After watching the new 'webcam whilst on TV' set up for a couple of days (I presume this is going to be a weekday-only thing) I thought I'd post a couple of reservations I have about it. (Now I know the system offers up many new opportunities for babe and customer but, I think, as it is atm, it does have a distinct downside for the dayshow viewer/caller too.)
First off, the babes are going to have to hone their skills at multi-tasking. Without very careful handling by the girl, the set up could be said to be one where no one set of customers will ever get the babes full attention. And the more the system works to its full capability the more pronounced the problem becomes!
Whilst this set up may, initially, spark customer interest and be good for 66 bank balance, it could well end up by reducing the quality of the caller's direct interaction with each babe and their satisfaction with their call. Specifically, the caller can find their babe's attention constantly taken away by the laptop chat and/or her regulars on there.
Perhaps more insidiously, when it comes to final reckoning, each babe's direct body language with the TV camera (her only real communication with her potential client base for large spells) is broken by her eye lines being now directed at the laptop. This is how babes sell; mess with it at your peril I'd say. I'd be very interested to learn if this lessening of viewer interaction effects call rates in the long-term.
Finally, the new variations in the streams also gives 66 website engineers new ways to mess up! Oh, joy...
So, yes the good far outweighs the bad on all this atm, but I'd not be surprised to see a few tweaks to improve on the above at some point down the line.
One last thing that was prompted to my head by all this:
Why the hell are we stuck with webcam quality streams for the babes cam session
when they are in a friggin TV STUDIO ffs!
Do this all via TV cameras and vision mix the web-only feed from the gallery just like the rest of their output - that would be a far higher quality set up I would have thought. Can anyone think of a reason why it might not be done that way? Is it merely the cost of the equipment and a cameraman? If that's the problem then 66 must be more hard pushed than I thought!