by Furry Girl

03.19.10

This afternoon, I was clogging up your Twitter feeds trying to start a conversation about a topic that has long irked me.  The current iteration of my annoyance started with Sinclair Sexsmith asking people for suggestions for feminist porn for men.  (Which is a totally interesting conversation in itself- one I don't think I've seen anyone else bring up before.  "Smart porn" is for women, and men are tacitly dismissed as testosterone-fueled cavemen who will rub one out to anything.)

The responses to Sinclair's question were the same companies we've all heard of a thousand times.  The Crash Pad Series, Madison Young, Courtney Trouble's films, Carlos Batts, Comstock Films, Tristan Taormino's work, and so on.  There's this relatively short list of producers that comes up every time anyone wants to talk about "independent porn", "feminist porn", "porn for women", or "porn for couples".  Now, I'm not knocking any of these companies - not one bit.  They are rightfully mentioned when people talk about where to get good hot smut.

My annoyance and confusion comes from wondering why talking about "good porn" means talking about who makes good porn that is available as a feature-length physical DVD.  It's this glass ceiling of sorts in the indie/alt porn world, and I can't understand why it exists.  ("Glass ceiling" isn't even quite accurate- it would have cost me less money and time to make a physical DVD than produce the web content to start my latest site, so it's not a financial barrier.)  While the lumbering dinosaur of the mainstream porn industry is slowly realizing that selling DVDs for $30-40 a pop is an outdated business model, the indie/alt/queer porn world is still in love with the format.

Sex-positive porn fans and bloggers generally only mention quality content that's available as feature-length DVDs, skipping over the vast plethora of independent porn that's available online, which actually gives people much more bang for their buck in terms of amount of material.  While a $30+ movie has 60-120 minutes of action, a subscription to an established adult site would have much more video content, plus photography, writing, and in many cases, interactions with performers.  And, more material keeps getting added- it's an evolving and dynamic piece of work.  Plus, you can usually download all the web content and keep it for future enjoyment- just like that porn DVD.  (Of course, I'm totally bias here, because I've been producing web porn for over 7 years, so I obviously like the format both as a creator and a consumer.)

I'm genuinely curious, why is good porn only worth mentioning - in 2010 - if it comes as a physical product in the mail?  While tech-forward people increasingly shun CDs and DVDs and store all their media on hard drives (or just use Netflix/Hulu streaming), why is indie porn still about the DVD?  Why is what I do any less real/interesting than if I burned it onto a shiny round disc and put it in a plastic box?  Even the mainstream jizz biz seems to be slowly starting to offer scenes on demand and instantly viewable online.

Asking on Twitter, two women suggested the love affair with the DVD is because they're easier to pirate, but I don't think that's the case.  Maybe with mainstream porn, but I think that fans of indie/alt/queer porn are much happier to support their favorite directors and performers by purchasing our work.  Plus, a scan of The Pirate Bay doesn't seem to suggest indie porn is massively pirated.  See here, here, here, or here, or here.  So, maybe people have made copies for their friends, but people certainly aren't able to just go easily download something they've heard about rather than pay for it.

Another person suggested bloggers and web folk talk about DVDs because there's more money to be made selling them through affiliate links.  I can't believe that one is true, either.  Standard DVD/physical product commissions (such as what I get linking to Babeland) is 20%.  Standard porn site commission for affiliates is 50%.  So, if I sell a $30 porn DVD through a link from my site, I make $6, but on a $20 porn site membership, I get $10.  Plus, if that person stays a member of the porn site, I keep getting $10 every month.  So, it couldn't be that people talk up DVDs because there's more cash it for them.

So, tell me, internet, why do you usually only talk about feature-length physical DVDs when you talk about quality independent porn?

Note: none of this is to say that DVDs and feature-length porn movies are bad, just that I think they get a massively imbalanced amount of attention compared to web porn.

PS: Hugs and kisses to my sister/fellow independent/alt/amateur web smut conspirators, like Cyber-Dyke, Tasty Trixie, Seska, Joy of Spex, Hippie Goddess, Burning Angel, Bella Vendetta, Anna the Nerd, Adorable Audrey, AmberLily, Fuck for Forest, Masturbation Impossible, and DeliaTS.  (Apologies to everyone I'm forgetting at the moment.)





10 Comments

  1. Maybe it has something to do with the idea of legitimacy and permanence- there's something about a DVD, a physical, tangible product, that is reassuring in knowing that you have it, and no computer crash is going to get rid of it (and that's only if the website had downloadable media, versus streaming-only). Unlikely as it is, websites do disappear (Ssspread.com, for example), whereas a DVD is supposedly forever. And, as silly as it is, I do think people still see DVD's as the sort of mark that someone has "made it"; it makes it seem as though you have produced something worthwhile enough to get it 'released' (even though that may not be the case, and, as you point out, you could have just burned it yourself to a disc!).

    It's illogical, given that I *hate* the pitfalls of DVD porn (having to store it, get it out, rather than just click a folder on the desktop), but I still feel kind of proud of my DVD collection of queer indie porn, in a way I wouldn't if it was only on the web or my hard drive.

    Comment by Cand86 — March 19, 2010 @ 5:38 pm

  2. Hmmm, I don't do this myself but maybe it's just a certain sort of snobbery? When film first came out, people did not believe that film could be "art". Same with photography. Perhaps, due to the relative newness of internet porn and because of the fact that -anybody- can make internet porn, there's a sort of elitist notion about the superiority of having the equipment and abilities to make a DVD?

    Iono, I'm kind of talking out my arse here!

    Comment by Nio — March 19, 2010 @ 6:39 pm

  3. Could it be a merging of information overload and the stereotypical view of the internet as a distributor for "traditional" porn? I remember my own journey seeking out porn that I could enjoy - free from the plastic nature of mainstream porn but still full of hotness- and the research took hours. Fortunately you guys have extensive link lists, so once I found Tasty Trixie, the rest was easy.

