Skim bypass fee?

[iwillbenumber1]

Happy Friday;

Has anyone here ever toyed with the idea of charging a small fee on your site, specifically a TGP, or similar script trading site, that would bypass all skim. I think there are many surfers that would pay $5/month to there favorite TGP, without having to be worried about being jerked around and always to get what they click.

Just a thought;
Jason

[Greenguy]

Seeing as I don't run a site that skim's, I don't have any problems with annoyed surfers :D

[iwillbenumber1]

Greenguy;

I first logged on to the internet circa 1997 and the first porn site i found was......[drumroll here].....Greenguy's link-o-rama. I have much respect for you. You deal with high quality traffic. Your clientel are ones who will pay for porn. I am interested in running a TGP, which happens to be very low in conversions. I think this "unconvertable" traffic can be converted with a skim bypass fee. There are countless people who visit TGP's every day and get all the free porn the need, get off, and they sign off. Suppose you run a thumb TGP 100K stable and trade traffic is 50% and bookmarker/se is 50%. If you could get 1% of your "bookmarkers" to subscribe at $5 per month that would eqate to $2500/month. They know they can get all the porn they want for free, but do not want the frustration of getting jerked around. They are not going to pony up cash for a paysite, but if you run a very high quality TGP they might pay that "nominal" fee just to avoid the hassle and get mostly what they want.

My 2 cents;
Jason

[Greenguy]

Think about what you said - why do TGP's, in general, convert so poorly?

Maybe the skim is the reason?

Plus, I have no idea how you'd market that to surfers?

This is my site & 1/2 the links don't send you where you think they do, but for $5 they will :D

[iwillbenumber1]

Consider that most of these sites are "fed" initially, but then become stable. Then consider in order to remain at stable traffic levels, traffic productivity (clicks) must be inversely proportional to the skim rate. Suppose you had no feeder traffic, and no SE traffic or type-ins. If you wanted to subsist entirely on trades, you could have the following: trade productivity at 200%, skim 50%. That means on average you get two clicks per surfer and one goes to a gallery and one to a trade. You should remain stable and grow slightly because most scripts will return higher that 100% if you traffics internal productivity is 200% then it should do well on trades.

The thing about this is most "BIG" tgps skim less than 50% and their productivity is not much above 200%. How can they get up to 300-400K uniques per day? BOOKMARKERS, yes people do like these sites and they do bookmark, There you get "free" clicks to send to trades, without having to have very high skim.

There are thumb TGP's that become HUGE within very short amounts of time, when they are intelligently directed by intelligent webmasters. All that is required is top rate design, sponsors, scripts, and trades.

The key to this is the whole purpose of skimming. PROMOTION. I would have never known about some of my favorite TGP"s if I wasn't jerked there. I wouldn't have clicked "click here", but I was sent there against my will and I liked it and I came back. PROMOTION through skimming is how these big sites grow very quick. Sites like bunnyteens.com and teeniesxxx.com are doing well because they did all of these things.

I am in the process of obtaining all the best tools, and I will through trial and error, become capable of managing this towards growth.

Jason

[BigJohn]

I don't enjoy my galleries getting skimmed.... I tolorate it because I have a somewhat open mind and am curious to find out if galleries on skimmed sites produce better because of volume or do worse because of the skim...

As for selling memberships to view my galleries.... Ummmm, NO!

How is that any different than taking images from usenet and opening a paysite with them? I realize you're talking about paying to not be skimmed, but the end result is the same, you are charging to see my (and others) copyrighted images.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Oh... btw.... POST 100 (finally) |bananna|

[Surfn]

Being old school I know how to grow traffic without CJ bullshit. I only charge advertisers, not surfers. :D

[Kinky]

why would anybody pay $5 to get free porn? they are just gonna move on to the next TGP that doesn't charge money... with that idea you are basically telling surfers hey we are jerking you around but if you gimme some money i'll stop... why do you think TGPs like the hun are the biggest and the best? i know everybody says "because they have been around forever" but the only way they have stayed on top is that they don't jerk their surfers around in any way... just my 2 cents :D

[DangerDave]

charging a small fee on your site, specifically a TGP, or similar script trading site, that would bypass all skim Thats the funniest thing I have heard in years.. Next they will charging for viruses :D

DD

[BigJohn]

Originally posted by DangerDave
Thats the funniest thing I have heard in years.. Next they will charging for viruses :D

DD ROFLMAO! I can see it now.....

The requested spyware toolbars and viruses are ready for download into your computer. Please enter your credit card number in the space provided so we may bill your accordingly. NOTE: All spywares and viruses have been scanned and are certified safe!

|jester|

[GeorgeTH]

There are/were several sites who have tried this in the past, and all failed! Some still have a paypal button on their page asking for donations (until their account is closed...), but I never heard of any where it has really worked.
There's so much free porn on the net that you'll drive people elsewhere - and that'll be the end of it. The savy surfer goes to incredible lengths, like opening the source code of some high skimming TGPs to get straight to the links that way...

[iwillbenumber1]

Originally posted by GeorgeTH
There are/were several sites who have tried this in the past, and all failed! Some still have a paypal button on their page asking for donations (until their account is closed...), but I never heard of any where it has really worked.
There's so much free porn on the net that you'll drive people elsewhere - and that'll be the end of it. The savy surfer goes to incredible lengths, like opening the source code of some high skimming TGPs to get straight to the links that way...

many tgp scripts like comus can be configured to hide the destination url......

[Alphawolf]

iwillbenumber1,

I think the general thing is that surfers will simply use other TGP's that don't charge them anything.

[Stouch]

There are sites that offer skim-free to bookmarkers now.

