+- 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: Kinks & Fetishes (/forumdisplay.php?fid=415)
+---- Thread: Feet (Foot Fetish) On The Babe Channels - Chat & Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=11541)
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
Feet on Babestation - NHawk - 12-01-2011 22:39
Its been said that whenever someone calls up with a foot request, it would often result in some callers hanging up because they found it a big turn off. This will be why things have changed, with girls that were previously enthusiastic about fulfilling such requests now being forced to say 'no' by the powers that be. Even as a bit of a foot fetishist myself I can understand that position.
They should make it a lot clearer to people that they won't fulfill such requests though. When the picture service is still advertising 'text feet to 12345' it implies they still want your custom. Just a tad misleading.
RE: Feet on Babestation - iloveMegan - 13-01-2011 12:43
It seems to vary from night to night; one girl (won't name names) was clearly dealing with a foot caller last night. I don't really understand their position on this, surely any revenue lost through listeners who don't like feet could be made up from callers and listeners that do? For them still to advertising the foot pictures is misleading, but it's probably their way of saying "We don't mind if you like feet, but buy a picture instead if calling in"
Sorry, but there's no excuse for it... - rawr1 - 13-01-2011 21:29
It's factually true that many girls treat any guy who isn't interested in listening to their standard dirty talk as a nuisance to be strung along and never indulged. It's not a new thing and has sadly been around since the birth of these channels in one form or another, but when pretty much half of the 900 channel girls do work for myriad fetish sites, it's blatantly obvious the problem stems from studio policy much of the time
Eavesdropping ruined a lot of the interactive and enjoyable elements of these channels a long time ago due to perpetuating a lot of this greed tinged nonsensical policy on what is "acceptable". If you call up and get through to a girl, as long as you are polite and don't request anything morally questionable, you should be in the driving seat - full stop.
There is no excuse for making guys run the bloody gauntlet when you have zero intention of giving them what they want.
The "non-vanilla puts listeners off" train of thought is also a moot point, since Babestation et al seem perfectly happy taking the money from the same guys via their niche picture/video ads. You can't have it both ways - only recognising that niche interests are potentially lucrative when it suits you is not credible. If a catch-all channel doesn't even put one girl on screen over multiple channels to cater for all heterosexual guys, not just the ones callously deemed "suitable" for maximum profit, and/or indicate what a girl is willing to do on screen - that channel becomes a con for a significant cross-section of it's potential users and has zero credibility as an interactive service.
My 2 cents
RE: Sorry, but there's no excuse for it... - vila - 13-01-2011 23:47
(13-01-2011 21:29 )rawr1 Wrote: Babestation et al seem perfectly happy taking the money from the same guys via their niche picture/video ads. You can't have it both ways - only recognising that niche interests are potentially lucrative when it suits you is not credible.
The thing to remember here is that selling fetish pics/vids doesn't harm any of their other income. If their experience is that customers who are waiting/listening hang up when a fetish caller comes on, then that will clearly damage their income, most of which comes from listeners.
RE: Sorry, but there's no excuse for it... - rawr1 - 14-01-2011 01:21
(13-01-2011 23:47 )vila Wrote: The thing to remember here is that selling fetish pics/vids doesn't harm any of their other income. If their experience is that customers who are waiting/listening hang up when a fetish caller comes on, then that will clearly damage their income, most of which comes from listeners.
Oh, I understand the argument - I just don't think it's valid
a.) It happened looong before eavesdropping ever existed.
b.) It happens even when girls are struggling for calls, which is not uncommon. As the saying goes - beggers can't be choosers.
c.) If it really hurt their income they would cut fetish/kink callers off straight away instead of stringing them along for as long as possible, eeking out the call costs, until they hung up in frustration.
Even if it were the case that restricting the audience you cater to gave you a net increase in eavesdroppers, which I think can only be true with a highly selective view of the facts - if at all ...I still do not see how it is acceptable for any channel to simultaneously display fetish adverts on the same screen as a girl who has been specifically instructed not to cater to anything but vanilla ice cream. Bait and switch at £1.50 a minute is not cool and I can't imagine any other setting where it would fly.
