The biggest change to porn since the online explosion.
 

With thanks to Jakez, for making me think of this.

Some argue that putting porn online gave millions access to porn who were previously denied. Not completely true because few places banned Playboy or Penthouse, if the country banned Max Hardcore, it didn't ban Hugh Hefner from selling his porn and the sales reflected this. Except in a few places this is true.

It did give millions access to hardcore porn and eventually hardcore video. Access to view was easy. The problem was even though they could access it, they couldn't buy. In a country where their CC's were blocked, income was so low $30 a month wasn't a possibility and under age viewers. Still online porn gave millions more access to porn.

It also gave the same access to people who wanted to put up sites and satisfy the demand. 1995 there were probably 1/10 of the people in the porn industry there was a few years later. 2005 who knows what that fraction had shrunk to.

So yes there were 100 million now viewing porn online. Where previously there was only 10 million buying. Yet of that 100 million how many were buying?

And how many were selling?

In 1995 maybe a few 100 companies were in the business. 2000 it was 1,000s 2005 10,000s The growth of people feeding from the same trough far out weighed the the growth in the number of people putting the food into the trough. So each pig got less. :winkwink:

Of course I'm just using the figures as an illustration because no one knows, it's too fragmented an industry to have reliable stats on this. We don't even know what the leading companies are making.

The UK had about 200 porn shops after they were legalised to sell R18 videos. In the same year the Internet probably had 10,000 sites to download porn from.

All this resulted in a lot of small companies and people on lower wages scrambling for money. A few big ones, but no where near the giants of the past, when publishing porn wasn't as easy as putting up a website. No matter how hard you say it is. Try publishing a magazine, in any field and making a profit.

Classic Paul Markham thread...

Here we go again.

This guy possesses a stupid that's so deep, so honest and so sincere that you just have to admire it in a way.

Thank you. :1orglaugh

Been using your random number generator again?

Well the numbers are too illustrate the situation. No one knows the real numbers I doubt anyone would dispute that the number of producers and publishers in 1995 was a fraction of what it was 5, 10 years later.

This meant the same trough of money was feeding a lot more people and the growth in the people filling that rough was no where near enough. If the market expands 1000% and the supply expands 2000% then it's logical to assume the income is being spread thinner.

Can you image a magazine in the UK holding a distribution of 300K a month? Or in America double that. Or a monthly issued video selling 30,000 times and not making it into the top 10?

Magazines didn't pay shooters so well because 100s of people could shoot a set good enough, or they were short of money. They paid that amount because they had to or they got the crap end of the stick.

Paul could you please STFU?

Seriously, give it a rest - please!

Everybody lock your doors, get a gun, protect yourself! Mr. Paul Markham is planning to deface a social fabric that was already deteriorating! Before I say anything else, let me remind him that he's like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of elitism and you'll see an uneducated dirtbag hiding behind it, furiously pulling the levers of jingoism in a coprophagous attempt to convince others that the worst kinds of polyloquent authoritarians there are are the "chosen people" of scriptural prophecy. That sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that I can easily see Paul performing the following unambitious acts. First, he will offer stones instead of bread to the emotional and spiritual hungers of the world. Then, he will exclude all people and proposals that oppose his pertinacious, spiteful ruses. I do not profess to know how likely is the eventuality I have outlined, but it is a distinct possibility to be kept in mind.

Some people I know say that we will need to use diverse skills and tactics if we are to express our concerns about Paul's balmy, uncouth hariolations. Others argue that the notion that his sermons are a perfect example of overgeneralization and blatant plagiarism is pervasive. At this point the distinction is largely academic given that Paul's position that he has mystical powers of divination and prophecy is based upon a specious argument without any substantive basis. I'll go further: Someone has been giving his brain a very thorough washing, and now Paul is trying to do the same to us. To state it in stark and simple terms, Paul is still going around insisting that he is as innocent as a newborn lamb. Jeez, I thought I had made it perfectly clear to him that he generally tries to keep his distance from the appalling purveyors of malice and hatred who set the wolf to mind the sheep. However, Paul sees nothing wrong with using rock music, with its savage, tribal, orgiastic beat, to generate alienation and withdrawal. Ah the sweet, sweet smell of hypocrisy.

