+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: UK Babe Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Calling The Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=409)
+---- Thread: What would get you spending online? (/showthread.php?tid=72284)
What would get you spending online? - ShandyHand - 27-12-2017 22:26
Judging by what we have seen of late, two of the three TV babeshow operators seem to see all the growth and innovation in the shows as happening online nowadays. They are currently grappling with ways to enhance these parts of their services and give guys a reason to get online and interacting in greater numbers.
So as we head into a year that will see government regulation make guys either sign up or savvy up in order to get their adult entertainment on the net, I thought I'd ask the straightforward question: What would make you spend, or spend more, on the babeshows online?
If you like, the question can also be looked at in reverse: What is it that puts you off most about spending on the sites atm? What needs to be rectified about the current web services or what kind of service isn't being offered that should be? What is missing from or wrong about the current online options?
...Then there's the externally thorny issue: What is a fair rate for what you want to see and interact with?
(Guys will have to forgive me if I don't answer my own question here and now. That'll be seen in the coming days sure enough.
)
RE: What would get you spending online? - Tumble_Drier - 27-12-2017 22:40
Short of sending 2 girls of my choosing round to my place for a threesome, there's not a damn thing they can do to get my money.
There are plenty of sites offering a better service already and they're packed with girls with better attitudes towards the members.
RE: What would get you spending online? - ShandyHand - 28-12-2017 22:59
A perfectly legit answer. I'm sure a lot of guys share the sentiment, as I do. However... do the shows, despite everything, not retain some unique appeal these others lack?
Your response also begs the sort of question that we've had aimed at us only recently: 'Why are you still here for then..?'
Scintillating conversation (
) and free boobs (enough of them elsewhere surely) perhaps?! I'm genuinely curious: If a guy has no feeling for the shows at all anymore, why still manifest an interest? Is everything really beyond redemption for you... nothing at all that could be recovered of the spark that brought you babe-ing in the first place?I posted my personal counter to this particular 'why' last time. I keep an eye on the shows, even amongst all the dross, because done right there is nothing of the kind better and because I'm looking for any signs of a reversal in their general style to something more in my line.
I still have hope for better. I know the days of the full blown freebie legs in the air type performances are long gone. But I see no reason why elements of that sort of performance shouldn't return - given the right conditions. Such a web option would just have to have enough of the old feel and be available at the right price point.
Why do I think this is still possible? Well, the way I see it, the visibly poor attitudes that you speak of TD have been allowed to predominate because the modern style show no longer rewards the right kind of performances and attitudes sufficiently. In other words babes can get away with doing very little, in a poor manner, and are rewarded with more slots.
But what if the conditions under which the shows are made were such that the right kind of shows were rewarded more than any other? Wouldn't that begin to relieve us of the babes with the poorest attitudes? Now you may say it wouldn't shift them or make them change their tunes (at least not quickly enough)... but I'd say... well would it really matter at that point?
I won't insult your intelligence by asking if you've considered that maybe not everyone working for your favourite webcam provider thinks highly of the average punter. (Maybe even your favourite babe there just has to hide her distaste because she knows that she'd be far better off doing so.) Nor would I ask if you've had the same considerations about the babes of the so-called Golden Age closer to home. I know you will have thought of this too.
But doesn't it follow then, that a larger number of visuals focused punters was just too busy getting off to be to be overly concerned about such things back then? I think these things only really become an issue when the shows got poorer - until then it was more easily and quickly dismissed in favour of, uh-hum, immediate primal considerations.
RE: What would get you spending online? - babefan2012 - 28-12-2017 23:14
Having not really spent much on the babeshows other than BSX when it first started and maybe a few years ago, the babes would hate me I'm probably the perfect example of a freeloader!!!! First off it would have to be harder content whether thats full on g/g or even just solo pussy play. Personally think they could do similar shows to what they had on the webshow just behind a paywall but part of the subscription for the site like BSX but harder and only online. The main thing that puts me off pervcam is the pay per minute aspect and you can't always guarentee when you pay you'll see what you want. But for those shows to happen two things would have to happen either a mass overhaul of the babes or they let their halo's drop and perform to better standard for what is supposed to be adult rated 18 stuff. The absolute main problem there is is the babes attitude. They have a massive distain for those who don't worship them and just see them as wank material and they probably think those that do are weak and pay pigs/slaves.
RE: What would get you spending online? - ryuken - 29-12-2017 10:29
I want quality half hour long 2-4-1 videos that I can buy for about £5.
All the channels want us to pay for VIP membership (£20 a month) to their site, as well as use pervecam (£5 per minute for private) at the same time when we call (£2 per minute plus connection fee).
