Viewer Expectations : Audience Survey

Ofcom's stance on viewer expectations is obviously a concern for people working on the channels also.

This is the views of people in the industry:

The signatories to this letter collectively request that, in respect to the current PTV consultation, careful regard is taken by OFCOM of the potentially profound and negative human cost that would follow a decision by OFCOM to introduce significantly more onerous and restrictive regulations which would effectively close down the free to air babe sector.

Such would be the inevitable consequence were OFCOM to introduce a form of regulation which undermined the existing economics of an industry that creates significant direct and indirect employment across a number of businesses in the Media, Telecoms, Transmission, and Production sectors.

It would also adversely affect a huge number of freelance producers, presenters and support staff who are unlikely to be able to find immediate employment elsewhere in the current recessionary environment, which is already causing significant redundancies in the TV broadcast and production industries.

We are making this petition because we see no compelling reason why it is in the public interest for the free to air babe sector to be subject to further regulation that might undermine its viability.

There seems no justification for this regulation on the basis of causation of harm or offence or the receipt of consumer complaints. We believe that all of the only 40 or so complaints received by OFCOM in the last 5 years have been made anonymously by industry competitors, a fact that is known to OFCOM, as is the fact that the complaints are primarily from companies involved in the encrypted adult business that stand to gain enormously should OFCOM introduce regulations which effectively close down the free to air babe sector.

OFCOM's own research has borne out the fact that viewers and participants do not feel they are being misled in any way. All participants in OFCOM’s research commissioned from Essential have found the proposition of this type of programming transparent. That is why there has not been any bona fide (i.e. genuinely consumer originated and impartial) complaint upheld by either OFCOM or PPP in the hundreds of thousands of hours of broadcasting by this sector over the last 5 years. Given the apparent total absence of genuine consumer complaints about this sector and the absence of any evidence of harm or offence to viewers we do not see how can it be in the public interest to destroy the livelihoods it creates.

Unless OFCOM are able to prove otherwise, we are of the view that the free to air babe sectors have the lowest level of genuine consumer complaints of any genre broadcast on any platform.

We believe that at least 2,500 people will lose their jobs if the sector is regulated out of existence (i.e. as many as those thus far made redundant by Marks and Spencer).

We feel that in considering the real human and economic impact of any change in regulation OFCOM should also have regard to the following:
There are some 27 channels involved in the free to air babe business. This represents revenues of some £7million per annum to bandwidth providers such as Arqiva and Globecast. Fibre and connectivity suppliers such as BT, Colt and AboveNet stand to lose up to £1.5million per annum in circuit charges.

In a recession where advertising supported channels are already finding it tough to survive it is very unlikely that these providers will be able to find start up niche channels who can generate sufficient income to support take up of this level of bandwidth.

There are also numerous and diverse broadcasters who rent capacity or airtime to free to air babe operators. It is unlikely they will easily find replacement clients in the current market. There are already some 2O Sky TV channels currently for sale. The average market price for Sky EPGs has declined by an estimated 65% in the last 4 months. This is a further illustration of the severe effects of the recession on the broadcast industry.
There are numerous telecoms service providers involved in this business both in the provision of IVR and SMS services. Some providers depend fairly exclusively on this business and for most it represents a significant and not easily replaceable source of revenue. Even where the business represents a minority portion of their revenue its sustainability could be the difference between profit and loss.
There are more than 2,000 individuals from production staff, presenters, call centre operatives, management and administrative staff whose livelihoods depend directly or indirectly on the free to air babe business.

We are not aware of any proposal by OFCOM to put forward a job or business replacement program for those who would be impacted on by regulations which effectively undermine the viability of the free to air babe channels.

The shareholders of the companies operating these businesses face evaporation of their investments in certain liquidation. There would be a trickle down effect as they defaulted on factoring arrangements with Banks and other credit providers.
The television industry as a whole is going through terribly tough times suffering from significant cuts in advertising budgets, these are leading to redundancies in broadcasters and production companies. It is unlikely that there will be any takers for the 27 channels of capacity that will become available for the same reason. Even in better times, few niche channels could survive on advertising alone. In the current economic environment this is impossible.

(18-03-2010 13:49 )Digital Dave Wrote:  No we're not saying we want to see hours of close up penetration, [n]o we're not saying we want all the babe channels to be hardcore

Really?

