+- 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's Latest Ploy (/showthread.php?tid=12218)
RE: BS's Latest Ploy - HEX!T - 14-10-2009 23:41
i dont think there being super clever i think there being condisending but thats nothing new for these sharks.
i also think it has got much worse since they got a strangle hold on freeview, the viewer will get what there given and be happy with it, whether they like it or not...
it will go on as long as theres no competition on freeview but at the moment it dosent look like any of the other players want to challenge em.
RE: BS's Latest Ploy - skateguy - 15-10-2009 00:02
(14-10-2009 23:41 )Hexit Wrote: it will go on as long as theres no competition on freeview but at the moment it dosent look like any of the other players want to challenge em.
Bang Babes is due to start on Freeview in November, admittedly only from 3am. http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=12191
RE: BS's Latest Ploy - bytor - 15-10-2009 06:35
I do not understand all the grief cellcast get over freeview or all this business about them being tame. If you ring any of the girls whether it be sky only or freeview then you get excellent service from the girls. The idea is you have to pay for phone calls or texts to talk to a glamour babe-end of story. Yes hopefully the girl will respond on screen to the call but those who never call should remember these are not free porn channels there just for their entertainment.
Regarding the ploys cellcast use......well I would hope most people see through their scams immediately. Obvious from day one that the girls were talking to other girls behind the scenes when they say another girl is on the line.
However, that said I was told by one of the girls that the channels get more listeners than callers-I believe there can be up to 30 listeners on at a time to each caller. Presumably the listeners get off hearing two girls pretending to be filthy so it could be a good business plan by cellcast after all!
RE: BS's Latest Ploy - HEX!T - 15-10-2009 07:48
the greef they get is down to frustration at them hiring tamer girls like paige and doing ofcoms job for them. they were at one time the best on sky now there a shadow of there former selfs, dont get me wrong im not saying its all the girls faults as the producers seem to have forgot that they need they callers as much as the callers want a show. now they just want to advertise the girls sites, pix and vids.
a couple of years back you could see girls removing panties and rubbing pussy, the odd oops shot. now your lucky if you get a nipple show with some girls and the cam guys just dont try to push the boundrys any more.
nolonger do they have the best selection of girls although the addition of jessica is a step in the right direction, and the girls they do have seem to be as jaded as some viewers.
some nights i can see the frustration on the girls faces, camilla and megan have been heavily censored latley, they genuinley want to play but as soon as they do the cam pans away, zooms in or they cut to a pix advert.
seriously m8 its getting to be a bad joke now.
RE: BS's Latest Ploy - vila - 15-10-2009 14:08
(15-10-2009 06:35 )bytor Wrote: I do not understand all the grief cellcast get over freeview
With all due respect, that's probably because you aren't restricted to Freeview and don't suffer the anger and frustration of us Freeview-only viewers who get only glimpses of what is denied to us simply because we either choose or have no option but to use a different viewing platform.
RE: BS's Latest Ploy - Winston Wolfe - 15-10-2009 15:25
As several people have already pointed out, you see far stronger language and content on TV... So why would regulators like OFCOM wanna pick on these channels?
There are many reasons, but content ain't the main one (that's just a lame excuse). It's the premium rate services splashed all over the screen that's the real issue. Whenever premium rate services are involved, you're askin for a lot of hassle from the regulators - especially if your business is on TV. Basically, there's girl(s) onscreen and only 1 caller can get through at a time, so most of the money will be made from "offscreen girls & eavesdroppers". That in itself explains why the heat is on...
When I used to work in the racing industry, the regulators kept an extra close eye on us the moment we added a premium rate mobile phone service to the business. If it involves things like adult content or betting they always suspect foul play.
Winston Wolfe
RE: BS's Latest Ploy - seth - 15-10-2009 17:55
All these channels are a rip off, a waste of money and full of scams.
RE: BS's Latest Ploy - oxygenIT - 15-10-2009 23:51
The modified version of this ploy seems to have become 'Uni/Student Girls' on the line. Funny how all these women suddently found Babestation after so many years! They must think their viewing public is dumber than a box of rocks.
RE: BS's Latest Ploy - IanG - 19-10-2009 16:02
(15-10-2009 15:25 )Winston Wolfe Wrote: As several people have already pointed out, you see far stronger language and content on TV... So why would regulators like OFCOM wanna pick on these channels?
There are many reasons, but content ain't the main one (that's just a lame excuse). It's the premium rate services splashed all over the screen that's the real issue. Whenever premium rate services are involved, you're askin for a lot of hassle from the regulators - especially if your business is on TV. Basically, there's girl(s) onscreen and only 1 caller can get through at a time, so most of the money will be made from "offscreen girls & eavesdroppers". That in itself explains why the heat is on...
When I used to work in the racing industry, the regulators kept an extra close eye on us the moment we added a premium rate mobile phone service to the business. If it involves things like adult content or betting they always suspect foul play.
Winston Wolfe
Well here's an idea. What if the premium rate ONLY applied to the on-screen girls? That's what they 'advertise' isn't it? You shouldn't be paying full price for speaking to someone you can't see and do the 'Participation TV' thing with should you? And of course no one is strictly 'participating' if they're just a passive eavesdropper.
It seems to me the old "send us 50 texts to flash the gash" was the only real definition of 'Participation TV' - where the viewers dictate the action and call the shots.
In addition, I certainly would not spend £3 to buy a passport-sized photo sight unseen. I mean, I can get a whole magazine full of A4 size pictures of sexy girls showing everything for that sort of money. Indeed, for just £5 you can get a month's access to the website of one rather famous magazine's entire 50+ year archive.
As for Ofcom, they're supposed to be encouraging competition and viewer choice. Thus far they've allowed, even forced, one company into a dominant (even monopolistic) position where they offer very little variety or choice to viewers whatsoever. You get what you're given basically - some of that is down to the operator but, also down to Ofcom's unprecedented (and rather unnecessary) interference.
This market, such as it is, is not free to meet viewer/customer expectations, its not 'self-correcting' due to the normal effects of supply and demand. The entire adult TV market is in fact subject to price fixing, illegal 12 month tie-in contracts, rip-off scams and delivery of sub-standard material all because Ofcom refuse to give adults proper choice, respect and trust.
RE: BS's Latest Ploy - vila - 19-10-2009 16:33
Anyone recognise 'Kimmy' who Paige and Rachel put on the mic a couple of nights back? Sounded very much like someone who was sharing the show with them.