+ Review Site Owners: Why do you punish people who want to protect their content?? + - Page 5 - GoFuckYourself.com

gideongallery · 12-18-2008, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

gideongallery I have no fucking idea WHAT you are talking about. My point in the conversation that I was having with actual people in this business was that when they review a site like mine, they should present BOTH sides of the coin.

Not just say: It's a complete negative because there are no downloads.

let me make it simple if i were doing a review site i would have multiple catagories for a review. i would have a catagory for portibility,reusability ,and a catagory for exclusivity.

i would give you a zero for portabiity (because i download and move your stream to big screen in my bedroom) although i would probably cross sell a media extender.

on reusability i would give you a zero because i couldn't review the content after i cancelled the subscription.

but on exclusivity i would give you 10, since the content is no where else and claudia marie doesn't work for any other site.

When you look at the total score, someone who is just passible in all three catagories would get 15 while you are only getting 10. (there would be additional points)

do you consider that a fair review or not,

I would say it is fair because you got points in the exclusivity side for your decision but lost marks in the catagories you choose to lose marks in.

Quote:

To the real people here:
I have said what I have to say. My sales from review sites are almost nothing these days. My type ins are pretty strong. Any review site that would like to work a little closer and bring those sales up...I'm more than happy to sit down with you at Internext and show you exactly what I'm doing.

Hell, I'll even show you my sales numbers so you can see for yourself what you are doing in comparison when promoting my site. I want you to make money and sales. But I do feel that by not encouraging websites to protect themselves and keep their entire members areas off the pirate sites, you are hurting yourselves.

I DO talk to other owners of paysites. And they do express the fears that I mentioned earlier. And one of the worries they have is that the review sites will drop their scores. It's not a huge thing, but it is something. And every little bit of negativity hurts.

That's all I'm saying. Let's work together and get some sales rolling. It can only be beneficial to all of us.

the point i am making is that you are in the imac bubble right now, because many paysites are not encrypted streaming their content. like when the imac claims it is better because it has less virus, while ignoring the fact that the reason it has less virus is because of market share.

When you hit a critical mass then it become advantagous to target it. so when enough people start streaming only someone (if no one does i will) will write code that virtualizes the video card and captures the bit stream to the video buffer.

MaDalton · 12-18-2008, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

gideongallery I have no fucking idea WHAT you are talking about. My point in the conversation that I was having with actual people in this business was that when they review a site like mine, they should present BOTH sides of the coin.

Not just say: It's a complete negative because there are no downloads.

YOU on the other hand are simply trolling. You come into every discussion to start arguments. And now you're trolling Steve again.

I know you're having fun, but sooner or later you're going to realize what a complete and total waste of time this has been for you. Can't you just go and play in the other threads for one goddamn time and let the grownups have a discussion without you just completely ruining it?

To the real people here:
I have said what I have to say. My sales from review sites are almost nothing these days. My type ins are pretty strong. Any review site that would like to work a little closer and bring those sales up...I'm more than happy to sit down with you at Internext and show you exactly what I'm doing.

Hell, I'll even show you my sales numbers so you can see for yourself what you are doing in comparison when promoting my site. I want you to make money and sales. But I do feel that by not encouraging websites to protect themselves and keep their entire members areas off the pirate sites, you are hurting yourselves.

I DO talk to other owners of paysites. And they do express the fears that I mentioned earlier. And one of the worries they have is that the review sites will drop their scores. It's not a huge thing, but it is something. And every little bit of negativity hurts.

That's all I'm saying. Let's work together and get some sales rolling. It can only be beneficial to all of us.

good post

pocketkangaroo · 12-18-2008, 08:39 AM

For the most part a good thread. Both sides have legitimate points. Paysites are simply trying to protect their content that they paid handily for. Review sites are speaking to the consumer and telling them what they can get the most bang for the buck from.

I don't think there will be any changes though in the near future. As long as review sites have paysites willing to allow downloads, and as long as that is a demand of the consumer, they are going to have to cater their reviews to those areas. The one unique aspect of a review site is that working together with a paysite to rank them better does little to benefit their business. It doesn't matter to them which sites are ranked high, as long as their readers feel it's right.

It's not fair, but it's just part of the business. I'm sure video game makers who pour their hearts into making a game get upset when their games are downgraded because they use DRM. I thought the huge uproar over Spore having DRM was kind of silly.

