If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   The porn industry has the same problem as journalism: everybody wants it but nobody wants to pay for it   (theatlantic.com) divider line 96
    More: Interesting, sex industry, Bob Seger, Icm, YouPorn  
•       •       •

3176 clicks; posted to Business » on 25 Jun 2012 at 2:28 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



96 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-25 01:42:38 PM
Add to the list: health care, food, retirement security...

"Obvious" tag was more appropriate.
 
2012-06-25 01:46:43 PM
Would have gone with, "staffed by attention whores with unresolved daddy issues," but that works, too.
 
2012-06-25 01:47:51 PM
I'm not sure there's a meaningful distinction to be made here.
 
2012-06-25 01:52:38 PM
... as audiences have fled to aggregators such as XTube and YouPorn that offer up a never-ending stream of free naked bodies.

Oooh, never heard of XTube before! Thanks for adding to my knowledge of free porn sites.

/also Tube8 and Redtube
 
2012-06-25 01:58:29 PM

BurnShrike: ... as audiences have fled to aggregators such as XTube and YouPorn that offer up a never-ending stream of free naked bodies.

Oooh, never heard of XTube before! Thanks for adding to my knowledge of free porn sites.

/also Tube8 and Redtube


xHamster is a good one too. MobileBoner.com for baitin on the go.
 
2012-06-25 02:06:03 PM
This problem may fix itself if ISPs ever adopt the pay-per-usage model that (they say) they're eventually headed toward. Or even if they put a cap on it. People may actually be forced to start renting their smut again.
 
2012-06-25 02:15:03 PM

kid_icarus: This problem may fix itself if ISPs ever adopt the pay-per-usage model that (they say) they're eventually headed toward. Or even if they put a cap on it. People may actually be forced to start renting their smut again.


I have to admit that I've become rather accustomed to free readily-accessible porn. If they take that away from me, I might have to start dating again.
 
2012-06-25 02:31:44 PM
And like journalism, there are plenty of people willing to do it for free just to have people giving them attention. You just have to remember that the production value won't be as good.
 
2012-06-25 02:33:12 PM
Obvious tag must be busy fapping in the basement.
 
2012-06-25 02:33:13 PM
But but but I buy stuff if I download it for free!!

Yeah right...
 
2012-06-25 02:36:06 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: But but but I buy stuff if I download it for free!!

Yeah right...


Why would I buy a whole dvd if I only need 15 seconds of it?
 
2012-06-25 02:40:36 PM
I wonder what percentage of women from 18-40 have nude pictures out on the web, whether or not they know it.
 
2012-06-25 02:41:09 PM
The Houston Press.

Free newspaper, and it's got some of the best investigative journalism you'll find in America today.
 
2012-06-25 02:42:30 PM
Porn sites should quit putting in ads related to porn. They need to get other businesses to advertise. The first company that takes a risk and does an ad on porn sites "two for one wanker special" will make $$$.

/and once people get over the societally imposed shame and admit to "the wanker special."
//if it's a good enough deal they'll do it.
 
2012-06-25 02:43:36 PM

TheGreatGazoo: I wonder what percentage of women from 18-40 have nude pictures out on the web, whether or not they know it.


If they didn't know it, how would we know??
 
2012-06-25 02:45:25 PM

SchlingFocker: The Houston Press.

Free newspaper, and it's got some of the best investigative journalism you'll find in America today.


Exactly, the viewers are the product, boobies the lure and "a case of PennOil for $20" is the sale.
 
2012-06-25 02:45:40 PM

IrateShadow: Why would I buy a whole dvd if I only need 15 seconds of it?


EXACTLY!

But you will still get people on here that will tell you that illegal download help producers by allowing people to sample their stuff for free. And by sample they mean a complete and high quality download of the movie/album/artwork.

How else is the porn industry and journalism alike? At least half of them are faking it and none of it is believable.
 
2012-06-25 02:45:50 PM

IrateShadow: And like journalism, there are plenty of people willing to do it for free just to have people giving them attention. You just have to remember that the production value won't be as good.


Correct line of thinking, but otherwise backwards -- people don't settle on crap just because it's free. The problem is that the people trying to sell you pr0n/news don't try to aim any higher than the amateurs. Take prostitution. Your shriveled, toothless, diseased back-alley crack whore can't fetch the same price as a supermodel-caliber escort who not only has all the skillz but is essentially a professional date. The high-class escorts make serious bank because there's actually a quality-minded business model at work. When it comes to journalism and porn, the businesses went to the gutter before their customers stopped paying for it. I didn't unsubscribe from all the news sources I read during my twenties because I felt I was entitled to get them for free; I was paying for them. I cancelled my subscriptions because they all went to shiat.

