Provider Sites - What Breaks Through

[Monk]

Provider sites have clearly become one of the major marketing tools in the industry. More industrious providers are turning their sites into online revenue generating businesses by adding paid content sections. Others are content to use their sites as client acquisition tools and elaborate business cards — a quick and easy place to list services and contact info.

A lot of these sites are built by Web design firms that have recognized how much money there is to be made on the periphery of the business. That said, an awful lot of them look and feel the same. The designers have inadvertently created Internet clutter, going against a basic rule of advertising, which is to break through the clutter.

Sometimes what breaks through can simply be a useful technique or a thoughtful, original approach to what would otherwise be the same repetitive garbage. (Why do so many providers feel it’s obligatory to write those Home Page paragraphs describing who they are? How many of them basically sound the same?)

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about. This dominatrix could have posted the usual BDSM clichéd shots on her site. Instead, she took the time (and spent the money), to seek out different photographers and present herself in subtly different styles, each appealing to a different segment of her market. It would have been easy, and pretty boring, for her to pose in the obligatory nurse’s uniform, show a shot of her flogging an adoring slave in another, ramming some guy up the ass with a dildo in another—all the expected images. Instead, she chose a more unique route. And I thought it broke through because it’s different (and strangely tasteful in a market that can often be pretty corny and exploitative).

http://www.syrendmandz.com/GalleryOpen.html

I’ve wanted to post a discussion about this for some time, but I’ve been torn. It would be easy for a thread like this to devolve into an opportunity for providers to shill their own sites and trash the competition. So just a warning that I’ll be keeping a close eye on this thread. And I’m sure the UG staff will as well.

[Slinky Bender]

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about. This dominatrix could have posted the usual BDSM clichéd shots on her site. Instead, she took the time (and spent the money), to seek out different photographers and present herself in subtly different styles, each appealing to a different segment of her market. It would have been easy, and pretty boring, for her to pose in the obligatory nurse’s uniform, show a shot of her flogging an adoring slave in another, ramming some guy up the ass with a dildo in another—all the expected images. Instead, she chose a more unique route. And I thought it broke through because it’s different (and strangely tasteful in a market that can often be pretty corny and exploitative).

I'm not 100% positive, but I know her and I don't think she's up for teh credit you give her. She does a bunch of TFP work, and I think that is where the different shots come from.

[Monk]

Regardless of what her intentions may have been, the fact remains that the site stands out because of the images she's posted.

[UG Staff]

One thing which is happening which even made us change our rules here: there appears to be one guy who "designing" plug and play websites which are pretty much all exactly the same (most with sections which are completely empty because the girl dosn't know WTF to do with them) which has a pop-up which will add the site to you "favorites". My guess is that an awful lot of guys unknowingly accept it, and then they've got a nice little trail. We've barred the linking to any site which does that.

[Monk]

Yes, I've seen those sites. They're really annoying and poorly designed. Apart offering providers some relatively inexpensive real estate on the Web to post a gallery and their phone number, they don't really leave the user with a particularly positive impression of the provider or her services.

[Slinky Bender]

But they are free! (or close to it). Just another case of sex workers not treating their business like it's a business.

[Monk]

Exactly! Which is why the ones who do really have an opportunity to stand out. It doesn't take much more than putting a little strategic planning and creative energy behind the effort.

[Slinky Bender]

So you are saying that working girls should behave rationally?

[HawkEye65]

Personally, I'm a big fan of face shots. Intelligent dialog is nice, but I've seen providers with smoking bodies and when I got there, I had to put on the beer goggles. They had great personalities, but it really made doggie my favorite position for the wrong reason. I like to finish mish with some DFK, but not if it's a medusa that will turn my hardon to stone.

Also, FWIW, I don't need graphic porn shots. I like some sexy poses with possibilities, I have an imagination and don't need to see every detail of what I might want to do.

[Slinky Bender]

My gut feeling (without doing any actual research), is that face shots are becoming more rare these days than they used to.

[girlygirl]

My gut feeling (without doing any actual research), is that face shots are becoming more rare these days than they used to.

