InTheCrack Affiliates ||||WARNING!|||| - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

helterskelter808 · 08-27-2011, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeanCapture

What is their history?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...?output=gplain

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...?output=gplain

V_RocKs · 08-27-2011, 04:30 PM

This is another (letter of the law/spirit of the law) = intent

All programs put this into their TOS to cover things like newsgroups posting. The intent isn't to chastise affiliates who crop to make it work better in a blog post.

When a company head reads the TOS and has no business sense in the affiliate marketing industry they get a little overzealous in their interpretation...

tedwinters · 08-27-2011, 04:30 PM

Interesting quandary. I've never promoted 'InTheCrack', but have a bunch of blogs/tgps that all rely on cropped thumbnail images... using UUGallery, I quite often choose a pic or two from the original hosted gallery and crop to a 500X400 size as a preview - making sure that the logo is removed, and pictures are uniform size to keep the blog clean - but linking each fully to the hosted gallery...

StinkyPink · 08-27-2011, 04:55 PM

Moron Sponsors....

DeanCapture · 08-27-2011, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StinkyPink

Moron Sponsors....

Sucks that the adults here can't have a mature discussion without the name calling.

It never takes long for the haters, trolls and drama queens to come along and prove that GFY is useless when it comes to serious discussion of industry issues.

looky_lou · 08-27-2011, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

You obviously love them; personally I wouldn't want to be associated in any way with any company with their history.

Agreed

looky_lou · 08-27-2011, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tedwinters

Interesting quandary. I've never promoted 'InTheCrack', but have a bunch of blogs/tgps that all rely on cropped thumbnail images... using UUGallery, I quite often choose a pic or two from the original hosted gallery and crop to a 500X400 size as a preview - making sure that the logo is removed, and pictures are uniform size to keep the blog clean - but linking each fully to the hosted gallery...

This is exactly what I and most other bloggers do. My 500x700 blog images might be larger than some blogs do, but this is the size that I have found works best for my blogs. Even at that size, they are not close to being full sized images.

Mutt · 08-27-2011, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...?output=gplain

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...?output=gplain

what does InTheCrack have to do with ALSCANS? those allegations on USENET are about ALSCANS.

StinkyPink · 08-27-2011, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeanCapture

Sucks that the adults here can't have a mature discussion without the name calling.

It never takes long for the haters, trolls and drama queens to come along and prove that GFY is useless when it comes to serious discussion of industry issues.

This is not an "industry issue", this is an affiliate who is trying to warn others that said sponsor is actively asking folks to take down content or accounts get suspended. I happen to be an affiliate in a similar situation as the OP with the same sponsor... not a troll. So I have a valid interest in this thread.

What sucks is that the adults here can't have a mature discussion without some other "producer/content provider" (in this case photographer) coming in the thread calling people trolls queens whatever... hmm, you are right it doesn't take long does it. afterall, it only took you 6 posts.

looky_lou · 08-27-2011, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthecrack

As the director and photographer of inthecrack I feel obliged to respond to people's concerns here. I would agree with Dean that Angie was a little harsh on this or could have been a little more tactful. To be honest I am not concerned about what people do with thumbnails. The thumbnails on our own site do not have watermarks either. To suggest that thumbnails should have a watermark on them is a bit ridiculous. However in Angie's defence this affiliate was in violation of the TOS and we are not talking about thumbnails here but in fact full size images. I really see this violation as a trivial matter that I would have overlooked but Angie is new on this so it would be good to cut her some slack.

Now to enlighten people as to why that rule is in the TOS…. Branding is certainly a part of it but really only a small part and it is definitely not intended to short change affiliates of any potential click throughs. The fact is I go to extraordinary lengths to produce a premium product. There are not too many other producers that would fly all of the crew and models to exotic lands such as French Polynesia and New Zealand in order to get amazing locations. What customers and affiliates do not see is 10 in house trained editors that give every single picture 30 minutes of extreme detailed editing in such a manner as to not look edited. This does includes cropping to the ideal composition. I probably spend more on the post production than I do on the production. Therefore yes it does pick my ass a little bit when people feel they have the liberty to go and make their own alterations to the pictures.

I'm not likely to go and tell all our affiliates to quit altering our pictures but I would only hope that people would have some respect for the time and effort that goes into making a top quality product.

