I can't agree with that Stan, I reckon if that was allowed all channels would charge for it just for the simple reason that girls that do full frontal get paid more either that or it'll be like it was in the FTG days when half the girls wasn't that much to look at
(07-01-2011 20:04 )gazfc Wrote: [ -> ]I can't agree with that Stan, I reckon if that was allowed all channels would charge for it just for the simple reason that girls that do full frontal get paid more either that or it'll be like it was in the FTG days when half the girls wasn't that much to look at
You both are probably right. If the rules were relaxed a great deal, then I'm sure many of the women would be willing to show more, but yes, they'd likely charge a fee, which makes perfect sense. The only catch is, how will we be able to pay? Could they do the texting thing that Xtreme does, and would that work for SKY? If the rules were relaxed, then Ofcom would have no reason to object for the channels to go encrypted, so would that be on the cards?
I think it would be a big success, though I don't know how much it would be to go to encryption, but I'd certainly pay to see more, and I'm sure enough people would do the same.
(07-01-2011 21:42 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ] (07-01-2011 20:04 )gazfc Wrote: [ -> ]I can't agree with that Stan, I reckon if that was allowed all channels would charge for it just for the simple reason that girls that do full frontal get paid more either that or it'll be like it was in the FTG days when half the girls wasn't that much to look at
You both are probably right. If the rules were relaxed a great deal, then I'm sure many of the women would be willing to show more, but yes, they'd likely charge a fee, which makes perfect sense. The only catch is, how will we be able to pay? Could they do the texting thing that Xtreme does, and would that work for SKY? If the rules were relaxed, then Ofcom would have no reason to object for the channels to go encrypted, so would that be on the cards?
I think it would be a big success, though I don't know how much it would be to go to encryption, but I'd certainly pay to see more, and I'm sure enough people would do the same.
You're both missing my point. Whether the channels would charge for harder material is beside the point. I was responding to Addison's view that we don't all want hardcore by explaining that if Ofcom were to say all rules and regulations had been scrapped, it's a safe bet that most of the channels (not girls, necessarily) would broadcast hardcore - whether that be PPV or fta.
But to address gazfc and mrmann's point, I'm not sure the channels would necessarily go ppv if Ofcom ever said yes to hardcore. Think about it. You have two channels airing hardcore - one decided to go ppv, the other stayed fta... which channel do you think's going to get the most calls and make the most revenue?
I can see these last few posts confusing a lot of people, so I better explain the above is purley hypothetical and meant as an anology in responce to Addison's view that we don't all want the same thing.
(07-01-2011 23:36 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]You're both missing my point. Whether the channels would charge for harder material is beside the point. I was responding to Addison's view that we don't all want hardcore by explaining that if Ofcom were to say all rules and regulations had been scrapped, it's a safe bet that most of the channels (not girls, necessarily) would broadcast hardcore - whether that be PPV or fta.
But to address gazfc and mrmann's point, I'm not sure the channels would necessarily go ppv if Ofcom ever said yes to hardcore. Think about it. You have two channels airing hardcore - one decided to go ppv, the other stayed fta... which channel do you think's going to get the most calls and make the most revenue?
I can see these last few posts confusing a lot of people, so I better explain the above is purley hypothetical and meant as an anology in responce to Addison's view that we don't all want the same thing.
Good points there too! Many people aren't going to want to pay for more than one channel at a time. Tricky situation!
What I find really odd is that now the girls can't go nude before 11 but I've just watched a preview for top shelf tv with full frontal! It's madness.
(07-01-2011 23:57 )countryboy Wrote: [ -> ]What I find really odd is that now the girls can't go nude before 11 but I've just watched a preview for top shelf tv with full frontal! It's madness.
Yeah the adverts for all of the encrypted channels are I presume classed as advertisements.
Ofcom have recently made the statement that the babechannels now are advertisements[so they can make different rules for them],
I don`t want to see the freeview of the encrypted channels cooled down,but I would like to see the babechannels hot up.
RIP the babechannel we just lost,but beware the rest of them,as tameness usualy brings with it a great switch off and then it will be the end of all of them
The same General Standards apply to Babeshows ("teleshopping"=advertising) and Trailers. Do trailers for suscription shows count as advertising? Good question.
The only real difference is that the Babes are advertising for callers, while the Trailers are advertising/promoting subscriptions or pay per view. There was a clearer difference when the Babeshows were treated as Editorial.
If Ofcom ever allowed hardcore would anyone broadcast free to air? Mostly no as it is a premium product that costs more to produce and looses its appeal after 4 min 30 seconds
But some channels would. There are several Euro channels that broadcast full, if tame, nudity free to air. And one UK web service that gives away live hardcore. Going back a few years when the Euro channels were much more explicit, there were free hardcore shows. Anyone remember Spanish show TvL? Unfortunately it was the really ugly models who had full sex. Or the Turkish show with Ecce and Banu, where the cameraman sometimes hand held a dildo? (The models showed everything except their faces). And some other phone in channels would feature occasional hot full on lesbian sets. And then there are the premium encrypted film channels that used to go FTA for a day to encourage people to sign up.
The FTA stuff would probably be in a minority, with less time devoted to full on hardcore, fewer babes on screeen and fewer appearances by top (=expensive) models.
FTA has a larger audience than Paid, and once a view has paid they tend not to channel hop, while part of the fun of FTA is hopping until you find a scene you want to stick(y) with, so a hot scene will gain even more viewers.
Some channels would do it, perhaps occasionally to get viewers to pop in. In fact they might have to if there was live encrypted hardcore: If you preferred Nice Nora to Hardcore Hannah, but Nora never went far enough to, er, keep your attention, while was guaranteed to get you off how long until you stopped watching Nora at all?
What the babeshows really need is advertising revenue so FTA viewers mean money, not just earnings from calls.
(09-01-2011 00:13 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]If Ofcom ever allowed hardcore would anyone broadcast free to air? Mostly no as it is a premium product that costs more to produce and looses its appeal after 4 min 30 seconds
Well I know your full post on this goes into much more detail, eccles, but I can't say I'm with you entirely. In a world where fta hardcore was permitted, I can't see anyone paying for something they could get free. If a channel chose to go subscription only, a fta channel offering the same would simply undersell them to the point where they could no longer afford to charge. Moreso, a fta channel offering both hardcore and the type of teasing stuff we get now would be covering every corner of the market. One fta channel offering hardcore would mean all channels offering fta hardcore.
Good points Stan. Truth is we will never know for sure unless someone actually tries it. FTA hardware WAS permitted on European channels until a few years ago. Whether a channel goes FTA or subscription is a commercial decision for the operator. Look at other TV markets - Sky must earn hundreds of millions selling its Film package, yet Channel 4, BBC, ITV, Film 4, Five, Film 24, Movies4Men also show films, often as good or better, for free. Yet both the subscription and free sectors show no sign of ending. Oh, and Cinemio, the French one.
A subscription channel can specialise and can increase concentration. Noone can deliver no stop hardcore hour after hour. A FTA channel might be able to resource one hardcore scene every few hours. A subscription channel could employ more presenters. Specialise in blondes, brunettes, skinny, plump, breasts, legs, whatever. A FTA channel would have to appeal to a wide audience and use lots of filler (like Danni Monogue).
Don't like it don't watch it, if you don't want your kids to see it put on the passcode for the adult channels. That's what I say!!!