Hiding "The Truth" from your customers...

[TropixxxMichael]

I was reading the thread about the back and ass acne on the models (http://www.gaydemon.biz/showthread.php?t=477)
and the issue of "photoshop" came up.

From a surfers standpoint, I would be VERY UPSET if I joined a site because of a particular model based on promo photos, only to find out that the content videos inside had the same model, only covered in acne. To me, it is sort of the same thing as buying a video in an adult store, getting it home, then finding out that the model on the cover is not even in the video. (Remember those days anyone?)

Would you agree or disagree that if you were the consumer buying the product based on false pretenses that you would be upset? And as such is this really an ethical business standard?

We all know that there are surfers out there that join a site because of "one model" or "one photoset" that peaks their interest. Given that, shouldn't it represent the reality of the video inside?

Or am I missing the whole point and you somehow doctor up the entire video as well?

[gaydemon_jr]

I would imagine the whole video must be doctored up in order for it to be acceptable to edit the preview clips/photos.

Though I just think these models should be told they're not what is required in the first place. Maybe I'm just harsh lol.

[Gaystoryman]

As a consumer, I get really pissed off when I am misled or lied to. In my book, don't tell me it is this, when it is that, but unfortunately it seems to be working for many out there, whether in porn or the real world.

I don't get it, but I know I bitch like hell when I am promised something, and it isn't there.

But then I am weird. I'd rather pass on things, than get a bargain, for something I didn't want, or do a job that tells a lie. If it sucks, it sucks, if it waddles, it waddles. If it has acne, it isn't smooth flawless skin.

my inflated 2 cents worth, cuz its canuck pennies

[gaydemon]

A lot of paysite tours are still very missleading - specially the sites that belong to some of the big players who produce huge amount of sites.. no names ;)

I think its getting better, the sites that create tours which contains their updates and/or episodes are probably the sites that the most honest.

Sites with the more old style splash page tour (basically 1 huge image) often are very missleading. And I do know for sure they have models on those pages that the definitly do not have inside the membership area.

[abostonboy]

Well. Why have an asslick site with a guy with an ugly ass in the first place? That's part of the whole problem with porn. Producers with little understanding of the niche film the content. At least most producers know what a big cock is.

[basschick]

nastydollars' first big dick sex site was 100% doctored inside.


I was reading the thread about the back and ass acne on the models (http://www.gaydemon.biz/showthread.php?t=477)
and the issue of "photoshop" came up.

From a surfers standpoint, I would be VERY UPSET if I joined a site because of a particular model based on promo photos, only to find out that the content videos inside had the same model, only covered in acne. To me, it is sort of the same thing as buying a video in an adult store, getting it home, then finding out that the model on the cover is not even in the video. (Remember those days anyone?)

Would you agree or disagree that if you were the consumer buying the product based on false pretenses that you would be upset? And as such is this really an ethical business standard?

We all know that there are surfers out there that join a site because of "one model" or "one photoset" that peaks their interest. Given that, shouldn't it represent the reality of the video inside?

Or am I missing the whole point and you somehow doctor up the entire video as well?

[xstr8guy]

I would imagine the whole video must be doctored up in order for it to be acceptable to edit the preview clips/photos.

Outside of a Hollywood special effects department, other than adding a bit of blur filter to hide zits in a video, there is nothing your average porn editor can do to hide bad acne. I don't think most are going to go through each frame of a video and remove zits.

Photos can be very easily "doctored up" whether they are screencaps from a video or high-quality photos.

I guess I don't really feel it's deceptive to try to highlight the best parts of a model on a tour whether it's photos or a video preview. After all, isn't that what sales and marketing is about? Look at any magazine cover. If we didn't know better we'd think Demi Moore (or any other mature actress) was 26.

[RottenRay]

Natch, you have to "put the best foot forward," but IMHO that stops at choosing the photos or sections of video to display in a tour.

I think the days of the "classic" splash pages - showing beautified collages - are gone. Today's consumers are much more critical.

So, do you blur video a bit or scrub out zits in PhotoShop?

Only if you want lots of refunds - once someone pays, and finds out the model on the front page is really a peice of sh*t, they'll probably quit and ask for money back.


The real question is this: Tons of guys and girls are willing to be "models," so why don't we all start filming the best instead of filming them ALL hoping to use some of them as "filler" stuff?


...

[dzinerbear]

I don't know, isn't this like picking the absolutely best photo that makes a guy's cock look as big as possible? I don't think it's such a terrible thing.

Michael

[abostonboy]

You should never "hide" the truth from your customers. That includes affiliates as well. Believe it or not there are many consumers that appreciate the truth.

[Gaystoryman]

I don't know, isn't this like picking the absolutely best photo that makes a guy's cock look as big as possible? I don't think it's such a terrible thing.

Michael

Don't think it is the same. I mean there are some pics you see that makes the model look like a dufus, so you wouldn't use it unless your site is about dufus models, but at least it would be a 'real' photo, not something faked or altered.

my 2 cents

[archer]

to me truth in advertising rocks.

anything less seems to be a sure path to a high chargeback rate.

[AlexManifestMan]

I see nothing wrong with some touch up in photoshop for the odd zit here and there. However, if it takes more then three hits with a 5 px healing brush on his images, then the model should not be doing video work at all during that time. Likewise, touching up images for a tour and then not following through on the images inside galleries is indeed poor workmanship. That is misleading.

[TropixxxMichael]

I see nothing wrong with some touch up in photoshop for the odd zit here and there. However, if it takes more then three hits with a 5 px healing brush on his images, then the model should not be doing video work at all during that time. Likewise, touching up images for a tour and then not following through on the images inside galleries is indeed poor workmanship. That is misleading.

Sounds like the most reasonable approach.

[xstr8guy]

Natch, you have to "put the best foot forward," but IMHO that stops at choosing the photos or sections of video to display in a tour.

I think the days of the "classic" splash pages - showing beautified collages - are gone. Today's consumers are much more critical.

So, do you blur video a bit or scrub out zits in PhotoShop?

Only if you want lots of refunds - once someone pays, and finds out the model on the front page is really a peice of sh*t, they'll probably quit and ask for money back.


The real question is this: Tons of guys and girls are willing to be "models," so why don't we all start filming the best instead of filming them ALL hoping to use some of them as "filler" stuff?


...


I'm not endorsing a complete facelift via photoshop or using a Streisand filter on the camera lens, lol. But I'm certainly going to erase an unfortunate zit or 2. And the preview video is going highlight the best parts of a 20 minute video in a 2 minute clip.