Feeds & Paysites

[Bec]

While I understand a lot of the benefits of having a series of relevant content feeds in a new paysite, ie it saves you laying out a lot of cash to actually purchase and host the movies and galleries, I'm curious about how some of you rate their overall value.

Do you see members staying longer because they have access to the additional content?

Should the feeds be relevant, or is quantity more important?

How do you decide what feeds, if any, you use in your sites?

If you have exclusive content, do you think bringing in feeds brings down the value of what you've produced in house? Or are feeds a way to offer more content initially while a site matures with its own updates?

[Chilihost]

some feeds are really well run, they have proper update schedules and give surfers fresh new content. These are gold for keeping surfers.

Others are more "old school" where you use them for nothing more than giving your paysite some bulk video or photo content. Its an easy way to quickly add loads of content but it is not the best bang for the buck.

[Bec]

I've seen some of those that don't update when doing site reviews. Like some actually state their last update was in 2003. I really didn't and don't understand the value of keeping feeds like that available.

[Chilihost]

What really gets me is why gay feeds are often more expensive than straight ones.

[Dzinerbear]

I think it really depends on how much exclusive content you have and how often you update. I think a site like Randy Blue that has over 450 galleries and video clips, and who updates 2-3 times a week, doesn't really need them. I think it can bring down the value of their exclusive content. Same with Corbin Fisher and Fratmen, their content is so good and updated so regularly that I don't know that plug-ins do them much good.

Also, I question the value of the plug-ins when so many sites have them. If they were re-branded for each customer so at least on the surface they appeared different, then fine.

And I think they're absolutely useless if they're not being updated.

Cheers,
Michael

[Bec]

I think it really depends on how much exclusive content you have and how often you update. I think a site like Randy Blue that has over 450 galleries and video clips, and who updates 2-3 times a week, doesn't really need them. I think it can bring down the value of their exclusive content. Same with Corbin Fisher and Fratmen, their content is so good and updated so regularly that I don't know that plug-ins do them much good.

Also, I question the value of the plug-ins when so many sites have them. If they were re-branded for each customer so at least on the surface they appeared different, then fine.

And I think they're absolutely useless if they're not being updated.

Cheers,
Michael

And you bring up another point ... so many sites have them. Are you shooting yourself in the foot if you don't have them too? Will the surfer say ok, I can get exclusive twinks at site abc, but I can get exclusive twinks AND 100 feeds at xyz for the same money, so chooses xyz over abc? Do feeds affect the wallet decisions or is it the models avail on site?

[CJ-KJCash]

The majority of the content on our sites is exclusive and made by us. I think that is the key factor in our really high retention rate. The fact that we have stuff that they cant see anywhere else.

However, we do use the AEBN leased feeds on our site and our members do use and enjoy them. Not that we hear lots of good comments when they are running fine, but let them be down for a bit and we will get some heated emails from our members.

We initially chose them because they have a gay asian feed of 4 movies per month. It was sort of funny this month when I went to check a reported problem with the feeds and found our dvd featured on there.

I do follow the stats on feed usage and was surprized to find the amount of stuff outside our niche the members are looking at. Kind of fun to be able to see which niches are the most popular in planning for future development.

I dont think feeds bring down the value of exclusve content at all. I think they are pretty different things and serve different purposes. I dont see how anyone can expect to put together a site that is nothing but feeds and make any money, and one of those was recently pointed out to me. All I could think is there are so many sites you could get all those feeds plus some real content from the owner of the site, why would anyone stay with a site that was feeds only.

[Bec]

Yea, the feeds only sites confused me too. Seems they'd be traffic dependent, as I doubt they really retain. I can see some old school programs not having to fret so much on traffic sources at this point, but new sites with just feeds and nothing else ... I'm not seeing how they could survive. I think the surfers now want sites that actually offer what the tour is selling, and that's content that fulfills that niche.

[CJ-KJCash]

Yeah, funny thing was, the site I saw, it looked like they had just taken every feed graphic their vendor provided and slapped them up. These was no meaningful text, so I wouldnt thnk they were getting much search engine traffic. And on top of that the site was still using frames.

[Xstr8guy]

What I can' understand is how a site can survive only from leased content alone. One of our most active board members has a site that has nearly every feed available. Each feed costs either X amount per member or X amount per gig of bandwidth. If you multiply those charges for every feed that you have and add in the cost of CC processing, hosting, rev sharing, aren't you cutting your profit to nil or even a negative $ amount?

[CJ-KJCash]

What I can' understand is how a site can survive only from leased content alone. One of our most active board members has a site that has nearly every feed available. Each feed costs either X amount per member or X amount per gig of bandwidth. If you multiply those charges for every feed that you have and add in the cost of CC processing, hosting, rev sharing, aren't you cutting your profit to nil or even a negative $ amount?

I would think hosting fees would be negligible. I mean if you are serving no content other than your tour, how much bandwith could you burn?

[Xstr8guy]

I would think hosting fees would be negligible. I mean if you are serving no content other than your tour, how much bandwith could you burn?

Oh yeah... what was I thinking? Lol.

[dannyz]

I would think hosting fees would be negligible. I mean if you are serving no content other than your tour, how much bandwith could you burn?

I *think* Xstr8guy is referring to the feed bandwidth bill, like with AEBN...I imagine it would get pretty expensive if the only thing you had to offer was AEBN feeds and getting billed at their rates from the bandwidth.

[Bec]

Hmm, yet another calculation to consider for what it'd cost to use them. I'd glossed over the additional BW costs above and beyond what the monthly fee would be.

[Xstr8guy]

I *think* Xstr8guy is referring to the feed bandwidth bill, like with AEBN...I imagine it would get pretty expensive if the only thing you had to offer was AEBN feeds and getting billed at their rates from the bandwidth.

Actually, I meant bandwidth to be in addition to the cost of the leased feeds. But you did remind me of a subtopic involving feeds.

Is it more cost effective for a paysite owner to use feeds that charge by bandwidth useage or per member charges?