I for one do appreciate what it takes to create a quality product like you do. I do appreciate the time and detail that goes on behind the scenes to make it happen. I do appreciate the investment in the travel and locations. I do appreciate your eye for unique style and angles. I appreciate the large archive of quality content in the members area, both photo and HD video, and the continuation to update regularly.

That's exactly why I chose to promote your site in the first place. And although the conversions are not too good, I could feel that I was providing true membership value to my surfers should they join the site. That's what I am looking for when it comes to what I promote.

You should in turn appreciate the time and effort that an affiliate puts into promoting your site. It takes allot of time to put a blog like that together, write long posts, crop the photos, and keep it updated 2-3 times per week. All in an attempt to sell your site and make you money as well as the affiliate. That way, you can keep living your vision and dream and we all can pay the light bill.

DeanCapture · 08-27-2011, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StinkyPink

I happen to be an affiliate in a similar situation as the OP with the same sponsor... not a troll. So I have a valid interest in this thread.

You have a valid interest in this thread so you come in calling people morons? That's classic trolling. Thanks for proving my point

I try not to argue with trolls so have fun........

StinkyPink · 08-27-2011, 06:39 PM

Whatever dude. I believe I proved my point as well. I am not the first, nor the only one who has said basically that the sponsors (ITC or otherwise) are morons. NOT when they put this shit in their TOS, but when they threaten to close affiliate accounts due to "standard" marketing practices, simply because they put this shit in their TOS.

Count, must've been at least half dozen other guys before me that said about the same as I did, but "I" am the "troll" here...

StinkyPink · 08-27-2011, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthecrack

However in Angie's defence this affiliate was in violation of the TOS and we are not talking about thumbnails here but in fact full size images.

This just sickens me...

In FACT... if something is 'cropped', it is NOT full size!

We are talking about a blog, at best 500 maybe 600 pixels wide. (mine are like 540 or so)
InTheCrack 'full size' images are like thousands of pixels wide. Hardly the same quality, NOT the same size!

StinkyPink · 08-27-2011, 06:48 PM

Oh yeah Dean just a reminder... this is GFY, the place where we call morons, well... morons. I know, I know... the place where we call trolls, well... trolls. There, I responded to my post for you. ;)

helterskelter808 · 08-27-2011, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

what does InTheCrack have to do with ALSCANS?

Nothing, AFAIK. ALS was heavily promoted in this thread by the OP though. Didn't you bother reading it before posting?

Personally, unlike the OP, I don't even think ALS and InTheCrack are similar sites. ALS is fixated with bald pussies and small tits, as well as large objects. Given their history I personally find that obnoxious.

InTheCrack seems more like, I dunno, DDG to me; quality, glamorous images in nice locations.

Quote:

those allegations on USENET are about ALSCANS.

No way. Really? You mean when I replied to the guy raving about ALS, saying how I wouldn't be associated with ALS because of their history, and someone asked what ALS's history is... I posted links about ALS's history? That's crazy. What was I thinking.

StinkyPink · 08-27-2011, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

No way. Really? You mean when I replied to the guy raving about ALS, saying how I wouldn't be associated with ALS because of their history, and someone asked what ALS's history is... I posted links about ALS's history? That's crazy. What was I thinking.

I know... isn't it crazy about TEXT... it can often be read out of conTEXT.

helterskelter808 · 08-27-2011, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StinkyPink

I know... isn't it crazy about TEXT... it can often be read out of conTEXT.

True. Especially when context can be lost, unless multi-quoting. Anyway it's too late to edit out the sarcasm in my post (which even annoyed me when I read it back), now it's been quoted, but it isn't helpful or constructive, so I take the sarcasm back and apologize for it.

StinkyPink · 08-27-2011, 07:11 PM

Hehe, my bad.

MrCain · 08-27-2011, 07:23 PM

Thank you for the warning.

StinkyPink · 08-27-2011, 07:51 PM

Don't mind me... I'm just p, p, p, pa... trollin'!

looky_lou · 08-27-2011, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

Nothing, AFAIK. ALS was heavily promoted in this thread by the OP though. Didn't you bother reading it before posting?

Personally, unlike the OP, I don't even think ALS and InTheCrack are similar sites. ALS is fixated with bald pussies and small tits, as well as large objects. Given their history I personally find that obnoxious.

InTheCrack seems more like, I dunno, DDG to me; quality, glamorous images in nice locations.

No way. Really? You mean when I replied to the guy raving about ALS, saying how I wouldn't be associated with ALS because of their history, and someone asked what ALS's history is... I posted links about ALS's history? That's crazy. What was I thinking.

