Babeshows - General Chat & Discussion

(28-12-2014 15:49 )winsaw Wrote:  i can see some are finding it hard to believe

Surprise surprise!

It's so far out and ridiculous that even the dimmest person would find it hard to believe.

Take Babestation as an example, since their accounts are published and their costs are known. Cellcast paid in the year 2013 a total of £1,148,189 in staff running costs, separate to £880,525 they paid for their 21 standing salaried staff and which included £296,000 paid to their directors. Now take the staff running costs and divide the total by 365 and you arrive at the average daily running cost for Babestation of £3,145. That's for 5 or 6 night girls, 3 day girls and 4 unleashed girls.

If even one established girl a day could earn £2,000 a shift as winsaw claims, that would leave about a dozen girls on around £100 a shift each. Surely winsaw can't seriously expect anyone to swallow that?

Pay to the girls did not go up that year either. The figures for the previous year show that 2013 saw less paid to the girls - a cost saving of 3.14% on what the girls received in 2012.

Admiral - stop ruining debate with proper financial analysis

I remember an article in Esquire in 2013 stating that the girls earn on average between £4000 and £10000 a month which for girls who are on 3 or 4 times a week is less than £1000 a show.

(28-12-2014 18:42 )hairbald Wrote:  Admiral - stop ruining debate with proper financial analysis

Seriously. You are making the rest of us look bad.

And after I spent all afternoon working on my proof of what I called the Leigh Darby Theorem, which clearly demonstrates the folly of a girl earning >£200k per annum also moonlighting in hardcore porn for £1,500-a-scene.

Fortunately, you posted your analysis before I could send it off for peer review. That would have been awkwaaaaaaard...

(28-12-2014 12:31 )winsaw Wrote:  when 66 go hand held these days i tend to switch over as the camera moves around so much the picture becomes a blur, also why keep turning the camera sideways it just looks bad

I think the hand held camera is the best thing on the babe channels.

I agree about turning the camera sideways though - I don't like that and I don't know why anyone thinks it's a good idea.

(29-12-2014 01:16 )bigglesworth Wrote:  I agree about turning the camera sideways though - I don't like that and I don't know why anyone thinks it's a good idea.

I guess that someone at Studio 66 sees himself as the Federico Fellini of the babe channels.

^ Whoever he is, he's got to compete with the babestation camera operator who thinks that zooming very quickly in and out repeatedly is the height of dramatic erotic cinematography.

(27-12-2014 14:45 )Goodfella3041 Wrote:  ^^^ I was weirdly just thinking that myself. It actually does surprise me that the babeshows are on at all on Christmas Day and New Years Eve.

The show must go on. The babe channels are part of the entertainment business after all.

(29-12-2014 01:43 )circles_o_o_o Wrote:  ^ Whoever he is, he's got to compete with the babestation camera operator who thinks that zooming very quickly in and out repeatedly is the height of dramatic erotic cinematography.

Yes good point, that's definitely worth a mention too, almost as bad as the camera held sideways.

admiral yet again you have not read what i have wrote,

(28-12-2014 15:49 )winsaw Wrote:  an established main night girl

i will try to make my self clearer for you, at no point do i say the hole roster is on top wrack, a channel has 1 "main" night girls ie the girl who is at the top of the company who will work 1 or 2 shifts a week, below that you have a wide spread of wage from girls on £200 to a lot more than that,

i hope this is clearer i just assumed people would know what i meant