|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » I'd like to address a significant issue in some TBP reviews. |
| 1-15 of 15 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 02-11-17 09:10pm - 2870 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User  Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
I'd like to address a significant issue in some TBP reviews. Hi All, I just discovered a pretty big issue that is a little disturbing and I am hoping that by discussing it here, the folks at The Best Porn might be able to resolve it. MG Premium/MG Billing is a huge website owner that owns or manages dozens of sites. They own or manage, for example Reality Kings, Brazzers, Babes Network, Twisty's Network, Mofos and Playboy Plus. A lot of these sites have switched to a tiered pricing structure and are not being particularly forthcoming about it. Several of the sites say nothing about this when you sign up until you go to download something and THEN they ask for an additional $10 a month for the ability to download videos and photo sets. In other words, you signed up for a streaming only subscription and didn't know it. Well, we all know some site owners are assholes, but this is pretty prolific with this particular group and the folks at The Best Porn are inadvertently contributing to the confusion and user dissatisfaction. For each site, The Best Porn provides a review and lists a discounted price. They DO NOT mention specifically that this is for a limited streaming only membership. In fact, they often go on to describe video download formats and image file sizes in the summary section of their reviews as well as comments like "No download limits!" To be fair, they often mention that downloads cost more in the body of the review, but that does not excuse the mismatch between the discounted TBP price listed for a subscription, and the summary of features that the website provides for a higher tier. For the price listed, there are NO DOWNLOADS, so there is no need to discuss download file sizes and certainly no need to mention that there are no download limits. This is clearly a mistake. If a discounted price is listed, there are two options here. Either include the price for the features included in the review summary, or do not include those features in the review summary. This probably sounds a little knit-picky and my intent is not to call out or embarrass the reviewers, but there is a pretty significant problem here. Go look at the PU comments for Playboy Plus, Twisty's and Babes Network, for example, and compare them to the TBP summaries and pricing. The review summaries are misleading. As a result, the PU user comments (including mine...) are complaining about the sites I know the folks at TBP know how to do this right. If you go look at the TBP review for In-The-Crack.com, you will see at the very top of the summary, all of the price tiers including basic and streaming all the way up to the top-tier 4K downloads. ...But ITC openly publishes their price lists. Given that I've gone to Twisty's on 3 different browsers on the same computer at the same time and gotten 3 different prices, I'm pretty sure that the folks at MG Premium have what they call a "regional" pricing structure (translation: charge as much as that market will bear) and they don't want TBP to publish actual prices. Heck it might even be written into the agreement between TBP and the site management, putting the TBP folks in a tight spot. But by perpetuating the vagueness of this pricing, TBP is doing a disservice to their readers. My suggestion is a simple one. When a site has tiered pricing, hidden or otherwise, the folks at TBP should feel obligated to provide ALL of the tier pricing in their reviews, not just the cheapest one. And if they are discussing features like downloads, they should state the minimum tier required to obtain those features. Look, I completely understand where the revenue comes from at TBP and why they might feel pressure to comply with a web site provider's request to downplay pricing. But I am also hoping that if that is the case, rather than just deleting my thread, we can have an intelligent discussion about it here and maybe establish some key words or something that can be used to describe this issue other than "bait and switch", which is what I've called it a few times. Heck, even Apple uses the term "In App purchases" to warn people that the "free" game they are downloading is going to cost them at some point. If we can't call out the sites that have hidden tiered pricing and we can't actually list the tiered prices, can we at least come up with terminology that adequately warms people about it? I look forward to hearing people's thought on this, especially the reviewers at TBP. Thanks, Skippy Skippy Edited on Feb 11, 2017, 09:16pm | |
|
||
| 02-11-17 09:31pm - 2870 days | #2 | |
|
