Jamie Jones
Re: Jamie Jones
Excellent post from GTJames.
There are people who value what is rare and unique. Other people do not. You pay your money, you make your choice.
If all you want is as much bang for your buck as possible, it has never been easier. There is more free content of every variety than an individual could possibly look at as well as vast archives of content with Cinema quality production for $30 per month.
There are super model pretty EE and USA performers willing to do just about everything. It?s all there for you and very affordable if that?s what you want.
What you will rarely find is what some people regard as ?desirable? or ?collectible? non porn U.K. models exceeding levels freely available on portfolio hosting sites and photographer profiles. Mainly because there is no incentive for them anymore.
A few years ago there were budgets to pay non porn models into four figures per day and not for just one day. These days are gone now, but it wasn?t really great for the models anyway in retrospect. A few decent pay days and she was all over the internet forever and once it?s out there it?s out there and by default she is a porn model
Because there is very little out there of non - porn models, those willing to show a bit more command a premium and why not? They are taking a risk, and so is the producer, because not every model appeals to the collector, so not every shoot is a hit, but the time, effort and expense still applies whether it?s a hit or not.
People who buy the content are not risking much. It?s a case of They part with the cash they *should* be able to afford to part with or they do not. Lets face it, adult content is hardly essential, it?s very much in the luxury bracket, if you are struggling to pay your rent, the last thing you should spend your cash on is adult content.
There has to be an incentive to produce the content and there has to be an incentive for the model to appear in it or there is no point.
In any case market forces always prevail. If something is to expensive or the quality is not good enough for the price people will not buy. They have that choice, it?s a buyers market. Very much so.
Peace and love to all.
There are people who value what is rare and unique. Other people do not. You pay your money, you make your choice.
If all you want is as much bang for your buck as possible, it has never been easier. There is more free content of every variety than an individual could possibly look at as well as vast archives of content with Cinema quality production for $30 per month.
There are super model pretty EE and USA performers willing to do just about everything. It?s all there for you and very affordable if that?s what you want.
What you will rarely find is what some people regard as ?desirable? or ?collectible? non porn U.K. models exceeding levels freely available on portfolio hosting sites and photographer profiles. Mainly because there is no incentive for them anymore.
A few years ago there were budgets to pay non porn models into four figures per day and not for just one day. These days are gone now, but it wasn?t really great for the models anyway in retrospect. A few decent pay days and she was all over the internet forever and once it?s out there it?s out there and by default she is a porn model
Because there is very little out there of non - porn models, those willing to show a bit more command a premium and why not? They are taking a risk, and so is the producer, because not every model appeals to the collector, so not every shoot is a hit, but the time, effort and expense still applies whether it?s a hit or not.
People who buy the content are not risking much. It?s a case of They part with the cash they *should* be able to afford to part with or they do not. Lets face it, adult content is hardly essential, it?s very much in the luxury bracket, if you are struggling to pay your rent, the last thing you should spend your cash on is adult content.
There has to be an incentive to produce the content and there has to be an incentive for the model to appear in it or there is no point.
In any case market forces always prevail. If something is to expensive or the quality is not good enough for the price people will not buy. They have that choice, it?s a buyers market. Very much so.
Peace and love to all.
Re: Jamie Jones
Hard to disagree with most of what you've said there, Iain. But the question on many consumers minds is how much of that fee is truly required for production costs or the model's fee versus the producer just trying to make as much profit as possible ?. A rhetorical question for many perhaps ?
Re: Jamie Jones
xalscan wrote:
> Hard to disagree with most of what you've said there, Iain. But
> the question on many consumers minds is how much of that fee is
> truly required for production costs or the model's fee versus
> the producer just trying to make as much profit as possible ?.
> A rhetorical question for many perhaps ?
In the case of the particular shoot under discussion, I doubt very much if your question is rhetorical. To answer the second part is pretty easy. It is a joint enterprise between Jamie and I where we share the costs equally and split the revenue equally, so the profit for each party is equal and entirely dependant on sales.
Its fair to say both model and producer are trying to make a profit, as is the case in almost any business venture.
I have been in this business long enough to know that if you price something to high it will not sell well if at all and if you price it to low it won't necessarily sell in quantity either.
The right product at the right price = profit.
Profit = more content of the right product.
> Hard to disagree with most of what you've said there, Iain. But
> the question on many consumers minds is how much of that fee is
> truly required for production costs or the model's fee versus
> the producer just trying to make as much profit as possible ?.
> A rhetorical question for many perhaps ?
In the case of the particular shoot under discussion, I doubt very much if your question is rhetorical. To answer the second part is pretty easy. It is a joint enterprise between Jamie and I where we share the costs equally and split the revenue equally, so the profit for each party is equal and entirely dependant on sales.
Its fair to say both model and producer are trying to make a profit, as is the case in almost any business venture.
I have been in this business long enough to know that if you price something to high it will not sell well if at all and if you price it to low it won't necessarily sell in quantity either.
The right product at the right price = profit.
Profit = more content of the right product.
Re: Jamie Jones
Thank you for your response, Iain. You can doubt my intentions if you wish, but I can assure you my question is rhetorical and isn't directed at Jamie's material in particular but rather this "business" model you've adopted. As you say, time will tell if consumers are happy with the situation. That said, at the price being quoted, I don't think it would take too many buyers to generate a healthy profit and validate its success ( from a business perspective ). Over to the consumer I guess, and be careful models ... I can see this venture generating animosity in certain circles.
Re: Jamie Jones
xalscan wrote:
> Thank you for your response, Iain. You can doubt my intentions
> if you wish, but I can assure you my question is rhetorical and
> isn't directed at Jamie's material in particular but rather
> this "business" model you've adopted. As you say, time will
> tell if consumers are happy with the situation. That said, at
> the price being quoted, I don't think it would take too many
> buyers to generate a healthy profit and validate its success (
> from a business perspective ). Over to the consumer I guess,
> and be careful models ... I can see this venture generating
> animosity in certain circles.
I?m not doubting your intentions, that wasn?t my point. My understanding of a rhetorical question is that it is a question one already knows the answer to and I wasn?t sure you did
All the best.
> Thank you for your response, Iain. You can doubt my intentions
> if you wish, but I can assure you my question is rhetorical and
> isn't directed at Jamie's material in particular but rather
> this "business" model you've adopted. As you say, time will
> tell if consumers are happy with the situation. That said, at
> the price being quoted, I don't think it would take too many
> buyers to generate a healthy profit and validate its success (
> from a business perspective ). Over to the consumer I guess,
> and be careful models ... I can see this venture generating
> animosity in certain circles.
I?m not doubting your intentions, that wasn?t my point. My understanding of a rhetorical question is that it is a question one already knows the answer to and I wasn?t sure you did
All the best.
Re: Jamie Jones
Whatever the ins and outs of the industry and it?s business models the good news is in this case the pics and vids of the actual model are fucking awesome!
Re: Jamie Jones
Worth signing up for the whole 9 minutes.....
Re: Jamie Jones
Why? What does she there that's different from what she's done before? It seems you are a paid promoter, so please do tell us.