As an experiment I have just gone skim-free on freemilfs.com. Its slowed it down a little but I am convinced it will kick ass in the longrun. Especially with some good SE placement & the fact that its more niche than your average thumbsite.

[Linkster]

You'll find that some of the biggest TGPs are skim free - and got big by being that way - especially in the niche TGPs. I agree that there are some that are big that do skim and they tend to last a year or two - but then someone else comes along with a better site and they fall by the wayside. Over the long haul, it may not satisfy your urge to have instant huge counter numbers, but the conversions of a non-skim TGP outweigh the that false sense of "bigness" by a long shot. If you could run a TGP and know that you are going to get better than 1:500, vs running a skim site where you "might" get 1:5000 - Ill take the first - and run to the bank :)

[Sean416]

yeah, I agree this wouldnt work. It's been tried before and failed miserably.|goodnight

[Surfn]

Skim sites suk |angry|

[Tommy]

I think its doable

the tgp is providing a service by putting the list of gallery links together. it isnt completly unreasonable to ask for a small fee

no offence but as far as copyrighted gallerys
I doubt anyone has ever filed a copyright for a gallery
and the tgp isnt stealing your gallery

you put your gallery on the web open to the public. really anyone can link to it

I think webmasters would jump thru hoops for that credit card carrying traffic

if I wrote a tourist book about the best beaches on long island
and all the beaches in the book were free and open to the public
it doesnt mean i cant charge for the book

[Greenguy]

Originally posted by Tommy
if I wrote a tourist book about the best beaches on long island
and all the beaches in the book were free and open to the public
it doesnt mean i cant charge for the book This is true, but if every other tourist book about beaches on the rack was free..... :D

[Tommy]

thats true to but............

if we look at newspapers
there are those newspapers that charge 50 cents

and there are news papers that are free

just cause one is free doesnt mean they all have to be

nothing Ventured nothing gained

[Greenguy]

I'm not knocking the idea, just saying that it'd be a hard sell.

It'd be like offering a free version of the NY Times, but 1/2 headlines don't match the stories :D

[Tommy]

and I'm not endorsing the idea :-)

I am just saying that it could work.

hey 20 - 25 years ago if i told you i was gonna run a cable to everyone house and charge them for tv..... what would you have said

if you just keep doing what everyone else does ............

I think the next generation of players will be the ones with fresh ideas.... and the balls to chase them

[KCat]

Give it a shot & see what happens. You can always make changes if it doesn't work for you.

I do think you'd have to have a really good, probably niche TGP to make it work. Another site filled with the same old FHGs isn't going to generate a lot of bookmarkers period, let alone ones who will pay to turn off the skim.

But the idea itself doesn't seem that different than paying a blog site to get the ads removed. You can use it for free & it works great, but a lot of people don't like the ads & are happy to pay the nominal fee.

[Wazza]

An example of a mainstream site which does something of the same flavour.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/speedy-reg.htm

There's a tgp out there which does charge a membership fee - I recall some guy getting his tits in a tangle over it... obviously he hadn't thought it through...

[BigJohn]

Originally posted by Tommy
I think its doable

the tgp is providing a service by putting the list of gallery links together. it isnt completly unreasonable to ask for a small fee

no offence but as far as copyrighted gallerys
I doubt anyone has ever filed a copyright for a gallery
and the tgp isnt stealing your gallery

you put your gallery on the web open to the public. really anyone can link to it

I think webmasters would jump thru hoops for that credit card carrying traffic

if I wrote a tourist book about the best beaches on long island
and all the beaches in the book were free and open to the public
it doesnt mean i cant charge for the book If the book you wrote about public beaches included pictures that are copyrighted, then no... you can't sell it. But that's niether here nor there, your example isn't the same... A closer example would be shareware... you can use it and give it away, but you can't sell it.

If you start allowing TGP's to charge surfers in order to view a paysite's copyrighted pictures just because they're available for free, where does the line get drawn? Can someone then use my "free" images to start a paysite without using the gallery? The images have my URL, so would that be the same? What about images found on usenet, those are free too aren't they?

How about if someone uses the graphics from your TGP and builds their own? The images were shown in public, for free.... is that okay? Of course it isn't.

Yes, as a paysite owner, I would LOVE to have surfers come to my site who have credit cards and are known to have purchased. At the same time, I want to be able to control MY copyrighted materials.

There was a lot of controversy about TGP's skimming thumbnails (using copyrighted images for purposes other than intended), so selling my images without my permissions is okay, but skimming my thumbnail is not?

[andrej_NDC]

Originally posted by Greenguy
Think about what you said - why do TGP's, in general, convert so poorly?

they dont :) you just cant use the same marketing you use for other sources. Each traffic needs a different marketing, I can convert tgp/mgp traffic as good as SE traffic.

[Fonz]

Originally posted by andrej_NDC
I can convert tgp/mgp traffic as good as SE traffic.
Maybe you can write a tutorial about that then for Jim to use in the newsletter :D

[KCat]

Originally posted by BigJohn
If the book you wrote about public beaches included pictures that are copyrighted, then no... you can't sell it. But that's niether here nor there, your example isn't the same... A closer example would be shareware... you can use it and give it away, but you can't sell it.

If you start allowing TGP's to charge surfers in order to view a paysite's copyrighted pictures just because they're available for free, where does the line get drawn? Can someone then use my "free" images to start a paysite without using the gallery? The images have my URL, so would that be the same? What about images found on usenet, those are free too aren't they?

How about if someone uses the graphics from your TGP and builds their own? The images were shown in public, for free.... is that okay? Of course it isn't.

