Pic quality on free sites

[Ms Naughty]

A wise and eminently sensible great sage has told me that it's a good idea to offer decent quality, relatively uncompressed pics on your free sites, as the pics are meant to be a sample of what you'll get if you join a paysite.

I have a terribly stingy nature, so I've been putting relatively small sized photos on my freesites.

But beyond this, I wonder if giving away good quality pics will eventually erode the one advantage that paysites have over the plethora of free porn out there.

I mean, right now a savvy surfer can spend days surfing through tgps and the like, where there are thousands of free pics and movies. At present we can only hope he or she gets sick of the ads and the poor quality and decides it might be time to get the good stuff at the paysite.

Is providing better quality free pics shitting in our own nest? Or does it encourage the surfer to buy?

Am I wrong to question such wisdom? Are my assumptions about what prompts surfers to buy wrong?

Just wanted to know what other people thought.

[Cleo]

People want to see fresh new high quality content.

Showing them fresh new high quality samples is the best way to convince them that if they join they will get to see fresh new high quality content in the members area.

You don't show someone a used junker to sell them a new car.

[Alphawolf]

If the image quality is quite good to begin with you can use 40% on thumbs and 60% on 640 length images and they still look quite good since there is no source image to compare it to.

The more amateur style content seems to degrade more, but it's not *so* bad.

I don't think someone will buy a membership to a site based on your free site or gallery images unless they are sponsor images.

The ad copy must be really well thought out...and links positioned well.

I was crusing GG's LOR site.

In viewing a bunch of free sites that positioned their 'Enter /Exit' links in the same areas where their Gallery 1/ Gallery 2 link will appear on the next pages it became clear it would be very easy to surf those sites.= and bypass the sponsor ads.

Then I came across a few that had the Enter / Exit links well below the rest of the content and that made me scan the page and look at the ads. That was smart.

Then when I clicked on the Enter link I automatically scrolled down to where I thought the Gallery links would be after being "trained" by all the other sites.

They had Sponsor links there.

The Gallery links were at the very Top.

I had to search the page a *bit* by scrolling up/down. Not that annoying since you know it's there, but the layout has to get more click throughs than the rest of the sites that put the Enter/Exit and gallery links in the same positions.

I never forget what MML stated on a radio show "You don't want them to get to your content."

When you start to think you get 1 stinkin' free site per day and what on partner accounts (2?) you really need to maximize each on of those free sites for max clickthrough.

Regardless of whether the pics you have a great, once they get to the sponsors page it's up to their tour and site to do the final sale.

Just my humble newbie .02 worth.

[Surfn]

Originally posted by Alphawolf
I don't think someone will buy a membership to a site based on your free site or gallery images unless they are sponsor images.

I strongly disagree. With two MAJOR exceptions Pornstars and Celebrities. All the rest using sponsor content lessens you chance of a sale.

Just MHO.

[Alphawolf]

I'm thinking of single girl sites, smaller sponsors like ATKcash, Twistys, FTV, medium pimpin, etc...

They all have a certain stlye to their pics.

Using any other amatuer teen pics will not usually come close to the quality/style of those sites for the most part.

The bigger sponsors with dozen+ sites seem to have more generic content and can be picked up on the usual suspects of content providers.

If you had the choice between member area content of *exlusive content pay sites* or buying your own content you'd still get your own content?

Many sponsors now offer wmv's/mpg's of their content. You'd get your own videos to sell their video based paysites as well?

When it comes to most of the sponsors on GG's stats list (top ones) their sponsor content sucks.

Clearly, you have to use your own content to push thier sites.

Some of the newer programs like adultplayersclub, realitycash all have WMV's and very sparse on the pics.- screencaps.

From a surfer's POV I'd like to see a site that says 'see her spread all the way for you in dozens of photo sets' than 'click her for somethin' kinda sorta similar'.

If it's a paysite with a huge dump from many content providers then your own content is best.

If it's an exclusive content sponsor on Rev share I want to make sure the surfer will join and stay there a while.

BTW, if you wanted to promote cybernetentertainment's fuckingmahines.net or wiredpussy it's better to get your own S&M content as opposed to their vids/pics?

I'm really asking- not being rhetorical and argumentitive knowing you've done this many years.

I'm sure you are right, but it's one of those things I need to learn for myself.

BTW, how do you go about buying content to promote sponsors?

Meaning- do you buy content first then pick a sponsor that is most in line with that, or pick a sponsor first then go look for content most appropriate to sell their sites?

[Alphawolf]

Originally posted by Surfn
I strongly disagree. With two MAJOR exceptions Pornstars and Celebrities. All the rest using sponsor content lessens you chance of a sale.

Just MHO.

"I don't think someone will buy a membership [adding: and renew each month] to a site based on your free site or gallery images unless they are sponsor images."

...from the content area of exclusive paysites.

If it's PPS I'd do my best to get the best content that matches their theme and insinuate their backend actually has a whole bunch of good stuff like I got!