Paul insists that he has no choice but to destabilize society. His reasoning is that taxpayers are a magic purse that never runs out of gold. Yes, I realize that that argument makes no sense, but Paul wants nothing less than to spoil the whole Zen Buddhist New Age mystical rock-worshipping aura of our body chakras. His apostles then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with pusillanimous, infernal potlickers who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that Paul keeps telling us that embracing a system of separatism will make everything right with the world. Are we also supposed to believe that he is a martyr for freedom and a victim of mandarinism? I didn't think so.

The law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior. Whatever your age, you now have only one choice. That choice is between a democratic, peace-loving regime that, you hope, may delegitimize Paul and, as the alternative, the petulant and crapulous dirigisme currently being forced upon us by Paul. Choose carefully because paternalism has served as the justification for the butchering, torture, and enslavement of more people than any other "ism". That's why it's Paul's favorite; it makes it easy for him to prey on people's fear of political and economic instability.

Paul has stated that I'm some sort of cully who can be duped into believing that he is a refined gentleman with the soundest education and morals you can imagine. That's just pure chauvinism. Well, in Paul's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that Paul would like to see patriotism, honor, and personal responsibility fall into desuetude. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that there appears to be some disagreement in the community regarding the number of times that Paul has been seen setting the hoops through which we all must jump. Some say once; some say five times; some say a dozen times or more. The point is not to quibble over numbers or anything like that but rather to clarify that the final product of Paul's arguments will be a dysfunctional society, wherein every natural self-defense mechanism has been short-circuited in some ill-natured effort to gain short-term financial benefits. Now that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true.

You shouldn't let yourself be flummoxed by Paul's fast talk and air of self-confidence. Sad, but true. And it'll only get worse if Paul finds a way to talk about you and me in terms that are not fit to be repeated. He and his apologists are on a recruiting campaign, trying to convince everyone they meet to participate in blackmailing politicians into turning the world's most civilized societies into pestholes of death, disease, and horror. Don't join that crime syndicate; instead, remember the scriptures: "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil."

My press releases are clearly in defense of decency and human dignity and violate nobody's rights. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: Why is it that 99 times out of 100, Paul's fulminations are attributable to an ignorance born of fear? The answer to that question has broad implications. For example, at no time in the past did self-righteous flakes shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them.

Paul must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why he is so desperate to attack the critical realism and impassive objectivity that are the central epistemological foundations of the scientific worldview; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if Paul also realized that he uses his victim status as a kind of magic incantation to stifle debate, disparage critical analysis, and persuade us that his anecdotes won't be used for political retribution. The sooner he comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us.

Somebody has to fight scurrility and slander. That somebody can be you. In any case, Paul says he's going to assail all that is holy when you least expect it. Is he out of his mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that when he was first found making bargains with the devil, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Paul is planning to bring discord, confusion, and frustration into our personal and public lives, I'm downright terrified.

Paul should hide his head in shame before the judgment of future generations, whose tongue it will no longer be possible to stop and which, therefore, will say what today all of us know to be true: Some mischievous junkies actually avouch that people are pawns to be used and manipulated. This is the kind of muddled thinking that Paul is encouraging with his epithets. Even worse, all those who raise their voice against this brainwashing campaign are denounced as impulsive, barbaric knuckle-draggers. Besides being totally offensive and abusive, Mr. Paul Markham's squibs are seriously defamatory. Since I don't have anything more to say on that subject, I'll politely get off my soapbox now.

http://flamesnation.ca/uploads/Image...udio-books.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bI-SlPuLR-...igs_trough.jpg

It's a pandemic... <oink>

ADG

good thread

I love reading as much as anyone, but is the gist of this thread that when an industry grows, so does competition? And that new technologies eclipse, and eventually make redundant, old ones?

Kinda.. The good part is that he is just now realizing it and thinks he's stumbled across some new and profound truth that he needs to share and truly believes he is spreading knowledge.

This is what he does when he's not standing by the freeway, yelling at passing cars that water is wet.

Thanks for the bump troll. :thumbsup

Miles off..

Think supply and demand and you'll have it.

If the demand increase by 1,000% and the supply increases 2,000%. Then the demand per supplier is lower. Unless they spend a small fortune on traffic. As that means giving away the product for free it's self defeating. Because anyone can leap frog that game until it reaches proportions that eliminate the need to buy.