Yes, as a paysite owner, I would LOVE to have surfers come to my site who have credit cards and are known to have purchased. At the same time, I want to be able to control MY copyrighted materials.

There was a lot of controversy about TGP's skimming thumbnails (using copyrighted images for purposes other than intended), so selling my images without my permissions is okay, but skimming my thumbnail is not?

Are you saying that no affiliate content should ever be used as an upsell in a members area? What about AVS sites?

I can't understand why anyone would want freeloader traffic who either aren't 18 or don't have credit cards versus juicy member traffic.

[BigJohn]

Originally posted by KCat
Are you saying that no affiliate content should ever be used as an upsell in a members area? What about AVS sites?No, that's not what I'm saying.... there's a difference with a paysite using my content as an upsell... For one thing, the surfer is paying for content that the site shot or purchased and I would suspect that ratio of content that you own/lease far outweighs the amount of gallery content you are using for the upsell.

I can't understand why anyone would want freeloader traffic who either aren't 18 or don't have credit cards versus juicy member traffic. It's not that I want freeloader traffic, although all traffic is useful for something, and I'd LOVE to have a qualified purchaser verses a freeloader.

Now, tell me why you think it's okay to sell someone elses copyrighted images without permission?

[KCat]

Originally posted by BigJohn
Now, tell me why you think it's okay to sell someone elses copyrighted images without permission?

Selling copyrighted images is stealing. I don't see where I said that at all. As someone who shoots her own content, you can be assured that content theft is important to me.

But charging to turn off a skim should be sending MORE traffic to your galleries, rather than sending them to trade partners. I don't see how this is any different than using affiliate content from within a members area or AVS.

And at the end of the day, if you didn't want your galleries listed on a site that had some kind of subscription fee, you wouldn't submit there. End of story.

[andrej_NDC]

Originally posted by Fonz
Maybe you can write a tutorial about that then for Jim to use in the newsletter :D

hmm, maybe I could, isnt a problem for me

[Greenguy]

Originally posted by andrej_NDC
they dont :) you just cant use the same marketing you use for other sources. Each traffic needs a different marketing, I can convert tgp/mgp traffic as good as SE traffic. You're you're telling me that 50k in hits to a gallery is the same as 50K in hits to a free site, as well as 50K in hits to a keywor or keywords in a SE?

Please, write the article & share with the rest of us :)

[DangerDave]

Originally posted by andrej_NDC

That's 3!

DD

[andrej_NDC]

Originally posted by Greenguy
You're you're telling me that 50k in hits to a gallery is the same as 50K in hits to a free site, as well as 50K in hits to a keywor or keywords in a SE?

no, I say, 50k hits sent to a sponsor from a gallery, free site and SEs can convert the same.

[BigJohn]

Originally posted by KCat
Selling copyrighted images is stealing. I don't see where I said that at all. As someone who shoots her own content, you can be assured that content theft is important to me. Glad to hear that KCat, and sorry if I read more into your last statement than was there.

But charging to turn off a skim should be sending MORE traffic to your galleries, rather than sending them to trade partners. I don't see how this is any different than using affiliate content from within a members area or AVS. The difference is that if you are an affiliate, you are a partner of sorts. You are offering YOUR member (which you attracted with YOUR content) a chance to look at something different. If your paysite or AVS ONLY contained gallery images from other people sites and you don't have permission, then you are charging for copyrighted images and that is what's illegal.

Once you allow someone to use your images on a site that charges to turn off skim you are opening the door for someone to set their skim to 85, 90 or even 100 percent, which virtually guarantees that NOBODY will see your gallery unless they pay. A little wording on the front end to entice purchases before they even get inside and poof... now YOUR content is being SOLD. Granted, your link might still remain on the gallery and you might get sales off of it, but now that you've allowed someone to sell access to your content the doors are wide open for abuse. How far is it from this, to someone deciding that it's okay to use your images they found in a newsgroup, afterall... they have your URL stamped on them so someone could visit your site and purchase?

And at the end of the day, if you didn't want your galleries listed on a site that had some kind of subscription fee, you wouldn't submit there. End of story. It's true, I don't have to submit my galleries but that doesn't stop someone from using them.... submit to al4a and see how many different TGPs you end up on.

[andrej_NDC]

Originally posted by DangerDave
That's 3!

DD

what are you working on? beside free sites

[Greenguy]

Originally posted by andrej_NDC
no, I say, 50k hits sent to a sponsor from a gallery, free site and SEs can convert the same. While that is probably true, once you factor in bandwidth - which will be high for the gallery, middle for the free site & low for the SE - then you loose your argument :)

And I still think the SE traffic would convert the best out of all 3 :D

[Tommy]

Originally posted by BigJohn

It's true, I don't have to submit my galleries but that doesn't stop someone from using them.... submit to al4a and see how many different TGPs you end up on.

then put in a htaacces file to block those other tgps

Thats crazy !!!!
as far as traffic is concerned the more the merrier

nobody is stealing any images

if you make a gallery and put images on your gallery that are free
you cant bitch about people linking to it or about free loaders

look at all the spidered search engines they dont ask your permission to link to your stuff

if your worried about your content getting used for free then dont put it on gallerys

[DangerDave]

andrej,

I dont see where what I am working on has any bearing on anything...

My comment was aimed at the 3 sweeping statments you have made in the last few days.

http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11510
Each traffic needs a different marketing, I can convert tgp/mgp traffic as good as SE traffic.
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11572
NOT TRUE, how can it be a fault of the sponsor? Chargeback is not a way the member shows he is not satisfied.
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10954
why when people have 1:500 with ND or any other sponsor who counts 2nd page clicks, they think they have a good ratio and complain about 1:2000 with ccbill? Its the SAME!

