(25-07-2019 13:29 )The Silent Majority Wrote: [ -> ] (25-07-2019 07:08 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ] (24-07-2019 17:18 )docutech Wrote: [ -> ]... the girls get their stats based on call hold times (rather than quantity) so a lot of 3 minute wonders don't do any good ...
Could you clarify that please. Are you saying that one punter on the line for 30 mins is better for a babe's stats than 3 absolutely consecutive calls of 10 mins each? Or is it the same and you're just saying any chance of a lull between short(er) calls is bad? (That'd clearly be the case.)
I'd have thought keeping a caller on as long as possible was all about the queue forming behind them...
Yes I guess what the studio really wants is lots of listeners and people waiting and judging by the comments on here regarding Jamie's callers etc, she must get plenty of those to know all this information about her.
the actual caller talking to the girl, is only a small part of the income stream as if she has 3 or 4 more people waiting to get through then the income multiplies. I guess this is more prevalent on the night shows, with people wanting to hear others conversations as much as they want to talk to the girl themselves. Personally I prefer to hear no one other than the girl talking to me!
^ Correct - long call hold times mean they generally may have a queue of people waiting and also therefore paying. The balance is that if the calling public get pissed off queuing they won't bother again. For daytime girls where the viewers who are callers are usually sober and more likely to wait for the right moment to call long hold times are more important. Some girls do of course have signals which indicate when a call is close to timing out - if you spot the signs go for it or keep an eye on the clock from when a call starts.
(25-07-2019 10:56 )GeoC9 Wrote: [ -> ]Having heard her tell one caller that a couple of people made official complaints against her for meeting callers at her club when stripping but that the rule did not have to apply to her as long as she was careful, does not inspire me to think that any complaints against her will be taken seriously.
I'm not familiar with Jamie at all, but you're very naive if you think all the stories the babes tell on phones are true.
Just a bit of an fyi, the tease chat thread has been merged into this one, we didn't need the two chat threads in one section.
^ I'd like to thank Jamie's callers on here of late for making said thread(s) so fascinating over the last several days. The public sharing of pertinent and instructive info I find most unusual and refreshing. This level of transparency is invaluable if our transactions with the shows are to be more informed and reasoned choices going forward. I hope this thread encourages similiar style posting elsewhere for that very reason.
(25-07-2019 13:29 )The Silent Majority Wrote: [ -> ]I'd have thought keeping a caller on as long as possible was all about the queue forming behind them...
I'm aware of the importance of listeners in (my post alluded to it - all be it obliquely). But I just want to follow the logic of this properly... You and SA are saying the guy that stays on for half an hour hopefully holds my suggested other two 10 min callers on the line listening in (plus any other attemptees that woud have tried anyway) in addition to spending on 20 mins more himself. And these two will then continue to back up callers as they would have done anyway once they too get on... Makes sense I suppose provided the general callers' tolerance remains broadly the same in this changing world - one ever more intolerant of anything but instant gratification. (Also aren't we more inclined to stick with a queue if we have some sense that it is moving and we are progressing forward in it?)
In any case, it can be seen I think that the cut off times are, presumbly, there because, as SA hints, there comes a point were it a 'good caller' crosses over into a line hogger and begins to put guys in the queue off of hanging on. (Although in at least one notable instance I can think of babe and operator seem to have resolved to put up with this negative aspect presumably because the punter in question spends so god damn much on the shows!
) A babe's shows can be undoubtedly unbalanced by obsessive interactors - in more ways than one.
(25-07-2019 18:21 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]I think that the cut off times are, presumbly, there because, as SA hints, there comes a point were it a 'good caller' crosses over into a line hogger and begins to put guys in the queue off of hanging on.
The cut off time is a regulatory requirement.
^ Glad to be corrected on a point of fact AD. Just a shame you eternally ignore so much to pick on so little.
But I'll indulge your tangent: Do you think the channels would do away with cut offs if they could then? (Also, the phone regulations allow for them to be different times on different methods of connection?)
From my own experience regulatory cutoffs don’t seem to apply if you have pre-loaded your account with a higher amount. Call time and charging begins from connection to the service not the girl (certainly on BS) so the balance is whether its worth hanging on hoping she will become free AND you are next in the queue.
(25-07-2019 18:39 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]^ Glad to be corrected on a point of fact AD. Just a shame you eternally ignore so much to pick on so little.
now now.
the point is to let the pretend experts talk so much that they eventually show how little they actually know
So is the general consensus that whilst Jamie is a nice enough and good looking woman she may have found herself a bit out of her depth. A shame but maybe she should focus on doing whatever makes her happiest