I think that it is partially due to the fact that you use to be able to be on the internet without people (family & friends) finding out, now computers are getting more popular everyday & to me it's getting easier to find things even if you weren't looking for them to begin with, & one example if your looking for something & you can't find it you can type into yahoo questions & get a million answers. So that's my reason why I don't put face shots up. You also have to worry about people stealing your pics & doing god knows what with them (if your not smart enough to copyright, but then again theres ways around everything).

[Monk]

I think it's also because so many photos are ripped off and end up on other sites. Why risk having your face posted all over the Internet? At least the rest of one's body is a little harder to identify from a low-res photo.

That's why I find some of the T&A photos on CL so amusing -- especially when you hear the endless complaints about the girl in the photo not being the girl who shows up. How can you tell when all you're seeing is a bad Web cam or phone cam low-res shot of some girl's ass?

[MelRemix]

My gut feeling (without doing any actual research), is that face shots are becoming more rare these days than they used to.

It seems more and more risky, as everyone is online now and nothing can be deleted forever.

I've been seriously considering getting back into the biz for a little while now, and the main thing stopping me is that I don't want to put *any* pictures on the internet now, face or no face. However, I can't really see being able to get clients without any photos.

OTOH my (and others presumed) squeamishness seems pretty silly in light of all of the naked photos people put on their facebook and myspace without thinking twice about it.

[Slinky Bender]

I tell you what. I'll make you a bet: You come back into the business, advertise exclusively on UG. Post no picture at all, period.

If you can't make money, you don't have to pay for your advertising: zero, zilch, nix, nada,...........

If you do make money, you decide what your side of the payoff for the bet is.

[MelRemix]

I tell you what. I'll make you a bet: You come back into the business, advertise exclusively on UG. Post no picture at all, period.

If you can't make money, you don't have to pay for your advertising: zero, zilch, nix, nada,...........

If you do make money, you decide what your side of the payoff for the bet is.


maybe we can discuss on tuesday?

[franca]

http://www.syrendmandz.com/GalleryOpen.html

Yeah, the photography is good, but the web design sucks. Each time you click on a photo link, it opens in a new window. It's difficult to navigate. One gallery has links to the "main gallery", but that link doesn't bring you to the original window. Then you end up opening the next gallery in a new window. And a bunch of the pics that pop up are way too huge to view in full. To boot, they're enlarged from a smaller file, so the resolution totally sucks. This is just plain crappy web design work.

[franca]

One thing which is happening which even made us change our rules here: there appears to be one guy who "designing" plug and play websites which are pretty much all exactly the same (most with sections which are completely empty because the girl dosn't know WTF to do with them) which has a pop-up which will add the site to you "favorites". My guess is that an awful lot of guys unknowingly accept it, and then they've got a nice little trail. We've barred the linking to any site which does that.

A lot of girls don't even know their site does that. I unknowingly had a pop-up like that, but since I block pop-ups, I never saw it. I was very thankful somebody pointed it out to me. You can fix it so it doesn't do that. You can also get rid of all those empty sections, and keep only the ones you're using.

[franca]

Mel, you can create a password protected gallery. Or is that still to much exposure?

[Slinky Bender]

maybe we can discuss on tuesday?



She's coming, she's coming, she's coming, she's coming...... :) :) :)

[justlooking]

If you do come back, may I make a suggestion?

Don't call yourself MelRemix. Call yourself Mel Cooley.

Guys my age find that an overwhelming sexual turn-on.

[MelRemix]

Mel, you can create a password protected gallery. Or is that still to much exposure?

Even if it's password protected people can still grab the photos. To my knowledge there's no way to prevent people from at least taking screenshots. I wouldn't worry about this so much except that there are a lot of very web savvy people in my life (as in, that's what they do for a living). I know a million ways to protect online content and another million ways to get around those protections. I also know that the exact people I wouldn't want to find photos are the people most likely to. Maybe I'm being silly, maybe not, but I'd rather not work then be up worrying at night.

@JL

I've got the glasses, maybe I should shave my head to complete the look?

