Reviewers Recommend
My First Sex Teacher 88My First Sex Teacher 88 - review by Captain Jack
Starring: Kayla Paige, Skylar Snow, Rachael Cavalli, Armani Black [I] (2020s), Bunny Madison. Read review
All Forums > The Porn Pool > The Porn Pool Forum Page 643 > Deep inside Vivid Video
AuthorPost
Asmodeus
Lord of Lust


az-mo-day-us
6338 Posts
10/01
Posted - Mar 13 2005 : 2:24PM
The Porn King
By Brett Pulley and Forbes.com

NEW YORK - "Sex is a very powerful thing."

As a guy who has spent much of his life around the porn industry, Steven Hirsch, the 43-year-old head of the adult film studio Vivid Entertainment, has no doubt uttered similar statements countless times before. Yet still, he speaks passionately about his closely held company, its growth prospects and the potential for an initial public offering in the coming months. "With all of the new technologies and the excitement surrounding them," Hirsch says, "this is the right time for us."

As one of adult entertainment's largest film studios, Vivid already generates an estimated $100 million a year in revenue, cranking out 60 films per year and selling them in video stores, hotel rooms, on cable systems and on the Internet. The company sells Vivid-branded merchandise, such as condoms, snowboards, apparel and sexually explicit comic books. And through a licensing deal with Ark Restaurants, the company just opened its first night club, Vivid, inside The Venetian hotel and casino in Las Vegas.

"We're very interested in licensing our brand,'' says Hirsch, who is working on other deals to paste the Vivid name on a wide range of items, from nipple pasties for exotic dancers to aftermarket rims for cars and makeup for women.

Vivid is already a sex industry power. All of the more than 1,500 films in Vivid's library can be accessed on the Internet, at a cost of $25 per month. About 30% of the titles found in the adult video section of stores in the U.S. are Vivid productions. And Hirsch's stable of so-called "Vivid Girls," with names like Sunrise Adams and Tawny Roberts, work under exclusive long-term deals, much like those used decades ago by the Hollywood studios to keep stars securely in-house and off-limits to competitors. Vivid also has an exclusive distribution deal with one of the biggest stars in the business, Jenna Jameson, who co-produces some of her own films in conjunction with the company.

"There are plenty of successful people in adult video business," says Paul Fishbein, president of Adult Video News. "But in terms of the video market and the mainstreaming of the industry, Vivid is the top. They have really led the industry into the mainstream."

Now Hirsch, whose own father in 1975 moved the family from Ohio to southern California to launch his own adult video distribution company, is poised to reign over the adult entertainment business. When the young Hirsch and a partner, David James, launched their own studio in 1984, they redefined the business by introducing the contract sex performers (they've had only a few men under contract over the years) and designing glossy, tasteful video packaging that was tame enough to get big retailers like Virgin and Tower to stock the tapes on their shelves.

Hirsch already pocketed $30 million in 2001 when he sold his hardcore cable channels The Hot Network, Vivid TV and The Hot Zone to Playboy Enterprises for about $90 million. Vivid had purchased The Hot Network just two years earlier for $10 million, turned it into the three channels and built distribution by convincing mainstream carriers such as News Corporation's Direct TV and the former AT&T Broadband, now a unit of Comcast, to begin carrying movies depicting explicit sex. Before then, hotels and cable and satellite distributors showed only nudity and simulated sex in their video offerings. Hirsch, who controls 33% of Vivid's equity, split the proceeds of the sale with two partners.

Vivid films cost between $40,000 and $200,000 each and take anywhere from three days to two weeks to shoot. Most of them are done at the company's headquarters and studio, located in the so-called capital of porn, the San Fernando Valley. Vivid employs about 100 people, and on-screen talent is by far the biggest cost. Each film uses one of the 10 Vivid Girls currently under contract. They each earn between $80,000 and $750,000 annually. Additionally four or five noncontract actors and actresses are also needed for each film.

Says Hirsch: "It's still a wild, wild West business."

Hirsh projects that the growth of video on demand, high definition and wireless devices will be a boon to his business. Currently, about $25 million comes from online sales annually, but Hirsch says that number will more than triple over the next several years. The company is already providing erotic games and video clips to wireless phone users, but so far that business provides just $10 million in annual revenue. However, once age and access issues are worked out in the U.S. and other countries, Hirsch predicts that wireless "will be a big business.''

