+ Review Site Owners: Why do you punish people who want to protect their content?? +

[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?

[Tanker]

I couldn't agree more, in the game of rebills and fast internet connections giving the whole site as a download really doesnt do much for anyone's bottom line but remove the need for a single rebill

Sites should not be penalized for protecting their content that shouldn't be more clear then in today's environment

[Spike D]

Completely agree. A simple note in the review that the content is not downloadable would seem to be sufficient. The score should reflect the quality of the content, site design, etc. To penalize the site for protecting their content seems to be short sighted given the current state of stolen content and tubes/torrents....

[gooddomains]

but what should then be uploaded to tube sites ?

[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!

[fuzebox]

Review sites have never favored the affiliate program or paysite owner The downloadable content thing is just one example.

[KillerK]

Well maybe when there are no sites to review they will rethink...

fuck them

[MaDalton]

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!

do you pay for cable tv?

[hjnet]

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!

And there are also places where you can get a stolen car for free ;)

I see your point, Review Sites have to take care about what's really important for the surfer, but only to a certain point IMHO, otherwise they could forward them straight to the tubes....

[96ukssob]

I see your point, but if they are so concerned, then why dont they start their own review site?

If i were to join a paysite, it would be so I can download the content, not just view it when im logged in. then whats the difference between joining a pay/membership site and sending any tube site $30 a month?

Take that and look at the price of adult DVDs to online content. You can get pretty close to decent content quality off most membership sites, so why am I going to spend $40 to $60 for a 3 hour long DVD when I can join any pay site and download hours of DVD quality for $30 a month? Either pay sites have to evolve with changing times and offer something that tube sites wont, or they are going to have to push cross sales EVEN MORE to make up for low revenue numbers

/ my

[andy83]

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!

nice one there. totally got the idea right

[pocketkangaroo]

Review sites are written from the perspective of the consumer.

[leek]

Review sites are written from the perspective of the consumer.

Agreed. And as long as the consumer wants to download content, that will be on the checklist for review sites.

[MaDalton]

Review sites are written from the perspective of the consumer.

and paid by the paysite owners

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

[pornguy]

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!

Company number 1 and number 2 should have been smart enough to put company LOGOS on the cars.

[fuzebox]

What I don't like about review sites is how they review you based on one standard they have for The Adult Paysite[tm], when really there are hundreds of us all running different operations with only adult content being the thing in common.

Let's say I film all my own unique content, and I start charging monthly for people to watch it... I don't post on GFY or have PPS promos or a big network of sites, I'm just a business i created, how I want to. If I decide to submit my site to a review site, they'll give me low points for lack of photo content, or maybe they don't like my update schedule or the length of my videos, or several other critiera solely based on how other people are selling their porn. Then they provide a list of sites that are "better" than mine which the surfer should join instead.

Just a pet peeve of mine, how not having digital stills or 30 minute videos ranks you negatively, even though that may not even be possible in your niche.

[DVTimes]

to be honest if i join a site i want to download it to watch later, so if i was reviwing a site then i would downgrade it as that would be my view.

so if somone reviwing a site does not mind that then they would not downgrade.

its to me like buying a dvd and only being able to watch it on one player.

streaming films will not prevent theft.

if you are a big site you could always be clever and have the persons details (ie credit card or home address) burnt onto the film so he he/she is then posting it on the web you know who did it, plus they will not be so keen if there details are there.

[BVF]

and paid by the paysite owners

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

No....Paid by the CUSTOMERS

Nobody buys content, nobody builds sites, nobody does anything WITHOUT somewhere down the line, a customer getting horny and pulling out his credit card...

This fried chicken and catfish lunch I'm eating was paid for by a CUSTOMER somewhere down the line...I didn't pay for it...

Now let me crack this sunkist

[Jdoughs]

Is it possible to watermark the downloaded videos with a user number or account number? (like SHS12005)

A member decides to download scenes 3-6 from a certain movie, and the paysite watermarks the video (on the fly) with that members user number so that if it is shared or uploaded you have a definate line on the culprit?

[Snake Doctor]

While review sites do cater to the surfer, that is their purpose....MaDalton has a valid point here.

By lowering the score for people protecting their content...by putting in bold green letters "NO DRM" as a positive sign for sites...you're helping to dig your own grave.
Pretty soon all you'll have left to review is tube sites. Won't that be fun?

[SilentKnight]

We don't bother with review sites.

We've been burned a few times over the years by so-called 'site reviewers' who took advantage of the logins to leech all the content, sucking back bandwidth in the process and then passing along the temporary logins to others to do the same.

And the amount of traffic gained from the legit reviewers we've found to be minimal at best.

Plus - I don't like my work being subjectively judged by those with little or no knowledge or background in the fetish community.