(11-02-2010 22:01 )IanG Wrote:  I EXPECT to see totally naked babes talking dirty, flashing gash and playing with themseleves all night long. I EXPECT to see full-on close-up Flash The Gash.

Make of the line "playing with themselves all night long" what you will. Personally, I can't imagine that a person with such an 'expectation' wouldn't be hankering for some form(s) of penetration to be occuring with regularity over the several hours that would go to make up "all night long," whether it be with fingers, tongue or dildo. I also can't imagine that they wouldn't want such penetration not to be the frequent focus of the camera's zoom lens. And "full on close-up Flash The Gash" means hardcore, buddy, whichever way you slice it! Softcore and hardcore are demarcated fairly distinctly when it comes down to it; they don't bleed into each other at the edges. A "full on close up" of "gash" isn't where softcore ends; it's where hardcore starts.

Edit: I accept that I've quoted Ian 'in reply' and not you, Dave, but Ian is one of the principle articulators of what the anti-Ofcom crowd 'expect' in here, and you align yourself to the cause by your use of the word 'we.'

(17-03-2010 21:23 )SxciiSooky Wrote:  Secondly - The Babechannels by their very definition is 'softcore', so to expect anything other is futile.

That's not strictly true, indeed, several did 'hardcore' encrypted shows after midnight - until Ofcom came along and stopped it.

Quote:Fourthly - the perpetual myth that Ofcom is a self appointed body with no powers etc is just that, a myth. Ofcom came about as a direct evolution of the broadcasting regulatory bodies over the years - coming into being as a direct result of a parliamentary act (The Communications Act 2003).

Did you have any choice in appointing members of the Ofcom Boards? Despite this outfit being a publically funded body, the public do not appear to have the power of shareholders to hire and fire Board members at will. Indeed, Ofcom/Government hand pick who sits on these Boards and only select those who agree with and enforce Ofcom strictures against sexual material.

Quote:But I find it interesting again that specific points in my posts consistently get ignored

Sooky, I've been watching 'adult' TV since HVC morphed into TAC. Over the years I've subscribed to TAC, PB, Spice, TVX, XplicitXXX and, on the odd occasion I even watched the XXX encrypted babe shows on LiveXXX or SportXXX. What I expect from an 'adult' service is no less than I expect from an 'adult' movie - i.e. explicit sex and nudity - and why not?

Sure, the Babe Channels are a different thing, they occupy their own niche - its live and interactive. I do not dispute all the girls have their own personal limits but, the ones who are prepared to go a lot further cannot because of Ofcom's senseless, evidenceless, mythological bullshit about protecting children from the 'dangers' of sexually arousing material. And note, Ofcom's 'rules' only apply to sexually arousing material, not hardcore scenes in 'mainstream' (18-rated) films or 'med-sex-edutainment' programmes like Embarrassing Bodies, The Sex Ed Show or 21st Century Girls Guide To Sex.

There is clear PREJUDICE at work in Ofcom. And it culminates in DISCRIMINATION on the grounds of our sexual tastes and preferences, placing the 'offence' claimed by religiously deluded freaks above the rights of liberal and open-minded people like ourselves. It's WRONG. It's ILLEGAL. I like PORN. I see nothing 'wrong', 'dangerous', 'unhealthy' or 'immoral' about it. It is just sex - sex for the sheer pleasure of sex. To deny any artistry, progress, experiment and exploration involving human sexuality is to deny the very essence of human existence, our intellect and our creativity. We're born to try new things and to experiment. We're born with an inherant 'need' to try and understand the entire workings of the world/universe - and that includes ourselves, our sex drive, our fantasies, our own lives!

No one has a right to say "You can't look at that because I don't like it". Yet this is the very rights abusing foundation at the root of all Britain's censorial control freakery.

I promise you, Ofcom's adjudications would never stand-up to the scrutiny of a court of law. Ofcom's power exists only within the confines of Riverside House and the Comms Act 2003 - step outside that little empire and we'll discover Ofcom are nought but a bunch of deluded rights-abusing monsters. The BBFC tried the old 'protecting children' bullshit while trying to keep hardcore out of R18. The High Court stood for none of it. Evidence of harm, and significant harm at that, MUST exist to allow any public body to ban certain material. It cannot be banned upon beliefs, cautionary approaches, hearsay, myth or supposed 'common sense'. Causing 'offence' is the very PURPOSE of Freedom of Expression for if we were free to cause offence there would be no need to PROTECT Freedom of Expression. Ofcom are required by the Comms Act to respect Freedom of Expression yet, as we can see, they IGNORE the fact that FoE OVERRULES censorship on the grounds of 'offence', 'taste' and 'decency'. Not applying the law properly is what tripped-up the BBFC. Ofcom are no better, indeed, they're far, far worse.

