I have another theory.
I think S66 is trying to define and differentiate itself as the "refined" wank channel. The Playboy to RLC's Penthouse and Babestation's Hustler. The channel you watch 'for the articles'. (And, yes, I get the inconsistency of the fact that RLC is actually on the Playboy channel, but I'm sure you get my point.)
Or alternatively -- for you younger viewers that never had to suffer the indignity of buying a top-shelf mag with a woman standing in the queue behind you -- here is another analogy. S66 wants to be the Waitrose to RLC's Sainsbury and Babestation's Tesco.
This is reflected in the type of model that they hire and it is the models, at the end of the day, that define what the shows are like. So it isn't that the channel is 'self censoring' so much as it is consciously going after girls of a more 'glamour model' than a 'porn star' disposition. The models on S66 are all still harbouring the faint hope of landing a rich footballing husband, while the models on Babestation are -- as I write this -- probably trying to decide between a Brazzers porn shoot or full-time escorting. It is a concentration of models with that glamour model pre-disposition which makes for tamer and (many would argue) duller shows.
I also agree with Sooky that it is pointless to try and find too much sense and logic in the system, as if there is some mathematical algorithm that determines the profit-maximizing scheduling of a Cara Brett tease hour. As I've mentioned before, it is just as likely to be Dave-with-a-clipboard fielding calls from girl-with-a-hangover that determines who goes on and for how long.
Finally, on the whole issue of who gets paid more, I still think this idea that models are minting it from these shows is a complete red herring. It surely has to be a basic hourly wage for just turning up, which is topped up according to some formula that is linked to chargeable minutes on the phones. So, yes, day show girls will earn a lot more through these tease hours, but only because they will attract a LOT more callers in those time slots. The idea that the channel is offering them some huge financial incentive to perform them just seems laughable to me. The time slot is available because they are short of night show girls and it is being filled by day show girls who see it as an opportunity to earn more because of the higher call volume. I don't think it is any more complicated than that.
(28-12-2014 03:29 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]If the majority of daysgirls now currently staying on later in the evenings are on way more money than the established night girls (though I assume they didn't actually say that but that's what's implied I suppose if the comments are general) then the policy does have the faint whiff of desperation about it.
It's not desperate. It's just elementary supply and demand. It's a case of recognising demand and capitalising on it.
Studio 66 wouldn't pay the big bucks that day girls ask to do tease shows unless those big bucks were justfied by the call volumes.
(28-12-2014 02:03 )seymourclunge Wrote: [ -> ]Just been poking around some of the other channels for a while.
Dear god is the camera work on the Studio 66 channels always so jittery?? Felt almost seasick after a couple of minutes, swaying all over the place.
awful to watch.
when 66 go hand held these days i tend to switch over as the camera moves around so much the picture becomes a blur, also why keep turning the camera sideways it just looks bad
(28-12-2014 13:07 )admiral decker Wrote: [ -> ]Because they are the subject of more complaints to Ofcom than any other babe channel.
Ah that's because they can't get their compliance right. They pretty much admitted in their response to last 'in breach' that they had two producers censoring to different levels. They created a " Nighttime Compliance Manager" post to try to get a more consistent approach.
Result: Nearly every night is now watered down to the level of the producer that was already OTT with his logos and personnel instruction.
What I'm getting at is, as I'm sure many have said on here before, there seems to have been a desire from some at s66 to go weaker than the Ofcom rules with their limits for some time.
Have they really been that jittery about Ofcom revoking their licence since
before their last two 'in breach's? Seems more to it than that to me.
If Ofcom's rules were scrapped today it would still take the removal of some of the girls and at least one producer at s66 to get all of the output looking like 2010.
Some there are far too comfortable offering watered-down lazy pap for the large amounts of money they earn unfortunately.
(27-12-2014 15:45 )Goodfella3041 Wrote: [ -> ]^^^ 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.
Where there are babe show callers there are babe shows.