I wouldn't exactly say that I was promoting ALS. I was asked a question and I answered it. Then posted a couple of pics for entertainment purposes. I don't have anything to gain promoting ALS here. They don't offer affiliate referrals. I would actually prefer that you didn't sign up and promote them. Just more competition for me as an affiliate. Many affiliates on this board would not have answered the question to begin with. Not my style.

Both ALS and InTheCrack consider each other to be primary competitors. This is not just my opinion. I got this impression first hand from the owners of both. They are both pussy-centric sites even though the individual styles are unique to each owner / photographer. They also have a pretty high overlap of models. As a matter of fact, both pictures I posted earlier are models that are featured on both ALS and InTheCrack. This is quite common.

One difference between the two is shooting locations. I would say that ALS is a little more reality based look shot in middle to upper middle class homes and such. InTheCrack is a little slicker and shot in high class mansions and villas. I wouldn't compare either one of them to DDG other than InTheCrack locations. I may be wrong, but I don't think DDG is primarily focused on the pussy and ass or features much in the way of huge dildos, speculum, fisting, bottle and other extreme insertions, four finger pussy gaping, pissing, anal insertions, etc.

xenigo · 08-27-2011, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

"Technically", once you crop/resize etc the images you are protected under fair use provisions as has been upheld in a US court of law. If that wasn't the case, none of us could have been doing what we do in this biz for all these years, nor could google have their image search etc. That means you can use the pics however you want really and tell them to fuck off while you redirect the traffic elsewhere.

Yep, I'm in a pissy mood tonight

This absolutely is NOT the case. NOT "technically", and NOT in any court of law. You can't trim a pixel off the height and width and call it your own, you fucking tool.

You aren't legally allowed to use anything you didn't produce yourself without the permission of the person who created it. That is the letter of the law.

The color of the law is that your business can't profit off the sweat of another business. That's the basis behind all IP laws including trademark, patent law, and laws governing domain misspellings, etc.

I'd love to see you trim a millisecond off a pop music track and go against the RIAA in court with that defense. They'd rake you over the coals.

helterskelter808 · 08-27-2011, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by looky_lou

I may be wrong, but I don't think DDG is primarily focused on the pussy and ass or features much in the way of huge dildos, speculum, fisting, bottle and other extreme insertions, four finger pussy gaping, pissing, anal insertions, etc.

Well that sounds like ALS, but from the InTheCrack website, aside from a speculum pic (never understood the demographic for that, or indeed most of the other things you listed), and a couple of others, I didn't get the impression ITC was that kind of site.

If it is, then it's obviously not as 'classy' as I thought, or what the representative/owner is trying to make out. Being anal about 'changing the composition', flying models around the world, spending 30 minutes on every image and other pretentious bullcrap just for shots of models holding their piss flaps wide apart, shoving wine bottles up their asses or pissing on the floor is laughable, and it should perhaps change its website, because the sample pics and the overall look of the site don't convey that kind of content at all, to me at least.

will76 · 08-28-2011, 12:27 AM

Sometimes it best for people to simply not reply. While your post was professional, i think it shows further lack of knowledge that your company has any understand of affiliates and how they work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthecrack

As the director and photographer of inthecrack I feel obliged to respond to people's concerns here. I would agree with Dean that Angie was a little harsh on this or could have been a little more tactful. To be honest I am not concerned about what people do with thumbnails. The thumbnails on our own site do not have watermarks either. To suggest that thumbnails should have a watermark on them is a bit ridiculous. However in Angie's defence this affiliate was in violation of the TOS and we are not talking about thumbnails here but in fact full size images. I really see this violation as a trivial matter that I would have overlooked but Angie is new on this so it would be good to cut her some slack.

I assume no one here knows "Angie" nor would they know she was new nor would they care when they receive an email saying that they have 24 hours to comply or their account would be suspended. Perhaps you should train your employees better before turning them loose on their own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthecrack

Now to enlighten people as to why that rule is in the TOS?. Branding is certainly a part of it but really only a small part and it is definitely not intended to short change affiliates of any potential click throughs. The fact is I go to extraordinary lengths to produce a premium product. There are not too many other producers that would fly all of the crew and models to exotic lands such as French Polynesia and New Zealand in order to get amazing locations. What customers and affiliates do not see is 10 in house trained editors that give every single picture 30 minutes of extreme detailed editing in such a manner as to not look edited. This does includes cropping to the ideal composition. I probably spend more on the post production than I do on the production. Therefore yes it does pick my ass a little bit when people feel they have the liberty to go and make their own alterations to the pictures.

