Compete with Twistys/OT? Watch out Manwin!

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I have no idea who Hegre is.

Hegre are in the Met-Art style. Nice tour, need to see inside the site to make a real judgment.

But I do know that when I see photos in a set that were just being snapped as fast as the camera would shoot that there was no time taken in composing that photo and looking for something. It's just laziness.

I can tell you 100% that it is a LOT easier to point a camera and just shoot every second than it is to compose a photo and try to make each shot tell a different piece of the story.

The situation was, most sites simply would not pay enough to get shooters who could do anything else. If we presented an editor with a set like my screen grab shows. He wouldn't get his loop out to look at it. It would of been given right back to the shooter. Who had shot 7-8 rolls of film to lose money. I can easily shoot 200 frames and make every single one different. It's easy after you've had the raining. The person who runs the content on the site where that screen grab was taken from isn't someone who has a clue about shooting stills. Seeing the videos, he's not that clued up on that either.

Maybe it's because our scenes we shoot tell a little story that I try to follow with the storyline of each scene in the pictures. I just see no use at all to have 30 pictures a minute of a girl moving one millimeter in each photo. They all look the same.

I like to shoot pics of the intro (pretty girl shots if you will). Each one different. Then a handful of pics of each progression of the sex ending with two or three shots of the cumshot at the end.

All sets and videos should do the same. Otherwise it's meat laid out on a table. We paint a fantasy. Some do it very well. Some don't even know what fantasy they should be tryig to create.

If I shoot 50 to a hundred still pics during a scene I may have shot too many! lol

Not if you've been trained to shoot 120 as a minimum.

I guess it's just a preference on my part. But as a SURFER...I sure don't like having to wade through 3 or 4 pages of pictures that all look alike. If I'm jerking my cock I want a page of pictures in front of me that are moving through the sex act so I can quickly click one to the next to see what I want instead of the frustration of page after page of the cock moving a millimeter out of her mouth at a time.

Which is how I judge content.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

He wouldn't get his loop out to look at it.

*loupe.

Bless you.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by epitome

Did you miss my post saying both are viable models for tube sites? Porn Hub surfers are used to full length videos supported by ad revenue. Gay Tube surfers are used to mostly promo clips with links to the corresponding site. Why change either when both work and both sites are cash cows in their own respective ways. There are plenty of ways to make money in this industry as evidenced by all of the people making money different ways.

A guy making three million a year off free joins isn't going to convince a guy making three million a year off of full joins that his way is better.

you missed the point

the fact that both work is not an issue

it WHY both work

the entire reason why gaytube was brought up was as proof that you could

change pornhub model to that of gaytube and it would not cause a massive loss of traffic

that the revenue from the site would INCREASE if you made the change

the problem is morons like porno jew and robbie are so fundamentally clueless about how a tube site works that they attribute the massive amount of gay views that pornhub to consequence (higher seo ranking) rather then the cause (long videos with lower bounce rates)

if it was just on page/off page/links fabian could easily duplicate that and make gaytube the number one ranked site for gay porn

bounce rate makes a huge difference in this case, and dumping all the long videos, replacing them with short clips/ or old videos that people would look and and leave quickly would tank the PRIMARY traffic source of pornhub

That why i said that robbie idea was mininova of pornhub

because both mininova and pornhub are not type in domains

they were sites branded as being type in able because of the massive amount of seo traffic they get.

Traffic they only get because of their stickiness

A stickiness which only kept fresh by user submitted content.

[DamianJ]

putting DIFFERENT size fonts makes you look like a cock

just fyi

[Shap]

Holly too good for twistys? That's why she's been shooting for twistys for 2 years now lol

I could have made a Shitload more and imo it has nothing to do with content and everything to do with how aggressive I was willing to get.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Shap

Holly too good for twistys? That's why she's been shooting for twistys for 2 years now lol

Paul has never let facts get in the way of his libelling rants.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Shap

Holly too good for twistys? That's why she's been shooting for twistys for 2 years now lol

I could have made a Shitload more and imo it has nothing to do with content and everything to do with how aggressive I was willing to get.

The last 2 years when the only real market left was online. Thanks for proving my point. Could you of employed fell time a shooter of that level for $200k in 2005?