(28-12-2014 13:29 )BarrieBF Wrote: [ -> ]It's not desperate. It's just elementary supply and demand. It's a case of recognising demand and capitalising on it.
Studio 66 wouldn't pay the big bucks that day girls ask to do tease shows unless those big bucks were justfied by the call volumes.
Fair enough if that's the case, I said as much in an earlier post.
I prefer to think that s66 have done all their sums in advance and are making these changes (if they are permanent) based on a sound business plan.
But paying top dollar is risky is it not? You seem to think these payments are across the board for those girls stepping up to nights. Maybe its just the bigger name girls being offered more than the night girls? Anyone of the relative newbies said anything about why they are moving later?
Just have that slight concern that this is all s66 has left in its locker to try.
I'll say again, personally, I have nothing against a good tease slot if done right and over prolonged. Balance is all.
My main concern is that a greater and greater part of their nighttime output will end up looking like weak tease.
(28-12-2014 13:26 )Goodfella3041 Wrote: [ -> ]Finally, on the whole issue of who gets paid more, I still think this idea that models are minting it from these shows is a complete red herring. It surely has to be a basic hourly wage for just turning up, which is topped up according to some formula that is linked to chargeable minutes on the phones. So, yes, day show girls will earn a lot more through these tease hours, but only because they will attract a LOT more callers in those time slots. The idea that the channel is offering them some huge financial incentive to perform them just seems laughable to me. The time slot is available because they are short of night show girls and it is being filled by day show girls who see it as an opportunity to earn more because of the higher call volume. I don't think it is any more complicated than that.
they may not be making millions but are still making as much for 1 show as most of us would make in a month, an established night girl on RLC gets around 2k a shift and i would be very surprised is the other channels did not pay the same/more,
and the pay is not performance related, a girl knows how much she will get per shift all she has to do is get her minutes total in, i have always thought there should be incentive to get the girls to go over this,
i have changed you statement to what i think is more right, The time slot is available because they are short of night show girls and it is being filled by day show girls who see it as an opportunity to earn night shift pay without the need to put to much of a show on as there is no one else for the shift and the company are happy to have someone in
(28-12-2014 14:03 )winsaw Wrote: [ -> ] (28-12-2014 13:26 )Goodfella3041 Wrote: [ -> ]Finally, on the whole issue of who gets paid more, I still think this idea that models are minting it from these shows is a complete red herring. It surely has to be a basic hourly wage for just turning up, which is topped up according to some formula that is linked to chargeable minutes on the phones. So, yes, day show girls will earn a lot more through these tease hours, but only because they will attract a LOT more callers in those time slots. The idea that the channel is offering them some huge financial incentive to perform them just seems laughable to me. The time slot is available because they are short of night show girls and it is being filled by day show girls who see it as an opportunity to earn more because of the higher call volume. I don't think it is any more complicated than that.
they may not be making millions but are still making as much for 1 show as most of us would make in a month, an established night girl on RLC gets around 2k a shift
2k a shift? Bloody hell, and some girls have the audacity to place items worth £500+ on their Wish Lists. That's the element of this business I detest the most.
(28-12-2014 14:03 )winsaw Wrote: [ -> ]they may not be making millions but are still making as much for 1 show as most of us would make in a month, an established night girl on RLC gets around 2k a shift and i would be very surprised is the other channels did not pay the same/more,
Hang on... Are you telling me that Clare Richards and Lori Buckby are pulling in over £250k a year!?
They must be doing about 3 shifts a week for, say, 44 weeks of the year. At £2k per shift, that amounts to £264k!
I find that astonishing to begin with, but if you add in that that is 'basic pay' and not performance-based, then I find it really hard to believe. I have no basis to dispute it -- I've never asked a girl how much she earns -- other than the fact that if that were the case then girls should be tripping over themselves to get those night time shifts. And they don't seem to be.
At £1.50 a minute for calls, then it will take 1333 minutes to make 2 grand of income, and with 7.5 hours (450 min) per night shift, that means a girl needs 3 people on her line the whole time, including her breaks, before the studio starts to make any money for themselves.