What are you hopes or aspirations for the channels in 2020?

I would like anybody in the Chat Rooms who whine about wanting to see a babe's toes or other drivel to be punched in the face by God.

And anyone who phones a known maestress of DTW to chat about the weather to be immediately exiled from the planet

(06-12-2019 17:00 )Cookie123 Wrote:  I would like to hear some honest answers to my questions.

I'll give it a go, but in no way is my opinion more valid that anyone else on here. I'd love to see other forum members answer your questions too. Ideally I'd like to see producers from the channels and some presenters answer your questions.

(06-12-2019 17:00 )Cookie123 Wrote:  You're saying they should go back to basics. But isn't this still the case on a normal dayshow (no webshow!)? I mean, I don't think the girls were moving a lot more on dayshows 10+ years ago. And even if they were, today they are limited because of ofcom.

Charlie C on BS and Fernanda on S66's sensually provocative physicality should be the basic level of performance that I would love to see all other presenters look to emulate in their own way on their on FTA daytime shows. Also presenters tend to be a lot more static now because they need to keep their pervecams between their legs too.

(06-12-2019 17:00 )Cookie123 Wrote:  From what I hear is that the babes are struggling to get calls (both day/tease/nights), there aren't as many callers as there used to be. What should the babes do differently to get more calls on daytime. They aren't allowed to move a lot or wear too risky outfits because of ofcom. And even once they are on web I often notice that the babes don't get calls. So even when having less limitations there aren't as many callers. So the presenters are willing to put on a great show, even on daytime, but theres no1 willing to call.

The main reason why they're struggling to get calls is because the cost is too high. If you call a presenter 3 times a week for 20 minutes, then it'll cost you over £100, and that's if you don't get stuck in a queue. The cost of calling needs to be lower. Free internet porn didn't exist when the channels first started too, so that has had an effect on the amount of calls presenters get. The channels need to use the interactive nature of their shows more, as a USP to us. Watching a woman do something sexual is fun, telling her to do it is even better.

(06-12-2019 17:00 )Cookie123 Wrote:  In case you're talking about night shows (I can't say much on that because of the low amount of calls I did): the presenters still put on a good show and try to please the caller. Tbh I found myself on cam a few times when the presenter was paying the caller more attention (which is fair, since I can log out every time, whereas the callers can't without ending in a queue when trying again). And there was even a thread here in the forum in which people complained about being ignored when the presenter is on a call, so I guess the presenters still give higher priority to the caller.

Presenters trying to cater to callers and cammers at the same time isn't beneficial to us or the presenters. The channels need to separate the 2 services and give them their own specific time slots. Paying £5 per minute to cam when you're going be ignored due to a girl being on a call at the same is ridiculous. I want all of her attention for that price. Presenters needing to cater to cammers restricts their movement so much when a caller might want them to move around too

(06-12-2019 17:00 )Cookie123 Wrote:  And from my call experience I also never had any negative experiences. I only called 2/3 times on a night show (on the same girl) and there was a lot of moving and teasing etc., same applies to my calls on the webshow. So when you are speaking of "selling us the ultimate in unobtainable fantasies", what do you expect the girls to do "more of".

This is more so about the channels improving the quality of their visuals. There is almost barely any difference in what some girls are doing in their bedrooms on MFC and CB, than what the channels are doing in their studios. RLC had baths, barns, garages, boudoirs, airplane cabins, hospitals, dungeons, grand pianos etc as their sets. All BS, XP & S66 have got are either beds or chairs. I want to join the mile high club with Fernanda and Rebecca, that is my definition of the ultimate unobtainable fantasy. All the channels need to try to create and sell that to us.

(06-12-2019 17:00 )Cookie123 Wrote:  I barely watch the night shows so I really can't say much about this point, but what has changed compared to 10+ years ago. Why are the channels worse compared to 10+ years ago. Performance wise its still good, isn't it?

I think the channels just lack creative leadership, since OFCOM placed restrictions on them. They just thought sod it, and tried to monetise every single element of their output, which is fine. But at least make it value for money. Also the only type of women that should work on the channels, even if they only do days, are ones that openly love being absolute filth.