All of which differ vastly from current mainstream thinking and practice.

I too would like to know your secret

DD

[DangerDave]

Originally posted by Tommy
then put in a htaacces file to block those other tgps

Thats crazy !!!!
as far as traffic is concerned the more the merrier

nobody is stealing any images

if you make a gallery and put images on your gallery that are free
you cant bitch about people linking to it or about free loaders

Tommy,

That is what I do :) I redirect every thieving TGP that links my galleries.. (and it's not to a nice place)!

We continually reinforce the fact to new people that traffic is not traffic, and that targetting and marketing is important.


I don't see why it differs for TGP galls?

When I build a gall I submit it to certain places only and I dont want 1400 free-loading TGPs linking too it.

Apart from the fact it is MY work and these fucks do nothing but traffic off other peoples efforts, the majority of their traffic is CJ'd free loading crap 16 yr olds..

DD

[Tommy]

but why is the tgp considered "thieving"
you put the stuff out there
so really when you break it down
your mad because a tgp sent prospective customers to your website ?? and thats thieving

and why are you mad at the surfers they are completly clueless and have no fault in this what so ever

[andrej_NDC]

Originally posted by DangerDave
All of which differ vastly from current mainstream thinking and practice.

I too would like to know your secret

DD

Dave,

Im not an average webmaster, and I know what are the opinions of most webmasters, Im here to tell them, they everything can be better for them than it actually is. Nobody else does. :) I dealt with tgp, mgp, avs, se, LL and mailer traffic(my own opt-in lists) for the last years. I know that each surfer needs smt else. The tgp/mgp guys are most tough, but when you know what they want, how to get them to subscribe, its a gold mine, because the traffic from this sources is huge. With some good paid spots you can reach easily 1M of traffic each day. Its not a problem to make a gallery with 15-25% CTR for me and still have a good ratio, I dont use any blind links. But as for second page clicks, everything worse than 1:300 is bad, because when you get the people to visit the paysite and then to go even to the 2nd page, which is mostly pre-filled join page, and you dont get a sale from 300 people, then smt is wrong with the join page. A good join page is at least 50% of the success but not enough sponsors get it. Im promoting only sites with good theme, high quality content, good tours and good join page. There are not as many out there, and mostly smaller sized or middle companies own them. Sometimes I wonder what crap some top companies produce, but people still keep promoting them just because of the fact, they are famous. And then complain that they dont convert. That was all what I tried to say in the previous threads. :)))

relax and take it easy :)


oh and BTW, Jim: as for the hosting, yes, you have a bigger bill from tgp/mgp traffic, but you can also make much more sales and when you do high volume, 10-20-30Tb, the price per GB is few cents, so when you compare that to other traffic, there is not such difference, 5-10% of the income should be hosting expenses.

[kristian]

Originally posted by Tommy
but why is the tgp considered "thieving"
you put the stuff out there
so really when you break it down
your mad because a tgp sent prospective customers to your website ?? and thats thieving

and why are you mad at the surfers they are completly clueless and have no fault in this what so ever

I agree with Tommy, but think I can see DD's point. I think DD means that he's filtered his tgp traffic, via submitting to the relevant sites, and resents tgp-linkers diluting his filtering system (with what he considers to be crappy cj traffic).

But I'm with Tommy on this. Traffic is traffic. The more the merrier. Mass traffic is not as good as filtered traffic but, given hosting prices, it is still better to have more of it than less.

I'd also agree with Andrej's statment about tgp converting as good as SE. It depends on what and how you promote, and requires tgp filtering, but it can be done...

[BigJohn]

Originally posted by Tommy
then put in a htaacces file to block those other tgps

Thats crazy !!!!
as far as traffic is concerned the more the merrier

nobody is stealing any images

if you make a gallery and put images on your gallery that are free
you cant bitch about people linking to it or about free loaders

look at all the spidered search engines they dont ask your permission to link to your stuff

if your worried about your content getting used for free then dont put it on gallerys We're not talking about TGPs showing galleries, we're talking about the notion of a TGP putting up a paysite front end and CHARGING to see galleries filled with copyrighted images. Are you saying that this is okay?

[DangerDave]

Originally posted by Tommy
but why is the tgp considered "thieving"
you put the stuff out there
so really when you break it down
your mad because a tgp sent prospective customers to your website ?? and thats thieving

and why are you mad at the surfers they are completly clueless and have no fault in this what so ever

Tommy,

Your site is popular ? why?

Because of the "quality" of the content(links) that you supply to your surfers.. yes?

Well if the little newbie that got told to build a CJ TGP as their first site.. use my galleries to "enhance" his site.. that is him using my work to make himself money. I deliberately chose NOT to submit to him but he "takes" my gallery and uses it.. That IMO is thieving!


I don't put my stuff out there.. I put it in certain places only, and those places are based on my (now somewhat lengthy)experience, trials, and tests.


Tommy, if they actually sent customers...... why would I redirect them?? Even I am not that stupid. :D

When my galls get picked up by some "big taffic" TGP and I see a spike in hits and BW... I also look at sales and if sales are unchanged.. then the assumption can be safely made that that traffic is NOT bringing me sales. Therefore I don't want that traffic.


I never said I was "mad" at surfers.. it is the thieving TGP owners I don't like.

DD

[andrej_NDC]

Originally posted by BigJohn
We're not talking about TGPs showing galleries, we're talking about the notion of a TGP putting up a paysite front end and CHARGING to see galleries filled with copyrighted images. Are you saying that this is okay?

its pretty common, webmasters already use sponsor free content to create AVS sites and thats the same, not? They earn money from the AVS sale(sponsor doesnt) and then also on sponsor upsells. Yes, maybe not all sponsors allow this, but most of them do.

