Remember back in the day, before OnlyFans and Manyvids, where performers would have their own custom websites usually apart of a wider network? Since those have mostly died out, I think it's crazy you're still expected to pay for the content. Like some of these companies don't even exist anymore, where is the money going? Do they even know if someone has signed up to their old project? 3 years is best case scenario btw, I've seen websites that haven't had an update since 2012. It would be so great if there was some kind of lock system that disengages after a while.
I think if a porn website hasn't been updated in 3 years, it should be made free.
- Thread starter Mzuark
- Start date
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
If you know it's been that long, why would you join? I know I wouldn't, or I would find a free weekend go for the free trial, and clean it out in a day or two.
In my travels, I've found that those kinds of sites often have videos that you can't get anywhere else. That's what makes it tantalizing.
John_8581
FreeOnes Lifetime Member
Pornhub and tube sites are prime culprits here. Blame Manwin / Mindgeek as they started this mess.
As for making the content free? It just doesn't work like that. On the other side of the dialogue, you're going to hear plenty of arguments from adult photographers who are making areas of their sites more secure as well as trying to keep members. Many have stopped photographing ladies, yet they need to do something to entice members to stay. Rich Cutrone, Andy McFarland, Woody (aka Rascal Dog from Foxes.com), Justin Price and Buzz Aziani are perfect examples of content owners who have had their content spread out all over the internet and not at the sites they created. Cease and desist letters can only go so far.
Now if a photographer is fortunate to have his content bought and/or brought into a network then that is much better. Places like Met-Art have taken Holly Randall's content onto their platform. Mark Lit and the many contributing photographers have seen J. Stephen Hicks' (rest in peace) content moved to a network named AdultPrime.
Naughty America, Puba, Evil Angel and the Gamma Entertainment continue to bring content in. Bang and Videosz too. Bang Bros. and The Score Group are all doing what they need to do with remastering and updates. Evil Angel is bringing new producers and directors in. And they are doing it the proper way. Gamma just acquired Zero Tolerance and Third Degree Films.
Not like some providers who are not very nice. Charging members subscription fees and and separate download fees. The perfect example is who I started with in this post : Manwin / Mindgeek. They ruin websites. Look at the Reality Gang Network and Twistys as examples of their incompetence.
As for making the content free? It just doesn't work like that. On the other side of the dialogue, you're going to hear plenty of arguments from adult photographers who are making areas of their sites more secure as well as trying to keep members. Many have stopped photographing ladies, yet they need to do something to entice members to stay. Rich Cutrone, Andy McFarland, Woody (aka Rascal Dog from Foxes.com), Justin Price and Buzz Aziani are perfect examples of content owners who have had their content spread out all over the internet and not at the sites they created. Cease and desist letters can only go so far.
Now if a photographer is fortunate to have his content bought and/or brought into a network then that is much better. Places like Met-Art have taken Holly Randall's content onto their platform. Mark Lit and the many contributing photographers have seen J. Stephen Hicks' (rest in peace) content moved to a network named AdultPrime.
Naughty America, Puba, Evil Angel and the Gamma Entertainment continue to bring content in. Bang and Videosz too. Bang Bros. and The Score Group are all doing what they need to do with remastering and updates. Evil Angel is bringing new producers and directors in. And they are doing it the proper way. Gamma just acquired Zero Tolerance and Third Degree Films.
Not like some providers who are not very nice. Charging members subscription fees and and separate download fees. The perfect example is who I started with in this post : Manwin / Mindgeek. They ruin websites. Look at the Reality Gang Network and Twistys as examples of their incompetence.
Last edited:
Then isn't that reason enough to pay for it?
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Let me ask you this. I realize that the site would continue to pay for the storage, and other incidentals, like credit card fees. What I'm curious about though, is it would be natural to assume the site cost XXX amount of dollars, because they have that to pay for, on top of paying talent and film/photo crews but if the site is just maintaining the current content, wouldn't that significantly reduce costs? I would think talent is the biggest slice of the budget, and crews and techs next. I understand that the site is there to make money, and not appease the masses, I'm just wondering if in a situation of that nature, would a lower subscription fee still suite a site, even though profit would be reduced?
The main reason why I don't sub to networks anymore. I got real tired of getting burned dropping a month sub to a site only to find out that they offer streaming only. Fuck them. Nowadays if there's a scene I want I go to adultempire and try to buy it directly off the dvd.
You're right, you know. They rereleased Psycho recently at the cinema and I was livid I had to pay to see it. That movie's over 60 years old! They should pay me!