This all has Hirsch considering taking Vivid public, joining other adult entertainment companies such as Playboy Enterprises and New Frontier, which have already enticed public investors into the erotica industry. Vivid considered an IPO in 2001 but backed out after the market stalled. Although Hirsch now says "the time may be right," he has yet to retain a banker and officially begin the process.

Vivid's two largest U.S. competitors are Wicked Pictures and Digital Playground, but Private Media Group, a worldwide distributor of films based in Spain, is the only adult video company traded publicly. Since its Nasdaq debut in December 1997, shares in the company have soared a split-adjusted 268%.

Fishbein, of Adult Video News, notes that other competitors have attempted to go public but failed. But, he says, "If anybody can do it, Vivid can do it. They are the one company that has branded itself to the consumer world. People who have not even seen an adult video have heard of Vivid and Jenna Jameson."

Edited by - Asmodeus on Mar 13 2005

Grouper
Member

106 Posts
9/04
Posted - Mar 13 2005 : 3:39PM
Somebody actually does buy their stuff? Who? Why? Where? What for?
MASAMUNE
Senior Member

1452 Posts
12/04
Posted - Mar 13 2005 : 5:02PM
i think they make most of their revenue by selling to institutions like cable companies and hotels

vodka tonic
coolest cucumber

who
1243 Posts
11/02
Posted - Mar 13 2005 : 5:10PM
I do. Because it turns me on. At a retailer of my choice. To masturbate.
TheGman
Member

23 Posts
1/05
Posted - Mar 13 2005 : 5:14PM
agree

and I really don't see wireless playing a big role in the industry. who the heck is gonna want to watch it on their cell phone ?

wireless is only good for audio and communications.

 
DeeDee
Member

Hamburg, Germany
289 Posts
10/04
Posted - Mar 13 2005 : 11:48PM
Then again, who needs all those silly ringtones?

Seems like there are opportunities to make money you and I aren't aware of...

Asmodeus
Lord of Lust

az-mo-day-us
6338 Posts
10/01
Posted - Mar 14 2005 : 1:53AM
Alot of folks make fun of Vivid and keep ragging on them for making lousy porn but as the article above clearly illustrates they are the ones getting the last laugh with their wealthy bank accounts.
Ramsey
Senior Member

Trina Michaels fan
10332 Posts
10/02
Posted - Mar 14 2005 : 4:59AM
Yeah, wealthy bank accounts for ripping off pornfans with a flood of their crappy 4 hour comps.

Wealthy bank accounts doesn't mean they're making good products, it's like saying Britney Spears has talent just because she's making a lot of money.

Soul Sphere
Member

Norway
117 Posts
2/05
Posted - Mar 14 2005 : 12:10PM

I`m with Vodka Tonic on this one.I think Vivid make quality work, not everytime, but mostly.I`ve also seen a lot of these gonzo films lately, and I find most of them to be extremly boring.To me they are very acrobatic, and not very sexy.( blow bangs, dp`s, double anals,triple this and triple that )I know a lot of people like that, though, and I`m fine with that.But I would like to defend Vivid, because we are actually quite a few people that like what they do.
Ramsey
Senior Member

Trina Michaels fan
10332 Posts
10/02
Posted - Mar 14 2005 : 12:48PM
Can you define "quality"?

When I think quality I think John Stagliano or John Leslie, not Paul Thomas or Bud Lee.

Soul Sphere
Member

Norway
117 Posts
2/05
Posted - Mar 14 2005 : 1:27PM
Well, Ramsey, I cant be objective on this one.You even stated yourself; you like J Stagliano and J Leslie.You think their movies are quality work, like I think Paul Thomas`es movies are.It`s a subjective thing.I think Stagliano made some fine gonzo movies during his time as a director( if more gonzo directors could make movies like Stagliano did, only Jules Jordan comes pretty close, I think. )The thing is today, I think almost every gonzo label are just focusing on extreme stuff, like I said in my last post.The sex arent put in any context or any surroundings.It `s just like: " How old are you "? " I`m nineteen and soooo horny ". " Show me your body ". " Very nice, here`s 3 guys for ya ".And then they fuck for 25 minutes or something.I`ve seen so many movies like this, and to me they arent sexy.I dont think its quality work either.Anyone can make this kind of porn, imo.

