Kink.com new vids watermark affecting sales?

[ChargebackJoe]

Take a look at their new FHG watermark
http://promo.tsseduction.com/m/joexx...e/5476/v/1/h/m

[jact]

What's wrong with it?

[ChargebackJoe]

Click on the videos. The videos watermark is a text line sending the surfer to the domain directly thus bypassing the affiliate link.

Originally Posted by jact

What's wrong with it?

[RedShoe]

THOSE ASSHOLES!!!!!

[Manowar]

Originally Posted by ChargebackJoe

Click on the videos. The videos watermark is a text line sending the surfer to the domain directly thus bypassing the affiliate link.

people like bangbros have been doing this for years, it's pretty accepted... guess its because their vids get pirated so much that they dont trust affiliates anymore

[tranza]

Wow, that's bullshit.

I'd drop them for sure!

[2012]

Originally Posted by ChargebackJoe

Click on the videos. The videos watermark is a text line sending the surfer to the domain directly thus bypassing the affiliate link.

if that upsets you should be pissed about the tsseduction.com watermark on the main page of the FHG ... shitfuck ( they could just type that in right there )

they put your affiliate# on the 2257 link even ...

[tranza]

Originally Posted by Manowar

people like bangbros have been doing this for years, it's pretty accepted... guess its because their vids get pirated so much that they dont trust affiliates anymore

FUCK!!!!!!!!!! I've never noticed that!!

I'd NEVER push a FHG with this bullshit!

Aside from Bangbos, do you know of other sponsors doing this????

[RedShoe]

Originally Posted by tranza

Wow, that's bullshit.

I'd drop them for sure!

Mine was bigger.

[RedShoe]

Originally Posted by tranza

FUCK!!!!!!!!!! I've never noticed that!!

I'd NEVER push a FHG with this bullshit!

Aside from Bangbos, do you know of other sponsors doing this????

I find that one humorous reply is enough.

[tiger]

I don't know what the cause is but sales have dropped big time since about half way through last month.

[seeric]

All i see is a watermark that says

"See it in HD at TSSeduction.com"


tons of programs have watermarks like that. its not huge, its not telling them to type in the address bar. Its so when its stolen and tubed the fuck out surfers type in at he tube sites.

am i missing something? everyone watermarks videos.

[MaDalton]

why would i put up unwatermarked clips so that every ass can steal them and use them to promote something else with it?

[Persius]

oh wow... what a important thread

[xentech]

HOLY FUCKING SHIZNITS! PULL TEH LINKS!!1!!111!

[WiredGuy]

So you want videos without watermarks because someone might type in the url instead of going thru your aff link?
WG

[CunningStunt]

If you're smart, by the time surfers see the video, your cookie should already be firmly embedded up their ass.

Having said that, I don't like the practice either.

[Beaver Bob]

anyone would be a fool NOT to use watermarks

[Sands]

I think those of you who are saying they'd never offer promotional videos without watermarks should re-read the original post and take note of the word "new". He's referring to the new watermark that Kinky Dollars sites have now and they seem to be significantly larger and more noticeable than the old watermarks. As such, they may attract more attention and inspire more type-ins rather than click-throughs.

[ChargebackJoe]

Exactly I never had a problem with their old watermark.

Originally Posted by Sands

I think those of you who are saying they'd never offer promotional videos without watermarks should re-read the original post and take note of the word "new". He's referring to the new watermark that Kinky Dollars sites have now and they seem to be significantly larger and more noticeable than the old watermarks. As such, they may attract more attention and inspire more type-ins rather than click-throughs.

[After Shock Media]

ah give me a break. Unless the site name is just a few characters long I mean come on, people are just to fucking lazy to type it in if they could just click the damn link instead.

[spacedog]

Don't get your panties in a bunch..


A watermark of site name or url of site being promoted is not an issue and is less likely to generate a type in causing you to lose the sale as the surfer knows the clickable link takes him to the same place so he's more likely to click as he's lazy by nature.

