The UK Babe Channels Forum

I would entirely agree that the quality of these show is purely and simply down to the approach of the girl in question and I would say that many punters who watch St66 regular TV feed or regular website stream probably will be expecting a more unrestricted show from and probably would feel that they are not finding that to be the case with the new type of show and would probably say that they are at best A PERVECAM show on another level.

I think many of who saw what Fern did last week, then saw what Evelyn & Macy produced this week, highlights both Shandyhand's & Rob's points and I would heartily agree that that if any of logged in to either of Evelyn's or Macy's show would have felt that both left a lot to be desired or felt that both girls' shows were lacking some enthusiasm in comparison to Fern.
I don't if anyone has made the comparison yet between what Studio66 does with the new daytime webshow & BS's 121 service private cam (which I would say is the closest thing BS has to what Studio 66 offers),and which is slightly the better product service offered?

(23-03-2019 21:08 )ryuken Wrote: [ -> ]{snip}

Update, where are we now?

Since I posted and ryuken replied we've seen more web only shows and yesterday Fernanda's show was TV as well.
Several criticisms were made in her thread and the remarks in the Firestorm chatroom were much stronger. Some blamed Fernanda.

I think that we should have expected it. Web only shows are an addition to S66's canon and I suggest they must continue with TV as well for two reasons:
1. Sky are their shop window (and Freeview, that's where I first saw Fernanda).
2. There is an agreement between S66 and Sky to broadcast. They can't just say,'Oh, fuck Ofcom, you can't have her'.

Judging from the guide I suggest that decision was taken a few days before and Fernanda kept them under her top. She agreed to stay on after 22.00 to try and keep everybody happy.

I think that there's several positives:
1. S66's relationship with Sky is maintained.
2. Fernanda shows how well she can do any type of show...tits out, in or both - she'll do it as well as anyone.
3. Ofcom are treated with respect. Sooner or later that will work positively for S66 and ultimately ourselves.
4. We're kept hungry. If there were no restrictions, it's natural that the exceptional is appreciated less.

Is it just me or is cali's stream in slow motion ?

(31-03-2019 13:57 )goatman222 Wrote: [ -> ]Is it just me or is cali's stream in slow motion ?

Same mate.

FFS here we go again OK so Evelyn is on web cam but STOP spoiling the TV feed with half a screen of advert

[This post answering Chrisst's #2868 was delayed due to some tech issues my end last week, so his bump above is timely. I hope it's of use to him and apologise to those who, for some of this, it will be like sucking eggs. I have split my reply into four ( ), one for each of his sections, just for sheer readability.]

Your opening is flattering Chrisst, but I'm really not akin to the Tracey clan; no fountain of knowledge or assistance me. I've just been around here a fair time and been bothered to enquire and learn as I go. (Seriously, pm-ing is a better avenue for a lot of this stuff though mate.) Otoh, I'll always look to help a fair-minded fellow poster who is willing to help themselves, so I'm going to have a pop at your mountain of queries!

As guys will see I find the prospects for these new webshows fascinating and using Chrisst's post was a good way to look at them thoroughly.

1. I agree that 66's re-use of terminology is weak on this thing and the onscreen banners they're using, in particular, can be confusing to the punter. (To say "Backstage Now" for babe on her break is just odd, especially when they also use the term 'backstage' as a synonym for paywall camming.) 

I prefer terming these new efforts 'TV-like web onlys' myself, but this is, admittedly, jargonistic. If you're looking for an easy to remember marketing phrase then the best I could come up with is WebTeases but I have the feeling that this sets the bar for content slightly higher than 66 were aiming for. (If these were the equivalent of genuine tease shows Fern would have gone topless by now.) WebDaytime then maybe; for it should be clear by now that, with 66's insistence on the descriptor "sexier dayshows," they intended the Day part to be taken seriously (presumably not only meant to specify a limit visual content but also, thereby, to allow for the participation of as many babes as possible down the line). As such their pitching of this general content level seems a paramount condition to them - perhaps intended to hold back audience expectations. 

There's an element of 'have cake and eat it' about these definitions; online only evokes the idea of unrestricted content to the punter while the 'daytime' is itself a restricter (there because it suits the operator perhaps rather more than the average punter). This conflict has been the soure of some of the sense of customer frustration that's surrounded the early steps into this new arena. However, there are already definite signs that these shows are drifting towards the (at least more rational) level of nighttime teases. We'll see what comes of that as things progress I suppose.

But yes, easy distinctiveness and clear definition of services (on the forum as well as the shows themselves) are a decided plus for the punter. They encourage his respect for, and faith in, his engagements with the shows. So there's an assured need for a catchy nomenclature around this thing... But, it looks as though 66 couldn't find one either! (On your specifics: Clear onscreen captioning of all the babe's breaks would be a obvious bonus, not only on these, but on all the shows. And by the same token, countdown clocks heralding a babe's return are apparently too much to ask for of every operator these days. Those were mighty handy when some operators used to do them in the past.)

I'm sure you're aware by now that, yes, these new shows are not on Sky and are not regulated by Ofcom - 100%. And, atm, there is only limited proscription of online material in this country.* (Btw, the government has stated that they wish the online world to be regulated the same as the offline; hinting they may or may not give the job to Ofcom. It's easy to imagine what would happen to the material under consideration here if the former's plans were enacted in the future.)

* For the time being, unless you're troubling the Obscene Publications Act there's no problem for live streaming of this type. And babes are not likely to be going that far are they lol.

