+- 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: Storm (/forumdisplay.php?fid=115)
+---- Thread: Storm - Chat & Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=32660)
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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205
RE: Storm - Chat & Discussion - The Silent Majority - 06-08-2014 21:42
(06-08-2014 21:17 )admiral decker Wrote:(06-08-2014 21:13 )The Silent Majority Wrote: You're confusing profit with revenue
Where's the confusion then?
Storm don't get enough calls from the webstream to make it worth having, so they don't bother with it. I don't see any confusion.
richpk never claimed they were making profit from the webstream, he said they were getting revenue from it.
Profit and revenue are two different things, he wasn't contradicting himself.
RE: Storm - Chat & Discussion - The Silent Majority - 06-08-2014 21:43
(06-08-2014 21:31 )circles_o_o_o Wrote: It's not as simple as counting calls to webstream numbers versus tv numbers.
How do they know that people watching the webstream aren't using the number advertised on the television show. People aren't stupid, if there's money to be saved.
Now that's bang on the nail!!!
I've said that before on the Bs thread, and done it regularly myself, but they still don't give a shit about the quality of the stream.
RE: Storm - Chat & Discussion - The Silent Majority - 06-08-2014 21:46
(06-08-2014 21:38 )Davy Crockett Wrote:(06-08-2014 21:31 )circles_o_o_o Wrote: How do they know that people watching the webstream aren't using the number advertised on the television show.
If such a thing was happening then the people responsible have destroyed the webstream by making it seem unprofitable.
There is no reason the webstream prices should be more than the TV prices. If they sorted the pricing out, it wouldn't happen.
RE: Storm - Chat & Discussion - admiral decker - 06-08-2014 21:54
(06-08-2014 21:42 )The Silent Majority Wrote: richpk never claimed they were making profit from the webstream, he said they were getting revenue from it.
Profit and revenue are two different things, he wasn't contradicting himself.
But they don't get enough revenue to make it worth bothering with. Unless there is enough revenue to make a profit the service isn't likely to continue. Surely that much is obvious.
Storm didn't ever deny receiving revenue. They denied receiving ENOUGH revenue to make the service viable.
RE: Storm - Chat & Discussion - davy crockett - 06-08-2014 21:59
(06-08-2014 21:46 )The Silent Majority Wrote: There is no reason the webstream prices should be more than the TV prices. If they sorted the pricing out, it wouldn't happen.
I've no idea what pricing Storm generally used on their website or whether it was different to the TV price. If the pricing on the website was higher perhaps they felt it was necessary to try and make the webstream profitable?
RE: Storm - Chat & Discussion - Bandwagon - 06-08-2014 22:12
If the stream vanishes for good, then surely the cost of running it is greater than profits lost since it's closure.
If profits are down, the stream will surely return.
An overall measure, not focusing on any particular number since that doesn't really tell the story as to how the show is being viewed.
RE: Storm - Chat & Discussion - admiral decker - 06-08-2014 22:43
(06-08-2014 22:12 )Bandwagon Wrote: If the stream vanishes for good, then surely the cost of running it is greater than profits lost since it's closure.
You are almost right. You just need to substitute revenues for profits, i.e. the cost of running it is greater than revenues lost since it's closure.
RE: Storm - Chat & Discussion - Bandwagon - 06-08-2014 23:11
(06-08-2014 22:43 )admiral decker Wrote: You are almost right. You just need to substitute revenues for profits, i.e. the cost of running it is greater than revenues lost since it's closure.
Thinking about it you are right, we can't simply assume any of it is profit.
Especially since little/lack of profit is most likely the reason for the stream closure anyway.
RE: Storm - Chat & Discussion - admiral decker - 06-08-2014 23:22
(06-08-2014 23:11 )Bandwagon Wrote: Especially since little/lack of profit is most likely the reason for the stream closure anyway.
Yes, exactly right.
RE: Storm - Chat & Discussion - broncobilly10 - 06-08-2014 23:23
Great show from Dionne and Kimberly