With labels like Vivid it is different, or Wicked.Its almost everytime put in a context or a surrounding.I find it much more easy to relate to as well.Its like, well, this could happend to me.I often feel like this when I watch a Paul Thomas movie.Some of his movies also have a great plot.Watch; The 8th Sin, and you will know what I mean.

Last but not least:I think a lot of people bash Vivid, because they find their movies to be tame.Not for quality, but for not being extreme enough.I dont think that is strange, because the so called mainstream porn havent been more extreme than it is today.So the bashing hasent got anything to do with quality,actually imo.It`s like someone said earlier here, " you aint no star, because you havent been fucked in your ass ".It`s like greatness are being measured in the quantity of extremity.

MLyons
Senior Member

1617 Posts
8/02
Posted - Mar 14 2005 : 1:46PM
+1 for that.

I, too, suspect that most of the Vivid criticism is clearly divided along lines of taste alone.

That said, though, Vivid has a bad rep for truly horrible DVDs for a reason. They used to make truly horrible DVDs.

Moreover, they've exhibited some serious borderline contempt for the consumer as a reaction to any criticism in this vein. For that reason, I haven't watched anything that Vivid has done in a very very long time. I've enjoyed some of their work (Bobby Sox , Bad Wives , Debbie Does New Orleans --not bad movies.... on VHS), but I've NEVER enjoyed any of their work on DVD, and my experiences have been bad enough that I'm STILL reticent to even give them the benefit of the doubt.

So I'd like to know. Are they still butchering their movies on DVD? Are they still clinging to some ridiculous definition of multi-angle and sticking a lot of fluffy crap as extras? I've heard that the Masseusse had terrible picture quality? Is this still their status quo? I mean... I'm with ya on the desire for context, and a little less frat-boy brutality, but Vivid, in my limited experience, has never shown anything but an interest in making money by appealing to a broader audience--rather than making money by creating the best product possible.

Have things changed? I'm asking. Seriously...

Edited by - MLyons on 3/14/2005 1:46:56 PM

Ramsey
Senior Member

Trina Michaels fan
10332 Posts
10/02
Posted - Mar 14 2005 : 1:55PM
Of course it's all about taste and I know some people like couples-appeal movies more than gonzo but that doesn't change the fact that Vivid is just like Leisure Time when it comes to 4 hours comps. I spoke to some people who bought these so called foot-fetish comps from Vivid and they all felt ripped off because there's hardly any foot-fetish stuff in the comp, just girls being barefoot but no focus on the feet. That's false advertisement!
Soul Sphere
Member

Norway
117 Posts
2/05
Posted - Mar 14 2005 : 2:31PM

To MLyons:

Thanks for your compliment Your question:I`m actually quite a new fan to Vivids movies.So its hard for me to compare the ones I have seen to the older ones, which I understand you have seen.But I really dont understand all these complains about lights and the technical quality on Vivids dvd`s.I`m very pleased with the ones I have seen.Yesterday I saw Hard Candy with Dasha, and the lightning and technical quality was great.I agree on The Masseusse with Jenna.It was maybe a little to dark in terms of lights, but I somehow felt like it added a little something to it.Especially the scenes which were a little s/m oriented.Anyway if you really want to see a great Vivid movie, MLyons, watch; The 8th Sin, you`re missing out.Dasha is in that one as well.I would also like to add that some of the girls they have in their squad arent tame at all.Watch; Be With Me and Savanna Superstar, and you will know what I mean.Savanna Samson, Dasha( even though she isent with Vivid anynore ) and Kira Kener have made some really intense and nasty sex scenes through the years.
Its not all about romance and flowersex, you know.LOL.

