Elite TV / Studio 66 - General Chat & Discussion

(25-02-2021 20:49 )t-belltosin Wrote:  Was good to see Lola on the dayshow today. Have all of Lola's threads been removed? Can no longer find them

I think it's a real shame she did this. I understand the reasons behind why she did it (people reproducing pics/vids of her elsewhere -though not entirely sure the source from which the problem occured was this site). It has the effect of reducing her profile unfortunately. In the words of Oscar Wilde, "there's only one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about"

(28-02-2021 10:48 )BlastedKeith Wrote:  Can somebody explain this to me? S66 are much tamer than Babestation, even on the web, and any hint of pussy is met with a frantic repositioning of the camera to crop the offending snatch. And yet, last night, there was Lola Knight, starkers, oiling herself, rubbing her puss and bending over.

How does she get away with it? Does she have papal dispensation? A medical exemption? An uncle at Ofcom? It’s particularly odd, since Lola, as we know, is militant about folk not grabbing and posting nude images of her.

There's probably 2 reasons, Lola is happy and comfortable to do open leg for long stints but a lot of other babes likely aren't comfortable with doing that for main cam, which is fine, they all have their own limits.

Then there are those who are comfortable with going open leg but don't actually do it. I'd say it's because they don't do tip goals like Lola. It's easy for 66 producers to stop any main cam shots of pussy by saying "that's what the pervcam is for" or something along those lines. Basically don't give pussy for free, so it's easy to justify cropping the main cam etc.

If the other babes who are comfortable with open leg to main cam did open leg tip goals then 66 would have to let them do it like Lola (although I suspect they'd rather none of them did to drive everyone to pay more on cam). If it's a tip goal 66 can't shut main cam pussy down because the backlash would be substantial. Remember when they first started doing tip goals ? 66 said in the chat when asked "ALL tip goals were for cam only". That quickly shifted as that concept never would have got off the ground.They couldn't justify cropping main cam if their is a tip goal for open leg paid for, the backlash would be similar.

So it's not special treatment for Lola. It's a combination of being willing and comfortable enough to do open leg to main cam AND making it a tip goal so it's a paid service where the producers can't shut it down.

(28-02-2021 10:48 )BlastedKeith Wrote:  Can somebody explain this to me? S66 are much tamer than Babestation, even on the web, and any hint of pussy is met with a frantic repositioning of the camera to crop the offending snatch. And yet, last night, there was Lola Knight, starkers, oiling herself, rubbing her puss and bending over.

How does she get away with it? Does she have papal dispensation? A medical exemption? An uncle at Ofcom? It’s particularly odd, since Lola, as we know, is militant about folk not grabbing and posting nude images of her.

i was told by one girl that some of the younger / newer girls wanted to do bs style fta pussy play tip goals but some of the older more established girls kicked off and got it stopped as they didn't want to have to end up doing that like what happened on bs,
i would guess at Lola is both successful enough and not that worried about what others think to do what she wants so is allowed to do it when other girls have been stopped,
yet again a case of 66 letting the girls run the show and not in 66 best interests

^ This. All day long. It's been plain for a long time that there are deeply protectionist influences at that studio that fight tooth and nail against anything that threatens their status quo. (Look back to the undercurrents at the time of OF-gate there to see how embedded it is.) Anything progressive literally has to become an audience requirement before it happens at 66. If they can hold something new back they will.

The attitude, and the bosses pandering to it in the babes in question, undoubtedly loses them money but they are more interested in just holding what they have than being proactive.

It's easy to draw from this one of the reasons why certain name performers stayed with this 'lesser' company for so long. It was comfortable. It didn't ask more of them than they were willing to give. (I say all this while being a longterm fan of their old style of shows. Any bias I have is for 66 over the more mechanical output of a BS.)

Another pointer: Look at how so many babes that move from there to BS end up, immediately, showing more onscreen.

A babe like Lola who has earnt herself a little clout at the place can no doubt 'arrange' the occasional leeway however. (Probably no more than a friendliness with one certain producer above the rest.) Whereas, other babes, less fortunate, are almost always confined to the required house stipulations when onscreen. (Things are more strict in the studio than on home cams of course.)

