Some Observations About the Porn Business

[Billbo]

Some observations about the porn industry.

Porn is about selling something to men and women that they want to see.

Despite that, the porn industry keeps forgetting that without customers buying what they produce, they don't make money.

Produce junk and you go out of business.

There are several types of porn consumers.

Most porn is bought by women. Most of them buy traditional boy-girl porn.

Most men also buy traditional boy-girl porn.

One type of porn consumer is the person who doesn't care who is in a video as long as the models look good. If single, he/she just wants to "get off". If married, the woman/man usually wants to inspire themselves and their husband/wife.

Another type of porn consumer is the one who doesn't care if the models look good or not, wanting it "so bad it's good" because they get a laugh out of how silly the video is or how bad the acting is.

Yet another type of porn consumer is the fan. Fans of an actress or actor, like those who follow hollywood or bollywood actors and actresses. This is the man or woman who is interested in who the actors and actresses are, wanting to see them in action. There are a large number of affictionados out there that follow a dozen or so performers, usually because of their looks, but sometimes because of the enthusiastic way they perform.

The fan is usually frustrated by the poor documentation of most sites, and usually there is no real idea of what or who is on a site that can be gleaned by a person considering signing up. That's where sites like Eurobabes.com, egafd.com, and IAFD.com are handy for them, and the fan can find work done by a given porn star.

Porn Sites, Fans, and Models
The usual situation for paysites is to have a handful of "samples" where you literally have no idea who half them are. Seems like many of them are a closeup of someone's butt and the fan doesn't have any idea of who is in the scene or what type of scene it is.

The constant changing of screen names by producers and websites is counterproductive to everyone. If a malefan wants to see something with Eva D, it makes little sense to make them search for it, having thirty or forty names. The site should want to sell it to those fans of Eva D. Or Veronika Zemanova, or whomever the fans are wanting to see. Some sites shrewdly sell male pornstars to women. Actually listing who is really on a site is always a plus to the consumer. Gives the customer a reason to pay money to sign up. I can't help but wonder how many potential customers pass over sites because they don't know what is on the site.

Imagine being the agent or modeling company for some of these models.

Tearing his/her hair out because a model is only getting a fraction of the work he/she might generate IF producers and photographers actually knew who a given photo is of— 30 names DON'T help in securing work for a model! And knowing that there are companies and photographers that would hire your models if they knew who you had. (Those sites who hide who they have are being stupid or are fronts. More of that later.)

Take Eva D. She has these screen names that I could find without half trying: Angela, Ariana, Barbi, Cornelia, Cornellia, Daniela, Eva, Eva D, Jewel May, Martina J, Michelle, Michie, Noel, Raylene, Raylene A, Raylene Richards, Sabina, Sophie, Susi Drabinova, Susanna, Suzana, Suzana D., Suzzana, Suzzana D., Vicky, Wendy, Wendy AW, Zaneta, Zanetta, Zanete, Zanette, Zuzana, Zuzana D., Zuzanna Drabinova, Zuzanna, Zuzka.

36 screen names! There are probably more out there. It's like this person didn't want those who would hire her to actually be able to hire her. And after a multitude of producers and photographers have complained about her attitude, being drunk on the set, or not showing up at all, one wonders if she really wanted to work at all. She went from one outfit to another.

One wonders how long her current agency will put up with her. It's actually been longer than most of them. First one I can remember was northonmodels.com, a flake of flakes outfit. They didn't actually seem to want to get work for her models. Not surprisingly, they disappeared from the scene —more than once before going entirely, which is unusual.

Returning to names, the idea some models have of "I don't want anyone to know who I am" is simply stupid. There WILL be people who know who a model is— their circle of friends, their neighbors, those they went to college with, etc.

If a model doesn't want to be known, they sure as hell picked the wrong medium, with everything "on display" for the customer. The only way for a model to not be known as a porno actress/actor is to not do porn. "If you don't want something heard, don't say it." The same is true for porn. Once someone does porn, it's out there

FOREVER.

But you know what? Most people worry about the opinions of others for no reason. Think the world is going to suddenly change if Veronika Zemanova went into hardcore? There would be applause by fans and most of the comments would be either something like "she's finally done it. Cool." and "I wish she'd done it when she was young!".