What you should be bitching about is those sponsors whom deliberately and intentionally steal your sales by purposefully attracting type ins where you're promoting somefuckingprogramspaysite.com but the watermark says goehere.com instead of the site you're promoting.. The sufer has become accustomed and trained to type in urls as seen on flash videos and has a natural curiosity.. why would he click link to somefuckingprogramspaysite.com when the watermark says goehere.com? He may think goehere.com has more free videos for him to watch.. he may think the content he wants is on goehere.com and not somefuckingprogramspaysite.com so he types it in rather than clicking your link.. You get NOTHING when he joins goehere.com. This is a deliberate and calculated move by affiliate programs further exploit YOUR traffic and any rep who tells you that it does not generate type ins or that they're only protecting their content are simply fucking lying to you. Afterall, look at how many type ins tube sites generate.. That's why these programs put their clips on them.. These tubesites and sites utilizing embeds of flv files are the ones whom trained surfers to type in urls seen on watermarks.

Never worry about a watermark that's of actual site you're promoting as surfer is intelligent and is more likely to click the link than type in as he knows they both go to the same place.. The real one to worry about is when watermark is different as surfer is naturally curious and programs are exploiting this and KNOWINGLY stealing your joins utilizing this method!

[spacedog]

Don't get your panties in a bunch..


A watermark of site name or url of site being promoted is not an issue and is less likely to generate a type in causing you to lose the sale as the surfer knows the clickable link takes him to the same place so he's more likely to click as he's lazy by nature.

What you should be bitching about is those sponsors whom deliberately and intentionally steal your sales by purposefully attracting type ins where you're promoting somefuckingprogramspaysite.com but the watermark says goehere.com instead of the site you're promoting.. The sufer has become accustomed and trained to type in urls as seen on flash videos and has a natural curiosity.. why would he click link to somefuckingprogramspaysite.com when the watermark says goehere.com? He may think goehere.com has more free videos for him to watch.. he may think the content he wants is on goehere.com and not somefuckingprogramspaysite.com so he types it in rather than clicking your link.. You get NOTHING when he joins goehere.com. This is a deliberate and calculated move by affiliate programs further exploit YOUR traffic and any rep who tells you that it does not generate type ins or that they're only protecting their content are simply fucking lying to you. Afterall, look at how many type ins tube sites generate.. That's why these programs put their clips on them.. These tubesites and sites utilizing embeds of flv files are the ones whom trained surfers to type in urls seen on watermarks.

Never worry about a watermark that's of actual site you're promoting as surfer is intelligent and is more likely to click the link than type in as he knows they both go to the same place.. The real one to worry about is when watermark is different as surfer is naturally curious and programs are exploiting this and KNOWINGLY stealing your joins utilizing this method!

[ChargebackJoe]

So what exactly was wrong with the old watermark?

[Ryan St. Germain]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

ah give me a break. Unless the site name is just a few characters long I mean come on, people are just to fucking lazy to type it in if they could just click the damn link instead.

I'm with you on that one. They'll click on the link far before they'll read the url and type it in.
I've been having fun taking my stuff down from tube sites lately, and I RARELY come across one that doesn't have something pirated from Kink.com, so I don't really blame them.

[Dirty F]

Originally Posted by tranza

FUCK!!!!!!!!!! I've never noticed that!!

I'd NEVER push a FHG with this bullshit!

Aside from Bangbos, do you know of other sponsors doing this????

Wait...you actually have time to work? When exactly? Youre here 12 hours a day posting "cool" and "thats nice" for beer money.

[FreeHugeMovies]

That watermark is a little too big IMO

[DBS.US]

They should use just a watermark of the site name, Using a logo, site name and "See it in HD at" is to much in my option.

[Porn Ass]

thats nothing, you should see the watermarking on the bvbucks promo clips

[Matt 26z]

FACT: One of the primary functions of the modern watermark is to siphon affiliate sales. They aren't just simple declarations of copyright anymore.


I just said this in another thread.... Sponsors need to set affiliate cookies on the FHG level. If they did that, a surfer doing a typein after seeing the URL on a video would already be cookied and affiliates would get full credit.

[SomeCreep]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

I just said this in another thread.... Sponsors need to set affiliate cookies on the FHG level. If they did that, a surfer doing a typein after seeing the URL on a video would already be cookied and affiliates would get full credit.

They can't do that. It would open the door to all kinds of exploits.

