Printable View
simply amazing.. by the way some of the "oh barebacking is evil" guys talk you would think that having seen a bareback film would make you unable to think rationally and practically demand of your human nature that you imitate what you saw on film in your personal life...Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
well what do you know ... :high:
If you really believe this, you're missing the point. Anything someone watches or spends time around, over time, affects their beliefs and values. Particularly if the people watching are at an impressionable age, the likelihood of it affecting them is much greater. This is one of the basic rules of advertising and marketing, and the data on it is pretty irrefutable.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickey
We can't definitively say from the data that watching bareback porn makes kids more likely to want to bareback, but we can draw inferences from similar exposures (to violence, cigarettes, prescription drugs, etc) and their effect on large groups of people to tell us it is very likely this is the case.
That said, getting adult producers to stop producing bareback is about as likely as getting hollywood to stop making violent films. That's where the money and demand is, so that's what people produce. I suppose there's no reason why this industry should show any more responsibility than Hollywood, other than the fact that some of us have already been through one holocaust of sorts with the first wave of AIDS deaths in the early 1980s and would rather not see the pattern repeated. But when people are forced to make a decision between money and ethics, money almost always prevails. Sad but true.
The rest of the statement I can buy, but the statement above is simply not true. A more accurate way of stating it is "We (stores, studios, VOD providers, producers, whomever) lose too many customers by not carrying/producing bareback."Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent-MF
Not that I fault you for saying it... I keep hearing the same argument from everyone... but my biggest issue is that it is a gigantic fallacy that everyone is buying into which is, in turn, making it into truth.
Every time someone gives in, it just reinforces the notion that you *have* to produce or sell bareback in order to succeed. But the only reason this is the case is because so many people are signing on. Eventually, that may be a true statement. It defintely wasn't a year ago, and it wouldn't be now if people didn't simply say "Oh, well, I'm going for the money."
Just something to think about.
see, here we go again... thank you for making my point..Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
Perhaps I'm oblivious, but I don't see how my coherent discussion of the facts and the data supporting them reinforces the point (if you're trying to make it) that watching behaviors has no effect whatsoever on your actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickey
If that's the point you're making, then 100 years of marketing, psychological, and anthropological data disagrees with you.
Hey Everyone--we own and operate GayDVD.com as part of the Raging Stallion / Gunzblazing family of companies. Having a DVD retail outlet that has emerged as a major web site have given us an opportunity to lean a great deal about the current DVD market. GayDVD.com carries all titles, including bareback. Bareback movies get a large share of front page space, right along with condom movies. For the record, most of our buyers come from google, so it is a random market sample.
We ran a sales report for the period January 1 thru June 30 of 2007 and guess what? Of the top 50 money making titles on our site, only four were bareback titles. So of the top fifty movies for the first half of this year, bareback had 4 and safer sex films had 46.
Today a big hit movie at a major studio sells between ten and fifteen thousand DVD units. A mega hit can do double these numbers. I guarantee you that the average bareback film moves under 2,000 units.
The bottom line is that it is a mistake to think that switching to non-condom porn will significantly boost sales in todays market. Frankly I would have thought otherwise, but the statistics speak for themselves.
I would echo this.
We have something like 22 DVDs out, and maybe 3 of them have sold less than 1500 units. Several are at or over 5,000 units, many more are in the 2000-3000 range. Our new titles continue to sell well at similar levels.
None are bareback.
Yet I hear of many bareback producers who are delighted to sell 500 or 1000 units.
You absolutely do not need to produce bareback in order to sell, you absolutely do not need to sell bareback product to be a successful retailer.
But if everyone is convinced of this fallacy, then the industry will *create* a reality that does not currently exist.
Chris:
Thank you for being open about sales figures. Most producers will never tell how much they earn, so it makes it really difficult for the rest of us to make business decisions if we don't have the facts.
Hopefully, other retailers will come through with more sales numbers so we have something to compare.
