+- 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: Sky channel 905 get lucky tv closing down 31 July 2024 (/showthread.php?tid=89203)
RE: Sky channel 905 get lucky tv closing down 31 July 2024 - Boomerangutangangbang - 28-07-2024 05:38
(27-07-2024 21:51 )The Silent Majority Wrote:& this is why I only post on a forum about the shows & are not one of the geniuses that work at BS.(27-07-2024 18:54 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: Was an experiment necessary, in basic terms, 2 minus 1 equals 1, so call levels would be about half.
Not necessarily. Obviously there would only be one person talking to a babe, instead of two, but the number of listeners could have doubled up.
But it is all babe dependant, I pretty sure they have a large sample of stats for which babes are the busiest on any given night.
To me this sounds like a clumsy way of justifying going to one channel.
You wonder if they do a further experiment when they are down to one channel. I can help them out with that. When there's endless promo being shown on tv the call levels will be pretty low, you would have to factor in that some dumb-ass punters would still try to call despite there being no live babe on-screen.
I wonder that in the event of BS ditching their tv presence, would/should this forum re-brand itself to The UK Babe Channel Forum in order to remain current/relevant.
RE: Sky channel 905 get lucky tv closing down 31 July 2024 - southlondonphil - 28-07-2024 12:33
(27-07-2024 18:54 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: Was an experiment necessary, in basic terms, 2 minus 1 equals 1, so call levels would be about half.
If that had been correct the 905 channel would have been worth keeping.
RE: Sky channel 905 get lucky tv closing down 31 July 2024 - Boomerangutangangbang - 28-07-2024 14:48
(28-07-2024 12:33 )southlondonphil Wrote:This bunch can't get their shit together on one channel let alone 2.(27-07-2024 18:54 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: Was an experiment necessary, in basic terms, 2 minus 1 equals 1, so call levels would be about half.
If that had been correct the 905 channel would have been worth keeping.
I'm not disputing the experiment, it was unnecessary, & the decision was more than likely made already.
RE: Sky channel 905 get lucky tv closing down 31 July 2024 - Snooks - 28-07-2024 15:28
(27-07-2024 15:38 )Spike1876 Wrote:(27-07-2024 15:20 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: I do wonder if some are so use to the punters instigating a show, when it needs to be the other way round.
I've had that feeling for ages. It's like they think we're here to entertain them!?! Like going to a football match and the teams refusing to do anything till the crowd make them all feel special :biglaugh:
Without wishing to blow my own trumpet.......
In fact no, fuck it. I will proudly blow my own trumpet.
The point about whose responsibility it is to generate a great show is one I talked about many times in years gone by. I did that subject to death already.
S66 ate itself alive.
BS has followed suit.
Both thought they were being awfully clever but both have helped to kill off the nightshow product by initially grassing each other up and then proceeding to adopt more and more process driven strategies of programming that would alienate and piss off more and more viewers and potential punters by making them pay through the nose numerous times for at least some things that used to be able to be generated just by calling.
Combine that with the net effect of more and more babes behaving like a bunch of increasingly desperate money grabbers and there you have it. Tits out to tits up. Ball ache to balls up. From picking up a legitimate phone and being illegitimately cut off because of call mode change to clicking on an option to buzz a vibratoy that is often being operated by a cunt as opposed to vibrating properly in a cunt instead.
It's mercenary tactics gone mad and now the whole babeshow ship has sunk once and for all.
On the plus side I benefit from low phone bills and no money wasted on some fucking pink tadpole either stuck in it's box or rattling around on the floor while Mr P engages in some fake humping with the vacuum cleaner.
Memories of times gone by will be treasured forever.
The tarnishing of those memories will never be forgiven.
RE: Sky channel 905 get lucky tv closing down 31 July 2024 - ryuken - 28-07-2024 16:11
The future of the channels lies with the sycophantic praise of white knights, and the wallets of about 5 -10 whales.
If they keep paying for buzzes and/or privates, then that's the direction the babes and channels will keep going.
The remaining hundreds of thousands of punters will need to either follow suit into debt, or feed off the scraps that we get.
RE: Sky channel 905 get lucky tv closing down 31 July 2024 - SecretAgent - 28-07-2024 16:22
^ You complain about people spending money and boast about being a freeloader. You quote numbers off the top of your head without any factual evidence and you call some of the most highly regarded babes like Beth overated. Mmmm who exactly is contributing to the continued existence of the channels?