[d-null]

I'm not liking the trend to bigger watermarks either

was just working with some videos (not hosted) from one of the big sponsors here and the watermark was big and overly distracting too, it was hard to even get a look at the girl in the short videos because of the big white watermark taking a prominent part of the bottom third of the screen

illegal tube sites and the like tend to use ripped off member section videos anyways, so these big watermarks on short promo video intended for affiliates use is not a good thing imo and overly obnoxious watermarks all over everything is just one more thing that makes a legit legal tube site look worse than the pirate ones

[Matt 26z]

Originally Posted by SomeCreep

They can't do that. It would open the door to all kinds of exploits.

Name one. Just one.

Setting a cookie on a FHG is no different than the cookie being set on page 1 of the tour.

[Voodoo]

If they own the content, they have every right to do whatever they want to with it.

[Socks]

Look at Brazzers. You're promoting "Big Tits at School" but all the watermarks say Brazzers.com. The opening says "brought to you by brazzers.com" in the videos. The tours all say "BRAZZERS" across the top right (yet they aren't BRAZEN enough to make those say .com too)... The girls wear Brazzers shirts.

Furthermore, you can't even promote Brazzers.com as an affiliate.

By chance, you think? ;) It's branding, and they're getting 100% on it.

[NinjaSteve]

Originally Posted by Socks

Look at Brazzers. You're promoting "Big Tits at School" but all the watermarks say Brazzers.com. The opening says "brought to you by brazzers.com" in the videos. The tours all say "BRAZZERS" across the top right (yet they aren't BRAZEN enough to make those say .com too)... The girls wear Brazzers shirts.

Furthermore, you can't even promote Brazzers.com as an affiliate.

By chance, you think? ;) It's branding, and they're getting 100% on it.

It's genius if you ask me.

[digitaldivas]

Originally Posted by CunningStunt

If you're smart, by the time surfers see the video, your cookie should already be firmly embedded up their ass.

Having said that, I don't like the practice either.

...true dat.

[fatfoo]

nothing wrong with it, i think

[DWB]

Make up your fucking minds people.

Either you don't want watermarks then all the tube sites and torrents steal the content and the content owner gets nothing from it causing the industry to slide more downhill, or they do put a watermark and hope if it gets stolen at least they thief may come check out the site.

You can't have it both ways.

THE SKY IS FALLING, but we don't want anyone to try to fix it.

Piss off.

[Ryan St. Germain]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

FACT: One of the primary functions of the modern watermark is to siphon affiliate sales. They aren't just simple declarations of copyright anymore.


I just said this in another thread.... Sponsors need to set affiliate cookies on the FHG level. If they did that, a surfer doing a typein after seeing the URL on a video would already be cookied and affiliates would get full credit.

It's only the primary function if you intended it to be to begin with. I don't really think you can argue that everyone that's watermarking a video is trying to steal from an affiliate.

It can't be a fact if intent of the person that did it is a matter of consideration.

I can understand not liking it, but saying someone is stealing might be overzealous.

[The Ghost]

Something to keep in mind for type ins is if affiliate codes are overwritten when the surfer returns, which is a possibility. Ours aren't like that but I have seen some that are.

That being said we'll always watermark our content. The branding and protection aspect is huge. I'd imagine with Kink's quality that anything they have not watermarked is stolen and used to promote other inferior content.

[cranki]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Sponsors need to set affiliate cookies on the FHG level. If they did that, a surfer doing a typein after seeing the URL on a video would already be cookied and affiliates would get full credit.

amen!

[d-null]

What if the affiliate re-watermarks every video on the fly on his site, it might get messy, but that might be a solution to the legit affiliate sites that are using content to promote the sponsors as intended.

[RedShoe]

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

Make up your fucking minds people.

Either you don't want watermarks then all the tube sites and torrents steal the content and the content owner gets nothing from it causing the industry to slide more downhill, or they do put a watermark and hope if it gets stolen at least they thief may come check out the site.

You can't have it both ways.

THE SKY IS FALLING, but we don't want anyone to try to fix it.

Piss off.

Mine was still funnier.

[ericdv]

a thread about watermarks and no donnie long references? wtf

[Kinky Dollars]

We added the calls to action a few weeks ago because we had upgraded our encoding technology and wanted to promote the enhanced video quality. We have always watermarked our content because our content is often stolen and posted all over the internet (and pirated for illegal DVDs). Every major producer does this, and this cannot change.