If company policy is to exclude anything but simulated doggy style and tit jiggling, they should advertise as such ...but of course then they'd lose all that revenue from the guys who ring in and get fobbed off so that's unlikely to happen any time soon. Altogether, a bit cheap and nasty in my humble opinion.
RE: Feet on Babestation - vila - 14-01-2011 02:17
a). I stand to be corrected here, but I'm very surprised to see assertions that there was ever a time when eavesdropping, even if only by callers in the queue, didn't happen. The income from only one caller per girl would never cover even a fraction of their costs, let alone make a profit.
b). and c). It still pays them to string the caller along in the hope that incoming listeners will stay as long as the girl continues with her 'vanilla' spiel rather than acceding to the fetish request.
Cellcast are master con artists. They only actually offer fetish pics and vids, as far as I can see there's nowhere that they promise a fetish interaction - it could be inferred from the other references, but that's all. This is nothing compared with their promise of hard porn on Freeview 96, which would see them following Bang Babes down the tubes if they ever tried to deliver.
RE: Feet on Babestation - rawr1 - 14-01-2011 02:48
It's a sorry state anyway, but hey - they haven't had a penny from me in a long time. C'est la vie
On eavesdropping, It was quite a while ago now, but I'm pretty sure in the old days you just got put on hold in queue until the line cleared if you wanted to chat to the girl on screen. I assume it was a major factor in why they had to make an effort to get guys to text in on the older formats, because they didn't have MMS/3G or any supplementary services bar option 4 (the traditional fob off) and while they would have made money from the queue - there wouldnt have been anywhere near as many people actually staying to wait in line without eavesdropping
RE: Feet on Babestation - vila - 14-01-2011 02:58
(14-01-2011 02:48 )rawr1 Wrote: - they haven't had a penny from me in a long time.
Nor me, and they're so thick and pig-headed that they won't even listen to why I no longer call or my attempts to show them how to get me back.
Their money-making instincts are very blinkered in some respects.
RE: Feet on Babestation - hugh_g_rection - 14-01-2011 16:04
And to think this is the same organisation that brought us 'Babestation Xtra' and its live text messaging service... an absolute GOLD MINE of foot content. Every night, the girls would indulge our foot fetishes, a golden age in my opinion.
It was never going to last but I enjoyed it while it did.
As for phoning Babestation now... no thanks. There are much more worthwhile and much less expensive ways to be mugged off in todays world. I would only ever call a channel for feet if I saw feet being shown on said channel *consistently*, and I don't see it on Babestation anymore.
The last time I saw feet on there, and the ONLY time I have seen feet on Babestation since the days of XTRA, is when Linsey Dawn McKenzie showed them. And that is likely because she wanted to, and because of who she is, was unlikely to bow to the wishes of some vanilla smut peddling little fukkwit.
If you want feet, phone TVX, Babeworld, Bluebird, Club Paradiso and whatever Bang Babes is now...
RE: Feet on Babestation - Light Entertainment - 14-01-2011 20:58
Here's some more trivia relating to Cellcast's earlier Freeview shows, and some of their contrary attitudes to foot guys...
On 31st Jan '09, Party Girls (CH 46) held a text vote where viewers could either choose legs or feet as a theme for the next section. Feet won by a wide margin. There was also a face-off between boobs and bums, which bums won. My notes say that Dionne Mendez did the 'bumtastic' section (how strange I should note that down
), but not who did the feet. I assume it was the night's other co-host - Camilla. On 10th May 2009, the Freeview Partyland show announced a foot ban until 03.30.
On 21st Dec 2009 Jodie Cox won the Queen of Babestation text poll on BS Xtra. My notes say the deciding factor was a group of foot fans casting votes for Jodie as she made every effort to service their requests.
On 19th Jan 2010 someone (I won't say who) promised a tights, stockings and feet special on BS Xtra Freeview for the night of 22nd - 23rd, and vigorously promoted it. When the night came, the event was dropped (at least on Freeview - don't know about Sky), and the girl starting the show on the phones advised foot callers to press option zero! Very harsh.