[frank7799]

Review sites are written from the perspective of the consumer.

Reviewsites are written from the perspective of the siteowner. He want´s the surfer to buy a membership or he is paid by the owner of a reviewed site (well, maybe).

[frank7799]

and paid by the paysite owners

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

Sorry, I promise next time I´ll read more carefully before pressing the submit button. But I agree, a reviewsite isn´t for the customer in the first place.

[TheDoc]

Umm... Guys, you just tell the Review Sites to change the review. Tell them to take off the DRM info, make the review better, remove what you like or have added in what you like, give you a higher rating.

It's that simple, it's your program and they are the Webmaster. If you don't like how your site is being presented, then tell them to change it or take it down.

[d-null]

I think many are missing the boat on this one, people and new surfers love the youtube or tubesite format, where you click on a video and it plays right then, in good quality

some of the paysites go so far the opposite way it is ridiculous, offering 500 MB video for the week with no lower res or streaming option, it is really only helping the guys that want to rip it and offer it in torrents


the car analogy above is off, the cable tv analogy is a little closer to what we are about here

[frank7799]

If you don't like how your site is being presented, then tell them to change it or take it down.

That´s kind of right. On the other hand a reliable reviewsite has some advantages for the affiliate program and the surfer as well. And if a reviewsite claims to be reliable, the review shouldn´t be a fairy tale.

[12clicks]

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?

review sites don't give a shit about the program owners.

[MaDalton]

That´s kind of right. On the other hand a reliable reviewsite has some advantages for the affiliate program and the surfer as well. And if a reviewsite claims to be reliable, the review shouldn´t be a fairy tale.

i think review sites should give honest reviews, thats what they are for. but i think, like it was said earlier, that it would be enough to state how the video is presented and not making it a negative point when the videos are presented by streaming only

[MaDalton]

review sites don't give a shit about the program owners.

then why do i meet some of them at webmaster shows?

on a second thought: aren't we all surfers too??

[12clicks]

then why do i meet some of them at webmaster shows?

because they're affiliates.

on a second thought: aren't we all surfers too??

I am not a porn surfer.

[BFT3K]

I have submitted my network to TONS of review sites, but none would review them because I don't have an affiliate program set up yet. This means to me, that they will not review my sites because they will not benefit from doing so.

If the review site owners are simply affiliates who want a piece of the action, then they should understand that they will make more profit by promoting (reviewing) sites that ONLY offer streaming scenes, as that business model will increase the chance that the customer will stick around for rebills, and your exclusive content will be less likely to wind up on endless tube sites for free.

Semi unrelated - I will be offering affiliate sign-ups sometime next month.

[Barefootsies]

Review sites are written from the perspective of the consumer.

[ultimatebbwdotcom]

Never bothered with review sites - simply because I suspect the results are skewed to whoevers paying them the largest slice of each sale.

[TheDoc]

That´s kind of right. On the other hand a reliable reviewsite has some advantages for the affiliate program and the surfer as well. And if a reviewsite claims to be reliable, the review shouldn´t be a fairy tale.

Any review site I have asked to make changes, has without question. But I haven't ever made some crazy claim or change that wasn't reasonable.

As an example, I had a site with some rather unique exclusive content. It didn't update steady, just at random times. The site had hundreds of gigs of content that you pretty much can't get anywhere else.

The review sites was saying that I didn't update or didn't update enough. They were changing the opinion of the surfer before the surfer really found out what was going on.

The same thing will have with the DRM stuff, they change the opinion of the surfer before the surfer even has a chance to try it. Maybe it's the slickest DRM ever, maybe the surfer doesn't care about downloads, maybe that's because surfers don't know what streaming flash is. But flagging as if it's a bad thing - is an opinion changer when they only hear that DRM for Music is bad bad bad......

The 'opinion' of the review site is simply that, an opinion. And you being the owner of content, the paysite, ect.. Have full and total control over every single bit of text, data, and opinion presented in the review.

If you don't change them, you are getting screwed over and losing sales.

[MaDalton]

because they're affiliates.

yes, of course. and therefore they also depend on the wellbeing of the programs who pay them. and they could make more money if the programs would not be pressured into making their content available for download to receive a better rating.

small example: Germanies biggest paysite pays 51 Euro ($70) per signup for a membership that costs about $15 per month. how can they afford that? because they have tons of exclusive content which cannot be found on any tube site because it was always just offered via streaming from day one on. i am not exactly sure how long the average retention per member is, but it is well above one year.

but this is long term thinking, something many people are not capable of

edit: they have become the biggest porn site ALTHOUGH they offer streaming only.