[BigJohn]

Originally posted by DangerDave
Well if the little newbie that got told to build a CJ TGP as their first site.. use my galleries to "enhance" his site.. that is him using my work to make himself money. I deliberately chose NOT to submit to him but he "takes" my gallery and uses it.. That IMO is thieving!
Now go the next step.... The TGP owner decides to set his skim at 85, 90 or 100% and then charges the surfer a membership fee to have the skim turned off so they can see your gallery.

[Tommy]

Originally posted by BigJohn
We're not talking about TGPs showing galleries, we're talking about the notion of a TGP putting up a paysite front end and CHARGING to see galleries filled with copyrighted images. Are you saying that this is okay?

yes that is ok!!!!

the images are on your domain, so what difference does any copyright make


if you dont like it...... then dont submit it
either way your copyright has no bearing on this sitation

[DangerDave]

Sorry bigJohn,

I think we have two threads going on here.. ;)

Gallery "borrowing/thieving"

and

Charge for non-skim


I was discussing the former.

DD

[Tommy]

we are talking about charging for a non skim

no ??

[BigJohn]

Originally posted by andrej_NDC
its pretty common, webmasters already use sponsor free content to create AVS sites and thats the same, not? They earn money from the AVS sale(sponsor doesnt) and then also on sponsor upsells. Yes, maybe not all sponsors allow this, but most of them do. If the sponsor allows it then the affiliate has permission and there is no copyright violation. This is about control of copyrighted images. If I allow anybody and everybody to post my images and charge for them, then my copyright is worthless.

[Tommy]

but nobody is posting your images

I think you dont understand what is going on here

to bad...... it was starting to turn in to a fun thread

[andrej_NDC]

Originally posted by BigJohn
If the sponsor allows it then the affiliate has permission and there is no copyright violation. This is about control of copyrighted images. If I allow anybody and everybody to post my images and charge for them, then my copyright is worthless.

the more people push you, even from an AVS site the better. If you have a picture or movie paysite, you give just a few preview pics and trailers to the affiliates, so the surfer, even if he already paid for the AVS access has to join your site to see the full scene/movie. So the copyright is not worhless, just dont give too much free content to affiliates.

[BigJohn]

Originally posted by andrej_NDC
the more people push you, even from an AVS site the better. If you have a picture or movie paysite, you give just a few preview pics and trailers to the affiliates, so the surfer, even if he already paid for the AVS access has to join your site to see the full scene/movie. So the copyright is not worhless, just dont give too much free content to affiliates. I agree with you andrej, I don't mind as long as I have control over who's selling access to it and for what reason. Trust me, I LOVE qualified traffic over the freeloaders!

I also don't have problems with someone trying to charge for non-skim vs skim as long as my content is available to see without having to pay.

Someone setting up a 95% skim, which pretty much insures that nobody will see my gallery unless they pay, is something I am against. Just the same as I'm not for somebody setting up a paysite front end and using my galleries as the main content without my permission.

It would seem that there is at least 1 other conversation going on in this thread, so this is about paying to get no skim on a tgp :D

[BigJohn]

Originally posted by Tommy
but nobody is posting your images

I think you dont understand what is going on here

to bad...... it was starting to turn in to a fun thread True, nobody has my images physically on their server, and potentially, I am the submitter.

My ears and mind are open and I'll be the first to admit that I don't know everything. I'm here to learn as well as post my opinions so if there's something I'm not getting, feel free to explain it.

From my point of view, what I see it this...

I understand you to say that it's okay to charge a fee on a TGP so the surfer doesn't get skimmed.

I agree, as long as my galleries can still be seen with regularity (not skimmed at 90%) without having to pay.

I understand you to say that since the galleries are in the open and on my server that it's okay for someone to sell access to them and not let them be seen otherwise from their site because they are public.

I don't agree with this. This would be like saying that it's okay to create a paysite where the members area loaded tommys-bookmarks into a frame or directed the surfer directly to the site.

I understand you to say that because I've posted them in a public space that there is no copyright violation.

I'm not sure on this one anymore. If the TGP opens up my gallery and the URL in the browser address bar is the url of my site then copyright issues may not come into play... What I'm not sure of is somebody selling access to that same url. I'm feeling that once money is exchanged then they are profiting from my work and therefore copyright may apply.

[KCat]

Originally posted by BigJohn
Glad to hear that KCat, and sorry if I read more into your last statement than was there.

No problem, babe! This is a great thread. Lots of interesting discussions going on.

My affiliate content perspective is sort of a different beast since with any affiliate program, it's your rules as to how the content can be used. Whether skimming TGPs aren't allowed or no more than 20 pics inside an AVS site etc. etc. Your content, your rules.

Galleries, on the other hand, are usually build to the rules specified by the TGP owner (12 pics? 15? no video stills? no nasty dollars? etc.).

Assuming the traffic & conversions are the same, what's better - charging for the webmaster for a partner account or charging the surfer to view the galleries?

[Wazza]

The tgp is only charging for access to their database or access to a modified version - so I don't see how there could be a copyright issue.

I'd take 1000 CC verified hits over 100K cj victims any second of the day. Just ask any sponsor what their CC verified email lists are worth to them. It's alot!

[BigJohn]

Originally posted by KCat
No problem, babe! This is a great thread. Lots of interesting discussions going on.

My affiliate content perspective is sort of a different beast since with any affiliate program, it's your rules as to how the content can be used. Whether skimming TGPs aren't allowed or no more than 20 pics inside an AVS site etc. etc. Your content, your rules.

