The UK Babe Channels Forum

Of course it matters how many copies are sold because if it makes a loss where do you think the money to recoup the losses will come from Callers will be paying for it. there a lot better methods of marketing than a magazine

^ I didn't say it was the best way of doing anything. It is the way that creates an opportunity to do launches. And it's obviously the way 66 want to play it and they must know it ain't going to sell bucket loads atm so they have other aims with it.

Plus, your still thinking of it as just marketing the shows. They are trying to get a name for the look of their photos and styling. The gloss, the glamour of it. They are trying to aspire to the old elite type ethic but in something to sit alongside the shows and enhance their brand.

Maybe they are aiming to build sales slow as well. But atm it's more about other things.

Like the names they can attach themselves to that wouldn't go near appearing on a babeshow (yet?)... It's a foot in the door with people and so on.

Never said that sold lots just said lots of news

(08-08-2017 18:55 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]Plus, your still thinking of it as just marketing the shows. They are trying to get a name for the look of their photos and styling. The gloss, the glamour of it. They are trying to aspire to the old elite type ethic but in something to sit alongside the shows and enhance their brand.

If they're trying to market the shows and 'enhace' their brand, why call it Sixty6 instead of Studio 66 (or even just S66) Mag.

Google Sixty6 and you won't get a single hit that takes you to their website or even mentions the shows.
Even if you actually bought the mag and started googling the girls out of curiosity, how many of those would lead you to Studio66?

It's like the BBC launching a Doctor Who mag, and calling it Doctor Why.

This is partly what I'm saying. It's only incidently about the shows. It's the same reason loads of brands have sub-brands - to distinguish between different things they do whilst retaining something of the original. It's something from the same stable but slightly different. Guys are already asking why it doesn't feature just babes from the shows. If they'd called it after the name of the show directly that would be even more pronounced with the general public. That is not what this is about and the naming displays that intent.

The link is meant to be slightly subtle to everyone but us lot.

It is about diversifying what they are known for and at the same time making the whole slightly 'classier'

(09-08-2017 06:59 )The Silent Majority Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-08-2017 18:55 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]Plus, your still thinking of it as just marketing the shows. They are trying to get a name for the look of their photos and styling. The gloss, the glamour of it. They are trying to aspire to the old elite type ethic but in something to sit alongside the shows and enhance their brand.

If they're trying to market the shows and 'enhace' their brand, why call it Sixty6 instead of Studio 66 (or even just S66) Mag.

Google Sixty6 and you won't get a single hit that takes you to their website or even mentions the shows.
Even if you actually bought the mag and started googling the girls out of curiosity, how many of those would lead you to Studio66?

It's like the BBC launching a Doctor Who mag, and calling it Doctor Why.

(09-08-2017 08:18 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]The link is meant to be slightly subtle to everyone but us lot.

Yes, I see what you're getting at. But my point was the link isn't slightly subtle, it's practically non-existent.
Which would be fine if the mag was making money in it's own right, but this seems unlikely.
On the other hand, if it's being used as a loss-leader it's not going to be very effective if it's not linked to the product it's loss-leading for.

(09-08-2017 08:47 )The Silent Majority Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-08-2017 08:18 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]The link is meant to be slightly subtle to everyone but us lot.

Yes, I see what you're getting at. But my point was the link isn't slightly subtle, it's practically non-existent.
Which would be fine if the mag was making money in it's own right, but this seems unlikely.
On the other hand, if it's being used as a loss-leader it's not going to be very effective if it's not linked to the product it's loss-leading for.

Oh, again, yes, it's not the best. This is quite patently, in part, a self-aggrandising vanity project. I'm trying to put over the theory and that there are some justifications for what they are trying to do beyond just pure partying - as is commonly implied on here.

Businesses are often prepared to subsidise one products losses (at least in the short-term) in order to gain not face-smackingly obvious 'value' elsewhere. Sometimes this value is not immediately re-couped financially elsewhere (the common loss-leader).

Perhaps this should all be taken as a sign of just how well pervecams did for 66 - at least when then first took off?

It seems a strange concept to launch a magazine which has nothing in common with the TV show especially when similar magazines have been going out of business in recent years.

(08-08-2017 13:50 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]The numbers the magazine sells are largely irrevalant. That is not its purpose. It is a cost against their marketing budget. Things like that do not necessarily have to be entirely self-sufficent to be of value and be maintained within a business.

Meanwhile back in the real world....

The numbers the magazine sells are everything. Selling is its sole purpose and sales alone determine whether it continues or not.

It is not a cost against their marketing budget because the company we are talking of is a small company which doesn't appear to even have a marketing budget. Studio 66 marketing consists of using Twitter and YouTube and anything else that's free to use, and certainly nothing that would cost any money.

Attempts to link the magazine to the TV show and silly and futile. There is clearly no link and was never intended to be. It's a separate project.

The reality is that the magazine will stand or fall on its own sales performance. The company that publish it could not afford to run the project on any other basis.

^ Mister know it all has spoken. Are you saying that businesses never run anything at a loss for other reasons - with one product subsisting off another?

And you know 66's recent accounts intimately enough to tell what they can afford and what they can't how?