Babestation - General Chat & Discussion

(18-11-2024 13:44 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  There's no way of knowing how busy the phones really are. If, say, they used to average 9 people queuing and 1 talking, and now there's 4 queuing and 1 talking, that's 50% drop in revenue.
But it won't appear any different to the viewer.

Yes this is a very good point. Years ago when Lolly Badcock was a Babestation girl she was reputed to sometimes have as many as 40 listeners when she was on the phone.

^^ I agree with KerrAvon, the phone call option is driven by what BS want, this is a case of the dog waggling the tail & not the other way round. I don't actually believe that the decline in phone calls is as great as they will have you believe. Plenty of punters want it, but are being forced away from that option, in many cases, babes chose to not have that option as they claim to make so little from it. I'm led to believe that not all babes are on the same contract. The nightshow tv babes have definitely had a chance to what they make from calls. Dayshow only babes contract differ, but also vary in how & how much they earn. What has sped up the decline in calls is that those who could once guarantee a call or at least listen in, & with a happy ending, can no longer have those insurances. The illegal practice of cutting off a caller in preference for a private is all too common. Sure you can get renumerated, but why should anyone have to go through that process, its a win/win for BS as they know full well some will not bother with a refund. Who is their to call these babes out ? certainly not the BS bosses These babes should be made to either comply or just take the phone option away completely & leave it to those who want to use in within the rules.
Because of all the other better paying options, the phone call experience has suffered. To put it plainly, compared to the past some of them/quite a lot of them are shite at it, either through lack of practice of disinterest.
In general terms the decline of caller traffic has always been a thing for as long as I can remember, barring the heyday with 10 or more channels operating. I can distinctly recall the time when punters were really kicking up a fuss about the obtrusive OSG's. You could explain away the large phone numbers as being all important, but the screen was also littered with short-code text numbers for pics & vids. It was explained to me at that time by one of the S66/Elite babes that they had to do this as the phone calls alone wasn't bringing in enough cash. BS was pretty much mirroring the same thing.
At the start there wasn't even a live listen in option, on Bang Babes for example you got a record call to listen too. It's a fair point that SM makes, sure we don't know the number of listeners, but the operators do.
Someone might be able to confirm this but, a 250 (£25) buzz is claimed to last 60 seconds, at least that is what is highlighted on the ******* site. Depending on the method of payment you can get near enough a 20 minute phone call. Personally, with the right babe the later option offers a far greater customer satisfaction, & that is regardless of whether or not the toy is properly in play.
I wonder if the BS bosses are missing the value of the call option. It has been spoken about before that some babes don't like having to use the chat box the interact for free & many are asking for tips/buzzes for a pm. I understand that there are timewasters/freeloaders with no interest at all with paying for a service. But some punters are reluctant to part with money with an unknown babe as they are unsure what service they will get. You can't expect a babe to exchange numerous messages about specifics of a call or private, at some point they have to take a punt so to speak. This is where a quick call comes into bit's own, both parties get a feel of what is required reasonably quickly The cheapest call option can then lead on to more longer calls & potentially more lucrative privates.

Despite what some sceptics will have you believe, a certain level of rapport can be established which is beneficial for all parties. often a babe is more likely to up her levels with a regular, so previous interactions have rewards.

I have no certainty as to how much BS value the call option, we can only speculate by some of their actions. You do get the impression that they have the arrogant opinion that they know best & the punters don't have all the facts. Gone are the days when any BS rep would interact with this Forum & answer a few searching questions.

All that's needed is for BS to up their game and allow nudity back on the screens. Only let babes that are prepared to undress on screen, not those that remain fully clothed and just waggle the phone. And stop giving us, at times, such ridiculous camera angles. In other words, just give us something better to watch than the crap they're dishing out at the moment.

(18-11-2024 23:28 )derekdas Wrote:  All that's needed is for BS to up their game and allow nudity back on the screens. Only let babes that are prepared to undress on screen, not those that remain fully clothed and just waggle the phone. And stop giving us, at times, such ridiculous camera angles. In other words, just give us something better to watch than the crap they're dishing out at the moment.

Not happy with the current content,join the long queue.

Kerr and Phil have not said much that contradicts each other here IMO. And I applaud everyone's attempts to bring a correct context to these things. History is important. It can, indeed, be very instructive to what's going on with the industry in the present day... So here's my twopenneth.

