I work in a Swedish adult video store, and I have long been rather irritated that US companies very seldom print the playing time of their DVDs on the boxcovers. Why is that? All european companies do; Magma, DBM, Puaka, Gufa, Private, GGG, Seventeen, BB and all the others.
It is such a small thing to add, and the consumers really like to know how much playing time they are getting for their money. Is there a logic to why US companies don't do this? Please, someone tell me?
Probably because when US companies do that, they exaggerate the running time. Vivid is notorious for putting 4 hour stickers on their discs, when that includes everything including phone sex ads, clips, alternate angles, etc.
Are the printing presses really so slow that you couldn't wait for the editing process to finish, before you send the artwork? After the editing is over, the product has to be mastered, the masters need to be checked and approved, and then the discs have to be pressed before you really need the covers ready... And all the european companies seem to manage just fine...
Perhaps producers are afraid that customers might choose which products to rent/buy based only on the 'price/playing time ratio'? Some people will, probably, but those people are not in majority for sure.
Any producers here that wish to share their thoughts on the matter?
As far as I know there are only a handful of printers located in porn valley that support the adult industry. The vast majority of printers won't touch the stuff. I think this situation creates a bit of a bottleneck in the production schedule for many porn producers.
Yep, very annoying and even more so if they exaggarate it. I always note down the real running time (without extra's) for all movies I review for us and the discrepencies can be huge: some time ago we got a bundle of 16 hr DVDs (well that's what it said in big letters on the cover) for screeners and after a few weeks I finally got up the courage to watch one. Of course it was every bit as bad as I expected, just a compilation of mostly old scenes in crappy quality. There were 2 discs, each had a trt of hardly 7 hrs, making for maximum 14 not 16 hours, but in between almost every scene was one (sometimes two!) of those bloody phonesex ads, so I estimated the real movie time was maybe 10 in stead of 16 hours, talk about exaggarating!
And the printing can hardly be the problem, because several American companies (located in San Fernando) manage to do it right.
True, but I know of at least two owners of porn companies that also own print shops. And I think Caballero has a print shop right inside their own building. They do printing for themselves and other companies.
The only reason that I brought up the logistics of getting the covers printed as a potential reason for the running time not matching is because production company reps, editors and DVD authorors have specifically cited this as a reason in the past. I'm not making a wild guess.
And, this is also often why boxcovers have pictures of girls that aren't in the video/DVD. (I'm talking about errors by reputable companies... NOT the standard rip-off cover frauds by the fly-by-night crowd)
I'm one of the guys that would actually like to see running times stated. The ONLY reason this matters at all is to allow the customer to make an educated price/value decision. Can't think of another possible use.
This is likely why most porn companies do not state times. Most of our porn veteran inside knowledge comes from years of getting ripped-off until you learn who to trust and who actually delivers consistently. We veterans try to help, but there is a definite, unavoidable learning curve for all who endeavor to collect and purchase porn seriously.
We are really talking about the retail market place (as opposed to online distributors) where the issue of running times stated on the box matters. Online distributors, plus using sources like Adult DVD Talk and the IAFD, usually state reliable running times already.
Since most bricks-and-mortar stroke shops sell videos and DVDs at outrageous markups (i.e. $49.95 for materials that have actual MRSPs of $29.95 to $39.95... and that can ALL be purchased online for $15-$25/top shelf and $8-$15/comps and 2nd tier), running times to aid in determining the price/value relationship would be extremely useful.
Since virtually all bricks-and-mortar stroke shops sell videos and DVDs for the same $49.95/each regardless of studio, etc., how is the consumer supposed to know that...
With Evil Angel you get: A superbly-mastered DVD-9 DVD with 2 hours and 20 minutes of first-rate feature material plus an hour's worth of DVD extras, behind-the-scenes, trailers and fetish menus... vs. With Jill Kelly Productions you get: About 1 hour and 20 minutes of feature material of mediocre to good quality (a few are excellent; too many recently are dreadful... like all "100% Blowjobs" above volume 15)with typically no extras, menus that work hit-or-miss and few, if any, trailers.
Online, the marketplace has sorted this out with Evil Angel DVDs commanding $22-$24, while JKP DVDs usually go for $15-$18. When both products are being sold for the same $49.95, the consumer needs all the help they can get... which is precisely why the porn industry isn't going to give it to them. Sad truth is that a hot box cover sells the video/DVD to Joe bricks-and-mortar casual porn customer (with "no refunds or exchanges no exceptions"). Old (rip-off) habits die hard
Talk about misleading boxcovers: how about the studio who makes a new boxcover for an old movie with a currently popular girl on it, in big bold letters Starring blabla while she only has a 5 minute appearance in the whole movie and is on the credits just as 'tart'...
The only real reason for me, personally, as an adult shop manager, is to be able to give a reasonably good answer to all the customers who ask me "What is the playing time of this movie?"... I must get that question at least twenty times a week.
Let's face it; All other things equal, a 140 minute movie will give more bang for the bucks than a 90 minute movie. A ballpark estimate of the playing time is probably good enough: "Over two hours" or "approx. 130 min" would do nicely, so long as the estimates always UNDERestimate the paying time...
This is getting to be a bigger and bigger pet peeve for me. I have to give both VCA and Adam & Eve a lot of credit for normally including an accurate running time on their movies. Thankfully Private went to a feature run time from listing a full running time for the DVD, which included all of the extras. I thought to be extremely deceptive because most people were listing a feature run time. The only one I know of who still lists a full running time is Seymore Butts, which constantly ticks me off. I've picked up some of his DVDs which claimed to have an hour and a half run time where the "movie" didn't even last forty five minutes. I think Seymore would be better not even listing a run time rather than listing it as he does since as is it makes his claims extremely deceptive and I think they mislead the consumers.
"Vegetarianism for me is about saying ‘yes’ to things - even meat." - Coupling
I'm surprised by some of this - personally I don't really go looking for running times, I base my buying decisions on the film, the studio, the director and who's in it, not how long it is. Otherwise I'd end up buying budget 4 Hour discs for quantity, with no regard for quality. And I don't know anyone that does that. If someone was asking me how long certain films were, I'd suspect their priorities were a bit skewed!
Although I suppose for newbies who don't know which studio to choose, they won't know what to expect. With experience, you just know roughly how long a Evil Angel film will be, etc.
I think running time can play a role in purchasing decisions, as if I'm torn between title A and B and I see that title B runs a half hour longer then that could be what would be a tiebreaker for me. If I'm short on money and am between two titles and one doesn't even last an hour and a half and the other lasts over two, there's a good chance that I'm going to get the longer movie.
Normally, though, running time isn't that big of a deal to me unless it's listed incorrectly. Then it's just false advertising. The worst I've seen are Seymore Butts' Young Buns , Three's Cumpany , Wise Cracks , and Two Butts Are Better Than One . In every case, these titles looked like a great deal. The cover states a running time of 70 min. for each of these DVDs, and they're frequently priced the same as Seymore's other DVDs. Some stores offer these titles for under $10, which sounds like a great deal. In reality, the features run from 23 min (for Two Butts Are Better Than One ) to 43 min. (for Three's Cumpany ). The others are 36 min. To me, this is inexcusible. They're meant to be cheaper DVDs to give people an easy taste of Seymore's style and movies at a low cost. I can handle that, and think it's a great idea. To list a total running time of 70 min. when the feature might not even last a third of that makes me wonder why nobody's taken a ball peen hammer to somebody's testicles.
"Vegetarianism for me is about saying ‘yes’ to things - even meat." - Coupling
Introducing Lady LorReign
Posted - Sep 18 2004 : 2:40PM