I'm not likely to go and tell all our affiliates to quit altering our pictures but I would only hope that people would have some respect for the time and effort that goes into making a top quality product.

I wasn't enlightened... To sum up everything you mentioned, it's not to get free traffic, and branding is just a small part of it. We put a lot of time and money into production, and I get pissed when people second guess my end product and feel they need to make it better.

News flash buddy, you are a photographer, you probably don't know 1/2 of what most good affiliates know when it comes to advertising and what shots work best for their sites. The fact that you get "pissed" when people alter your precious works of art, is your problem. Do you want to make money and trust your affiliates to do what they know best or do you want to get mad because someone, god forbid is cropping your image because they think they can make it better to make more sales ??

jollyhumper · 08-28-2011, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by looky_lou

Maybe calls for some pics.

Where's the watermarks?

M

rten

Jel · 08-28-2011, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

Sometimes it best for people to simply not reply. While your post was professional, i think it shows further lack of knowledge that your company has any understand of affiliates and how they work.

So be professional in your reply and take the opportunity to talk to the guy instead of shout at him, and enlighten him. The end result is a win-win, where he not only tells Angie (and whoever else) *why* she needs to cut good affiliates some slack, which results in affiliates not being too worried about being shitcanned that they don't promote his site, and him getting/keeping that traffic, instead of a lose-lose where it degenerates into 'us' vs. 'them', links galore pulled, and possible multiple good working relationships never coming to fruition.

will76 · 08-28-2011, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jel

So be professional in your reply and take the opportunity to talk to the guy instead of shout at him, and enlighten him. The end result is a win-win, where he not only tells Angie (and whoever else) *why* she needs to cut good affiliates some slack, which results in affiliates not being too worried about being shitcanned that they don't promote his site, and him getting/keeping that traffic, instead of a lose-lose where it degenerates into 'us' vs. 'them', links galore pulled, and possible multiple good working relationships never coming to fruition.

I reply how I reply, take it or leave it. If you don't think it was professional enough for GFY then you can go fuck yourself.

The message and advice was solid, shouted or whispered, he can listen to it or shove it up his ass, I really don't care.

AND THIS IS SHOUTING!

DigitalTheory · 08-28-2011, 02:49 AM

I think spunkycash has it right.

Perhaps offer up a psd logo pack to affiliates who feel the need to modify/crop full images so they can always add it onto the image after they modified it to their liking.

CurrentlySober · 08-28-2011, 03:08 AM

i cant even afford to have a blog... let alone use it within the TOS of a sponsor or not...

Paul Markham · 08-28-2011, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeanCapture

Maybe I'm missing something here.....

A company asks you to agree not to crop their pictures or remove watermarks from their pictures as part of your affiliate agreement with them....and you went against the rules and did both of those things. You got upset when they told you to fix the problem and now you're here trying to warn others because what? They've asked you to follow the rules?

Seems pretty simple to me. If you want to push their sites, you must agree to their terms. If you don't like their terms, then find other sites to push. I don't get what the big deal is here. They have a right to run their business as they see fit - just like you have a right to run yours.

Somebody clue me in on what all the whining is about in this thread....

Rules are for other people. Silly of you Dean to think they really apply.

Jel · 08-28-2011, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

I reply how I reply, take it or leave it. If you don't think it was professional enough for GFY then you can go fuck yourself.

The message and advice was solid, shouted or whispered, he can listen to it or shove it up his ass, I really don't care.

AND THIS IS SHOUTING!

Professional enough for gfy? I was thinking more along the lines of just professional. You've always struck me as someone who looks to solve a situation for the best overall outcome rather than chest-beat, maybe you got out of bed the wrong side today, but whatever, you carry on.

Paul Markham · 08-28-2011, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

News flash buddy, you are a photographer, you probably don't know 1/2 of what most good affiliates know when it comes to advertising and what shots work best for their sites. The fact that you get "pissed" when people alter your precious works of art, is your problem. Do you want to make money and trust your affiliates to do what they know best or do you want to get mad because someone, god forbid is cropping your image because they think they can make it better to make more sales ??

News flash buddy.