The prices are too high for the poor quality content. The monthly cost to join Netflix is cheaper than calling BS' two minute challenge.
TV: use it to "advertise" everything on offer within OFCOM rules.
Website: use it to show everything on offer outside of OFCOM rules.
Phone: no connection charge and prices under £1 per minute.
Pervecam: only give it to hosts that show pussy.
Curtain shows: only give it to daytime hosts that at least go topless.
Cam shows: £10 for a 30 minute show.
Site membership: £5 a month for daily hardcore 2-4-1 videos and pictures
Clips 4 sale: £5 for a 15 minute video.
Custom videos: £10 for a 30 minute video.
Magazines: £2.50 per weekly issue.
Parties: free attendance for VIP website members.
Fan events: £5 for a seflie with a host.
Strip club: £10 for a dance
Escort agency: £100 per hour
Outfits: every host should change their TV attire at least once per shift.
Sets: create better ones so hosts can perform for TV, online, pervecam and callers at the same time.
Lighting: stop overlighting pale hosts.
Sound: get rid of background noise.
Cameras: always use fixed and handheld ones.
Fetishes: set aside 2 minutes to cater to feet and charge £50 per minute lol.
RE: What would get you spending online? - babefan2012 - 29-12-2017 11:34
I agree. The VIP memberships need more benefits. Been tempted by both 66 and BS but other than 100 credits free each month or whatever it is they both seem unworthy. Why not for the VIP do Daily no rules shows better than BSX levels and actually no ofcom rules purely online only doesn’t even have to be hardcore just solo play or what they do the curtain. Trouble is it won’t make BS or 66 or the babes the money they’ve become accustomed to. The fact that there’s no real set price on the cams which is solely in favour of the babes and I can imagine the words “tip me” get used a lot. Simple price plus guaranteed to see what you want = me paying. But that’s not the shows. Think of them as slot machines you’ve got £100 and before you know you’ve wasted £150 and got bugger all. I swear they’re just gambling.
RE: What would get you spending online? - Classic84 - 29-12-2017 13:33
I think all webcam shows should have sound for a start
because it makes such a better experience when you can hear girl talk then if webcam shows started a system where you had to put in a minimum tip say 100 credits to be able to watch whole webcam show stream? then not have to pay again you could enjoy whole 2 hours or more without worry of needing more credit because first thing that happens is your credits start burning out like fire as soon as you log in all members would get a 30 min time slot to log in with a tip then webcam show would be locked for those members to enjoy also that would stop anybody logging in later then it is upto guys themselves if they want to tip girl again? I would like to see girls show face as well and I do think webcam shows go onto too long 1 hour would be perfect or 1 hr 30 mins at longest 30 mins is too short 2 or more hours is too long, I would like to see curtain thing gone as it is ruining shows what I would prefer to see is them running normal webcam shows back to basics like they used too with naughtychat, like to see perv cam during day gone because all you mainly see is girls knickers it is too expensive £3 a min just to look at knickers if they were 35p a min may be worth it? any way with private shows they should always be naked for £5 min is a lot to spend just to see them topless also they should only be made by booking only!! not running during normal webcam show group shows because they can ruin guys enjoyment if girl keeps going private every 15 mins where you have to wait until private is over. For VIPs they should offer more to tempt you to join more nudity, more pics, longer member vids that are 10 mins or more as 5 mins is too short price is expensive per month to join if it was say £5 a month including 300 credits added to your account each month to join to use for credits for what you get is not worth money for a whole year being a member also babe channels should stop hassling members to log into webcam shows every minute or perv cam shows 
now it is upto individual if they want to log in or not? all webcam shows should be at least topless if girl is not gonna get them out then they should not be on webcam of course completely naked is always a bonus 
problems with BS or S66 with logging system I have mentioned above they would worry they are not making money = profit if they don't have stream running for entire show but each member would be paying to view if they agree to tip rule before logging in? so they would make money just the same it would be ideal for customer because they would not have to worry about credits going fast and could sit back and enjoy whole webcam show, myself I don't really log into many because they are too expensive right now they don't offer enough to tempt me in if they did it would mean more money off me. 
RE: What would get you spending online? - ShandyHand - 31-12-2017 11:53
Year's end - a chance for reflection and contemplation of the future. Mostly I find the opportunity to post a look at the shows with this eye too good to miss.