RE: Sky channel 905 get lucky tv closing down 31 July 2024 - ShandyHand - 28-07-2024 18:44
Interesting thread. Nicely illustrative of the differing perspectives we bring to news of this sort.
(28-07-2024 14:48 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: This bunce can't get their shit together on one channel let alone 2.
I'm not disputing the experiment, it was unnecessary, & the decision was more than likely made already.
Profit and loss is always key not just the number of interactions per se. And yes, it smells of a "Can we get away with this YET?" sort of experiment.
(27-07-2024 09:44 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: I've see it quoted in this thread that BS make something in the region of 10% of their revenue from tv, I'm not sure how accurate that figure is, & I would argue that it would be hard to calculated the true value of tv exposure be it SKY or Freeview. If nothing else TV will direct casual viewers & callers to the web based area of their business which lends itself to sign-ups & regular spenders. They do doubt still make money off the on-screen pics & vids. I have no figures regarding the turnover of BS, but 10% will still be a considerable amount.
The 10% is the right answer to the wrong question at this point. (I don't know Rammy's source for the 10% figure either, but I'll take it as read for now.) It's a typically dumbed-down stat in any case (as you imply Boom) devoid of all nuance, meant to excuse all the changes we've seen when, in itself the caller downturn, doesn't necessitate anything like ALL the stuff BS have 'revised' in recent times. (Nevertheless, TV's influence on how the shows are truly consumed these days is, clearly, deeply on the wane - but more of that anon).
As to the central fact, surely the closure of another 900 channel can come as no surprise to anyone who's been around here for more than 5 minutes!? We've known for years that the TV shows were doomed. Their ultimate fate at BS was sealed from (at least) the moment that quoted figure began its steady decline (a good many years back now). (As Snooks was referencing, BS undoubtedly speeded the caller decline by weakening the standard service offered in return for their call rate.)
These days, tele is largely a weak profile sustaining platform for babes; its reach was once essential to the shows, but those days are now long gone. (Broadband's reach and the internet's pervasiveness were perhaps always set to see it off in the end.) Regardless, it's the form the tele content took that's important, not the platform itself. That's what created this forum, what basically gave us a new the freaking genre of TV ffs, and what birthed a multitude of embarrassed jokes of sad solo male fumblings from many a stand-up comedian. In achieving these things, the shows became a unique part of the country's popular culture. And now 905's death is just another, entirely predictable, nail in that remarkable coffin.
Drilling down though, the more important question has long been NOT when will BS leave the 900s but, how much do we want BS's web output to look like the tele stuff of old. Or, more practically, how much of online are we prepared to let look nothing like the shows on the box?!
...I'll counter the 10% stat with another at this point: 100% of XP's income comes without a single paywall leaving ANY fta stream black. Just how and why did BS's output end up looking so different to XP's? That's what makes the totality of the former's changes feel gerrymandered - like a product of design rather than demand. Intentional not organic. Meanwhile, taking the altogether opposite route, XP have clearly survived to this point by ensuring caller and their fta visuals remain of prime - if not exclusive - importance. (Actually, it's probably a good job these last surviving operators are so different in outlook at this point; likely offering something starkly different to BS is helping XP right now.)
Boom's second comments above come to the fore when things are viewed from this pov. And a very relevant query hoves into view along side them: How much of BS's revenue comes from babes maintaining active fta content? (Active=with more than just a babe staring into space waiting for some mug to click Private!) Alongside such a question the 10% reference looks like propaganda! The other is the real figure we need to know.
It has to be a much bigger figure than 10% (because it includes all of Rammy's 10% for one) but of course it's impossible for us to formulate further. In fact, I'm pretty sure even BS can only guess at the true measure because it's not something that can be easily calculated is it? I'm mean, the answer lies not in balance sheets but in each interactor's head! Dubious assumptions don't play when we get down to the individual's horn levels and inspirational motivators!
So... Do BS want to do away with active fta in the future? I think that's a far more intriguing question than 'When will the inevitable end of their TV presence happen?' Are they arrogant enough to think they can survive where so much other adult stuff has gone by the wayside with similar thinking? Thinking that they knew best about ever more restricted access being required... similar downfall? Is that path inevitable for them now?!
RE: Sky channel 905 get lucky tv closing down 31 July 2024 - Michael2121 - 28-07-2024 19:32
Well it's going to be the last 4 night for channel 905 get lucky tv I am going to be doing 4 all nighters
RE: Sky channel 905 get lucky tv closing down 31 July 2024 - Rammyrascal - 28-07-2024 22:14
(28-07-2024 18:44 )ShandyHand Wrote: Interesting thread. Nicely illustrative of the differing perspectives we bring to news of this sort.
