I agree that it isn't nice, but caveat emptor could describe the business practices of a lot of porn companies.

[Link]

What is really misleading is on the front cover there is wording that the movie is directed by someone.

[Link]

I don´t know why a lot (almost all ?) companies don´t have a compilation sticker on their covers. I hate it too if i accidentally buy a comp. For some reason i never know which movies of Seymore Butts are comps and which are not

Cube

[Link]

Too bad that i (and maybe a lot of other collectors) hardly get to watch what we own ... but that´s another story.

Cube

Edited by - cubesnake on 12/9/2006 11:45:44 AM

[Link]

We shouldn't have to check anything, but over time we all develop little tricks to help us navigate the porn minefield.

[Link]

Hope this helps,

Stuart

[Link]

Why not mix your re-purposed scenes as "DVD bonus" material (like many "major" studios are doing) along with your new releases?
IMHO, releasing compilations of recent scenes side-by-side with new releases, without properly identifying them as comps, is not only deceptive, but intended to be

Thanks for being honest with us here in this thread.
I hope you take from this that, as a group, we don't like this type of marketing.
Compilations can be very worthwhile... please give us the opportunity to make informed decisions.

[Link]

Thank You,

Stuart

[Link]

I noticed when I watched a couple of flicks from Acid Rain that the girls would almost always repeat the name of the title several times. I kinda wondered why until I saw some of their comps and realized they probably knew they were going to use these scenes in comps. Kind of a round about way of advertising "hey...if you like this scene, check out the movie that it's from".

Again, I wouldn't have a problem with it except for I don't like to be surprised with a scene I've already seen or possibly own. And I usually rent (my store has good deals, too). I can only imagine how upset I'd be if I bought the thing only to find that I already had most (or all) of it.

Edited by - RandomPrecision on 12/9/2006 2:16:24 PM

[Link]

Take Apprentass from Zero Tolerance for example. Although it doesn't explicitly say that it's a comp, it does say "20 All Anal Scenes, Over 2 hours Plus One Brand New Scene". At the very least, it infers that there are as many as 19 of the scenes are from other movies.

Similarly, on Digital Sin's "Fantasy All Stars 3", the back cover starts out with "We've got the cream of the crop in this all star remix of only the hippest and the hottest girls in the business!"

There's nothing like that on "Girls Gone Wild". I'd be pretty ticked off if I were in kyber's shoes.

[Link]

I think it's irresponsible for you to put comps out without clearly marking the box cover. Furthermore I think it's a bitch move to hind behind 2257.

In your deffense, you aren't the 1st to do it and I'm fairly certain you won't be the last but bottom line my question to you is "How do you want to represent Smash?" Be better, show some class. I'm sure your half brother Oren would love to swoop down and talk some track here, but I've already covered his over dramatic publicity and ridculous titles.

Either way, the good thing about publicity is the best publicity if free, and I have to say ain't too many people waving the Smash flag these days. The flip to that is the worst publicity is always free.

Do yourself and your company a favor. Don't follow and hide behind the bulshit that pisses off porn fans. if it's a comp, call it a comp and above all, price it accordingly.

Yes, you took some lumps in this thread and I'll be the 1st to say that many other people in your position should be here to take a couple blows, but this guys hit something on the head that is a thorn in my side.

I think Smash can compete on a much higher level then it has shown, but in order to do that, the integrity needs to start at the top.

Too close, I'm going to make a blanket statement for any studio head, Do yourself a favor. If you got a title that's complete shit. Go ahead and put it out, but don't pump it up like it's the next Fashionista (Haven't seen it EA, just know it's award winning). What you say meens something to people who follow your product, and if you product turns to shit, I can roll with that punch, I'll even root that you rise back to the top. If your word turns to shit, I can't do nothing but step over you as I contiune my stroll through Pornville.

[Link]

Anyhow...that isn't at issue here. I guess, buyer beware. I'm not really seeing this from the top studios - especially if it is a title from a series like Flick Her Tooter 17 or whatever.

It might be time to put Smash on notice, Colbert fans!

[Link]

However, I have no idea how you can tell a 5 scene comp from a new release by the same company. Seems a bit shady to me. The scenes are already bought and paid for. Why not just include more of them on the DVD so people can tell it's a comp and get a bit more value for their money?

