+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: UK Babe Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Babeshows - General Chat & Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=18626)
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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590
RE: Elite TV/Studio 66 - General Chat & Discussion - Goodfella3041 - 25-02-2015 20:26
(25-02-2015 11:51 )Digital Dave Wrote: Cellcast (Babestation channels): Cellcast are not purely a babe channel operator and are in fact an international telecoms tech company. They run babe channels (also astrology and psychic channels) as a testbed for their systems and to generate cash.
Aren't they missing an obvious trick here? Couldn't they combine the babeshow, psychic and astrology channels into one format?
Just put a star chart on the wall and a crystal ball on the desk and have a naked Clare Richards say things like...
"I see a naked fat guy on a couch having a wank..."
...in a kind of spooky voice.
It would streamline the whole operation and she'd almost always be right.
RE: Elite TV/Studio 66 - General Chat & Discussion - RESPONSIBLE ADULT - 25-02-2015 20:36
(25-02-2015 00:41 )Bandwagon Wrote: I don't particularly want really strong stuff either RA, but the freedom for decent 2-4-1's and adventurous performances wouldn't go amiss either.
I get what your saying as in the 'boundary pushing' buzz but that's the point isn't it? Whilst things are like they are then they simply won't risk it at all because I assume they fear that Ofcom simply see them as a broadcasting cash machine. Some channels do seem to take this to unnecessary extremes at present though, so you have to assume they're caught between a rock and hard place. They may want to push things in order to increase revenue, but the potential fine that comes with it lands them straight back at square one if things go tits up.
It's sad but they seem to have adopted the attitude of 'if you can't beat em, join em' which is why I believe things must change because we're peddling backwards here.
It's the babechannels that treat the punters as cash machines, as easy pickens to tap into whenever they they want . Great example of screwing every last penny out of the callers is the bringing back of older models, and we all know who they are. They know these models will rock no boats when it comes to breaking rules. But at the expense of fresh talent which should be the lifeblood of these shows.
RE: Babeshows - General Chat & Discussion - 301 - 25-02-2015 23:06
Regarding demand for babeshows, if we look at Google Trends we can see that demand is pretty stable since 2011.
http://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore#q=babestation
RE: Elite TV/Studio 66 - General Chat & Discussion - hairbald - 25-02-2015 23:43
(25-02-2015 20:26 )Goodfella3041 Wrote: "I see a naked fat guy on a couch having a wank..."
I bloody object to that. I'm in my Lazy Boy - get your facts straight next time before throwing these baseless accusations around
RE: Elite TV/Studio 66 - General Chat & Discussion - eccles - 26-02-2015 03:22
(25-02-2015 20:26 )Goodfella3041 Wrote: "I see a naked fat guy on a couch having a wank..."
OK wheres the camera hidden? Are Ant and Dec suddenly going to appear on screen?
RE: Elite TV/Studio 66 - General Chat & Discussion - eccles - 26-02-2015 03:31
(25-02-2015 20:36 )RESPONSIBLE ADULT Wrote: It's the babechannels that treat the punters as cash machines, as easy pickens to tap into whenever they they want . Great example of screwing every last penny out of the callers is the bringing back of older models, and we all know who they are. They know these models will rock no boats when it comes to breaking rules. But at the expense of fresh talent which should be the lifeblood of these shows.
It was very noticeable that when Ofcom clamped down, many many years ago (sigh) some channels decided to tap into small but dedicated niche markets. Gone were the days when every model was slim and under 25. Suddenly there were entire channels with grannies, and making no pretence about it, as well as the more Rubenseque models, not to mention the ladyboys. Six months earlier they would have been pushed aside for chocolate box pretty, but the crowd thinned out and only the more dedicated fans remained. Diversity is great so we should all cheer. Cynical? Yes because the channels only cater for that audience segment when it suits them.
RE: Babeshows - General Chat & Discussion - Bandwagon - 26-02-2015 09:55
(25-02-2015 20:36 )RESPONSIBLE ADULT Wrote: It's the babechannels that treat the punters as cash machines, as easy pickens to tap into whenever they they want . Great example of screwing every last penny out of the callers is the bringing back of older models, and we all know who they are. They know these models will rock no boats when it comes to breaking rules. But at the expense of fresh talent which should be the lifeblood of these shows.
