How come so many porn sites look like they're from the 90s?
 

Looking for new sponsors and realized half of them look like they took some cookie-cutter adult template and just shoved a bunch of porn pictures on them or used Frontpage 98 to create the most retarded looking porn site they could.

There was still a little Bush in the 90's

sites like 1999 = sales like 1999 :Oh crap

So they can cash in with my 90s content. LOL

:1orglaugh that was pretty good

So is it okay if I hit up sherm and ask him if he can give me customized FHGs for Facial Abuse that have a 1999 tour? Is this possible? :upsidedow

Corrected. :winkwink:

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

How come so many porn sites look like they're from the 90s?

Cause if it aint broke and still sells, why change it?

there is always up and comers who have unique looks.... it depends on the niche, if you watch Vivid Video releases it will often be similar body types ... the big fake tits etc.. maybe platinum blonde hair.. its what their customers like

in terms of internet girls, there are tons of niches which girls fit into, which is why when it comes to content I love to have a wide range to appeal to more people... perfect example being the differences between Natalia Kalashnikov and Kayden Kross

Because people like things that look like they're from the 90's? Do you like Nirvana? That's from the 90's too. People still listen to them. lol

you kidding, some havent even been UPDATED dince then LOL

ask yourself, what do program owners know that I, the all knowing affiliate, do not?

I was curious about one thing. A lot of these type of sites I see are CCBill sites.
Is it hard to design a site to work with ccbills templates or something?

I found a ccbill site I thought would be good to promote but it had a copyright of 2004. The design is very basic so I wasn't really sure if it's dead or what. I was also curious if I have a site with a nicer design and i send users to that, does that have an effect on joins?

I don't know but before I even knew about affiliate sites, websites like that would seem a bit shady to me.Keep in mind that back then, as an average Joe, I had no idea who ccbill was or if they were trustworthy. I guess I have always been cautious where I send my cc info to.

Here is the site I am referring to:
http://www.asianappleseed.com/

ugly sites sell.better.in my experience

how many of those sites offer cheap trials with prechecked cross sells

because they are

Give a look at ours. We have some awesome new tours...
check out....
www.creampiethais.com and www.tussinee.com for example.

Exactly~! :thumbsup

One of the hottest content sites, as far as niches go, is Rawklin... Damn can this chick ever sell... But the content is owned by the biggest dipshit of a webmaster in the world. Complete fucking dipshit.

He built the site in the software that was the precursor to Dreamweaver. Before Macromedia bought that shit software and made the Dreamweaver you know now. It created a directory system that was gay as shit... and obvious so you knew somebody was writing their site with software that hasn't been updated since 2002.

All of his sites were traffic leaks like crazy... His galleries were completely fucked up... I offered to go in and fix all of his shit for him for free. Just because I knew I could make thousands a month on the sites if they fucking worked... He said no...

Now he is out of business...

Fucking douchebags in this industry.

Porn is sort of a dirty little activity. Guys wait till the wife falls asleep then they sneak into a room to watch a quick video of whatever it is they can't get in real life. I think based on that, sites that looks totally polished sort of contradict that.

If you're selling studio type porn with perfect lighting and all of that, then a nice site is fine. But if you are selling down and dirty hardcore, a sort of seedy looking site actually works better.

Don't forget, this is porn, you are trying to access someone's private turn-ons, this isn't mainstream where you are trying to pretend like you are a real business by building a really sharp looking website.

People are waiting for the iBill rev cheques to upgrade from the 90s look.

It depends entirely on your niche.

With that said, I won't promote a site that clearly hasn't been updated design wise since 2000 unless other guys I know says it converts crazy good.

An amateur, solo girl site that's intended to be raw and raunchy and looks like the girl herself designed it will do well.

A solo girl site that's intended to be classy and glamorous should be designed to reflect that.




In short, there's no right answer.

I've heard that alot, I have never found that to be the case, but most of the people I have talked to say the same thing.. Why do you think that is? Personally, I would be less likely to pull out my credit card on a old school design then I would on something new and flashy

I agree on you with all your points...I was mainly referring to the sites that just look plain bad and aren't purposely created to look amateur (especially ones that have like a miniblog on the tour and have 2007 as the last update).

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

In my experience with advertising, ugly ads tend to sell better than ads with clean, sleek designs. The reasoning is that the ugly ads look more authentic. It seems like they aren't just advertising for some giant corporation. They're by the people, for the people.

Maybe that spills over into website design as well. Who knows. As a designer, though, I love aesthetics.

When someone starts a site they are likely to look for a designer and ask to see a portfolio of their adult work. Given the nature of hiring designers for adult and non-adult, they're likely to want to hire someone who has a proven history of reliability. Given the nature of adult, they're unlikely to approach a non-adult designer. After working through all those barriers, they're then left with a relatively small group of designers who have been doing the same shit year after year after year.

Examples???