Edited by - Mike Quasar on 12/9/2006 10:10:47 PM

[Link]

I'm kinda surprised at the reactions I'm seeing from some of the people I know to be knowledgable pornaholics here.

I don't know about the new, or casual porn fan, but any porn connoisseur or veteran porn afficianado, can't possibly be surprised by this comp stuff.

When you see a title that has 8, 10, 15, or more scenes, a red flag has got to go up. No matter what it does or doesn't say on the box. Or at least it warrants a real inspection as to what you are getting, and you need to be thinking, "Is this a comp?" Especially from second and third tier porn companies that don't turn out a lot of brand new scenes often.

Some are blatantly obvious, even if they don't identify as comps.

I've been a consumer of Channel 69/NG Video for many years, and it was obvious to me from the beginning, when they introduced their popular "Mega Butts" and "Mega Tits" lines that they mostly contained scenes that were re-issued or re-edited from their other lines.

And this is true for other companies as well. It's usually fairly easy for the veteran porn fan to spot comps. Especially if you have the luxury of being in a brick and mortar store.

I realize that if all of your porn purchases are done online, as many in here do, things are a little more complicated, but if the company has it's own website offering it's products, it's still possible to determine if a product contains re-used scenes.

BSD

Edited by - BSD on 12/10/2006 2:16:31 AM

[Link]

I think there's a couple of those reviews where I suggested a small and tasteful "Best of" be added above the Smash logo...

"Vegetarianism for me is about saying ‘yes’ to things - even meat." - Coupling

[Link]

I don't mind compilations, I sometimes buy them.

I agree that you can generally detect a compilation by the number of scenes.

For this DVD, there were six scenes, over 2 hours, with no indication anywhere that this was a compilation.

I've also been fooled by Acid Rain before as well.

I wish the companies would just make it clear on the cover, be open about it, and I think you'll find customers will be more loyal to your product.

[Link]

"Vegetarianism for me is about saying ‘yes’ to things - even meat." - Coupling

[Link]

#2, I have also got feedback and request for clarification from Stuart. If he put that to use, I can't call it, but his efforts show that he interested in improving his product.

#3, I don't think as a porn fan we should have to assume. Yes, if a title has 20 all anal scenes, or is strickly redheads it's a safe bet to assume, but when it's 5 scenes, good luck unless you are a true porn hound.

For me the tip off on Smash compls have been the fact tat they are either promoting retired stars or star long under contract. To me that screams comp, B Stock, or archive footage, I'm not interested in either. If Justin Slayer fucked Jessica Dee in the ass three years ago, I'm not trying to see that now, atleast not from Smash. If Justin put it out, or the original copyright holder, so be, but the marker is flooded with studios buying and trading scenes like baseball cards.

From my standpoint, damn near every studio is guilty, but I have to say that Smash has taken decepion to a "Hole Nuva Leval"

[Link]

I don’t see how following 2257 will help as it is only used form one scene to cover a whole movie. Also some companies have scenes in the can for years as I noticed some thing I shot come out year later these are still very good.
The only way I can see of not buying a comp when not wanting too is follow your Director Names. Usually I noticed that a recognized Director name is not put on comps.

I don’t think its Stuarts fault he tries really hard to put out the best product and is really on top of stuff. He gets really involved with the fans even though the fans might get hostile; this is a brave thing to do on his part.
It seems hard times for most companies right now and I think some are just trying to make ends meet lots of companies seem to be leaving the industry as there not making the profit to stay alive. Not saying it’s the right thing to do but with all the pirating going on and talent prices going up I can see some companies fill the gaps with comps. I obviously wish they didn’t, as I like to work myself :)

If I come up with any more ideas to help see the comps from the original movies I’ll post them ASP for you guys.
Cheers
Yani Z

[Link]

That said, Stuart would have served himself better if, instead of trying to justify Smash's "stealth" compilations in such ridiculous ways, he had simply written, "I'm not the boss, but I hear you and I'll pass it on."

Hopefully he will and hopefully Smash's owners will listen.

*

[sp]

Edited by - bob on 12/10/2006 1:41:46 PM

[Link]

Also, a 2257 date range (e.g. 10/31/06 through 12/10/06) is becoming fairly common.

Many companies are now even including 2257 notices on their trailers... each and every one. It's called "Gonzalophobia."

As with most things, 2257 doesn't prove anything. However, taken with other observed factors, it can rule certain considerations "in" or "out."