    The irony is that those who are looking for recommendations for thoughtful, people-friendly porn are seeking immediate answers (otherwise they wouldn't be asking on the internet in the first place) but the results they've been given reinforce the old, patience-is-required method of experiencing media. Maybe if all parties involved applied the same discipline to thoroughly searching and wading through myriad porn sites as they do in waiting for a package to arrive or a file to download, they would find exactly what it is they're looking for with much greater efficiency.

    Comment by kitty — March 20, 2010 @ 5:31 am

  4. Quality, non plastic airbrushed & artificial hot indie porn only seems easy to find once a person has hooked up with the network of producers - which I think does not happen for a lot of people; they are inhibited by the need to become familiar with a new distribution channel, new sources of product. Perhaps time and networking will help the potential consumer to overcome this inhibition.

    It does not help, probably, that - oddly enough - we may feel more anonymous going into a physical product store and paying cash, or even by CC, than purchasing membership in a site on the internet. The latter seems more "visible", due to the permanence and insecurity of internet transactions, and more permanent than dropping in to a local porn shop.

    The industry is in need of a very transparent, highly secure and trusted payment system which combines age check and micro-payment capabilities with CC payment capabilities, and is dedicated to and not divertable from service to the porn/erotica consumer.

    Comment by JIm — March 21, 2010 @ 2:09 am

  5. Well, the porn genre I'm a fan of is "New Wave of Lesbian Erotica" (google it) rather than "feminist porn", and that genre is an even mix of DVD producers and web video producers. And much of the best of it has long been on web video, with DVD having no particular advantage as far as the quality of the movie goes. In fact, one big advantage of web video is that much of it has been in HD resolution for several years now. Whereas very little hard-copy porn is on Blu-Ray.

    The trend is clearly toward web content. Abby Winters is a good example of a company that does both DVD and web videos, with the bulk of their content being in the latter format. Companies like Viv Thomas and Girlfriends films remain DVD-centered, but increasingly are making DVD titles purchasable by direct download. Others like Little Mutt abandoned DVD years ago and have entirely gone over to web video. My preference is definitely high-rez web video. If I really want a DVD for some reason, I can always burn one. DVD might have some advantage if they came with tons of special features the way some mainstream DVDs do, but you rarely see that in porn.

    As far as piracy goes, both web content and DVDs get hit, and if anything, web content is pirated more easily because one doesn't even have to bother to covert format. But companies on both ends are suffering because of piracy, in any event.

    As for Sinclair Sexsmith's original post that touched this off, I haven't seen this, but it touches a pet peeve of mine I've been seeing a lot of recently. It seems a lot of sex-positive feminists have semi-caught the anti-porn bug from radical feminists and are taking an increasingly proscriptive stance toward men watching so-called "mainstream porn". I think there's actually a lot of good stuff in the so-called "mainstream porn" world (though that's really a nebulous term and could mean a lot of things), counted you weed through the crap, but too many feminists are more interested in blanket condemnation of it than critical engagement.

    Comment by Iamcuriousblue — March 21, 2010 @ 6:28 pm

  6. I heard a similar bias on a Playboy Radio show (Afternoon Advice Ithink) talking about piracy and making comments that lumped together web/pirated or DVD as categories, and saying that web porn is short (just sex scenes), "grainy", and impermanent. I dunno, if you back up your data I'd say files could be more permanent. I question the value of HD for anything, though I know it is popular, and plotless porn is frankly a great time saver depending what you're looking for. I assume it was a bias from the larger DVD based companies the hosts worked for, but sounded kind of odd for 20-somethings to be talking about a "physical product in your hand" as being preferable. It's a new age for all types of media, and I sure don't miss the older distribution systems, especially for porn. Better they would have talked about how to find good web-based indie material. (Jane's List?)

    Comment by Renard DellaFave — April 6, 2010 @ 10:00 am

  7. It's because people want something they can keep. Downloads are really just as good as DVDs when it comes down to digital rights. The problem with subscriptions is that you have to keep paying money (at least on most sites) to view the content. Consumers have overwhelmingly chosen a digital model in other markets (i.e. music) where you pay for the item one time and can then use it as much as you like. I've seen lots of porn producers trend towards this, and I hope that the indie porn industry follows suit. While many small-time porn consumers would not pay for a subscription because they won't get their money's worth, they would pay a few dollars for a smaller snippet (as in the itunes model).

    Comment by lilly — June 6, 2010 @ 8:41 pm

  8. Lilly: I think you're confusing things. Unless a site has DRM (google the term/issue if you're unfamiliar), customers do not have to pay a continuing monthly fee to see website material. People who join my sites are free to download and keep everything. (Some porn sites do use DRM, though, but I think it's more a thing that already-huge companies do, not something independent sites either want to bother with technically, or agree with doing in the first place.) Further, a site membership is a massively better deal for the customer than buying snippets, so I don't know why you think membership sites don't provide people "their money's worth". I know a low of people who sell pay-per-view clips taken directly from their member's area, and they repeatedly report that they're surprised someone would pay $8 to watch one video, when they could watch hundreds of videos in their member's area for a $20 subscription.

    Comment by Furry Girl — June 14, 2010 @ 12:46 pm

  9. Comment by Trackbacks — May 18, 2013 @ 4:01 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Furry Girl: a good time not yet had by all.

Activism

My adult sites

More of me online

Enjoy my writing? I enjoy presents!

Buy SWAAY shirts:

Browse by topic

New to my blog? Some favorite posts

Favorite sex/ho blogs

Videos and podcasts

Sex workers' rights info

Search

RSS