Throwing up pictures in as many places as you can find and flooding the market with free content isn't advertising. You probably don't know 1/10th of what is advertising.

For years online porn porn has bowed down and offered it's ass up to anyone who will send a few clicks and wants to be paid top dollar for it. Plus gives a fuck about rules and regs of the people who pay them.

And we now have 1,000s viewing "advertising"

for free and never paying a single $ for it.

Maybe Angie could of handled it better, maybe they could of trained her better, maybe they could of sent her over to give the guy a BJ. God forbid anyone should tell off an affiliate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

"Technically", once you crop/resize etc the images you are protected under fair use provisions as has been upheld in a US court of law. If that wasn't the case, none of us could have been doing what we do in this biz for all these years, nor could google have their image search etc. That means you can use the pics however you want really and tell them to fuck off while you redirect the traffic elsewhere.

Technically, once you start to alter a porn picture, you better have the 2257 documents to hand.

Seriously you guys are up in the air and screaming blue murder when others break the rules.. Yet think you can break any you like and no one should say a squeak.

Jel · 08-28-2011, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

News flash buddy.

Throwing up pictures in as many places as you can find and flooding the market with free content isn't advertising. You probably don't know 1/10th of what is advertising.

For years online porn porn has bowed down and offered it's ass up to anyone who will send a few clicks and wants to be paid top dollar for it. Plus gives a fuck about rules and regs of the people who pay them.

And we now have 1,000s viewing "advertising"

for free and never paying a single $ for it.

Maybe Angie could of handled it better, maybe they could of trained her better, maybe they could of sent her over to give the guy a BJ. God forbid anyone should tell off an affiliate.

Technically, once you start to alter a porn picture, you better have the 2257 documents to hand.

Seriously you guys are up in the air and screaming blue murder when others break the rules.. Yet think you can break any you like and no one should say a squeak.

A clueless cunt more years running than arsenal have been in the Champions League, and even less likely to 'get it' than they are.

Now tell me I'm lying

Paul Markham · 08-28-2011, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jel

A clueless cunt more years running than arsenal have been in the Champions League, and even less likely to 'get it' than they are.

Now tell me I'm lying

No spot on. Throwing up free content till the porn consumer can wank off for free to his hearts delight and calling it "advertising" is pretty clueless.

This is an advert.

This is slinging mud at the wall and hoping some will stick.

www.pornhub.com and www.thehun.com

Advertising it's not.

MrDeiz · 08-28-2011, 05:49 AM

well... bad news indeed.

those guys would like to get your traffic for sure http://www.signbucks.com/sites/list/niche/115-close_ups

best of luck

AmeliaG · 08-28-2011, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

Well that sounds like ALS, but from the InTheCrack website, aside from a speculum pic (never understood the demographic for that, or indeed most of the other things you listed), and a couple of others, I didn't get the impression ITC was that kind of site.

If it is, then it's obviously not as 'classy' as I thought, or what the representative/owner is trying to make out. Being anal about 'changing the composition', flying models around the world, spending 30 minutes on every image and other pretentious bullcrap just for shots of models holding their piss flaps wide apart, shoving wine bottles up their asses or pissing on the floor is laughable, and it should perhaps change its website, because the sample pics and the overall look of the site don't convey that kind of content at all, to me at least.

I like that In The Crack has quality photography of pussy. I think it is incredibly common for people to want to be able to get a really good look at that. Surprising to me that there are not more sites focused on this. And I like good photography and a lot of people like good photography.

Why the heck would it be a bad idea to have well-shot, well-composed, nicely formatted images of something people like as much as pussy?

Paul Markham · 08-28-2011, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

I like that In The Crack has quality photography of pussy. I think it is incredibly common for people to want to be able to get a really good look at that. Surprising to me that there are not more sites focused on this. And I like good photography and a lot of people like good photography.

Why the heck would it be a bad idea to have well-shot, well-composed, nicely formatted images of something people like as much as pussy?

The reason so few sites have this level is simple. Few sites can afford to produce this level. They want complete scenes for $500 a set and video or even boast to paying $2,000 for 3. Well the people who can shoot this level aren't working for these prices. Even if they did they can't produce it at those prices.

I have seen the level of their work and technically it's very very high, not sure how complete sets come together or video so hard to tell emphatically. A lot of good shooters can do 1 to 4 good shots out of 200. Getting a whole scene right is a real skill. A lot more skill than it does to give it away for free and call it advertising.