Take women worrying about what others will think: when most women in the western cultures have multiple partners over time and their family and relatives don't complain, is it really that different for a woman to have multiple partners on camera? And how many women will secretly be envious of their porn star friend or family member or relative and that is the real reason for criticizing?

Most parents don't like the idea of their kids doing porn. They wish for the morals of 50 years ago and I can't blame them. I'd love to return to that, myself— people were a LOT happier then. But it's not likely to happen, it is? Most parents also don't like the idea of their kids having sex before marriage, but they have gotten used to it, despite disapproving. While a parent might be disappointed in his/her son or daughter doing porn, he/she will get used to it. If the son or daughter really enjoys what he/she is doing, many console themselves with that and many even come to accept their sons' or daughter's choice of profession.

Remember, the cultures of the west that love their porn have members that complain about porn, but since they aren't the ones buying it, why should anyone in porn worry about them?

Most women performers in porn will never be famous. Most do it for a time in the background while the handful of beauty queens grab the limelight (or have good agents who promote them effectively). Very few are ever going to recognize them, much less criticize them. '

They make their money for a time and then are gone from the scene.

Most men performers are unknowns to most viewers. Men as a group are given far less attention than the women with a very small number of exceptions who the women fawn over. The average male porn performer is not recognized by anyone. They work for a year or three and no one ever knows who they are.

The best option for a porn performer or adult model is to pick a single screen name and stick to it. Make it something that has no connection to the performer's life or existing name. Never use another name in videos.

This has several advantages. One, producers can find them to hire them. Two, photographers can find them to hire them. Three, when a customer wants to buy images or video of them, they can actually find those materials easily and thus buy them easily. While some customers will put out some effort to find a person's photos and videos, most won't, and they shouldn't be expected to. Make it as easy as possible for the customer to buy. When a person has many names, it makes it harder for a customer to buy and most won't put out the effort.

Having many names cuts the potential profits of an actress/actor.

Crappy Camerawork
So, next problem: which end of the camera goes where? What's this little "rec" button for? How does zoom work? What is wide angle? What is an establishment shot? What is a high angle? What is a filter? Most producers have no clue.

Most porn producers would benefit greatly from taking classes on drama, video production, makeup, lighting, backgrounds, and costumes.

The camerawork on most sites stinks. Most high school/gymnasium students can do a better job. What is this obsession with one tiny little area of someone's body? When you pay a pretty model to do a scene, what's the point of never seeing anything but her crotch area? She's got a face and boobs, right? Why not show them? It's normal to have mostly close ups (or even closer with POV) of the one square foot of area that most porn seems to love, rarely showing anything else— no point in even hiring someone good-looking because the viewer never gets to see them.

And if you never see their face, how do you know it's who the producer claims it is?

Sometimes it's not.

The "classic" porn movies did a lot of bait and switch, with a "body double" having sex while the "actress" just looked pretty. Even 90s films like Zazel did that.

Speaking of Zazel, even high budget movies like Zazel suffered from extremely poor editing, such as in the scene with Gina Lamarca in a harem, where one second, the couple is starting to go at it, another second it's back to foreplay, then it's several minutes into the sex, then back to the start for a second or two. The bouncing around from one moment to another leaves the audience bewildered.

Unlike the art world, simply saying something badly done is "artistic" doesn't get customers to buy it. Only rich idiots generally buy badly done artwork.

Another silly practice is to zoom in and out at random, also on the same 1 square foot of body. Or they whizz around so that you never actually get a good look at anyone. One wonders if viewers ever get seasick from the constant motion of such butterfly camerawork.

Or they show only one or two models in a group scene, and ignore the other five. Why bother to hire those five models if only 2 are going to be shown on camera?

Hello, money is being wasted here.

How many scenes have sloppy camerawork where they cut off the models' head and just show the bodies? Or IS it just poor camerawork? Is it a bait and switch where the person claimed to be doing the scene is not actually doing the scene? Is it some model not wanting to show their face? Or is it an untrained camera operator or dumb director? It's interesting to many (particularly the female audience) to see the models' facial expressions. With more women than men buying porn, it's important to keep that women audience happy.

