(05-02-2020 20:28 )ShandyHand Wrote: Do you work for OF seduced?! 
(Soz but when a poster's very first contribution is basically a promo piece...)
(03-02-2020 04:37 )seducedx6 Wrote: ... it is rather the case, in many instances, that these channels and websites are "parasitic" to the presenters ...
Yes the situation has turned around from OF's early days. Hence why I acknowledged the shift that has taken place as it has gotten more established and why I choose to term the current relationship as affecting to be more "symbotic". We are broadly on the same page here but I maintain many a cam model with the biggest following would still benefit from the 'cache' of being a babeshow babe and all that entails. (Although I admit that star is fading fast the way they keep eroding their own lustre.)
(03-02-2020 04:37 )seducedx6 Wrote: ... The greater problem for these channels, seems to be, how to reconcile, the more flexible employment practices, which are increasingly the wider norm, with being on tv ...
No traditionalist trying to hold back any tide, me. I love the shows' increasing ability to be off TV. The move's needed for lots of reasons (though 66 look like they need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the TV bathwater at this point). The more true competition with the cam only sites is allowed to dictate; the more I will welcome it. Nor do I deny any social medias right to exist. I don't wish OF away. I'm only saying that guys need to see its negative impacts on the shows.
That's the one thing you fail to address I note: The central argument of my o.p. - that what the babes do on OF can deny the babeshows money.
It's the specifics of OF's business model and the babeshow babes use of it that is in basic conflict with this industry. One example: After Lola left early the other night several guys jumped on twitter to offer support to her. One guy wanted her to continue to reach out more. He asked her to come on OF instead.
In other words that guy could easily content himself with interacting with Lola on OF - if she consents to ask him to pay for it on there. The nature of that interaction could be anything that the babeshow's currently offer. He may then have no need to wait and pay for interaction on her next babeshow.
While it's implied you see only cross promotion above, you must allow there's a chance for this guy's interactions to be usurped. That's the same across the board and why, I think, 66 felt they could ask for compensation. The threat is real despite the cross promotion.
Look at OFgate at 66 at the end of 2018. No business would be looking to rid itself of well established names if there were no issues surrounding their continuing contracts. OF was intermingled in those issues. If there was no OF most of those names now gone would likely still be making money for the operator; their fans still hanging round the industry more often waiting to spend. How many fans left, like regular interactor teewee, at that time?
On things for sure, you'd get very few around these parts that would argue the babes that have come to the channels since are of a like quality to what has been lost (e.g. Danni H, Hannah M, LAB to name but three "big hitters" - all lost to OF). That erosion in itself can't be a good thing for the industry.
I didn't intend for such a long interval!
My comment was hardly, "a promo piece". I was making a wider point about subscription social media. Namely, that it has added a further dimension, to the problem that social media has been for the channels.
"Free" social media has probably become less of a problem, for the hosts, and possibly, also the channels. As free interactions are reduced, due to many presenters' using "free" platforms, mostly, to promote their subscription material.
Even the problem of people redistributing subscription material, on "free" social media, isn't necessarily the setback it might be. As subscribers have good reason not to provoke the creators into shutting them out.
The trajectory for social media to be monetized, was always there. Albeit, as a challenge to be overcome, a la music downloading.
The mixed blessing of "flexible" employment practices, which makes these sites so appealing to creators, fits together with decreasing numbers of people, attending to a range of broadcast media programmes, live. That also includes, fewer people watching these channels on tv, or even, possibly, the live web output. If they can connect with the presenters, at other times, via their subscription sites, or AW, etc.
Possibly, the best that Xpanded etc can do, is to create their own subscription sites. Although, as only BS did that quickly, whilst Xpanded launched one more recently, it's probably too late for S66 to recover lost ground.
However, as can be seen on "free" social media, various people, both creators, and subscribers, report problems, with OF. So it might need upgrading, if it hasn't already peaked, or plateaued. A problem, possibly not (yet) faced by Patreon et al.
Personally, I had an OF account last year. Prompted by wanting to see more of Ms Palomares. But closed it, partly because of pre-existing problems with outdated hardware and software. Since, substantially, but not entirely resolved.
I've not had entirely good experiences, using a SoSpoilt account, which I opened only last month. Although, once I had a response, its customer service has been very helpful, and courteous.
Much more recently, I opened an account with BS.
I've had an account with S66, for a number of years. Albeit, initially, just to buy the much-maligned Sixty 6 magazine.
I have very limited funds. So I doubt I'll be adding further to my monthly outgoings, for a while. Unless a job with OF comes my way!
Btw I write "free" social media, because many users, spend a lot of time, effectively working free for those companies.
Similarly, "Freeview" is a misnomer, as it's "free" with a tv licence. Plus, subscription fees, if you have satellite.
Live Sex Latinas
Real Ecstasy
Hot & Wet
Babestation
Search
Member List
Help