(06-12-2019 17:00 )Cookie123 Wrote:  10+ years ago there was no vuecall, right? I doubt you were able to get such a cheap call like nowadays, am I wrong? If you had to pay more money 10+ years ago, why do people complain about the prices right now? What do you consider as reasonable price?

XP charge under £1 per minute for a call, I believe that is reasonable in comparison to S66 charging £50 for a 20 second vibratoy buzz. Also in the past 10+ years the average wage has stagnated too, whilst the cost of living has risen. So everyone doesn't have as much of a disposable income to spend on presenters like we used to.

(06-12-2019 17:00 )Cookie123 Wrote:  Because of how technology consistently advances I assume that the audio quality and camera work weren't better 10+ years ago, or am I wrong?

It has improved, but I don't think the channels are using it to it's full potential. The main cameras barely move, the lights are too bright, the background noise is too loud, the webstreams buffer too much etc. Even S66's member videos are worse now than they were 10+ years ago.

(06-12-2019 17:00 )Cookie123 Wrote:  When the girls stream from home the quality is as good as the "normal TV" shows 1/2 yeas ago. They just recently upped the quality of the shows (S66). And I doubt the quality of the "normal TV" shows 10+ years ago were better then the "home shows" right now.

My issue is that S66 are trying to use their cam from home shows as their main output, as opposed to an addition to their TV shows just like how BS use BSCams.

(06-12-2019 17:00 )Cookie123 Wrote:  Aren't those just additional service which you CAN use (can, not MUST). I mean you still have the same call service like 10+ years ago, the only difference is that you have more options to chose from now. I don't watch BS, so I can't say much about that, but isn't tip goals and the MrP show only a webshow thing? So you still have the normal TV show like you had 10+ years ago.

The additional gimmicks hinder the natural flow of TV shows. Presenters are now tending to do nothing until they hit their tip goal, and if they do hit it then they get it over and done with quickly, then create another tip goal. Also we should get our money back if they don't hit their goal.

(06-12-2019 17:00 )Cookie123 Wrote:  You're complaining about pervcam. But what about those who prefer pervcam? I would be gutted if they removed that option.

Pervcam isn't totally bad, it's just used poorly and overpriced. Incorporating it's use into the price of call and giving us access to view it at the same time could be a step in the right direction.

I hope fuckoffcom grab a hold of themselves and cop the fuck on. Leave the channels to get on with their business so the bosses running them aren't scared to let the girls go nude or lose their panties for fear of seemingly vindictive reprisals, as is currently the case.

I mean seriously it's like fuckoffcom have been personally slighted by the babeshows and they are holding a serious fucking grudge. Please fuck off.

That's my message of hope for the future

(07-12-2019 01:54 )Stemmw Wrote:  I hope fuckoffcom grab a hold of themselves and cop the fuck on. Leave the channels to get on with their business so the bosses running them aren't scared to let the girls go nude or lose their panties for fear of seemingly vindictive reprisals, as is currently the case.

I mean seriously it's like fuckoffcom have been personally slighted by the babeshows and they are holding a serious fucking grudge. Please fuck off.

That's my message of hope for the future

Don't hold back on your views in future Stemmw

Hopes for 2020

That all night callers to the babe channels who waffle at length about themselves/their DIY/where they went on holiday.... get put into a rocket and fired into orbit to be left there indefinitely.

(07-12-2019 11:52 )hornball Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 01:54 )Stemmw Wrote:  I hope fuckoffcom grab a hold of themselves and cop the fuck on. Leave the channels to get on with their business so the bosses running them aren't scared to let the girls go nude or lose their panties for fear of seemingly vindictive reprisals, as is currently the case.

I mean seriously it's like fuckoffcom have been personally slighted by the babeshows and they are holding a serious fucking grudge. Please fuck off.

That's my message of hope for the future

Don't hold back on your views in future Stemmw

I thought I was holding back

(07-12-2019 15:41 )Didokan Wrote:  and what's wrong with the girls these days , either it's the view of their forehead or feet, and this goes for the whole session , I wonder if I call what to ask for

This is what I mean about the channels needing to return to the basics.

We used to be able to watch a presenter on TV and then call her for £2 per minute.

Now we have to pay £3 per minute for group pervecam, and £2 per minute to call her for the exact same experience.

Tits. Shagging. Cunt.

In that order.

