+- 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)
RE: What would get you spending online? - M-L-L - 14-01-2018 17:15
I am not qualified to comment on the S66"alternative camera/stream" as I've not seen them. But - admittedly not having seen it work in action - speaking personally I'm not sure this particular innovation would encourage me to view/spend more on the channels.
Presumably what is being offered is a slightly less censored/more than they can show on TV free-to-view webstream, as well as a pay-per-minute pervcam ?
It seems to me that this wouldn't really be significantly different to how things are at the moment, yes in theory if not on TV at all they could show more, but will they want to? Will the revenue make it worthwhile ?
Having not seen this in action, I also question whether it would make the "censored" free-to-air TV and webstream views any less static/uninteresting than they have currently become on the free-to-air TV shows : as surely the babe is more likely to spend all their time looking at monitors and making sure they're not giving away what they shouldn't on the free streams/regulated TV feeds.
If it is a hand-held/operated camera, so there is always a camera operator picking the shots and capable of changing position in response to how a phone call might be working, yes that could provide a more responsive and potentially worthwhile service for the those calling in, as an alternative to pervcam; but from the channel's point of view it would still need to be reliable enough that the operator knows not to choose angles which "give away the store" restricted for pay-per-minute angles.
But it seems to me the channels are currently going away from this to having fixed cameras that rarely move, presumably to cut down on the amount of backstage staff required. When the cameras are hand-held these days, this seems to be confined to the "POV lines" which seem to me not as frequently deployed at the moment as they were in the past ?
And, imho, the largely fixed camera, single viewpoint presentations, leading to fairly static babes; combined with anti-freeload attitude, are what are killing the free-to-air shows visually.
It also seems to me that the idea of multiple different cameras on the same babe requires a level of commitment on the part of the viewer to spot when these are in operation and potentially showing something more interesting than the TV feed. Essentially they'd need to actively watch online via the streams for the majority of time, where it is presumably easy to see at a glance which babes have multiple stream options available; rather than watching the mainstream TV.
I think the majority prepared to do this are already seasoned babeshow watchers who have already ditched the TV and generally already watch the shows exclusively online/ through the smartphone/wi-fi device they're using to make the call - if they are calling that is.
For me, the advanatage of the simple directness of the phone-in-to-TV pre-pervcam format was that the babe onscreen played to the one camera - the TV directing all the eye contact and "best moves" in that direction,to assist the illusion of interactivity with the watcher on the phone.
As soon as the babe is having to serve more than one point of view, imho, that kills the illusion of personal contact and the spontaneous changes of position and etc in response to the dialogue taking place on the phone : which was interesting to watch as a TV viewer even if you weren't on the call / listening in.
Which from the channel's point of view is I guess the problem, the show is therefore "too good" for the freeloader who therefore has no incentive to call in.
I'm probably a lost cause as far as the channels are concerned.
I am a "freeloader" who was motivated by a very few particular performers to phone in, and they have all retired or moved into dayshows etc.
But having said that, I WAS motivated to spend money on certain pay-per-view content : bsx liveshows of certain performers, downloadable photosets, downloadable videos of a range of performers, from the channel's websites, from time to time.
I saw this as VFM because you have actual content there you are paying for, that you can revisit/rewatch as desired.
I am less keen on options which only let you stream and not download : I prefer to be able to pick and choose content I want to watch/re-watch; not to have to commit to a long-term monthly-billed subscription service when I might only be tempted by a couple of 5 or 10 minute clips every couple of months, and wholly uninterested in the rest of the content most of the time (
That in my experience has been the problem with the BSX website for most of this past year, the content is all either increasingly recycled/ years old and/or focusing on performers I have no particular interest in).I just don't personally rate the real-time so-called interactive nature of "pervcam" or webcam shows in the same way. So I am not really the channel's ideal customer. Their USP after all, is the potential interactivity with the babes. I just happen to not be that bothered about that experience, I am content with a more voyeuristic programme - if it's visually interesting enough. And the way things have gone, pre-recorded/edited clips are generally now MORE visually interesting than the liveshows.