biker (0)
Active User  Posts: 632 Registered: May 03, '08 Location: milwaukee, wi |
Thanks for this news. I've been a long time Reality Kings subscriber. I typically join once or twice a year when they have built up a fresh batch of sets. Will see what the cost is next time I want to join. Warning Will Robinson | |
|
||
| 02-11-17 09:44pm - 2870 days | #3 | |
|
exotics4me (0)
Active User  Posts: 664 Registered: Jan 12, '07 Location: USA |
Hey skippy, I've had my share of my problems similar to this one, especially about download limits that aren't listed correctly. Just from my own experience over the last 10 years on PU, these TBP/PU mistakes are almost always based around the sites not listing their tiered pricing, for example, In the Crack, does list theirs and those tiered prices are listed on PU. Now for the frustrating part. When I had problems with DL limits, one of the TBP reviewers would check and not run into a DL limit. If you'll notice on the TBP reviews there's a place on the right that says, "We do have an active pass for a review." or "We do not have an active pass for a review." Those active passes not only allowed more reviews of those sites that did give them an active pass, but allowed them to check things like DL limits and in your case, tiered pricing, that doesn't show up until you've already paid your initial fee. I don't know if things are still the same, but the problem used to be the pornsites wouldn't limit the free review passes for review sites. If you'll look back into Reality Kings comment history on PU, you'll see many comments about the DL limit and how it varied from member to member. It really became more of a members reporting the DL limits instead of the TBP reviewers since Reality Kings, back then, would not be straightforward about their limits. And I would imagine it's near impossible for TBP to keep up with the pricing of sites. Especially at this time when it seems like every site is trying to come up with a new "bait" price to get members in their doors. But I could be completely wrong  My first time I jacked off, I thought I'd invented it. I looked down at my sloppy handful of junk and thought, This is going to make me rich. - Chuck Palahniuk | |
|
||
| 02-11-17 11:12pm - 2870 days | #4 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Hi E4M, Thanks for the response. Over the years, there have been cases where prices change, etc., and I don't think we can expect the TBP folks to be 100% current. They have their error report system to help and, of course, the PU community posts updated pricing sometimes. The DL limit thing is interesting. I am always amazed at how slow some smaller sites can be even when there probably are no actual limits. That is sometimes a server-farm quality of service thing that the site needs to deal with. The other piece of it is that "Prime Time" is rapidly becoming more commonly used for the evening internet slowdown due to Amazon and Netflix than it is broadcast TV. ...Funny how 100% of porn these days is HD but 90% of cable channels are still SD....and I pay more for cable than I do for porn! But this is as much or more about how the information is reported than how accurate pricing is. Clearly, the TBP reviewers know that there is a streaming only price and an upcharge for downloads because they mention it in the body of their reviews. They probably know that the discount price they are posting is the streaming only price. A starting place would be including the words "streaming only rate" next to that price. That would make it clear that there are additional tiers. I was reading elsewhere in the forum that some web sites say streaming is so popular that they don't want to support downloads anymore and that is why they charge more for it. Interestingly, all of the sites mentioned were from this website management company. (MG Premium). I'm an IT guy and know that this is a marketing response, not a technology one. Streaming is damn hard to support. But out of curiosity, I did submit a poll to see how many PU folks download and how many stream. Should be interesting to see the results. Of course, this wouldn't be a big deal at all if the sites in question were up-front about their pricing on the sign-up page. Unfortunately, they are not. Since getting burned by Twistys, I nearly signed up to two other sites managed by this group and if I had not read the PU reviews, would not have known that downloads are extra. Thanks! Skippy Skippy | |
|
||
| 02-12-17 02:39am - 2870 days | #5 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
I POSTED A PU COMMENT 2 WEEKS AGO THAT DIESEL NETWORK (ALL FINE GIRLS, WOW GIRLS, WOW PORN) IS NOW OFFERING MEMBERS A CHOICE OF A STREAMING ONLY, OR STREAMING WITH DOWNLOAD. BUT THEY CLEARLY SPELL OUT THOSE CHOICES ON THE JOIN PAGE. ALONG WITH THE PRICES. SO IF A MEMBER IS NOT INTERESTED IN DOWNLOADS, HE CAN CHOOSE THE CHEAPER, STREAMING ONLY SUB. I BELIEVE THIS IS A NEW CHOICE FOR DIESEL. PS: USING CAPS, BECAUSE IT'S EASIER FOR ME TO READ. | |
