How important is QUALITY is to the surfer?
 

Been looking at a lot of sites recently for our new review site, the launch has been delayed due to us installing a new server and main frame but it's coming soon.

One of the things that really struck me was the difference in quality of some sites. Quality of the porn, product and site.

Some were awesome and surfing them was a delight. good quality product, people who clearly understood how to use a camera, knew about the porn they were shooting and could design/layout/program a site. I got the feeling that if I was a member I could spend a long time there. Unfortunately there was few of them so far.

The vast majority are simply not delivering the product, bad product, poor porn and a site that needs an instruction manual to get around. It's small wonder they don't retain.

IMO if you want to keep a surfer the best way is to deliver a product that's better than the opposition.

Discuss.

I think quality of action is more important in porn, if the scene is hot alot is forgiven.

I've seen the nicest images (nice, high resolution) and the most capable video delivery technologies *hamstrung* by a bad user inteface, that makes shit hard to find and use. Likewise, I've seen some wonderful money come out of "shit" content, because the webmaster had a little usability know-how -- :2 cents:




2hp

If you asked me that question several years ago, i would say not that important, but now most surfers have seen a whole lot and much smarter shoppers and are probably comparing quality rather than quanity these days. So IMO, quality is everything these days! Qaulity content, quality service and quality site is key!

I have to agree with you Paul. Quality content & design is the key to succes:thumbsup

I think character of the site goes a long way. That takes a bit of effort.

Of course the quality has to be on a 2006 level. Just like television from the 80's looks cheesy to us now, the same is true for grungy video shot and encoded using 1999 compression.

This brings me to another point, why would anyone buy video content in WMV or MPEG formats? If you plan on buying something that's going to please over the years make sure it's in a format you can re-encode when new standards are created. Otherwise you will just have crappy looking content that Paul will make a thread about in 2008.

Totally agree.

If the model is bouncing along, looking like she wants to fuck everyone and his brother, who cares if the scene is perfectly lit or color balanced. This to me is "Amateur"

Saw one site where the model was so put off by the shooter and what she was doing it was embarassing. She actually did a few "Eye rolls". :Oh crap

Getting more important as the surfer is more used to the internet.

Some affiliate programs are adepting to it.

Others are still money machines not caring much of rentention, but more about marketing - Like a hit and run strategy.

Yup.





2hp

I think everything is important - design, pics, videos and surfer friendly organized site interface. Put yourself in surfers place :)
When you're in shop looking for something to buy, do you choose also by design of the product's package (cover), or not... Just my humble opinion :)

I'd say that is about 95% of the sites online.

I think it all comes down to the personality of the site and of course the girls.

BONJOUR

I agree with you Mr. Markham.

"Traffic is king, content is queen", as the saying goes.....

My thoughts on quality: http://www.xbiz.com/article_piece.php?cat=43&id=13818

I care... because the site won't convert. Why? You can't see shit!!

I have also been working on my new review / list site at Teenie Bop Teens. I am really surprised at the shitty content some of the major players have on their sites. Ok... some of my content isn't the best either at my membership site, but I don't go around telling everyone that I have the biggest dick in the pack either!

The point is, a bad looking gallery will immediately turn the surfer off.

Lets face it - We know the reason for review sites, affiliate sites and membership sites. But if the site sucks, I simply can not afford to list it and give it a shitty review. What is the point of that?? Make another program look better? Waste my fucking time?

If I give it a good review, I lost credibility and the surfer leaves my site and I loose the affiliate sale... and any future sale that dude might have made.

My approach is a bit different than others - I don't list shit.

Very true. Some of the sites ideas on "Navigation" is to go from scene 1 to 2 then 3 and so on. but as they have 30 scenes I suppose they think it's fine. :321GFY

The real problem are the big sites that have little to nothing, except video or images. How hard is it to put in some sort of menu?