If you don't remember anything else: KEEP YOUR WOMEN VIEWERS HAPPY! They are your bread and butter.

Given the typical lack of profitability of such sloppy camerawork vs. something like Vivid, the multi-billionaire on the block, or softcore like Playboy, or softcore/hardcore like Penthouse, where the entire models are shown for at least part of the typical scene (and often for the entire scene), think someone in the porn industry would understand the typical customer's complaint of "back up the damn camera so that we can actually see something"? The customer doesn't care about seeing that mole on someone's left butt cheek for twenty minutes. The customer generally doesn't want to see the individual millia on the man's dick or the woman's vagina.

Why is it that almost every DP scene has mostly (or all) butt shots? There is a head and torso on the model, isn't there? Maybe let the customer actually see them, too? Women in particularly like to see the actress' and actors' expressions. Keep the women customers happy: when they buy the majority of porn, why not show the faces and bodies? Just showing the butts for endless minutes causes the customer to hit fast forward in the hope that the camera is going to move.

Plenty of salad but no meat.
Many producers go into terrifically excessive foreplay, where 3/4 or more of a scene are in the build-up to sex, but they end up "running out of time" and the actual sex makes up a very short part of the scene and the main course gets a whole thirty seconds. IF there is any. It's frustrating for men, but since it's often "all in the buildup" for women, what do female customers think when the scene is cut short after getting them worked up?

I can almost hear the screams of frustration from the female audience.

Sometimes I cynically think the endless buildup but no conclusion is because the guy can't keep it up more than a minute or two. Well, that is fixable, sometimes just by a better diet or not getting drunk the night before. If a guy consistently has problems, hire someone else. It's not like there is any shortage of virile men out there who could "act" in a porn film.

Lots of bodybuilders out there that would be willing to do porn. If the men can't keep it up, find someone who can outside the industry. They may lie about it, but most bodybuilders got into bodybuilding to get women in the bedroom. Some of them already live like porn stars.

It's typical to cut a long scene to nothing. Guy enters girl, ten thrusts, then magically ten minutes have gone by. In this day of large capacity disks and high speed connections, it's not needed. Show the entire scene.

Women in particular like the long scenes.

Bait and Switch.
Samples from websites typically are poorly done and often have nothing to do with the photo/link. It doesn't impress the customer to see a big photo of a given model, have a description of a given model, then to see a 10 second clip of someone else when they click on it. Much of time the problem is incompetence, rather than being dishonest, with many sites of poor quality and they give the wrong name to someone who looks like the actress they filmed, such as Anita Dark being called Monika Cajth. Or Kristi Klenot being called Valery Irene. It's like they can't remember who they hired and what name is on the contract. Or whose videos they bought.

But it does happen with some sites that they are hoping no one will notice the model is not the one advertised.

Another bait and switch that annoys customers is when one or more links claim one thing or another, but all go to the same place, such as promising a sample, but the link ending up at the same signup page. That kind of thing tells the would-be customer to go somewhere else. Irritating the customer with that kind of stupid stuff means lost revenue. If you have links on your website, make sure they do what is claimed or go where the link claims. Or have only a front page and a signup page and be done with it.

It's the falsity that customers hate.

Some advice for webmasters: go through your own site like a customer would. Or have someone do it for you. Then ask: would I want to sign up for this site if I know nothing about it other than what is on the front and sample pages? If the answer is "no", then redesign it!

Yet another bait and switch is where one model is claimed to be in a scene in hardcore, but isn't. For example, Orgymaxxx (now owned by Tainster) had a habit of claiming someone was having sex in a scene, but would instead have a softcore scene shot of that person (such as Jana Semradova or Cabiria), then have a closeup without the face visible of a different model having sex while wearing similar clothing and jewelry, but it's clear that it's someone else from the way the body looks. That kind of thing doesn't impress customers much, given the comments about it. It's fraud and it doesn't make a person want to buy another month's worth of subscription.

Some models try that. For example, Christina Leardini got into trouble with her fans when she advertised hardcore on her site and her work was softcore.
Don't do that. It's fraud and while it's not likely to happen, you can be sued for advertising what you don't have.

Companies in this business survive on customer's goodwill and if you screw them, you will go out of business.