2. There is no reason, in 2019, why a babeshow site shouldn't function flawlessly even on the back a half decent 4G signal. The main two operators have the stream problems they do because they have saddled themselves with a third party partner company who are not all they should be. The channels are likely complicit in that they don't seem to be stumping up for adequate site systems. (Cross browser compatibility should be part of any basic competence here.) Demand seems to be outstripping data resources at peak times. And there is something seriously remiss when, as over the weekend before last, non-browser methods could play Fern's stream with nary a fault but users experienced repeated hitching and halting every few seconds on playing the same stream via the operator's site. 66 have since taken steps to stymie the use of these non-browser viewing methods as well as reducing the resolution of their streams. Both will preserve their bandwidth usage, and thus costs, somewhat. It will also make users engage with the official sites more (where the operators obviously want them to be) and make total usage figures easier to gauge for 66.

Re. Fern referencing Ofcom for stream delays... I can only assume that she was speaking generally; I presume saying that her stream has to go through the same output processes as the regular TV streams. (Just in case you didn't know, each stream has a delay from live so that gallery may intervene or interrupt it before broadcast - done generally via logoing at 66 - in order to ensure compliance to TV regulations ["Ofcom"].) I assume these new web only shows are required to use these inbuilt delays as a matter of convention. It's legacy tech basically AFAIK. Anyone else know better?

I've no idea why the stream to phone delay would have been longer last Saturday though - except to speculate that maybe the tech issues/buffering caused or necessitated an increased delay. (Fwiw, this last week I saw Gallery on 66 chat say he didn't know the reason for the increased sync delays. He blamed an outside company - presumably FS.) ...

I assume you're spot on with your reasoning as to why there is no music for these streams. (In fact I noticed that both Eve and Fern had more trouble than usual getting an answer from Gallery via the mic on their opening sessions. That might not be altogether surprising really given the guy can basically ignore the babe on the web and concentrate on ensuring the compliance of TV babes.) They are presumably trying to make things as easy and simple for themselves as possible with this. (Fern had music for her shorter web only Saturday evening though, did she not?)

Fern's late start: I presume Ryuken has given the prodominant answer here. I would only add that any babe would presumably require a quick chat with Gallery in order to discuss the stratergy, aims and limits of a new service such as this. (I get the distinct impression that 66 hold very few discussions of the sort prior to the babes arrival at the studios. Even for brand newbie babes things have been seen as fraught and rushed - via unintended streams left live - as they prepare to go on TV for the first time.) This could have been part of the issue with Fern's tardiness.

It's also possible that the link to her stream hadn't been set live on the 66 website. I've seen this happen with Eve's many times. However, I thought I saw the stream labelled as Fern's, with just the logo scroller on it, at 11:10 that day... if so the link must have been live by then. Alternatively, the guy may have just neglected to vision mix Fern in as replacement for the logo for a minute or two after he should've done so. Either way we may have missed Fern's intro announcements (surely she would have done a mic to start her first of a new format?) with her thinking she was live when she wasn't...

AFAIK Ofcom still forbid the use of adverts for web streams of an adult nature on TV. Any ads of the sort you describe are therefore going to be seem only on the various web streams I believe...

(Gonna leave it there for the day in case no one but Chrisst has a tolerance for this lol.)

i'll pretend I understood that and say "what he said" lol

Mod Edit to remove the entire copied post from above Charle

^Sorry Bob there's the last two bits of this to come here! You might be more interested in this one though; I'm talking about 'naughty bits' - Chrisst's Censorship heading...

3. Way back when (late 2010), with help from a certain David Cameron, Ed Richards' Ofcom rigged the deck to judge these shows by different rules to every other editorially crafted TV programme. It's pointless trying to compare the 'naughty' content of the babeshows to that of more mainstrean output. To Ofcom it's like comparing apples and oranges. The latter can be made justifiable by context. In babeshow land context is irrelevant. Such is Ofcom puritian's stunning logic. But then logic has nothing to do with it. (Even the Dutch authorities told Ofcom they were passing moral judgements on legitimate programming.)

That aside, there are indeed solid stylistic and financial reasons why these fta streams will remain relatively tame in their content. They are, quite specifically, not there to step on the toes of any paywalled camming material  and are solely designed to tease daytime fans into interaction with a slightly harder visual content than allowed on daytime proper. Of course, what does that best is open to question. The interpretation of each individual babe that does these new shows is going to depend on how she sees her crowd's desires and which platform she is working towards at any one time (perv or phone). The ones that will do best will be those that can craft a show to suit both audiences at once - a combination play if you like. Holding the sustaining audience in an entertaining way without giving away the punter's reasons to pay is the gold standard. That is modern day babing. Fern otoh, seems to be an exception to the modern directly monetised visuals rule. She's managed to remain a crowd pleasing throwback old school babe-er who sustains, predominately, by the sheer force of her abilities with callers.

The self-censorship of each babe in doing all this, online fta, will vary. But at least it'll be up to them this way (in theory anyhow) and the levels they adopt can vary with longevity and customer demand therefore as they see fit. There is no hiding behind Ofcom excuses on the web; no artifical leveller of the regulator's daft rules maintaining dodgy attitudes or work ethics. If favouritism to certain babes remains bts on the shows it should be ever more blatant in its visibility on the web. As will be the evidence of direct producer interference.

Is all this Ofcom compliance talk a load of bull with what they can wear and restricting the girls movement On BS yesterday KimJ has a little black dress on almost covering her but flashing arse as much as possible and jiggling her tits around with her hands, then this morning Marni is on in a see through body stocking with all the holes down the sides and the arse of the garment has been cut out, seems to be a lot of self policing rubbish going on at ST66 atm