[MelRemix]

Closer to the original thread topic:

Do you guys prefer dead simple sites that just let the content be the focal point or are you drawn to the flashier sites with intros and pretty curlicues everywhere?

(This is assuming both are well designed, just one in a very simple clean style and the other in a fancier, more complex way.)

[donquixote04]

Well designed simple sites are much better, imho.

[Slinky Bender]

One person's idea of simple is another person's idea of not simple.

[Monk]

From a user standpoint, simple is always better (and will, generally, yield a better response).

But there are competing objectives at play. As you can see from a recent provider-initiated thread in this section, providers often like to put lots and lots of info on their sites in order to try and avoid having to answer the same questions over and over again from prospective clients. From this perspective, the more detailed the better. And, as some providers have turned their sites into businesses (offering paid "memberships" and posting explicit photos accessible at a premium price), making their sites even morec complex.

Users, on the other hand, tend to be interested in just a few specific details (price, availability, photos -- to name the top three), and not much else. (Do we really care which lingerie store she prefers, for example?)

[justlooking]

How are you gonna bring her presents the first time you meet her if she doesn't tell you where to get them?

[MelRemix]

I don't mean complicated in terms of the content of the site. I mean are you more impressed by/like better a row of thumbnails where you click to see the enlarged photo and

a) you click, the full photo pops up

or

b) you click and the thumbnails fade out, the full photo fades in, etc.

Does this comparison make sense?

[Slinky Bender]

Whenever I see a provider site done pretty much in all flash, I despise it. Remember JeniferNYC's site? hated it.

I also hate sites that are cutesy in trying to make you guess how to navigate them (like there are objects that you don't know if they are clickable till you mouseover them, and even then they are unlabled).

I also hate sites which are obviously $5 canned templates, especially when the site "designer" can't even be bothered to turn off the features not in use (like having the "blog" button there, but when you click on it you get a screen with "this feature is not in use").

[justlooking]

I'm hardly a typical consumer, I suppose, but I hate that fading in/fading out shit. It's just trying too hard.

I don't know what "all flash" means, but I thought JenniferNYC's site was kind of obnoxious.

[Slinky Bender]

An example of a "simple" site which I dislike:

www.discovercameron.com

[masquerade]

How are you gonna bring her presents the first time you meet her if she doesn't tell you where to get them?

During my brief stint as a webcam girl, I worked for this company that set up bio pages for each of the "models", and a surprising number of the site's visitors actually viewed them. They had this feature within the bio page called a "wish list", where we could list items from specific vendors that customers could potentially purchase for us. Considering the difficultly I had getting people to part with a couple bucks per minute to view my shows, I thought the whole idea of a "wish list" pretty assanine. Supposedly, a guy might want to see you wearing or using a specific something during a show, and this feature was supposed to give him the opportunity to buy it for you without you having to give out any personal information. I never selected any items for my wish list; it was just too dumb as far as I was concerned. However, here's a list of interesting gifts I have received over the years from strip club customers:

- A metal plate engraved with my name (with pentagrams all over it, because the guy was a satanist)
- Fishnet pantyhose with big holes cut out of the butt/crotch area. I think they may have been worn, because the knee parts were all stretched out
- A mouse pad
- Half empty pack of Camel lights with a lighter inside - the presentation of which was VERY enthusiastic.

[Monk]

Here's a list of interesting gifts I have received over the years from strip club customers:

- A metal plate engraved with my name (with pentagrams all over it, because the guy was a satanist)
- Fishnet pantyhose with big holes cut out of the butt/crotch area. I think they may have been worn, because the knee parts were all stretched out
- A mouse pad
- Half empty pack of Camel lights with a lighter inside - the presentation of which was VERY enthusiastic.

How romantic!

[blondekelly]

It seems more and more risky, as everyone is online now and nothing can be deleted forever.

I've been seriously considering getting back into the biz for a little while now, and the main thing stopping me is that I don't want to put *any* pictures on the internet now, face or no face. However, I can't really see being able to get clients without any photos.