Yes I see your point RA, but I guess as always it depends on who they bring back as to whether we are pleased or not. I can think of a few models I wish they would bring back, because I like them and I think they are good performers. It is dull though to see the same faces time and time again, but I suppose each channel has to have some sort of foundation for solid income, and as tired as it may seem that's exactly where they look - tried & tested with a reliable fan base.
I too would like to see more girls given a chance though to help freshen the place up a bit. Some of the young girls do look clueless and that's where the produces should step in and gently coax them in the right direction.
Some girls just have it, some girls have the looks but minus the moves, and in my opinion they would be worth spending the coaching time on.
RE: Babeshows - General Chat & Discussion - Goodfella3041 - 26-02-2015 13:37
This all raises another interesting dimension.
Most of the discussion over the last few pages has focused on Babeshow 'demand' -- i.e. where is the market going and how will that affect the product?
Is there, however, a supply side constraint as well? Here is a hypothesis. And that's all it is -- I'm not suggesting it is wrong or right, just wondering what others think.
Is it inevitable that the Babeshows will simply have a smaller pool of talent to choose from in the future?
We touched on this a while ago, I think, but it seems particularly relevant to this discussion. Personally, I don't think that any of these young ladies set out on a 'career path' to be babeshow models. They were probably very pretty girls who were tempted into thinking that they could 'make it' in more conventional modeling or (at worst) glamour modeling / reality TV. For whatever reason, they didn't make it in the former and the bottom fell out of the latter. So they end up on the babeshows.
Certainly the luster and lure of glamour modeling has diminished in recent years, notably with the decline of the lads mags. That weird 10 year period when Katie Price was a role model for anyone is pretty much over. But without that siren call of glamour modeling to lure pretty young things onto the 'rocks' of babeshow presenting, is the supply line of gorgeous models going to dry up?
Returning to what Admiral said earlier, just as there may only be enough market to sustain one or two channels, is it possible (or likely) that there will only be enough "boxcover" models to staff one or two channels?
Just a thought...
RE: Babeshows - General Chat & Discussion - Snooks - 27-02-2015 18:00
The Dannii Harwood inspired Babestation has left the other channels floundering hopelessly every night she has been on.
Not only has she been sensational, she has made everyone else at BS raise their game too.
Not just babes but people behind the scenes too.
So many of the things BS got wrong they are starting to put right.
The other channels need to follow that lead imo.
The quality gap is widening all the time imo.
BS are on fire right now.
RE: Babeshows - General Chat & Discussion - ShandyHand - 27-02-2015 19:24
I wonder if Goodfella's question has not received any replies until now as a lot of what can be said on it has possibly been said before in these threads; nevertheless I can see why Goodfella is asking it now as it seems a pre-eminent time to take stock given the state of the channels right now and the changes that are going on around the scene. So, at the risk of covering old ground, I'll have shot at trying to sum up what definitely looks like a personnel issue for the channels atm!
It would seem there is, indeed, only a small pool of talent willing to attempt the babe shows just now and not enough proper development of promising newbies going on. The lure of dreadfully easy pickings once to be had by those that possessed of the right attributes has definitely diminished over the years as the recession took hold.
Early on a struggling market led to entrenchment among the operators i.e. a playing safe in particular with the recruitment of on-screen talent in the need to see a quick assured return from them revenue-wise. (Of course, a small talent pool also means those that do have a proven track record for such things can demand the highest fees.)
As previous years' such top names retired this precipitated a spiralling downturn: A declining market, volatile for its staff particularly its on-screen ones, led to less consistent shifts and money making on offer and, subsequently, even less top talent wanting to be involved, which abetted a further declining market. Some external change is needed to break this cycle if things are to improve significantly I think.
Maybe the recruitment cache and luster of the channels (ie. the ability to earn top $) will return at some point in the future if whatever channels can battle through can, eventually, turn a real corner. But, as I say, I think they'll need some help to do so. The only light at the end of the tunnel that I can see is a change in delivery method for the channels (web>Smart TV) that might free them from the restrictions imposed on their content. This may spark a return to higher revenues for the channels. But, equally, it may not.
It is all too easy too fall into the trap watching the babe channels under Ofcom to think that but for their existence everything would be rosy for the channels. But it may be that the babe channel's heyday was a mere fad - a passing genre soon to be as rare on TV as the anthology series!
But that's a bleak image. Let's hope that technology can yet save the babe channels. The British male's tommy* options would definitely be poorer without them!
*Maybe and old fart's term: Rhyimg slang - 'tommy tank'...