Babeshows - General Chat & Discussion

^ Post of the year right there . A series of excellent points made.
Hard to challenge a single word of that.

I'm of course really sad, but this reminds me of an article I read and a post I made about 2 years ago.

(28-01-2015 21:06 )M-L-L Wrote:   Just going to throw this in here, thought it was quite interesting.
It's a rather long quote, but it was difficult to cut and keep the sense of it.

QUOTE :
" It’s always amusing to look at some of the more imaginative conspiracy theories on why girls get high amounts of airtime when they “don’t seem to get any more calls than anyone else”. The standard theory is that the producers don’t understand business, and it kind of gets wackier and more ridiculous from there. But the fact is that the conspiracists have no idea who’s dialling the numbers or how many calls the girls are putting into the system. The babes can only take one call at a time, and the amount of promotion they do between calls will depend to an extent on customer tolerance.

On channels with very big audiences, if a girl has more clout (i.e. she’s a more desirable proposition for callers), she can probably get away with more promotion. That can make it look like she’s getting fewer calls. But if she can load a higher than average volume of calls into the system during those promotions, and hold each build-up for longer, maintain better eavesdrop averages, etc, then regardless of how many people she actually talks to, she’s making the channel a lot more money over the course of time.

So in a sentence, on channels with very big audiences, the girls whose lines appear to be the quietest will often be bringing in the most revenue.

But a lot of the conspiracists don’t use the paid services and don’t consider babeshows primarily as an interactive communication or listening experience. They view them as a free, visual, soft porn service – the success of which would be assessed on very different criteria from the televised sex lines the babeshows really are."

Whole article is here...

http://babetv.tumblr.com/post/1075269720...tion-years

...and may be of interest to fellow Lolly fans.

(NB - the above link is included to credit the original poster and avoid passing off this as my work ; but if it's not OK to link to this site, then fair enough if it gets removed )

The article is talking about Lolly Badcock's style specifically, but whether or not you agree with the assessment of her as a presenter in particular, I think the general argument applies to qualities needed in all babeshow presenters ?

I didn't quote the following passages at the time but I think they're relevant to the theme Shandyhand is developing (and put the point over more eloquently than I can! ) :

The babe channels may be based around the seemingly straightforward premise of phone sex, but ask any diehard, long-time caller and you’ll quickly discover that girls who trot out a few disengaged, cut-and-paste clichés won’t keep their custom for long. The guys want inventive, imaginative girls who sound like they mean it, who know how to interact, who understand eroticism from the typical male standpoint, and who are always 100% guaranteed to fire on all cylinders.

The problem for the channels is that this combination of qualities is difficult enough to find in itself. Try and find the qualities in a girl with true knockout glamour, and it gets harder still. Move further into real X-factor territory – girls who also have passion, sensitivity, charm and seductive flirting ability, and they’re lucky if they find a handful in an entire babeshow generation.

The flirting ability Lolly had pushed to the fore on Partyland, steadily worked its way into her repertoire at Babestation. It was a thoroughly feminine brand of flirting which clearly went hand in hand with her imaginative, high-impact sex chat to leave customers wanting more. As the guys would repeatedly indicate, one call was never enough.

Lolly’s presenting on the babeshows was far more ‘flirty seductress’ than 'compere’. Her power as a presenter thus reached its peak in the most natural, interactive situations. Lolly did recorded voice over work for Babestation, starting in August 2010 with a series of ads for BS Xtreme, and a much more recent range of voice overs she recorded for Babestation’s live phone shows is still running here in January 2015. But where Lolly really talked the talk, was in the heat of the moment. She could combine flirt, charm and persuasion in a lethal cocktail. Lolly was so good as an ‘in-performance’ presenter because it often didn’t really sound or look like she was presenting at all. It sounded and looked like seduction.

The author goes on to speculate that Babestation's policy of increasing the on-air audio volume to ridiculous levels, to counteract people muting, thereby just causing more people to turn their volume down/mute worked against verbal seduction techniques on air to entice callers.