I tried to look at the webmasters area to see if they pay 50% or whether affiliates are prepared to push real quality for less in return for a better ratio. This is why there are few sites of this quality online, it's simply not possible for most to pay out for traffic and this level of content.

To pay for it maybe In The Crack NEED the type in traffic that comes from their content being distributed around the Internet for free.

This situation isn't unique. Perfect Gonzo had a great shooter and couldn't afford to or wouldn't pay out the amount required to replace him. No one I met or spoke to online would pay the asking price when they were searching for this level of content. Same goes for Party Hardcore and other site. Alsscan has great content or did. They were able to shoot it themselves.

This will get some flames, still true. Twistys was supposed to be on the level of Playboy or Penthouse, well that was the claim. It wasn't within a mile of that level, the mistakes in the shooting were many and basic. Because I expect the site couldn't or wouldn't pay out for that level of content producer.

I get annoyed when I see people flame someone for producing a great product and talk as if they're something special, because they give content away for free, don't think they should follow rules, want to be paid a lot for it and are doing something 1,000s can.

looky_lou · 08-28-2011, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

I like that In The Crack has quality photography of pussy. I think it is incredibly common for people to want to be able to get a really good look at that. Surprising to me that there are not more sites focused on this. And I like good photography and a lot of people like good photography.

Why the heck would it be a bad idea to have well-shot, well-composed, nicely formatted images of something people like as much as pussy?

Very well put.

will76 · 08-28-2011, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

News flash buddy.

Throwing up pictures in as many places as you can find and flooding the market with free content isn't advertising. You probably don't know 1/10th of what is advertising.

For years online porn porn has bowed down and offered it's ass up to anyone who will send a few clicks and wants to be paid top dollar for it. Plus gives a fuck about rules and regs of the people who pay them.

And we now have 1,000s viewing "advertising"

for free and never paying a single $ for it.

Maybe Angie could of handled it better, maybe they could of trained her better, maybe they could of sent her over to give the guy a BJ. God forbid anyone should tell off an affiliate.

Technically, once you start to alter a porn picture, you better have the 2257 documents to hand.

Seriously you guys are up in the air and screaming blue murder when others break the rules.. Yet think you can break any you like and no one should say a squeak.

Thanks for the endorsement Paul. If you disagree with me and don't think I know anything it confirms that I am a genius .

porno jew · 08-28-2011, 12:52 PM

watermarks pulled.

epitome · 08-28-2011, 01:16 PM

Oh God. Markham found this thread. There goes quality.

Markham, you knock Twistys which Dean Capture shot a lot of yet I have never seen a single thing from you that is even 5% as good as what he shot for that site.

looky_lou · 08-28-2011, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Oh God. Markham found this thread. There goes quality.

Markham, you knock Twistys which Dean Capture shot a lot of yet I have never seen a single thing from you that is even 5% as good as what he shot for that site.

I might add that Playboy and Penthouse haven't been able to make money for the last many years shooting that kind of quality either.

Tempest · 08-28-2011, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Oh God. Markham found this thread. There goes quality.

was just thinking the same thing.

helterskelter808 · 08-28-2011, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

Why the heck would it be a bad idea to have well-shot, well-composed, nicely formatted images of something people like as much as pussy?

I don't think I said anything to the contrary.

looky_lou · 08-28-2011, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

No spot on. Throwing up free content till the porn consumer can wank off for free to his hearts delight and calling it "advertising" is pretty clueless.

Pauly-Pauly-Pauly,

Are you still jerking off to the pics in my blog postings?

I keep telling you that if you just click on the picture in the blog, it will open a gallery with 15 high resolution pictures you can wank to. These galleries are provided for me by all of the idiotic sponsors that I promote. As an affiliate, I am just stupid enough to actually use them, hoping that some jerk off, like yourself will be interested enough to join the site.

We are all just silly

inthecrack · 08-28-2011, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

Being anal about 'changing the composition', flying models around the world, spending 30 minutes on every image and other pretentious bullcrap just for shots of models holding their piss flaps wide apart, shoving wine bottles up their asses or pissing on the floor is laughable, and it should perhaps change its website, because the sample pics and the overall look of the site don't convey that kind of content at all, to me at least.