If there was ever such a thing as a reputable pr0n site, I very well might pay money for it, but I've yet to see anything even pass a laugh test.
 
2012-06-25 02:48:51 PM

whither_apophis: Exactly, the viewers are the product, boobies the lure and "a case of PennOil for $20" is the sale.


Yup, and it's worked well for them for a very long time.

They have journalists who run circles around the Chronicle's "journalists".
 
2012-06-25 02:49:13 PM

dragonchild: If there was ever such a thing as a reputable pr0n site, I very well might pay money for it, but I've yet to see anything even pass a laugh test.


You mean the outraged broads who take a creampie surprise on the casting couch are faking the outrage? Say it ain't so

/stillrealtome.jpg
 
2012-06-25 02:49:15 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: But but but I buy stuff if I download it for free!!

Yeah right...


which is why we need a porn surcharge on every retail product. What you do not spend on porn you spend elsewhere.

Double tax on tissues of course
 
2012-06-25 02:50:21 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: But but but I buy stuff if I download it for free!!

Yeah right...


These aren't sites that are pirating porn. They're sites that offer legitimate videos that are paid for by advertising or uploaded by the porn sites themselves (to advertise their site)
 
2012-06-25 02:50:55 PM

dragonchild: If there was ever such a thing as a reputable pr0n site, I very well might pay money for it, but I've yet to see anything even pass a laugh test.


If you want cock porn, Omegle is guaranteed to bring you much success.
 
2012-06-25 02:52:53 PM

Smeggy Smurf: You mean the outraged broads who take a creampie surprise on the casting couch are faking the outrage? Say it ain't so


Next you'll be telling me you can't just drive a van around a city and pick up hot chicks to bang. You, sir, are speaking nonsense.
 
2012-06-25 02:55:37 PM
We used to be ok with scrambled porn. No one ever wanted to pay for it, and now that it's readily-availble at a MUCH higher quality, we're not going to start any time soon.

The next generation is growing up with the Internet, having never known anything else. They're the ones to go after. The quality is good enough for us, but it might not be for them, and they might be willing to pay for the difference.
 
2012-06-25 02:58:19 PM
Well, the porn industry also has the whole "social stigma" issue that media doesn't. Having said that, I'd rather be caught with a copy of "Butt Farking Broads 15" in my hands than the Washington Post [shudder].
 
2012-06-25 03:02:35 PM

dragonchild: IrateShadow: And like journalism, there are plenty of people willing to do it for free just to have people giving them attention. You just have to remember that the production value won't be as good.

Correct line of thinking, but otherwise backwards -- people don't settle on crap just because it's free. The problem is that the people trying to sell you pr0n/news don't try to aim any higher than the amateurs. Take prostitution. Your shriveled, toothless, diseased back-alley crack whore can't fetch the same price as a supermodel-caliber escort who not only has all the skillz but is essentially a professional date. The high-class escorts make serious bank because there's actually a quality-minded business model at work. When it comes to journalism and porn, the businesses went to the gutter before their customers stopped paying for it. I didn't unsubscribe from all the news sources I read during my twenties because I felt I was entitled to get them for free; I was paying for them. I cancelled my subscriptions because they all went to shiat.

If there was ever such a thing as a reputable pr0n site, I very well might pay money for it, but I've yet to see anything even pass a laugh test.


I would say its a combo - that high production values on either used to be doable because they had solid protection. Then this protection ebbed with new technology and they started bleeding money - both legitimately (i.e. competition from new disruptive tech like craigslist, and blogging and camwhores) and illegitimately (infringement in the case of pron especially). As money is bled, high production values have to go. As such quality falls and more bleeding happens, as the difference between pay news/porn and free news/porn is vanishing.

News doesn't map too closely to porn in the infringement side, but the modern idea that media should be cost free is a similar underlying problem (to the media creators).
 
2012-06-25 03:06:55 PM
We want real journalism, of course.
And real porn.
 
2012-06-25 03:09:27 PM

SchlingFocker: Smeggy Smurf: You mean the outraged broads who take a creampie surprise on the casting couch are faking the outrage? Say it ain't so

Next you'll be telling me you can't just drive a van around a city and pick up hot chicks to bang. You, sir, are speaking nonsense.


Ah hell, and I just bought a stabbin cabin just for that reason
 
2012-06-25 03:12:27 PM
If you're somewhat patient and slightly smooth, you can have complete strangers perform sex acts for you to watch for free, live.

I'm not sure if there is a journalistic equivalent for that.
 