Galleries, on the other hand, are usually build to the rules specified by the TGP owner (12 pics? 15? no video stills? no nasty dollars? etc.).

Assuming the traffic & conversions are the same, what's better - charging for the webmaster for a partner account or charging the surfer to view the galleries? There's a difference between webmasters paying for partner accounts and a surfer paying to view.... The webmaster either owns or has permission to submit the galleries and the TGP owner has the right to attempt to reduce the scammers and cheaters.

The TGP owner doesn't own the content so how can they charge to view it.

Look at this another way, what if somebody (affiliate or not) took every single one of your galleries that you've ever submitted or created and opened a paysite with it? They get 20.00 (or whatever) for a membership and end up with 100 members a month for a cool $2000.00 a month. You get nothing of this, except the possibility that someone will sign up from one of the galleries. Remember, you'll also be paying this guy 50% commission for any hosted galleries he uses. He's using your bandwidth and your content and charging the surfer, all without your knowledge or consent.

Maybe I'm not as open minded as I like to think I am, but I'm pretty sure this would piss me off.

[kristian]

I've only skimmed through the last couple of pages (excuse pun!), so excuse me if this is either idiotic or has already been discussed.

Selling the surfer on a paid version of a tgp might be achieved by splitting the site into two levels of quality; much like we already have low-band and high-band. Instead of selling the paid version based on it not fucking the surfer around, it could be sold on it containing more qaulity content for, say, a $5 a month "subscription"; subscription sounding a lot better than membership to a tgp surfer.

I think this would work best for MGPs or those tgps that offer both pics and movies.

On the paid version, you could offer higher qaulity movies, longer movies.

Webmasters would pay for submit accounts because the traffic has already used CCs and is thus high quality. Such submitters would, due to the privalegde, be more than willing to submit the required quality galleries.

I think this has many possibilities.

[Greenguy]

You know what I think? I think you're all fucked in the head! We're 10 minutes form the fucking fun park & you want to go home!

Sorry about that, but this thread does make me giggle a bit :)

1st off, back in the day when I was submitting to AL4A, I'd notice that a lot of other TGP's would have my gallery listed the next day. For the most part, my thinking was that I didn't ask them to link to me, so why no just redirect them via htaccess - which I did to LOR :)

AL4A & Ampland are really good examples of what not to do when "borrowing" galleries, because there are so many sites out that that just copy & paste their pages & put them online.

But, when each & every one of us started out, we did go out on the web & look for sites/galleries to list, so we're all guilty of "borrowing" links/galleries to get our sites going.

As far as the skim thing, it's actually not that bad of an idea, but it may fall into the "AVS" category as far as CC processing is concerned.

Of course, TGP2 & LinkList2 were "good ideas" as well, just that they came about 5 years too late :D

The only way that these ideas would work is if EVERYONE did them at the same time. I wouldn't do it, even if 90% of the Link Lists out there put it into place. Why? Because those that didn't want to pay for the access to the links would then come to me & surf them for free - more traffic for me, more traffic for my links - everyone is happy :D

Big TGP's probably wouldn't do it either, mostly because the big names don't have to skim & put a quality non-CJ site on line already. So if you were to do this, what's going to convince the surfer to pay to see your non-blind links when they can see Ampland's for free?

|buddy|

[Tommy]

I use to list gallerys on tommys bookmarks that had a htaccess in it
that would only allow traffic from tommys to see the gallery
this way when the tgps copyed my listings their traffic would end up right at tommys bookmarks

the tgps could charge a service charge for a lot of reasons.
no ads, bandwith, cost of doing reveiws

[RawAlex]

I think trying to charge the end surfer for something he can get for free almost any other place is just not a good business model. It will only drive people to other TGPs that don't "skim" (nice way of saying circle jerking). Surfers know the trick, and as someone mentioned before, they will go as far as to look at the page source to get around the skim - or they will move on.

Places like thehun don't skim - they don't have to. Their viewership numbers keep going up, you should take that as a lmajor indicator of how surfers feel.

Charging them to get rid of misdirection and dishonesty is really like giving someone a virus and charging for the cure.

Alex

[Sean416]

I think the absolute best you could do is get an email from surfers who want to surf a non-skim thumb TGP then from there you could send newsletters to them pushing certain sites. Or you could just do it for a bit then once the list is long enough sell it to someone. |jester|

[Tommy]

like i said before

there are newspapers that are free and newspapers that charge 50 cents

if the gallerys were really good and maybe there were no ads on the site

everyone pays for cable even though there is welfare tv
and the same with radio the satialate radio charges and its main benfit is that it has no ads

[Greenguy]

Galleries without ads? They have those already - they're called PaySites :D

And stop comparing apples to oranges:

TV without cable gets you 6 channels? Cable gets you 300? If you turned on the TV without cable & got 300 stations, then of course, why pay?

Local radio has 30 stations? (if that) XM has 150? (as well as Opie & Anthony) If there were commercial free statuon on local radio, then there'd be no need for XM.

Free newspapers are basically "free" because of the amount of ads or they are just starting up - or they are nothing but ads (Auto Trader & whatnot) Buffalo News has ads, yet it charges, has timely news & is just the best thing there is around here. If there was a feree version of the Buffalo News as well as a paid version that had the same articles, which one would your read?

JoeBlow.com charging $5 a month for access to galleries & sites that you, me, Ampland, The Hun, etc. offer for free? Come On!

Love ya :D

[lassiter]

Originally posted by RawAlex
I think trying to charge the end surfer for something he can get for free almost any other place is just not a good business model. It will only drive people to other TGPs that don't "skim" (nice way of saying circle jerking).

OK, first, I agree with Alex about this.