To Ramsey:

I`ve never watched a Vivid compilation.I watch their feature films.Compilations are boring imo.So I cant comment on that.

vodka tonic
coolest cucumber

who
1243 Posts
11/02
Posted - Mar 14 2005 : 3:33PM
I'm a big Vivid fan, but I won't be a hypocrite. I agree 100 % with Ramsey about their shitty comps, right now it's a ratio of 10 comps or more for 1 movie, that's ridiculous and they recycle the same scenes over & over. Mercedez has more comps than features to her name.
Now, I'm so fucking tired of people like Grouper & lots of other members endlessly putting down Vivid. I ranted once & I won't do it twice, because it clearly is a waste of time, but believe it or not, this boring shit sells like crazy and lots of people love it. Different strokes for different folks, which I thought was a motto on ADT, but obviously not in this case. Can you believe not everybody is fascinated but anal & so-called "reality sex". Reality, my ass...I'd never invade a gonzo thread and say that "Cum in my eyes, not in my ass" is so fucking stupid, even though that is exactly what I think . I'd never interrupt a nice "Rough Anal Sex" thread where members praise the delights of a girl looking in pain and say "if you guys think you're not misogynous, you're seriously self-delusional", even though that is exactly what I think . Oh, fuck, I'm ranting.
In regards to Vivid DVDs, I can understand that people like MLyons who have experienced older titles would be wary of investing in Vivid any longer, as I know what they're talking about. I can attest that there's been a tremendous effort in the last year to present all new Paul Thomas movies unedited, even though the film quality can still be hazardous on certain titles. Hi-Definition didn't arrange anything, some of his interior scenes are still very dark. Personally, I don't have a problem with it because I think it gives the scene a more intimate edge, but in the gonzo age of super-brightness and zit overexposure, it can be unsettling. His video work under "Chuck Lords" is top quality on the other hand ("Hard Candy" being indeed an excellent example). ChiChi LaRue & David Stanley movies also have excellent video quality. RubyRed submitted a review for "Sentenced", which is ChiChi's first movie shot on film, and apparently it had excellent lighting, so it seems the problem is inherent to Paul Thomas' film work.
 
Jacco All-Star Supporter
All-Star Member

"liable to deprave and corrupt"
2673 Posts
5/04
Posted - Mar 14 2005 : 4:18PM
Nice rant VT!

Luckily we have our features section to leisurely discuss what we like.
(Do you have any idea how much time it would cost you to invade every gonzo thread, believe me, you don't want to!)

Jacco

Janitor
Retired

Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service.
6409 Posts
11/99
Posted - Mar 14 2005 : 5:11PM
vodka, rant away. you speak for many.
I have a really hard time believing that figure.
dumblonde
Senior Member

2352 Posts
7/00
Posted - Mar 14 2005 : 5:23PM
I don't think I've ever seen a Vivid comp, and I don't doubt that they put out a lot of crap, but I've seen quite a few good movies from them. They weren't all vanilla either.
+1
arthur
Deactivated User

165 Posts
9/04
Posted - Mar 14 2005 : 5:47PM
I find that with Vivid, the box cover is often better than what's inside. Some of their movies I have found OK but most I have found pretty dull and boring.
Ramsey
Senior Member

Trina Michaels fan
10332 Posts
10/02
Posted - Mar 15 2005 : 12:17PM
Their comps are footage from their feature films actually so it makes no difference.
Actually the quality can be defined in different ways. For me shooting condom-only scenes is not quality, I hate it. It takes away the heat for me. Same for the contract girls they use who look too plastic with too much make up, I mean Mirage was perfect the way she was but then she went Vivid and we got Brianna Banks with a very different look, her freshness was all gone, she became a typical Vivid girl, the same goes for Sunrise Adams btw, too me that's also not quality. Last but not least would be the picture quality; I hate movies shot on 35MM unless it's done real well like Stagliano can (think Wild Goose Chase).
vodka tonic
coolest cucumber

who
1243 Posts
11/02
Posted - Mar 15 2005 : 12:31PM
There's a huge difference. Comps are sex out of context, that go without the sexual tension created by character and/or storyline development, and devoid of visual cohesion, since the clips are taken from movies by different directors. Whether you don't care about storyline is another matter entirely, but you can't say that a feature film and a comp is the same.
Your last criterium is indeed relevant in terms of quality, but the rest (bareback, 100% natural) is just personal preference.
Soul Sphere
Member

Norway
117 Posts
2/05
Posted - Mar 15 2005 : 12:38PM
So every movie shot with males using condoms are not quality???Every girl that have to much makeup and silicone boobs are not quality???What about Bridgette Kerkove?She`s been in many gonzo movies, most of her recent work are with typical gonzo labels.( Mayhem and so on )

What you are saying makes no sense to me.Because you are simply not describing quality.You are telling me what YOU like and dislike.Thats a huge difference.So as I see it, its a matter of taste really.