(18-03-2010 18:21 )Addison Wrote:  

(18-03-2010 13:49 )Digital Dave Wrote:  No we're not saying we want to see hours of close up penetration, [n]o we're not saying we want all the babe channels to be hardcore

Really?

(11-02-2010 22:01 )IanG Wrote:  I EXPECT to see totally naked babes talking dirty, flashing gash and playing with themseleves all night long. I EXPECT to see full-on close-up Flash The Gash.

Make of the line "playing with themselves all night long" what you will. Personally, I can't imagine that a person with such an 'expectation' wouldn't be hankering for some form(s) of penetration to be occuring with regularity over the several hours that would go to make up "all night long," whether it be with fingers, tongue or dildo. I also can't imagine that they wouldn't want such penetration not to be the frequent focus of the camera's zoom lens. And "full on close-up Flash The Gash" means hardcore, buddy, whichever way you slice it! Softcore and hardcore are demarcated fairly distinctly when it comes down to it; they don't bleed into each other at the edges. A "full on close up" of "gash" isn't where softcore ends; it's where hardcore starts.

Edit: I accept that I've quoted Ian 'in reply' and not you, Dave, but Ian is one of the principle articulators of what the anti-Ofcom crowd 'expect' in here, and you align yourself to the cause by your use of the word 'we.'

Addison, let me just qualify that second statement - it was the state of play less than 5 years ago. OK, 'all night long' was more like an hour for the encrypted babe shows but, subscription movie channels, esp. XplicitXXX did show far more explicit material than TAC or TVX ever did without "making a mistake" (i.e. showing full uncut R18 on occasion).

I beg to differ on one point. Explicit nudity has never been categorised as hardcore. Sex shops are licensed to sell hardcore material yet, you can buy top shelf magazines with close-up pictures of genitals from WH Smith. Clearly, flashing the gash is NOT hardcore. The term 'hardcore' pertains to explicit sexual activity not levels of nudity. Indeed, all Britain's top shelf magazines are/were softcore and although they could show explicit genital detail, the models were NEVER allowed to place fingers in, on or near their vagina, labia or clitoris - that's what kept these mags strictly softcore and thus available from any newsagent.

There are in fact many softcore films from the likes of Mystique and Indigo that feature genital detail and even some simulated (yet explicit) masturbation (its this type of material Ofcom 'did' PBOne for showing). But its not 'real' masturbation, just as these films do not contain real sex and penetration. As such these films fall into the 18-rated softcore category of 'sex works' and, although designed for the purpose of sexual arousal, are again available from any video supplier without a sex shop license. It's worth noting here that this type of softcore material is what Ofcom believe should be the limit on encrypted 'adult' channels. It's pathetic really. Ofcom really are pathetic.

(18-03-2010 17:50 )vostok 1 Wrote:  

SxciiSooky Wrote:Also, having had a glance over the BACVA blog a few nights ago and subsequently looking at it now - I find it interesting that particular non supportive posts that were made on one of the entries are now 'absent'....now who is guilty of censorship?

Hopefully someone at the BACVA will choose to answer this.

Allow me. It was I who removed the comments, SxciiSooky, just as I say I will on the submission rules page, if comments become off-topic or offensive. I'm not really sure comments such as:

Quote:Why don't you all let go of your cocks and go get a lady

... or words to that affect, are worth taking up the space in which polite comments could go. Opposing views are welcome. Offensive ones are an inconvienience and nothing more. I can't remember what the other one was but it was equally crass.

I'm now even more conviced than I was before that you're merely trolling this debate, SxciiSooky. How is it that you were so aware of those particular comments and the fact that they have now gone?

It would seem that there is a danger that the "anti ofcom" voice is becoming synonymous with forcing the performers on these channels into levels of explicitness that they do not want to work to.

These channels have always had a rich mixture of glamour and adult stars. My personal belief is that Bang Babes on air content in the last few months has achieved a perfect level of explicitness for an unencrypted channel. (Obviously Ofcom do not share that opinion) While there has been certain performers who have veered into the more explicit territory on air, the more glamour orientated models such as Lilly Roma have remained at previous levels, which has given a good balance.

