(21-10-2018 11:45 )msgny72 Wrote: [ -> ]The ethical answer is for this site which claims to care about the girls so very, very much to withdraw advertising of studio66 and remove links to it's streams until this is stopped. Also for people to both stop watching and stop calling in solidarity with the girls. Though whether anyone would notice less calls is debatable.
I assume you want people to stop calling Babestation as well?
Since Babestation and Studio 66 now have pretty much the same policy, to focus on talent who aren't using OnlyFans, it would be illogical to be willing to call one of them but not be willing to call the other.
(21-10-2018 12:17 )msgny72 Wrote: [ -> ]Let's say you're a plumber, a car mechanic, a carpenter, a painter and decorator etc etc. Monday to Friday you work for an employer. All your neighbours know your job because you drive to and from work in a company van. Occassionally on a saturday and sunday your neighbours pay you to work for them. On Monday morning do you go and give 30% to your employer because the van in this scenario has effectively become an advertisement as S66 seem to be claiming and because your employer has probably paid for your 'training'?
The OF set-up is hardly the same as 'doing a bit of work for a neighbour'.
If you were extensively moonlighting using
my van, and
my diesel, and taking work away from
my business then, fucking right I'd be saying something.
How I went about it would depend on whether I wanted to keep you, or not.
^^ I`m a mechanic of best part of 40 years and have been self employed almost 20. I have a name and reputation that I consider very good. If I employ a mechanic, I can`t stop them repairing vehicles or advertising his own wares in his own time. What I can do though is to not allow him to do the same in the time I pay him for. If he brings work in for my business, I will reward him with a cut. If he brings work in for himself, i`m either going to not allow it or want a cut for myself. He is my employee using my workshop and being paid by me.
It`s not about what that person does outside of work, it`s what they`re doing in the time they`re being paid for by the employer. It would be a similar situation if I was to take on a mechanic under a self employed basis. terms would be thrashed out on how much they were going to give me for using my workshop/name for their personal gain.
I get S66`s stance on this and in many ways support it, but I also think they`re going the wrong way about it
I can see why ST66 are taking this stand because they have played a big part in the babes rise, most do little other then the shows so have no other way to raise a following. So whilst what they do in there own time is fair enough but if they are advertising moonlighting whilst on work hours then ST66’s stance is understandable and makes business sense.
Also maybe this has been bought about by the babes spending less and less time on ST66 cams site and choosing to focus more on Onlyfans instead thus taking away further business from them. I personally believe that things like Onlyfans is the future of this sort of business, the ability to contact the babe when ever directly.
(20-10-2018 18:44 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]Any idea why the change AD? Are they worried about problems with the tax man as has been hinted on here maybe a problem or just the logistics of collecting the correct amounts perhaps? Or is it that a straight choice is the publicly more acceptable option now all has leaked (and continues to do so)?
It seems that the change was because the girls aren't willing to accept the 30% cut, which therefore renders the plan unworkable.
A post by docutech (copied below) gives a good insight into why they are now looking to offer shifts only to girls without OnlyFans.
(19-10-2018 04:47 )docutech Wrote: [ -> ]Spoke to one of the girls who currently earns between £750 - 1000 a month from Only Fans, she was very adamant she was not going to give it up as she worked hard to build up the fan-base, and being on S66 hadn't really added to the numbers so why should they take any of the percentage.
She did say though that she valued the 66 shifts more because they were a permanent stable source of income while OF could fluctuate and had no intention of quitting as she enjoyed working for them.
She had received no more follow up on the initial statement so was sitting tight at present waiting for further developments and was making herself available for more shifts now others had left.
If all this is true then S66 must really be in the shit.
If a girl has said no to something in their contract, ie web shows or tease hours, due to not wanting to show too much so they can maximise their income on OF(which ive heard thru the grapevine) then they should have sacked them. But trying to get 30% is a bit pimpish and looks desperate.
If they are trying to do their own like BS then they might be better having a clearout and starting again with new girls. This can then be put in their contracts but would be risky.
One thing to really rock the boat would be if OF started their own tv channel or two. Think that would be curtains for S66.
The idea that the channels are being in any way unfair or heavyhanded in doing this is naive at best.
It is simply the correct business decision.
OF are going to get copied widely anyway, so it makes a huge amount of sense for the channels to develop their OF substitutes as an absolute priority, as they have a massive advantage over other potential OF copyists in that they own these very well known television platforms.
To not do this would not make them 'nice' or 'caring' to the talent. It would make them MUGS!
They've realised that they were in danger of becoming a shop window for somebody else's shop
(21-10-2018 12:40 )robby Wrote: [ -> ]If I employ a mechanic, I can`t stop them repairing vehicles or advertising his own wares in his own time. What I can do though is to not allow him to do the same in the time I pay him for. If he brings work in for my business, I will reward him with a cut. If he brings work in for himself, i`m either going to not allow it or want a cut for myself. He is my employee using my workshop and being paid by me.
It's not about what that person does outside of work, it`s what they`re doing in the time they`re being paid for by the employer. It would be a similar situation if I was to take on a mechanic under a self employed basis. terms would be thrashed out on how much they were going to give me for using my workshop/name for their personal gain.
As a matter of employment law, what you say is incorrect.
You say "I can`t stop them repairing vehicles or advertising his own wares n his own time", but in reality you can. Contracts of employment commonly contain non-moonlighting clauses. Another approach is to include a requirement in a contract of employment that the employee requests the employer’s permission before they take a second job. Other possible clauses could be second jobs allowed, but no working for a competitor, or second jobs allowed but no self-employment.
You also say "It's not about what that person does outside of work, it`s what they`re doing in the time they`re being paid for by the employer", but this statement has no basis in law whatsoever. Many contracts of employment require the employee to work EXCLUSIVELY for the employer. A contract of employment may even specify what work an employee can take AFTER LEAVING the employment, such as not working for a competitor for a specified period of time or no relevant self-employment.
Great thread I’ve enjoyed the rumours the banter not so much the heavy maths but hey
So I’ve been on Lucy Anne’s OF like a year maybe more and yeah there are good and bad parts to it you want a DM chat you are gonna have to pay but I do think the video content and themes she does make it much better than any TV babe channel stuff she does charge for her private videos but if Studio 66 had done more stuff like that with her I would have bought them there I think they missed several tricks
But if you only wanted to spend the subscription fee and that’s it you wouldn’t be getting as much out of it as you would watching them on the channels but then again Lucy certainly does way more things on her OnlyFans stuff she would never ever, ever do on telly I understand the negativity around subbing then spending more after that to see more I can see that as being a fair turn off for most
Also I don’t think TV exposure really matters anymore you have to be online the amount of 18 year olds sat watching a TV Babe channel now won’t be as large as it was when we did it that’s just the change in the times the channels will die out in a decade or two anyway so I don’t see exposure being that big of a issue
The huge problem I’ve not seen anyone mention is OnlyFans themselves are not an adult website they promote fitness stuff and cooking classes they sell themselves as a respectable way for people to follow creators so what happens when some family group or something find little Timmy online on OnlyFans looking at boobies and rains down this sorta adult content should be regulated [sound familiar?] I’d worry if the girls have having OnlyFans as their prime source of income when it happens
(21-10-2018 12:34 )southlondonphil Wrote: [ -> ]I assume you want people to stop calling Babestation as well?
I thought they already had.