I guess you always have the option of not allowing those sites into your affiliate program. Or offering an explanation on your site (or their forums) as to why you've chosen to do it. But reviews are reviews and they are free to post them regardless of your business relationship with them.

rabbit · 12-18-2008, 10:00 AM

as much as the consummer/producer relationship is beneficial to both parties, there will always be conflicts of interest. just as consumers would grab all content for free if they could, producers would have no hesitation in charging 500$ for a membership if that would make them more profitable. in the end it's about finding a balance where both parties are satisfied. for a big site like twisty's that price may be lower than for a smaller site that does less volume.

same applies for videos. certain sites will be able to build a business model which will be profitable with downloads. others will struggle to do the same.

as far as review scores go, an analogy of a spectrum is appropriate. on one end of it, you have the perfect score which tells the surfer that he is getting extremely good value for his purchase. on the other end, the value is mostly for the producer- a shitty site that has nothing but feeds that costs 40$ a pop. just as a lower price will move the paysite along this spectrum towards a higher score and value for a surfer, so will downloadable videos. a lower score for not having downloads isn't a penalty. its simply a subjective and nominal indication of the value of the purchase, which review sites didnt just pull out of their asses. this IS what the surfers want and it's only fair to them that we use it in our rating criteria.

as a reviewer we have to be consistent when ranking sites along this spectrum. Robbie, you may not be able to continue providing downloads, but the surfer who wants them doesn't really care about the reasons why and he will be perplexed if all things being equal, your site, which only provides streaming vids, gets the same score as one that also allows downloads. yet another surfer, who doesn't care about downloads but wants to see your hot wife, will join regardless of the score.

no review site is reviewing paysites against their will. yes, streaming only sites would get more sales if we didnt take downloads into consideration. but so would sites with shitty content if we didnt rate that either. in the end, many sales are better than a few, but a few are still better than none.

crockett · 12-18-2008, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

Hmmm...

One place of employment gives you a car and lets you take it home.

The other makes you leave it there.

Can you see a benefit? Ohh... And company number one lets you keep the car even if your employment is canceled. Boo-yah!

Paysites aren't selling the members their content. Paysites are selling members access to their content for a specific time period.

The surfer doesn't get a license to own the content, just access to it. I personally think paysite should stop allowing users to D/L their content or severally limit the downloads.

Robbie · 12-18-2008, 10:32 AM

And my point would be that instead of just accentuating the negative of no downloads that you should also point out the positives. Such as the fact that it is a far better way to present the content INSTANTLY at a higher quality than a .wmv download. That the surfer can now move freely in the stream and pass by the parts that don't interest him and go straight to the parts that do. That when a surfer joins they now have a membership of VALUE.

I hear all this talk lately of "educating" the surfer. And it's all been for the negative for sales. How about doing a little educating from your end that would be a positive force for sales.

I talk everyday to owners of some of the best paysites out there. And they always initiate the conversation. And what do they want to know? They want to talk about how I'm keeping my stuff protected.

And right down to a man...one of the things they mention is that review sites would be negative towards it. So it DOES have an affect.

But perhaps if an honest appraisal of the benefit to the consumer were put in the review instead of bad marks...well then that would take away one of the fears of other companies and maybe lead to more folks protecting their content.

Mantas, I've been doing this a long time. And I see for my own eyes what is happening to sales for some really good sites out there that I used to make a lot of new sales for. And those sites all have ONE thing in common...you can get EVERYTHING on their sites on a torrent or tube. And everyone of them wants to do something about it.

But they are afraid (as I was) that they will lose their biggest source of income...the rebilling customers.

That's what scared me the most. And for a lot of those big mega sites that all shoot the same girls from the same agencies...that is a legitimate fear. If site A protects their content...but site B has the same girl fucking the same guy in a different scenario and allows downloads, then site A has a legitimate reason to believe that they will lose sales.

It's a scary and nail-biting decision to make. And not having any support from our review site affiliates did nothing but make it just a bit harder.

crockett · 12-18-2008, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

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

That would be marketing it NEGATIVELY.

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

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

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

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

Don't mind "gideongallery" if I'm not mistaken he's a fake nick of MadDogg whom was known to run torrent sites. So he's likely mad he can't steal all your content.

As far as your other post about the way review site sell your product. I do agree with you that far too many Review Site use a "standardized" selling point for every review vs trying to push the unique points of each site.

gideongallery · 12-18-2008, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Paysites aren't selling the members their content. Paysites are selling members access to their content for a specific time period.

The surfer doesn't get a license to own the content, just access to it. I personally think paysite should stop allowing users to D/L their content or severally limit the downloads.

Quote:

Universal City Studios liciences it content for distribution on broadcast television on a limited bases. It is authorized for broadcast on a specific day at a specific time only. Sony personal VTR (at the time they were called VTR) allows their customers record and rebroadcast these television programs at a time and place beyond the scope of that licience .......

sound very very similar.

btw the quote was from the betamax case, you know the one which established that "timeshifting" was in fact a fair use right. And the action that universal city studios claimed was a copyright infringement but really wasn't.