So just to clarify, not everyone who is critical of Ofcom is wishing to bring about a regime where Glamour models will be given a choice of "Go hardcore or get fired".

The Babe Channels are what they are, however lets hope Ofcom don't force all channels to work at the levels that TVX Dirty Talk operate at, when things become that tame then it will quite probably affect revenue, which in turn will harm the performers you are looking out for.

I could just as equally claim that you are merely a 'plant' by Ofcom to keep everyone occupied with a 'campaign' thus not actually bothering them

If your 'campaign' was so sound, none of you should be getting so bothered by me merely stating my points - dismissing it as 'attention seeking' or 'trolling' solely on the grounds that it is a differing opinion to your own. Is this to go the same way of many threads (such as the Paige one) where only posts in agreement are allowed to be posted? Perhaps you should ask admin to make this section private and by invitation only - then you can guarantee posts are only to the liking of those so heavily invovled

The only thing that is perhaps taking this thread off topic is the constant paranoia by a few people who seem hellbent on assuming it was my intention to do so. I merely made a post, nothing more, nothing less. I then felt little to none of the points I made were answered, instead merely dismissed.

It would do your 'cause' a lot more good if a number of you were to follow vostok's example and actually try and answer peoples posts without resorting to dimissive, deflective tactics. If your case was so sound, you shouldn't have any trouble answering anything.

Likewise, you admit to removing posts (posts I only knew existed as my attention was drawn to them by someone in the chatbox). Do you not see the irony that you state there are rules to abide by in order to be allowed to have posts remain on the blog - but Ofcom enforcing rules are deemed a big no no?

Again, if your 'cause' was secure, a few negative posts wouldn't be deemed an issue and transparancy wouldn't be a problem. Letting the comments remain would have better served your 'cause' as, if you are correct in the assumption that the majority support your 'campaign', they would have been far outnumbered. Instead, now, your admission that you remove such posts creates a doubt.

EDIT: I will also add that I am bowing out of this thread/section. Vostok took the time to answer my posts, and I thank him for that.

Sooky, answer me something here.

The way you keep referring to "cause" and "campaign" in inverted commas seems somewhat strange to me. The way you entered this debate with the "against your better judgement you had been directed to this thread" comment suggests that you've been looking down your nose at those who have registered dissatisfaction with Ofcom both on here and on BACVA. So, are you happy with the way that Ofcom treat these channels? Do you feel that it is fair the way that it has currently dealt with Bangbabes?

You have protested about people neglecting to answer points you have raised. Several people have responded to your claims that models and channels may not wish to go down a supposed "hardcore" route by saying that Ofcom have reacted to things that models have already done and that have been broadcast by channels. You have ignored those points.

So, tell me, do you as a viewer of these shows feel that Ofcom's current treatment of these channels for material that has already been broadcast is both fair and reasonable?

For my own part, I see no reason why a Babestar level of material should not be allowed on shows designed for adults after the watershed. Maybe you disagree with that?

As for the BACVA site, personally I feel that all comments should be left up on there but it's entirely up to StantheMan how he wants to admin the site.

(18-03-2010 20:18 )MARCCE Wrote:  Sooky, answer me something here.

The way you keep referring to "cause" and "campaign" in inverted commas seems somewhat strange to me. The way you entered this debate with the "against your better judgement you had been directed to this thread" comment suggests that you've been looking down your nose at those who have registered dissatisfaction with Ofcom both on here and on BACVA. So, are you happy with the way that Ofcom treat these channels? Do you feel that it is fair the way that it has currently dealt with Bangbabes?

Quick answer - yes, I do agree with the treatment they have received. They knew the rules, the babes in question knew the rules, they ignored the rules, they get punished. It's how any system works.

As for looking down my nose.....no, simply knew the most likely outcome of me posting.

Now I revert you back to my previous post.

SxciiSooky Wrote:EDIT: I will also add that I am bowing out of this thread/section. Vostok took the time to answer my posts, and I thank him for that.

Quote:For my own part, I see no reason why a Babestar level of material should not be allowed on shows designed for adults after the watershed.

Well that's what I'd like to see, with maybe even the use of Dildos. It's understandable that a non PPV show won't show anything more then dildo penetration.

But of course, it's up to the girls how far they wish to go but they should be allowed to have the opportunity to show and do more if they wish.