Crappy site design

What is it with sites that are hard to navigate, hard to find anything, with links that go nowhere?

If the site is always getting emails describing problems, FIX THE SITE!

What does a site with problems tell the customer?

It tells them to go somewhere else.

Many sites love popups and they tell the customer to go somewhere else. That extra pence of profit per ten thousand popups is hardly worth making the customers angry.

One thing now common on sites is that their sample page tries to trap the customer. Idiots doing site design. Are these people so stupid as to think that trying to prevent a customer from closing the window or going to a different site is somehow going to make them want to sign up for the site?

It makes the customer angry. Do that enough and you are out of business.


Do sites really want to sell DVDs and Blue Ray?
They don't act like it. Gee, can't really tell what is on the cover. Who is in it? Can't read it. Can't tell much about it at all.

Frequently there's no back cover, either.

Click on a link and the site wants an unneeded signup just to see the box cover— and almost no one is going to bother to do that. The site is just driving potential customers away with that.

A common problem is to click on the box image and it is smaller than the original or the same size as the original.

If you want to sell something, the customer has to have some idea of what it is!

Right?

Make it easy for them. Let them know what you actually have to sell. It's not like it's hard to take 30 seconds to scan the cover in if the manufacturer didn't bother to provide cover images.

There are sites that whine about people browsing. Excuse me? You WANT people to browse. They are much more likely to make a purchase if they see something that interests them.


Common Site Problems
If a site is honest in its dealings, it will generally do much better than those sites that like to bait and switch or pull fast ones. A happy customer is much more likely to be a long-term customer.

You want to make it as easy as possible for a customer, not drive them off with garbage.

Most sites want more than what they are worth. It's not worth $30, $40, $50 for a month's subscription. The single model sites I've seen that do that are a joke and they tend not to last long. $50 bucks for a site with only Rita Faltoyano? Ha! How long did that last?

$10 for a single model would get many customers. $20 for the typical conglomeration site. The ridiculous prices for most sites ensure that they will have fewer customers.

Better to make $5 off each customer and have 5000 customers than to make $25 off each customer and have only 100.

Supply and demand. Demand too much and you lose money.

We are in a worldwide depression. It helps to remember that when setting prices.

This one irks many a customer: the practice of a company having one good site that everyone wants to sign up for, but they have a mess of other sites that are completely garbage. Having 10 sites in a package is not an excuse to jack up the price when most of the consumers want it for only one or two of the sites.

Another bad practice is to charge a ridiculous amount to existing customers to upgrade their membership. What's the point in charging just as much as a non-customer or even more than a non-customer? It makes the customer angry.

Fetish sites tend to not last long. The typical customer just isn't interested in that kind of thing. Fetishes have been pushed by producers because a model won't do b/g and the producer doesn't want to hire someone else.

Think about this one: what does a customer think when a model will do every yukky thing under the sun, but won't do b/g? What message does the send? Particularly when that model's personal life is pretty wild with the men? That in itself is something that drives producers and fans nuts alike— a popular model who is with different men every night, but won't do b/g work.

What's silly is that it's often to "preserve the model's reputation." If she's with a different guy every night, it's not like reputation is a factor. Word does get around. Might as well do it to make money and it never hurts to make the fans happy.

Fans pay money to see what they want. Makes no sense to deny them that without a reasonable reason.

Let's face it: most models can't name all of their partners in a given year, much less know everyone they've been with. Most models misbehave. Often very badly, spending time in jail.

There's no reputation to save.

Kim Kardasshian, and Eva D are good examples. There's no salvaging their reputations.

Many sites have an automatic monthly charge instead of a one month signup in the hopes that the customer will forget. It's a major turnoff for would-be customers. It used to be a standard practice to make it hard to stop the monthly charge, which made no end of customers angry. Or they would cancel their subscription and the thing would still keep pulling money from their account. That REALLY annoyed the customers.

Some pull a stunt and try to make a non-recurring subscription more expensive per month than their other options. As if the customer can't cancel any time.

I don't know if it's the case now, but one popular site in the UK wouldn't allow anyone to stop their subscriptions without a phone call. Didn't impress their customers outside the EU because of the cost of the call.

Many sites have improved their cancellation process, thankfully.