So all in all, I am not motivated to spend money on a pay-per-minute basis for pervcam, it just isn't interesting enough to me :
a)it's too static and boring just to have a camera fixated on a genitals only view; and in my limited experience of having used it once or twice the picture quality is also poor.
b)it's also too much of a gamble : there is too much uncertainty in what you may or may not see/ what babes want to/don't want to show / how effective they actually are at serving both the pervcam viewpoint and the TV viewpoint.
c) from what I read about other webcam shows - where there are multiple babes together or similar; these are very hit-and-miss - usually miss - affairs where the babes are singularly reluctant to make any kind of performance without the viewers having to shower them with "tips/credits" etc for variable results; so again to me that just does not seem like it's ever been value for money, for all the 4 years or more that I've been on this forum I've rarely seen positive comments about webcam shows in terms of quality of show/value for money.
I'm not sure that a "third camera", which is not a pervcam, and which can show more than the TV, is the answer for me personally to these issues.
And, more crucially from the operator's point of view - how does a third camera ultimately generate more revenue ?
If the "third camera" is free to view online, but less censored than TV, how does it ultimately generate more cash for the channel to justify its existence ?
I don't see it personally, it will surely just compete with the pervcam - for instance, will the people that used to watch BS Unleashed but never call in to that show and spend money, now watch this "third uncensored camera" for free and start to call in and spend more money than they would if the only way they could see more is - as currently -to shell out for the pervcam option ?
RE: What would get you spending online? - lovebabes56 - 14-01-2018 18:51
Great post and points
What we also have to bear in mind is how much of an influence OFCOM may or may not have in the final implementation
RE: What would get you spending online? - lovebabes56 - 17-01-2018 08:23
Rake completely agree with your post mate.
IMO there so many small things the channels need to do make VIP membership worth the extra cash outlay and one thing that probably won't change is the issue of background noise/music I feel there will always be that issue because I think the music is there to cover sound when the babe is chatting. And if we were to petition the studios en masse we might see change.
The host event has always cropped up in discussions on various threads and again it comes down to getting the babes to agree and the best suitable location.
RE: What would get you spending online? - ShandyHand - 18-01-2018 19:00
Thanks for the typically considered and thoughtful response M-L-L. It deserves a point by point answer and I hope guys will go with me as I try to give it that.
(14-01-2018 17:15 )M-L-L Wrote: ...seems to me that this wouldn't really be significantly different to how things are at the moment, yes in theory if not on TV at all they could show more, but will they want to? Will the revenue make it worthwhile ?
As you say the basics always have to be that if the revenue is there for the shows, their 'want' will be there too.
The shows continue to pursue new ways to monetise visuals; we are not going to change that. But what type of visuals will offer worthwhile revenue, at what rate, is still open for debate.
66 seem to have some little faith in second camera feeds as they have been working at them for nearly a year now this time round. Sometimes things just have to find their time and audience - as happened with pervcam in the end... Besides, as I've said before, camera two isn't simply pervcam lite. Instead to me it's a pointer towards a reinvigorated set of shows and services. A promotion of what the shows should really be about. It captures a little of the style and feel of the shows of old. That is something the should be capitalised on by us and the channels IMO.
(14-01-2018 17:15 )M-L-L Wrote: ...I also question whether it would make the "censored" free-to-air TV and webstream views any less static/uninteresting than they have currently become on the free-to-air TV shows ...
If it is a hand-held/operated camera ... that could provide a more responsive and potentially worthwhile service for the those calling in, as an alternative to pervcam; ... it would still need to be reliable enough that the operator knows not to choose angles which "give away the store" restricted for pay-per-minute angles.
But it seems to me the channels are currently going away from this to having fixed cameras that rarely move, presumably to cut down on the amount of backstage staff required. ... imho, the largely fixed camera, single viewpoint presentations, leading to fairly static babes; combined with anti-freeload attitude, are what are killing the free-to-air shows visually.
Not sure if this is you exactly, but some guys do see the holy grail return of more performance based shows as a dead duck, killed forever by lazy babes and new technology that always plays into their hands. I think things are a little more nuanced than that. I'm speculating that what we have now is an environment ripe for an at least partial reversal. I see camera two as one incremental change that might bring us to that.
Fernanda manages this two camera and monitors set up expertly. Of course, implementation would indeed have to vary; distinctions between day and night shows in that regard are already much as you describe. But the thing is, the dayshows are already necessarily static. This new innovation isn't going to make them more so. In fact the babe should be encouraged to play up her movements by it, within limits, to show off the side of herself the TV angle isn't allowed to see.
