|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"pontification"
Love you, too
Hi all,
let's imagine an uber-wealthy fellow with a penchant for WAM decided, on a whim, to throw all his (or her; I'm no bigot) money into producing cutting-edge WAM material. Obviously, to outstrip all current producers, serious investment would be required. But let's also imagine that said tycoon was able to establish an Amazon-esque monopoly; do you think, as the NFL/WWE/NBA of the WAM world - i.e., so far ahead of your rivals that you really have none - that you could turn a decent profit? Or is it simply too niche of market for that to be a possibility? This is all hypothetical, obviously; but if you had at your disposal the sort of $$$ that goes into a Sony music video, and could procure ladies and devise set-ups commensurate with that capital, such that EVERYONE who likes WAM was buying it, could it be lucrative? Just a random pontification, I have them sometimes.
let's imagine an uber-wealthy fellow with a penchant for WAM decided, on a whim, to throw all his (or her; I'm no bigot) money into producing cutting-edge WAM material. Obviously, to outstrip all current producers, serious investment would be required. But let's also imagine that said tycoon was able to establish an Amazon-esque monopoly; do you think, as the NFL/WWE/NBA of the WAM world - i.e., so far ahead of your rivals that you really have none - that you could turn a decent profit? Or is it simply too niche of market for that to be a possibility? This is all hypothetical, obviously; but if you had at your disposal the sort of $$$ that goes into a Sony music video, and could procure ladies and devise set-ups commensurate with that capital, such that EVERYONE who likes WAM was buying it, could it be lucrative? Just a random pontification, I have them sometimes.
zozotown said: Hi all,
let's imagine an uber-wealthy fellow with a penchant for WAM decided, on a whim, to throw all his (or her; I'm no bigot) money into producing cutting-edge WAM material.
let's imagine an uber-wealthy fellow with a penchant for WAM decided, on a whim, to throw all his (or her; I'm no bigot) money into producing cutting-edge WAM material.
Why would it be bigoted to create a hypothetical situation with a male entity, again?
Also, given that 99.9% (give or take .01%) of wammers are either men, girlfriends/wives of men who are into this or women who not into it but willing to make money off of it, would it honestly be that "bigoted", as you said, to create a hypothetical situation where it was the far most likely outcome?
Are you suggesting by leaving out that tiny minority of women, who may or may not exist, who legitimately have this fetish, is -- your words, not mine -- Bigoted, because of the exclusion? Does this then mean you are a bigot against transgendered, pansexuals, Alaskans and all the other people you left out of your hypothetical question?
I don't think you'd get that monopoly. You'd have to be providing something for everyone, and that isn't likely. For example, I'm not sure you could make one video that would be good enough for me and Enigmahood, I think we wouldn't agree at all on what makes the best video. Whoever didn't get catered to would shop the other producers, who would still exist and find the niches the monopolist missed.
zozotown said: Hi all,
let's imagine an uber-wealthy fellow with a penchant for WAM decided, on a whim, to throw all his (or her; I'm no bigot) money into producing cutting-edge WAM material. Obviously, to outstrip all current producers, serious investment would be required. But let's also imagine that said tycoon was able to establish an Amazon-esque monopoly; do you think, as the NFL/WWE/NBA of the WAM world - i.e., so far ahead of your rivals that you really have none - that you could turn a decent profit? Or is it simply too niche of market for that to be a possibility? This is all hypothetical, obviously; but if you had at your disposal the sort of $$$ that goes into a Sony music video, and could procure ladies and devise set-ups commensurate with that capital, such that EVERYONE who likes WAM was buying it, could it be lucrative? Just a random pontification, I have them sometimes.
let's imagine an uber-wealthy fellow with a penchant for WAM decided, on a whim, to throw all his (or her; I'm no bigot) money into producing cutting-edge WAM material. Obviously, to outstrip all current producers, serious investment would be required. But let's also imagine that said tycoon was able to establish an Amazon-esque monopoly; do you think, as the NFL/WWE/NBA of the WAM world - i.e., so far ahead of your rivals that you really have none - that you could turn a decent profit? Or is it simply too niche of market for that to be a possibility? This is all hypothetical, obviously; but if you had at your disposal the sort of $$$ that goes into a Sony music video, and could procure ladies and devise set-ups commensurate with that capital, such that EVERYONE who likes WAM was buying it, could it be lucrative? Just a random pontification, I have them sometimes.
Are you offering?
He's more potato now than man. Twisted and evil.
This has already been done, it's called the Moomin Empire. 
Stunning models, a proper studio with professional lighting, wide variety of scenes and styles, and a frenetic release rate that runs everyone else down in the stampede. Nevertheless other producers still exist and we all sell content, because no producer is ever going to be able to cater to all the varied tastes out there in WAM.
I've occasionally wondered what I'd do wam-wise if I won a multiple roll-over Euromillions prize - over £100 million. Setting up a full TV station to make exclusively wam-based gameshows (with full informed consent from all participants) would be easy - lots of people would be more than happy to get wammed on TV, even knowing there was a fetish audience, if the grand prize every week was a brand new car and all the runners up got good free holidays somewhere upmarket (perhaps we'd send them all to Caesars Palace or the Venetian ). So now we are talking 4k video shot on multiple broadcast-quality cameras by operators who have been trained in how to shoot wam scenes properly and with subscribers to the station able to to download the raw footage from each camera as well as the edited broadcast version. But lots of people would still hate it because I'd have all the contestants in boilersuits and wellies for round one, dungarees and wellies for round two, severe knee length uniform skirts and wellies for round three, jeans and wellies for round four, etc. 
Though I'd make sure there was total equality - no "white knighting" guys taking mess that was meant for girls, and girls getting total mess - in fact the games would be set up so that the more enthusiastically the contestants threw themselves into getting messy, the more points they got.
