I've just flicked through the channels and noted that Studio 66 now has a 36p rate on one of its three channels; Babestation has reduced rates (36p and 60p) across its three channels; Storm and XXXPanded with their lower rates very rarely have the sight of babes waiting for calls. Now that Bluebird has ceased to operate that leaves only RLC charging £1.53 per minute (plus £2 connection) at all times.
Obviously economic conditions are tough with less spare disposable income for these channels so what should we expect in the future? Will the channels increasingly offer cheaper rates in order to drum up business?
Will some operators withdraw due to financial pressures?
Will any new entrants adopt the lower cost approach?
Will performers earnings be reduced?
I realise that this is a generally speculative thread given that we don't know the commercial situation of each company but what are your thoughts?
Chatgirl is also £1.53 per minute (£2 mobiles plus £2 connection) at all times.
Storm's 25p per min applies to mobiles as well.
do the 36p mins still have a connection charge??? remember there are guys hanging on/listening in still paying so the maths isnt a syraight forward 36p a min
Look how much bigger the 36p/MIN graphic is compared to the microscopic unreadable one which they use for the £2/min OSG,
It's all good until they quietly go back to full price and the mugs (aka customers) are too busy cracking one off to notice. Until the phone bill comes in....
I think it was xxxPanded who kicked off the low price war when they started on Freeview at the beginning of this year.
What makes money ,a line costing £2 a min + connection fee and hardly any callers .
Or a line costing 25p ,36p or even 60p a min and being in constant use (plus queue) ?
(10-11-2013 23:23 )Rees No.1 fan Wrote: [ -> ]Will any new entrants adopt the lower cost approach?
Since they would almost certainly be at the wrong end of the EPG they might have to adopt the lower cost approach in order to compete. That is assuming there were to be any new entrants at this time.
You can apply the economics of any supply/demand service and by and large the result is the same.
If you can't or won't compete, you lose. Look how Aldi is expanding this year and have won Best Supermarket 3 years in a row, while Tesco posted a loss for the first time. Aldi was looked upon as low rent and beneath some shoppers, yet they now report the majority of their demographic is middle class. I know it's a weird analogy, but I think the same principal applies to the babe channels too.
The xxxpanded channel might not have many brand names (i.e. big stars of the genre), but it has a cheaper service and it has girls who are every bit as gorgeous as the so-called better or bigger channels. I find the concept of wanking on a budget hilarious, but if you've only got a few quid to spare and the girls are every bit as good and good-looking, you'll be inclined to use the cheaper service. Let's face it, one hottie talking filth is every bit s good as any other talking filth
If RLC don't provide a similar service they they'll suffer the consequences as a result.
(11-11-2013 13:26 )mickster Wrote: [ -> ]What makes money ,a line costing £2 a min + connection fee and hardly any callers .
Or a line costing 25p ,36p or even 60p a min and being in constant use (plus queue) ?
I seem to recall Jamie from S66 (EliteTV as it was then) saying quite a while back that they were barely making money with the call prices as they were then.
As I understand it with these premium lines, they usually have some third party company that handles the lines for them, so each line is actually costing them a good bit of money to run, before you even add in the cost of the girls and studios etc. So a constantly in use line at only 60p/min, may actually be losing more money than a £2 a min + connection fee line that is hardly being used! (Think of two taxi drivers struggling for fares. One reduces his prices to below cost. He starts getting fares, but isn't earning enough to cover the cost of the petrol, so he is actually losing more money than the guy who is parked.)
I'm guessing that these cheap deals are not actually making much money at all (maybe they get an increase in people listening in in the queue as they wait for a chance to speak, which would help the figures), they are really loss leaders, designed to get people calling, get them hooked, then hope they will keep calling when the prices go back to normal. It's no different to the BOGOF offers in the local supermarket drawing punters through the door.
Thing is, it's usually easier for the more established brands to do this kind of thing, it's harder for a smaller company, or a newcomer. You get more deals at the big name supermarkets than in your local corner shop, because the big names can absorb the reduced income, or even a temporary loss, to reap the potential longer term benefits.