This is indeed, a caller-enticing, overall experience and Fernanda has certainly shown how it could be so for her.
I agree that second cameras after 10pm are dependent on the skills of the cameraman - most definitely. Babe and cameraman do have to work together to make the right atmosphere here yes. Currently, they must forge the right content level images to just draw the punter into interactivity and no more. I would argue the opposite to you on the production side though. I would say that there are signs just recently that the bigger operators have seen the need to increase production costs slightly (including the odd extra cameraman) as they contemplate the demands of a full immersion on to the web this year.
As for attitude, I've said previously that I believe this is seen as a big deal only when the shows are viewed as poor generally. I also believe that poor attitudes can be replaced over time by rewarding the right kind of show done in the right attitude. Punters get what they deserve in effect. We have to be sure to not sell our own money short.
(14-01-2018 17:15 )M-L-L Wrote: ... the idea of multiple different cameras on the same babe requires a level of commitment on the part of the viewer to spot when these are in operation and potentially showing something more interesting than the TV feed. Essentially they'd need to actively watch online via the streams for the majority of time ...
I think the majority prepared to do this are already seasoned babeshow watchers who have already ditched the TV and generally already watch the shows exclusively online/ through the smartphone/wi-fi device they're using to make the call - if they are calling that is.
Got to disagree here. Pervcam isn't just advertised by the visibility of wire or lens on the TV feed. It is also the babes' body language towards it and so on. Cam two is likewise. It was quite easy to see when Fern had a second cam high up to her right to play to. With a nightshow it should be more obvious still as the babe can 'signal' even more with her greater freedom of movement - even if the thing is out of shot.
The babes have also learnt how to mention cams on mic without mentioning the website directly. It would be even easier to do in similar fashion with the second camera.
I feel it's easy to overestimate the tech's reach. Guys still talk of only being able to view FV or Sky on here don't they. Then what about the wider public..? The operators still need to draw viewers and therefore potential users into using the web streams IMO; but now, beyond that, they need to offer more to get guys more invested and involved than they are currently.
People are catching up with the tech all the time though. Smart TVs, handheld devices and streaming media players are changing the way broadcasts are delivered. What is online will shortly be universally accessible and convenient on nearly every screen going. The problems of reach that you speak of will pretty soon be moot.
(14-01-2018 17:15 )M-L-L Wrote: For me, the advanatage of the simple directness of the phone-in-to-TV pre-pervcam format was that the babe onscreen played to the one camera - the TV directing all the eye contact and "best moves" in that direction,to assist the illusion of interactivity with the watcher on the phone.
As soon as the babe is having to serve more than one point of view, imho, that kills the illusion of personal contact and the spontaneous changes of position and etc in response to the dialogue taking place on the phone : which was interesting to watch as a TV viewer even if you weren't on the call / listening in.
Which from the channel's point of view is I guess the problem, the show is therefore "too good" for the freeloader who therefore has no incentive to call in.
The babes eye contact and "best moves" should be aimed wherever the caller's at. Only when she has no-one on her line should she resort to 'enticement mode'. And then the show will be as it is now. More revenue is surely to be had by providing a better service to callers. One of the ways to do that is by limiting the reach of Ofcom's regs but in a targeted way (unlike the 'overly' freeloader friendly output of yore). As I say the viewer can go see what the caller online is seeing in any case should they wish. That is the game and the draw into stream use.
(14-01-2018 17:15 )M-L-L Wrote: I'm probably a lost cause as far as the channels are concerned.
I am a "freeloader" who was motivated by a very few particular performers to phone in, and they have all retired or moved into dayshows etc.
But having said that, I WAS motivated to spend money on certain pay-per-view content : bsx liveshows of certain performers, downloadable photosets, downloadable videos of a range of performers, from the channel's websites, from time to time.
I saw this as VFM because you have actual content there you are paying for, that you can revisit/rewatch as desired.
I am less keen on options which only let you stream and not download : I prefer to be able to pick and choose content I want to watch/re-watch; not to have to commit to a long-term monthly-billed subscription service ...
You see, we can only really complain about the shows if we first define what we want from them IMO.
You have done so here: So how about a one-off payment for a live show to your taste that you can download 'immediately' after it's completion? Wouldn't that be nearer the mark for you?(14-01-2018 17:15 )M-L-L Wrote: [On] the BSX website for most of this past year, the content is all either increasingly recycled/ years old and/or focusing on performers I have no particular interest in).
