So here we are, at the end of February, 2002 already, and Internext is just a dim memory for most of us. How was the show for you? I came away with the distinct impression that the adult web market has recovered well from the aftershocks of 9-11, and that, if anything, the mood of those who bothered to attend Internext was more buoyant and upbeat than I think anyone would have expected.There were new products there if you cared to look hard enough, including some top-end broadband broadcast technology that had to be seen to be believed, and the big players held sway with the biggest stands (and the biggest parties, if you could get an invite). Cybererotica was there again with its squishy titties, hot pant wearing girls (best butts in the show, in my opinion) and t-shirts, as if we didn’t know who they were by now. They even made Wired magazine’s February 2002 edition along with Sex.com and the claim that both companies make several million dollars a month from the web. Wow, there’s news.

The mainstays of the show, as ever, were the content providers. From the big, big players like holio.net with their classy stand down to the people who really drive things — the small mom and pop outfits. You could spot the contrast immediately by the lack of illuminated Perspex displays and the larger number of throw rugs and office chairs. A brief stroll around the hall revealed that content was there for the taking, and that prices, by and large, were pretty good. There was just one problem with the content on display: it was all depressingly similar.

We’re in a business where tastes change and traffic can flow out just as quickly as it can flow in. Webmasters need to be on the ball 24/7, aware of shifting tastes just as they should be aware of shifting legal perspectives. So why were so many content providers offering such similar material? The answer lies in the way they source their images in the first place.

To corrupt a common fashion industry saying, “Eastern European teens were this year’s black,” and everyone was selling it. Problem is, not a lot of it looked good. And how many of those model releases were in a language that both the model and keeper of records understood? Don’t knock it: that could well become an issue as more and more photographers shoot foreign models.

If you’re desperate for content, you might not question the way the images actually look, but think about this for a moment: the world’s best adult photographers don’t shoot for the web, they shoot for adult magazines. For the majority of these photographers, web sales to content companies or adult webmasters are a pain in the butt that just doesn’t pay enough to make it worthwhile. That’s why they either operate their own membership sites, or have one run for them. What they don’t do is sell their best images for 25 cents — not when Hustler will pay them $2000 for print.

The adult magazine business works like this from a photographer’s point of view: shoot set for domestic market and make a sale at, say $2000 for US rights. When those images come back six months to a year later, ship them over to the UK or Europe and make a first UK rights sale for around $1000, with the rest of Europe following next, then over to Japan (if she’s a big breasted blond) and another $1000-2000 is on its way to you. Wait for those 150-200 images to come back to you from the last market, and it’s time for a second rights US sale and another 500-1000 bucks. Finally, possibly three years later, once calendar and phone sex companies have picked over the bones of the transparencies, those images are effectively dead. And that’s when the professional adult photographer will think about web sales – provided they have the time or inclination for it. It’s simple economics to them: chase the big money. Webmasters are such small beer in the grand scheme of things that selling content just isn’t financially viable for most adult snappers.

So it follows, then, that the photographers who do sell material to content companies are either not good enough to sell material to the likes of High Society and Hustler, or are professional adult snappers selling material that’s potentially very old.

Which brings me to a question: Why should you, the adult webmaster, buy images that aren’t good enough for the likes of Hustler or High Society? You shouldn’t. You should have the choice.

Ever since digital cameras became cheap enough for all of us, the world has filled up with content providers. The back room boys who shoot their own stuff and believe that just because the girl’s naked, it’s good enough to sell.
Wrong. Good content images should be no different than magazine images. The only appreciable difference is in the resolution.

There still exists in the content market the notion that you can just toss a sheet up over a couch and get a naked girl to lie on it and bam, you’ve got high quality content. The truth is, adult websites need such a varied mix of material that the days of shooting your own content are long gone unless you happen to own a photographic studio with access to sets, props and glamorous locations.
A walk around Internext would have revealed one truth: Most content providers are the same. They offer images so similar, that after one or two booths I had trouble remembering who was who.

That’s the danger of shooting your own content for sale, or on relying on amateur snappers in Eastern Europe. Yes, they can sometimes come up with good girls, but if you’ve ever spent any time looking at the locations they shoot in, you’ll know enough about Prague’s cheapest hotel rooms to write a travelogue. Those images have been bought at bottom dollar, too, because the girls will work cheaply and the photographers need to shift them to pay for the next shoot. We’re not talking about the Clive McLeans, Hank Londoners or Suze Randalls of this world, but the quick snap merchants. And what you see is what you get. A lack of niche content and a market that’s being driven by what the provider can get hold of, rather than what the buyer and webmaster needs.

The days of content companies physically buying any old crap up are coming to an end as webmasters and their pay site members demand more sophisticated content.

If you’re building sites that target niche members (and let’s face it, that’s where the money is), then you can’t afford to buy content just for the sake of it. You want a wide range of photographic styles, locations, girls and niches to choose from, and until more content providers realize that, the market’s going to be wide open. In the same way, until content providers come to realize that the only way to lure high quality adult photographers into the market is with better service and representation rather than bulk buyouts of dated material, they’re always going to be seen as the last port of call by the adult industry snapper.