Probably these sites are run by the clowns who complain they can't navigate my site or want me to find them the exact set they want. :1orglaugh

Personally I think, that the idea of shooting and model is key
Technical quality for today already all have learned to make worthy, and here a highlight is it will be always difficult

Yesterday shot couple girls that were realy good I would say
http://www.paulmarkham.com/temp/2161-01.jpg
http://www.paulmarkham.com/temp/2161-02.jpg

Hope that we will have more of these girls

Very NICE:thumbsup :thumbsup

My late husband was a professional surfer. He was a real pornaholic, and I learned a lot about what makes a good site from him.

What he cared about most was niche. He wanted the most extreme and hottest scenes he could find in the niches he was interested in. What mattered to him was what was going on in the scene, not especially the quality of the video or photo. If the quality was good enough to get a clear impression of what was going on, he was more than happy.

He was a hunter of porn, he'd join sites and download to his hard drive. What he wanted was jackoff material. To him, quality meant whether or not it made his dick hard. Isn't this really the bottom line?

Of course navigation and ease of use makes a big difference too, it's difficult to keep a hard on when you're getting irritated that you can't find what you want. A guy joins a site for one reason, to get off.. you help him do that and you have a winner

Quality depends on the niche.. if it's specialized then aslong you deliver the product it says the site is about.. you will be forgiven alot.

Personally I hate over produced porn,, same model poses.. to much makeup,
serious over acting etc..

Simple logic today.

There are 1,000s of sites doing it the same way.

100s doing it better.

10s doing it perfectly.

Offer the surfer a level of porn he can't find elsewhere and he will stay. Offer him a level that is duplicated on 1,000 other sites and he will move on.

http://alpha.ratx.com/c/090/14.jpg

Quality counts. :thumbsup

Hot head to toes
:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

And this is why a few sites make a fortune and most scrape a living.

They will tell you it's 100% exclusive. but the exact same content is on 80% of the other sites on the Net. OK the girl, sofa, dress or dildo may be different, but not always the whole thing. But the porn is not and this is what matters to the surfer.

If he's into jerking off to teen lesbian porn like Eva shot yesterday how many sites offer exactly the same niche and level of porn? Forget about the level of image quality.

Now think about the level of porn quality and compress everything down to the level of free sites and look at how much competition there is.

The future is to offer a level of porn that he can't find on 1,000 other sites.

The compress exclusive content to this level.

Yes but at least I will still be here in 2008. :winkwink:

The better the experience you deliver for your $30 the less options you give the surfer to go elsewhere, the longer you retain or the sooner he comes back.

Hit and run used to work and for many it's all they know. But for the future the road is up.

from the tours I see that are supposedly selling like 'hotcakes' . . . not very . . most of the tours I'm seeing are poorly shot with unattractive models, shot to be even more unattractive then they actually are . . Especially the video stuff :helpme

Well they don't want to see small grainy photos and videos.

I like quality and the only site I ever joined was metart.com cos it was very professionally done.

bump for a great business thread. :thumbsup

You have to define "quality" and what the surfers want. Some want the high quality glamour pix, others want the pix that look like it was taken by their boyfriend in a poorly lit bedroom.....

Yes you have to be able to see the content.

What I'm more disappointed in is the actual porn quality.

If it's AMATEUR she has to look natural, as if she's having fun and doing it for kicks or even to get fucked.

Not as if she's putting on an act to earn money.

AMATUER is not an excuse for a bad shooter, shooting a professional model. But there was a site that I loved and it was all about this bunch of lads taking girls away for the fun and kicks. The girls were pro and the shooters guys getting their kicks. They made it work.

Careful... your spam, sorry, marketing, is becoming less creative: haven't you done this subject lots of times before?

Of course "quality" is important to the surfer: they aren't looking for content so badly lit the subject is barely visible, low-contrast, pixellated crap which looks as if it were photographed on an alien planet because the whole shot is green, orange, or whatever.

But you have been around long enough to know that 87.65% of this industry is based on the surfer not rebilling. 39.41% doesn't even want the surfer to sign up at the first site he visits. Content is totally irrelevant to such operators because the surfer won't have a clue what his $$$ are really going to buy until it is too late.

