Is a content manager a "must have"?

[Evil Chris]

Used to be that everyone updated their websites (paysites) the old fashioned way by hand. Just adding more pages and more content via FTP.

How many of you still do it that way? Is it still a viable way to update paysites or is a content manager software simply a must to save time?

[Porn Girl]

Doing it by hand works if your network has one or two sites but as your network gets bigger, it becomes impossible in my opinion

[Kenny B]

We've been using a CMS for many years now, it was one of the best investments we've made and free's up loads of time. There are so many on the market now and start at only a few hundred bucks, there's no excuse to not have a tool like that to free up one's time.

[HammerALL]

Exactly what Porn Girl said - there will come a point that a CM is a must have just because of sheer time. It will definitely add to your productivity.

[Kristin]

At EGC we used (and Chris still does) use CARMA. Now, no offense to the NATS guys, but fuck me ... it's the biggest pain in the ass to setup. And it's not cause of their system it's just because of the task at hand. You are inputing all your content for years into a system that will auto update it.

It's great once you have all the content loaded in, until then it's the most sucky task ever.

And even if you have two sites, it's worth it to implement because of the ease it will bring you for the rest of the life of the sites. If you are one-man show too it's nice cause then you don't have to worry about updates if you are out of town, sick, etc.

[daveydude]

People should only be doing things that can't be done by software imo. Even if you only have one site, I'd say a CMS is still an important thing to have - it saves so much time and makes it a lot easier to reorganise content. I use one installation of SiteDepth for 10 paysites and am really happy with it.

[LAJ]

It really all depends on how many sites you have, budget limitations, etc.

I'm a do it by hand kinda guy (yes, in more ways than one). But if you've got a growing network and a relatively small staff, then yes, you need a content manager.

[leedsfan]

Originally Posted by Evil Chris

Used to be that everyone updated their websites (paysites) the old fashioned way by hand. Just adding more pages and more content via FTP.

How many of you still do it that way? Is it still a viable way to update paysites or is a content manager software simply a must to save time?

We use a combo of in house CMS scripts and hand driven, and it's fine for the 7 sites we have in our aff proggie but it is cumbersome for SEO submissions. If you really want to keep your sites ranked high in SERPS you need a CMS that's quick and easy to switch site content (read: keywords)depending in which direction google's wind is blowing on any given day.

my 2cents

[Don Soporno]

Gotta roll with the masses on this one. At the small stages by hand is probably a much better wya to go. More personal but can become WAY to time consuming.

[Rochard]

Content management is a must these days. Sites are getting bigger and bigger, are updated more often, and the sets are larger.

Also, Content management systems cut down on crappy HTML errors.

So yeah, content management systems are needed. In a huge way.

[MediaGuy]

Depending on your site size, the switch to a content manager is usually an inevitability.

Look at it this way: assuming it's a single site-blog-feed-tour-affiilate thing, you can do it all by hand - at first. But the more you add - especially on the membership/content side of things which requires a certain archiving/rotation of content at some point - the more you work.

The more you work, the less you're making per hour for that work - assuming you put some value on your tie.

So time that could end up being spent expanding your network or adding to your catalogue of sites (or playing with your kids, making love, having a LIFE) is instead spent recycling or adding to the initial site more and more as it grows. It just makes no sense.

If you plan on getting far with a site, especially a paysite, expect to upgrade to some CMS - especially in the membership area where SEs are irrelenvant. (I don't know of a CMS that is search-engine friendly. If you do, let me know).

[Quagmire]

We've actually switched to a custom coded CMS system for site updates here at GTS/Submitpasses. I know its like comparing apples and oranges since we don't deal in content, but so far as being able to schedule changes and updates, its much nicer to work in the CMS with a panel than try to hand-code a bunch of new pages and updates. Everything stays consistent so far as layout goes and it really helps to limit any sort of display error.

