BabestationX & Live Shows - Chat & Discussion

(24-02-2016 21:12 )M-L-L Wrote:  ^ the bit I saw it really did look like they had thrown a mattress down in the corner of the office and plonked the three ladies on it - there was all sorts of crap visible in the background and edges of the shots. Made the old "black warehouse" set look feature-film standard by comparison.

It looked like they had thrown a mattress down in the corner because that is exactly what they had done.

(24-02-2016 11:55 )Mr Injecy Wrote:  Well I guess that makes sense, as they wouldn't expect the same 3 girls to be on set continuously from 11:30 to 2:00. If it's going to the same girls throughout they really have to ditch the continuous plan.

So how long do some girls do on Unleashed....a lot longer.

After return to form for Preeti and solid show from Lynda....the continuous live show seems to have hit a snag....



aha...knew that starting to post this would prompt action...here's Leigh finally...

What a great night that was, Leigh and Lynda were great as always but the highlight has to be Preeti getting her pussy out she as like a different girl got it out straight to camera no hiding it wow so hot,
That 3 good shows in a row now, they did the almost no stop format last night and if worked well,
No idea why they where not doing shows like this back at the start of the month when it was cheeper as I worry some will have got those shows and thought this is shit and decided not to buy again,
BSX should do a night for £1 and go great stuff like the last 3 shows to get people back, as if people know what they will get for their money they will buy more often

I would agree a more consistent night than recent previous offerings.

I do miss the web-only shows and more regular girl/girl shows though (when they booked the right performers, these were usually good, within the censorship standards required for TV; and if there was a web-only more explicit g/g web show that was also bonus).

I assume last night's show wasn't £3 then.

(27-02-2016 19:59 )Tractor boy Wrote:  I assume last night's show wasn't £3 then.

no back to £8, seams to be the price we have to pay if we want pussy,
even though Maddie still showed nothing lastnight

Ho hum.

Just to be contrary, I actually enjoyed Maddie's stint more than the others despite the modesty - all the oil and pressing her boobs and naked arse up against the glass wall etc was good; it's the sort of show they should be able to do on regular channels but don't.
It would have been a different story if they just had her laying about on that garage door set, at least it gave her something different to do.

Preeti seemed a bit unethusiastic this time around compared to last night (I could be wrong but from her expression sometimes on the phone I think for whatever reason some of the callers might have been winding her up somehow ?) and I think I was just a bit jaded with Lynda to appreciate her show properly.

Maybe bs found they weren't get many more viewers when they charged £3 from when they charged £8. Basic maths says they would need over two and a half times as many viewers just to break even.

^ Or a lot more people to phone in - I would guess their intention was that if you lowered the viewing price and put more girls on one after the other like the regular channels, they would get enough calls to make up the difference.

But it doesn't work if the callers aren't seeing anything they don't see on regular channels? - or, dare I suggest, are only seeing the same two or three ladies who are prepared to show more weekend after weekend ? Yes there will be a section of casual impulse customers who just watch one weekend and not every week who won't care about that and don't realise it's always the same lady on at the weekend, but are there enough of those customers?
In some ways you could see BS thinking - probably that makes no odds, they don't presumably worry that much if it's the same 4 or 5 performers on the regular channels every weekend ( ;)ie. those that aren't bothered about giving up their weekends ?) , no matter how much the forums howl.

I'd have thought for the BSXtra continuous phone-in live show concept to really work it needs a good mix of performers of different looks/types each shift who are all prepared to "show the goods". And as has been said before, I just don't think they have enough of those on their roster.
Beth, Amelia and Preeti (sometimes?) apart, the regular "open-leggers" have always tended to be the same couple of ....hesitates carefully over choice of words......more mature performers ? Nothing against them personally, but I'd guess they won't be to everybody's taste.
Others who have left the regular BS channels, like Brookie Little etc, don't seem keen to come back to this BSX channel, despite still doing cams and Unleashed for BS.
I'm sure I'm not the only one on Friday who might have paid for BSX to see Brookie Little do three live shows, old style; but was sitting thinking - why do I need to bother when she's there on Unleashed for free ?

It's a no-win scenario for the producers I think to be honest - if they put on "regular BS" girls, they get criticised when these performers are reluctant to show all and why should people pay for this; if they stick with performers they have that do, they get criticised it's the same old faces; if they try to put on "porn stars" / Unleashed performers etc, people say they don't want a censored-for-TV porn channel, they want "regular BS" girls showing a bit more than they are allowed to on normal TV. Back to square one.

I'd say they seem to be hamstrung on three fronts by -

regulators dictating a level of show even for pay-per-view that's below what majority of jaded internet-porn-viewing audience feels is the acceptable minimum level of explicitness

a majority of performers on their books that don't want to open their legs on screen more publicly beyond the confines of (in relative terms) more private webcam scenarios or their own private websites.

audience expectation and the fundamental basic resistance to having to pay any kind of money "to have a wank" in an internet age.
(Paying for phone calls I'd suggest is a bit different, there's an element of interaction that is the USP there ; but it is highly dependent on the visuals matching the expectations; again if this fails, the calls won't come in).

And there's two different audiences you're trying to cater for simultaneously with this channel - people who want to watch "harder" content on their TV but don't necessarily phone in; and people who want to phone in but want a more explicit visual service than they can get on the regular TV channels.