OTOH my (and others presumed) squeamishness seems pretty silly in light of all of the naked photos people put on their facebook and myspace without thinking twice about it.Mel, I do not put pictures up and I do great here, most guys like tha fact that I do not have pictures floating around the internet.

[masquerade]

How romantic!

Well, just so I don't get pegged as an ingrateful bitch again - I have to say that it IS the thought that counts. (I suppose.)

[MelRemix]

An example of a "simple" site which I dislike:

www.discovercameron.com

Slinky, that's not simple, it has hidden navigation. I'm going to have to say that's straight up bad design and therefore irrelevant to my question.

[MelRemix]

whoa, sorry, didn't mean to be a bitch, will try to post examples later

[Monk]

An example of a "simple" site which I dislike:

www.discovercameron.com

Talk about "undressing her with your eyes"!

Flash-built sites will look and feel slicker, there's absolutely no doubt. From the provider's POV, they're also harder to update.

But I've seen plenty of Flash provider sites that I liked. For example, the now defunct Montreal-based French courtesans site. Also, the trend is certainly to build sites in Flash, so we can harp about it all we like, it's not likely to change any time soon. Web designers are being trained more and more in Flash, so they turn to it as their basic Web design tool.

[franca]

- A metal plate engraved with my name (with pentagrams all over it, because the guy was a satanist)

That's actually kind of cool in a cheesy sorta way. I would hang on to a gift like that because it would make me laugh.

[masquerade]

That's actually kind of cool in a cheesy sorta way. I would hang on to a gift like that because it would make me laugh.

Oh trust me - I still have it! He actually made me several of them in different colors. He was a really cooky old man who used to wear a miner's hat into the club and check it at the door.

[justlooking]

I can't believe he checked it.

I can just imagine some guy sitting at one of the stage seats with a miner's hat with the light on.

[Slinky Bender]

You obviously never watched Midnite Blue (is HvB were here......).

[beep9]

I'm with MelRemix regarding simplycameron.... I can't stand all the f'ing flash (Oven is gone, the world moves on). Oh, Whoops.. .that's some very slick CSS, rather than flash. I still like knowing a link is a link.

While tearing that site down, (someone else already mentioned hidden navigation) if I'm on my way to see you, can I find your phone number on the web from my phone? Take a look at it in a pure text browser, and all you'll see is the ad for a (n admittedly top notch) photographer.

[masquerade]

I can't believe he checked it.

I can just imagine some guy sitting at one of the stage seats with a miner's hat with the light on.

I know.... that would have made for such a great story.

[Monk]

I'm with MelRemix regarding simplycameron.... I can't stand all the f'ing flash (Oven is gone, the world moves on). Oh, Whoops.. .that's some very slick CSS, rather than flash. I still like knowing a link is a link.

While tearing that site down, (someone else already mentioned hidden navigation) if I'm on my way to see you, can I find your phone number on the web from my phone? Take a look at it in a pure text browser, and all you'll see is the ad for a (n admittedly top notch) photographer.

While I wholeheartedly agree with you, now you're asking for a level of sophistication that even the majority of Web site builders don't take into consideration. And while some providers drop a significant amount of dough building their sites (one told me about a budget of upwards of $10K, including the photo shoot), it doesn't mean that they're going to attract the most savvy professionals to build them. I imagine that provider site Web building is something of a racket.

As for the Information Architecture-related comments (hidden or poorly designed navigation), Web site building best practices would agree with you. Those artsy-fartsy flourishes (I'm flattering the Web designer) make it difficult to use the site and will likely depress overall response.

[Slinky Bender]

One person's idea of simple is another person's idea of not simple.


Slinky, that's not simple, it has hidden navigation. I'm going to have to say that's straight up bad design and therefore irrelevant to my question.



See? You didn't define simple. I would call her site simple, and I think a lot of customers, and guys who design websites (like.... ummm..... we do?) would call it simple.

[Slinky Bender]

I'm with MelRemix regarding simplycameron.... I can't stand all the f'ing flash (Oven is gone, the world moves on). Oh, Whoops.. .that's some very slick CSS, rather than flash. I still like knowing a link is a link.

