Due to some technical issues and glitches beyond my control at that site, such as the inability to send newsletters more than once a week, I post here not only as a backup but as a more timely publication method with a more conversational format.
Don't let the title fool you, I don't limit myself to adult webmasters only. Marketing is for everyone. The only difference between selling adult materials and Victorian widgets is the target market. All the same skills, knowledge and work are required.
While it's true that adult webmasters follow in the footsteps of those in the adult entertainment industry and are the first to capitalize on technology (allowing for great ideas to be plucked by mainstream marketers), those in marketing to a mature audience often overlook the basics. So blending both sides, as it were, seems like a perfectly natural conversation.
While this blog will not post adult images per se, it will on occasion link to adult sites which may have such images ~ I will clearly warn you if the link is 'Adult' or Not Work Safe (NWS).
As a conversation, this blog is participatory. I expect to hear your thoughts, suggestions, and even your comments which contradict what I have said ~ not everyone's experience is the same and debate is healthy.
Feel free to contact me with questions, comments, suggestions, networking lead etc. at TheWhore (at) marketingwhore (dot) net.
Due to the increasing number of emails with 'just a quick question...' I'm implementing phone consulting via Keen.
My company just started a blog, and I found some issues to write about that I think are important to the industry. However, when I visited my competitor's websites to find more ideas I noticed some of their blogs aren't really what I think a blog would be. They are more like FAQ's pasted onto a blog. This got me thinking are there really any ethics or guidelines to blogging?
While some folks might find this increased level of public acceptance of adult material to be a good thing, it planted the seeds for what this observer sees as potentially being the worst thing to hit adult entertainment since the Meese Commission.
I’ve never discussed this on my blog before, but recent developments have prompted me to discuss the reason why I’m no longer a teacher. Being Catalina isn’t always a good thing. I separated early this year with my school as a peaceful way to avoid a public scandal that would ultimately affect my teenage daughter, who attended said school.
There are few places where our public and private lives become blended into such ugly displays as they do in custody and divorce proceedings. The current controversy surrounding Jefferson's appeal for support because of a custody challenge that is, at least partly, based on his blogging about his sex life demonstrates that better than almost anything could.
"Let the books speak for themselves. If you don't want your kid to read a book because of the author's post-publication actions then don't buy it, but you should get to decide what is suitable for your child, not the publisher."
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero said the government orders must be subject to meaningful judicial review and that the recently rewritten Patriot Act "offends the fundamental constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers."
For those of us who still give a damn about our inalienable rights this is a reason to say, "Hip Hip Whore-Ay!"
What is Coyote Publishing et. al. v. Heller? It is a lawsuit filed by Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada on behalf of several newspapers, that sought to void two state statutes that prohibited brothel advertising in counties where prostitution is illegal.
...this new ruling, which I have yet to form an opinion about, seems to suggest legal businesses have a right to advertise even where their products or services are illegal.
This clip is from the "Clean Up Radio Everywhere" episode, in which the gang discusses media censorship when they face pressure of a "moral" group.
Everything is still true. :sigh:
Funny and sad, but Les sums things up the way many folks (I think) still likely feel:
In a situation like this, I always ask myself, what would my hero Edward R. Murrow think? And I think that Ed would think that this was censorship. Then I think about what my other hero, General George Patton, would think, and I think George would think that radio and television ought to be cleaned up, and if he were alive today, he'd take two armoured cavalry divisions into Hollywood and knock all those liberal pinheads into the Pacific! So as you can see, I'm a very confused man. And when I get confused, I watch TV. Television is never confusing. It's all so simple somehow.
Fleshbot covers the story (NWS), so I'll just direct you there. But I wanted all you adult business folks to note that the Feds have a 10-count indictment against Max Hardcore (nee Paul Little) for obscenity. It's in U.S. District Court, Tampa Division (Florida), so this is shakier than if in L.A.
Hardcore says, "I've never heard of anyone, even a store owner getting busted for obscenity."
I'm no legal expert, and I can't site all the facts and stats, but I know there's a history in publishing which has ruined many a company. (And if the ruling doesn't kill you, the legal fees may.)
The Restricted To Adults website label was created by the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection (ASACP) to better enable parental filtering, and to demonstrate the online adult industry's commitment to helping parents prevent children from viewing age-inappropriate content.
The RTA label is free to use and is voluntary, which means you are electing to be a stand-up guy or gal ~ to face the facts and admit you too want adults only at your sites ~ rather than have someone dictate laws.
The RTA program is a label and a HEAD tag to help filtering software. It comes with no promises, but it sure implies you're an ethical person.
There's also the ICRA (formerly the Internet Content Rating Association), which is now part of the Family Online Safety Institute. However they have more hoops and levels, but is also recommended.
In my opinion, only skanky folk and poor marketers market adult materials to kids. There's nothing wrong with being in the business or education of sexuality ~ unless you misrepresent yourself. Labeling yourself is not censorship (and one hopes that such voluntary labels would keep the fear-mongers from censorship ideas). It's rather like clearing the kids from the room before mom and dad talk about grown-up things; the talk still happens, just not around the kids.
You'll note I'm in this week's Sugasm for the 'big girl' post ~ which I point out to you all because with new readers there could be new replies so be sure to stop and see.
More than entertainment, these bloggers may also represent new folks for you to network with. So read & enjoy and see who you can meet!
Please note that these links are likely NWS (not work safe).
The best of this weeks blogs by the bloggers who blog them. Highlighting the top 3 posts as chosen by Sugasm participants. Want in Sugasm #77? Submit a link to your best post of the week using this form. Participants, repost the link list within a week and you're all set.
Imus has been an idiot -er, "shock jock" for years. I agree what he said was wrong, but he's been doing it for years... This bothers me from a free speech pov. It's one thing if they make a biz decision based on consumers and advertisers, but this new 'n' word outrage is rather insane and approaches mob mentality. The villagers have torches and someone must pay for all the idiots and ignorance. Meanwhile far more vile pundits exist just fine. When you take the facts, that Imus has been a wave maker, a shock jock, for years ~ making good money which he does decent things with ~ you get a 40 yr history which doesn't seem to be reflected in all this decision, the media play & supposed public outrage.
I'd appreciate your input...
I don't want to hear how wrong Imus was, or how idiotic his statements were -- not the specific ones of this incident, nor the worse ones of his 40 year long history -- because I agree he's been an idiot milking his outrageous slurs for years. But look at this from a business point of view.
He's been making you money for years, in no small part due to his shock-jock style which consists of rude, ignorant, racist, bigoted remarks. Over the 40 years he's incited phone calls, comments, letters regarding how offensive he is and your response is that he is protected by the First Amendment and if folks don't like it, they can select another channel or program. What makes this, right now, so different?
Say you employ Imus or broadcast his show; what would you do?
And if you say, "Fire him," you must defend why you'd do so now and not years ago.