I wanted to pose the question of this thread because circumstances seem to have made it, more than ever, the fundamental one for the shows in 2018. There are undoubtedly as many answers to it as there are viewers of the shows but for me there's only one that offers the chance of real channel redemption - 66's second camera web-only feeds... So, I hope forumites will bear with me in such an extended post (
) as I offer a thorough argument as possible for why I think this device could be so beneficial to the industry and, in doing so, hopefully re-ignite a conversation so far largely confined itself to Fern's thread.I've been here before ... This time, however, it's as if 66 are attempting to be more progressive. Likely this is simply because its use has now breached daytime hours and, as happened with Evelyn on perv before it, they have given the equipment to a babe that has both the draw and top skills in how to work it.
Over just four recent sessions Fern's owning of the new angle has been a revelation. As I say she's not the first to benefit from an added camera; nor is she the only one to cause a stir with it on here. Fern was not even the first 66 day babe to flash her undercarriage via this method
... She is however the first, by my measure, to show what a positive influence it could be for an industry suffering under chronically bad public image, and no little doubt and scrutiny from clientele past and present over the VFM offered by its services.These problems didn't appear so pervasive in the heady pre-Ofcom days. The channels were generally viewed a little more generously back then, with a more prevalent goodwill, since eroded by constant, nagging regulation and a most divisive change in babeshow culture. The latter translates to a now severely lacking entertainment factor on our TV screens. Today, the average babe's desire and capacity to reach out beyond those directly on the other end of her wire (phone or net) is unfortunately limited. The focus is almost entirely on wringing every last penny from a dwindling band of hardcore supporters (guys that might be characterised as very generously disposed towards the babes if we are being kind)...
Insiders with clout must've looked at much in a search for efficient ways to counter this issue. I believe 66 could have struck gold again with this particular answer. If only they can make this Ofcom-free camera of Fernie's a more standardised affair, it could offer a solid avenue for the channels to rehabilitate their main service in the eyes of a certain somewhat lapsed but still avid section of their consumer base. This thing could end up being and meaning much more than the sobriquet 'Asscam' might suggest!
Why such a positive force?
(06-12-2017 22:11 )jaw0448 Wrote: Best development in a long time.
^ Most assuredly it is for all Fernie fans! There's no doubt about it, Fern has shown the way. She has added a surreptitious spice to what could otherwise just be another routine body flashing outlet by expressing a heightened, TV-hidden, sensuality in her performance. But is that all that lies behind comments like jaw's? I believe guys are actually responding to the realisation that cam two forgoes the duplicity imposed by the regulators on the butchered feeds... This is how opinions are changed; the service all at once feels more honest. The babe has to pretend and is distanced by Sky; cam two indulges the viewer pulling them conspiratorially back into the real deal.
I think jaw's positivity strikes a gong for the devices potential. But, in reality cam two could only truly be said to be any kind of "best development" if 66 and their babes have the integrity to establish a similar feed alongside every host's main camera. If they wish to charge web subscription rates for these feeds then fine - so be it. If that's what it takes to make such a service financially viable then I feel enough guys will accept an hourly/daily/weekly sub, or some such, for what would be a vastly more enticing service. It'd certainly be more justifiable to many than the, IMO, sky high pervcam rates...
Implementation across the board would, for once, show that an operator really accepts what the day shows are about; a definitive acknowledgement that the draw lies in the visual - even away from the crotch obsessed cams. (Really, enough with the faux sensitivities towards what guys get up to on the phones as expressed by a couple of babes recently, they should be strictly for Ofcom; any attempt to spread them beyond is just counter-productive to the mass audience that must be essential to an industry gradually drifting towards an ever more internet-based environment.)
Any sort of mixed message just makes the industry appear conflicted. A front and centre cam two would free it of any misconceptions in the eyes of valuable punters.
Can we be sure of the basics of what guys want?
Quote:...sex invariably motivates calls to the day shows, even if it doesn’t manifest itself in the actual conversation.
^ I know the old standby babetv.tumblr blog isn't evidence but I've yet to see anyone challenge these basic tenants. Yes, guys undoubtedly express a variety of fetishes and needs when they contact the babes but anyone who doubts what really underlies a guy phoning a babechannel should read further. With such foundations can the punters distilled primal desires towards further flesh exposure or at least a greater visual expression of sexuality really ever be that far away? Whether guys tell their babe(s) the truth about this when they converse or not, 99% of them want to see more if they can get it. (Ask yourself how many of the babe's daytime callers would at least flick between Sky and pervcam image on their TVs if the latter was up there in HD for the price of their call?)
Overall I just can't see a better counter to the industry's image problems than a VFM visual option slotted in between fta TV and the down and dirty intimacies of pervcam. It would be a satisfying reversion to elements of the former business module while remaining in keeping with the aims of the modern format. The best of both worlds... And there's nothing better in pursuit of mass appreciation and interaction than giving guys something of what they want!