Possibly, but to me it's noticeable that most of the on-air announcements by all BS babes for several years now have been getting more and more formulaic, especially with the relentless gimmicky "challenge" and gameshow rounds.

I'd suggest this doesn't encourage the babes' verbal technique, as it just makes them appear relentlessly scripted and discourages any sense of spontaneity.

(03-07-2017 17:23 )snookered147 Wrote:  ^ Post of the year right there . A series of excellent points made.
Hard to challenge a single word of that.

Agreed

The combined quality of visual stimulation and quality of telephonic experience from my point of view has a higher premium on it than ever before because of the cost of calls.
The call cost is way too high for me to consider taking a punt on a call to a nightshow babe on anywhere near as regular a basis as in times gone by.
Part of the problem is that I don't think the set variety and quality on any channel lends itself to the sort of shows I really want to see. Another problem is I don't have faith in the channels to show the imagination or ambition to allow the babes to put on a real show at least in part because of the ruthless emphasis on money grabbing through every gimmick under the sun.
And then there is the issue of the attitudes of some of the babes themselves which has gone too far down the anti freeloader and diva road.
Hearing stories of and having some experience of babes taking little notice of their callers doesn't help either as they chat away to producers or camera operators.
It all smacks of babes and channels not caring as much as they perhaps did before. They are only interested in screwing money out of folk.
We are all mere cash cows.

The channel priority shift has backfired in terms of my custom for sure.
I have kept an eye on my nightshow call rate since 2012. In 2013 there was very little change. In 2014 it had dropped 15% from 2012. In 2015 it had dropped 45% from 2012. In 2016 it had dropped by 74% from 2012. In 2017 so far it is has dropped by 90% from 2012.
I hardly call much at all now.
Make of that what you will.

^ Thanks for the unwarrented praise guys.

The specifics given by M-L-L and Snookered point to the shift that has happened at the channels in recent years. Things have taken some of the focus away from what I was describing. In some ways in this the babes are just adapting to circumstance. It is perhaps inevitable though that, to the longterm observer, many a night babe can now look as if they are struggling to be a jack of all trades; while falling to a mastery of none. The beguiling nature and artistry of the top babes of old is oft in danger of being swamped by (being charitable) a more workman like ethic from nearly everyone concerned. The charm of the ideal call experience as described is in danger of being eradicated by tricks and gimmicks; the seduction by the brute force of outright porn.

The channels of course have a different measure for success and obviously consider that much has been gained in this still ongoing process. For them, the babes still standing (and presumably for many guys) things are looking up... You just wonder if they are at all concerned about how much serious old customers like Snookered think has been lost while keeping their wallets closed for much of the time as a result.

Are the new and the old irrevocably incompatible? Or is it just a matter of personnel? Maybe 'the attitude' was just more stylishly hidden in the past, and babe and average forumite were always this far apart? I'd like to believe that wasn't the case.

That's a great point about the importance of phone skills.

Just being pretty isn't enough, they have to nurture their talents as a glamour model into TV presenter.

Its one thing travelling to Barbados and taking pictures in a bikini, and then making the transition to talking to someone about their sexual fantasies with you.

Any host can do want ever they want with their bodies at any point in their careers, whether that's never going topless all the way to being an escort.

I just wish they were more clear as to when, where & how far they willing to go to provide erotic entertainment to us that we would pay for.

Their objective should always be to make as much money as possible by selling their sex appeal in a way that they are comfortable with.

If they want to be a daytime host and UTR at the same time that's fine, or a night time host that does B/G on Skype that's fine too.

So I'll consume the ones that I can in a way that I'm willing to pay for and praise them for the experience.

UTR?

(05-07-2017 13:58 )babelover48 Wrote:  UTR?

Use The Rest-room
Upset The Remoaners
Use Two Range-rovers

up their rectum's!