(28-07-2024 14:48 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: This bunce can't get their shit together on one channel let alone 2.
I'm not disputing the experiment, it was unnecessary, & the decision was more than likely made already.
Profit and loss is always key not just the number of interactions per se. And yes, it smells of a "Can we get away with this YET?" sort of experiment.
(27-07-2024 09:44 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: I've see it quoted in this thread that BS make something in the region of 10% of their revenue from tv, I'm not sure how accurate that figure is, & I would argue that it would be hard to calculated the true value of tv exposure be it SKY or Freeview. If nothing else TV will direct casual viewers & callers to the web based area of their business which lends itself to sign-ups & regular spenders. They do doubt still make money off the on-screen pics & vids. I have no figures regarding the turnover of BS, but 10% will still be a considerable amount.
The 10% is the right answer to the wrong question at this point. (I don't know Rammy's source for the 10% figure either, but I'll take it as read for now.) It's a typically dumbed-down stat in any case (as you imply Boom) devoid of all nuance, meant to excuse all the changes we've seen when, in itself the caller downturn, doesn't necessitate anything like ALL the stuff BS have 'revised' in recent times. (Nevertheless, TV's influence on how the shows are truly consumed these days is, clearly, deeply on the wane - but more of that anon).
As to the central fact, surely the closure of another 900 channel can come as no surprise to anyone who's been around here for more than 5 minutes!? We've known for years that the TV shows were doomed. Their ultimate fate at BS was sealed from (at least) the moment that quoted figure began its steady decline (a good many years back now). (As Snooks was referencing, BS undoubtedly speeded the caller decline by weakening the standard service offered in return for their call rate.)
These days, tele is largely a weak profile sustaining platform for babes; its reach was once essential to the shows, but those days are now long gone. (Broadband's reach and the internet's pervasiveness were perhaps always set to see it off in the end.) Regardless, it's the form the tele content took that's important, not the platform itself. That's what created this forum, what basically gave us a new the freaking genre of TV ffs, and what birthed a multitude of embarrassed jokes of sad solo male fumblings from many a stand-up comedian. In achieving these things, the shows became a unique part of the country's popular culture. And now 905's death is just another, entirely predictable, nail in that remarkable coffin.
Drilling down though, the more important question has long been NOT when will BS leave the 900s but, how much do we want BS's web output to look like the tele stuff of old. Or, more practically, how much of online are we prepared to let look nothing like the shows on the box?!
...I'll counter the 10% stat with another at this point: 100% of XP's income comes without a single paywall leaving ANY fta stream black. Just how and why did BS's output end up looking so different to XP's? That's what makes the totality of the former's changes feel gerrymandered - like a product of design rather than demand. Intentional not organic. Meanwhile, taking the altogether opposite route, XP have clearly survived to this point by ensuring caller and their fta visuals remain of prime - if not exclusive - importance. (Actually, it's probably a good job these last surviving operators are so different in outlook at this point; likely offering something starkly different to BS is helping XP right now.)
Boom's second comments above come to the fore when things are viewed from this pov. And a very relevant query hoves into view along side them: How much of BS's revenue comes from babes maintaining active fta content? (Active=with more than just a babe staring into space waiting for some mug to click Private!) Alongside such a question the 10% reference looks like propaganda! The other is the real figure we need to know.
It has to be a much bigger figure than 10% (because it includes all of Rammy's 10% for one) but of course it's impossible for us to formulate further. In fact, I'm pretty sure even BS can only guess at the true measure because it's not something that can be easily calculated is it? I'm mean, the answer lies not in balance sheets but in each interactor's head! Dubious assumptions don't play when we get down to the individual's horn levels and inspirational motivators!
So... Do BS want to do away with active fta in the future? I think that's a far more intriguing question than 'When will the inevitable end of their TV presence happen?' Are they arrogant enough to think they can survive where so much other adult stuff has gone by the wayside with similar thinking? Thinking that they knew best about ever more restricted access being required... similar downfall? Is that path inevitable for them now?!
SecretAgent posted this in the TV Restrictions thread about 10%
Quote: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
RE: Sky channel 905 get lucky tv closing down 31 July 2024 - Michael2121 - 30-07-2024 16:56
Right i am not going asleep till this channel closes