We really have digressed a bit on this thread huh, sorry.
But in for a penny in for a pound
Yeah Eccles and Sweetsugar, I still disagree (but enjoying thinking about it - its good to thrash it out properly). The way I see it, roughly selecting a few fake stats to illustrate. I think millions come across the babechannels by accident through casual surfing having gotten sky/freeview. Of those millions, tens or hundreds of thousands start watching casually, then of those watchers maybe thousands are callers after months or even years have past (in my case).
I honestly think if you put in an opt in, even a one off opt in, then you might cut the initial stat by half or even more. Wouldnt that cut the final income by as much? But any further filter barrier would cut it by some proportion and even if it was only 10% it would be a problem. Its one thing to think about ticking a box for us now having watched the channels for ages and knowing what we are talking about, but others, including parents etc, who get the system for the first time might not think to tick it. A small subscription charge would be even more offputting and cut the revenue by much more than 50% I think. Not because of the expense, but because of the hassle/caution and for purchasing something slightly unknown.
Further, I would say the frame of mind in the cold light of day is different than when casually surfing late at night. I really think if it had been an opt in system, no matter how painless, then I would never have done so especially not knowing what the babechannels were like until watching lazily at night doing nothing. Softer teaser trailers might work a bit, but they dont so far for me for the encrypted channels there already, so I dont think they would work for babechannels.
I remember there was an advertising campaign last year for a number of encrypted channels for a penny. Sophie Reid was part of the campaign and I was a little tempted, but still didnt bother.