What kind of silly redneck comment is that? So we should shoot in the same four walls as every other production, throw up pictures straight off the camera and basically make no effort at all to produce quality just because the girls are spreading their cracks open. As if anything a little bit graphic does not deserve to be anything better than amateur. It is "pretentious bullcrap" to think that we could, heaven forbid, shoot some quality content of gaping pussies and close up butt cracks. Porn is not worthy of having a nice scenic background instead of a scruffy old couch in a basement. Really?? Come on. We all know that to do well in this saturated market you have to do something that no one else is doing. The nice locations and extra care in post production are two of the things that we like to do to get that edge. We have a niche. Just because it isn't your niche is no reason to bash it.

If perhaps what you really mean is that it is pretentious to feel the need to mention that we do this stuff?. Believe me I wish that I didn't have to say this. I have gone 10 years without ever suggesting or even giving the slightest hints about our methods. People don't need to know this stuff and the product looses some of it's mystique when you do blabber about it. I feel my hand has been forced by the rampant ignorance being displayed in this thread.

inthecrack · 08-29-2011, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

I get annoyed when I see people flame someone for producing a great product and talk as if they're something special, because they give content away for free, don't think they should follow rules, want to be paid a lot for it and are doing something 1,000s can.

Well said. Interesting that the only 2 people that "get it" in this thread (Paul and Dean) are the only two that are legitimate content producers (there may be others but sorry that I don't know of you).

90% of our affiliate sales come from review sites and other membership sites (who coincidentally feel no need to alter our pictures or crop out watermarks) simply because of the quality of traffic, not quantity. It seems that most people here want us to just sell out on our principles of quality control and copyright protection in order to cater to the remaining 10%. We'll gladly take all affiliates of any type but if you are planning to deliberately ignore the TOS or bend them to your own desire then you've probably come to the wrong place.

Jel · 08-29-2011, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthecrack

Well said. Interesting that the only 2 people that "get it" in this thread (Paul and Dean) are the only two that are legitimate content producers (there may be others but sorry that I don't know of you).

90% of our affiliate sales come from review sites and other membership sites (who coincidentally feel no need to alter our pictures or crop out watermarks) simply because of the quality of traffic, not quantity. It seems that most people here want us to just sell out on our principles of quality control and copyright protection in order to cater to the remaining 10%. We'll gladly take all affiliates of any type but if you are planning to deliberately ignore the TOS or bend them to your own desire then you've probably come to the wrong place.

Interesting that the 3 people who don't get affiliate marketing are the 3 that aren't affiliate marketers. Thing is, the affiliate marketers who don't 'get' what goes into shooting don't need to - they just need to know a couple of things about the end product: does it look good; will it sell.

Shooters need to 'get' what goes into aff marketing to a degree, because then they can differentiate between markham's inane and way off target ramblings about exactly *what* is being given away for free. Cropped pics on a blog getting SE traffic that link either to a tour or to a FHG is going to help your bottom line, not hurt it in any way, shape, or form. Anyone who tells you different has zero idea about surfers today.

inthecrack · 08-29-2011, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jel

Interesting that the 3 people who don't get affiliate marketing are the 3 that aren't affiliate marketers. Thing is, the affiliate marketers who don't 'get' what goes into shooting don't need to - they just need to know a couple of things about the end product: does it look good; will it sell.

Shooters need to 'get' what goes into aff marketing to a degree, because then they can differentiate between markham's inane and way off target ramblings about exactly *what* is being given away for free. Cropped pics on a blog getting SE traffic that link either to a tour or to a FHG is going to help your bottom line, not hurt it in any way, shape, or form. Anyone who tells you different has zero idea about surfers today.

You presume that making money is the primary goal. Actually it is not. Taking pride in a quality unique product and customer satisfaction is our primary goal. Making money is secondary for me. If it were only about making money then I would not fly the crew and models to exotic locations or spend the countless hours on post production (which coincidentally costs the affiliates nothing). I could make a shitload more money if I didn't do that. I sacrifice a lot to get what I have. I do what I do because it is what I am passionate about. I enjoy the adventure and the rewarding experience of creating something unique. To have thoughtless affiliates that think they own us then go and butcher it is an insult.

Jel · 08-29-2011, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthecrack

You presume that making money is the primary goal. Actually it is not. Taking pride in a quality unique product and customer satisfaction is our primary goal. Making money is secondary for me. If it were only about making money then I would not fly the crew and models to exotic locations or spend the countless hours on post production (which coincidentally costs the affiliates nothing). I could make a shitload more money if I didn't do that. I sacrifice a lot to get what I have. I do what I do because it is what I am passionate about. I enjoy the adventure and the rewarding experience of creating something unique. To have thoughtless affiliates that think they own us then go and butcher it is an insult.

