12
A Digital Redefinition of the Pornography Industries
The “generalized digitalization of society” movement has some of its roots in the progressive development of the Web and public access to the Internet since the early 1990s, which has been the starting point – or more certainly the acceleration – of many transformations in the media, culture and communication markets and industries. The so-called digital economy contributes to profound changes in their environment, in the context in which they develop, and in the financing structures established for nearly a century by several movements for the industrialization and commodification of culture and information. Within these transformations, many dimensions are frequently mobilized and studied, such as economic strategies, organizational changes or discursive practices.
It is in this context that this text will address the space of pornography markets and industries whose contents, which have become mass consumer products (Cronin and Davenport 2001), do not yet seem to be fully studied as such, in light of repeated findings in the scientific literature. Their contemporary places and transformations in the digital context will be examined here, while keeping in mind the similarities with and distinctions from the other components of culture and communication, particularly in the mechanisms of production, publishing and distribution (Jacobs 2007). Pornography can sometimes be considered as an “illegitimate” object both in research spaces and in public spaces (Landais 2014), being affected by forms of normative relegation (Damian-Gaillard 2014), linked in particular to certain representations, gender issues or exploitation phenomena. How is this opposition built between on the one hand, relegation, and markets and mass consumption products, on the other hand? What are the strategies in place to resolve this tension? Could they be considered as more than just simple answers and tactics, by participating in the shaping and framing of the concerned markets? Who are the actors – and possibly the “beneficiaries” – of this resolution?
In the end, these different questions should allow us to analyze what pornography tells us about all the cultural industries and vice versa. In order to develop possible answers, this chapter will first provide a very brief overview of the scientific literature on pornography before presenting certain problems and research questions on the basis of a socio-economic approach and, finally, proposing to deploy them in analyzing the sexcam sector, a particular component of pornography markets and industries.
12.1. Socio-economics of pornography markets and industries: a brief review of the scientific literature
Pornographies and their contents can be placed in a long history (Vörös 2015a), extending beyond cinematography. As Rea (2001) points out, the boundaries of pornographic content sometimes appear blurred, whether the content is affected by nature, intent or effect, or if there is a demarcation between eroticism and pornography (D’Orlando 2011), for example. These qualifications, although complex, may appear critical to some institutions. Within pornography itself, many distinctions are made. Particularly, we can think of the tempered discussion between netporn and porn on the net by Paasonen (2010) that are respectively designated as a redefinition of content, notably under the influence of amateurs and certain dynamics of resistance against commercial pornography, and a recycling of content and formats by industries (Paasonen 2010). With Paasonen, it is possible to underline that one of the main challenges of these dynamics lies not in clear distinctions (mainstream/alternative, professional/amateur, etc.), but rather in the study of continuities between poles – opportunely – opposed, contributing both to a digitalization of the existing (continuity of industries, formats, sexual scripts, etc.) and to “new” developments (involvement of amateurs, alternative or protest scripts, etc.).
In the digital context, some of the literature has sought to describe the presence and contributions of amateurs in creation and production, as well as in new modes of content distribution. It is possible to note that the involvement of amateurs and unpaid production, although it is in genres partly distinct from those initially offered by the commercial pornography industries, has been partly built in the form of competition (Gomez-Mejia 2014; Paasonen 2010; Ruberg 2016). The implications of these amateurs can give way to forms of commercial reuse (D’Orlando 2011), whether in their presence on video platforms that mobilize amateur and consumer producers (Keilty 2017) or in being showcased on dedicated platforms and devices, such as sexcams (Bleakley 2014; Preudhomme 2016; van Doorn and Velthuis 2018). Some digital platforms have thus been able to promote a massive and free distribution of content in an ambivalent relationship with existing industry players (Fayner 2010) and an antagonistic relationship with consumers (Johnson 2011). Several have pointed out that pornography seems to have acquired the status of a mass consumer product (Arnberg 2012; Coopersmith 2006; Cronin and Davenport 2001; D’Orlando 2011; McKee 2016; Paasonen 2010). Its revenues are often assessed to be very significant, with some of the biggest estimates amounting to $15 billion in the US market and $100 billion worldwide (Szymanski and Stewart-Richardson 2014). However, those clearly remain uncertain – not to say sometimes risky – indicating how much uncertainty still surrounds these industries (Tarrant 2016).
