I'm willing to bet they will be gone by either August/September.
There has to be to be a point when they will be out of cash and not be able to pay the girls or their staff. What has started so brightly has become a total wreck in just a matter of weeks.
The staff there really sometimes seem to be more happier that they are putting on out less than average show and think we will watch it!
I bet if they if they had stayed at BS, that channel would be more or less exactly in the same position as SinTV are now finding themselves in. I think it will only take the loss of either Ree Petra or Tiffany to make them sit up and realise that they are in big trouble and it will serv them right if that happens.
(15-05-2015 23:07 )Rammyrascal Wrote: [ -> ]Until I see actual proof sintv is suffering from "a lack of calls" I won't accept it is suffering from a lack of calls.
The proof is there for all to see, apart from of course the "official apologist" - girls sat looking bored and miserable as sin not talking into their phones. Ruby looked so pissed off yesterday - I have never seen her quite like that before.
(Lets hope she goes back to RLC where she did her best work back in the day.)
Time will tell, if your bet pays off babelover. i think they'll be around a lot longer than August/September myself, as long as they get themselves sorted behind the scenes.
^
But that's the point they are not sorted behind the scenes Rammy that's why people think it's a potential train wreck.
No doubt the girls are there but you need good people in the back and from the looks of it they don't.
if I was sin tv I would charge a nightly flat fee (£5) or a monthly subscription to watch the x streams - with the caveat that there were live stream(s) on all night and that the girls on there actually did x stream worthy performances - that doesn't necessarily mean legs spread though - I would consider tori s recent naked stints as worthy!
^ I think the sort of thing you propose would be in Sin's long-term plans. Unfortunately awareness of their streams does not seem high ( they could do with some good SEO work IMO) and as you imply the current state of the xstreams does not inspire the sort of customer confidence that would allow them to charge a subscription as yet.
I think it would be a massive shot in the dark by them to go in that direction at this point.
I would just like to say that it's nice to see the girls of sin-tv getting naked on the night shows more often than they do on other channels. I always thought twice about ringing girls who kept their clothes on while I was having a good stroke but now the nakedness makes it so much easier to call to get off. And the web streams are fantastic.
(16-05-2015 00:28 )DB83 Wrote: [ -> ]It is pretty obvious to most that currently costs exceed income. That will be the case with most start up companies. The critical thing here is how big the channel's working capital is (I am also a retired accountant) and how long they have budgeted for these losses.
I suspect that their plan is to acquire more channels and that they are prepared to make losses until that happens. If so, it means that their working capital is substantial, as it must be in order to fund channel acquisitions. Let's see if they pop up on freeview before long.
(16-05-2015 11:23 )spamtheman Wrote: [ -> ]... the web streams are fantastic.
Agreed... on the currently small number of occasions when Sin can find a big enough audience to make them viable. We need to hope Sin can somehow find a big enough customer base to make them sustainable if we want to continue enjoying them in the future.
I actually think they may have come a few years early with this one unfortunately. Imagine the take up of these channels if they were as easily accessible as their TV counterpart via the internet capable big screen in everyone's lounge. Oh well... Hopefully we'll get that across the board at some point.
ok let's do a stream check currently right now how many companies have more than one stream in operation and which channels?