BS's 2015 "response" was as a result of S66 suddenly having a big success with pervcam. None of the operators could make online PAY for them prior to that. (It was something the industry needed because, as Phil implies, Ofcom's intervention seems to have sent call numbers into terminal decline.) The audience (and the tech?) seemingly wasn't ready for a switch to online prior to that point. Ofcom hurried the need to look in that direction.

66's competition needed to respond and did. Thereafter, the industry thought it'd found its saviour in the web. But...

Ever since, the industry's desperation to claw back lost call revenue has led to an utterly single-minded throwing of one silly web option after another at the customer. With scant regard to how each layer muddles customer satisfaction rates. Callers in particular have been hard done by as focus and content was turned from them to paywall-based material. (This forum is full of anecdotal evidence, direct from the horse's mouth, that this has sped the decline in calls.) This is something the industry has never acknowledged nor have they faced up to what that means for the future of calling the shows. Weirdly, no insider seems to see the caller as an essential and, worse, there's the vague impression that they've sometimes been punished for the supposed 'disloyalty' in their falling numbers.

Essentially, the eternal conundrum no operator has yet been able to solve is what use is a babeshow if it can't get calls? What does it then offer that a 100 other web-only operators do not? Because let's face it, it seems few guys wanna phone web babes on a regular basis when all the other options are muddying their outcomes. Babeshow calling may, in fact, be inextricably tied into our parochial 900s, with their relatively high production costs, and the passive attraction to mass passing trade it provides (or once provided). (No one "flicks through" the web basically. Casual passing trade is not there; it can't be converted to paid interaction in the same way it was with TV and never will be. So, when the TV channel's easy visual appeals declined, so did the conversion rates. And thus, the number of guys getting into the habit of interacting with the industry's services. TV as gateway has faltered. Operators became keen to do without. But each time one stepped away from TV, to try life without its expense, it ended up closing down. None has been able to make up what was lost from abandoning TV entirely. That's a lesson of the last 9 years that's hard to ignore at this point.

The trouble for the babeshow fan these days is that a channel that lacks calls is well on the way to not being a babe channel anymore. It's just a plain old camming outlet - something that has a MASSIVE amount of competition online. What does the former babeshow have to offer the babe and/or even invested customers in these circumstamces? (Let alone users who are only familiar with Netflix, etc., not Sky or Freeview. The recognition and visibility of the BS name only looks likely to decline if we continue in the current vein.) What different from the 100 other web-only operators out there, I mean. The established internet-only operators have all the advantages in that environment.

And what are BS doing to avoid this fate? Apart from not giving up their last TV slot? Not a fat lot as far as I can see. (The lack of direct competition doesn't help, inclining to a lack of impetus for any operator to think outside-the-box or buck any trend. It's so easy to imagine them contenting themselves with their market share numbers and how much they are ringing from the top few whales.)

If BS truly thinks they've benefited from a lack of competition in the now shrunken market, they should, perhaps, be wary of shrinking the market to such an extent it can no longer support them. (No matter whether the shrink was cause and/or effect of what they did over of the last 10 years.)

Beth Bennett did the 1st stint on tv (SKY) tonight. She went off screen at 11pm and the next babe on Sky (Jesse Rae) didn't appear on screen till 11:40pm.....FOURTY MINUTES LATER!!!!!!!

(24-11-2024 23:42 )Rammyrascal Wrote:  Beth Bennett did the 1st stint on tv (SKY) tonight. She went off screen at 11pm and the next babe on Sky (Jesse Rae) didn't appear on screen till 11:40pm.....FOURTY MINUTES LATER!!!!!!!

Wow, don't see you get riled up often Rammy.

I believe we have finally found the ultimate First World Problem!

(25-11-2024 11:06 )Frenchie316 Wrote:  

(24-11-2024 23:42 )Rammyrascal Wrote:  Beth Bennett did the 1st stint on tv (SKY) tonight. She went off screen at 11pm and the next babe on Sky (Jesse Rae) didn't appear on screen till 11:40pm.....FOURTY MINUTES LATER!!!!!!!

Wow, don't see you get riled up often Rammy.

Hell has frozen over

It's baffling at times like that when they don't seem to think let's show this person and then when someone does appear nothing much happens