Beyond this uncertainty, these questions are partly found within the public space and in social and cultural representations (Attwood 2014; Brents and Hausbeck 2007; Coopersmith 2006; Edelman 2009; Hardy 2008; Paasonen 2006, 2009; Sarracino and Scott 2008). They have become subjects of analysis in the “general public” as well as in media directed towards a specialized public interested in economic issues. A particular tension can thus be observed around visibility in the public space, which can be described as an attempt at “rehabilitation” and “rhetorical reframing” by the industry (Cronin and Davenport 2001, p. 42).
However, this industrial and economic questioning is still somewhat underdeveloped in academic work, particularly in approaches to pornography:
“We might expect to find that this persistent and prevailing category of goods would feature in scholarly critiques of e-commerce. […] However, in the literature on the information society and information economy the subject of sex, and, by extension, pornography, has been undertheorized” (Cronin and Davenport 2001, p. 34).
This gap, although deplored by many authors, is frequently still confirmed (Berg 2014; Coopersmith 2006; Voss 2012) and can be found in the call, particularly formulated around porn studies (Dubois 2014; Paveau and François 2014; Vörös 2015a), for a “materialistic turn”:
“Initially focused on representation issues, the research agenda of porn studies is now shifting towards reception issues on the one hand and production issues on the other, through the study of socio-economic models and forms of social division of labor in the cultural and creative industries specialized in the production of sexual goods and services” (Vörös 2015b, p. 22).
This proposal is in line with Paasonen’s call (2010, p. 1309):
“I suggest that thinking about amateur and user production as forms of labor that feed the Internet economy, online porn industry included, enables seeing different fields of activity as interconnected and interdependent. Ultimately, the category of pornography needs to be reconsidered in terms of esthetics, media economy and agency as a diverse field of practice involving affective investments, forms of labor and exchange.”
It is in this direction, mentioned but still not very active, that the possibility of jointly studying socio-economic structures, transformation strategies and legitimization discourses around pornography markets and industries is particularly relevant.
12.2. Mobilizing discourse analysis and socio-economic analysis to understand markets and industries
12.2.1. Cross-questioning to be carried out
The research project briefly presented here aims to study the transformation of socio-economic strategies and structures surrounding pornography markets and industries in the digital context. It follows the hypothesis that these, like other spaces, are based as much on a socio-economic construction as on a discourse-based formation. Two objects can then be followed jointly. First, it is possible to focus on the metadiscourse of pornography as a tool for the manufacture and shaping of pornography products and markets, among consumers and, more generally, among all the actors concerned. Evoked in particular by Kunert (2014) – before she focused her analysis on feminist pornography – it is a heterogeneous field, which is “defined by the presence of pornography in a discourse, as the object of that discourse (object that the metadiscourse criticizes, comments, defends, attacks, etc.)” (p. 139), and whose various forms can be identified in different spaces. It is then possible to understand those discourses as contributing to the creation of a field of presence in the sense of Foucault’s work (1969). As the latter subsequently proposed, this will particularly involve:
“to start from these positive mechanisms, producers of knowledge, multipliers of speech, inducers of pleasure, and generators of power, [to] follow them in their conditions of appearance and functioning, and [to] seek how the facts of prohibition or occultation related to them are distributed in relation to them. In short, it is a question of defining the power strategies that are immanent to this will to knowledge. In the specific case of sexuality, constituting the ‘political economy’ of a will to knowledge” (Foucault 1976, pp. 97–98).
Second, the identification of the pornography market and industry players should make it possible to map their respective positions and offers, as well as the articulation between them and the networks they can form. A networked mapping will make it possible to go beyond looking only at the final products presented to consumers and to approach the relationships between all the actors as a complex whole, at the source of actual sectors or ecosystems. It therefore seems possible to establish a detailed understanding of business models and to better understand socio-economic structures and interrelationships as well as existing networks and strategies for the transformation or development of new markets and products. In particular, the cross-analysis will help to understand how market and industry metadiscourses affect the identified stakeholders, who may seek to mobilize, deploy or bypass them. The project will thus make it possible to pursue Damian-Gaillard’s (2014) perspective of a “political economy of desire” (p. 53), while avoiding the trap of “moralist rhetoric on ‘the commodification of the body’ (which makes sexuality exceptional and isolates it from the rest of the capitalist economy) [which has] long hindered the emergence of research on the economic aspects of pornography” (Vörös 2015b, pp. 22–23).
