Comments on: Cookie Cutter Porn Paysites

By: Susie Bright

Susie Bright — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 09:47:59 +0000

Great demystification, thank you, and YES! The “leaving to concentrate on freelance writing,” had me rolling on the floor. Next year’s projected receipts: low four figures if he’s lucky.

By: Art College

Art College — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 18:20:40 +0000

I’ve been pondering this as I begin a non-porn online information service: with so much free stuff out there, why would anyone pay?

The good reasons seem to be about trust and convenience. Regarding trust, there are plenty of bad websites, with new pop-ups that won’t stop, and bad content. Returning to a trusted site makes sense.

Convenience means I don’t have to wander around; I find exactly what I want at a place that’s easy to find.

Thanks kind of like an on-line subscription to the Wall Street Journal. Sure, anything in it is available free somewhere, but I pay for trust and convenience.

I’d appreciate hearing more from folks use pay for online porn: why, what are your favorite sites, what would lead you to terminate subscription.

thanks

By: Trixie

Trixie — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 05:02:17 +0000

Yeah, I definitely have some MAJOR issues with CCBill’s policies since they refuse to process for sites that portray women menstruating or using banned words or a woma fucking her husband when he was dressed in an Easter bunny suit (I’m not kidding; that set off their bestiality red flag). We have even been put on warning for violating their terms by linking to Margaret Cho’s blog, for example, because she (gasp) used the words bestiality, pedophilia, rape, etc. in a rant against homophobes so they had her domain blacklisted.

I do really cheer over that awesome Kink purchase and think it’s a rare example of pornographers preserving, creating and fusing art forms (architecture, machines, erotica, etc.) and aiming for an aesthetic and level of production value that most people don’t associate with porn, particularly the hardcore stuff they make.

By: Bacchus

Bacchus — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 04:28:11 +0000

Hi, Trixie. Agree on all points — CCbill in particular is a very reputable processor (although they do have a reputation about being slightly prudish and flaky about processing for BDSM sites.)

You’re also right that the armory purchase is a breathtaking sign of financial success on a scale that few porn companies can claim. Lots of the cookie cutter guys make big bucks, and lots of indies are starving, but I don’t think you’ll find too many of the cookie cutter people investing in expensive stone-and-concrete assets. There’s damned few porn companies of any kind doing that, but I’d suggest that any who are investing like that are also producing (or did produce when they were new) original content that was unique in the markets they brought it to.

By: Trixie

Trixie — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 03:00:39 +0000

I definitely appreciate insightful posts like this one highlighting the differences between pornographers selling access to quality exclusive content versus templated 3rd party porn. FYI to people not in the know, though: ccbill is a 3rd party payment processor that processes for a lot of indies (myself included) who make exclusive content. Lest it sound as though they are just a tool of crackpots, I wanted to mention that they (reliably & professionally) process payments for lots of different adult sites, both good and lame, and if someone’s chargeback ratio is too high (example: lots of people charging back because there wasn’t enough content in the members area) they stop processing for them.

As far as the kind of money made by exclusive producers or indies versus pseudo-hacks like the one spotlighted here, very VERY few people make the kind of money that would permit them to buy the SF Armory. Most people creating unique porn and serving it up directly to their customers make LESS money than the people cranking out assembly-line porn. I only point this out to further highlight the value in joining sites offering unique (often homemade) content versus paysites built with bought (not self-shot) content.

Thanks again for the excellent post!

By: Greta Christina

Greta Christina — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:50:34 +0000

What I find interesting about this is that, in all likelihood, the domain names don’t just have zero value — they may even have negative value. Anyone who’s been burned by these people isn’t likely to return… even if the sites were now hosted by a new owner who actually provided fresh, original content.

By: D

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:37:24 +0000

D’OH! Any way I can get my money back . . . ?