But second, no I don't think charging a fee is "stealing" or violating copyright. The gallery is obviously going to be freely available on other "free" TGPs or to anyone who knows the URL.
What the surfer is (theoretically) paying for is the TGP owner's value-added convenience of providing the links in an easy-to-find format.

Rand McNally doesn't "own" the interstate highway system either, but people will pay for maps that correlate physical data into an easy-to-use and convenient format. It's the effort put into the organizing and correlating the data that is being charged for here, not the "right" to see the gallery itself - a gallery that in fact is still freely accessible to the surfer who knows where to look.

But again, the argument is moot since I agree that the surfers are gonna go where the data is already organized and presented for free, rather than paying for it, just like a for-pay search engine is not gonna compete with Google, no matter how good it might otherwise be.

[BigJohn]

Originally posted by lassiter
OK, first, I agree with Alex about this.

But second, no I don't think charging a fee is "stealing" or violating copyright. The gallery is obviously going to be freely available on other "free" TGPs or to anyone who knows the URL. Shareware is available for free, but you can't sell it. Microsoft Media player is downloadable for free, but you can't sell that either. Just because copyrighted material is freely available doesn't mean someone who doesn't own it can sell it. Copyright is about the RIGHTS of the owner to decide if and how their owned material can be used. If I take a picture and allow company A to use it for free, that doesn't mean that everyone can use it for free.

Rand McNally doesn't "own" the interstate highway system either, but people will pay for maps that correlate physical data into an easy-to-use and convenient format. It's the effort put into the organizing and correlating the data that is being charged for here, not the "right" to see the gallery itself - a gallery that in fact is still freely accessible to the surfer who knows where to look. This isn't a good analogy for several reasons:
1. Rand McNalley did the physical work to create the maps from non copyrighted information. They are selling their work and images. Their maps are also copyrighted... try selling access to their map pages and see how long it takes for them to slap you with a C&D.
2. Roads aren't copyrighted.
3. Purchasing a map to see roads (or links) is not the same as purchasing access to use the roads (or links). Try standing on the freeway and selling access for people to drive on it or use an off ramp. With any luck you'll make enough to buy some cigarettes from your cellmate at the county jail.

But again, the argument is moot since I agree that the surfers are gonna go where the data is already organized and presented for free, rather than paying for it, just like a for-pay search engine is not gonna compete with Google, no matter how good it might otherwise be. I agree, nobody is going to want to pay to access a TGP when there are so many great places like greenguy, tommys, the hun, etc, to get it for free.

[lassiter]

Originally posted by BigJohn
Just because copyrighted material is freely available doesn't mean someone who doesn't own it can sell it. Copyright is about the RIGHTS of the owner to decide if and how their owned material can be used.

My point was they aren't selling or reselling the content. They are selling their collating and indexing capability.
Again, a search engine would be a better comparison. And as you imply, in strict terms, copyright should apply to Google's indexing of millions of web sites they do not own, since copyright protection exists independently of whether or not someone is profiting monetarily. But since they are neither providing nor prohibiting anyone's access to a (free) gallery that already exists on the web for public viewing, but instead are offering a search and indexing service for the convenience of the surfer, I suspect their legal ass is covered. I know there have been legal issues over their caching of content on their own servers, which amounts to copying/duplication of actual content without permission, but that's a different issue entirely.

Even if Google or Yahoo went to a "pay $5.00 month to not see ads" format, the money would be for their value-added indexing service, not for "access" to any of the sites listed, since Google would have no control over actual surfer access to any indexed sites.

But even if I'm wrong about this (and I very well may be, I freely admit), presumably this theoretical for-pay TGP would be using galleries voluntarily submitted to it by webmasters, so permission for indexing of the material through the TGP would be implied automatically, no?

[bret]

oh wow.

i dont think i have ever laughed so hard as i was reading this thread.

here are a bunch of people putting down an idea because the person is trying to charge someone for something they can essentially get for free.

EVERY single person that commented on this runs a "porn site" that links to / gives away FREE porn with the expectation of selling that porn (in one way or another) to someone.

by all of your logic the pay sites don't work because people can get the porn for free... so why are you pushing pay sites then? sounds like a total contradiction in logic to me. alot of you need to seriously re-think you positions.

so many people in this business are so "set in their ways" that is why this industry is going to shit, anyone who tries to be innovative gets shot down. no one wants to help the person "thinking outside the box", in fact, its quite the contrary. when someone comes up with a new idea people won't work with that person, they shoot down their idea and do whatever they can to make sure the idea fails.

you people are so stuck on your stupid "rules" and "ways" you have no idea how much money you are missing out on. although you many not want to admit it, your days are numbered. your check regisiter and account are telling you the same thing, sooner or later you will have to come to terms with the facts.

Tommy, my hat is off to you sir. you stand alone as one of the few people that actually have a shot at weathering the storm. the rest of them won't be around much longer... it is enevitable.

[BigJohn]

If all the TGP does is to sell the ability to turn off skim AND their skim is such that a surfer has a high chance of seeing your gallery then there is nothing wrong with this. The user has a choice... view your gallery and take the chance of getting skimmed somewhere else or pay to see it every time you click. The access to the gallery is still free in this case.

Google charging to turn off ads would be doing exactly the same thing. Your link is still free, just as you intended it regardless of whether a surfer pays to have ads turned off. Google is constantly adding and removing links, I find it difficult to believe that if you requested that your site be removed from their listing that they wouldn't honor the request.

