(11-05-2015 10:00 )DB83 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-05-2015 01:33 )winsaw Wrote: [ -> ] (11-05-2015 00:36 )James Petros Wrote: [ -> ]Looking at Bex Shiners Twitter, seems like if they don't get enough calls, they are pulled from the stint they're doing
Just had a look at her twitter, quite sad to see a girl begging for calls like that, don't paint sin in a good light,
By the look of it she did not get any calls on the xstream and was very happy to get on tv, makes me wonder if that's the norm for all girls,
Could be the girls don't want to go on their as it hurts the overall minutes for the night
So what you are saying is that you believe the girls are paid pro-rata for on-screen time ?
And, yes, I have seen many examples of girls literally begging for calls and being pulled off after 20/30 mins.
But if, as has been stated, the people behind he scenes are ex Bs then how do you expect them to work ?. That is what they are used to.
then it will die on its ass pretty quick... and it will be a deserving end.
not that i hope it does die as there really is a market for new content levels. but if they want to run it like babestation then the sooner its gone the better...
(11-05-2015 11:24 )DB83 Wrote: [ -> ]"as they wont have to worry about atvod as long as they can successfully argue that there content is not tv like (the bbc recently did this with there online content) and R18 content isnt allowed on tv so its defiantly not TV like..."
Tell that to Shebang who got reported to Ofcom by AtVOD because it was, in their opinion 'Tv Like'. The BBC has clever lawyers, and can afford them. so would often win their arguments. Babe Channels etc. can not afford these and just take the hit.
They have already tried to advertise the webstreams in a discreet way and appear thwarted on every move.
yes in there opinion but there opinion isnt law and they could use the bbc's case and decision to back up there own appeal.
atvod didnt even have a case going by there own rulings.
shebang was members only, behind a paywall and r18 content. so not tv like.
just because theres people in front of a camera producing content doesnt make it tv like. and thats what the bbc fought on...
atvod found out law is based on president not opinion so lost there what they thought was a slam dunk case.
the channels could use exactly the same argument and advod would have no option but to withdraw there case as it has already been argued and found to be false.
that being said. if the channels dont fight there corner then they deserve every butt fucking atvod give them.
as for advertising the website. if the website contains 18+ material they can only advertise after the watershed. there is no need to be subtle about it either.
babestation and others are advertising there adult content on there tv streams so there is no reason why sin cant.
HEX!T, I think the word you were looking for is PRECEDENT and not PRESIDENT as used in your post
The issue with shebang was that they were streaming content the equivalent of FTA. When I last looked at that site, that part of their service had been removed.
Sin, for much of the time, do not even have a '18 only - click me if you are' option in place. Although that was as useless as a condom in The Vatican.
Yes, there can be precedents - it is called, in legal-speak, 'case law' where one decision in an earlier case can determine future cases if it can be argued that the situation now being contested is identical. Even so it still needs to be argued in a court of law and that costs. And if the precedent never went to court, then there is no precedent.
(11-05-2015 01:33 )winsaw Wrote: [ -> ] (11-05-2015 00:36 )James Petros Wrote: [ -> ]Looking at Bex Shiners Twitter, seems like if they don't get enough calls, they are pulled from the stint they're doing
Just had a look at her twitter, quite sad to see a girl begging for calls like that, don't paint sin in a good light,
By the look of it she did not get any calls on the xstream and was very happy to get on tv, makes me wonder if that's the norm for all girls,
Could be the girls don't want to go on their as it hurts the overall minutes for the night
wouldn't say that myself about bex begging for calls like she was which isn't painting sin in a good light. bex has always been like that on twitter I think on whatever channel she's been on, saying on twitter she needs the calls etc.