Petra
Cult Mother and Simpering Cunt
The answer is "it depends".
Lets use a very basic setup that uses a dedicated server + AWS for storage/bandwidth. For the sake of the argument I'm going to use the cost of dedicated server from a well known adult friendly host in the business. We're going to assume they have around 1 terabyte of content which is 1,000 gigs. We're going to assume they get about 20k unique visitors a month as well and about 50 members. They bill $19.95/mo which would get them about $1,000 a month.
The membership software and cms is hosted with the respective companies and totally maintained so no Dev costs.
- server: $160
- AWS s3 (storage): $23
- Data transfer (badwidth): $50
- Member management software: $200
- CMS software: $299
- Credit card processing: $40
Total for a passive porn site with the description above: $772
This would leave the website a whopping $228 if suddenly the site got more traffic and had to pay more bandwidth or there's chargebacks.
This is a pretty common basic membership site setup btw.
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Thanks Petra. So basically content owners leave them "as is" for as long as they get traffic, because the profit margin isn't as overwhelming as people seem to believe it is, and by doing so, the recoup some of their investment before it stops getting traffic all together?
Petra
Cult Mother and Simpering Cunt
That's pretty much it. Before the recession they might have had a bit more profit margin but I can guarantee EVERYTHING has gone up in price. I just got notice that the cheap ass shared server I have some shitty little blogs on that I've paid $9.95 for over 10 years on is going up in price.
What happens some times that I do think is pretty unethical by producers in the industry is when content is either recycled from the same website they have pulled from their own website earlier, or they have quit producing new content for a while, like say a performer that used to work for them the website is based off of quit working for them or retired from the industry years earlier, and they aren't upfront and don't tell people that and pretend they are creating new stuff like before. All the while they will continue to charge people the full normal price or close to it as when the website was operating normally.
I don't think they should give their material away for free. That's unreasonable. However, I do think it's reasonable for them to be transparent about how their business is operating with regards to who is currently working for them and the actual new material they are putting out. To not do that is deceptive.
At some level I do understand why somebody wouldn't want to pay full price for material that is years if not decades old. It's like going into a retail outlet and picking up an old classic movie in the overstuffed discount bin. Sure some of them might even be among the greatest movies ever made and notable classics, but I'm probably never going to shell out the cash picking up a DVD of a 20 year old movie if it cost the same as a newly released blockbuster. There is a reason they are discounted. I'll pay a few bucks for it, baring unusual extenuating circumstances. The same goes for things like video games. I'm not paying full price for something that came out 10 years ago no matter how good it is. I don't expect porn producers to give away their intellectual property for fee. I even think they should be allowed to charge what they want for it. On the other hand they just shouldn't expect people to pay what they did when it first came out, and shouldn't be upset when people no longer buy their product if it's too much for them.
If their business model has changed with the times, and associated cost make that not viable for them, I don't know what to say, but I'm not going to overpay to keep them in business as harsh as that is to hear.
I don't think they should give their material away for free. That's unreasonable. However, I do think it's reasonable for them to be transparent about how their business is operating with regards to who is currently working for them and the actual new material they are putting out. To not do that is deceptive.
At some level I do understand why somebody wouldn't want to pay full price for material that is years if not decades old. It's like going into a retail outlet and picking up an old classic movie in the overstuffed discount bin. Sure some of them might even be among the greatest movies ever made and notable classics, but I'm probably never going to shell out the cash picking up a DVD of a 20 year old movie if it cost the same as a newly released blockbuster. There is a reason they are discounted. I'll pay a few bucks for it, baring unusual extenuating circumstances. The same goes for things like video games. I'm not paying full price for something that came out 10 years ago no matter how good it is. I don't expect porn producers to give away their intellectual property for fee. I even think they should be allowed to charge what they want for it. On the other hand they just shouldn't expect people to pay what they did when it first came out, and shouldn't be upset when people no longer buy their product if it's too much for them.
If their business model has changed with the times, and associated cost make that not viable for them, I don't know what to say, but I'm not going to overpay to keep them in business as harsh as that is to hear.
Last edited:
Little Red Wagon Repairman
MFOMBSoPGA
I think all pornography should be free if you watch it and then don't pay for it.
totally agree! tons of sites portray the update content but never do! fuckers
Well, that solves the mystery. If it feature something you can't get anywhere else, why wouldn't they charge for it ? What is rare is expensive
In the end, you've paid so they were right not to make it free...