12.2.2. An example of deployment: the erased construction of a sexcam industry
Although they can only be mentioned briefly in this chapter, the digital context has been an opportunity for some actors to develop alternatives – claimed in part as such – to the mainstream pornographic industries with, for example, the increasing visibility of queer or feminist pornographic creations. The case of sexcam platforms can be an example of the possible and potentially fruitful cross-analysis to understand the structuring of a market and an industry. These digital platforms offer central access to live performances, mainly of a sexual nature, to the public. They generally present a separation of performances into gendered categories, then according to other characteristics (language, country, practices, etc.) and following an order related to popularity.
While these platforms vary from and compete against each other, they strongly emphasize the “amateur” character of the models and a stated distance from the pornographic industries. Whether it is the presentation of the system itself, statements within and around it, or presentations in other discourse spaces (including public and journalistic spaces, specialized or not), an important discourse is formed and reproduced by various actors. This discourse participates in a distinction with the industry and highlights the platforms and practices that they present under the banner of the alternative, a certain authenticity and sometimes even forms of sociability between user-consumers and user-models. Amateurism (both in the sense of it being a pleasure to do and the absence of a professional status) then coexists with the freedom claimed around the models. At the same time, these platforms achieve an assumed, visible and sometimes claimed commodification as well as an erased industrialization. First, they use a trading tool, or “token”, which are purchased by consumers, spent on the models and traded on the platform (the selling price of these tokens to consumers is always higher – but in degrees that can vary widely – than the “buy-back” price from the models). These tokens are often centrally visible around visual performance, with, for example, the display of the number received by the models, or the objectives set by them. Far from being erased, they can be the subject of interaction and discussion and – depending on the models on the platform – be prerequisites for access to a performance, thresholds for certain practices in public performances, tips not directly linked to a request, etc.
Second, however, and beyond the mechanism proposed by the platform, it is possible to observe a strong network organization and outsourcing around the platforms following an organization of an actual and structured industrial sector. Particularly, it should be noted that, upstream of the platforms, many intermediaries can, in exchange for different forms of remuneration, interact with the models in order to organize their presence and performance on the platforms (“Studios”, agencies, councils, etc.) and even take on important organizational roles for them (Supply of production equipment, proposal of a “professional working environment”, etc.). On the other side of the supply chain, many platforms aim to distribute the produced content as efficiently as possible (e.g. by hosting and reproducing the platform device) or attract more consumers to the platform (e.g. affiliation networks).
As such, the existence of an organized sector and a clear commodification corresponds to a relatively erased industrialization, the recognition of which could be in conflict with some of the speeches and statements made about or by these platforms. These aim to or contribute to creating a distinction and differentiation – in whole or in part – with the mainstream pornographic industries and to justify, in the eyes of some consumers, paying for content in an environment marked by a high level of free access (particularly under the influence of large portals). A similar tension can be observed around the activity of the models, which is a productive, widely prescribed and organized activity, and which is a source of value for platforms, seemingly covering the characteristics of the work formulated by Dujarier (2008). However, and although platforms often present this activity of models as potentially lucrative, sometimes giving “career” advice, the explicit recognition of a job – and especially of job status that could be linked – is not, or very little, present on platforms.
12.3. Conclusion
In the long term and together, this cross-analysis will make it possible to understand the strategies and discourses surrounding and transforming pornography markets, products and industries. Based on the elements highlighted in the scientific literature, it seems desirable to better understand and analyze the socio-economic models at work in pornography markets and industries, as a direct follow-up to studies such as Trachman’s (2012) central study.
By mobilizing both meso and macro approaches, it seems possible to better understand the intertwining of different dynamics that come to participate in the creation, shaping and framing of new markets and renewed models. Thus, when part of the production and publishing of pornographic content is digitalized, it is possible to observe and analyze a transformation of models, structures and commodification modalities. While industries and sectors may be partially erased, particularly in the report proposed to consumers and in the speeches accompanying and manufacturing markets, their organizational and managerial capacities seem to remain very present. It is therefore possible to critically question this dynamic in formats and markets that are being built as alternatives, but are also participating in the renewal of outsourcing and – possibly – digital exploitations.
12.4. References
Arnberg, K. (2012). Under the counter, under the radar? The business and regulation of the pornographic press in Sweden 1950–1971. Enterprise and Society, 13(2), 350–377.
Attwood, F. (2014). Immersion: “Extreme” texts, animated bodies and the media. Media, Culture and Society, 36(8), 1186–1195.
Berg, H. (2014). Labouring porn studies. Porn Studies, 1(1–2), 75–79.
Boyle, K. (2011). Producing abuse: Selling the harms of pornography. Women’s Studies International Forum, 34(6), 593–602.