We certainly did not intend to decrease our affiliates' revenue.

We want to set the cookie at the gallery level, but this requires code that we believe will not be accepted by TGP's. I would love to hear comments from TGP site owners on this issue. Is there a way to set the cookie at the gallery level that is acceptable to the TGPs?

In the meantime, we are removing the calls to action as a result of this thread. Thanks for your patience.

Cheers,

John Sander
Kink.com

[stickyfingerz]

Maybe we should take off our watermarks, host it for you, AND pay you just for trying to send sales.

[MichaelP]

Originally Posted by spacedog

Don't get your panties in a bunch..


A watermark of site name or url of site being promoted is not an issue and is less likely to generate a type in causing you to lose the sale as the surfer knows the clickable link takes him to the same place so he's more likely to click as he's lazy by nature.

What you should be bitching about is those sponsors whom deliberately and intentionally steal your sales by purposefully attracting type ins where you're promoting somefuckingprogramspaysite.com but the watermark says goehere.com instead of the site you're promoting.. The sufer has become accustomed and trained to type in urls as seen on flash videos and has a natural curiosity.. why would he click link to somefuckingprogramspaysite.com when the watermark says goehere.com? He may think goehere.com has more free videos for him to watch.. he may think the content he wants is on goehere.com and not somefuckingprogramspaysite.com so he types it in rather than clicking your link.. You get NOTHING when he joins goehere.com. This is a deliberate and calculated move by affiliate programs further exploit YOUR traffic and any rep who tells you that it does not generate type ins or that they're only protecting their content are simply fucking lying to you. Afterall, look at how many type ins tube sites generate.. That's why these programs put their clips on them.. These tubesites and sites utilizing embeds of flv files are the ones whom trained surfers to type in urls seen on watermarks.

Never worry about a watermark that's of actual site you're promoting as surfer is intelligent and is more likely to click the link than type in as he knows they both go to the same place.. The real one to worry about is when watermark is different as surfer is naturally curious and programs are exploiting this and KNOWINGLY stealing your joins utilizing this method!

KUDO



..




Now see sig


.

[Kroy]

So true it was posted twice
Seriously though, you're spot on with that. There's a certain very popular sponsors who pulls that stuff (and has been for a long time) and nobody seemed to care. But when Kink dares to make their mark a little more visible by golly then that's a major offense....

Originally Posted by spacedog

Don't get your panties in a bunch..


A watermark of site name or url of site being promoted is not an issue and is less likely to generate a type in causing you to lose the sale as the surfer knows the clickable link takes him to the same place so he's more likely to click as he's lazy by nature.

What you should be bitching about is those sponsors whom deliberately and intentionally steal your sales by purposefully attracting type ins where you're promoting somefuckingprogramspaysite.com but the watermark says goehere.com instead of the site you're promoting.. The sufer has become accustomed and trained to type in urls as seen on flash videos and has a natural curiosity.. why would he click link to somefuckingprogramspaysite.com when the watermark says goehere.com? He may think goehere.com has more free videos for him to watch.. he may think the content he wants is on goehere.com and not somefuckingprogramspaysite.com so he types it in rather than clicking your link.. You get NOTHING when he joins goehere.com. This is a deliberate and calculated move by affiliate programs further exploit YOUR traffic and any rep who tells you that it does not generate type ins or that they're only protecting their content are simply fucking lying to you. Afterall, look at how many type ins tube sites generate.. That's why these programs put their clips on them.. These tubesites and sites utilizing embeds of flv files are the ones whom trained surfers to type in urls seen on watermarks.

Never worry about a watermark that's of actual site you're promoting as surfer is intelligent and is more likely to click the link than type in as he knows they both go to the same place.. The real one to worry about is when watermark is different as surfer is naturally curious and programs are exploiting this and KNOWINGLY stealing your joins utilizing this method!

[signupdamnit]

Originally Posted by Kinky Dollars

We want to set the cookie at the gallery level, but this requires code that we believe will not be accepted by TGP's. I would love to hear comments from TGP site owners on this issue. Is there a way to set the cookie at the gallery level that is acceptable to the TGPs?

You could offer a second version where the cookie is set. one where it is not.