While tearing that site down, (someone else already mentioned hidden navigation) if I'm on my way to see you, can I find your phone number on the web from my phone? Take a look at it in a pure text browser, and all you'll see is the ad for a (n admittedly top notch) photographer.

But see, that doesn't make it "not a simple site". I stand by the statement that it's a simple site that's bad. I mean, it's 4 simple pages, all accessible from all pages. It's not hidden navigation, it's simply unlabled navigation (there's a difference). It's someone trying to be slick with the navigation because they know it's a simple site. Now, I don't like the way they handled it, and it's part of the reason I'm using this site as an example. The simple biggest prblem I have with teh site design, however, is that the one thing which is labled is mislabled. The one think which is clear is a "mail" symbol. So, the first time I looked at teh site, I went through it and decided she had no prices on it. BECAUSE I WOULDN'T THINK THE E*MAIL BUTTON WOULD PULL UP A PAGE WITH ALL OF THAT TYPE OF INFO ON IT.

[Monk]

Well, there's nothing to indicate that those buttons are "hot" buttons until you roll over them -- and even then, it's still not particularly clear what they do. In that sense, the nav is hidden. From an LCD (lowest common denominator) perspective, which is how most Web IA is tested and measured, the nav is hidden because it's not obvious and crystal clear to a not-too-bright user what he/she must do to navigate the site.

The basic structure of the site is simple (four pages). But the photo and button rollovers and "fancy" nav make it more complicated than it really needs to be. For such a "simple" site, it's a bother to use.

[Slinky Bender]

And again, my point was...........

[beep9]

And again, my point was...........

Abe Lincoln once asked (probably a canard, but we'll pretend he asked it on the way to the theatre):

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog?

The correct answer, of course, is 4.

The site isn't simple. That's not what the word means. (BTW, it's not a CSS based site, either. That thar is purely jscript. Which means it will NEVER run on my phone. Or my blackberry. Or my palm. Or my HTML watch). 8K of (lovingly) handcrafted javascript is not simple.

The site is low content. 10 Images. 1 Very attractive navigation bar. Minimal text. Minimal info. And the worst photograph of them all on the page where you finally find out her rates.

($4000? Holy jesus cornmeal dipped on a stick. I would have never found that if I hadn't read Slinky's comment.)

Does anyone care that a provider fancies themselves a dancer? Maybe a student? Perhaps a student of dance?

What a web site needs to tell a customer is:
1.) How to contact the provider
2.) What the provider provides
3.) How much the provider providently expects from the provided.

2 Includes what the provider looks like. 1 includes hours of providence.

I can't think of a providers site that I liked. (And for $4,000, I want to like the woman's mortgage broker and auto mechanic)

[Slinky Bender]

1 level deep, no branches = simple site.

[franca]

Actually, yes, lots of potential dates like to know that the woman they plan to see is more than just a sexbot*. They like to know what else goes on in her life. If she's a dancer or a chemist or a whatever, they like to know that sort of stuff. This is especially true for dates that book entire evenings or more. Would you want to spend a weekend with a girl with whom you share no common interests except sex?

*cute term, jl

[Slinky Bender]

Would you want to spend a weekend with a girl with whom you share no common interests except sex?

a) It depends a lot on if sex was actually acommon interest.
b) Sometimes, yes.
c) It depends on what you mean by "common interests". I've spent evenings with people who I would say I had no common interests with*, but still had a great time if we clicked and came up with stuff to talk about.

95% of Fine Arts majors?

[justlooking]

whoa, sorry, didn't mean to be a bitch, will try to post examples later

Bitch. [SFSF]

[justlooking]

Does anyone care that a provider fancies themselves a dancer? Maybe a student? Perhaps a student of dance?


1. I care a lot.

2. The "fancies herself" is sort of insulting. There are a lot of girls out there who actually are. You're sort of implying that the only women who do sex work are ones who can't do anything else. That's just not true.

