+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Night Shows (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Former Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=236)
+---- Forum: Studio 66 TV (formerly Elite TV) (/forumdisplay.php?fid=255)
+----- Forum: STUDIO 66 TV (/forumdisplay.php?fid=66)
+----- Thread: Studio66 & OnlyFans (/showthread.php?tid=74869)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113
RE: Studio66 & OnlyFans - hairbald - 12-10-2018 16:32
(12-10-2018 16:06 )jammie82uk Wrote: How is it hyped up bullshit and misleading figures
The figures are correct if 1% of 1000 join at 14.99 you earn 149
It’s clear You obviously don’t know a lot about the website
The girls are making money on it or why would they do it
There are accounts making a couple of grand a day after commission and they are just everyday girls who have never modeled before
Girls like Lucy-Anne obviously have an advantage by having a fan base already and the referral scheme has helped her as she also gets 5% of whatever the person she referred earns and with referring most of the s66 girls she was into a good thing
You'd need 2500 subscribers to clear £1000 per day by my maths. So pretty unlikely particularly over a sustained period
RE: Studio66 & OnlyFans - Lemtu - 12-10-2018 16:39
(12-10-2018 16:32 )hairbald Wrote: You'd need 2500 subscribers to clear £1000 per day by my maths. So pretty unlikely particularly over a sustained period
Your maths is a little bit off mate.
Let's stick with £14.99 for argument's sake.
For 1 subscriber they'd make 80% of that, so 80% of £14.99 is £12.
So to make £1000 they'd only need around 83 subscribers.
RE: Studio66 & OnlyFans - The Goatman - 12-10-2018 16:45
(12-10-2018 16:39 )Lemtu Wrote:Lemtu i think we are gonna have to start calling you brains(12-10-2018 16:32 )hairbald Wrote: You'd need 2500 subscribers to clear £1000 per day by my maths. So pretty unlikely particularly over a sustained period
Your maths is a little bit off mate.
Let's stick with £14.99 for argument's sake.
For 1 subscriber they'd make 80% of that, so 80% of £14.99 is £12.
So to make £1000 they'd only need around 83 subscribers.
RE: Studio66 & OnlyFans - cwpussylover - 12-10-2018 16:57
(12-10-2018 16:06 )jammie82uk Wrote:because the target of 1% of 1000 is over ambitious, pie in the sky bullshit....either you are conected to site or you believe in fairy tales...I know of 10 girls who earn peanuts....theyt do it because it costs them nothing to do...an extra burger a week is still a burger...but not a krug with lobster...(12-10-2018 14:42 )cwpussylover Wrote:(12-10-2018 14:36 )HEX!T Wrote: ah ok mate cheers...
thought it seemed a bit steep for there to take 90%
you only earn IF!! I say again IF any of those "1000" twitter follwers join up....you can have 50,000 twitter followers and if none join up...you earn FA....onlyfans are ASSuME ing that a certain % will join, in the real world you can reduce that chart drastically...as I said it is hyped up BS to get the girls knickers wet....misleading figures...maybe 0.01% of the girls hit the gigures assumed
How is it hyped up bullshit and misleading figures
The figures are correct if 1% of 1000 join at 14.99 you earn 149
It’s clear You obviously don’t know a lot about the website
The girls are making money on it or why would they do it
There are accounts making a couple of grand a day after commission and they are just everyday girls who have never modeled before
Girls like Lucy-Anne obviously have an advantage by having a fan base already and the referral scheme has helped her as she also gets 5% of whatever the person she referred earns and with referring most of the s66 girls she was into a good thing
RE: Studio66 & OnlyFans - ClassicRock - 12-10-2018 17:00
(12-10-2018 16:39 )Lemtu Wrote:(12-10-2018 16:32 )hairbald Wrote: You'd need 2500 subscribers to clear £1000 per day by my maths. So pretty unlikely particularly over a sustained period
Your maths is a little bit off mate.
Let's stick with £14.99 for argument's sake.
For 1 subscriber they'd make 80% of that, so 80% of £14.99 is £12.
So to make £1000 they'd only need around 83 subscribers.
83 subs at £12 each would be £1000 per MONTH, not per day.
RE: Studio66 & OnlyFans - Lemtu - 12-10-2018 17:01
(12-10-2018 16:45 )goatman222 Wrote: Lemtu i think we are gonna have to start calling you brains
Please don't
On the subject though it's just crazy that S66 would request money from their own employees, if that's the case.
Just shows how lazy they are, I dislike a lot of things that BS do but at least they went to the trouble of making their own platform (even if they do control what's uploaded to it). Whereas S66 apparently can't be bothered doing that and just want money handed to them.
RE: Studio66 & OnlyFans - cwpussylover - 12-10-2018 17:02
jammie as you only post on s66 I suspect you have a vested interest....
RE: Studio66 & OnlyFans - Lemtu - 12-10-2018 17:06
(12-10-2018 17:00 )ClassicRock Wrote: 83 subs at £12 each would be £1000 per MONTH, not per day.
Oh I misread hairbald's post, so we basically just said the same thing, 83 per day or 2500 per month. I read hairbald's post as 2500 per day.
My maths is alright but I guess my reading could do with some work
Carry on.
RE: Studio66 & OnlyFans - Tumble_Drier - 12-10-2018 18:18
This could be a real Gerald Ratner moment if the Girls decide to make a stand and frankly they should. If S66 get away with this it will not stop at OnlyFans. They'll be wanting a slice of the money from photoshoots, appearances, dancing etc next.
RE: Studio66 & OnlyFans - Rake - 12-10-2018 19:41
This is also a good old-fashioned war of old tech vs. new tech disrupters.
The problem 66 have is that they are operating a dinosaur platform (TV) hybridised with a turn of the century website platform and only survive because of the still relatively dominant - but inexorably declining - reach that TV has.