+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Night Shows (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Babestation (/forumdisplay.php?fid=99)
+---- Forum: BABESTATION TV (/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+---- Thread: BS Restrictions (/showthread.php?tid=78618)
RE: BS Restrictions - derekdas - 22-06-2024 12:21
(22-06-2024 11:49 )Rigobert16 Wrote: The girls aren't allowed to take their panties off on TV. OFCOM came down on them, so they are being cautious.
Where did you hear that crap about OFCOM. Ok BS currently don't want to allow the girls to go naked on tv atm, simply for financial reasons. Tv in their view is now a small part of their overall earnings and are making the tv shows as rubbish as possible, to entice punters to go behind the paywall to get what we used to get a year or two ago for free. If a girl mentions in conversation she can't do that because of OFCOM she is being lied to by BS or misinformed. There are a few guys on here that do look at any OFCOM breaches mention in any Government papers, it would be interesting to hear if there is any major shifts towards OFCOM banning nudity on glamour tv.
RE: BS Restrictions - Kingsmind - 22-06-2024 12:39
(22-06-2024 11:58 )SecretAgent Wrote: Regarding sacking girls that’s not new - they always had a clear out from time to time and why have an underperformer take up studio space when someone else could use it.
Doesn't happen as much as you think now , i can't recall anyone being sacked since S66 went because well they needed somewhere to work i guess and the question is where would they go , there is only XP now so it's different now , so i guess they would do something else.
Anyway sorry to say but they are doing the right thing now sacking the big bunch of babes , it was just all about timing when S66 went and they got the time spot on , so the question is can they sack the right babes.
RE: BS Restrictions - Dave_A - 22-06-2024 12:57
I saw a Ofcom broadcast bulletin a few months ago, that stated, Ofcom were starting investigations into Babestation and Smile TV.
These investigations are for various dates, Ofcom didn't put a date, it just said various.
So it wasn't just 1 incident they were/are investigating, it looks like there was a few.
RE: BS Restrictions - Rammyrascal - 22-06-2024 13:18
(22-06-2024 11:40 )SecretAgent Wrote: I overheard a producer talking to a Dayshow babe yesterday on the Streamate feed and telling her about nightshow changes. Didn't hear all the conversation as they silenced the feed but what I did hear was:
- TV Nightshows now only contribute 10% of revenue
- Only 2 girls to now get booked for a nighshow. A girl is taken off the web to cover breaks
- TV girls will be experienced performers as the newer girls are not interested/good enough to generate TV revenue
- No coming off TV for privates on Pervcam for nightshow TV girls
- No topless on TV
- Underperforming girls at BS who don't meet their minimum income targets whatever type of shift they do will be sacked
Sounds to me like a move to maximise TV phone revenue while they can.
I heard the producer confirm that these instructions only apply to nighshows.
If I remember correctly from some time ago the girls doing TV shifts get paid for their shift whilst webshow shifts are share of revenue only.
Babes were topless on tv last night, so what is meant by "no topless on tv"? Also presume the 2 BS Babes that start at 10pm are the 2 tv babes. So last night for example it was Beth & Caty, both of whom are "experienced performers"
RE: BS Restrictions - SecretAgent - 22-06-2024 13:23
^ I’m just saying what I heard Rammy
RE: BS Restrictions - Rammyrascal - 22-06-2024 13:27
(22-06-2024 13:23 )SecretAgent Wrote: ^ I’m just saying what I heard Rammy
I know, just wondering what is/was meant by "no topless on tv" when there were topless tv babes last night. Probably meant to say "No nudity on tv" instead of "no topless on tv"
RE: BS Restrictions - SecretAgent - 22-06-2024 13:34
^^^ Kingsmind they have all the data they need to know how girls are performing & decide who they sack for not meeting targets. I think we could all probably name girls who we’ve seen just laying around. The job requires girls to hustle and engage/entice punters & if they don’t well like in any job if you don’t meet targets……..
Oh & there have been girls sacked in the last 12 months. They just don’t publicise it.
RE: BS Restrictions - Rammyrascal - 22-06-2024 13:37
(22-06-2024 11:58 )SecretAgent Wrote:(22-06-2024 11:49 )Kingsmind Wrote: It's beginning to sound like Vince McMahon is in charge.
Actually I think it’s a company analysing their revenue data and responding with actions they believe will maximise earnings from TV (surely not to do so would mean they will leave TV because rolling adverts don’t earn money)
Regarding sacking girls that’s not new - they always had a clear out from time to time and why have an underperformer take up studio space when someone else could use it.
Yep and I've said this when people have complained about babes either in their opinion on too much or not on. If a BS babe is generating money, BS will have her on as often as possible, if they aren't generating money, then BS will have them on less and eventually get rid of the babe
RE: BS Restrictions - Snooks - 22-06-2024 13:54
Night time hours are meant to be for sleep anyway.
So sweet dreams Snooks and wake up to low phone bills and bigger bank balance. Hoorah.
Thank you and goodnight.
RE: BS Restrictions - lovebabes56 - 22-06-2024 13:58
(22-06-2024 12:57 )Dave_A Wrote: I saw a Ofcom broadcast bulletin a few months ago, that stated, Ofcom were starting investigations into Babestation and Smile TV.
These investigations are for various dates, Ofcom didn't put a date, it just said various.
So it wasn't just 1 incident they were/are investigating, it looks like there was a few.
Remind me what Smile TV is