I just don't personally rate the real-time so-called interactive nature of "pervcam" or webcam shows in the same way. So I am not really the channel's ideal customer. Their USP after all, is the potential interactivity with the babes. I just happen to not be that bothered about that experience, I am content with a more voyeuristic programme - if it's visually interesting enough. And the way things have gone, pre-recorded/edited clips are generally now MORE visually interesting than the liveshows.
So all in all, I am not motivated to spend money on a pay-per-minute basis for pervcam, it just isn't interesting enough to me :
a)it's too static and boring just to have a camera fixated on a genitals only view; and in my limited experience of having used it once or twice the picture quality is also poor.
b)it's also too much of a gamble : there is too much uncertainty in what you may or may not see/ what babes want to/don't want to show / how effective they actually are at serving both the pervcam viewpoint and the TV viewpoint.
c) from what I read about other webcam shows - where there are multiple babes together or similar; these are very hit-and-miss - usually miss - affairs where the babes are singularly reluctant to make any kind of performance without the viewers having to shower them with "tips/credits" etc for variable results; so again to me that just does not seem like it's ever been value for money, for all the 4 years or more that I've been on this forum I've rarely seen positive comments about webcam shows in terms of quality of show/value for money.
I'm not sure that a "third camera", which is not a pervcam, and which can show more than the TV, is the answer for me personally to these issues.
And, more crucially from the operator's point of view - how does a third camera ultimately generate more revenue ?
If the "third camera" is free to view online, but less censored than TV, how does it ultimately generate more cash for the channel to justify its existence ?
I don't see it personally, it will surely just compete with the pervcam - for instance, will the people that used to watch BS Unleashed but never call in to that show and spend money, now watch this "third uncensored camera" for free and start to call in and spend more money than they would if the only way they could see more is - as currently -to shell out for the pervcam option ?
An over reliance on pervcam could cost the channels long-term IMO. The problem with all BS services atm is that they are hitting pervcam with an 'all our eggs in one basket' ferocity and they are ensuring that it succeeds off the back of lessening the standard of their other services. When they do so it diminishes their shows' future sustainability IMO. No-one is a fan of the shows because of pervcam. I am subject to the latter's appeal most definitely but for me they are only as exciting and stimulating as they are because of a guy's knowledge of the babe in question. If guys have no investment in the shows they will have little desire for pervcam or any other of their services. So it follows that the better all the shows are the more guys will be attracted to the sites and the more will be tempted into finding the extremes of content.
That said, a lot of your complaints in this section are against pervcam and a certain kind of webshow. All online shows don't have to feel that way. In fact, as I've been describing 66's efforts they are actually in indication of a different path. They are an answer to the ubiquitousness of perv, and a salve to those for whom it does nothing, not more of the same. These are not credit or tips shows; they are kept more honest by their caller based nature. Camera two's exact MO would necessarily vary but its a style that we all know and is far from being blurry, static and boring. It can live alongside pervcam and even help it because it shouldn't be played like it, or be as prone to the dodgy webshow syndrome that you describe.
As an enhancement to what we have, not a thing on it's own, it can justify its existence by bringing more revenue to existing services. That's why the comparison with Unleashed is unfair. As you've alluded, with camera two, there is a compulsion to not "give away the store" which is by definition exactly what Unleashed had to do. The latter couldn't exist once paid services around it were offering the same content levels. This situation doesn't really compare.
Regardless of all this, I just feel that we should be encouraging the right things right now and punting for change at this pivotal time. We need to support the options we want to see in the future and praise what we see performed in the right spirit.
RE: What would get you spending online? - milfspotter - 20-01-2018 22:45
(14-01-2018 17:15 )M-L-L Wrote: Having not seen this in action, I also question whether it would make the "censored" free-to-air TV and webstream views any less static/uninteresting than they have currently become on the free-to-air TV shows : as surely the babe is more likely to spend all their time looking at monitors and making sure they're not giving away what they shouldn't on the free streams/regulated TV feeds.Absolutely agree mate. But unfortunately the shows will never go back to that.
For me, the advanatage of the simple directness of the phone-in-to-TV pre-pervcam format was that the babe onscreen played to the one camera - the TV directing all the eye contact and "best moves" in that direction,to assist the illusion of interactivity with the watcher on the phone.