If you are under the impression the OP is a thoughtless affiliate who thinks they own you, you need to close up your affiliate program, because you don't understand it. It's great that you take pride in your work, it really is, and I really do get that, as I do your passion coming above the desire to make as much $ as possible. Thing is, passion for your work, and making $ aren't mustually exclusive. You obviously want to make more money, otherwise you wouldn't have the aff program in place - the second helps you achieve more of the first.

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isc...l927 l0.6l6l0 Does Google think it 'owns' you? This affiliate (and many affs, across many programs), juggle text, advertising, placement, the best pic for the type of traffic their particular site gets, size, compression, calls to action, and a bunch of other stuff that I can't be bothered to try and recall right now, to make the best overall advert for the site they are sending to. They don't do these things so they can sit there thinking they 'own' anyone.

08-27-2011, 07:23 PM	#69
MrCain Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,332	Thank you for the warning. __________________ Sigmund

08-28-2011, 03:08 AM	#79
CurrentlySober Too lazy to wipe my ass Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: A Public Bathroom Posts: 38,636	i cant even afford to have a blog... let alone use it within the TOS of a sponsor or not... __________________ My AI Handywork... My Dream Gal... XXX 👁️ 👍️ 💩

08-28-2011, 05:49 AM	#85
MrDeiz SignBucksDaily.com Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 9,802	well... bad news indeed. those guys would like to get your traffic for sure http://www.signbucks.com/sites/list/niche/115-close_ups best of luck __________________ Make money with WEBC$MS The only way to still make money in adult

08-27-2011, 04:30 PM	#52
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,409	This is another (letter of the law/spirit of the law) = intent All programs put this into their TOS to cover things like newsgroups posting. The intent isn't to chastise affiliates who crop to make it work better in a blog post. When a company head reads the TOS and has no business sense in the affiliate marketing industry they get a little overzealous in their interpretation...

08-27-2011, 04:30 PM	#53
tedwinters Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Montreal/Calgary Posts: 672	Interesting quandary. I've never promoted 'InTheCrack', but have a bunch of blogs/tgps that all rely on cropped thumbnail images... using UUGallery, I quite often choose a pic or two from the original hosted gallery and crop to a 500X400 size as a preview - making sure that the logo is removed, and pictures are uniform size to keep the blog clean - but linking each fully to the hosted gallery...

08-27-2011, 04:55 PM	#54
StinkyPink It's all goooood. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The Hoe Stroll Posts: 1,591	Moron Sponsors....

08-27-2011, 06:39 PM	#62
StinkyPink It's all goooood. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The Hoe Stroll Posts: 1,591	Whatever dude. I believe I proved my point as well. I am not the first, nor the only one who has said basically that the sponsors (ITC or otherwise) are morons. NOT when they put this shit in their TOS, but when they threaten to close affiliate accounts due to "standard" marketing practices, simply because they put this shit in their TOS. Count, must've been at least half dozen other guys before me that said about the same as I did, but "I" am the "troll" here...

08-27-2011, 06:48 PM	#64
StinkyPink It's all goooood. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The Hoe Stroll Posts: 1,591	Oh yeah Dean just a reminder... this is GFY, the place where we call morons, well... morons. I know, I know... the place where we call trolls, well... trolls. There, I responded to my post for you. ;)

08-27-2011, 07:11 PM	#68
StinkyPink It's all goooood. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The Hoe Stroll Posts: 1,591	Hehe, my bad.

08-27-2011, 07:51 PM	#70
StinkyPink It's all goooood. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The Hoe Stroll Posts: 1,591	Don't mind me... I'm just p, p, p, pa... trollin'!

08-28-2011, 02:49 AM	#78
DigitalTheory ^-^ Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SacTown Posts: 1,055	I think spunkycash has it right. Perhaps offer up a psd logo pack to affiliates who feel the need to modify/crop full images so they can always add it onto the image after they modified it to their liking.

08-28-2011, 12:52 PM	#90
porno jew Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,166	watermarks pulled.

08-28-2011, 01:16 PM	#91
epitome So Fucking Lame Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: St. Petersburg, FL Posts: 12,156	Oh God. Markham found this thread. There goes quality. Markham, you knock Twistys which Dean Capture shot a lot of yet I have never seen a single thing from you that is even 5% as good as what he shot for that site.