2012-06-25 03:12:34 PM

Smeggy Smurf: SchlingFocker: Smeggy Smurf: You mean the outraged broads who take a creampie surprise on the casting couch are faking the outrage? Say it ain't so

Next you'll be telling me you can't just drive a van around a city and pick up hot chicks to bang. You, sir, are speaking nonsense.

Ah hell, and I just bought a stabbin cabin just for that reason


Well, at least you can still use it for murdering people.
 
2012-06-25 03:14:25 PM

SchlingFocker: If you want cock porn


I don't

Smeggy Smurf: You mean the outraged broads who take a creampie surprise on the casting couch are faking the outrage?


Sarcasm detected, but whatever -- I'm OK with acting. It doesn't need to be real. Rather, just being "real" doesn't make it good. The problem is that pr0n studios expect people to pay money for shlock, which makes them compete with exhibitionists who gladly show their action for free. Talent costs money, but it also makes money. Methinks the real problem is that maybe no one seriously believes a pornographic work can ever be good quality, which says a lot about how we rate sex as a society. Classical and Renaissance artists invested painstaking efforts into works we know damn well their owners fapped to. That was their pron, but it's not pr0n hailed as great are just because it's old. They are great works of art in every meaningful way, they're just sexy as well. But back then all they had to work with was marble or oil paint. Now we have 3D cameras and CGI for crissakes yet the concept of a movie about sex hasn't changed much since the 1970s.

Not like this keeps me up at night, but it's no wonder it's hard to make a buck from pr0n these days.
 
2012-06-25 03:18:02 PM

dragonchild: Methinks the real problem is that maybe no one seriously believes a pornographic work can ever be good quality


They need to watch any pr0n with Lilly Thai.

America doesn't need anything else.
 
2012-06-25 03:19:03 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Ah hell, and I just bought a stabbin cabin just for that reason


Is that the boat porn??

I think that, if you have a good boat, you really can go out and pick up hot ass in big lakes/marinas.
 
2012-06-25 03:21:12 PM

dragonchild: SchlingFocker: If you want cock porn

I don't

Smeggy Smurf: You mean the outraged broads who take a creampie surprise on the casting couch are faking the outrage?

Sarcasm detected, but whatever -- I'm OK with acting. It doesn't need to be real. Rather, just being "real" doesn't make it good. The problem is that pr0n studios expect people to pay money for shlock, which makes them compete with exhibitionists who gladly show their action for free. Talent costs money, but it also makes money. Methinks the real problem is that maybe no one seriously believes a pornographic work can ever be good quality, which says a lot about how we rate sex as a society. Classical and Renaissance artists invested painstaking efforts into works we know damn well their owners fapped to. That was their pron, but it's not pr0n hailed as great are just because it's old. They are great works of art in every meaningful way, they're just sexy as well. But back then all they had to work with was marble or oil paint. Now we have 3D cameras and CGI for crissakes yet the concept of a movie about sex hasn't changed much since the 1970s.

Not like this keeps me up at night, but it's no wonder it's hard to make a buck from pr0n these days.


There are a few pornos that could almost be considered real movies. Stuff like Pirates. The big budget (for porn) movies are more than just a bunch of swinging dicks poking every wet spot in sight.

They're not good movies. But it beats the spitting on dicks nonsense out there.
 
2012-06-25 03:22:56 PM
Meh. Newspapers never made money from their articles. The classified and jobs sections paid for people's salaries.

The problem is that the writers actually thought that it was their scribbles that sold the paper. Never mind that a 1/4 page 4 colour job listing cost $4000 back in the day.

They still think it's their written drivel that sells. They were extremely slow in responding to CL. Even Kijiji is fairly new, so the opportunity for the papers to take back that revenue was around for ages. It's probably too late now.
 
2012-06-25 03:25:02 PM

dragonchild: IrateShadow: And like journalism, there are plenty of people willing to do it for free just to have people giving them attention. You just have to remember that the production value won't be as good.

Correct line of thinking, but otherwise backwards -- people don't settle on crap just because it's free. The problem is that the people trying to sell you pr0n/news don't try to aim any higher than the amateurs. Take prostitution. Your shriveled, toothless, diseased back-alley crack whore can't fetch the same price as a supermodel-caliber escort who not only has all the skillz but is essentially a professional date. The high-class escorts make serious bank because there's actually a quality-minded business model at work. When it comes to journalism and porn, the businesses went to the gutter before their customers stopped paying for it. I didn't unsubscribe from all the news sources I read during my twenties because I felt I was entitled to get them for free; I was paying for them. I cancelled my subscriptions because they all went to shiat.

If there was ever such a thing as a reputable pr0n site, I very well might pay money for it, but I've yet to see anything even pass a laugh test.


I dunno, I had an online Hustler subscription for ages. It was actually pretty awesome.
 