Practices that are "traditional" to porn, but that never have interested the typical customer
While it's true that most watch porn because it's not realistic, some of the stuff is really stupid. Like "cumshots". Most of the audience cares nothing for them. Spraying a pretty model's face? The producers like it, but the customer usually fast-forwards to the next scene where there is action going on or just ignores it.

A massive money-waster beloved by studios is girl-girl. Despite the pushing of it, most men and most women are just not into girl-girl. That audience is less than 5%, tops. Most customers, male or female, want to see a man with a woman or men with women or a man with many women or a woman with many men. At least partly because so many couples use porn to get inspired.

So, why is girl-girl so common? Because there are many prima-donna women models who won't do boy-girl and the producer somehow thinks it's better to do a girl-girl scene than to hire a different model who will do boy-girl. What about the majority of the audience? Is it smart to bore them? What's the point of advertising a given girl is doing hardcore and then to disappoint the customer? It's wasted money unless it's in a disc or website specifically geared toward girl-girl where those that like that will buy it.

Word gets around, too.

It would be far better for producers to say "no" to those prima-donna actresses that will only do girl-girl and hire from the myriad of women who will do boy-girl. This would also pressure those prima-donnas to actually do boy-girl, instead of pandering to their desire to be paid for nothing.

Another problem that irks the customer is advertising someone is in hardcore and all they do is stand around and watch everyone else go at it. That doesn't make a customer want to come back. A lot of sites do that.

If a prima-donna doesn't want to do on film the same things she does in her "private life", then hire someone else who will. It's not like pretty girls are lacking in this world. If a person is chaste in their private life (there are a few like Denise Milani or Sha Rizel), that's one thing and it's quite understandable and even respectable, but let's face it: besides money and fame, most women models get into modeling in order to bed down male models and other good-looking men. They might try to hide it or deny it, but their actions say otherwise.

Seriously, does it make any sense that she won't do b/g despite having ten partners the previous week? Or having gone to a New Year's or Halloween orgy like some of the "solo" models I could name? As such it makes very little sense for them to not do the same things on film that they do at home or at parties.

It doesn't make producers respect them for that kind of hypocrisy, either.

One practice that helps is to hire two models to do the same scene. That way, if one of them flakes out, you still have someone to do the scene. Sometimes it's useful to shoot a scene with each model and pick the best one, saving the other one for release a year or two in the future as a "deleted scene" or "alternate scene" or something similar.

Another practice when there is a large project or multiple projects being filmed at once where there is a group of models, is to have each model read the entire script or scripts, thus one can substitute for another. Given how many models don't show up, fight with other models, or are general jerks, it can save a lot of money in the long run.

If you can help it, never depend on a single model. There will be times that this or that model will flake out and you've just wasted the money for the set, camera crew, makeup artists, etc.

Three more practices that bore audiences are substituting oral sex for intercourse, substituting dildo or vibrator action for intercourse, and substituting titsex for intercourse. For some reason producers seem to love those things, at the expense of other parts of a scene. The fake sound effects dubbed in are usually pretty bad, too. It's hillarious when a man is titfucking a girl and she's "moaning" and carrying on as if she was getting something from it. The audience gets a laugh from that, but making them laugh is not the goal, is it? Once again, it's producers thinking it's somehow better to hire a prima donna than to hire someone who will give the typical audience what they want— an attractive woman and man going at it.

Bottom line: if a given actress won't do on film what she does the rest of the week, she doesn't belong in porn and someone else should be hired instead.

Which brings us to model pages.

Problems with model pages.
Modeling pages tend to be very negative. I won't do this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, but she never says what she WILL DO. A photographer or producer looks at that and sarcastically says "nice attitude" and goes to the next model page.

That model page might as well not be online. It doesn't help a model's reputation to have only "I wont's" on their page.

Instead, have this on the page: "I will do these kinds of work" and list them. (Some do). One, it's positive, and two, it tells those that might hire her what she's interested in.

It also helps greatly for the model to be honest about what work the model will do. Don't claim b/g work if you only do nudes. Don't claim to do nude work when you've turned down 25 outfits for nude modeling. Don't do b/g but claim to only do solo.

