^ Indeed that was partly my point (I probably clouded it with other guff as usual!
)... Intellectually the 'why' was rhetorical question. I think it's pretty clear to most observers by now what the operators are about with their changes and the reasons behind them. We have seen enough evidence in that direction.
No my question was more an expression of the idea that when consumers are asked to pay for something that was previously perceived as free there is usually an expectation that the product will improve in some way as a justification. The perves, for all their faults, were at least something new. Can anyone say anything connected with the shows has become
more erotic as a result of the most recent changes from BS? I don't think so. Isn't it strictly more of what was on offer elsewhere already but in a different packet?
As you say all they have done is further weakened the ways to get interested in the first place by balderising the TV shows some more.
(03-09-2017 12:55 )M-L-L Wrote: [ -> ]They're apparently called Paris and Ema now.
From what I saw, these shows last night were of a level that would have been considered risque for the regular TV 2-4-1 nightshows 3 years or so ago, when contact between performers was deemed out of bounds, but wouldn't fit the expectations of people paying for encrypted content. It was certainly very conservatively filmed, with camera angles chosen that at very few points looked like remotely scaring the horses.
i think you are being harsh on these two, what you have to remember is that they are not pro porn stars,
having talked to Rick they are amatures both have normal 9-5 office jobs, they just come down bsx and get naughty every now and then, thats why they are not on twitter and there is no other content on the web,
they are just two normal girls having fun together and thats why it looks different but i think its a good thing, nice to have some variety on BSX,
shame i was away last weekend as what i saw i enjoyed
(03-09-2017 21:42 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]^
No my question was more an expression of the idea that when consumers are asked to pay for something that was previously perceived as free there is usually an expectation that the product will improve in some way as a justification.
I don't disagree the TV shows have got poorer, but I'm not sure about the analogy that things that used to be "free" improve when they become monetised, I am struggling to think of any concrete examples. Only if there is intense competition does this drive down prices ? and this can be counter productive as there will generally be a threshold below which any service cannot be delivered satisfactorily and therefore the quality suffers and becomes poor value for money. As anyone who has ever tried to get any complaint resolved through a service-provider's call centre will probably be able to testify.
I think probably things/services that were considered "free" were actually subsidised by hidden charges elsewhere, or by manipulating prices so that things appear to be cheaper or free against a false baseline; or probably more commonly these days for subscription services by fleecing customers too busy/time poor to spend days of their lives "cost-comparisoning" everything under the sun and switching providers every few months to give temporary discount deals to new customers, who will probably find some small print somewhere proves their deal is timelimited and actually crap in the long run, or in the case of things like insurance if they ever actually have to claim they find there is so much wiggle room on the providers' side that they are not covered at all.
A lot of public services that used to be considered "free" (ie taxpayer funded) have been cut altogether, with the assumption that if people really need those services they will pay for them.
But this is getting way off topic, apologies
(04-09-2017 15:57 )winsaw Wrote: [ -> ]i think you are being harsh on these two
That was not my intention, all I was suggesting was that some people paying specifically for that show without knowing these performers and with the expectation of seeing more than is usual on TV may possibly have felt short-changed.
It wasn't a criticism aimed at these specific performers, but again was an example I thought of the more general issue with bsx that many have been saying here in the past that the shows are too inconsistent in terms of what some people might expect from encrypted/pay-per-view content.
At the risk of prolonging the off-topic posts...
@M-L-L: Software is a decent example I think, If a formerly free version is monetised isn't there an onus for it to do something more than it did before there. More pertinently perhaps, the resentment some are feeling with the shows right now is akin to that when a previously fta sport goes over to pay. There better be a step up in how it's done is the typical audience response. I don't think the shows are addressing that.
I also wanted to comment on your earlier remarks re. this forum (warning some of this is quite speculative)... IMO, the changes in BS and 66s business model are, quite apparently, leading to changes in the shows' general fan base. Interest on this forum feels down. Names have and are continuing to disappear from the 'latest posts' section. The natural supposition is that the changes and apparent downturn in interest are related - that the numbers of parties taking an active pursuit of their passion is lower here for that reason.
To me, this perhaps hints at the fact that this forum had, for some (many?), become a way of enjoying the shows more satisfactorily without directly contributing to their continuation. I think others have expressed a feeling that an unrepresentatively large proportion of so-called freeloaders had found themselves a home here. (Unrepresentative in that the freeloader to callers ratio of those that didn't come here would likely be more weighted to the latter I feel.) If true, what would then be the result when, as they are surely doing now, the operators simply provide less reason to be a "freeloader"?!
Now, some in the industry are probably more than content to see the back of guys that they see as an irritant and a completely undesirable portion of the fan base. Nevertheless this ignores a basic tentant of how their own business functions I feel. Simply put: They need a crowd to be interested in order for the requisite number of paying customers to be found within them. Without the large crowd why should the percentage of actual payers be radically different? Something is needed to attract your crowd in the first place.
That crowd also help to sustain the industry with their contributions to places like this. Some may not like the fact but the industry would be a lesser one without such associated support.
IMO, BS in particular are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water atm. They are causing some little disillusionment (we can only judge by what we see on places like this despite the caveats above on who might make up the majority here). That can't ALL simply be dismissed as being the whingeing of uncontributing freeloaders.
^ It's worth pointing out that some (maybe many) of the current 'freeloaders' they want rid of are actually ex-callers, i.e. customers they already had, and could have kept, if they hadn't fucked them over in pursuit of a 'fast buck'.
(07-09-2017 07:19 )The Silent Majority Wrote: [ -> ]^ It's worth pointing out that some (maybe many) of the current 'freeloaders' they want rid of are actually ex-callers, i.e. customers they already had, and could have kept, if they hadn't fucked them over in pursuit of a 'fast buck'.
yep havent spent a penny since they ended unleashed...used to be £100 a month.....
Some nice shows from Brook Little tonight. She saved the best until last I think, as I liked the last set on the stairway, but all 4 of the shows were good.
Yes I greatly liked the Brook Little night on Friday. I missed the last night she did a month ago, so it was good to catch her this time.
re tonights BABE show
spotty arse, stained teeth and greasy hair
ffs this is scraping the bottom of the barrel