As soon as the babe is having to serve more than one point of view, imho, that kills the illusion of personal contact and the spontaneous changes of position and etc in response to the dialogue taking place on the phone : which was interesting to watch as a TV viewer even if you weren't on the call / listening in.
I've tried pervcam a couple of times and it was a disappointing experience. As has been said, the picture quality is crap and also it's a bit of a lottery as to what you might get. It woud have to improve a lot to entice me back to it. Will cam 2 be any better? I'd be tempted by the right girl.
RE: What would get you spending online? - ShandyHand - 21-01-2018 13:39
First off thanks for forgiving the indulgences of my last post here.
But it's about time I got off my soapbox on this thread and let others take centre stage again. So, with the aim of opening up the discussion once more, I thought I might add a few last thoughts of a more general nature that came to me whilst drafting that response to M-L-L.1. Going forward, I actually think on that on nights the operators should forget about worrying if a cameraman is in the TV shot at all. It creates a distinct excitement for the viewer in imagining the alternative shot when they see him actually in there getting it. It must provoke business. Just go all 'cinema verite' and embrace its advantages!
2. M-L-L's remarks about downloads are incredibly pertinent I feel. The quick and regular availability of such things would add much VFM to the web experience. Flexibility and simple one-click access; more content that can be consumed as and when the punter wants it... that sort of thing always drives e-commerce. (Although there is, of course, the usual caveat about babes preferring their harder content remains as ephemeral as possible.)
3. When you look at what guys want from the shows according to their posts on this forum there are many correlations as to what constitutes an ideal show. Many hark back to things that made them a fan in the first place. Some of this may be pure nostalgia at play, and therefore defy any effort to replicate it, but why wouldn't these kinds of shows, delivered in the right way, with just enough content, at the right price have a broad enough appeal to be financially successful in the modern era? If the type of shows we had in 2009-10 were so good would they not be worth paying a small half-hour fee for in amongst a handful of other offerings?
If not, I can't help but ask myself, what type of shows are enough guys going to be prepared to stump up for (while bearing in mind any financial hit such shows may make on the services around it)? Why are we here if not for the style of show that defined what a babeshow is?
4. While I don't believe that porn is direct competition to the shows per se, it might well be the case that the the proliferation of free porn on tube sites and so forth over the last few years has had a distinct effect on what sort of Adult content guys expect should be available for free online. The shows face a tough battle in convincing guys to pay for their pussy when so much is available for just the minor irritant of pop-up ads protruding across your screen.
5. The shows definitely need to do more to monetise the straight-forward non-interactive consumer of visuals. Trouble is the competition is ever more fierce in this area. There is some illusive subtly in why guys like M-L-L and I (I'm largely as disinterested in actual interactivity as he is) should wish to get our kicks in an industry based around such interactivity. One things for sure though we are not alone in this.
RE: What would get you spending online? - ryuken - 27-01-2018 10:37
As a bare minimum, the channels and presenters need to provide four types of high quality content:
1. Interactive cheeky - fully clothed with sexual innuendos
2. Interactive sexy - topless with no holds barred sex talk
3. Passive cheeky - topless striptease videos
4. Passive sexy - nude and 2-4-1 videos
Option 1 is basically daytime TV but all hosts need to perform to the same level as Fernanda Ferrari and Charlie C. Lying motionless on a bed for 8 hours in the same outfit and playing with your phone is unacceptable. Channels need to stop filming presenters from only the waist up. If daytime hosts want to show their tits or pussy, then give them a specific timeslot for group and private web shows.
Option 2 is basically night time TV but all hosts on FTA have to go topless or nude between 22:00 and 05:00. Get rid of tease shows. If daytime hosts want to be "act" more raunchy then they should do it during the day. If night time hosts want to show their pussies, then give them a specific timeslot for group and private web shows.
Option 3 is basically the type of videos you get as a BS or S66 monthly member, but I want to buy and download each video of my favourite presenters individually. Paying £240 a year for only a couple videos of your favourite presenter isn't VFM.
Option 4 is basically the same as option 3 but more explicit and hardcore. I want full on lesbian videos and solo videos with toys.
If any presenters aren't willing to provide any of those four options then they should find another job.
If any channels aren't willing to provide that type of content, then I hope they go out of business like the lads mags did.
