Elite TV / Studio 66 - General Chat & Discussion

(05-01-2016 03:38 )admiral decker Wrote:  the 'multiple presenter channel' which costs more to run than a single presenter channel, as they are paying 2 girls wages instead of 1.

Unless the one girl is on double the wages of the other two.

(05-01-2016 03:42 )tormented mind Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 03:21 )mrbates59 Wrote:  Studio 66 TV Camera Work 101: Always remember that it's extremely important to ensure that at least 20% of the screen isn't used to record babes, but on recording beds at all times.

But isn't that space at the bottom of the image the place where the onscreen graphics are positioned?

Yes - so it is extremely important to leave that space!

(05-01-2016 03:45 )circles_o_o_o Wrote:  Unless the one girl is on double the wages of the other two.

That is a good point.

(05-01-2016 03:38 )admiral decker Wrote:  Shandyhand's talking about the 'multiple presenter channel' which costs more to run than a single presenter channel, as they are paying 2 girls wages instead of 1.".

This is true of course, but it does assume that we are talking about the same channel slot. In other words, you're saying that a multiple presenter channel costs more to run than a single presenter channel would on the same slot.

The point I am making here is that a channel with a better (and more expensive slot) could cost more as a single presenter channel than a multiple presenter channel would on a cheaper slot, despite the multiple presenter channel having 2 wages to pay.

(05-01-2016 03:26 )Davy Crockett Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 02:16 )forumdude Wrote:  And kerrie 'strip me naked and cover me in oil' lee is the one leaving....

Let's be optimistic and hope Studio 66 can get her to stay. Although since she apparently said on twitter that she doesn't like the work it probably won't be easy to persuade her.

I have never heard kerrie Lee say she didn't like the work at the channel
She has in fact stated on several occasions that she loved working at S66
She worked in a club before Xmas which she said she hated & asked if the good money was a good enough reason to stay there.

(05-01-2016 04:48 )bigglesworth Wrote:  The point I am making here is that a channel with a better (and more expensive slot) could cost more as a single presenter channel than a multiple presenter channel would on a cheaper slot, despite the multiple presenter channel having 2 wages to pay.

Yes possibly so - although I don't have enough information about the cost of the slots to properly evaluate the matter.

I guess you're making the point that Sky 912 could be possibly costing more to run than Sky 941, despite 941 being multiple presenter?

(05-01-2016 04:50 )masterjboy Wrote:  She has in fact stated on several occasions that she loved working at S66

Let's hope she stays then!

(05-01-2016 03:52 )marlowe Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 03:42 )tormented mind Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 03:21 )mrbates59 Wrote:  Studio 66 TV Camera Work 101: Always remember that it's extremely important to ensure that at least 20% of the screen isn't used to record babes, but on recording beds at all times.

But isn't that space at the bottom of the image the place where the onscreen graphics are positioned?

Yes - so it is extremely important to leave that space!

Which is why they should frame her in properly (zoom out until it's completely necessary to zoom in) or make the text smaller like Babestation. It isn't rocket science. They literally end up cutting the tops of their heads off half the time.



Now this is framed well.

(05-01-2016 05:06 )mrbates59 Wrote:  Which is why they should frame her in properly (zoom out until it's completely necessary to zoom in) or make the text smaller like Babestation. It isn't rocket science. They literally end up cutting the tops of their heads off half the time.

No, not like Babestation PLEASE. That strip that runs across the top of the screen on Babestation is pretty annoying.

(05-01-2016 01:48 )admiral decker Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 01:08 )winsaw Wrote:  Would love to know how u think both can be right, as if cutting back

They aren't cutting back though, are they? Shandyhand's talking about the 'multiple presenter channel' which costs more to run than a single presenter channel, as they are paying 2 girls wages instead of 1. We have to assume that the extra expense is worth it.

Unless cutting back means Studio 66 going down a channel, but who hasn't cut back in that way? Babestation used to have more channels and Red Light also dropped channels before they were forced off air anyway. There's falling demand for the services the channels provide, so everyone has been cutting back. Look at how Storm save costs these days by broadcasting a rubbish quality picture. All the channels have cut back in recent years because it's the only way of surviving. Will we ever see Red Light on TV with 4 channels again?

You are still failing to address my main point.

And I think the distinct nature of the section of your post that you bolded was initially lost on winsaw because it wasn't what we were arguing...

But to go with what you're saying: Putting two into a space where there was formerly one is economising in most peoples' books. The spend on wages would be the same if the girls were still on separate channels - not more; but they have saved money in other overheads making it is a cost-cutting exercise. No-one is arguing that 66 aren't proper and correct in looking to do things more efficiently. Nor am I saying that double babe sessions are not done anywhere else in the 900s.

What people are querying is if this the best way to go about presenting their economies. And if it works for the channels to the extent that you and others seem to be proposing then why isn't it the predominate way of putting on a babe show across the board by now.

bigglesworth and circle's points, though perfectly valid in themselves, also don't indicate why if, as is surely the case, certain girls and epg slots cost more than others, why aren't 66 and others keen to maximise their return on such costs by making all of their channels multi-presenter?

I maintain this can only be for esthetic reasons; the channels know that such a look is not popular with a good section of their custom base. Like you don't have all sitcoms feature 2.4 children. It's an artistic (yes that word on a babe show who'd have thought it?! ) decision based on commercial foundations.

At 66 for example, why is the 'flagship' channel resolutely one babe per session..?

I'm saying that is the way it is because the channels and the babes know that the one-babe one-channel model is the optimum way to present a babe show. Any other method may work but is not ultimately desirable, especially in the long-run, because to put it bluntly you end up looking as Poundland as Xpanded. (Yes I know it works for them too but that is because that is what they do and what they have always done. They have made it their gimmick as Primark or Poundland have made it theirs.)

What several posters on here are concerned about is having our whole high street of babe shows turned into a run of Xpanded Poundlands.

There's got to be a better way of survival for the night shows than that surely.

I'd go so far as to argue that every channel heading in that direction would be bad for Xpanded and probably lead to the club bar scenario we went through before - the end of the industry with no variety of choice for a once too often exasperated customer base.