3. But OTOH, the "fancies herself" shows the problem with buying prostitutes off ads. Cuz you're right, whenever I see any self-description on a website, I assume it's aspirational bullshit. Cuz, of course, if someone really is, say, a downtown dancer trying to raise funds to finance the start of her career, she's not gonna say so on an ad or website available to anyone who has internet access.

4. So I'm not sure whether we agree or disagree.

[beep9]

1. I care a lot.

2. The "fancies herself" is sort of insulting. There are a lot of girls out there who actually are. You're sort of implying that the only women who do sex work are ones who can't do anything else. That's just not true.

3. But OTOH, the "fancies herself" shows the problem with buying prostitutes off ads. Cuz you're right, whenever I see any self-description on a website, I assume it's aspirational bullshit. Cuz, of course, if someone really is, say, a downtown dancer trying to raise funds to finance the start of her career, she's not gonna say so on an ad or website available to anyone who has internet access.


My favorite dancer at (Didn't I just mention this place?) the old Billy's Topless was a woman who was constantly scared to death that someone would recognize her from her serious dance. If someone actually sings, dances, acts, or does political commentary, there is no way in hell they want to advertise it.

There is one exception. I can't remember her name (tatum something).... popwhore


4. So I'm not sure whether we agree or disagree.

Exactly!

[Monk]

Here's a relatively simple provider site. And, JL, you might actually appreciate the photos, although they are still relatively stylized. The design is deliberately low key and beep9 might even approve, since the text is html.

http://livingoutfantasies.com/intro.html

[beep9]

Here's a relatively simple provider site. And, JL, you might actually appreciate the photos, although they are still relatively stylized. The design is deliberately low key and beep9 might even approve, since the text is html.

http://livingoutfantasies.com/intro.html

Wow. No stupid music (All music that loads automatically is stupid.... You don't know what I consider good music, and you don't know where I am, or what I'm trying to get away with).

Nice photos, simple, effective layout.

OK. Now I'm going to ask for way, way, way too much. Would it have killed the designer to run it through a validator and fix the errors? Yup. Way too much.

[justlooking]

(Didn't I just mention this place?) the old Billy's Topless

Hey, it's OK to be obsessed with the past. Really.

[Slinky Bender]

My two nitpicks after spending 30 seconds looking at the site is that it should be much easier to figure out where she is (i.e what her service area is; looks like Chicago?) and how old she is (relatively).

And aside from the "hidden navigation issue", I still say this site is equally as simple (ok, equally as complicated, but if I said it that way I don't know if the point would be clear) as the other one.

[Slinky Bender]

Another general thing about this issue: I think it depends a lot on where the "feeder traffic" is coming from. Face it, generally speaking, people don't just "find" provider sites surfing the internet. I think the design of the site needs to reflect where the provider has her traffic comming from.

[franca]

Hey! That's NeeNee! The first working girl to appear with a website. That's the first time I've seen this site. I like it.

[Monk]

My two nitpicks after spending 30 seconds looking at the site is that it should be much easier to figure out where she is (i.e what her service area is; looks like Chicago?) and how old she is (relatively).

And aside from the "hidden navigation issue", I still say this site is equally as simple (ok, equally as complicated, but if I said it that way I don't know if the point would be clear) as the other one.

Her area code is a dead giveaway. And, to beep3's point, the site uses Internet best practices in terms of html text, which will be able to be displayed on medial other than browsers. From that perspective, it's "simpler".

Your point about feeder traffic is, of course, important. Knowing who your target market is before you design any piece of communications, whether it's a print ad, a flyer or a Web site, is key. However, on the Web, it's really difficult to control where that traffic will come from. I just posted her link here, for example -- I'm sure the designer couldn't have taken traffic from this site into consideration when planning the design. Unless your password protect the site and give it out only to select clients (and I know a few providers who do just that), it's very difficult to discern who will be viewing a site on the Internet.

[beep9]

Hey! That's NeeNee! The first working girl to appear with a website. That's the first time I've seen this site. I like it.

No way. There was a provider in the old country (Silicon Valley) who had a gopher site, and wasn't young at the time.... Unless you're saying this woman is .... REALLY old. Huh... I guess there could be providers who've been doing it since ... (wasn't NCP.... so must have been 84 or so), 1984? 25 years of ... providing? Do you get a gold watch after 20 years?