Brents, B.G. and Hausbeck, K. (2007). Marketing sex: US legal brothels and late capitalist consumption. Sexualities, 10(4), 425–439.
Coopersmith, J. (2006). Does your mother know what you really do? The changing nature and image of computer-based pornography. History and Technology, 22(1), 1–25.
Cronin, B. and Davenport, E. (2001). E-rogenous zones: Positioning pornography in the digital economy. The Information Society, 17(1), 33–48.
D’Orlando, F. (2011). The demand for pornography. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(1), 51–75.
Damian-Gaillard, B. (2014). L’économie politique du désir dans la presse pornographique hétérosexuelle masculine française. Questions de Communication, 26, 39–54.
Dubois, F.-R. (2014). Introduction aux Porn Studies. Les Impressions Nouvelles, Brussels.
Dujarier, M.-A. (2008). Le travail du consommateur : De McDo à eBay, comment nous coproduisons ce que nous achetons. La Découverte, Paris.
Edelman, B. (2009). Red light states: Who buys online adult entertainment? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(1), 209–220.
Fayner, S. (2010). Down the tubes: How free streaming video threatens the porn industry. MIT Technology Review, August, 103–106.
Foucault, M. (1976). Histoire de la sexualité I : La volonté de savoir. Gallimard, Paris.
Gomez-Mejia, G. (2014). La pornographie amateur au prisme des “réseaux sociaux”. Hermès, La Revue, 2(69), 129–131.
Hardy, S. (2008). The pornography of reality. Sexualities, 11(1–2), 60–64.
Jacobs, K. (2007). Netporn: DIY Web Culture and Sexual Politics. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Lanham.
Johnson, J.A. (2011). Mapping the feminist political economy of the online commercial pornography industry: A network approach. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 7(2), 189–208.
Keilty, P. (2017). Carnal indexing. Knowledge Organization, 44(4), 265–272.
Kunert, S. (2014). Les métadiscours pornographiques. Questions de Communication, 26, 137–152.
Landais, É. (2014). Porn studies et études de la pornographie en sciences humaines et sociales. Questions de Communication, 26, 17–37.
McKee, A. (2016). Pornography as a creative industry: Challenging the exceptionalist approach to pornography. Porn Studies, 3(2), 107–119.
Paasonen, S. (2006). Email from Nancy Nutsucker: Representation and gendered address in online pornography. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 9, 403–420.
Paasonen, S. (2009). Healthy sex and pop porn: Pornography, feminism and the Finnish context. Sexualities, 12(5), 586–604.
Paasonen, S. (2010). Labors of love: Netporn, Web 2.0 and the meanings of amateurism. New Media & Society, 12(8), 1297–1312.
Paveau, M. and François, P. (2014). Un objet de discours pour les études pornographiques. Questions de Communication, 26, 7–16.
Preudhomme, S. (2016). Codes, contrôle et réappropriation autonome : Le pro-am comme système organisationnel singulier. Revue française des sciences de l’information et de la communication, 9, 1–14.
Rea, M.C. (2001). What is pornography? Noûs, 35(1), 118–145.
Ruberg, B. (2016). Doing it for free: Digital labour and the fantasy of amateur online pornography. Porn Studies, 3(2), 147–159.
Sarracino, C. and Scott, K.M. (2008). The Porning of America: The Rise of Porn Culture, What it Means, and Where We Go from Here. Beacon Press, Boston.
Szymanski, D.M. and Stewart-Richardson, D.N. (2014). Psychological, relational, and sexual correlates of pornography use on young adult heterosexual men in romantic relationships. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 22(1), 64–82.
Tarrant, S. (2016). The Pornography Industry: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press, New York.
Trachman, M. (2012). Le travail pornographique : enquête sur la production de fantasmes. La Découverte, Paris.
Vörös, F. (2015a). Cultures Pornographiques. Anthologie des Porn Studies. Éditions Amsterdam, Paris.
Vörös, F. (2015b). Le porno à bras-le-corps. Genèse et épistémologie des porn studies. In Cultures Pornographiques. Anthologie des Porn Studies, Vörös, F. (ed.). Éditions Amsterdam, Paris, 5–31.
Voss, G. (2012). “Treating it as a normal business”: Researching the pornography industry. Sexualities, 15(3–4), 391–410.
Chapter written by Arnaud ANCIAUX. This chapter is in part the result of a collaborative effort with Nathalie Bissonnette (Université Laval), Éric George (Université du Québec à Montréal) and Julie Alice Gramaccia (Université Laval).