12-18-2008, 10:00 AM	#204
rabbit Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Montreal Posts: 2,124	as much as the consummer/producer relationship is beneficial to both parties, there will always be conflicts of interest. just as consumers would grab all content for free if they could, producers would have no hesitation in charging 500$ for a membership if that would make them more profitable. in the end it's about finding a balance where both parties are satisfied. for a big site like twisty's that price may be lower than for a smaller site that does less volume. same applies for videos. certain sites will be able to build a business model which will be profitable with downloads. others will struggle to do the same. as far as review scores go, an analogy of a spectrum is appropriate. on one end of it, you have the perfect score which tells the surfer that he is getting extremely good value for his purchase. on the other end, the value is mostly for the producer- a shitty site that has nothing but feeds that costs 40$ a pop. just as a lower price will move the paysite along this spectrum towards a higher score and value for a surfer, so will downloadable videos. a lower score for not having downloads isn't a penalty. its simply a subjective and nominal indication of the value of the purchase, which review sites didnt just pull out of their asses. this IS what the surfers want and it's only fair to them that we use it in our rating criteria. as a reviewer we have to be consistent when ranking sites along this spectrum. Robbie, you may not be able to continue providing downloads, but the surfer who wants them doesn't really care about the reasons why and he will be perplexed if all things being equal, your site, which only provides streaming vids, gets the same score as one that also allows downloads. yet another surfer, who doesn't care about downloads but wants to see your hot wife, will join regardless of the score. no review site is reviewing paysites against their will. yes, streaming only sites would get more sales if we didnt take downloads into consideration. but so would sites with shitty content if we didnt rate that either. in the end, many sales are better than a few, but a few are still better than none. __________________ Got a paysite? Get it reviewed by RabbitsReviews and TheBestPorn

12-18-2008, 10:32 AM	#206
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	And my point would be that instead of just accentuating the negative of no downloads that you should also point out the positives. Such as the fact that it is a far better way to present the content INSTANTLY at a higher quality than a .wmv download. That the surfer can now move freely in the stream and pass by the parts that don't interest him and go straight to the parts that do. That when a surfer joins they now have a membership of VALUE. I hear all this talk lately of "educating" the surfer. And it's all been for the negative for sales. How about doing a little educating from your end that would be a positive force for sales. I talk everyday to owners of some of the best paysites out there. And they always initiate the conversation. And what do they want to know? They want to talk about how I'm keeping my stuff protected. And right down to a man...one of the things they mention is that review sites would be negative towards it. So it DOES have an affect. But perhaps if an honest appraisal of the benefit to the consumer were put in the review instead of bad marks...well then that would take away one of the fears of other companies and maybe lead to more folks protecting their content. Mantas, I've been doing this a long time. And I see for my own eyes what is happening to sales for some really good sites out there that I used to make a lot of new sales for. And those sites all have ONE thing in common...you can get EVERYTHING on their sites on a torrent or tube. And everyone of them wants to do something about it. But they are afraid (as I was) that they will lose their biggest source of income...the rebilling customers. That's what scared me the most. And for a lot of those big mega sites that all shoot the same girls from the same agencies...that is a legitimate fear. If site A protects their content...but site B has the same girl fucking the same guy in a different scenario and allows downloads, then site A has a legitimate reason to believe that they will lose sales. It's a scary and nail-biting decision to make. And not having any support from our review site affiliates did nothing but make it just a bit harder. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com Last edited by Robbie; 12-18-2008 at 10:36 AM..

12-18-2008, 08:39 AM	#203
pocketkangaroo Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 8,452	For the most part a good thread. Both sides have legitimate points. Paysites are simply trying to protect their content that they paid handily for. Review sites are speaking to the consumer and telling them what they can get the most bang for the buck from. I don't think there will be any changes though in the near future. As long as review sites have paysites willing to allow downloads, and as long as that is a demand of the consumer, they are going to have to cater their reviews to those areas. The one unique aspect of a review site is that working together with a paysite to rank them better does little to benefit their business. It doesn't matter to them which sites are ranked high, as long as their readers feel it's right. It's not fair, but it's just part of the business. I'm sure video game makers who pour their hearts into making a game get upset when their games are downgraded because they use DRM. I thought the huge uproar over Spore having DRM was kind of silly. I guess you always have the option of not allowing those sites into your affiliate program. Or offering an explanation on your site (or their forums) as to why you've chosen to do it. But reviews are reviews and they are free to post them regardless of your business relationship with them.