RUsure
Senior Poster
Posts: 104
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 4
|
RE: Babestation - General Chat & Discussion
(28-05-2015 00:23 )eccles Wrote: Besides, why broadcast softer stuff on Sky at all? Revenue from callers is identical regardless of where they call from.
There have been lots of theories put forward - by myself, and many of the members here - as to why the content of Babestation’s shows have been so deliberately tame in recent times. This has been an issue long before the current Freeview exclusives…There are those who maintain the conviction that pressure is being applied from Ofcom. Others seem to think that Babestation are on some kind of experimental Data search from which they will eventually determine a specific direction for the shows. I have always maintained that deliberately frustrating the viewers with these pathetic shows, in the hope that this will generate more subscribers to their harder content, was their real aim. But, in light of recent output by this station I have been compelled to amend this theory slightly - to now incorporate sadistic tendencies from the Babestation Boss (nothing else logically computes, for me)… Your idea, that Babestation may now be favouring Freeview because less channels are available for the viewers to make a change, is an interesting one.
It may just be - when all is said and done - that the Babestation Boss is not intellectually the brightest. And so, logical consistency and rationality does not even enter the frame.
|
|
28-05-2015 02:21 |
|
Censorship :-(
Sadly, no more caps. :-(
Posts: 5,362
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 52
|
RE: Babestation - General Chat & Discussion
As there is greater 'competition' on $ky, shouldn't they 'up their game' there to compete, rather than on FV, where there isn't any real competition?
Not a suggestion, by the way, as I would hate to lose what little chance there seems to be of something a bit better than the normal mediocrity.
Irrespective of the actual reasons for the FV 'exclusives' (and remember, there are also $ky exclusives, too, just not 'stronger' in nature, AFAIK), why no stream of it? They could easily use the "Unleashed on TV" stream which, IMO, is a complete waste of bandwidth, anyway.
|
|
28-05-2015 10:08 |
|
Censorship :-(
Sadly, no more caps. :-(
Posts: 5,362
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 52
|
RE: Babestation - General Chat & Discussion
|
|
28-05-2015 10:33 |
|
ShandyHand
No Paywall Onlys - not babeshows
Posts: 3,986
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 65
|
RE: Babestation - General Chat & Discussion
(28-05-2015 10:08 )Censorship :-(doesn't Wrote: As there is greater 'competition' on $ky, shouldn't they 'up their game' there to compete, rather than on FV, where there isn't any real competition?
Not a suggestion, by the way, as I would hate to lose what little chance there seems to be of something a bit better than the normal mediocrity.
Irrespective of the actual reasons for the FV 'exclusives' (and remember, there are also $ky exclusives, too, just not 'stronger' in nature, AFAIK), why no stream of it?...
It looks like BS think their data doesn't agree with your first statement. Seems they have decided offering unique content garners more revenue than doing 'hard' shows on Sky. It's counter-intuitive but it's what's implied.
That said, we still don't know if this is going to be the longterm situation on Sky. Your last point suggests not, as the only reason I can see (as I've said before) for not putting all streams on the web is that they are currently gathering data on what happens when you offer different content levels as they are now. Having webstreams of everything would screw with the data.
The Sky situation with BS will change again this year I think.
]Babeshow n. - Live Adult Entertainment genre based around premium-rate phome sex chat lines. Scantily-clad female presenter induces callers and users to other inactive services from three-walled set in a TV studio. Largely softcore Tease format influenced by standards and strictures of free-to-air TV platform..
(This post was last modified: 28-05-2015 11:52 by ShandyHand.)
|
|
28-05-2015 11:28 |
|
Sm©
すべてが言われて終わった後
Posts: 34,985
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation: 689
|
RE: Babestation - General Chat & Discussion
|
|
28-05-2015 18:05 |
|
Sm©
すべてが言われて終わった後
Posts: 34,985
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation: 689
|
RE: Babestation - General Chat & Discussion
|
|
28-05-2015 18:09 |
|
M-L-L
The Last Straw
Posts: 11,146
Joined: Sep 2013
|
RE: Babestation - General Chat & Discussion
This may have been raised and answered before, so please excuse the ignorance if so :
but from a "protection from harm" standpoint I don't see why Ofcom would dictate content level/camera angles etc on Sky should be "watered down" more than the content shown on Freeview ?
I'd have assumed it's more likely that people would "stumble" across these channels on Freeview and then complain than they would on Sky ?
I believe these channels are well down the list of EPG numbers on Sky - unlike Freeview where they are randomly sandwiched in the 170s between loads of stuff either side and also I assume with Sky you can set parental controls on these channels ?
Whereas there's no such default Parental Control on viewing Freeview that I've noticed, I'd have to actively switch it on my TV settings.
Suggests to me it's deliberate by BS themselves and not being forced on them.
(This post was last modified: 28-05-2015 19:49 by M-L-L.)
|
|
28-05-2015 19:03 |
|