That depends if you include the web porn video industry. Im not going to get into a long debate about whether daredolls material can be labelled porn, in some ways no, or at least very soft, in other ways its clearly fetish stuff that will get the same sort of reaction from people & video hosts as porn. I remain bemused that daredolls posts here still try to find alternative explanations for why they get banned from video sites sometimes, the reason should be pretty darn obvious and undeniable. Regardless of any disagreement about this stuff, I think its a pretty safe bet the potential to get their viewers to spend money is based on the same sorts of impulses that make people spend lots of money on porn.
Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], Adam Quirk <qu...@...> wrote: > > I'd say at $3k a month in sales you are in the top 1% of people making money > in web video. You're also not doing advertising, right? > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:28 AM, daredolls <dared...@...> wrote: > > > this event was the first live stream i ever got to see. our lovely country > > setting does not come with the internet, and our lovely superheroine series > > routinely gets deleted for content after being flagged by pornographers who > > don't like our standards. i wanted to see who prevails. > > > > i was grateful for the double audio feed, as it prevented comprehension of > > what appeared to be being said. i was listening to the musical portions > > wondering if the second feed would be revealed as another big joke once the > > beats blended but they never did. > > > > somehow "there's no money in internet video" came thru loud and clear. i > > am beginning to think, with our measly $3K a month in direct sales that we > > are internet stars. > > > > --- In [email protected], "elbowsofdeath" <steve@> wrote: > > > > > > So I hear the Streamy's this year were a disaster in several key ways and > > have gotten all the wrong sort of attention as a result. > > > > > > There is some concern that it has damaged the image of the 'industry', > > although it may be easy to overstate this point. It certainly didnt help, > > but the 'industry' has enough other problems too, although anything that > > harms potential sponsorship by appearing to confirm potential sponsors worst > > fears (eg uncontrolled juvenile amateurish smut tarnishing their brands) > > sounds bad to me. > > > > > > Unfortunately there is a part of me that is wildly entertained and amused > > by the streamyfail, considering it to be some kind of justice on a certain > > level. This isnt fair, as no doubt lots of blameless hard working people > > have been hurt by the streamyfail, but I suppose its a natural consequence > > of my disdain for the way some of the more visible parts of the 'industry' > > went, shoddy emulation of the existing media. What better way to symbolise > > two worlds colliding, and so much wasted potential, than to have a slick > > awards show humbled by technical glitches and naked people. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Steve Elbows > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