The problem that arises is that once you say it's okay for someone to use your content and bandwidth in a "charge for skimless" TGP, is not what the honest webmasters will do, it's what cheaters and abusers will do. What stops the TGP owner from setting the skim so high that there is virtually no chance of seeing your gallery unless the fee is paid or designing his TGP
to look like a paysite and "skimming" the thumbnails (which he now calls samples) directly to a join page that charges 9.95 for access to thousands of pictures and videos?

This "pay for skimless" tgp, running autogallery or something similar, is now using your bandwidth and content to build a paysite and profit off of your work. Do you feel this is an okay thing for someone to do?

By not executing your rights as copyright holder in the first place, you make it more difficult to enforce them at all.

[BigJohn]

Originally posted by bret
oh wow.

i dont think i have ever laughed so hard as i was reading this thread.

here are a bunch of people putting down an idea because the person is trying to charge someone for something they can essentially get for free.

EVERY single person that commented on this runs a "porn site" that links to / gives away FREE porn with the expectation of selling that porn (in one way or another) to someone.

by all of your logic the pay sites don't work because people can get the porn for free... so why are you pushing pay sites then? sounds like a total contradiction in logic to me. alot of you need to seriously re-think you positions.

so many people in this business are so "set in their ways" that is why this industry is going to shit, anyone who tries to be innovative gets shot down. no one wants to help the person "thinking outside the box", in fact, its quite the contrary. when someone comes up with a new idea people won't work with that person, they shoot down their idea and do whatever they can to make sure the idea fails.

you people are so stuck on your stupid "rules" and "ways" you have no idea how much money you are missing out on. although you many not want to admit it, your days are numbered. your check regisiter and account are telling you the same thing, sooner or later you will have to come to terms with the facts.

Tommy, my hat is off to you sir. you stand alone as one of the few people that actually have a shot at weathering the storm. the rest of them won't be around much longer... it is enevitable. Glad we could entertain you |jester|

[KCat]

Originally posted by bret
Tommy, my hat is off to you sir. you stand alone as one of the few people that actually have a shot at weathering the storm. the rest of them won't be around much longer... it is enevitable.

That's pretty harsh.

I think the ability to "weather the storm" has less to do with any one particular idea & more with having the drive to carry it to fruition.

Whether this kind of idea would be successful or not is irrelevant if no one has the balls to try it.

[Surfn]

Originally posted by KCat
That's pretty harsh.

I think the ability to "weather the storm" has less to do with any one particular idea & more with having the drive to carry it to fruition.

Whether this kind of idea would be successful or not is irrelevant if no one has the balls to try it. First bit of sense I've read since GG's last post in this thread. |bananna|

[bret]

Originally posted by KCat
That's pretty harsh.

I think the ability to "weather the storm" has less to do with any one particular idea & more with having the drive to carry it to fruition.

Whether this kind of idea would be successful or not is irrelevant if no one has the balls to try it.

I was not talking about this idea in particular. tommy is pretty open minded, to me, it seems he knows in order to survive he must evolve.

look, i dont really care either way what any of you do, keep going on with your beetleheaded ways, it will just leave more money for those left standing in the new generation.

[Greenguy]

Opinions are like assholes..... :D

You know how you can tell that you have a really good idea? You post it & no one pokes holes in it :)

[andrej_NDC]

Originally posted by Greenguy
You know how you can tell that you have a really good idea? You post it & no one pokes holes in it :)

most people dont have good ideas and therefore they dont believe any good ones. :) I dont say that this idea is good, to be honest I dont care, because Im not in tgp biz, but if most of the people think it wont work, maybe it will. :)

[Useless]

Well, as entertaining as it would be to come in here and insult everyone with words like 'stupid' and 'beetleheaded', I think I'll just jump into the debate instead.

I am typically fairly single-minded, but in this situation I tend to somewhat agree with both sides of the argument. I do think we should always be developing new ways to earn from our sites, but one does have to consider the fact that you are charging a fee to view a product owned by someone else. Does it harm the gallery owner? No, but that doesn't make it ethical. This really comes down to business ethics, doesn't it? Isn't that BigJohn's point? Ethics are funny things. You either get them, or you don't.

Would a TGP charging the no-skim fee make a certain amount of money? Probably. A lot of money? No. It would make money from new and inexperienced surfers. Maybe not enough to even make it worth the hassle. Mostly, I don't think it is a good idea to inform surfers that you are fucking with them in the first place. And you couldn't sell this package without telling them so. You may as well just put a link to the Hun or Ampland. 'Pay me $5 or go to these other sites and surf for free.' If the surfer found you via SE, they'll just click back to the SE. If they were tossed your way via someone else's skim, they can just close your window and click another link.

[Greenguy]

Originally posted by Useless Warrior
...You may as well just put a link to the Hun or Ampland. 'Pay me $5 or go to these other sites and surf for free.'.... That's my point too! :)

Now, if you got every TGP in the world to do this, then it'd work - but pigs ain't gonna fly anytime soon :D

TGP2 was a good idea....realized 4 years too late

LinkList2 was a good idea....realized 5 years too late

This is a good idea....realized 7 years too late :(

[lassiter]

Originally posted by Greenguy

You know how you can tell that you have a really good idea? You post it & no one pokes holes in it :)

Yep, 'cause everyone's too busy implementing the idea before the other guys do. |jester|

[urb]

Here's a good tip.

If you get a really good idea... don't go to the boards with it.

[Tommy]

I shouldnt post this but......ya know a long time ago
(I dont do it no more)
On Tommys
I use to redirect some of my misspelled type in traffic and some of my se traffic to a adult check entrance

I made a lot of fuckin money doin that and I mean a lot fuckin money
i had to look around on my computer and reupload the page
http://www.tommys-bookmarks.com/index1.html

you can see how old it is because it say 10 cats