And there is a huge difference between a comp and feature.A comp is just scenes taken from different movies, so in other words, there are no context.

Ramsey
Senior Member

Trina Michaels fan
10332 Posts
10/02
Posted - Mar 15 2005 : 12:57PM
Let me explain my post and how I meant it:
It's all written from my point of view, I'm not saying that's the standard of quality.
Planaria
Member

Miami
13 Posts
2/05
Posted - Mar 15 2005 : 1:52PM
I feel Vivid does what it attempts to do very well. The reason Vivid always gets some heat on ADT is because it is not marketed towards ADTers. Vivid shoots sex that isn't to extreme because it's for the "everyman". Their movies are for viewers who buy 1 or 2 videos a year, not people who watch 40. Their mass appeal will keep them as a profitable giant for a long time.

A side note I think Hustler is becoming much like Vivid with their diversification.

Kperv
The Cuddler

*struck
(She slipped)

1818 Posts
1/04
Posted - Mar 15 2005 : 1:59PM
That does seem to be the case quite often.
For me though it is the quality of their DVDs that's the problem.

The last Vivid DVD I got was Rearview Kobe .
A compilation of terrific scenes with Kobe looking effin' gorgeous.
The guys were all in shape and most of them not bad looking at all. They even looked like they enjoyed having sex with this particular woman: getting in close, looking into her eyes, even sneaking in the odd kiss.
Her lovely feet, bare for most of the time, got a fair amount of camera time and even a little oral attention.
Her impossibly tight pooper got lots of intense loving in every scene, with Kobe looking like her head was about to explode (in a good way).
Several scenes were blessedly free from jerk-to-pop.

What was the problem? I'll tell you: Awful grainy picture. Piss poor DVD transfer. And, as a minor point, a DVD menu system designed by a chimp with an attention deficit.

Seeing the incredible job Arrow did with their DVD transfer of the 25 year old Candy Stripers , makes Vivid look like a bunch of amateurs.

'Vivid' is certainly not the word I'd use to describe their picture quality.

Sorry 'bout the rant, but it ticks me off when a company has products with so much potential, and they repeatedly screw things up.

 
Jacco All-Star Supporter
All-Star Member

"liable to deprave and corrupt"
2673 Posts
5/04
Posted - Mar 15 2005 : 2:12PM
It's probably already higher than that. It is very big in Europe (where the mobile industry is way ahead of the US), in the UK you pay about 1 GBP ($2) for a download of a short porn clip and most users (young males) get a new one several times a week. In the Netherlands a musicvideo is currently 2 Euro or more.
And I wouldn't be surprised if Vivid was one of the main providers of the content.

Jacco

vodka tonic
coolest cucumber

who
1243 Posts
11/02
Posted - Mar 15 2005 : 2:49PM
Kperv, I cannot dispute your point as I've experienced it those horrible transfers myself. As I said, there has been a big effort in terms of picture quality this last year, and you're safe with LaRue, Stanley & Chuck Lords productions. I think now they shoot their movies with DVD in mind and that's probably why the pic quality improved so much (& also why Paul Thomas are finally released unedited). As for DVD authoring, yep, there's room for improvement, the most annoying of course being those unending sex ads at the beginning of each DVD. Save for those rare exceptions, multi-angles are still as useless as before. On the plus side, all 5 bonus clips are now complete from foreplay to money shot, with name of performer, director & movie, with 3 to all of those clips dedicated to the cover girl. The BTS have also vastly improved.
Redish All-Star Supporter
Poetic Moderator

Long and Cursive road to the Ivory Pagoda in the province of Loraine
4076 Posts
12/03
Posted - Mar 15 2005 : 9:18PM
This is the point that is missed here I think.



Jump To: