It may be even a counterproductive approach.
There is a phenomenon going behind the curtains when you address any topic about adult industry in mainstream channels.
Simply put, mainstream algorithms rise invisible firewalls to keep the information caged.
That’s how must be done to protect minors.
But what happens with adults?
In this case things get complicated.
Third parties filtering the information non stop playing cat and mouse is too costly and a waste of resources.
Even may cut the development of other services in a natural market behaviour.
After all ,adults may know the information and then see by themselves if it’s worthy or not.
May be wise to stop outsourcing education to IT companies.
Censorship may not be the best choice.
Mainstream is investing resources to keep the great firewall going on.
And adult industry invest resources to defeat filtering.
It’s a pointless battle, meanwhile users may be losing value.
Education is the way to do it properly.
From an observer point of view their marketing can’t change with this firewall.
They are used to their side of the glass.
That means the only thing that works is what doesn’t get filtered at least in their own side.
I consider myself in between.
Because for years I preached a more mainstream way to consume adult online (only) with value.
But that’s pretty hard if the only ones who consume adult online services are precisely not too “mainstream” users…
Non judgemental but niche obsessed?
This paradox happens in adult content and it’s pretty interesting.
One of the most open-minded industries is at the same time a closed ghetto were the user opinions are sometimes considered as an afterthought.
This is due the isolation effect.
They may spend months researching “Variants” from the same core users that got in their side of the fish tank.
But what about the fish tank glass?
Adult industry is pretty compatible with a more mature and emotional approach to mainstream.
But the roots are all the same.
If you isolate people by behaviours they will act like a “tribe”.
https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/the-real-lesson-of-the-stanford-prison-experiment
But you can’t just open the gates and let the flood in.
The change must be taken step by step, filtering, testing and in communication with both sides.
An example
Imagine a barbaque party at your neighborhood.
The invitations are sent but to only meat lovers.
Tou are vegan and you would like to know your neighbors.
- You may be unaware of the party completely.
- You may be scared to ask for a salad if you go.
So yes, even if you ask for a salad and someone may understand you.
There is no salad in the menu because no one ever asked for that,so maybe someone at a personal level may try to work in something.
But it’s not used to or entitled to do it.
Like a decompression chamber.
There must be an adaptation period for both agents.
Extremes will be the same but the middle point instead being cut would be joint together and services will evolve to satisfy the new demand.
Break the wall and make an ordered adaptation period so market can regulate it self.