If $30 in 1995 bought a video with 5 scenes and in 2005 $30 buys 100 video scenes to download and keep. Again this reduces the need to buy for a few months.

There are few here who were successful in offline porn, talk to them to hear about the other side of the coin.

But in 1995 you could reach thousands of customers with your product, and distribution was a huge cost. While in 2011 distribution is cheap, and you've got a hundreds of millions of potential customers at your fingertips who can pay within seconds from their own home. It's a completely different world. There is just as much money to be made now as back then, and new people get access to broadband internet every day.

What.... Wait.... There was an Explosion????? :helpme :upsidedow

...in my pants

Lol somebody can read all this?

I think what I read up there is making me dumb. I don't see how the title of the thread and what he wrote are even related.

holy fuck the internet has lowered barriers to entry and thus increased competition?

mind = blown.

I pray that when I am old and shriveled I have more to talk about than the porn industry and don't have to turn to a message board full of strangers for my daily interactions. I am really starting to feel sorry for this old man.

:upsidedow :upsidedow :upsidedow

What you point out as problem, kept the masses out of selling porn.

What you point out as a benefit, let the masses into selling porn.

If there is just as much money now as there was then. The masses supplying have to share it out in a much thinner layer.

You have no idea of the sales in 1995, so please don't talk about then. did you have pubic hair then or were you too young?

Distribution wasn't expensive for magazines publishers. Go figure out why.

:banana

I sincerely apologize to all of GFY.

:1orglaugh

still broke

still no traffic

still clueless

sucks to be you knowitall

When everyone tells you how stupid you are... It's time to shut up already. Paul just doesn't seem to take a hint well.

It depends who is telling you. no nick fools, guys who failed at running paysites, the jealous. I really don't think they can give anyone any advice.

By the way, what happened to your paysite and are you now full time at YNOT or is it just to boost your meager wages blogging?

Seriously look at Nextri's comment. He's trying to flame me, while pointing out what I pointed out. The explosion in porn that online brought, was an explosion is suppliers. The supply side expanded much faster than the demand side.

In the early days 1%-2% buying was good, surfers not clicks, and since then it's got worse. so it's logical to assume that a lot of the "growth" in potential customers was just a growth in free loaders. And since then it's got worse. Everyone would be millionaires if they converted 1% to 2% today.

Conversions are more like 1-1,000s. So the growth in demand can't be linked to traffic. The real figures are known only be CCbill, so yes like you I'm doing a calculated guess. Yet the growth in supply can be seen everywhere.

Now either make a logical sensible reply or STFU. Because I see no one who can point out where I'm wrong.

The houses porn built.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/...61_468x286.jpg

http://gb.fotolibra.com/images/previ...ho-london.jpeg

http://d.yimg.com/i/ng/sp/empics/201...upton-park.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4003/...ff768f5464.jpg

Not a Photoshop by placing their logo on the building.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/7/113...a0501a096f.jpg

Yes they were built with money outside porn, but porn was the seed money, the income was rock solid and the banks were open wallets. Still I know where many of them made their real fortune, especially the magazine publishers. Nextri shows himself to not know when he talks about distribution. distribution of magazines was 0 cost.

If you had been in porn before the online version, you might of been to Score's building in Miami, Bookpress in Holland, PRO in London Soho, Northern & Shell's office in London Docklands, Swanks offices in New Jersey. And more. These giants were not built by online porn. We have FFN, who share issue was a joke, Manwin who no body knows much about and lots of people working from home. Where is your office?

The problem is few here have a clue outside of their spare bedroom which doubles up as an office. If they want a board that can keep up the illusion, then yes I spoil it for them. :thumbsup

you actually are mentally ill paul. this shit is just riduclous.

get some help dude. who are you fucking talking to ?

you are troll of the year mate. dont you understand that ?

you arent actually good at this porn thing you are only good at annoying people thats why you are troll of the year

how can someone who constantly and relentlessly proclaims his complete knowledge of every aspect of porn not even have a single successful website ?

youre not making any money from porn any more and you are frustrated as fuck

youve never listented to anyone ever and as a result you now know fucking nothing that can help you paul.

you finish your post by once again proclaiming we all dont have a clue.

youre just a cliche man. a silly old fool who thinks he knows it all.

yawn

QFT

8char.

I'm explaining to someone how the numbers itself are what is senile, but paul is alright.