It's common for a B model (less attractive than an A model like Anita Queen or Veronika Zemanova) to get into modeling, wanting to only do nudes, and while makeup can make someone plain very attractive if it's done right, it's very common for B models to have to do hardcore in order to get work.

An A model generally will not do hardcore because it's so much easier to look pretty and stand in a spot, than it is to be in really good shape for a b/g shoot. It doesn't help that many central/east European producers don't pay their models that much more for b/g than nudes, so there's little incentive for a model to do b/g work unless she's doing it for the sex rather than the money.

Then, when they get older and the offers don't come in, the A model often goes to hardcore.

And their fans wish that they'd done it when they were in their prime!

In that sense, Anita Queen was a much wiser person than Eva D or Veronika Zemanova.

One thing I dislike is the model that says they won't do b/g, then it turns out they are doing it under a different name. Or they have made 50, 100, 150, 200 films in the prior ten years but claim on their site they don't do b/g. Or their webpage only lists solo work when they used to do b/g. Vladimira/Angeli/etc. is an example. Model pages said no b/g, but she's done it since her 20s.

Often a model has done b/g to get started and doesn't want to admit it. Claiming something not true is a major negative mark against the model. If a model lies about one thing, that makes the photographer or producer wonder what else they are lying about.

It doesn't make for steady work.

Now, if a model's had a bad experience with a type of work, that is understandable. "I had a bad experience in b/g and don't like it". That's reasonable. Most photographers and producers are reasonable people and respect that far more than lying.

Another problem is that a number of models don't have websites— and then they actually wonder why they don't get much work. Even a single page is better than nothing, with a few samples and a list of prior work. If no one knows their screen name, then how are they to be consistently hired? Agents can only do so much, and agents are going the way of the dodo, thanks to some real idiots in the industry and sometimes for predatory practices. Agencies are also dying off left and right, also because of some real idiots running them, and sometimes for treating the models like dirt.

An agency or agent who doesn't try to get work for a model is pointless.

Problems with model behavior.
It's a common story: a model is paid to show up for a shoot or a film and then doesn't show. In most cases it turns out to be the model getting drunk or drugged up and they thus don't get out of bed, missing the flight that the photographer or film studio paid for.

Models who do that tend not to get rehired and word DOES get around.

Some are legendary for doing that. The reasonable thing to do is not hire them until they get their act together.

Models who show up drunk or stoned are a liability. It doesn't make for very attractive photos or film footage, either. While the bloodshot eyes can perhaps be whitened and their red lines removed by a graphics program, the slack-faced look of someone when they are potted or bottled is not very attractive. It doesn't impress the staff when a model has to stop a scene or a shoot because she has to barf. Doesn't make the makeup people happy, having to redo the makeup several times during a single shoot. It doesn't make the janitors happy to clean up messes on the floor from a model's drinking.

Models who change the amount they charge at the last moment tend not to get hired again. A contract's a contract.

Models who start fights with other models tend to not get rehired.

Models who act like they own the world tend not to get rehired.

A model who shows up on time, does what was agreed to beforehand, and acts civilly throughout, is going to get a lot of work. Even a relatively plain model who has a good work ethic and a pleasant attitude will get more work than a prima-donna A model.

Look at B model Daria Glower. She's worked FAR more than most A models. And probably had a lot more fun doing it. With the right makeup, she's decent-looking, too, becoming better as time went on.

A common problem is models not actually wanting to work. Model agencies are often just as bad. (Don't get me started on Northonmodels/Intermodels. I couldn't help but notice Hemanova is on someone else' modeling site again. Soft only, of course, despite some hardcore work in the past.) When a photographer or producer calls or emails an agency, at a minimum it's courteous to reply. Even a polite "thanks, no, not interested" is far better than rudeness like ignoring inquiries.

Word gets around

What happens when you get a model or agency that ignores every photographer or producer they are contacted by, wanting only to do the "big jobs"?

Lack of work.

Word gets around. OK, this model is not available for work. This agency has no models who want to work. And so on.

Models who do that are eventually forgotten. It's comical when they wonder why they didn't get the big jobs. Gotta do the little ones first. Don't turn your nose up at being a pretty face for a commercial or car show. Getting known is critical to a model.