Okay, it gets a bit laughable when some of these guys produce hosted galleries and apparently expect screen caps of a movie that would be more appropriately called "Night on Mars" to (pre-)sell their sites. But they are probably assuming most webmasters are too lazy to check the links they download. And they are probably right. And so what if their click-throughs suck, providing they don't burn much bandwidth, their content costs close to zero, and tens of thousands of their galleries are out there?

The only thing which amazes me in the content field is that some photographers get through complete sessions, often lots of complete sessions, without apparently noticing the lighting (what lighting?) is wrong, that the focus was never set. How much effort would it take to improve their product enough to get 2 cents a pic instead of 1 cent?

Then again, a lot of the up-market stuff, while technically solid, is about as exciting as a slap around the face with a dead haddock: models with zero sex appeal, who look like all they are thinking about is when they can go home; the same tired old poses and uninspired settings. Oh and let's not forget editing: content which can be cleaned up, but the seller leaves every single buyer to do that, rather than invest some extra time to finish his job.

Your point is obviously valid, but seriously, I think your not-so-subliminal message that your content is better, would be more effective if you tried to make a solid argument for using a marketing model for which that matters. Naive doesn't suit you :)

I think there are different views on Quality.

You mentioned Amateur Paul, which is a niche that i myself actually like, as a surfer. In my own personal opinion the quality is actually just semi decent in my own vision of this niche. Meaning, that a girl with a decent quality webcam, an 'ok' camera, say 5 mega pixels, that she herself shoots or her BF, etc, really adds realism, and MANY people enjoy this.

QUALITY wise, it is way down the ladder, compared to say High Definition, a Canon 20D, etc.

Then there is Quality of the way the site is organized, it's user friendliness, and so forth. That i think leaves very little room for argument. It should be top notch at any level.

I once had a review site give poor reviews on www.katiefey.com - because he felt she was not hardcore enough. :)

Her niche is erotic nude, with some amateur, home made material. Which i myself like.
So i guess it all depends in terms of content, what the surfer is in to and if the 'quality' of the images and video is less than the highest out there, well it sometimes lends a hint of realism among other things to the site and experience, and that has to be considered.

Such as GOTH dark, shadowy photos... as another example.

Same as touching up photos. Removing stretch marks, bruises, mosquito bites (lol) etc... is one thing. Some people go overboard and gloss the hell out of some of these images, making the model seem impossibly perfect. Which i myself think is a whole other niche.

Just examples of where i think Quality can be interpreted differently. :winkwink:

oops... wrong thread :(

Now quality is one of the main thing, thats why my site has started to use High Definition Video! :thumbsup

its all about the action - is the sex hot?

thats the bottom line.

doesnt matter how its shot.

2nd the site has to be easy to navigate.
if its not people will leave and not come back.

Basic site design layout/navigation/organisation - call it what you like - doesn't get near enough attention. Many member areas, webmaster areas too, come to that, are a nightmare and costing those sponsors a great deal of money.

Much of that is generated by the way we work, often farming out the site design (which might not even include the member area), as an early step in creating a site, instead of as the last step. Thus the member area is inevitably influenced by the top-end design, when we should be designing from the smallest content element up, arriving at the top of the site last.

When you work that way around, not only is ease of use more likely to become a reality, but with the bones of the site available to the designer, one who really knows his/her job should be able to provide a much more relevant front end.

I used to review quite a few different things. I especially took flack from car enthusiasts who also read articles I wrote in a motorsport magazine and therefore expected me to slam econo-boxes, even when I was writing them up in a daily newspaper. The point is that good reviews are always written from the perspective of the most likely customer for whatever is being reviewed, unless you have a personality thing going on and then the primary appeal is your style (and the often abrasive comments), rather than the actual contents of your reviews.

Personal taste must be a strong element, but in the context of Paul's threads on this topic, I think most of us could filter the absolutely good and bad, and only quibble about which of the good was the best. In fact Paul's content is a good example, because since it has provided him with a good living for several years, not entirely due to his ummm... aggressive (?) marketing, there is obviously a sizeable audience out there for it. Yet for my taste most of his models and sets are very ordinary and his style of photography just doesn't work for me the way, say, whoever photographs a lot of the Medium Pimpin sets does.

I love threads that states the obvious.

:)