wow $300? that's bad. but i would be surprised if escorting "salaries" don't go south as well.with people finishing high school or college and unable to find a job will certainly overflow the market. and we all know what happens when there's an excess of "inventory".add clients losing their jobs and unable to hire an escort. too many escorts + not enough clients = less money
is bad all over and this has a domino effect to it.
Well, I used to work for two weeks for less than $300 so I guess it really depends on how you look at it. There aren't many things a person can do for money where you can make $300 in a few hours. Albeit doing work that can be really unpleasant and ruin a good part of your future. It's still a lot of money for something where the only requirement is that you be legal, healthy, attractive and willing. It won't hold a candle to $1200 per scene but those were times of plenty and incredibly good fortune for everyone.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Aug 29 2009 : 6:45AM
Why do a porn scene for $300, which takes at least several hours, when you can escort for the same amount of money (at least, often even more) per hour? Of course there are some performers who are exhibitionists, but the main motivation has been and always will be $$$.
Youporn.com pulls in six figures a month. The key is owning the dating and webcam sites and not being an affiliate. Brazzers owns Redtube.com and owns the dating site advertised on the site, SexInYourCity.com. That's what you're missing.
“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” - Kierkegaard 2684 Posts 8/09
Posted - Aug 29 2009 : 1:26PM
Excellent points User3x. Every other industry has/is facing effects of globalization and now it's the porn industry turn. No one in other industries liked it, but the successful companies focused energy and resources on adapting instead of excessive complaining. The porn industry is in same situation as recording industry in late 90s/early 2000, except they can draw on the history of the failed recording industry strategy to help guide them. As for porn valley performer pay, I truly sympathize, but every other industry has had severe pay cuts if not outright job cuts, the porn industry is no different. As for business models and technology, technology is supposed to make products and services cheaper, not more expensive. Why are independent websites devoted to individual performers (esp. amateur content) with low production budgets successful? Maybe historically expensive production strategies are not financially viable at this point in time. As for numbers in pricing models, they can be debated and changed, but the as we all saw with the recording industry, holding onto failed business strategies is futile.
To a point. Photographers and videographers who are spending a week building lighting units, aren't spending that week shooting, and are working with equipment of 'questionable' value. Sure, some people are experts at McGyvering things together, but a good HD camera *still* runs nearly $3000. People who cut corners, are people who cut corners. They don't just cut corners with equipment; they do it with talent, they do it with editing, they do it with paperwork, etc etc. The issue really is that consumers want Rolls Royce porn for Yugo prices. They'll either have to decide they're happy with Yugo porn, or that they're willing to pay for Rolls Royce (or at least something in between.) John
is not really about cutting corners,is really more about customizing equipment to meet your needs. cutting corners on talent is career suicide.I don't photograph a girl because she is cheap but because she will get me the look that I need.often is not cheap but definitely worth it.as for the equipment being of questionable value? is not,the only difference is a company logo.I've seen a lot of equipment surpassing the quality of brand equipment and in can take between 30 minutes to a few hours to build depending on what you are building.lighting is not that complicated now a days.I can even afford to hire an assistant because of this McGyvering. as for cameras,you really only need to shoot widescreen(16:9)today some of the top sellers in the industry shot standard(4:3)and you really can tell the difference,some shoot widescreen and pass it as HD because a lot of people can't tell,don't care or don't have a tv for that resolution. in the end,you can shoot a scene with Sasha Grey with $100k worth of equipment.it doesn't guarantee success.neither shooting her using a flashlight.she'll still get paid whatever she charges. it all comes down to creativity.
Bingo. See, I'm not anti-DIY. I'm someone who's been on enough low budget for low budget productions, to find that people who are creative and successful often end up with the resources to purchase the gear they need. A smart photo/vidographer doesn't automatically assume a DIY solution is a better, faster, cheaper solution; the smart route is to judge "how many hours will this project take, how much do I earn per hour when I'm working on set, and how much will it cost me to buy it, verses how much will I actually save?" I'm not trying to suggest that DIY mentality is bad, I'm pointing out that people who habitually avoid buying quality gear are usually displaying the mentality of people who habitually avoid paying for quality in general. My favorite pretty girl lens is a Canon 50mm 1:1.8 prime lens, on my Canon 40D; I peddle-foot zoom, and get fantastic shots with that $100 lens, for hundreds dollars less than the zoom equivalent. It's hardly a $3000 rig, but the results seemed to be good enough. I'm only pointing out that consumers seem to have unrealistic expectations of cutting production costs to a level where they can justify only paying a buck for a DVD. John
I don't know if you are talking about stationary or video pictures with that "pretty girl" lens, John, but I can remember using a manual-focus lens for both stationary (I was in the yearbook club at my secondary school) and the one on my first home video camera in the early 80's. When the first automatic focus lenses came out, I always overrode the function because on auto-focus the pictures were crappy and I could do a better job manually (now my camera is the size of a credit card with auto-everything and it works great -- progress). Most would probably laugh at the person using manual-focus today, but why not use what you have if it does an excellent job rather than spending $$$ -- even if you have to adjust zoom manually as I think John was referring to. Even porn producers were using manual-focus in 1975 and the stationary pictures (some -- if they took their time) were of good quality! On a related note -- I can remember pornos in the late 80's that looked like they were made on a regular home videotape recorder -- and some were crappy in picture quality and especially editing. Now with digital you don't have that problem, so anyone with $1500-$3000 to spend on a camera and computer suite can make quality digital images (not including non-equipment expenses) for whatever purpose they want. See, progress isn't all bad -- just some of it.
"Pretty girls" are what we call the still images we shoot before the video. They're the shots that end up on the boxcovers (front and back), teaser photos, promotional photos, etc. They're just simple portrait photos shot while the girl is looking her best (i.e. just out of makeup and wardrobe.) I usually start in auto focus, then make minor adjustments in manual focus. The autofocus can only do so much; if she's lying down with her feet towards me, how's the camera supposed to know if I want her pussy or her face in focus? Most photographers I know today shoot exclusively in auto mode though. John
Thanks -- that is what I thought, but I try not to run off the cuff if I am not sure. I would have to agree on autofocus -- on older cameras especially it usually focused in on the closest object, not necessarily the one you want. Even my new cheaper automatic lens still errs occasionally (and there is no way to change that lens), but it works for family portraits and such things well. If I were in the industry, I would use a camera that has options for both for the reasons you state so well.
Really, a lot of people do go the less expensive route. Expensive, complicated cameras can mean longer, frustrating shoots with more features and options to screw up. That translates to months of practice that you could have been focusing on just shooting video; really the trade-off is worth it, to someone like me who really gets into the artistic aspect of what I'm shooting. Not everybody is that into either the technical, or artistic side of things, and are quite successful anyway. John
Audrey Madison Interview
Posted - Aug 29 2009 : 3:58AM