I'd hate to see a struggling producer go against his morals on the assumption he's going to make a killing producing for a niche that is not as successful as he imagined.
Yes- Those numbers are in the ballpark. An average film from a major condom only studio sells 6000 units, good ones sell 10,000 units and great ones sell 20,000+. DVD sales account for about half of revenue these days, with the other half coming in online VOD sales.
When we talk with major distributors that sell bareback DVDs they say they are happy to sell 1000 units of a bareback title. Maybe to a lot of bareback producers 2000-3000 units is a blockbuster, but to major studios we would go out of business if that's all we were selling.
I truly appreciate Chris sharing his numbers with us all. I also have to ask....now that the stats are in will you continue to sell bareback films? It would certainly be a powerful statement if a major company like RSS decided to stop selling bareback due to low sales.
Interesting. Considering these statistics, I wonder why it is that bareback appears to do so well on sites like AEBN?
Seems like they're always dominating the "Most Watched" list. What could cause that, assuming they really are the most watched?
My guess is that the DVD customer base is older and more condom oriented. The VOD customer base, currently, is younger and not as safer sex oriented.
You also need to look at things in terms of total dollar revenue generated, not how many times something was watched in VOD. Total dollar income generated is what counts. In the grand scheme of things hard product sales still represent 60%+ of total dollar revenue generated.
I think this is changing as more of the traditional condom studios move more aggressively into online and VOD. The bareback companies allowed their content into VOD much earlier then most mainstream studios, so they had a headstart on the younger VOD customer base.
From what I can see in our sales numbers at AEBN, I have no doubt that the VOD consumers just wants good content. Within our first couple of months on NS/AEBN we were doing over 1,000,000 pay-per-minutes per month. This is in addition to downloads and PPV rentals. On our own site we do over 2,000,000 minutes of streaming per month, plus downloads.
I think this will start to level out and switch over as more and more high quality content from condom studios becomes more readily available in VOD.
Bareback is a niche. As long as HIV is here bareback will never become mainstream becomes the vast majority of quality fresh models refuse to have bareback sex on camera.
People on this side of the business are constantly overlooking the influence that models have on this industry. As long as having bareback sex is a social NO NO....then working for bareback companies will be that aswell.
The emphasis should not be on attacking another business for making a business decision. The emphasis should be on discouraging models from entering that side of the business. This is not just good business practice: if you give a shit about your models, its the right thing to do. There is a lot of confused young people in this business.
Bareback company or condom company, everyone needs to work together to identify and weed out bareback producers that pressure models into performing without condoms.
Jeremy Hall
I would just like to say something. First of all unless you are in a 100% secure relationship (does that exist?) then it really doesn't matter if you are giving head or taking a bare cock up the ass...there are still plenty of chances to get a variety of STDs.
The bottom line is that there is risk in having sex. Period. And certainly for people who have made the CHOICE to have sex for money in front of a camera.
Yes, some STDs are "worse" than others BUT pointing fingers at people producing bare back content is just being elitist at best. If you produce content with 2 or more models engaged in sex then you are just as guilty so get the fuck over it!
Lee
In my opinion (and my information really applies only to the twink sector), it isn't so much pressure as misinformation or disinformation. In talking to various models that have either been asked to bareback or have done so, the issue seems to be that the studios commonly don't talk about the risks at all, just say "We'll pay you X dollars more (often just $50 or $100, which is really pathetic) if you're willing to bareback." A few studios go into a long pitch about how the tests they use are very sensitive and there's virtually no risk (which is completely untrue) and some apparently try enticing their models by offering various things. I have heard of studios getting models high on crystal meth, drunk, coked out before a shoot, and one studio is apparently known for insisting that all of its models take Xanax and Viagra before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Club Jeremy Hall
In my opinion, it's those sort of practices that are the most problematic. One of the best things we can do is to simply provide honest, accurate information and disseminate it as widely as possible. We are working on an info site now and I hope to have it up in at least some form within the week.