|
||
| 02-12-17 12:10pm - 2870 days | #6 | |
|
mbaya (0)
Suspended  Posts: 891 Registered: Jul 07, '08 Location: new jersey |
I want to mention a side issue here, but not hijack the thread. it seems to me that TBP reviews are nearly always different from those on PU for a reason. When TBP reviews a site two things are true. One, they don't sign up because they are interested in the content and two, they don't spend enough time downloading and giving us an evaluation of the member experience. TBP reviews are often, maybe even usually, superficial and lack a lot of detail that is fairly common in PU reviews. I suspect that the pricing issue here is mostly caused by rushing through a site just to get the review done and therefore making management happy. | |
|
||
| 02-12-17 12:55pm - 2870 days | #7 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Hi Mbaya, I don't think anyone can fault TBP for the job they do reviewing sites. They walk a very fine line because the TBP revenue model is based on referrals to the sites being reviewed. The TBP folks are pretty honest about the sites, but they need to be positive. If TBP reviews are too negative, the site owners tell them to buzz off and kill or limit referral agreements. Even if the referral remains, few people would use the revenue generating referral link if the review is bad. So ALL TBP reviews have to be moderately positive. This explains why so many TBP reviews are scored higher than the PU scores. It usually is not a major difference, but it is a difference. Again, overall, the TBP folks do a really, really good job of walking this line. Could the reviews be a little more detailed? Well, I suppose. But I write a lot of reviews for PU and I can tell you it is really hard to be detailed sometimes. Really hard. I'm sure it is just as hard or harder for them. (There is a pun in there someplace, I think...). I'm guessing that there are a few sites that have either flat out told TBP not to post anything about them or refused a referral agreement. I've written a review or two for sites that still exist that are no longer listed on TBP and suspect that there was a disagreement between the site and TBP because of a poor review. Referrals are a big source of revenue in the industry so almost every site supports them. This is why you see the "webmasters" links at the bottom of most sites and why you see dozens of links to other sites on some sites. They are there because they generate revenue with each click. The fact that PU exists is a clear acknowledgement that TBP might not be dead-on in terms of reviews and it provides a way for TBP to be positive, but still be honest by letting users review sites in an uncensored way on PU. It is a win-win for us users and it seems to be working well. I am not affiliated with TBP or PU and don't have any inside information, so it is possible that I am wrong about the inner-workings I'm talking about above. I would welcome corrections from TBP or PU folks if appropriate. Thanks, Skippy Skippy | |
|
||
| 02-12-17 01:41pm - 2870 days | #8 | |
|
mbaya (0)
Suspended Posts: 891 Registered: Jul 07, '08 Location: new jersey |
My point is not at all whether or not TBP does a good job. They get most facts corect, but they often miss others. A good example is not seeing that there is a download limit. That is due to the nature of being a professional reviewer for TBP or any other review site. What I was getting at is that I suspect that TBP doesn't and may never see things from the same viewpoint as a PU member would. I think the pricing issue is one of focus and can be addressed. | |
|
||
| 02-12-17 02:14pm - 2870 days | #9 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Although I haven't run into this bait and switch problem yet, it does seem clear that more sites are going to the tiered pricing from the activity going on here (“stream only” memberships are, unfortunately, probably here to stay in the porn industry's eyes). Just a couple of notes from the cheap seats where I sit: First, I don't think TBP is really doing anything wrong per se. As previously mentioned above, the access that TBP gets as review site isn't necessarily the same as we would get and even if it is, the TBP reviewers don't download and analyze the content like we do. I have observed though that TBP has been consistently handing out good scores to stream only sites for a while now and that there is a fair amount of turnover of TBP reviewers. This combination has accelerated TBP more towards the norms that a lot of other review sites employ where so long as the experience doesn't totally suck or your site is really small, you'll get a good score. I guess what I'm saying is that I see a naturally growing disconnect