With the price of CMS options being fairly low and the potential to free up a fair bit of time to focus on other tasks, imho its a good way to go.

[sweetums]

Agreeing with all the smart folks that have already commented...eventually using a CMS in some capacity - even if its limited - becomes a necessity if you're running a network of paysites - unless you want to devote one person's full time efforts to coordinating and managing all content updates.

Comes down to what's the most effective way to be spending your time and where you get your biggest ROI - more people have automated the process of updating content in order to spend more time on things like traffic generation.

[TheEnforcer]

I'd say that these days a content manager is a must have for paysites UNLESS you already have something that works very well for you and is still very efficient. For existing programs you may already have a method to your madness so to speak that works quite well for your program and is still very efficient and still allows for plenty of growth so switching over might be a bigger pain than going with what you've already got in place. If it is a new or relatively new program I would switch over in a hurry because as you grow it will likely become harder for you.

[daveydude]

I totally disagree with it being OK to update by hand for your first site, because the longer you leave it, the more of a pain it will be to make the switch. It will almost certainly entail re-uploading all your content and entering in all the information / text etc.

If you're planning to seriously get into the paysite market, I would strongly suggest you get a CMS right from the word go and use the time you'll save on more marketing

[cheeks]

You defenitly need a CMS knowadays.

You need to have the ability to make fast changes when your ratios are being affected. Also, you need a solid software thats gonna allow you to make changes to many tours in a reasonable amount of time. Most people have multiple paysites so you defenitly need a CMS.

[SykkBoy]

We use a custom CMS, but it a very vital part of our sites. Anyone planning for the longhaul really needs one. When you have just a single site, updating by hand might seem to make sense, but that will cause problems when you expand. It also ties you down for traveling and things like that. A good CMS that you can pre-load with updates and have them appear automatically will free up a lot of time. You can just bulk import everything and then focus on building the other areas of your site and program (important things like traffic)

[gunner]

I think a better question to ask (not that it was a bad question or thread) but more relevant might be...
What CMS is eveyone using?

Site Depth, Carma, custom... ?

[rico-panchodog]

Hi guys,
I think that a good CMS (content mangement system) is not only important for a growing outfit, but also for one site groups as well. Mainly because it gives you the freedom to do other things while your updates are being mananged automaticly. What happens if you get sick, are on vacation, you name it...
Just an inteligent investment no matter what your size.
In addition, regarding Carma or other CMS's that require loads of time to enter the content into the system, making a larger network or even a large single site, a big chore to handle.
I am SURE someone with some decent programming background can make a simple excel file import/export function so that images and video can easily be loaded into the system, with a simple drag and drop. An excel file could have the information needed for tags, descriptions, names, dates, etc
As long as both matched (content and excel info) there is no reason to have to enter all this by hand, one by one.
Just my two cents

[AtlasChris]

With the amount of sites and the amount of content we have to update theses days, a CMS is a must. We built ours 1st one in 2002 and since then built 9 different ones to update all the site and different features.

[S0laris]

Hmmm

I think a CMS is very important, but the only draw back with them is the amount of setup, and if you have multiple sites, then they all look the same because of the effort in customizing it.

Our CMS is all in house and each site has its own script that is unique to prevent the "canned" look. It is easier to do this then redo all the customizations for a new site from a 3rd party CMS.

[Terrence]

Very informative thread I will be contacting the apropriate comapny for support with my content managment


Terrence

[painful]

I use Sitedepth CMS, I can't ever imaging uploading thousands of pics and hundreds of hours of video BY HAND! No way.

[Silvercash Albert]

Hello All:

In my experiences, this decisions is ultimately based on resources, time and cash flow. Working smarter then harder is something we all strive for in all our business efforts.

However, depending on your network of paysites or type of business model you may operate, (Ex: Subscription membership paysites, VOD, File Sharing Programs etc) tools/software to manage your content become necessary once you have addressed and prioritized a team's project management and the skill set of your team members.