Other benefits
Besides, more practically speaking, the quite deliberate playing down of the fta shows' eroticism to aid pervcam has been so effective as to ensure that there is now room for such a 'middle-ground' content platform - why not make use of it?
Then too we have the broader context: As I was saying in a recent post, come April AgeID will add to the barriers against interaction online. It makes more sense than ever right now to give guys an extra reason to sign up. (More immediately for 66, there is also the matter of BS's partly fta web channels to be kept up with.) ...
Just one problem!
I will be interested to see if Fernie's second angle becomes an ascribed feature within 66's schedule or advertising going forward. More significantly I am keen to see whether other babes note and act on its potential. (Cara B's more straightforward, if cameraman assisted, Asscam on snow day has been the only other taker since Fern. Interestingly her pervcam was running at the same time.) Only then will we be able to determine if the idea has really taken hold.
Alas I fear a far likelier result will be a more tentative action: 66 trying to have their cake and eat it when they should be grasping the nettle as they did with the pervs. I expect only odd spells of second camera from anyone except Fern - where and only if a babe is proving particularly quiet on her pervcam. If the expected babe resistance to anything more is correct, it's still odds on to be the 'new' device's effective nail in the coffin.
The stumbling block has already been made clear - with some appealing honesty.
(25-11-2017 20:54 )circles_o_o_o Wrote: ...S66 Gallery said they weren't doing it for Lucy because it would take people away from her pervcam. You could have guessed.
Making each and every view another paid stat should go at least part way to answering the potential impact on pervcam revenue. Perv and cam two shouldn't be naturally incompatible either; in fact if the appeal and presentation are correct I can't see any reason why they shouldn't work in simpatico: A little careful positioning, tease, and the rationing of better angles, and cam two could be made advantageous to everyone by ensuring that pervecam custom is not affected. More than that, babes need viewers on their streams; and this can bring them in numbers, in the best stepping-stone manner, to the very door of perv... But then maybe it's just the larger implications on content and the extra effort implied by this change that are giving most babes pause atm?
I hope I'm proved wrong and 66 really give us guys something to root for again with this. When all's said and done, there are two ways to make money - a few paying a premium or the masses spending a little. Now more than ever the channels need to broaden their horizons and incentivise all the people they can. Alongside the more obvious propositions like proper web-based 2-4-1s, new initiatives like this one and the positive encouragement of more babes to use them well will, I hope, see a new source of real viewer engagement and a refreshed energetic vibe returning to places like this. An enhanced viewing experience at the correct price point could really go a long way.
It's worth remembering too that pervcam itself was, apparently, viewed with degrees of trepidation and suspicion by some babes when it was starting out - that is until one or two of them really began to succeed with it. Now who's to say this one wouldn't go the same way again given half a chance?
RE: What would get you spending online? - Rake - 31-12-2017 12:29
Superb analysis ShandyHand.
66 are clearly toying with this innovation. As you rightly allude, the challenge is how to monetise it and without killing the pervecam revenue for any given girl. Or if it does kill or hit the pervecam, then ensuring it more than covers that loss and then some.
Is the evidence so far that it boosts callers? I guess it could go either way on the call side: I for one would not call Fern if i could sit there looking at her ass and pussy for free on Cam 2 feed. Nor would i pervecam either. So s66 will surely have to introduce a paywall for Cam 2, unless it has actually boosted calls and, perhaps more importantly, callers stacking up waiting by a lot.
Now i don't fancy Fern that much, but Evelyn with a Cam 2 feed would really smoke out my true response to this innovation: I suspect that I might be busting a nut to call her and get her to move about under my direction. Presently I spend a small fortune most weeks interacting and politely instructing her on pervecam chat to do stuff for the TV feed not the pervecam feed! Usually getting her to be very careless with her tops...
The big plus for the Cam 2 compared to pervecam for me is being able to see their face and entire body on one screen and not having to run 2 windows or screens.
I think I'd like the Cam 2 feed to have a much cheaper paywall than pervecam but to retain the direct chat to the babe facility that pervecam has. Mainly because my domestic circumstances preclude calling the shows except for rare moments of privacy.
RE: What would get you spending online? - terence - 31-12-2017 13:14
^i was going to reply to sh's long and exremely well written post but after reading rake's shorter (
) but equally well written reply, i would completely agree with it. the only excuse i can think of excluding the economic reasons is the risk of mixing up the feeds and repercussion of ofcom fines. but surely that's just a question of competence that could be easily addressed.
i can't believe they haven't looked into this option, so maybe there is some logistical reason we haven't considered.