between what TBP values as a business model and what we here at PU value as collectors. Second, I will say that it seems a fairly simple fix on TBP's part to address the bait and switch practices at issue here. The first part of any TBP review includes a section titled “Cost and Billing”. I would suggest adding another line under “Monthly Billing” to say “Monthly Billing / Full Download”. If that's not practical due to programming or cost concerns, then do this: In the monthly billing line, TBP often inserts parenthesis with the recurring fee listed. They could just add in those parenthesis if it's full download or not. In my opinion, mentioning “full download” should not be left for discussion in the pro's or con's sections of a TBP review since a lot of casual users or newbies may not get that far. I do think that TBP does need to address this issue going forward though or else it risks cheesing off a bunch more of us PU types. | |
|
||
| 02-12-17 04:25pm - 2869 days | #10 | |
|
merc77 (0)
Disabled User Posts: 291 Registered: Apr 17, '16 |
I do write what the user gets when they join a particular site. I rarely trust the porn critics out there as they could be paid shills. I do trust users who actually pay for the sites and then write what they think about them. If a site does have bonus sites included, I make sure to state whether they are downloadable or not. That does make a difference to me when I join since pricing is a big part of my reasons for doing so. "Dogs think people are Gods. Cats don't as they know better." - Kedi (2016) Dogs have masters; Cats have staff. | |
|
||
| 02-12-17 05:16pm - 2869 days | #11 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
THE THREAD IS CONCENTRATED ON THE ABILITY TO DOWNLOAD FOR A SITE SUBSCRIPTION. THAT SEEMS TO HAVE REPLACED THE DRM MODEL. (I HAVEN'T COME ACROSS ANY SITES THAT STILL USE THE DRM MODEL, BUT THEY MIGHT STILL EXIST.) ANYWAY, MOST SITES I SIGN UP FOR I'VE ALREADY JOINED AT LEAST ONCE BEFORE. I DON'T JOIN MINDGEEK SITES ON A REGULAR BASIS, SO I'VE NOT FOUND STREAMING ONLY AS THE BASIC SUB FOR MOST OF MY JOINS. ALTHOUGH I RECENTLY JOINED DIESEL NETWORK, AND THAT NOW OFFERS A STREAMING ONLY, AND A STREAMING PLUS DOWNLOAD SUBSCRIPTION MODEL. BUT AS I WROTE, THE TERMS ARE CLEARLY SPELLED OUT ON THE JOIN PAGE. SO IT'S NOT A BAIT AND SWITCH TACTIC ON DIESEL'S PART. EXCEPT THEY DON'T CLEARLY SPELL OUT ON THE JOIN PAGE: WHAT THE UPGRADE PRICE IS FOR DIAMOND STATUS, AND WHEN YOU GET DIAMOND STATUS (ACCESS TO ALL 3 SITES IN THE NETWORK) FROM A REGULAR MEMBERSHIP. OBVIOUSLY, A MEMBER CAN FEEL CHEATED OR ANNOYED IF HE JOINS SOME SITE, AND THEN IS TOLD THAT DOWNLOADING COSTS EXTRA, OR THAT SOME SITES REQUIRE AN EXTRA PAYMENT, OR THAT VIEWING OR DOWNLOADING IN HIGH OR ULTRA-HIGH DEFINITION COSTS EXTRA, OR WHATEVER ELSE THEY CAN CHARGE EXTRA FOR. SO AS SOME PU MEMBERS HAVE STATED, IT WOULD BE NICE IF TBP INCLUDED A SECTION ON MEMBERSHIP LEVELS: WHAT THE PRICE IS, WHAT YOU GET FOR EACH LEVEL OF MEMBERSHIP. BUT THIS WILL REQUIRE SOME TIME FOR TBP TO SWITCH TO: PROGRAMMING THE CHANGE, AND THEN DOING THE REVIEWS TO INCLUDE THE FACTS. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, PU MEMBERS CAN PUT THIS INFORMATION IN THEIR REVIEW, SINCE IT SEEMS TO HIT A HOT BUTTON FOR MEMBERS. AND MAYBE PU CAN INCLUDE THIS SUGGESTION/REQUIREMENT IN THEIR GUIDE TO WHAT A PU REVIEW SHOULD BE. ACTUALLY, PU SHOULD MAKE EASILY VISIBLE THE GUIDE TO WHAT A REVIEW SHOULD INCLUDE, ESPECIALLY FOR NEWBIES, BUT ALSO FOR OLDER MEMBERS, TO JOG OUR MEMORIES OF WHAT A GOOD REVIEW LOOKS LIKE. EXCEPT, TO BE TRUTHFUL, I HOPE MY REVIEWS HAVE SOME VALUE OR USEFULNESS, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO FOLLOW A CHECKLIST FOR EVERY POINT IN A REVIEW. BECAUSE I ALREADY SPEND ENOUGH TIME WRITING A REVIEW, AND I KNOW I'M LEAVING OUT IMPORTANT INFORMATION, BUT I'M NOT A PROFESSIONAL REVIEWER, AND IT WOULD TAKE TOO LONG TO WRITE A TRULY DETAILED, COMPETENT REVIEW OF A SITE. I REALLY ADMIRE SOME OF THE OLDER REVIEWS, FROM PEOPLE LIKE TOADSITH AND BADMRFROSTY, WHO NOT ONLY HAD A TECHNICAL UNDERSTANDING, BUT THE ABILITY TO WRITE CLEAR AND CRISP SITE REVIEWS. | |
|
||
| 02-12-17 05:48pm - 2869 days | #12 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Maybe I missed it being mentioned in one of the above post but all the sites the OP mentioned are owned by Mindgeek so if there is a bait and switch happening than I recommend you pay close attention to the parent company of the site you are interested prior to joining just to be on the safe side. You can add this to the reason why Mindgeek is so hated in the porn industry. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 02-13-17 06:10am - 2869 days | #13 | |
|
Amanda (0)
Active User  Posts: 534 Registered: Jul 02, '15 Location: Montreal, Quebec |
