A very precise, and accurate, summary from munch1917 above.
The discussion of what Sin could and could not promote directly has existed from the day they arrived at $ky. Coming back to the ETV matter for the moment, they genuinely thought they could directly promote their web services from their tv channel and one must assume that the Austrian regulator allows that. Yet it is equally evident that there is no cross-European agreement on this. One has to look no further than Bs for this. They still show the .com website addr on the tv screen but the take-the-girl-offscreen-idea did not last long and neither did the 'unleashed on tv' service. Both could have been due to demand but the latter still exists purely on the web as does the day-time service makes me think that the regulator had a word with them.
Yet another hurdle if they want to percivere with that idea.
(19-07-2015 13:22 )Tractor boy Wrote: [ -> ]I think they lacked the start up capital to pay the money they promised to the girls and now they are constantly playing catch up.
No, quite the opposite is true. They had plenty of start up capital and were swimming in money to begin with. Hence the West End studios and the pointless and expensive webshows they were running before they ever launched on Sky, not to mention the chef they employed to cook meals for the girls. If you read munch's post just above you'll find he explained things perfectly - it wasn't a lack of start up capital, it was the lack of sales revenue, as the single tv channel they had couldn't generate enough business to sustain the incredible wages they were paying.
^^^very true but from what i heard they where meant to launch a lot sooner on sky then they did(miss a date with sky for getting them self's on the EPG), there was never supposed to be weeks of web only shows bringing in little money,
so i believe they spent there startup money a lot faster then they had budgeted so when problems came a long the cupboard was a lot bearer then it should have been
Very good summations of Sin's demise from everyone over the last couple of pages, particularly from munch and winsaw.
I have only one point to add really, following on from winsaw's spot-on observation that the Sin bosses seemed totally unable to make decisions and form a coherent strategy for their business once the initial plan was found to be flawed.
Successful businesses are often founded on slightly dodgy initial ideas; it's how you react when things start to go tits up that really defines your business as make or break.
Anyway, the specifics I was mentioning: Take munchs point about the lack of ability to advertise their website. It took Sin an absolute age to put their twitter address on-screen. And this was almost the only solution to this fundamental problem they came up with prior to the late desperate attempts to 'say without saying' on-mic.
There were so many other solutions that somehow evaded Sin: Laptops should have been on-screen (like 66); with cams visible (like 66); tablets... the lot. The web address and site may not be able to be advertised directly but the girls should have been promoting in other ways from the very beginning. "I'm on here (laptop) as well"; "on this device"; "log-in and see me now". The other channels have done all these things without any problems from Ofcom it seems. Sin just couldn't see it.
Added to which pics, texts, and pre-recorded videos - all staples of the industry for years - were slow in coming from Sin. They had sooo much time pre-launch and spent it vanitising themselves with the girls it seems.
All these "add-ons" and their advertising should have been in place very early after the delayed Sky launch if not before it.
Problem is Sin had the old out-dated babe show model with the streams simply bolted on as the supposed big money-maker and they just didn't adapt it quickly enough. At some point someone should have realised that their monetising of the web needed to be threaded through everything they were doing.
Instead, they saw the only money coming in was from the TV stream and panicked - throwing everything else out instead.
As winsaw says the restructuring of the girls' wages should have come far earlier than it did.
As to why these things didn't happen and as a final thought, if I may be allowed a little speculation: Sin bears all the hallmarks of serious in-fighting amongst the bosses to me and distractions from outside. An inability to make decisions is symptomatic of such leadership. From a viewer's perspective, I get the impression the management structure fell apart after launch and the producers were left to fend for themselves a lot of the time. Hence we got simply mediocre traditional shows when Sin should have been so much more.
And in the end, any realisations and resolutions offered all came to late for them.
Agree with a lot of the points over the last few pages.
What i'm now curious about, is whether a reborn RLC can come along, take the 942 channel and make a massive successs of it. Showing us what Sin TV could have potentially achieved, but failed to.
In the end I think Sin TV will be a cautionary tale about promise unfulfilled.
Also, I would be curious about whether any of the bosses may face criminal charges?
(19-07-2015 16:30 )gunnar Wrote: [ -> ]whether a reborn RLC can come along, take the 942 channel
I don't have a clue what the procedures are for acquiring a channel slot, but I don't think it's as simple as 'there's a spare slot let's have it', which is kind of how some people seem to be seeing it now that sin appears dead in the water. The slot belongs to someone (SinTV or whoever, the details have surely been posted here elsewhere), so it they who decide what happens to it, if anything. If Sin as a company are eventually wound up, then I guess at some point Sky will release the slot from them and someone else could buy it for broadcast, either in the adult section or elsewhere on the epg, but that isn't likely to happen overnight.
(19-07-2015 16:30 )gunnar Wrote: [ -> ]Also, I would be curious about whether any of the bosses may face criminal charges?
Incompetence is not yet a criminal offence. If the bank bosses can get away with what they have been doing all these years, I don't think the sin bosses have much to fear!
^Agree about Sin TV, but what the bankers did was more than just incompetence and the fact that they have got away with it largely unscathed, shows how corrupt this country is becoming. One rule for the rich and powerful, another rule for the rest of us.
(19-07-2015 16:30 )gunnar Wrote: [ -> ]I would be curious about whether any of the bosses may face criminal charges?
Not unless going bust or going out of business has suddenly been made a crime.
Many babe channels have gone out of business before of course. This isn't the first time.