[Surfn]

AW

I quit promoting recurring a couple of months ago (where I had the option for PPS). I use content that is the "theme" of the site. Example lesbians - any of "my" lesbian content - alt tags with see more of me and my friends at blahblah.com.

There is no trickery and it's not rocket science. Over thinking a project is as bad as under thinking one.

[Alphawolf]

Yeah. I was over tired.

[Ms Naughty]

I wasn't necessarily thinking about sponsor vs non-sponsor content, but about the compression, size and general quality of whatever pic you put on your free site.

Maybe it's because I work in 4women, I'm thinking differently about this. For me, it's all about showing the surfer something different, something she's been searching for and hasn't been able to find, as opposed to "this is new and top quality, you haven't seen this before".

So, the way I approach free sites for men may have been skewed by that.

And maybe this is where the quality issue comes in.

When making a free site you can focus on what's actually happening in the photo e.g. the actual content - what the person is doing, what she looks like etc So... this applies to fetishes, and maybe the more obscure things where the surfer is after something in particular.

But if what you're offering can be found on a million other free sites e.g. blonde chick getting undressed, you then need to focus on the quality and freshness of the photo.

So... if your site is more about the relative rareness of the content, quality and freshness of the photo may not be such an issue.

Although, I guess it doesn't hurt to have a good quality pic...

I'm thinking out loud here, and probably going in circles.

But the other major issue which I still have a problem is this: if we keep upping the quality of pics on free sites, where does it end?

At the moment there's gigs of free porn out there. If we start offering gigs of high quality free porn, what's left for a paysite to offer?

Surely there's a middle ground.

[finnbear]

IMHO it belongs what you are promoting. Example: one of my sponsors have transvestite sites like amateur and dominant ones. They have their own exclusive content. So I used their free content and built sites and made nice bunch of sign-ups and still do. But, where could I bought my own content to promote those sites? Nowhere, unless I crossdress myself, and no-one liked to see that, lol!

Then if you promote things like blondes, lesbians, etc. you can buy content because in those sites content must be paid one, they have not shoot it themself (there is exceptions, of course).

To promote solo amateur girls you must use sponsor free content also, as where else you find pics of that girl? Same with pornstars. Very hard to find pornstar content to buy (I must add that I wouldn't buy it because I have built some pornstar pages and I have made some $3 so far, lol!)

In my free sites I use pics that are 600 pixels in longer side or 550. Has worked well.

IMHO free site is little bit of entertainment with links to sites where you can have all the bells and whistles if you are ready to pay for it.

[Alphawolf]

Wow, man. I thought I was wordy.

Anywhooooo...

I think you are overthinking things a bit.

Getting a guy horny is not so tough.

Compression and size I just asked about.

Thumbs- between 120-150px length. 40%

Now it was stated that having higher quality thumbs may save you bandwidth 'cos then they'd be able to discern what not to click.

I went with 140px length but still 40% JPEG quality.

Full pics 640px length and 60% quality...I was going to use 75% but didn't see much difference and it is a free site after all.

When you mean quality do you mean actual flat sorta shitty digital dull looking pics vs eye popping glossy pics?

The actual content (model pose / lighting) can be good or bad in either style.

Are you basically asking if you should pop $40/set for free sites vs less expensive sets?

Guess it depends how many domains you can use it on and what else you could use the content for.

A thing I noticed in general with movie content is that a lot of sponsors are lazy and give away too much in their clips. Not everyone. But many.

[finnbear]

Well, I'm sitting here after 5am and can't sleep, so I have time to write all kinds of rubbish, lol!

I like things to be easy, so I just use Irfanview to batch process my pics as I want. I don't use any compress programs at all.

My thumbs are usually 120pix.

When I buy content I don't look for the price, I look the pics. I also use lots of sponsor content. It seems that if you use some more work to build nice free site - like using graphics - you get more easily listed with sponsor content. As an example I always submit to GG, and he even sometimes list me, even with pics that have logos (not everytime, though, so I must think about some pribe like flying him to Finland, wining and dining one weekend. You american webmasters don't know how good is reindeer stew with mashed potatoes with cold Stolishnaya - best when real mom with Lappland do it, but I must say I'm not bad cook myself at all).

BTW, anyone who has reindeer meat in freezer, ask for recip.

[Kezza]

I am finding this discussing really interesting! Thanks Guys!

On my link list I dont accept any sponsor content... main reason is that I want my link list to be unique and set apart from others.

I think that is one point... but I also dont accept really big pics... 600 on the long side is enough for me... reason is I dont think that free site makers are doing themselves any favours... a surfer needs to pay for quality. And one day we will all realise that

My philosophy for free sites has always been - get them in, get them horny and get them out! Crappy pics with the promise of better ones works

[digifan]

I'm with Cleo on that... and let me quote another or maybe the same ? wise man who was asked the same question on a newbie webmaster board.

"Thats a good question and I'll give you my point of view based on what i believe are solid business methods that you should be able to use in any situation.

