself. In the middle of 2009 we are launching our third site and it will be streaming. Since they will have access to all 3 sites they will have both and we will slowly ween it to all streaming. I think its the future.

12-16-2008, 09:31 PM	#150
TheDoc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Currently Incognito Posts: 13,827	Don't underestimate the streaming technology that has already came out. I'm not going to claim I know everything about it, because I don't, it's way the hell past me. I have been researching this for an article, and I thought at first it would be easy. But I have found out that DRM is like.. a thousand more times advanced than it was 10 years ago, its well past what I thought it actually was. Streaming flash based movies, ALREADY IS the standard for the Internet. The Adult Industry is still playing catchup and 100% denying what the rest of the Internet is doing as fact. As Tubes do it and half of you argue why they are 100000x larger than you and you still think downloads mater. These illegal sites with 30-40 minute streams with huge ass views, and you still think downloads mater. I don't even know what else I can say.. Wake up from your lala land of old school ideas that are failing around you. Don't call it DRM, call it what it is.. Better! __________________ ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825 It's all disambiguation Last edited by TheDoc; 12-16-2008 at 09:34 PM..