<snip>
And, to beep3's point
<snip>


I've been demoted. So sad. I'm sorry I threatened to ban Slinky.

[franca]

I'm talking about the first to appear on the WWW with a website. Not gopher. Nee isn't that old. Maybe 30 or so?

[Slinky Bender]

Unless your password protect the site and give it out only to select clients (and I know a few providers who do just that), it's very difficult to discern who will be viewing a site on the Internet.


Well, if you were getting fancy, you wouldn't password protect it, you'd show a different site depending on where the hit was coming from. Actually fairly easily done. But that wasn't the point: you don't need to worry about "random", low traffic sources (like a post on some obscure PMB from NY). But you know where your traffic is coming from to a large extent: if you're of the ilk "I don't pay for advertising" and post on every PMB that allows you to self promote, you know that's the type of traffic you are mostly going to get. If you have a huge Eros budget where you not only pay for an ad, but you pay to be in the "GFE" section, the big boob srction, the mature section and pay for prefrred placement, and, and, and..... you know that's where your traffic is going to come from... and so on.

[<Lacy>]

Yes, I've seen those sites. They're really annoying and poorly designed. Apart offering providers some relatively inexpensive real estate on the Web to post a gallery and their phone number, they don't really leave the user with a particularly positive impression of the provider or her services.

I know exactly what websites you gys are talking about and they are ugly and fucking tacky because like half of some of the indy's I have seen have one and they all look the same. I even seen some agencies have the nerve to put one of those sites up and it looks ridiculous.

I mean to start out with is fine but you would think after making all this cash they would invest in a real website.

I was LMFAO when I seen a 400/hr chick with one of those sites. Bitch you make 400hr and your to cheap to get a half way decent website?

Geeze....

xoxo
Lacey

[Slinky Bender]

Hey, if they refuse to pay $100 a month for an ad which will bring them $3000 a month in revenue, why would it be surprising if they didn't want to pay anything for a website, either?

Funny thing is, for years hookers have been using their pussy to pay for website design and they usually are the one's getting ripped off and ending up with poorly designed sites. this ups the ante in two ways: For the one's who haven't figured it out, now some guy can spend 1/2 hour throwing up something even if he had no idea about anything about the WWW and get laid for free. For the one's who do find out about it, they no longer have to let some guy screw them for free to get their cheap ass sites up.

[Slinky Bender]

And what do we think of this site:

http://www.ashleydubois.com/ashley-dubois.html

[franca]

Isn't that DeBeers' theme music? Ugh.

[justlooking]

She definitely seems to have the douchebag market directly in her sights.

[franca]

We may laugh, but that girl is prolly laughing longer. Good on her. She's hot too, even if she does have fake titties.

[franca]

Fuggit. I'm adding a "gifts" page to my site. Suckers!

[beep9]

And what do we think of this site:

http://www.ashleydubois.com/ashley-dubois.html

C'mon... that's a guy

OK. So I have some interest in seeing her. Dig up her phone number just as my boss walks in.... What's that music? Who told you I wanted your freakin' music on my computer?

[Monk]

I know exactly what websites you gys are talking about and they are ugly and fucking tacky because like half of some of the indy's I have seen have one and they all look the same. I even seen some agencies have the nerve to put one of those sites up and it looks ridiculous.

I mean to start out with is fine but you would think after making all this cash they would invest in a real website.

I was LMFAO when I seen a 400/hr chick with one of those sites. Bitch you make 400hr and your to cheap to get a half way decent website?

Geeze....

xoxo
Lacey

It's all about priorities, in the end. I read an article a few years ago about a couple who started a PR business. After a few years, they had achieved quite a bit of success. The wife wanted them to build new offices to impress their clients, instead of the start-up offices from which they still worked. The husband had a different idea. They'd gotten this far working out of crummy offices -- why spend their hard earned money on something that wouldn't really help them win more business? Instead, they sunk the money into their dream vacation home.