RE: What would get you spending online? - M-L-L - 27-01-2018 16:37
(20-01-2018 22:45 )milfspotter Wrote:(14-01-2018 17:15 )M-L-L Wrote: For me, the advanatage of the simple directness of the phone-in-to-TV pre-pervcam format was that the babe onscreen played to the one camera - the TV directing all the eye contact and "best moves" in that direction,to assist the illusion of interactivity with the watcher on the phone.Absolutely agree mate. But unfortunately the shows will never go back to that.
I understand and agree - but was just outlining my personal reasons for why I am watching these shows less and less.
(21-01-2018 13:39 )ShandyHand Wrote: 1. Going forward, I actually think on that on nights the operators should forget about worrying if a cameraman is in the TV shot at all. It creates a distinct excitement for the viewer in imagining the alternative shot when they see him actually in there getting it. It must provoke business. Just go all 'cinema verite' and embrace its advantages!
I have to say I personally disagree with this. I don't want to see cameramen in the shot.
(
Unless the camera operators are going to be the babes in states of suitable deshabille filming each other. 
Unlikely since they run a mile from even mildly suggestive 2-4-1's these days)Censored-for-TV-pretendy-"Boy-Girl" interaction is a complete bore as far as I am concerned.That just turns the shows into weak gonzo ?
But I realise I may be in a minority in this.
(21-01-2018 13:39 )ShandyHand Wrote: M-L-L's remarks about downloads are incredibly pertinent I feel. The quick and regular availability of such things would add much VFM to the web experience.
Why are we here if not for the style of show that defined what a babeshow is?
There is some illusive subtly in why guys like M-L-L and I (I'm largely as disinterested in actual interactivity as he is) should wish to get our kicks in an industry based around such interactivity. One things for sure though we are not alone in this.
I don't conflate my personal preferences with what the babeshows' business model needs to be, if anything I realise they are in conflict a lot of the time.
The babeshows USP is their interactive nature.
That I choose not to engage with this is not really their problem to solve ?
But, I'd suggest, if their model is distorting the visual presentation to the point where long-standing callers are no longer interested in engaging, that IS their problem, and that seems to be what is happening ? At least until the web-only perv-cam driven business complete replaces and overtakes in revenue terms ? (It may well have already?)
The answer to SH's last question in my case is not really subtle or illusive - or indeed elusive ?
- they used to be transmitting a variety of naked females into my living room for free on a nightly basis. For some time, this proved to be interesting enough and addictive enough to motivate me to seek out some of their more "explicit" content through the pay/subscription models online on a semi-regular basis, accessible merely by pressing the "on" button on my TV remote, and not bothering with tedious firing-up of PC's, tablets, waiting for them to perform "configurations and application updates etc
) and then eventually finding a stop-start / freezing / blurry webstream (I'm not talking about webcam, I'm talking about their free-to-air streams here 
)However, as babeshow performers came and went, and the style of the TV shows changed (in response to regulation/revenue generation and/or both ?) the appeal of these shows diminished to the point where they are no longer commanding much of my attention or time.
My personal interest is therefore now confined to irregular "dipping in" to certain bsx shows (I'll probably tune in for Jada this weekend) and that's about it.
Thanks to the generosity of forum members here, I've also been able to reacquaint myself with the babestation website members area on a temporary basis gratis , and which I hadn't visited in about a year. So there's been some content to view and download, some of it pretty good.There is however, I'm sorry to report, far more "republished" content appearing than I remember
, a lot of it not very old (eg. two or three years old ) which to me is disappointing when you consider that the original published versions are still on there, if you bother to jump back through the pages. Now, the only excuse I can see for this is if the quality of the content (eg. the resolution/picture quality of the videos, for example ?) has been increased from the original publication; otherwise I just don't see the reason for it : at any rate I don't see it encouraging long term subscriptions from fans of certain performers, what is the point if the "new" updates just turn out to be the same photosets you downloaded a year ago ? (And I'm not talking about babes who have left the channel or the shows, these are ones that are still active.)
RE: What would get you spending online? - ShandyHand - 28-01-2018 13:43
(27-01-2018 10:37 )ryuken Wrote: As a bare minimum, the channels and presenters need to provide four types of high quality content:
1. Interactive cheeky - fully clothed with sexual innuendos
2. Interactive sexy - topless with no holds barred sex talk
3. Passive cheeky - topless striptease videos
4. Passive sexy - nude and 2-4-1 videos
Your fair outline of minimum requirements is shared by many on here I have no doubt ryuken.