for me the main thing sintv needs to do at the moment is get a schedule published so people know when their fan sin tv babes are going to be on sky and webshow. also think they should lower the call price whilst they are still new to sky (only been on sky about a month now) until they feel they've got enough calls coming in, then put the calls up to full price. regarding the x-streams, they need to get the awareness of them boosted. at the moment it seems they are doing it by getting people to follow them on twitter by having the sintv twitter page address shown on screen. also think the stints on the sky and webshows should be no more than 1hr. that way anyone who can't watch the webshows know they have just an hour to wait before a new babe appears on screen and anyone wanting the sky babe on web know she will be in about an hour
they've got a very good roster including the additions of Holly McGuire and Karina Currie over the past few days, just need to get other things sorted out behind the scenes. hopefully this will happen soon.
im still happy with the shows ive watched on sintv on both sky and web
I called one of the girls a few days ago on the show (she shall not be named) and she said theres literally no calls! She said she was worried as she doesnt understand how she is getting paid when she isnt getting calls. If they have 4/5 girls in and none are taking calls I doubt its going to last.
Its a shame because it started with such hype and energy but already its so boring to watch and no different to anything anyone else is doing.
(11-05-2015 11:39 )HEX!T Wrote: [ -> ]as for advertising the website. if the website contains 18+ material they can only advertise after the watershed. there is no need to be subtle about it either.
As we know the free to air phone in babe channels operate under telesopping regulations, Ofcom regard them as long form advertising or something like that, and they come under the BCAP code .
Anyway there is specific rules/guidelines for what websites and references they can advertise on unencrypted TV phone in babe channels after and before the watershed.
Ofcom say this
"Under rule 3.30 Ofcom licensed services that are broadcast without mandatory restricted access must not promote websites or products such as video content or images, that contain material within the recognised character of pornography"
These are the rules/guidelines that the babe channels have to abide by, including the advertisement of website rules for nights (page/section 8,and days section/page 9)
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...idance.pdf
I still think they need to be careful about advertising their twitter account on TV, they even advertise it during the daytime pre-watershed hours , their twitter contains adult images and gives out their website address, this seems to be a strict no no especially during the day time advertising rules .
From what i understand from reading (in breach) rulings given to other babe channels, the link given on screen doesn't need to lead straight to adult imagery, they can be found in breach, if when visiting the website there is another link that does then lead to adult content etc .
If any investigation was launched by Ofcom it would be determined by the strength of content shown in the website link, or any indirect link,or other links broadcast on TV, and at what times they are advertised .
Is the Sin content strong enough to be recognised as Pornography on their website and twitter, it's probabley to strong to be advertised in the day, but is it to strong for what can be advertised at night ? .
I'll go along with Rammy. Might be reading a bit too much about what's going on this channel. Just need to sort themselves up a bit. Even though last night was a write off for me, still impressed with the higher production than most of other channels.
(11-05-2015 13:48 )Fanboy83 Wrote: [ -> ]I called one of the girls a few days ago on the show (she shall not be named) and she said theres literally no calls! She said she was worried as she doesnt understand how she is getting paid when she isnt getting calls. If they have 4/5 girls in and none are taking calls I doubt its going to last.
Its a shame because it started with such hype and energy but already its so boring to watch and no different to anything anyone else is doing.
presume your on about the skyshow here with the bit ive highlighted. I personally was expecting the skyshow to be no different to the other Ofcom controlled skyshows and so far that's been the case. regarding this sintv babe not understanding how she's getting paid if theyre not getting calls. presume it's the sintv owners that are paying the babes themselves with their own money which I think they were expecting to do as they get up and running (especially on sky). im not concerned about sintv's future at the moment. it has done very well so far in a declining market and they are clearly intending to stick around for the long term. just have a few things that need sorting out which was always going to be the case at this stage in their existence
your going with me kerravon are you ill???
The production is the heart beat of the problem, if someone like Mellie walks away not long after signing up its obvious the company is badly run and the show lacks content as the producer is scared to do the job properly.
The have the best girls just the worst people calling the shots
If they can't get things like phone lines active they can't make money.