It's almost sad to see the parade of good-looking to gorgeous models over time who never do much since they turn down work or ignore inquiries by companies. In three or four years they are forgotten.

There are all sorts of directories with models. You find them in every nation, practically. From fashion to ordinary wear. Most don't work. Not because they are not good looking, and not because they don't get offers right and left when they first appear on the scene, but because they truly are not interested in modeling work, glamour modeling, or the porn industry. When you turn down 20, 40, 100 job offers for everything from selling used cars to being a hostess at a grand opening ceremony, and literally ignore every inquiry that comes your way from every company under the sun, it's pretty obvious that that model didn't want to work.

So, why is this?

Models are often just enthusiastic about the idea of being famous, and thus turn down every little job that comes along..

Let's take a common directory where some models have made it big, but others were not interested in working.

Take Sisi.foceni.org. Heaven only knows how many offers this person got from different companies, from glamour to porn. Her names got around a little, but she was almost never available to actually work.

Can you find her anywhere today on the net that is not where she was 5 years ago?

How many out there are just like her? Apparently was just interested in the potential fame of being a model, not actually working as one.

Compare her with Diana Vesela, also in the same directory. http://ladyves.foceni.org/

She's done a lot of modeling work.

Both are good-looking, but one wanted to work and apparently, the other didn't.

Even those with five hundred photo sets tend to drop off the map. See anything recent with Eva D?

I know of only one agency now with Eva D, when five years ago, every outfit wanted her. She was just too hard to work with.

I fully expect Eva D to come roaring back as a porn star, doing all of the things her fans wished she'd done in her 20s.

One wonders if she still will have the same "oh wonderful me" attitude.

Modeling is something where most women have a limited window of years. Especially if they smoke, do drugs, party hearty, or constantly suntan, which are the fastest ways out there to age the skin. Most models are hardcore partiers, and that ages a woman FAST— the late nights/mornings, the lack of sleep, the drugs, the booze, the frequent STDs, the smoking like a freight train, they all tend to age a woman quickly.

Glamour modeling and porn are actually more realistic than other types of modeling in that they allow women to work long beyond the limits of other types of modeling. Plus they allow women who actually look feminine to model.

If a model wants to get established, that usually means taking jobs they would not otherwise want.

Maybe it's a hostess job for a car dealership when she's only interested in fashion. Or being a statuette at conventions when she wants to do glamour for Playboy. Or being an extra on a cooking show. Or doing nude modeling. Or doing b/g porn. When someone offers a reasonable or good job (unless it's an outfit with an earned bad reputation), the model should take the job, because if she doesn't, she may not get other offers, depending upon the model's looks.

Think of a modeling career as a chain of jobs. At the start, the links are quite thin and easily broken.

A model has to get known.

Having 50 screen names doesn't help in getting known.

Most models simply don't look good enough to demand only the jobs they want and even then, the common "I'm a goddess" attitude wears thin in a hurry. They tend to not work long. Or they are in and out of modeling several times because they are too demanding or want only certain work that is rarely available or is not available to their body type. You don't hire a 2m tall 40kg fashion model to do porn. You don't hire a woman with tremendous curves like Sha Rizel to hawk dieting aids on TV.

At the start of her career, a model has to take those jobs she can get (again, so long as the outfit doesn't have a bad reputation). If she refuses every job, such as modeling for a local event or other minor modeling jobs like hosting a museum opening, or posing nude on the beach, she won't get much work.

Word gets around if a model is interested in working or not.

A model has to be realistic if they want work. Can she act? Can she do anything except look pretty? Can she speak before a crowd? Is she cheerful and friendly and thus makes a good hostess for public events? You have some models whose gifts are perfect for glamour or porn but they can't act.

Take one of the original charlie's angels. Can't act. Her job was to look pretty. She did a number of risque movies. Then she stops doing the exploitation films, figuring she has paid her dues. No one hires her because she can't act. So, she goes into nude work again. She develops a fan following. And eventually she is back in TV for a time, looking pretty.

My advice for models is: if you really want to work, then you do what you are actually able to do. If you are an avid hiker, model for that if you can get it. Have photos taken of you doing the activity you do best. If you are a soccer player, try to model for that. If you are a swimmer, try to model for that. Go with your best attribute, the things you do best.

