i though it was a pretty good xmas on the shows, i really liked that we got to see some different girls,
props to RLC for bringing Lucy Kemp back for a one off show and for getting Mikayla to do a full night show again,
XF also had a really good xmas night with there 2 best girls in and getting naked and oiled up,
and lastly 66 had a good boxing night paticuly liked Jade getting naked
I'm always grateful that the babes and behind the camera guys are prepared to work over the Christmas period.
So I say a big thanks to them.
(27-12-2014 10:26 )Davy Crockett Wrote: [ -> ] (26-12-2014 04:39 )Goodfella3041 Wrote: [ -> ]The tease hours on S66 are dressed up as some sort of "event"
In order to maximise revenue that's exactly how they should be promoted.
Exactly. As I said previously, this is precisely what they should be doing if they think they have got the tease/night balance right.
But that doesn't mean the truth of the situation shouldn't be acknowledged.
If people are complaining that whatever babe channel is 'poor' in some way, in their eyes, at the moment I don't think it's a waste of time look at why (beyond this or that bad performer or that "its all Ofcom's fault"). Looking at the likely reasons, it can, at least, then be seen if there is any chance of general improvement in the future!
Anyway, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that the s66 tease hour thing is systematic of what is happening with some at the channels at the moment. Some involved in the industry are using the Ofcom situation as an excuse to reign in (to an extent that goes beyond what is required by the regulator) what was previously offered visually to the caller in a given timeslot. When the channel exec's do it, it can only really be to cut overall costs. (For instance, the use of daygirls in tease slots is surely cheaper than nightbabes; provided they can keep call rates the same the results are obvious.)
Now this may suit some who tune in. I'm not averse to tease shows myself, but they are more tricky to perform satisfactorily I think overall. So it is more problematic to get the right girl who knows what she's doing... As a channel, you are going to get more disappointed punters going down that route. At least until expectations are changed. But how much does that actually matter? Will it affect the channel's turnover adversely in the end?
To my mind, if anyone wants the channels back as they were ca.2010
that is what you have to hope for, along with Ofcom's fall/neutering. Why should a channel bother otherwise?
(27-12-2014 14:44 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]the use of daygirls in tease slots is surely cheaper than nightbabes
No way!
It costs a bomb to persuade day girls to do tease slots.
^^^ I was weirdly just thinking that myself. It actually does surprise me that the babeshows are on at all on Christmas Day and New Years Eve.
It's like there is a list of "essential services" somewhere in a Whitehall department. Things that absolutely cannot be interrupted by the holidays.
Police
Fire department
National Defense
Babeshows
A&E
Airports
There is a screenplay in here somewhere. Something along the lines of The Day After Tomorrow or Deep Impact -- a proper disaster movie scenario. A nuclear bomb goes off in London. The best and the brightest gather in a bunker somewhere. And at some point, someone slams his fist on the table: "The babeshows must go on, damnit! Don't you get it!? There are guys out there - thousands of guys - trying to have a wank. We won't let them down!"
Too much?
Do you have evidence of that? I was thinking of the non-topless ones. I would have thought it was the nudity that costed more. But I bow to your superior knowledge if so.
Quote:To my mind, if anyone wants the channels back as they were ca.2010 that is what you have to hope for, along with Ofcom's fall/neutering. Why should a channel bother otherwise?
The only way to get the shows back to the way they were or at least to some kind of level that pushes against OFCOMs straightjacket is for punters to stop phoning, simple as that.
Now I don't pretend to know how everyone's mind ticks, but personally speaking, I just can't fathom why anyone can get off spending a fortune talking to a fully clothed babe allegedly "teasing" or a bored-looking naked one making no real effort to be "sexy" or turn her caller on etc etc.
This is supposed to be "phone sex" after all!
Several girls have said that they only did tease shows or night shows because they were offered a ridiculous amount of money to do do. Lucy Anne said it quite recently.
(27-12-2014 22:53 )steviebaby Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:To my mind, if anyone wants the channels back as they were ca.2010 that is what you have to hope for, along with Ofcom's fall/neutering. Why should a channel bother otherwise?
The only way to get the shows back to the way they were or at least to some kind of level that pushes against OFCOMs straightjacket is for punters to stop phoning, simple as that.
Now I don't pretend to know how everyone's mind ticks, but personally speaking, I just can't fathom why anyone can get off spending a fortune talking to a fully clothed babe allegedly "teasing" or a bored-looking naked one making no real effort to be "sexy" or turn her caller on etc etc.
This is supposed to be "phone sex" after all!
no, the only way the shows will get back to how they were in their heyday or close to their best is if Ofcom relax their rules for the babeshows, which I can't see happening. even if people (punters) stopped calling, it wouldn't change the rules the shows have to operate under
Stop making excuses Rammy.