[notime]

The question is; who pays, who buys and what do they want?
consumers.....this is where everything starts...they are the buyers!
And they are even more of a critic during the credit this crisis.
These guys have internet too, have our intelligence, use forums and discuss...No longer are they idiots.
They want what a site promises. No more, no less.

[frank7799]

not making it a negative point when the videos are presented by streaming only

It´s all a question of seductive advertising. Don´t call streaming only a handicap. Just praise it as substantial progress. And yes, that´s what an affiliate program can expect of the webmaster.

[Doug of Montreal]

Wag The Dog

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?

I totally agree. I think the more the industry does to protect the product, the better. The problem is that it really is a huge advantage to download and keep your favorite scenes--huge.

We write for the consumer. Ignoring DL's and their value would hurt our credibility. I'm all for taking a step in the right direction when we can, but the problem at this point doesn't lie with review sites--it's with the paysite owners who continue to allow downloads as streaming improves.

We don't make the market--just comment on it. The tail can sometimes wag the dog. This just isn't one of those cases.

(BTW, submit for traffic here--downloads or streaming all welcome!)

[Kudles]

I think it's safe

[TheDoc]

The question is; who pays, who buys and what do they want?
consumers.....this is where everything starts...they are the buyers!
And they are even more of a critic during the credit this crisis.
These guys have internet too, have our intelligence, use forums and discuss...No longer are they idiots.
They want what a site promises. No more, no less.

Correct, but that is also the problem. What a paysite pitches is not the same as what the review site pitches. So a surfer that looks at a tour, and checks forums to see if you are a scammer, is a bit different than a review site surfer.

The review site looks the members area over and rates those against all other paysites, as pretty much equal. They don't look at the pitch of the site.

The actual tour, may only promote 10 girls and a new girl each week. All that is needed to sell a surfer. When the review site logs in, they don't like what they see. 30 girls and some bonus content isn't crap, so a trash review. However based on the tour and the sales pitch, the site is bang on and the review site missed the pitch.

Another reason, to change your review at review sites to 'correct the opinion' they have.

[frank7799]

Any review site I have asked to make changes, has without question. But I haven't ever made some crazy claim or change that wasn't reasonable.

As an example, I had a site with some rather unique exclusive content. It didn't update steady, just at random times. The site had hundreds of gigs of content that you pretty much can't get anywhere else.

The review sites was saying that I didn't update or didn't update enough. They were changing the opinion of the surfer before the surfer really found out what was going on.

The same thing will have with the DRM stuff, they change the opinion of the surfer before the surfer even has a chance to try it. Maybe it's the slickest DRM ever, maybe the surfer doesn't care about downloads, maybe that's because surfers don't know what streaming flash is. But flagging as if it's a bad thing - is an opinion changer when they only hear that DRM for Music is bad bad bad......

The 'opinion' of the review site is simply that, an opinion. And you being the owner of content, the paysite, ect.. Have full and total control over every single bit of text, data, and opinion presented in the review.

If you don't change them, you are getting screwed over and losing sales.

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

[BVF]

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

[MaDalton]

I totally agree. I think the more the industry does to protect the product, the better. The problem is that it really is a huge advantage to download and keep your favorite scenes--huge.

We write for the consumer. Ignoring DL's and their value would hurt our credibility. I'm all for taking a step in the right direction when we can, but the problem at this point doesn't lie with review sites--it's with the paysite owners who continue to allow downloads as streaming improves.

We don't make the market--just comment on it. The tail can sometimes wag the dog. This just isn't one of those cases.

(BTW, submit for traffic here--downloads or streaming all welcome!)

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

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

[count of monte cristo]

No....Paid by the CUSTOMERS

Nobody buys content, nobody builds sites, nobody does anything WITHOUT somewhere down the line, a customer getting horny and pulling out his credit card...

This fried chicken and catfish lunch I'm eating was paid for by a CUSTOMER somewhere down the line...I didn't pay for it...

Now let me crack this sunkist

love that line, see sig

fuck, never mind

BB code quote is not allowed.

[12clicks]

yes, of course. and therefore they also depend on the wellbeing of the programs who pay them.

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

and they could make more money if the programs would not be pressured into making their content available for download to receive a better rating.

there's a reason they're affiliates and not program owners.

small example: Germanies biggest paysite pays 51 Euro ($70) per signup for a membership that costs about $15 per month. how can they afford that? because they have tons of exclusive content which cannot be found on any tube site because it was always just offered via streaming from day one on. i am not exactly sure how long the average retention per member is, but it is well above one year.

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

[MaDalton]

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

[Ayla_SquareTurtle]

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

[Lykos]

They only care for their sales,not websites

[Doug of Montreal]

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

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

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

[OMG Jim]

This thread needed a little more German flavor to it Stefan