Studio66 & OnlyFans

(22-10-2018 12:51 )schvall Wrote:  I'm not sure why a rebrand would be necessary?

This talk of closing down and rebranding seems a bit drastic. After all they lost many of their girls to Bluebird back in 2010, but managed to carry on without much difficulty. I would have thought they could withstand a mass exodus and keep on broadcasting if they wanted to.

(22-10-2018 12:36 )elgar1uk Wrote:  

(22-10-2018 12:09 )msgny72 Wrote:  The girls need to check their employment contracts.

The girls don't have any employment contracts because they aren't employees.

Good luck with that argument mate. Think you'll find Uber have already tried and failed there.

(22-10-2018 13:15 )bigglesworth Wrote:  

(22-10-2018 12:51 )schvall Wrote:  I'm not sure why a rebrand would be necessary?

This talk of closing down and rebranding seems a bit drastic.

Doesn't it just. But I bet alot of the production staff will be sweating now too...

(22-10-2018 00:51 )7 stars of the orient Wrote:  The only thing the channels have done wrong is that they should have acted sooner.

They certainly should have acted sooner. Unfortunately they just didn't see the OnlyFans threat coming.

As for the S66 response, I can only say that Babestation look to have the better strategy at this point.

(22-10-2018 13:18 )msgny72 Wrote:  Good luck with that argument mate. Think you'll find Uber have already tried and failed there.

The main reason Uber failed is that Uber drivers are not allowed to communicate with passengers outside of the Uber platform. They therefore cannot expand their earnings by looking for work of their own.

If Studio 66 girls are going to make an argument for employment based on the Uber case, they would have to argue that they can't get work outside of Studio 66, which of course we know isn't the case.

The channels are right to be taking action as OF is undoubtedly a threat to their income streams. I do agree that BS are handling it better. The thing I don't like about the Studio 66 response is that it smacks of entitlement, throwing the huff because they're business model is being threatened.

The very nature of running a business involves accepting that threats and challenges to your business model will come along. It's part and parcel. One thing is for sure, the OF threat is here to stay and growing exponentially and what is needed is a well calculated strategy to adapt to it, not 'toys out of the pram' histrionics.

the way to make sure onlyfans doesnt become a issue is to pay your girls well and make sure they can earn without it. The fact S66 cut there webcam rates says its nothing to do with OF they need to save money becauseof bad management

Let's look at this from another angle - if the babes took S66 to court en masse - would they win a case if they based their argument by saying S66 were acting unreasonably in asking for that 30% cut as their Onlyfans earnings is as they probably state as part of their personal income earned in their own time OUTSIDE the studio walls?

(22-10-2018 19:04 )babelover48 Wrote:  Let's look at this from another angle - if the babes took S66 to court en masse - would they win a case if they based their argument by saying S66 were acting unreasonably in asking for that 30% cut as their Onlyfans earnings is as they probably state as part of their personal income earned in their own time OUTSIDE the studio walls?

Yes because regardless of what the assorted "characters" before say they ARE employees and you can't be asked to pay to work for someone. The Inland Revenue will get very interested very quickly.

And if any of the girls are reading this start billing S66 for your lingerie, make up and hair styling. See what reaction you get then.

By not demanding anything from previous sources of external income they have set a precedent so can't demand any from this. It's no different to websites, magazine work, video, promotions work etc etc.

One 'thorn' in that argument is the probable existence of a 'restraint of trade' clause in their contract between studio and model.

s66's potential case is that instead of the girl engaging the caller in the studio she is encouraging him to call outside the studio and thus deprive the studio of the income.