Nevertheless, the audience continues to up their expectations every day. Ofcom's regulations lessen in importance all the time. Nothing is in a vacuum; what is happening all around them drives these things on. The tide cannot be held back forever.

(10-02-2021 13:46 )Chrisst Wrote:  

A fortnight ago my account was altered so that I'm unable to watch for more than 30 seconds unless I pay for it and now I read that I'd have to continue doing that every month;

UPDATE.

I couldn't tell you why but I find that I'm able to watch S66 and chat as before.



I've not been on to their customer service or anything. Maybe they've been checking through their accounts and found that I should be live, maybe it was some sort of cookie issue my end, maybe my post was read and someone said, 'Oh Chris is a good bloke let's let him back on', I don't know. If it hadn't been for lovely Lucy Gresty I'd have not know as I spotted her on Freeview and was interested enough in her lovely fun bags enough to try the website and spotted the option to compose a message .

My first thought was to remark positively about her and I look forward to making more such comments where I feel I can. Maybe other readers might like to check the status of their accounts.

S66 are either leaking money or they see a fall and they are trying to nip it in the bud.

(01-03-2021 08:42 )DuggyG2 Wrote:  S66 are either leaking money

I bet they are still hurting from their failed magazine launch. The expensive parties and shoots for it definitelely went to waste as magazines are extremely niche in this digital age.

(01-03-2021 12:28 )Superhans95 Wrote:  

(01-03-2021 08:42 )DuggyG2 Wrote:  S66 are either leaking money

I bet they are still hurting from their failed magazine launch. The expensive parties and shoots for it definitelely went to waste as magazines are extremely niche in this digital age.

I don't think the magazine hurt them badly financially, I always felt it was just another vanity project to satifsy their inflated egos.

But yeah their games with forcing top-ups seem to indicate all is not well in day to day revenue. Even cold blooded BS don't seem to doing that, their punters are WANTING to top up regularly anyway.

So it begs the question WHY are not enough S66 punters wanting to top up. Simply they are not seeing enough to warrant it. Shandyhand summed it up, S66 are too comfortable. I'll go further to say S66 babes and channels generally are the laziest on the channels.

(01-03-2021 12:28 )Superhans95 Wrote:  I bet they are still hurting from their failed magazine launch. The expensive parties and shoots for it definitelely went to waste as magazines are extremely niche in this digital age.

The magazine wasn't a failure. They sold out of some editions of the print copies and even reprinted the early issues. Plus the most recent issue was supposed to be digital only but even that got a print run in the end. On the whole it appears to have been reasonably successful.

Your comment about 'digital age' is irrelevant because the all issues of the magazine are available digitally, and always have been, as are other adult publications such as the Paul Raymond magazines. Digital copies account for many more sales than the print copies of these publications.

(01-03-2021 13:08 )KerrAvon Wrote:  But yeah their games with forcing top-ups seem to indicate all is not well in day to day revenue.

Unfortunately you've got the wrong end of the stick here. The forced top-ups you refer to are nothing to do with raising revenue and aren't likely to raise any revenue anyway. If you want to watch the S66 streams all you have to do is click the link at the top of this page and no top-up required.

S66 had an issue with what they term 'chat trolls' and felt it was becoming out of control. By requiring a top-up before you can use the chat they solved much of that problem because most of those identified as 'trolls' didn't have credits. So require credits and you eliminate the troublemakers.

Incidentally the top-up isn't required for anyone who has credits in their account until the level of credits gets low. Once there are only a few credits left the requirement to top-up kicks in, unless there's already been a top-up within 30 days in which case you're spared the requirement.

It's probably worth making the point that you really can't force people to top-up. People will only top-up if they want to and those whose presence isn't wanted generally don't top-up, which is exactly the point. By only allowing those with credits to use the chat you get rid of undesirables.

I will say again that it's misguided to think that the top-up requirement would raise any revenue. It really can't because the streams are available elsewhere anyway. It's simply a way of controlling who uses the chat and it works because the dreaded 'chat trolls' are also usually 'freeloaders'.

On the mention of freeloaders, some people have perceived the top-up requirement to be an anti-freeloader measure, but freeloading itself is not the issue. It's all about having a chat with the kind of atmosphere that S66 want it to have. And definitely nothing to do with raising revenue.