What intrigues me though is the idea that the channels should be, and presumably are, concious in their desire to get away from the strict bounderies between your 1 to 4.
I differ from M-L-L in that I have virtually no interest in babe's pre-recorded video or still image material. I love live stuff that incorporates elements often used in 3 and 4 though and would like post-show accessibility and availabilty to be similar to that provided for 3 and 4 now.
They should also be looking to move their content on away from the traditional limits usually imposed on your 1 to 4.
And hopefully at different payment levels for that different web versions of 1 and 2.
Any paywalled shows should not be artifically limited by the ubiquitious use of the webcam. Give us proper camera'd paid action too.
RE: What would get you spending online? - ShandyHand - 31-01-2018 20:36
(27-01-2018 16:37 )M-L-L Wrote: I don't want to see cameramen in the shot. ...
Censored-for-TV-pretendy-"Boy-Girl" interaction is a complete bore ...
In no way was I suggesting this was about B/G. It is about inspiring and intriguing the imagination in the viewer. It would heighten the adrenaline of anticipation that's always redolent in a good show. It is pertinent, practical and plays to what the shows have always really been about (pressing us to do something other than just watch). Phones and pervcam pull us in on their strengths; a cameramanned cam 2 has its unique driver in it's movement and angles - show them being created.
(27-01-2018 16:37 )M-L-L Wrote: I don't conflate my personal preferences with what the babeshows' business model needs to be, if anything I realise they are in conflict a lot of the time.
I understand that but at the same time... You used to be a regular paying customer and now you're much less so. Can the channels really afford to be unconcerned with stories like yours?
Even if you argue that your 'customer type' is not of significant number to the operators, I'd say that the particular aspect of it I'm selecting is. How many guys on here have big recording collections of their favourite babeshows? How many would love official high quality sources for such things (a download could easily be of higher spec than the streamed version)? The general babeshow fan has a collector's mentality; they are engaged by such things, the shows should work further with that if they can.
Kerrie Lee's recent aborted B/G session was planned as a downloadable after the event. This sort of 'added value' is a well known driver of media sales.
(27-01-2018 16:37 )M-L-L Wrote: The babeshows USP is their interactive nature.
That I choose not to engage with this is not really their problem to solve ?
But, I'd suggest, if their model is distorting the visual presentation to the point where long-standing callers are no longer interested in engaging, that IS their problem ...
Yes but the nature of that interactivity needs to be as open to possibilities as it can be. Operators shouldn't be limiting the scope or shape of it by their actions if they can help it. Even when you just download for instance that's interaction. When someone wants to be a non-chatting 'voyeur', that interaction can't be spurned either.
Right now, the difference is that, by and large, 66 are attempting to open up the range for customer interactivity to make it as inclusive to as many types of guys as possible; while BS are jyst repeating 'get with the pervcam program'.
(27-01-2018 16:37 )M-L-L Wrote: The answer to SH's last question in my case is not really subtle or illusive - or indeed elusive ?
For some time, this proved to be interesting enough and addictive enough to motivate me to seek out some of their more "explicit" content through the pay/subscription models online on a semi-regular basis, accessible merely by pressing the "on" button on my TV remote, and not bothering with tedious firing-up of PC's, tablets, waiting for them to perform "configurations and application updates etc
The subtly or illusiveness comes when asking why you (and, to a lesser extent, I) are still here when there's more than enough freebie nakedness of the sort you talk about available all around us 24/7. In the past I would have said it was a matter of convenience of access and the higher spec image quality you got when watching naked babes on TV that made the difference but these days..?!
A tablet or smart-phone has very little or no "configuration" lag in its normal use. Describing the fta streams as "blurry" is the sign of a man that only watches BS.
(They too got into high def streams a while back but seem to have reverted to de-interlaced dodginess just lately come the addition of their most recent channels.)The continuing pull of the babeshows can't be all a matter of nostalgia and, profoundly, for me at least, has something to do with their live nature. That is also very much a babeshow selling point of course; the channels, for a start, need to recover some of the 'danger' that should be inherent in this sort of broadcasting if they are to prosper online.