(02-07-2022 23:22 )The tiny giant Wrote: [ -> ]...I've got no problems what so ever in a channel babe being behind a paywall and earning money as it is there livelihood...
This always strikes me as the ultimate straw man argument about the shows. It has an element of gaslighting in it too. I'd like to explode its myths if I may. (Sorry tiny, I know you're not the originator of this hoary old idea
. In fact I suspect it was, and continues to be, a vibe spread to punters by a certain kind of babe.)
For a start, there's the implication that paywalls are the only way to 'do' the shows. This is false. Anyone that has more experience watching than a wet-in-nappies newbie will be able to recollect the names of several babes that have been very successful (in
recent times) in focusing on calls and/or tips/buzzes almost exclusively. So the best that it can mean is that - for the paywall dwelling babes - it's the only way THEY feel they can do the shows. This is a VERY different thing to the 'paywalls are essential' line such brief encapsulations try to make us breeze past. In fact - as honest insider commentary has made very clear at times lately - dominant use of paywalls on the shows is clearly a practical and very much individual
choice by the presenter when it comes right down to it.
Another inherent mischaracterisation comes in such statement's main implication: That there are posters (many of them?) whose criticism of the babes in question boils down to their simple use of paywalls alone and that they want the babes gone for it. Iow, it makes criticisms of these babes appear unreasonable... Now, to be clear, I simply can't recall - certainly not in years in any case - anyone on the forum (or elsewhere for that matter) saying these babes shouldn't be on the shows nor even that they shouldn't be allowed to choose the way in which they work.
Instead, the
actual criticism is that in choosing this path they've helped to change the nature of the services on offer quite fundamentally. And thus moved the babeshows much more firmly into the arena of simple webcamming. (There's a reason 66 switched to using "cams" in their name a good while back.)
After all, and let's be honest here, the vast majority of these babes don't intended to recreate studio style shows behind an online paywall. They've no intention of doing old style shows there. (Instead it's all about getting privates, etc., - establishing relationships - in order to isolate the credit rich individuals that click on and milk them in a less open setting.) Please reader, consider what you've seen on streams recently and tell me the group propelled show is not an anathema to the vast majority of babes once away from the studio?*
Paywalls started it; privates pushed it further in the same direction; the increased prominence of home cams really shifted the status quo, and now 66's "Premium" shows threaten the very basis of what this forum has in its very name. It's all one (sad) direction of travel.
The central punter objection then, is actually to this thru line change's redefinition of what is being paid for and, most particularly, the most recent actual reinventions of what the shows
are.
The real problem is thus not what individual babes are doing (their punters are, of course, free to choose where they put their money) but the direction it is pulling the industry as a whole.
Result: Punters of my ilk currently get less to choose from when we're supposed to be getting more. And it looks like it's only going to get worse... If current and future babes are inclined to only think of the shows as a thing made of endless paywalls (via what they see dominate, or from peer pressure or whatever) then guys looking for old style babeshows are going to lose something they love completely. Potentially for good.
That is the criticism.
In contrast, we old style punters say what the babes forging these latest changes hate:
That the babeshows are DEFINED by the free-to-air stream and its relationship to paid interaction. And that every step we've seen along the current path - each removing something from the strength of the fta element - weakens the USP of the shows in the eyes of many payers. Worst of all, it creates a troubling competition for where we're
all being taken; for what future shows will look like.
So, to these babes, we're not saying you shouldn't do what you do; we're talking to the operators essentially. We're saying: Make the fuck sure you retain some of the old style shows and services
as well as indulging these babes every time!
* For some of the worst proponents, it's once they step away from a TV shift!