|
|
|
erotica  fictiongallerylifestyles fetishbdsmqueer/bi/transswingersfeatures news briefsarticlessexy spreadseros bits sound offtriviasexfessionsreviewsevents sf archiveslondon archiveslos angeles archivesnew york archiveslas vegas archivesinternational calendareros photo classified ads about eros ezine daily cartoon select different zine:
|
When contributing to this web site, I usually write positive things. If I'm going to recommend a club, an event, a DVD, a book, a sex toy, a sex position of anything at all, it's usually just that: a recommendation. I don't bother wasting your time with my negative opinions. Until now. Please both indulge and forgive me. Because this "powerful friend in the press" is pissed off! Back when I was working for a mainstream(ish) publication, I used to see emails addressed to "Our powerful friends in the press." The notes were from people eager to receive press coverage, and looking to be written up in our publication. Or, for that matter, any publication. I'm now currently writing for a few assorted publications (among them this web site, ErosZine.com), and while I don't exactly consider myself a "powerful friend in the press," I do recognize the power OF the press. Or the web. Because in addition to writing for web sites and magazines, I produce events that I like to see covered. And nothing thrills me more than seeing my name in print, as I did recently in The Chicago Tribune in relation to the whole Jeri Ryan sex club scandal, and in The New York Observer in an article about strip clubs and the upcoming Republication National Convention. You know the old saying: There's no such thing as bad press.  Evidently there are people who don't buy into that belief.Over the past few months, I have been experiencing an odd trend of skepticism and some downright "press refusal." When I've emailed people asking for additional info to assure that I'm not merely regurgitating the boilerplate on their web site, I've received all sorts of strange responses. One representative of a BDSM organization whose charity benefit I was writing up, accused me of "doing this for your own personal benefit." Um, no, not MY benefit, YOUR benefit. Literally. Yes, I will benefit, but the relatively small amount of money I get paid for each individual piece pales in comparison to the potential thousands of hits the organization's web site will receive-not to mention the potential thousands of dollars those clicks might inspire. This person also accused me of not knowing anything about their organization, their mission statement and more, as though I haven't been involved in this community forever...like possibly since this person was in junior high. Another person I contacted was simply too busy to give me all the information necessary for a truly comprehensive piece. After I received an initially enthusiastic phone call and their promise to send me that info, it became apparent a few hours before my deadline that it wasn't forthcoming. I managed to scramble together an article with what little info I could glean from the web site and the additional help of a link he'd provided to a somewhat out-of-date article. Once the piece went live, this person emailed me, enraged. His complaints? That I mentioned something that happened years earlier, an episode that had been published in the out-of-date article. He seemed annoyed that appearing on an adult-oriented web site might be detrimental to his current licensing review. He also complained that "we are not in porno, we do not do porno and we do not show porno here ever. Please take out the porno when describing what's available."  My blood boiling, I responded: "Hmm, let's see: 1. I told you the article would be for ErosZine.com. Did you assume that was a Christian web site? Perhaps you might have looked at it and let me know if you were not interested in being featured. 2. Nowhere in the article does it state that you show porn. I mentioned that porn stars have shown up there, which is a fact. 3. I asked for more historical information, but you said you were too busy. You then provided me with a link to an out-of date story. Perhaps if you had taken a few minutes to provide me with current info, I wouldn't have had to rely on that out-of-date piece." Probably the most hilarious incident of "refusal of press" came from a club that's entire shtick is a "Back to School" theme. You must be wearing school uniforms or dress as, say, a "lunch lady" in order to get into this club. When I emailed them to see if they'd be okay being written up, they responded with a curt reply about how they took a look at the site and are not connected with anything vaguely related [to sexuality, I assumed]. "What aren't you connected with?" I wrote back. "I list events and clubs, and I assume you are an event or a club. I'm also assuming that you find school uniforms to be a fun thing, if not an outright fetish." They zapped me back with "We are a little surprised by the vitriol of your reply. We studied your web site and noted it was dedicated to festishism. [Not true.] We have nothing to do with this, and our client base is not one that attends these clubs. We are very careful of our image, and the uniform thing is incidental. The main thrust of our night is going back to your youth. [Another very popular fetish, I'm afraid.] I'm sorry but I don't remember a man in a gimp suit being in my youth. [And I'm sorry too. No men in gimp suits on ErosZine.com that I can find. Though I'm not quite sure what a gimp suit is...]  Probably the most ironic aspect of this silly story is that I have actually spoken with fetishists who do, in fact, attend this club for precisely the same reasons I'd assumed it would be perfect for ErosZine: school uniform fetishism, sexy girls in pleated skirts and, no doubt, wanting to "go back to one's youth." I suppose the question is: Are these people delusional? In denial? In need of a nap?Overall, I feel that by writing someone up, I am doing them a favor. Everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame, and adding a few more hits onto your Google search is nothing if not a few extra minutes tacked onto that total. Clicks mean eyeballs, and eyeballs might translate into selling your wares, receiving even wider press coverage and making that extra buck. It isn't even a question of crass capitalism. It's just common sense. What is it about an "adult oriented" web site that makes seemingly "adult oriented" businesses balk? And we aren't exactly talking Hustler here. Could appearing on such a web site-or any web site, for that matter-be so detrimental? Ostensibly, one doesn't have any control about what runs where, or there would be nothing but puff pieces about Paris Hilton and Pam Anderson, instead of all that tawdry....oh, nevermind! Isn't the bottom line that none of us want to do what we do in a vacuum? If we have a club, an event or a performance, we want people to attend, no? And if it's a benefit, the more people who know about it the better. If we have a video, a DVD, a CD or a movie, we want people to see and/or hear it, don't we? In a cluttered world of too-much-information, getting your word out, regardless of the medium OR the messenger, seems like it would be a good thing. Could I possibly be wrong and not really the "powerful friend in the press" I aspire to be? Perhaps it is a question for the ages. I welcome your responses.
|
|
|
 |
|