There's some excellent provocative stuff in this thread - from Cookie and Ryuken in particular. I certainly don't have all the answers either but I've always considered that looking at the shows' history in context can be enlightening. So... here's my take on Cookie's questions.

(06-12-2019 17:00 )Cookie123 Wrote:  ...back to basics...

Punters have been asking for a return to "basics" (girl, phone, as much filth as she can get away with) since Ofcom stuck their size 9's in. Unfortunately, sorry to say, basics was kiboshed not only by the regulator, BUT by the realisation that the form doesn't work to the industry's best interests. We as punters have to accept that. We can only hope the channels instigate business models that can emulate the feeling and style those old shows that made fans of so many of us; because there never has been any going back to 2010 style - with or without Ofcom's survival.

The channels eventually responded to the two fold situation described above by bringing in other methods of monetisation; more problematically however they insidiously went about an erosion of what had been on offer to the caller previously in order to enhance the appeal of those new pay elements. For instance, if you're asking a guy to pay to get his jollies off on perv you don't want him edging to glory by seeing his babe continually showing off to the max on fta instead - so the consistency of hot fta visuals was limited still further. Eventually cut backs to things like cameramen and sets added to the funk... 

This erosion of what the caller could expect for his £2/min applied particularly to Nights but to a lesser extent to Days also. Things like set variety, camera movement (standing babes are seen much less than they once were), babe intransigence and, as Ryuken said, the use of pervcam inhibiting her ability to move, were/are not down to the regulator. That's insiders trying to fix a broken business model but replacing one problem with another.

Good babes now have to fight against bts factors in order to put on your "great show" instead of being aided by them. Not many bother. Callers willingness to phone has been gradually eaten away by that.

(06-12-2019 17:00 )Cookie123 Wrote:  What should the babes do differently to get more calls...

Anyone who could answer this should really be working for the shows! However... the most commonly stated factors in the downturn are that callers gradually got dissatisfied with the lesser VFM inherent in the changes above, that they wised up and began to resent the babes' real attitude towards punters, and that they grew weary of the industry's infantile gimmicks and self-stigmatisation of their own products. These are the things the operators should have been looking to about face for years. Instead they appear to think new tech, gimmicks and formats alone will magic them from the longterm malaise.

One major problem is that the fulcrum of the priorities issue you highlight has hit on the Web Onlys. Again, like Ryuken had it, the obvious rehabilitation move on this would be to refocus the shows into segments designed to appeal to one type clientele or another at any one time. With clear and consistent signposting (another thing the channels are atrocious at) that would restore the scope to give attention to caller, perver, cammer, tipper in turn. All groups crave the babe's eye/ear but none are really getting it atm because each presenter has too many plates to keep spinning at once. The trouble is that the babes/industry are short-termist; they want it all ways at once and to see immediate maximum returns. I'm not sure they realise the current occam's razor approach is one of the very things that's driving guys away.

A profound change in attitude; and a revision in approach towards the wider audience, looking beyond those logged in at any one time, with attentiveness (one that sees the babe forgo personal use of her mobile for instance) might be a good start on a fix.

The idea that so many babes seem to carry - that a 'show' should only be in tiny segments for each caller, that there is absolutely no value in sustaining a performance across the lulls and building towards any sort of momentum or consistency - is so wrong-headed IMO. They seem hold no concern for bolstering an audience and looking to draw guys both into interaction and back to their own future sessions by doing these things (many not even bothering to maintain basic eye contact with the lens) that you have to wonder what gives.

(06-12-2019 17:00 )Cookie123 Wrote:  ...even once they are on web I often notice that the babes don't get calls.

It seems clear the size of the shows potential audience has been and continues to be diminished. There are surely vastly less punters prepared to log-in online every time with credits primed for babes to pick and chose over than there are those who would once have gladly sat in front of their Sky, missus and other distractions out the way, and (sometimes) phone in unoccupied hand! The latter is lazily opportunist for the punter and encourages his casual use of the shows; the former necessistates subtley more habitual behaviour and its expliotation betrays a focus on confirmed addicts!

Keeping to their current path, I think it likely the channels will continue to lose out on gaining new punters and in revenue from more casual consumers. There is more competition online than on TV and the way the punter consumes on the web is quite different. The operators and babes will need to counter these issues if they want to succeed there IMO.