Hi guys, I'd like to first point out that a lot of the time when we are dealing with tiered memberships, we run into some confusing issues as well. We're not deliberately trying to confuse anyone or trying to bury any information in our texts. We do our utmost to keep our reviews objective and honest. Since this tiered membership model is becoming more and more popular, it's obvious we have some modifications to perform in how we list our information in our TBP site facts and reviews. Looks to me like the old way just ain't gonna cut it anymore. I am going to speak to our Content Manager and team and see if we can come up with a more precise way of breaking down all of a site's pricing and features. Stay tuned. | |
|
||
| 02-13-17 06:31am - 2869 days | #14 | |
|
MikeC
PornUsers Staff  Posts: 102 Registered: Jul 03, '15 |
Hi Skippy, You might have read my other post regarding the topic, but I want to stress that site reviews can be pulled for a number of reasons that are not based around negative reviews, hurt feelings or issues with referrals. It's just a natural cycle of the industry that sites and reviews come and go. The Best Porn has had over 15,000 site listings in it's history and easily over 30,000 reviews. I would agree that we are optimists, of a sort, when it comes to our reviews but it's more about the understanding that there are fans for every niche, sub-niche and fetish out there. However, if a site has broken images, issues with the streaming player, navigational issues or anything that could inhibit your enjoyment they will most certainly be mentioned. The writers know what the popular sites are, of course, but they know the same way everyone here knows; they visit a LOT of sites and spot trends and popular stars and know what niches are currently trending, etc. Our jobs are to provide the critical information you need to determine if you want to purchase a membership, which is why your points on that are much appreciated. As Amanda has mentioned, we will re-examine our process. I will tell you that it is sometimes our thoroughness that can cause static. For example, a webmaster will be disappointed that we mentioned a site's lack of Zip files. By their logic, their readers have never asked for Zip files, so why inform potential members about the lack of Zip files? Why point out a "negative" that, to them, isn't a negative at all? Now, a webmaster has never asked for their site to be removed over any issue regarding Zip files, but I hope I have clarified things just a little bit more. We are more than just a platform for reviews, but also for passionate discussion and reader benefits like discounts and customer service assistance. The premise behind PornUsers, as I understood in discussions with Rick and the team when we acquired it, was to allow a soundboard for the hardcore, dedicated fans of porn that they knew were out there. The TBP reviews are attached to the site in a manner, but more as a jumping off point to discussion (like the slogan, "We report, you decide.") I hope this helps.  Edited on Feb 13, 2017, 06:50am | |
|
||
| 02-13-17 08:57am - 2869 days | #15 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Hi Mike! Hi Amanda! Thank you both for the terrific and exactly-what-I-hoped-for responses. You guys do great work and I truly appreciate it. I tossed this question out there in the middle of the night to see if I was alone in my thinking, to see if streaming-only pricing is becoming more common, to see if the unannounced-tiers was a growing issue and, of course, to suggest that a TBP reporting solution be developed. I think Lk2fireone might have provided the best analogy as this issue is similar to the DRM issues from previous decades. Often times, users didn't know about DRM until their subscription ended and they couldn't view their downloads anymore. TBP dealt with it beautifully by including DRM as a summary item. It also appears that different sites are dealing with it in different ways. Some are creating tiers and are doing a good job of publishing price lists. Some are not. I just happened to run into one that is now managing several sites that I used to go to fairly often and they are doing a particularly bad job of it. Funny thing, I would not have written a single word about this here, and I would have automatically opted for the additional $10 a month with no objections, had Twistys just defined their pricing model up-front instead of withholding that information until after I had subscribed. But the tiered pricing model, whether it is for any downloads or whether it is just for 4K material, does seem to be becoming more common. That makes sense, I guess, considering how much space and bandwidth 4k and 180/360 high res, high bit-rate VR videos consume.... I look forward to seeing this information in the summary sections for TBP review form 2.1. Thanks again! Skippy | |
|
||
| 1-15 of 15 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