There would still be other wam producers though.
To be honest, if someone had a load of money and wanted to use it to improve the WAM business overall, the best things they could do would be a) give a chunk to MM to pay for new server and disk capacity, and bandwidth, for the UMD, and b) go round all the current serious producers (say anyone who's been in business more than three years and has shown commitment to creating new content) and pay for upgrades - new cameras, better lighting, perhaps studio hire funds.
Stunning models, a proper studio with professional lighting, wide variety of scenes and styles, and a frenetic release rate that runs everyone else down in the stampede. Nevertheless other producers still exist and we all sell content, because no producer is ever going to be able to cater to all the varied tastes out there in WAM. I've occasionally wondered what I'd do wam-wise if I won a multiple roll-over Euromillions prize - over £100 million. Setting up a full TV station to make exclusively wam-based gameshows (with full informed consent from all participants) would be easy - lots of people would be more than happy to get wammed on TV, even knowing there was a fetish audience, if the grand prize every week was a brand new car and all the runners up got good free holidays somewhere upmarket (perhaps we'd send them all to Caesars Palace or the Venetian
). So now we are talking 4k video shot on multiple broadcast-quality cameras by operators who have been trained in how to shoot wam scenes properly and with subscribers to the station able to to download the raw footage from each camera as well as the edited broadcast version. But lots of people would still hate it because I'd have all the contestants in boilersuits and wellies for round one, dungarees and wellies for round two, severe knee length uniform skirts and wellies for round three, jeans and wellies for round four, etc. Though I'd make sure there was total equality - no "white knighting" guys taking mess that was meant for girls, and girls getting total mess - in fact the games would be set up so that the more enthusiastically the contestants threw themselves into getting messy, the more points they got. There would still be other wam producers though.
To be honest, if someone had a load of money and wanted to use it to improve the WAM business overall, the best things they could do would be a) give a chunk to MM to pay for new server and disk capacity, and bandwidth, for the UMD, and b) go round all the current serious producers (say anyone who's been in business more than three years and has shown commitment to creating new content) and pay for upgrades - new cameras, better lighting, perhaps studio hire funds.
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
gif imageEnigmahood said:
Why would it be bigoted to create a hypothetical situation with a male entity, again?
Also, given that 99.9% (give or take .01%) of wammers are either men, girlfriends/wives of men who are into this or women who not into it but willing to make money off of it, would it honestly be that "bigoted", as you said, to create a hypothetical situation where it was the far most likely outcome?
Are you suggesting by leaving out that tiny minority of women, who may or may not exist, who legitimately have this fetish, is -- your words, not mine -- Bigoted, because of the exclusion? Does this then mean you are a bigot against transgendered, pansexuals, Alaskans and all the other people you left out of your hypothetical question?
zozotown said: Hi all,
let's imagine an uber-wealthy fellow with a penchant for WAM decided, on a whim, to throw all his (or her; I'm no bigot) money into producing cutting-edge WAM material.
let's imagine an uber-wealthy fellow with a penchant for WAM decided, on a whim, to throw all his (or her; I'm no bigot) money into producing cutting-edge WAM material.
Why would it be bigoted to create a hypothetical situation with a male entity, again?
Also, given that 99.9% (give or take .01%) of wammers are either men, girlfriends/wives of men who are into this or women who not into it but willing to make money off of it, would it honestly be that "bigoted", as you said, to create a hypothetical situation where it was the far most likely outcome?
Are you suggesting by leaving out that tiny minority of women, who may or may not exist, who legitimately have this fetish, is -- your words, not mine -- Bigoted, because of the exclusion? Does this then mean you are a bigot against transgendered, pansexuals, Alaskans and all the other people you left out of your hypothetical question?
I think I was suggesting that I was being salacious - tongue in the old cheek, that sort of thing. Too subtle, clearly. Should have appended with a smiley.
Potatoman-J said:
Are you offering?
zozotown said: Hi all,
let's imagine an uber-wealthy fellow with a penchant for WAM decided, on a whim, to throw all his (or her; I'm no bigot) money into producing cutting-edge WAM material. Obviously, to outstrip all current producers, serious investment would be required. But let's also imagine that said tycoon was able to establish an Amazon-esque monopoly; do you think, as the NFL/WWE/NBA of the WAM world - i.e., so far ahead of your rivals that you really have none - that you could turn a decent profit? Or is it simply too niche of market for that to be a possibility? This is all hypothetical, obviously; but if you had at your disposal the sort of $$$ that goes into a Sony music video, and could procure ladies and devise set-ups commensurate with that capital, such that EVERYONE who likes WAM was buying it, could it be lucrative? Just a random pontification, I have them sometimes.
let's imagine an uber-wealthy fellow with a penchant for WAM decided, on a whim, to throw all his (or her; I'm no bigot) money into producing cutting-edge WAM material. Obviously, to outstrip all current producers, serious investment would be required. But let's also imagine that said tycoon was able to establish an Amazon-esque monopoly; do you think, as the NFL/WWE/NBA of the WAM world - i.e., so far ahead of your rivals that you really have none - that you could turn a decent profit? Or is it simply too niche of market for that to be a possibility? This is all hypothetical, obviously; but if you had at your disposal the sort of $$$ that goes into a Sony music video, and could procure ladies and devise set-ups commensurate with that capital, such that EVERYONE who likes WAM was buying it, could it be lucrative? Just a random pontification, I have them sometimes.
Are you offering?
Maybe...
It's a niche with niches within niches within niches inside the initial niche. You would need a lot of varied content coming out rapidly in order to stand even half a chance of creating a monopoly.
All flesh is equal when gunged.