(06-12-2019 17:00 )Cookie123 Wrote:  So even when having less limitations there aren't as many callers.

Babes that reveal greater content are not necessarily the ones that get the most calls (as opposed to viewers) apparently; it's not what you do as a babe necessarily but more how you do it. Other factors than base content can certainly be more relevant to inciting actual interaction.

(06-12-2019 17:00 )Cookie123 Wrote:  ...what do you expect the girls to do "more of"...

For me the shows have always been about the visuals (it's what converted me from plain old viewer to cammer). They are at their best when presenting a babe who can hold her audience in the palm of her hand by just the sheer force of visual expressiveness of her sexuality and sensuality. It's about her movement, her body language and facial expressions. It's about her selling her supposed availability in an exquisite fest of tease and subsequent reveal (if possible). A consistent attentiveness to this task (when she's with or without caller) is killer IMO. 

Performance wise the best of the current nightshows would've been quite standard fare 10 years ago. Not everything was brilliant back then by any means but the entire range of average and outliers has moved downhill in the years since. (In addition it was always a mistake to consider pervcam's visuals in isolation in my eyes. It should never be considered as something to be consumed on its own. It was always best viewed as part of an overall hot package with tease on the main cam. The Web Onlys have only emphasised this for me and I would look for better use of the ultimate two camera combo in the future.) Standard fare on nights these days is far too static (from babe and camera), and too denial based (for pervcam's benefit). Often shows are just dull and unappealing with clearly disinterested babes looking at the clock waiting to go home... BS seem to have struck a cord by introducing shows that ditch the call-based model. Maybe that is the (part?) answer.

(06-12-2019 17:00 )Cookie123 Wrote:  If you had to pay more money 10+ years ago, why do people complain about the prices right now?

Guys complained about prices 10 years ago - have no doubt on that. But the levels of babe attentiveness and overall service the average punter is getting for his money is undoubtedly down on what it was back then. The babe has that eye to too many other things for one (like saving herself for her OF site work for instance). So it's about VFM not the base cost.

(06-12-2019 17:00 )Cookie123 Wrote:  I assume that the audio quality and camera work weren't better 10+ years ago, or am I wrong?

Tech has advanced for sure. The money the channels are prepared to spend on that tech is clearly not enough atm though. Web stream pic quality could/should be at least the equal of broadast TV. It is not. Often it is a good way short. Poor reliability of tech has been massively offputting to guys this year. That it has come at this crucial switching time is diabolically botched.

Less money is spent on cameramen than in the past. So more sessions have less camera work. That can only result in a lesser service, no matter who is in bts. (Note the idea seems to be the Web Onlys barely deserve a cameraman.)

(06-12-2019 17:00 )Cookie123 Wrote:  When the girls stream from home the quality is as good as the "normal TV" shows 1/2 yeas ago.

I beg to differ. It is quite a lot to ask for a babe's home set up to be as good as one provided in a studio. It can be done. But not enough are there yet. Not by a long chalk.

(06-12-2019 17:00 )Cookie123 Wrote:  ...you still have the same call service like 10+ years ago, the only difference is that you have more options to chose from now.

Extra options are good; how they are deployed is key though. What punters don't like is when the new options take away from what the were enjoying before. Unfortunately the basic service is not "the same" as it was for the reasons I've outlined earlier. More options, instead, most often equal a lesser standard of overall service for guys... which equals lesser VFM.

People that request the removal of options are evidently speaking selfishly. However, if they pay their money into the services they are thoroughly entitled to speak from that selfish perspective surely.

(08-12-2019 13:52 )ShandyHand Wrote:  Extra options are good; how they are deployed is key though. What punters don't like is when the new options take away from what the were enjoying before. Unfortunately the basic service is not "the same" as it was for the reasons I've outlined earlier. More options, instead, most often equal a lesser standard of overall service for guys... which equals lesser VFM.

This is that old Fry and Laurie sketch from the late 80s where Fry plays a waiter who finds out he's serving someone in the Tory Government, and then apologises for the state of the silver cutlery and takes it away.
He then comes back with a box full of plastic forks and pours it all over the table ranting about how much choice the guy now has.
Much more choice but all of much poorer quality.