The UK Babe Channels Forum

How many of the current babeshows ladies do or would get this kind of more "mainstream" modelling work elsewhere ?
The only ones I can think of seeing in the last couple of years are Brooke Little and Camilla Jayne for PRP : but it's kind-of a chicken and egg impossible thing to prove isn't it ? : are they offered those shoots because they are already "famous" with a certain segment of the clientele ?

The market for traditional glamour modelling is presumably disappearing also - with printed magazines etc dying /being superseded by internet content ? Presumably the most business-savvy/ in-demand models run their own websites ?

But I think I can see where you are coming from : but hasn't there always been a bit of perception that "traditional glamour models" used to be/were in a slightly different league of attractiveness than "top-shelf" models; and a lot of the former tended to only do topless or nearly nude ? A lot of old-style "top shelf" magazines would use porn stars as well as "glamour models" : and the former would not necessarily always be expected to be as "beautiful" as the models that were (and could afford to be?) more selective about the work they would do ?

(04-01-2015 11:53 )RESPONSIBLE ADULT Wrote: [ -> ]Not one model on any of the babeshows not just s66 would, without these shows or Internet cam shows have a cat in hells chance of making a living out of glamour modeling.

Jodie Gasson who's just retired was a successful glamour model for years before she was ever on the babe channels. I can think of other examples too. Cleo formerly of Babestation was another one - very well known as a glamour model for a long time before she came to TV. Anastasia Stevens was another. If I kept on going the list would be a very long one.

One of the most successful glamour models in this country in recent years was Hayley Marie Coppin - also just retired. To say that babe channel girls aren't attractive enough to be models seems strange, because I can think of many who would rank alongside Hayley Marie Coppin for looks - and she was about as successful a glamour model as anyone could ever be.

To my mind, it's not so much that many of these girls could not be successful "glamour models" so much as the fact that there is very little success to be had in glamour modeling altogether.

I'm possibly aging myself here but, to me, the traditional 'pyramid' of modeling aspiration was something like the following:

1. Supermodel (i.e. Sports Illustrate swimsuit issue)
2. Catwalk / fashion model (e.g. Cosmopolitan magazine)
3. Adverts model (e.g. inside pages of regular mags)
4. Glamour model (e.g. Lads mags)
5. Nude model (e.g. top shelf mags)
6. Babeshows / Cam shows
7. Porn

I think the top 3 are still largely unaffected by the Internet, but the Internet has led to a convergence of the bottom four.

A few of the girls have told me that there is simply no money in glamour modeling anymore because there are too many girls in that bracket that are virtually doing it for free, thinking that it is the first rung up the ladder into 'proper' modeling work. But the reality is that most of them will either fall out of the business altogether or migrate into one or all of the bottom three.

(04-01-2015 13:52 )aaron Wrote: [ -> ]To say that babe channel girls aren't attractive enough to be models seems strange

I agree - because looking at glamour models on the scene now I wouldn't rank many of them that highly. Not as high as many babe channel girls. Looking at the standard of Red Light girls just now I see many girls there who I would rate more highly than non babe channel models.

Some of the channel girls I recognise from previous glamour modelling work anyway, like Ann Denise and Maxie Rhoads, although as Goodfella pointed out these days virtually all glamour models need an additional source of income anyway because there isn't the money in it there used to be.

Wherever the babechannel girls are attractive enough to be glamour models is down to personal opinion, I myself think several of them are very attractive and could easily be "glamour models" if they wanted to be but why would they ? The men's magazine market is dying and I am sure they can make more money from babeshows and webcam work anyway.

(04-01-2015 14:26 )Tractor boy Wrote: [ -> ]Wherever the babechannel girls are attractive enough to be glamour models is down to personal opinion

Not really because many of them have done glamour modelling work anyway, so as a matter of fact they are attractive enough to be glamour models and have proven it already. But as you rightly said yourself why would they want to these days?

(04-01-2015 11:53 )RESPONSIBLE ADULT Wrote: [ -> ]Not one model on any of the babeshows not just s66 would, without these shows or Internet cam shows have a cat in hells chance of making a living out of glamour modeling.

Yes but who can make a living out of glamour modeling these days? Can you give us an example?

(04-01-2015 11:53 )RESPONSIBLE ADULT Wrote: [ -> ]They just wouldn't be attractive enough for any other type of photography work, or any sort of modeling work.

Many of them have already done other types of photography work or modelling work, so yes they are definitely attractive enough to be glamour models. But my first point still applies. Who can rely on glamour modeling for a living these days?

I think the most money to be made is by girls who diversify to as many elements as possible within the glamour girl entertainment field. Whether they choose to do the channels, webcam, webshows, escorting, porn etc. A good example of this, I think is Emma Butt.

I knew some girls on the babe channels from glamour modelling and suchlike before they even appeared on the channels. Girls like Alice Goodwin, Penny Lee and Sophia Lares for example. So I think it's safe to say they are attractive enough to be doing modelling work.

(04-01-2015 14:01 )Goodfella3041 Wrote: [ -> ]To my mind, it's not so much that many of these girls could not be successful "glamour models" so much as the fact that there is very little success to be had in glamour modeling altogether.

I'm possibly aging myself here but, to me, the traditional 'pyramid' of modeling aspiration was something like the following:

1. Supermodel (i.e. Sports Illustrate swimsuit issue)
2. Catwalk / fashion model (e.g. Cosmopolitan magazine)
3. Adverts model (e.g. inside pages of regular mags)
4. Glamour model (e.g. Lads mags)
5. Nude model (e.g. top shelf mags)
6. Babeshows / Cam shows
7. Porn

I think this is s good selection of categories.
I would split 7. into Hardcore and softcore though.

A lot of models cross diversify into several categories to make the most money.

It would be very rare for any girl working in the bottom 4 categories to make it in the top 3 categories though.

Danica Thrall made her name on the babeshows, then went on to be a lingerie model and celebrity. Now she is a bodybuilder.

Cherri aka Charlene Hart aka Sky Blu first made her name in scat porn and bestiality, became a babeshow girl and is now a fitness instructer and bodybuilder.

Alice Goodwin is a babeshow girl who made it in category 3 also.

There are numerous babeshow girls that have been successful porn girls in the softcore and hardcore categories. (Ava Dalush, Amanda Rendall, Emma Butt and Paige Turnah being some of the more noteable).
They make a good living from their various ventures.

Many babes, Cara Brett, Yasmine James, Lucy Summers, Hannah Claydon, Lilly Roma. To name a few have been successful working for softcore websites.

Who are we to judge them. I say fair play to them all for making a living and providing entertainment.

Some of the babes that haven't done any other work are taken on by the channels as a risk. Some make it some don't.

Yes i will agree that some of the girls that the channels take on are not up to standard. However a lot are. They just get restricted or get lulled into the same old dull format of the current shows.

If some of the new girls saw some of the older shows as an example of how to perform then i am sure we would be getting some better shows.