Example: i want to buy a new car and Ive narrowed it down to porshe or a mercedes. I like both but I'm not sure which i like best.

I go to the mercedes dealer, he wont let me see the cars, he shows me a model of the car, he shows me some bad pix of the cars and finally a short, fuzzy video clip of a mercedes. I ask him to take me for a test ride and he does, in a car thats 12 years old, beat up and smells funny. But dont worry,he says, cuz when you buy a new one, it will just be great, but i cant show you one until you buy it first. But you can trust me.

The porshe dealer has a different concept. he lets me sit in the car, open the hood, ask questions. He takes me for a test drive in a new demo porshe. It feels good and smells good.

Now which car would you buy?
Which site would you join?"

[digifan]

Here are some FHG examples..

http://gothicsluts.com/hc/w10mj/?id=468093

the pics are about 170k each and the sponsors host it, they are 600x800 pix.

Here's another FHG, from my new tgp again, see sig

http://www.pitofporn.com/gg131/black...stockings.html

700x454 and 82 K... it is much better optimised and 700 is a decent size imo but the quality is top notch.

[Cleo]

Not sure how this thread turned into accepting sponsor content or not. It started off being about quality of pics not where they came from.

Since sponsor content has been brought into this thread my 2¢ on it. I've banned most sponsor content but not all since sometimes you have to use sponsor content to promote some sites like a single girl personal site. In this case it is up to the sponsor to provide lots of fresh content if they expect webmasters to be able to promote it.

[Kezza]

Digifan... I loved that analagy... but did that guy buying the car have a boner ready to expode???

Would he have exploded at a good pic... rather than buy the car???

[digifan]

One last FHG.
http://rubberdollies.com/hg/w09em/?id=468093

the pics are cca 155 k and the size is 623x831... and the content is true glamour.

Now I think you can promote a sponsor with similar and hq content only shot by the same photographer or use their pics with their permission and do your own design which should be different from that of the FHG's.

On the other hand, if you promote sponsors with too good pics who have put together a shitty pay site using non exclusive content on sale, then the result is chargeback.

[Cleo]

Nice content, very nice rubber ducky.

[digifan]

Originally posted by Kezza
Digifan... I loved that analagy... but did that guy buying the car have a boner ready to expode???

Would he have exploded at a good pic... rather than buy the car???

Lol, the boner was not part of his reply but he is ok and an active webmaster who sells cars... duh, I mean porn.

[digifan]

Originally posted by Cleo
Nice content, very nice rubber ducky.

She is Penny Flame.. and hot

On the thumbs... I promise it is my last comment. I like to use big thumbs... if the thumbs are too small, the surfers click each.. if they are huge enough, e.g. 150x200 horribile dictu, they see them and won't click them if they are not interested because they can see I won't give them too much nudity, they have to sign up to see the vids and hardcore content. Big thumbs are a bandwidth saver.

[Kezza]

Originally posted by digifan
Lol, the boner was not part of his reply but he is ok and an active webmaster who sells cars... duh, I mean porn.

I guess what I was saying way... buying a car and spending many thousands of dollars is not the same as signing up for a porn site and spending a few dollars... and I think the porn site sale is much more dependent on how turned on the buyer is feeling in the first place....

If a free site gets the surfer to cum... then it failed... i

f the free site got that surfer hard and ready for more... so ready that he could actually go and grab his wallet and whack out a CC in order to fullfil that fantasy... then the free site has done its job and the free site owner has made some cash.

[digifan]

I agree with you 100%

[Ms Naughty]

I started this thread because I had a site rejected from a linklist because the pics were too compressed and small. I have been happily offering 550 or 570 on the long side, at about 75 quality, thinking that was OK.

Admittedly the pics I was offering on this particular site weren't the best quality to begin with, so I did overcompress them, but I was told that 550 is too stingy.

I guess it is, but I had been working under the assumption of "don't give them too much".

It got me wondering about how good was too good, and where will it all end?

I'm in two minds. I think Kezza is right - we can't give the surfer everything. But the Porsche analogy is also true.

So perhaps I should go to 600x400 and 80 quality? LOL

Of course, then we get into the whole idea of putting high quality HARDCORE pics on the site, which is definitely going overboard, I think.

[Useless]

I haven't been building free sites very long and I still struggle with this myself. A big part of me does not want to give the surfer too much. Another part agrees with what was said earlier. Your site should be representation of that which is being marketed. I think we, as both designers and marketers, need to find a happy medium. Huge high res photos may please the surfer on their own. Small pixelated ones may kill the potential sale. I tend to believe that they who build with the larger, higher resolution photos are more careful about their pic selection. They probably don't include shots that are definate load-blowers. If you decrease the size and quality of the pics, you can allow a couple of hot ones slip through.
That being said, my target is 600 on the long side. Quality wise, I don't stick to a single setting. I adjust for each pic depending on the content. As for thumbs, I have been going for 120-130, but I have been considering using a larger size since a lot of people say larger thumbs will keep the surfer from clicking each one.