Babestation - General Chat & Discussion

No doubt UKIP will be up in arms about the enforced metrication of British babes.

BS is playing with fire if they are deliberately making shows stronger - not even same strength - on Freeview. Ofcom has clearly expressed their view, backed by "research" that satellite and cable viewers are a self selecting group with more sophisticated tastes, than Freeview viewers who basically get some adult channels thrown in with basic minimum television. To put the hard(er) stuff on the boxes that every granny and vicar in the country is risky.

Besides, why broadcast softer stuff on Sky at all? Revenue from callers is identical regardless of where they call from, and I just dont buy it that they have been warned off Sky. The only thing that might begin to make sense is that there are fewer channels on Freeview, reducing the temptation to flick over. But if the content were hard enough to start with...

(28-05-2015 01:23 )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.

(27-05-2015 22:25 )SecretAgent Wrote:  

(27-05-2015 22:22 )davetherave57 Wrote:  Why don't they just go out on freeview only, then they won't get complaints about different shows being shown on sky and freeview?

Hope you've got a bomb shelter to hide in mate! Jimmy and friends will be after you

It seems to me to be the logical solution though.... flak jacket at the ready

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.

I've just had a quick scan through the adult freeview channels and the only babechannels on there are Babestation ones and the Xpanded channel. So its not as if they have any real competition and therefore no need to make the content stronger or weaker than the Sky channels.

The only idea I can think of, crazy as it may seem, is that the Babestation bosses, want people to spend the money they don't spend on Sky, ringing their channels instead.

Perhaps it's a ploy to make us waste time endlessly talking about it, thereby giving us less time to complain about their output in general?

Or, it's just Cellcast's sadistic streak, and they simply want to mess with our heads!

(28-05-2015 11:08 )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.

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.