Currently at Silvercash, we are blessed to have a solid programming team and design team that allow us to customize our content management to our needs. The challenge is that technology platforms that one would use 5 years ago becomes out dated and controlling your content dynamically becomes increasingly harder. In turn, I am confident that many of the larger affiliate programs eventually do a complete overhaul of the members' area to support this. Again, IMO, this is only an interim solution to 'get by' as growth will inherently force a team address this as competition and technology develops.

It is important to note, that many of the 'boxed' solutions are great for companies using the propreitary affiliate software, however that is mandate these software companies want you to adopt, so your investment in their product makes it harder to revisit if you want to transition your company to alternative solution. I use the example of many cell phone companies offering free hardware, but the consumer's commitment is longer to the phone service.

To reiterate many of the comments made in this thread, I believe that there is no exact 'trigger' point that company designates for automate CMS, rather it is decision based on timing and growth. 'Timing' relates to your currrent resources and 'growth' relates to a company's cash flow for custom solutions. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money

Just remember, technology is great when it works


PS: Go Leafs Go...

[Dare69]

GET IT! hihihi check it :_;

[BruceMiller]

We wrote our own custom CMS a couple of years ago, and it's been an ongoing venture, but we couldn't live without it. It takes so much time off our hands, as well as the girls we partner with. It currently does so much work, it's crazy to even think about how we used to manage without it.

[Evil Chris]

A lot of great answers here. I know more about CMS now than before I started this thread.

[oystein]

I could hardly find what more to add to this, except maybe that people are talking mostly about the "Content Updates" part of the CMS job, the ease to schedule updates and have the site run by itself; the ease to add updates without editing HTML and risking with errors.

But what I do not see is an emphasis to all the other things that a full-featured paysite CMS can and must do.

Create thumbnails, resize galleries in different sizes, present videos in different formats, collect and display view stats, allow content rating, polls, favorites.

And last but not least, maintain complex relationships between the different content items - videos, related galleries with stills from those videos, model index pages listing all sets featuring each model; break down videos by scenes or organize in series; update tours in sync with the members area updates.
It is technically impossible to do some of these task by hand, yet for the others it a cumbersome workload even if you have a single site to update.

And these are 2 posts which I could comment on:

#21 S0laris:

I think a CMS is very important, but the only draw back with them is the amount of setup, and if you have multiple sites, then they all look the same because of the effort in customizing it.

Our CMS is all in house and each site has its own script that is unique to prevent the "canned" look. It is easier to do this then redo all the customizations for a new site from a 3rd party CMS.


A good modern CMS is not putting "canned look" limitations to site, neither it requires code customizations to make each site looks different.

Instead, it should be capable of updating multiple sites with the same (or varying) content, but each site has its own set of templates which are giving it its unique look, even though you do not upload neither tag content more than once.


#24 Silvercash Albert

It is important to note, that many of the 'boxed' solutions are great for companies using the propreitary affiliate software, however that is mandate these software companies want you to adopt, so your investment in their product makes it harder to revisit if you want to transition your company to alternative solution. I use the example of many cell phone companies offering free hardware, but the consumer's commitment is longer to the phone service.

Not necessarily! The CMS primaries is dealing with the content and layout, leave the billing+affiliates, members management+authentication to other systems, each one best in what it's doing.
There are some crossing points, in which case it is better if the vendor of all 3 systems is one and they all work together in concert, but this is not a must, and if all of these 3 systems can play alone, and do not strictly require to use the other systems by the same vendor, this is giving the desired sense of flexibility and ability to replace any of the others with no much hassle.


Sometimes you have to spend money to make money

Could not agree more!

[Mister E]

Wait a second, I must be doing it wrong. Don't you just stand up and yell "Santiago, are we live yet"?

[Cyndalie]

Simple answer: It's a must have. Improves both update speeds, managing 2257 and end user experience.