(15-07-2017 11:15 )M-L-L Wrote: [ -> ]the failure of the "tamer" rolling phone-in experiments in early 2016 would seem to indicate this also ?
Yes that experiment was over rather quickly and I got the impression it was something of a disaster.
Most people expect more from an encrypted channel and simply don't want to pay for a tease show.
^ Ahh I love the smell of perceived wisdom in the morning.
If tease doesn't sell, why did/do guys pay for endless panty shots for months on end? (Not all babes flash gash on perve even now.) Answer: It depends whose freakin' panties they are and what she is doing with them!
(15-07-2017 01:45 )marlowe Wrote: [ -> ]...Either they can't get anyone suitable, or they get someone who is reluctant, or sometimes they can't get anyone full stop.
^ Now that I can get with. That is undoubtedly true - particularly on this fringe channel. I can see perfectly how doing bsx could feel like second division to an aspiring or top notch glamour babe. A niche within a niche that reputedly struggles for an audience - it's not hard to see why the take up of slots might be a difficulty sometimes...Â
But the thing is, one plays into the other here. It's never the real glamour pusses live on bsx is it; the ones the guys want to see more of and from.
That is what really effects commercial viability.
And because the scheduling is compromised and hampered by these things (it has a cobbled together feel) to go with it we get the grasping of deceptiveness as a consequence. We get guys expecting a certain level of content and being let down by damnable, totally unaccountable, variabilty. We get a sense of babes and operator chancing their arm on occassion.
As with the oft decried tease shows elsewhere it is the lack of a standard to mark against that is troublesome. Only with a good knowledge of the shows or babe do we get to recognise the vagueries of these things and learn to be wary of them. How many casual users are caught out?
There is no need for it to be this way, with the right advertising, captioning, etc. things could be done in a more above board fashion. (Things have moved quite a bit since early 2016 too, the RIGHT babes could be using this as a half way house to encourage use of their cams.)
But that's the point I was making originally: The operators all to often seem to take the cheap dodgy flexible quick profit option (the 'Arthur Daley' if you like) over proper efforts to ensure long term customer satisfaction.
(15-07-2017 21:07 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]If tease doesn't sell
Nobody here said that tease doesn't sell, but tease on BSX does not sell in a sufficient quantity to make it commercially viable.
The reason is that people can get tease from watching the main Babestation channels for free, so not that many will pay just to get to get a slightly stronger tease than thery are already getting for free.
We know this because BSX have tried tease shows twice that I can remember and the idea flopped both times.
Okay if you're reading Aaron's words as being about expectations let me put it this way: Guys used to expect more from Unleashed so BS reinvented it. They removed that feeling that guys were already gettimg somethingfor nothing. You can manage expectations by saying what your channel is about and when its about it.
If tease didn't sell on bsx (I'm taking your word for it on why it didn't succeed there) but sells elsewhere what does that say about the babes they had on there and the way they were performing it. Why should it matter exactly how something is bought. It must be about what is on offer? And bsx were not offering the right style from the right babes.
(15-07-2017 21:07 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]why did/do guys pay for endless panty shots for months on end? (Not all babes flash gash on perve even now.)
A girl's pervcam at best is used by a handful of people at any one time. Sometimes a girl has nobody on pervcam, just as sometimes they have no voice calls.
BSX on the other hand is aiming for an audience in the thousands.
(16-07-2017 02:43 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]If tease didn't sell on bsx
It did sell. Just not in enough volume to be viable for the channel.
Yes the quantites are different but so to are the catchment groups. The issue is who's on there and the fact they are no big draw now.
^^ mate you have totally missed the point on why people watch this channel, tease shows would never work, as that's free to watch else where and not what this channel is about,
They did put big names on it when they tried it last time and as they showed nothing no one watched the channel lost money,
Your talk of the rebrand of bsu is invalid as they decided to stop catering for one market and go for a totally new one,
Bs dash web show has worked because they have been able to get day girls on it to show the boobs which people haven't seen before that have them a new market,
Bsx is exactly the same it works because it shows girls doing more then u can see n Tv that's how all these web show work they are a step on/up from the tv show on at the same time,
That's why tease shows will never work as its the same as you can see else where,
The only show that could work if the girls kept there panties on would be a full on gg show as u can't see that on tv anymore,
Even before winsaw's post on here I was considering doing something that is not usually done on the internet and holding my hand up on this specific point. On reflection, I will conceed that I was looking at this from too much of a fan's perspective (the babe show form not just tease).
General tease is unlikely to have the general pull required to garner the necessary mainstream audience by itself. Any format of bsx has to fit into BS's overall pattern of services too I have already said as much.
The perhaps poor analogy I was trying to draw with Unleashed was simply that what was once was one thing can be retooled to another purpose and made to work along side a slightly different general focus. I'm was already saying they should be offering something more there from the big names, not just what is free on the main channels, in the same way that 'new' boobs worked on the new BSW. The big names arn't doing the same stuff they offered in early 2016 anymore; they are prepared to go further now. I'm saying that should be factored in is all.
Bsx falls between two stools at the moment it is babes from a babe show trying to move past the babeshow format. It's always going to be difficult remoulding any one style built around attracting regular interaction into more passive mainstream pleasing content.
Encrypted stuff must have a broader appeal than looking to just babe show users I can see that. I'd just say that it should be about building a package that has a bit of something for everyone in it and not be overly obssessed with merely exhibiting body parts.
(16-07-2017 11:23 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]......they should be offering something more there from the big names, not just what is free on the main channels, in the same way that 'new' boobs worked on the new BSW. The big names arn't doing the same stuff they offered in early 2016 anymore; they are prepared to go further now. I'm saying that should be factored in is all.
Bsx falls between two stools at the moment it is babes from a babe show trying to move past the babeshow format. It's always going to be difficult remoulding any one style built around attracting regular interaction into more passive mainstream pleasing content.
Encrypted stuff must have a broader appeal than looking to just babe show users I can see that. I'd just say that it should be about building a package that has a bit of something for everyone in it and not be overly obssessed with merely exhibiting body parts.
The falling between two stools is inevitable imho. They need to promise something sufficiently different from the free TV shows,and that needs to be clearly differentiated enough to be understood by the drunk man in the street impulse-buying with his red button after a night in the pub. You can clearly do that with a slogan like "Open Leg Filth".
It's perhaps more difficult to summarise a slightly naughtier tease show by a "big name" performer in such a succinct way.
It seems to me you are trying to create a "Good Nightshow Girls go Slightly Badder" channel, as opposed to a "Daytime Girls Gone Naughty" channel.
A laudable aim, and I'd probably watch -(
as one of the few here who shells out for Lori handthong shows without complaint
) but I'm not sure how workable it would be in practice.
A lot of the "big names" I think prefer to keep their "naughtier" activities to members-only sites where they can keep their own tighter control on the access - and the profit
- ?