2012-06-25 03:27:49 PM

Teiritzamna: I would say its a combo - that high production values on either used to be doable because they had solid protection. Then this protection ebbed with new technology and they started bleeding money - both legitimately (i.e. competition from new disruptive tech like craigslist, and blogging and camwhores) and illegitimately (infringement in the case of pron especially).


I've heard that argument, but here's the thing -- when the threats to their revenue stream came, journalism decided to complain while the pr0n studios cut. That's it. They didn't adapt to technology or re-think their business models; they stuck with what paid the bills with minimal effort and just wrung their hands as they saw their revenue fall.

I don't have much of an entrepreneurial spirit so I can't say what they should've done, but whatever it was, I think it could've been better than what they did, which was basically nothing.
 
2012-06-25 03:30:30 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: BurnShrike: ... as audiences have fled to aggregators such as XTube and YouPorn that offer up a never-ending stream of free naked bodies.

Oooh, never heard of XTube before! Thanks for adding to my knowledge of free porn sites.

/also Tube8 and Redtube

xHamster is a good one too. MobileBoner.com for baitin on the go.


I'll second xhamster.com.
 
2012-06-25 03:32:28 PM

IrateShadow: And like journalism, there are plenty of people willing to do it for free just to have people giving them attention. You just have to remember that the production value won't be as good.


Yeah, but its been shown that most people who view porn not only don't care about production value... actually the more production put into a video, the worse it is. Hence amateur porn is rather popular. So much so that professional porn production companies go out of their way to make videos seem "amateur".
 
2012-06-25 03:33:37 PM
tubegalore.com
 
2012-06-25 03:34:39 PM

SchlingFocker: The Houston Press.

Free newspaper, and it's got some of the best investigative journalism you'll find in America today.


Was gonna say, "I doubt it...Houston's in Texas", but then the (formerly named) St. Pete Times is in Florida, and its by far one of the best investigative papers in the nation.

So I'll give you your one Texas pass.
 
2012-06-25 03:38:30 PM
Here's the difference: Porn never gave it to you for free and then later expected you to pay for the exact same content.
 
2012-06-25 03:42:31 PM
The fact that most of it seems to be aimed at misogynistic teenage boys and complete sociopaths doesn't help.
 
2012-06-25 03:49:00 PM

El Freak: The fact that most of it seems to be aimed at misogynistic teenage boys and complete sociopaths doesn't help.


Well enough about journalism. what do you think of porn?
 
2012-06-25 03:49:00 PM

kregh99: Here's the difference: Porn never gave it to you for free and then later expected you to pay for the exact same content.


When were commercial newspapers ever free? If you want privately run news companies, you need to understand that they have overhead. Or better yet, just have more non-profits partially funded by the government, like NPR.

And if you actually spend money on porn other than whatever you pay your ISP, then you are a moron or are old and too set in your ways.
 
2012-06-25 03:52:13 PM

El Freak: The fact that most of it seems to be aimed at misogynistic teenage boys and complete sociopaths doesn't help.


I dunno, some of the more egregious stuff doesn't seem to be as popular as I remember it being a few years ago. I mean, who gets off on trying someone up and smacking them around while writing insults on their face with a sharpie?
 
2012-06-25 03:52:18 PM

downstairs: the more production put into a video, the worse it is.


This is the misconception that dominates, methinks.

What I don't get is that people seem to know better when it comes to movies. The "high-budget flop" isn't exactly obscure; people know that shoveling money onto a product doesn't automatically make it good.

On the other hand, Lust, Caution had lots of explicit, steamy sex and made over quadruple its budget. It was also a genuinely good movie; if you watched it expecting pr0n you'd probably be disappointed. It was a good movie with a lot of sex made in an era where everyone almost unanimously believes that a movie with a lot of sex can't be good. Yet it not only made money; it made a LOT of money (relative to its budget). The U.S. gross alone exceeded the film's budget. Now, maybe it's an exception, and it's telling that (despite collaboration with the U.S.) it was basically a foreign film. The one thing I get out of this isn't that high quality moviemaking and explicit sex can't mix; it's that only American studios are incapable of combining the two -- and I don't think it's for lack of talent. Again, it's because anyone who makes movies for a living stateside is still stuck in the 1970s as far as filming sex is concerned.
 
2012-06-25 03:54:28 PM

Cymbal: And if you actually spend money on porn other than whatever you pay your ISP, then you are a moron or are old and too set in your ways.


Eh, I'm so-so on that. I remember Suicidegirls being $15 or $20 a year not too long ago. I consider that money better spent than a few months of TF.
 
2012-06-25 03:58:55 PM
Bookmark?
 
Displayed 50 of 96 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report