[Link]

I only got 2 movies from SMASH. Even though i don´t think "Cheating Housewives 2" is a comp i feel i may have seen the Tiffany Mynx scene somewhere else. Not saying b 4 but maybe after the release of CH 2.

Another problem with comps in general is ... they usually say "the best scenes of ..." i know it can only be a choice of the studio what they consider the_best but most of the times the scenes on any given "best off" dvd are by far not the best scenes of any given star at all.
So for me [no offense]comps are just a way of ripping off the consumer

Cube

[Link]

The reality is that many studios are doing this because 1) it makes short-term financial sense and 2) they don't think their regional distributors and retailers will notice. There is such a flood of product on the market that distributors and retailers are simply too overwhelmed keeping up with new releases to notice if the titles really ARE new releases.

Ultimately, putting out comps dressed up as new releases is not a good long-term strategy. Customers who feel cheated once won't buy again from that studio in a hurry. Smash is definitely not alone in this, and it's a shame Stuart is bearing the brunt of the criticism when it's an industry-wide problem.

Many studios have become used to putting out between 4-8 new release for many years, but now the economics don't make sense for many of them due to lower new release orders and slowing reorders. I can understand their decision to fill in their release schedules with compiled footage, but only if it's clearly marked. The problem is that if studios tell distributors what those movies really are, then they will only get a $2-$3 price for it instead of a $10-$13 price.

Ultimately, what will be most affected is the quality and frequency of true new release product. Distributors and retailers are now bombarded with old scenes dressed up as new DVDs, a slew of solid made-for-the internet content (Bang Brothers, Naughty America, Reality Kings) and companies with large libraries are still releasing their older VHS movies onto DVD. Add low-priced compilations, cheap catalog DVDs to the mix along with blowout sales from companies going out of business, and it's hard to see how any retailer can support true new releases.

Having said all that, I'm certainly not taking the moral high ground here. We have a different business model, as most of our revenue is generated by the 20+ studios we exclusively represent (a couple of whom have been criticized on occasion on ADT for different things). We realized in the fall of 2005 that newer and smaller producers without an established brand cannot succeed with 4 -8 quality new releases a month-the distributors and retailers would only be splitting their orders for each release.

As a result, our production arm, Pulse Pictures, has released only 21 movies in 15 months. Without the cashflow pressure that comes with churning out 4-8 releases a month, we have been able to focus on quality, leading to better than expected sales, and reviews ranking second only to Evil Angel on ADT (ask Drew and Steph, we did the analysis!!). However, I can confidently say there's no way we could have preserved quality putting out 100 releases a year like some of the larger companies do, and equally I can understand the real pressure smaller studios are facing making their 4 new releases bring in revenue to keep the company producing top quality product.

Finally, viewing the 2257 approach is ineffective because many companies adopt differing guidelines. If a company lists the last day of production for their 2257 statement, and just throw in one new scene, then it will seem like a new release. Also, we recently released 'Come to Mommy', featuring 11 original scenes shot in late 2004 by Bryan Xin which had never been released. We considered that a new release, but just to head off any criticisms we made it a one movie release instead of splitting the 11 scenes into two movies. We would have made more money releasing it as two movies, but would also have lost customers in the long-term.

One thing which would help is if a dedicated forum member, with help from others, would keep a thread with an updated list of potentially misleading titles (like Astroknight did so well with his studio list). Rather than demonize producers, it would be more to help fans identify a 'new release' with previously released scenes. The purpose of this list would not be to demonize the producer but to better warn the buyer. If a producer or director disagrees with any titles on that list, they can always post to explain why it's not misleading, as Mike Quasar did.

Edited by - mark hamilton on 12/10/2006 3:01:37 PM

Edited by - mark hamilton on 12/10/2006 3:06:45 PM

[Link]

Nice post, Mark!

[Link]

So what I usually do is rent movies first (through XRentDVD), and then if I truly enjoy it I will use their "keep it" option which lets me deduct the rental fee and pay the balance left in order to keep the movie.

The exception comes with movies & directors with reliable track records. At that point I will just buy the DVDs outright. Examples: Twisted Vision series, 50 to 1 , Blow Me Sandwich , Perverted Point of View , etc....

Edited by - tritone on 12/10/2006 3:34:40 PM

[Link]