Maybe you would like to tell us how much you paid Holly and show some of her scenes from Twistys. I know you paid a lot for the hardcore, easy to see because of the quality. Was that what she shot?

Employing a great shooter and restricting their budget, isn't going to give the level of quality required.

Are you saying by doubling retention you couldn't of made more?

By improving the product and reducing the costs of it, isn't going to make you more money?

That's the problem when you think with blinkers on. Will reply later in more depth. I'm sure those working from home in their spare rooms or living rooms are reading this and ridiculing it. Because it's flying over the top of their heads.

[Shap]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The last 2 years when the only real market left was online. Thanks for proving my point. Could you of employed fell time a shooter of that level for $200k in 2005?

Maybe you would like to tell us how much you paid Holly and show some of her scenes from Twistys. I know you paid a lot for the hardcore, easy to see because of the quality. Was that what she shot?

Employing a great shooter and restricting their budget, isn't going to give the level of quality required.

Are you saying by doubling retention you couldn't of made more?

By improving the product and reducing the costs of it, isn't going to make you more money?

That's the problem when you think with blinkers on. Will reply later in more depth. I'm sure those working from home in their spare rooms or living rooms are reading this and ridiculing it. Because it's flying over the top of their heads.

We didn't restrict any shooters. Every year our content costs increased.

You have no idea how well Twistys did, how big it was and how much it made. Nor do you know how much we spent on content. You are making all of these assumptions without any data. You don't know what feedback our members gave us. You don't know what they liked or disliked. You are making huge generalizations based on your feelings (or what you'd like reality to be).

I can say with 100% fact there is nothing we could have done with our content or the content we offered that would have double retention.

[Shap]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The last 2 years when the only real market left was online. Thanks for proving my point. Could you of employed fell time a shooter of that level for $200k in 2005?

I did employ one at that time.

[Jel]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The last 2 years when the only real market left was online. Thanks for proving my point. Could you of employed fell time a shooter of that level for $200k in 2005?

Maybe you would like to tell us how much you paid Holly and show some of her scenes from Twistys. I know you paid a lot for the hardcore, easy to see because of the quality. Was that what she shot?

Employing a great shooter and restricting their budget, isn't going to give the level of quality required.

Are you saying by doubling retention you couldn't of made more?

By improving the product and reducing the costs of it, isn't going to make you more money?

That's the problem when you think with blinkers on. Will reply later in more depth. I'm sure those working from home in their spare rooms or living rooms are reading this and ridiculing it. Because it's flying over the top of their heads.

You idiotic cunt

[Roald]

2 retired people (1 a bit better then the other but whatever) arguing on GFY, great stuff!

Hey Shap!!!

[lagcam]

Originally Posted by Shap

......You are making all of these assumptions without any data...... You are making huge generalizations based on your feelings (or what you'd like reality to be)......

This should be pasted in every Paul Markham thread.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

I'm sure those working from home in their spare rooms or living rooms are reading this and ridiculing it. Because I'm clearly a total failure online, have no successful sites and have to sell my shit content for a buck and I am sat here obviously trolling a millionaire.

Yup. Nailed it gramps!

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Shap

I did employ one at that time.

Really? You mean Paul doesn't know all the details of your business?

And he is...lying?

NO WAIS!!!!!!111???!11111

[Zoxxa]

Originally Posted by Shap

OMG the level of retard in this thread is unbelievable.

This was really all you needed to say.

[ottopottomouse]

Halfway mark.

5 more pages to go.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by ottopottomouse

Halfway mark.

5 more pages to go.

Now he has managed to troll Shap into replying we should get this one to 20 pages I reckon.

YOU GO PAUL! TROLL OF THE YEAR!

[ArsewithClass]

Originally Posted by Zoxxa

This was really all you needed to say.

I agree with you totally... Only from one though... I notice the only person looking like a retard, is Damian


I'm reading the thread & to me it looks reads as if a few guys are chatting with the occasional useless post is Damian, the thread poster. He also mentioned Paul said that his (pauls) photos were better than Twistys, he never did, he only said his was up to Twistys standard, which is fair deal

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by ArsewithClass

He also mentioned Paul said that his (pauls) photos were better than Twistys, he never did, he only said his was up to Twistys standard, which is fair deal

Well done for trying. It's sweet.

Now, quote me saying that. I asked Paul to and he can't. See if you can.

Or else I'll just start making shit up you didn't say.

[SubAms]

Originally Posted by Shap

I did employ one at that time.

Hey Shap,
I had the same argument with him recently on another board.
I usually just ignore him but got fed up with his generalisations and decided to put him straight. It took a while but I got there in the end.
"So apology to SubAms. He did have a magazine shooter working for him.
I was wrong."

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by ArsewithClass

I agree with you totally... Only from one though... I notice the only person looking like a retard, is Damian


I'm reading the thread & to me it looks reads as if a few guys are chatting with the occasional useless post is Damian, the thread poster. He also mentioned Paul said that his (pauls) photos were better than Twistys, he never did, he only said his was up to Twistys standard, which is fair deal

No I never said my shooting was good enough for Twistys. I was saying this content on my site, or something like that, Damian being a dumb ass who knows little about porn. Assumed it was my shooting. Then threatened to make me look stupid. Whoops.

Obviously the figures I posted were for a one off solo girl shoot. Look what happens when updates are figured in. And the same with a BG site with and without updates.



Clear why some decided to launch small sites with no updates. This screwed affiliates submitting "saturated" exclusive content to TGP sites.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Damian being a dumb ass who knows little about porn. Assumed it was my shooting.

Post proof. Liar. You've been called on this 4 times now I think in this thread. You really need to either stop saying it, or post proof.

Or just call me a loser and post a pic of my old flat if it helps you get through the day.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Obviously the figures I posted were horrible guesses. Look what happens when post more bollocks.

I point it out!

:D

[Robbie]

Your numbers are all skewed Paul. Just totally wrong.

If there were any solo girl sites with 10,000 members they would be millionaires.

Your numbers have all kinds of crazy overhead that just doesn't exist. For instance...9 out of 10 sales we get are type in traffic. Affiliates barely register on sales anymore. So right off the bat your "traffic costs" are wrong.

I would NEVER add 1 scene a day. That's just crazy for a solo girl site. And would quickly burn out our members. Nope...one every couple of weeks has been the key to success for us. Of course we supplement that with a free live cam show every week and member interaction via members area email and a members area "wall" so they are always in touch with CM

Basically what I'm saying is...our overhead is almost non-existant. For every $29.99 sale that is a type in I'm making $27 of it. CM doesn't get paid per scene. And I don't pay the male talent at all. My hosting bill is $1400 every month for ALL my boxes (not just CM)

I bought my gear (lights and cameras) years ago so that is all paid for already (though I do of course upgrade occassionally...but compared to what we make it's nothing)

Just saying...for a solo girl site, there is no need to hire a photographer/videographer or have much of any expenses.

2,000 members and I will profit $500,000 a year. And that's just on paysite sales. Doesn't count all the money that the "fame" brings in on her doing cams. And it doesn't count the money it brings in for her doing appearances at clubs, bachelor parties, etc.

All in all it's easily a cool million a year profit for a "mom and pop" operation like ours with a strong work ethic, the knowledge and skill neccessary, and the talent.

I'm not sure where you think those numbers you posted come from. But for a solo girl site you are putting up WAY too much overhead.

Honestly? I've never crunched the numbers down (my accountant does that). But just looking at Stats Remote and knowing my overhead off the top of my head...I'd say that total overhead is less than 10% (maybe even lower) for us.

[Cherry7]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Will reply later in more depth.

The most frightening words in the English Language.

[mpahlca]

Paul, also most pay sites bill monthly not 30$ a year, so take your 200k and put that into monthly and you might be a bit better. IMO though your math isjust so far off that you cannot have any understanding of a site doing 100 plus sales a day.

This discussion is like reading what some random guy walking into porn brand new would think the numbers were. Just totally lost.

[Roald]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Your numbers are all skewed Paul. Just totally wrong.

If there were any solo girl sites with 10,000 members they would be millionaires.

Your numbers have all kinds of crazy overhead that just doesn't exist. For instance...9 out of 10 sales we get are type in traffic. Affiliates barely register on sales anymore. So right off the bat your "traffic costs" are wrong.

I would NEVER add 1 scene a day. That's just crazy for a solo girl site. And would quickly burn out our members. Nope...one every couple of weeks has been the key to success for us. Of course we supplement that with a free live cam show every week and member interaction via members area email and a members area "wall" so they are always in touch with CM

Basically what I'm saying is...our overhead is almost non-existant. For every $29.99 sale that is a type in I'm making $27 of it. CM doesn't get paid per scene. And I don't pay the male talent at all. My hosting bill is $1400 every month for ALL my boxes (not just CM)

I bought my gear (lights and cameras) years ago so that is all paid for already (though I do of course upgrade occassionally...but compared to what we make it's nothing)

Just saying...for a solo girl site, there is no need to hire a photographer/videographer or have much of any expenses.

2,000 members and I will profit $500,000 a year. And that's just on paysite sales. Doesn't count all the money that the "fame" brings in on her doing cams. And it doesn't count the money it brings in for her doing appearances at clubs, bachelor parties, etc.

All in all it's easily a cool million a year profit for a "mom and pop" operation like ours with a strong work ethic, the knowledge and skill neccessary, and the talent.

I'm not sure where you think those numbers you posted come from. But for a solo girl site you are putting up WAY too much overhead.

Honestly? I've never crunched the numbers down (my accountant does that). But just looking at Stats Remote and knowing my overhead off the top of my head...I'd say that total overhead is less than 10% (maybe even lower) for us.

[Paul Markham]

So how does a site. Achieve the perfect structure without adding substantially to the cost.

This is how.



You sell to other sectors of porn. Then as you see it's a much healthier picture.

So for instance we have a site that instead of content costing money. It produces a profit without the profit it makes online.

If as some argue their content was good enough. They were bad businessmen ignoring these very lucrative markets. They had no cash flow problems, in fact making loads of money. Finding other markets was easy. Print needed a trip to a News Stand. Video to go to one of the trade shows.

If their content wasn't good enough to sell to other sectors of porn it's likely it effected site sales. This is easy to solve.

Some shooters simply were happy enough with a monthly wage and didn't want the hassle of investing, shooting and selling. Some of these would of worked for as low as $45,000. Some wanted more but not a lot more. They were already shooting and their boss was selling to other sectors of porn. Simple enough to poach one of them to come over. He would of done the selling and taken over product production from the site owners.

Online sadly had it's head stuck up it's ass, or truth is some couldn't afford to.

Think of what a glam site could of made with an employed shooter, of the level of Holly Randall. No one could of touched you.

Getting people who were freelance shooters selling to other markets. Was way out of the price range of all but a tiny few. I heard all the stories of the millions made. Shame they couldn't of thought of an easier and better way to make even more money.

Hope I did my sums right. You get the idea and of course these are just examples and a detailed budget would of had to be produced for each company and site.

These examples apply to mainstream niches. Pointless even thinking of them for anything but the top 3-4 niches. Even Leg and Milf, had a limited scope selling offline. Still could be done with different calculations.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Your numbers are all skewed Paul. Just totally wrong.

If there were any solo girl sites with 10,000 members they would be millionaires. .

Well it shows why thay couldn't afford good content.

Your numbers have all kinds of crazy overhead that just doesn't exist. For instance...9 out of 10 sales we get are type in traffic. Affiliates barely register on sales anymore. So right off the bat your "traffic costs" are wrong.

That's you, not everyone.

I would NEVER add 1 scene a day. That's just crazy for a solo girl site. And would quickly burn out our members. Nope...one every couple of weeks has been the key to success for us. Of course we supplement that with a free live cam show every week and member interaction via members area email and a members area "wall" so they are always in touch with CM

Tell that to ATK. By solo girl, I mean a site with solo girls scenes. Not a site with only one girl. They were very small.

Basically what I'm saying is...our overhead is almost non-existant. For every $29.99 sale that is a type in I'm making $27 of it. CM doesn't get paid per scene. And I don't pay the male talent at all. My hosting bill is $1400 every month for ALL my boxes (not just CM)

I bought my gear (lights and cameras) years ago so that is all paid for already (though I do of course upgrade occassionally...but compared to what we make it's nothing)

You again. This is a general example.

Just saying...for a solo girl site, there is no need to hire a photographer/videographer or have much of any expenses.

2,000 members and I will profit $500,000 a year. And that's just on paysite sales. Doesn't count all the money that the "fame" brings in on her doing cams. And it doesn't count the money it brings in for her doing appearances at clubs, bachelor parties, etc.

All in all it's easily a cool million a year profit for a "mom and pop" operation like ours with a strong work ethic, the knowledge and skill neccessary, and the talent.

You again.

I'm not sure where you think those numbers you posted come from. But for a solo girl site you are putting up WAY too much overhead.

I'm sure ATK and Karups might argue this with you. I didn't include, hosting, legal, accounting, office space, office staff. Stop thinking Ma & Pa. It proves my point.

Honestly? I've never crunched the numbers down (my accountant does that). But just looking at Stats Remote and knowing my overhead off the top of my head...I'd say that total overhead is less than 10% (maybe even lower) for us

This wasn't even about a solo girl site based on one girl. How many of them, other than Ma & Pa could afford to employ a full time model and pay her a decent wage?

Exactly. None.

My mistake for not making it plainly clear. This is a site with scenes of solo girls.

[Shap]

It's great that Paul's posted numbers because it shows just how lost he is. Honestly if he's been in the online business for this long and those are the numbers he believes to be true there is nothing any of us can do to help him, actually there is something we can do we can all set him to ignore. If we all did that and every one of his threads had 0 replies he may actually leave here and in some weird way it may end up benefiting him. Unless he cherishes his Troll award then ignoring him may break his heart and have grave consequences.

[Jel]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

By solo girl, I mean a site with solo girls scenes. Not a site with only one girl.

Comedy gold, whichever of the 2 ways you take it

[ottopottomouse]

Originally Posted by Shap

Unless he cherishes his Troll award then ignoring him may break his heart and have grave consequences.

Well it does look a bit like a headstone.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by mpahlca

Paul, also most pay sites bill monthly not 30$ a year, so take your 200k and put that into monthly and you might be a bit better. IMO though your math is just so far off that you cannot have any understanding of a site doing 100 plus sales a day.

This discussion is like reading what some random guy walking into porn brand new would think the numbers were. Just totally lost.

A site doing 10,000 joins and retains a year at $30 = $300,000
A site doing 100 a day, joins and retains at $30 = $3,000 a day and $1,095,000 annually.
A site doing 100 joins a day and retains on average 2 months $30 = $6,000 a day and $2,190,000 annually.

My figures were based on yearly. Where are they wrong?

As I stated each case has to be looked at individually.

Robbie has little cost for content once he's bought equipment. CM is free. It seems they both work the traffic game themselves. And a great Ma & Pa operation. Nothing to do with my examples.

Manwin have probably found Tubes are far cheaper than affiliates and they're big enough to need a different model. It's easy to try and pick small holes in general examples.

10,000 sign ups and retain for a years is. 27.3 joins and retains a day. Is that figure so hard for a site like Met-Art, Twistys, etc?

Robbie applying it to him. It should be obvious what I was talking about.

A site with only 80 scenes in getting 110 joins or retains a day (40,000 a year).

For most it's their dream. Still once you start to drop lower than my lowest number of 10,000 you see how tough it gets. Go to low and 15% processing can kick in. Still costs the same to set up and run.

Remember prior to the drop of hosting BW prices. This was a big cost for some going the affiliates route with galleries and affiliates they hosted for.

I calculated traffic at 33% of sales rev going to affiliates and added the rest to cover promoting, marketing and support of affiliates. We all know some affiliates demanded a lot more than 50%.

[Shap]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

A site doing 10,000 joins and retains a year at $30 = $300,000
A site doing 100 a day, joins and retains at $30 = $3,000 a day and $1,095,000 annually.
A site doing 100 joins a day and retains on average 2 months $30 = $6,000 a day and $2,190,000 annually.

My figures were based on yearly. Where are they wrong?

As I stated each case has to be looked at individually.

Robbie has little cost for content once he's bought equipment. CM is free. It seems they both work the traffic game themselves. And a great Ma & Pa operation. Nothing to do with my examples.

Manwin have probably found Tubes are far cheaper than affiliates and they're big enough to need a different model. It's easy to try and pick small holes in general examples.

10,000 sign ups and retain for a years is. 27.3 joins and retains a day. Is that figure so hard for a site like Met-Art, Twistys, etc?

Robbie applying it to him. It should be obvious what I was talking about.

A site with only 80 scenes in getting 110 joins or retains a day (40,000 a year).

For most it's their dream. Still once you start to drop lower than my lowest number of 10,000 you see how tough it gets. Go to low and 15% processing can kick in. Still costs the same to set up and run.

Remember prior to the drop of hosting BW prices. This was a big cost for some going the affiliates route with galleries and affiliates they hosted for.

I calculated traffic at 33% of sales rev going to affiliates and added the rest to cover promoting, marketing and support of affiliates. We all know some affiliates demanded a lot more than 50%.

I don't even know what to say. The way you view this industry is so mixed up. As an example the way you think solo girl site means a site with girls in solo scenes. The way you put together this entire spreadsheet. You made your money shooting content right? Stick to telling people about that because you obviously are completely lost in everything else. No disrespect just the hard truth.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Shap

It's great that Paul's posted numbers because it shows just how lost he is. Honestly if he's been in the online business for this long and those are the numbers he believes to be true there is nothing any of us can do to help him, actually there is something we can do we can all set him to ignore. If we all did that and every one of his threads had 0 replies he may actually leave here and in some weird way it may end up benefiting him. Unless he cherishes his Troll award then ignoring him may break his heart and have grave consequences.

Maybe I did get my calculations wrong. Point out where and I'll go back and redo them. Give us the numbers then.

All I know is that when talking to the top sponsors, like you, they were unable to pay enough to compete with what we earned elsewhere. I doubt if you could afford a Holly, Viv or Steve full time. Might of been able to afford one of their shooters who worked under them.

So you couldn't of done better employing a top shooter. Or couldn't afford one or didn't think of it.

Today I suspect reading what most are posting 10 sign ups a day are good. You saw the writing and jumped ship.

I'm off for the nigt. Been fun.

Tomorrow I expect someone to come up with more than "You're wrong"

Minimum is where I'm wrong and not Robbie applying it to Ma & Pa.

Mind you my admin costs didn't include staff, offices, etc.

[Shap]

And the reason people attack you is because you are so mixed up and yet try to talk as an authority on a subject.

It would be the same if I (someone who knows absolutely nothing about photography) were to start telling people how to take pictures, tech settings and giving them advice. I don't know the first thing about photography so I shut the fuck up when it comes to discussions on how to become a better photographer.

[Shap]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Maybe I did get my calculations wrong. Point out where and I'll go back and redo them. Give us the numbers then.

All I know is that when talking to the top sponsors, like you, they were unable to pay enough to compete with what we earned elsewhere. I doubt if you could afford a Holly, Viv or Steve full time. Might of been able to afford one of their shooters who worked under them.

So you couldn't of done better employing a top shooter. Or couldn't afford one or didn't think of it.

Today I suspect reading what most are posting 10 sign ups a day are good. You saw the writing and jumped ship.

I'm off for the nigt. Been fun.

Tomorrow I expect someone to come up with more than "You're wrong"

Minimum is where I'm wrong and not Robbie applying it to Ma & Pa.

Mind you my admin costs didn't include staff, offices, etc.

There is no fixing what you wrote because it's all 100% garbage. Take it burn it and you'll be closer to reality than you are now.

LOL Love how are you making your crazy assumptions again. It's funny you say I couldn't afford those photographers meanwhile I'm one of the main reasons a lot of them were able to survive the past 5 years. I kept many of them in business. But of course you with all your infinite wisdom think I am the one that was hurting.

Tell people how to set their cameras. For everything else in this business stop posting unless of course you preface every post with "PLEASE NOTE the following is 100% a fabrication of my imagination and if you follow any advice I post you are likely to lose all your money. Sincerely Paul Markham"

[ArsewithClass]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Just to recap, actually, what happened was you posted saying that these two pictures were better than Twisty's and OT.




Then you lied, (imagine that, you, lying!) saying I said they were shit. Then I asked you to quote me saying that, and you couldn't. Then someone else asked you to quote me saying that, and you couldn't. Because you are a liar. A nasty, little liar.

That's all.

Bless you and your lack of suit.

Heheh.

xoxoxox

No Paul didn't & I put it to you that you are the liar....

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Well done for trying. It's sweet.

Now, quote me saying that. I asked Paul to and he can't. See if you can.

Or else I'll just start making shit up you didn't say.

You make shit up all the time about me... at least I wouldn't lower myself to your level... I'm true!

[WarChild]

Why do you guys keep doing this dance with Paul?

He's obviously bored and lonely.

[papill0n]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Maybe I did get my calculations wrong. Point out where and I'll go back and redo them. Give us the numbers then.

All I know is that when talking to the top sponsors, like you, they were unable to pay enough to compete with what we earned elsewhere. I doubt if you could afford a Holly, Viv or Steve full time. Might of been able to afford one of their shooters who worked under them.

So you couldn't of done better employing a top shooter. Or couldn't afford one or didn't think of it.

Today I suspect reading what most are posting 10 sign ups a day are good. You saw the writing and jumped ship.

I'm off for the nigt. Been fun.

Tomorrow I expect someone to come up with more than "You're wrong"

Minimum is where I'm wrong and not Robbie applying it to Ma & Pa.

Mind you my admin costs didn't include staff, offices, etc.

LOLOLOLOLO

give me the numbers then he says


I mean, what, lol, your telling us all these calculations you make are based on.......... you making shit up ?


wow who knew

[stocktrader23]

Paul God damn it. Your content shows it's age and is nowhere near the level of Twisty's. Your understanding of the paysite model is non existent and all of these pipe dreams you have to fix the adult industry revolve around paying photographers more. You could make a widely profitable solo girl site with a fucking iphone. Nobody gives a shit how many thousands you spend producing what you consider to be great pictures, I can't even find one where the girls look like they give a shit so the lighting and props are the last thing on my mind.

If you want to argue with people about how porn sites should be run at least find someone that doesn't understand them. Telling Shap how to improve his business? Now you sound like will76.

[stocktrader23]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Minimum is where I'm wrong and not Robbie applying it to Ma & Pa.

Mind you my admin costs didn't include staff, offices, etc.

Robbie's ma and pa produces more income than 95% of the affiliate programs that have posted here over the last 10 years acting like they are pimps. There are / were some legitimately successful sites but most of them were complete trash and made a fraction of what everyone thought, especially profit. Who the fuck would argue with 500k / year clear on a single solo girl site with low overhead? The big programs around here would sign 50000 girls if they could reproduce that.

[ArsewithClass]

Originally Posted by WarChild

Why do you guys keep doing this dance with Paul?

He's obviously bored and lonely.

Bored, who isn't.... Lonely... Nah, he's just getting on with his business.... lonely is Divvy & Damian... maybe they should become lovers

[Zoxxa]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

I doubt if you could afford...

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Shap

preface every post with "PLEASE NOTE the following is 100% a fabrication of my imagination and if you follow any advice I post you are likely to lose all your money. Sincerely Paul Markham"

Unfortunately that could also apply to 99% of the posters on GFY.

Lots of folks with "theories" (think gideongallery) and not much real experience in knowing how to entertain and excite their customer base and grow a business.

Paul...why argue with Shap over something that Shap has PROVED he is really, really good at? As he said..you don't see him trying to tell you how to shoot a photo, so why argue with presumptions and theories with a man who actually DID it?

He's right and you're wrong.
Yes, it would be awfully nice if we could all get the greatest photographers in the world to shoot all of our content and pay them the price they ask.
Unfortunately it would have the opposite effect of the one you are proposing. Instead of making more money...we would be losing tons of money.

And for the record...a "solo girl" site is pretty much a site based around one girl. KellyMadison.Com, ClaudiaMarie.Com, CelesteFox.Com, BrittanyLove.Com etc.
And they are usually (not always) run by the model and her husband/boyfriend/suitcase pimp.

I can't even fathom how you could equate a "solo girl" site with a big "corporate" site like ATK full of bought content of hundreds of different girls.
That's a big ol' generic porn site with a theme. Not a solo girl site.

[DWB]

Love these threads.

[anexsia]

This thread is full of entertainment, battle between Shap and Paul Markham with a little bit of Robbie thrown into the threesome.

[epitome]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Aww how cute. That looks similar to the spread sheet I put together before I got into online. I quickly figured out that I knew nothing and everthing I thought I knew was wrong.

You aren't helping your case with things like this Paul.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by anexsia

Shap and Paul Markham with a little bit of Robbie thrown into the threesome.

Oh fuck...I had a horrible, horrible visual just now!

[ArsewithClass]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Oh fuck...I had a horrible, horrible visual just now!

Hey can I film... I reckon this could hit the million dollar mark