Could you share some of the business details of running a porn site? I've always been curious, but there's not much reliable information. Something in this industry would probably be a smash hit business case.
- Supply chain: how do you source models? How do you negotiate fees? What is the average fee, and how do they charge?
- Are there inter-business politics? Like, will some models refuse to shoot scenes with other models?
- How do models work legally? Do you contract them or employ them if they've never done a shoot before?
- What are your profit margins like, and what are your breakeven numbers like?
- How often do you demand STI testing data? Are models worried about this?
- Are models your main source of COGS? What are your major expense items?
- What are the most challenging decisions you have to make on a daily basis?
- Is porn really a hyper-competitive market?
I've seen business cases from a ton of different industries, but adult entertainment has been completely secluded. Any information would be wonderful :)
I was struck by the observation taht revenue has been cut in half and production has fallen drastically within 4 years. as someone whoworks in the conventional film industry, this is pretty owrrying.
What's your business model for serving up HD video for free? I'm not really a porn consumer but I can see how it will be attractive, just not where your profit comes from.
Nothing to say about the article, but I loved the format of this:
> However, quite simply, porn is not inherently evil. (If you refute that, you’re engulfed by the Victorian-era hyperbole of the sinful and tasteless expressions of sexuality.)
You can rewrite it in the general form as:
> Assertion X. (If you disagree, you're clearly unreasonable.)
Making an assertion and then following it with a parenthetical over-simplification, and quick dismissal of, an opposing viewpoint. It lets you say what you want, take a quick jab at the opposition, and quickly scurry away.
If you're going to write that kind of a one-off statement you raise more questions about your own understanding of the issue than you answer and you may as well not write it. (And if you don't understand why, you're clearly an unpersuasive writer.)
> However, quite simply, porn is not inherently evil. (If you refute that, you’re engulfed by the Victorian-era hyperbole of the sinful and tasteless expressions of sexuality.)
Anyone over 25 has witnessed the vulgarizing affect increasingly pervasive pornography has had on culture. I don't see what Victorians have to do with anything.
I haven't. I'm over 25. Please explain your statement. Preferably with some sort of evidence.
But you're not going to are you? You've just created an account with a random name because you know you can't support your statement with anything other than righteous indignation.
That was an impressively long justification for a perfectly legal business.
I'm curious, though - why start a business in an industry where you've had to spend time writing essays 'reasoning through your fears', instead of just doing something you're not conflicted about, and can get fully behind without any reservations, qualifiers, or arguments?
TL;DR -- Anyone who promotes an ethics that humans should be more than hedonistic, endorphin-driven consumption automatons is a religious zealot and/or hypocrite.
While abuse of food affects your body, porn affects your mental abilities and along with it the ability to interact with others. Porn, like termites will eat away the very fabric of society. I challenge everyone who reads this comment to do research on their own.
Porn might not be as addictive as psychoactive drugs, but it is dangerous left unchecked. It is violence against your mind itself.
> "People are rightfully angry about the exploitation of socioeconomically-trapped laborers, but — again — abstaining from consumption is a naive gimmick when the relatively small volume of collective abstinence can’t make a dent in the overall picture."
"Well it would've happened anyways" is an incredibly poor justification of doing anything.
Removing oneself as a source of a problem, while unlikely to turn the world upside down, is anything but a naive gimmick.
While I have nothing against porn, it's frustrating that the author is resorting to the same demonization of hypothetical villains that is frequently directed at porn itself. Anyone who doesn't agree fully with his stance is participating in a naive gimmick, or a Victorian-era sex-Nazi.
The portrayal here of people's concerns re: porn are treated with the same oversimplifications that is frequently directed at pornography.
That’s right. Given the data at hand, the “damaged goods” myth is just that — a myth. It’s a rationale regurgitated by those who remain stupefied by the lifestyle choices of pornstars.
I think that 'myth' probably wasn't a myth 40 years ago when porn was very much on the fringe. Currently, porn is as close to the mainstream as it's going probably to get. It's easier to access than ever, there are nice, clean, well-lit stores in regular shopping areas that sell sex toys, and there are prime-time specials where women walk down a runway in lingerie.
23 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 64.0 ms ] threadGreat article; best of luck to you guys :)
- Supply chain: how do you source models? How do you negotiate fees? What is the average fee, and how do they charge?
- Are there inter-business politics? Like, will some models refuse to shoot scenes with other models?
- How do models work legally? Do you contract them or employ them if they've never done a shoot before?
- What are your profit margins like, and what are your breakeven numbers like?
- How often do you demand STI testing data? Are models worried about this?
- Are models your main source of COGS? What are your major expense items?
- What are the most challenging decisions you have to make on a daily basis?
- Is porn really a hyper-competitive market?
I've seen business cases from a ton of different industries, but adult entertainment has been completely secluded. Any information would be wonderful :)
For now, we've indirectly answered some of those points in an infographic we put together: http://paintbottle.com/press/infographic_production.jpg
What's your business model for serving up HD video for free? I'm not really a porn consumer but I can see how it will be attractive, just not where your profit comes from.
> However, quite simply, porn is not inherently evil. (If you refute that, you’re engulfed by the Victorian-era hyperbole of the sinful and tasteless expressions of sexuality.)
You can rewrite it in the general form as:
> Assertion X. (If you disagree, you're clearly unreasonable.)
Making an assertion and then following it with a parenthetical over-simplification, and quick dismissal of, an opposing viewpoint. It lets you say what you want, take a quick jab at the opposition, and quickly scurry away.
If you're going to write that kind of a one-off statement you raise more questions about your own understanding of the issue than you answer and you may as well not write it. (And if you don't understand why, you're clearly an unpersuasive writer.)
Anyone over 25 has witnessed the vulgarizing affect increasingly pervasive pornography has had on culture. I don't see what Victorians have to do with anything.
But you're not going to are you? You've just created an account with a random name because you know you can't support your statement with anything other than righteous indignation.
I'm curious, though - why start a business in an industry where you've had to spend time writing essays 'reasoning through your fears', instead of just doing something you're not conflicted about, and can get fully behind without any reservations, qualifiers, or arguments?
We genuinely wanted to fix the UX problems associated with porn.
Porn might not be as addictive as psychoactive drugs, but it is dangerous left unchecked. It is violence against your mind itself.
Pretty much like COBOL, but people are naked.
"Well it would've happened anyways" is an incredibly poor justification of doing anything.
Removing oneself as a source of a problem, while unlikely to turn the world upside down, is anything but a naive gimmick.
While I have nothing against porn, it's frustrating that the author is resorting to the same demonization of hypothetical villains that is frequently directed at porn itself. Anyone who doesn't agree fully with his stance is participating in a naive gimmick, or a Victorian-era sex-Nazi.
The portrayal here of people's concerns re: porn are treated with the same oversimplifications that is frequently directed at pornography.
I think that 'myth' probably wasn't a myth 40 years ago when porn was very much on the fringe. Currently, porn is as close to the mainstream as it's going probably to get. It's easier to access than ever, there are nice, clean, well-lit stores in regular shopping areas that sell sex toys, and there are prime-time specials where women walk down a runway in lingerie.