If you have a pretty face but a mediocre body, do work emphasizing the face and hit the gym. If you have an outstanding body, but a mediocre face, do nude modeling; keeping in mind that a good makeup artist can change a person's looks tremendously, making a plain or even ugly person much more attractive.

Don't ignore the small jobs because you never know when a big job might come from it. Someone might see the pictures or the video and want to hire you.

A brief look at how many in Hollywood started in porn should give a clue.

Remember, too, to ask 1. If I do this, will I regret it later? and 2. If I don't do this, will I regret it later?

Those two questions will save a lot of grief later on.

It's may sound strange, but many models in their 30s regret not having been in hardcore when they were younger. It wasn't what they thought it would be and they love it once they finally try it. And a few models regret being in hardcore when they were younger. And some regret because they blew things so badly that the modeling industry told them "bye-bye" and they couldn't even get a job in porn.

A couple of suggestions to boost site traffic and profits:
1. Have actual free samples of your best stuff that are good quality, say, thirty seconds or one minute in duration. This gives the would-be customer an actual idea of what the site offers. When it gets passed around, it's free advertising because it whets the appetite of the customer to see the rest of it. With many sites, the customer literally have no idea of what the site has, because the site has a couple of samples, then the site immediately wants the customer to sign up, without actually telling them much about the site. There's no actual attempt to "sell the product" by the site.

2. Have a person on the staff whose job it is to look for piracy of longer duration clips lifted from the site. That is their only job: to seek out stuff stolen from your site and to ask the websites hosting it to remove it. Most sites will do so if asked.

Speaking of piracy, yes, piracy is a big problem.

However, even bigger than piracy is that there are simply too many players in the porn market for most to make a profit.

About ten years ago, you had an explosion of websites and producers who produced mostly low quality stuff, from the generally-hated "racoon eye" and other extremely poorly-done makeup like the orange-rouge put on balls that some sites love but makes the viewers giggle because of how stupid it looks, to the obviously fake dubbing of moans and groans, to never seeing the performers faces because the camera just sits there on one spot for ten minutes. Poor lighting, poor scene design (if any), poor editing. Poor everything.

Most of the poorly-done stuff eventually disappears from the market, but for every one, seems like ten take its place, like the Greek Hydra.

Speaking of moans and groans, it's downright silly what is done. Nothing's happening, but there is moaning and groaning. Or someone from Italy has an English accent. When there is a sex scene, record the two going at it and have some music in the background. If the idea's to make the customers laugh, by all means keep doing the stupid-sounding fake sound effects and dubbing over people's voices.

One wonders if the small porn operations would be better off hiring TV/film/drama students who have taken classes in camerawork. There are plenty of people with degrees in such that have to work in some other field because of no demand for their expertise. Most of the porn out there today is awful quality that makes you think of some idiotic name like "Butthole Buckaroo Blasts a Busty Blonde" or "Sauen Schmeckt Schmutz". What message does that send? At least TV/Film/drama students would have some idea of which end of the camera is supposed to be aimed at what.


Sites to Avoid
Since most modeling sites are actually trying to make money by getting work for their models, having no information up front indicates that there is something WRONG. It's an escort site or some sort of scam.

Or ID theft.

Some sites try to get a boatload of information from someone to supposedly see their models. Most are scams or escort sites.

Sometimes real modeling sites have tried to do that, but they don't consider this: most producers and photographers are not going to bother with signing up just to see what models a site has. There is no legitimate reason not to at least list the models by model alias and have a headshot at a minimum.

Many modeling sites do the latter. It's smart: it's selling the models to potential photographers and producers.

I pass over any site that doesn't say up front who they have modeling— it's probably just an escort site trying to pass themselves off as a modeling agency. (Never hire escorts for anything, business or personal. Escort sites are notoriously filled with stolen photos of real models and similar fraud.) Or they are a scam site. Or they are a site that is trying to pull some kind of a fast one. Either way, most producers and photographers are going to pass such a site by.

http://www.101modeling.com/ is a good example of a well-made website. Easy to navigate. Gives enough information for a photographer or a producer to make a decision and start the process. Models indicate what they will do. Contact information for the agency.