(26-12-2016 04:34 )winsaw Wrote: [ -> ]Why the fuck are people jumping all over Jimmy, he makes what I think to be a great point that the more visually stimulating shows will most the time get more calls,
I am sure that if Macy had her boobs out she would have got more calls, yes rammy is right u need the phone skills to keep people coming back but with out a visual hook u will not get them in the first place,
This is the point I was making (what I've highlighted in bold) you need visual stimulation to get people to call, but you mainly need to be good on the phones.
I never said no visual stimulation is needed. As for the silent majority's question, my answer would be c). Call stats are more important. If a babe has good stats. She will stay on the shows, if she doesn't, they won't be on the shows
Posters are confusing two related but not necessarily the same perspectives on this issue:
1) What is important for the channel and it's owners/management. That will be call stats, call stats and call stats. However, clearly good call stats will be related to phone skills and visual appeal.
2) What is important for the punter. That will be visual appeal and phone skills. Punters couldn't give a damn about a babe's call stats. We know however, that if she is easy on the eye, and is great on the phones, then her call stats will likely be excellent.
(27-12-2016 09:29 )The Silent Majority Wrote: [ -> ]Ah, so this is what all the fuss was about.
Hmm, ok. I think some of the critics could have been more diplomatic but the poll is flawed and biased towards one outcome (even Rammy voted yes 
)
A better question might have been:- Is visual stimulus
a. More important than call stats?
b. As important as call stats?, or
c. Less important than call stats?
Hope this helps (probably not, though) 
This is better in some ways but still changes the stance of the original question competely.
Rake is 100% spot on in that this is a factor that confuses many of these conversations. You have to define who you are saying these things are "important" to or "better" for: Operator/babe or caller/viewer. Jimmy's OP was obviously speaking from a consumers' pov (so stats would only ever come into it if they were bad enough to threaten your favs future on the shows).
In fact all the trouble this thread has caused may well have been avoided by the addition of just four words to jimmy's OP (as the original exchange between Rammy and Jimmy that prompted it indicates): "i suggested it did not fit with generally held expectations for a nightshow,however Rammyrascal disagrees and says visual stimulation is not needed" would have better read "i suggested it did not fit with generally held expectations for a nightshow,however Rammyrascal disagrees and says
the visual stimulation
of partial nudity is not needed".
Trouble is it may be "needed" and expected by certain customers but it is evidentally not needed at all times by the babes and operators of the night shows.
Some viewers will be stimulated by the sight of a girl totally covered in a catsuit, but I believe Jimmy is asking about the requirement for nudity. So the question could be "Do you require a nightshow to contain nudity?" This way people can give their own view, without the need for anyone to tell us what the 'correct' answer is.
I think at the minimum, if a night-time show could be shown during daytime hours, it is not a true "nightshow", and is not using the time slot properly.