The UK Babe Channels Forum

(25-02-2015 09:56 )woolleysheep Wrote: [ -> ]

(24-02-2015 17:08 )Broncobilly Wrote: [ -> ]Most of us don't want a channel to fail

Most of us don't, but some people here do want that.

That's the point - which you're saying you agree with.

The people who want a channel to fail can be found at s66.

Can't see the channels ever folding completely, there's still a demand there and in my mind there always will be.

However, at the moment you have 15 different channel numbers broadcasting the shows, some as duplicates for some or all of the time. That's probably at least 7 or 8 too many, especially when there's nothing really radically different about any of the channels other than different girls.

Seems to me that it's worth sticking it out and hoping your rivals get squeezed to the point of no return before you do for the channels in order to try to be last man standing.

There is absolutely still a viable business to be had from the shows. It just isn't there with the current number of channels though.

An excellent post MARCCE. I echo your words completely.

The babe show format has never had some such tough times, but as you wisely say it's worth sticking it out and hoping your rivals get squeezed to the point of no return before you do.

(25-02-2015 12:34 )admin Wrote: [ -> ]I think this comment by winsaw is the best example ever of wishful thinking. Or perhaps a better word would be fantasy.

i think you need to re read what i said as i never said no other channel than 66 had ever reported another, the 5 things you list make sad reading but also make the point i was trying to make you know who the 5 channels are but i and most others don't, as as far as i know the only channel to be publicly named for doing it is 66, if any others have been then i don't remember it,

(25-02-2015 13:24 )winsaw Wrote: [ -> ]i never said no other channel than 66 had ever reported another

Point taken, winsaw.

Some good points there Digital Dave, I believe everything broadcast will eventually end up web based anyway. I also suspect the only reason that hasn't already happened is because many areas don't support the necessary bandwidth required to make that plausible ( I can vouch for that) So the question then will be how all that is regulated, and what level of content will be enforced/permitted, thus potentially landing us right back where we are now today or even worse

(25-02-2015 12:51 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]Playboy: We all know what Playboy does and should their RLC channels become permanently unprofitable they will be dropped. They already dropped one channel last year and are no longer involved in producing their own content, sub-contracting to Red Light in Bristol.

Since when did Playboy takeover Red Light?

I know that Red Light supply the girls and produce Playboy TV Chat for them, but since when did the Red Light channels become Playboy ones?

I know they are RENTED from Playboy but that's another matter entirely.

(25-02-2015 12:51 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]Cellcast (Babestation channels): Cellcast are not purely a babe channel operator and are in fact an international telecoms tech company. They run babe channels (also astrology and psychic channels) as a testbed for their systems and to generate cash.

I think we're getting lost in a world of complete fiction here.

According to Cellcast's accounts THEIR ONLY PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY is "participation TV formats where revenues are derived from paid audience interaction billed through fixed line or mobile phones".

(25-02-2015 08:25 )BarrieBF Wrote: [ -> ]

(24-02-2015 20:03 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]Don't you think its sometimes easier, and asking for less trouble, just to say "we haven't got the recording we are supposed to have made sorry" once in a while and take the small fine/slap on the wrist, rather than to hand over the red hot evidence and be caught bang to rights!

In a word, no.

In a word yes, but only in certain instances .

Ofcom hasn't come down hard on STD 66, they didn't get any sanctions or fines for not supplying the recordings, so you could say the proof of the pudding is in the eating .
But things would probably be different if they did the same thing again.
STD 66 told Ofcom this was the first time they had failed to supply them with recordings, so it was the first offence committed by STD 66 of this nature .
Ofcom look at the compliance History of the channel in question, and specifically if they have committed the same offence before . Ofcom have said in various STD 66 past in breach rulings that if STD 66 commit breaches of a similar nature again that they would consider giving them statutory sanctions .
So STD 66 had not committed this offence of failing to record their programs before, and had not been warned about it, so basically it's resulted in them getting a telling off. (This time)
But if STD 66 had provided Ofcom with the recordings of the broadcast that led to the complaint, and STD 66 had broken the rules, and had been found in breach for a incident of a similar nature in the past, then it could have resulted in sanctions, even if it wasn't of very serious nature, whereas failing to provide recordings has got them off the hook .

Basically the channel has to weigh up the pros and cons when going down this road

There are loads of instances were babe channels and regular TV and radio stations have failed to supply Ofcom with recordings and have been let off with just a telling off.

Then there is this fine given to SEL for not suplying recordings for loads of complaints and various dates, check this link http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...inment.pdf

I wouldn't believe a lot of company's description of their 'principle' activity. Probably no different or even less than their undescribed or unknown secondary activities. Accounts can also be massaged & debts passed to parts of the business which are in fact doing well. We don't really know.