The UK Babe Channels Forum

(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.

Aren't they missing an obvious trick here? Couldn't they combine the babeshow, psychic and astrology channels into one format?

Just put a star chart on the wall and a crystal ball on the desk and have a naked Clare Richards say things like...

"I see a naked fat guy on a couch having a wank..."

...in a kind of spooky voice.

It would streamline the whole operation and she'd almost always be right.

(25-02-2015 01:41 )Bandwagon Wrote: [ -> ]I don't particularly want really strong stuff either RA, but the freedom for decent 2-4-1's and adventurous performances wouldn't go amiss either.
I get what your saying as in the 'boundary pushing' buzz but that's the point isn't it? Whilst things are like they are then they simply won't risk it at all because I assume they fear that Ofcom simply see them as a broadcasting cash machine. Some channels do seem to take this to unnecessary extremes at present though, so you have to assume they're caught between a rock and hard place. They may want to push things in order to increase revenue, but the potential fine that comes with it lands them straight back at square one if things go tits up.
It's sad but they seem to have adopted the attitude of 'if you can't beat em, join em' which is why I believe things must change because we're peddling backwards here.

It's the babechannels that treat the punters as cash machines, as easy pickens to tap into whenever they they want . Great example of screwing every last penny out of the callers is the bringing back of older models, and we all know who they are. They know these models will rock no boats when it comes to breaking rules. But at the expense of fresh talent which should be the lifeblood of these shows.

Regarding demand for babeshows, if we look at Google Trends we can see that demand is pretty stable since 2011.

http://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore#q=babestation

(25-02-2015 21:26 )Goodfella3041 Wrote: [ -> ]"I see a naked fat guy on a couch having a wank..."

I bloody object to that. I'm in my Lazy Boy - get your facts straight next time before throwing these baseless accusations around

(25-02-2015 21:26 )Goodfella3041 Wrote: [ -> ]"I see a naked fat guy on a couch having a wank..."

OK wheres the camera hidden? Are Ant and Dec suddenly going to appear on screen?

(25-02-2015 21:36 )RESPONSIBLE ADULT Wrote: [ -> ]It's the babechannels that treat the punters as cash machines, as easy pickens to tap into whenever they they want . Great example of screwing every last penny out of the callers is the bringing back of older models, and we all know who they are. They know these models will rock no boats when it comes to breaking rules. But at the expense of fresh talent which should be the lifeblood of these shows.

It was very noticeable that when Ofcom clamped down, many many years ago (sigh) some channels decided to tap into small but dedicated niche markets. Gone were the days when every model was slim and under 25. Suddenly there were entire channels with grannies, and making no pretence about it, as well as the more Rubenseque models, not to mention the ladyboys. Six months earlier they would have been pushed aside for chocolate box pretty, but the crowd thinned out and only the more dedicated fans remained. Diversity is great so we should all cheer. Cynical? Yes because the channels only cater for that audience segment when it suits them.

(25-02-2015 21:36 )RESPONSIBLE ADULT Wrote: [ -> ]It's the babechannels that treat the punters as cash machines, as easy pickens to tap into whenever they they want . Great example of screwing every last penny out of the callers is the bringing back of older models, and we all know who they are. They know these models will rock no boats when it comes to breaking rules. But at the expense of fresh talent which should be the lifeblood of these shows.

Yes I see your point RA, but I guess as always it depends on who they bring back as to whether we are pleased or not. I can think of a few models I wish they would bring back, because I like them and I think they are good performers. It is dull though to see the same faces time and time again, but I suppose each channel has to have some sort of foundation for solid income, and as tired as it may seem that's exactly where they look - tried & tested with a reliable fan base.
I too would like to see more girls given a chance though to help freshen the place up a bit. Some of the young girls do look clueless and that's where the produces should step in and gently coax them in the right direction.
Some girls just have it, some girls have the looks but minus the moves, and in my opinion they would be worth spending the coaching time on.

This all raises another interesting dimension.

Most of the discussion over the last few pages has focused on Babeshow 'demand' -- i.e. where is the market going and how will that affect the product?

Is there, however, a supply side constraint as well? Here is a hypothesis. And that's all it is -- I'm not suggesting it is wrong or right, just wondering what others think.

Is it inevitable that the Babeshows will simply have a smaller pool of talent to choose from in the future?

We touched on this a while ago, I think, but it seems particularly relevant to this discussion. Personally, I don't think that any of these young ladies set out on a 'career path' to be babeshow models. They were probably very pretty girls who were tempted into thinking that they could 'make it' in more conventional modeling or (at worst) glamour modeling / reality TV. For whatever reason, they didn't make it in the former and the bottom fell out of the latter. So they end up on the babeshows.

Certainly the luster and lure of glamour modeling has diminished in recent years, notably with the decline of the lads mags. That weird 10 year period when Katie Price was a role model for anyone is pretty much over. But without that siren call of glamour modeling to lure pretty young things onto the 'rocks' of babeshow presenting, is the supply line of gorgeous models going to dry up?

Returning to what Admiral said earlier, just as there may only be enough market to sustain one or two channels, is it possible (or likely) that there will only be enough "boxcover" models to staff one or two channels?

Just a thought...

The Dannii Harwood inspired Babestation has left the other channels floundering hopelessly every night she has been on.
Not only has she been sensational, she has made everyone else at BS raise their game too.
Not just babes but people behind the scenes too.
So many of the things BS got wrong they are starting to put right.
The other channels need to follow that lead imo.
The quality gap is widening all the time imo.
BS are on fire right now.

I wonder if Goodfella's question has not received any replies until now as a lot of what can be said on it has possibly been said before in these threads; nevertheless I can see why Goodfella is asking it now as it seems a pre-eminent time to take stock given the state of the channels right now and the changes that are going on around the scene. So, at the risk of covering old ground, I'll have shot at trying to sum up what definitely looks like a personnel issue for the channels atm!

It would seem there is, indeed, only a small pool of talent willing to attempt the babe shows just now and not enough proper development of promising newbies going on. The lure of dreadfully easy pickings once to be had by those that possessed of the right attributes has definitely diminished over the years as the recession took hold.

Early on a struggling market led to entrenchment among the operators i.e. a playing safe in particular with the recruitment of on-screen talent in the need to see a quick assured return from them revenue-wise. (Of course, a small talent pool also means those that do have a proven track record for such things can demand the highest fees.)

As previous years' such top names retired this precipitated a spiralling downturn: A declining market, volatile for its staff particularly its on-screen ones, led to less consistent shifts and money making on offer and, subsequently, even less top talent wanting to be involved, which abetted a further declining market. Some external change is needed to break this cycle if things are to improve significantly I think.

Maybe the recruitment cache and luster of the channels (ie. the ability to earn top $) will return at some point in the future if whatever channels can battle through can, eventually, turn a real corner. But, as I say, I think they'll need some help to do so. The only light at the end of the tunnel that I can see is a change in delivery method for the channels (web>Smart TV) that might free them from the restrictions imposed on their content. This may spark a return to higher revenues for the channels. But, equally, it may not.

It is all too easy too fall into the trap watching the babe channels under Ofcom to think that but for their existence everything would be rosy for the channels. But it may be that the babe channel's heyday was a mere fad - a passing genre soon to be as rare on TV as the anthology series!

But that's a bleak image. Let's hope that technology can yet save the babe channels. The British male's tommy* options would definitely be poorer without them!

*Maybe and old fart's term: Rhyimg slang - 'tommy tank'...