Foamy T. Squirrel Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 If the site is top notch maybe Nora will come back. Believe me, RLC's subscriber base would increase. Especially if there's a pole in her dance room. Might be a bit kinky at this point, but I assure you it would draw plenty of interest. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cho Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 If the site is top notch maybe Nora will come back. Believe me, RLC's subscriber base would increase. Especially if there's a pole in her dance room. Might be a bit kinky at this point, but I assure you it would draw plenty of interest. :) Foamy >> You make the promo for RLC and you really think that we will listen to you ? You are like this great man who said : "I have a dream..." :D HMFIC >> she may cry,rant,and rave but she don't bark...and she can't lick her own butt. but YOU can lick it! :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARMY SNIPER Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 If the site is top notch maybe Nora will come back. Believe me, RLC's subscriber base would increase. Especially if there's a pole in her dance room. Might be a bit kinky at this point, but I assure you it would draw plenty of interest. :) Foamy >> You make the promo for RLC and you really think that we will listen to you ? You are like this great man who said : "I have a dream..." :D HMFIC >> she may cry,rant,and rave but she don't bark...and she can't lick her own butt. but YOU can lick it! :P if she was with me i Might just try,and i MAY even bark a little bit also. :o Oh...may also get so excited about her butt i may walk around humping like a dog and pissing on the furniture. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hampelo Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 seriously, i would not worry about not seeing this apartment and i would not pay more for it. it looks like they do not live there! they simply use it for a drop in party place for them and their friends, then they leave. saw one VERY unispired sex romp between them the one time they were in the apartment over night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foamy T. Squirrel Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I don't see the Marta & David apartment either. And frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenKraft Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I love this! The inevitable clash between the entrepreneurial mindset and the entitlement mindset. I say this not intending to offend anybody in particular, by the way. I have seen this on several other boards. In some, the owners/administrators have an online commentary presence and, periodically, remind members that their business (their board) is not a democracy. I also suspect that there is an age-gap at play on many boards: those people who grew up in the 50s, 60s, and 70s tend to understand the inherent inequities of not owning something they like. If you don't own it, you don't run it. Those born in the 80s and more recently tend to see all things public in terms of "fairness." That thought would never occur to an older person, I suspect. They see a world of choices wherein you go with what you like and pass on what you don't. Market forces decide success and failure, not some quixotic notion of situational fairness. Leaving politics out of the equation, it boils down to this: Many shallow thinking people would support a new law stating that the at-the-pump retail price of gasoline to consumers shall never exceed $1. They "feel" that that is "fair" because the oil companies make zillions of dollars raping the environment on lands historically stolen from the rightful owners and, most importantly, BECAUSE IT'S FAIR. Other people attempt to explain that it costs more than a dollar to deliver that gallon of gasoline to the retail pump so the oil companies would not participate in retail gasoline sales, but instead ship their products to places where such a law does not exist. The reply from the foggy folks is that that is unpatriotic and the oil companies need to step up and do their fair share! There is no way to convince the entitlement-minded that "fairness" doesn't play much of a role in business decisions. "Why, I pay to be a member, so it's unfair that someone who pays to be a premium member gets more than I do!" Great. Nice sentiment. But nobody threw "fairness" into the equation. They balance each decision based on its resulting effect on the company's position on the demand curve. "If we increase video delivery from X to Y, will the increased viewer revenues pay for the additional costs? Will the disappointment of current users result in so much decreased revenue to offset the projected gains from the premium service? Should we open a new website with different apartments and only let Super-Premium Members access those apartments? What will happen if we restrict viewership so substantially that competitive providers enter the marketplace? Will the loyalty of our current viewers be such that we can still compete? Will we need to give open (unpaid) access to a few bedrooms in order to stifle said new competition? Can we make enough money now to be able to afford to purchase the new competitor after it has established a large membership population?" I do not know who owns RLC but I have a strong hunch that, were one to be sitting across the table from him/her and ask what they thought was fair, in terms of viewer rights, all you would get is an inquisitive but essentially blank stare. "What?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albacore Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Very well said. Business is run by profits not fairness. I am one who did try the premium to see if I liked it. And I did. I do not mine paying more if I like what I get for the extra money. I think it was a good choice on the part of RLC. Those who do not care about it do not have to pay anything and they still see some cams free. No harm no foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenKraft Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Very well said. Business is run by profits not fairness. I am one who did try the premium to see if I liked it. And I did. I do not mine paying more if I like what I get for the extra money. I think it was a good choice on the part of RLC. Those who do not care about it do not have to pay anything and they still see some cams free. No harm no foul. Exactly. All in all, compared to a lot of other pastimes, RLC is very affordable. I hope they prosper and expand their service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cho Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 T'as raison Snoop, ils viennent de découvrir l'eau chaude... Que de phrases inutiles pour tenter de justifier le système capitaliste et son absence de partage. Ben ouais, CC et RLC veulent faire un maximum de fric avec un minimum de dépense, on avait compris, visiblement pas eux puisqu'ils en redemandent. Seul point à décharge, ils n'ont pas d'autre référence que le fric en terme de valeurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
van the man Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 KarenKraft that was a very good essay on competition and the business world. As you say fairness is not an issue to most (if any) businessmen. What I find interesting about the modern business world is that businesses no longer care whether they piss off existing customers. I was always taught that the cost of obtaining new customers far exceeded the cost of holding on to existing customers, hence the development of discounts or rewards for loyalty. Whether it's the influence of the internet or not businesses now constantly offer better terms or offers to new customers that leave existing customers at a disadvantage. Car insurance is a typical example. A renewal notice usually contains a re-quote that is higher than that for a completely new customer. This is done in the hope of ripping off the existing customer who 'might' let the renewal automatically go through and therefore pay more than he should have done. The company may think this is 'clever' because the existing customer has paid more than others, but is it clever? What is the reaction of the existing customer when he realises he has been ripped off? He resents the company and next time walks away. Another example is mobile phone companies who offer long contracts that appear good at the time but then are undermined by new offers. The existing customer is 'locked' into the contract and therefore has to continue paying more than is offered elsewhere. The contract ensures the company gets the benefit of the income but what does the consumer think? He resents being handcuffed and as soon as he is free he 'escapes' to another supplier. Loyalty is destroyed, consumers are encouraged to be disloyal. 'Brands' were meant to encourage loyalty but stupid businessmen have destroyed the notion completely. Instead 'buyer beware' has become the byword for consumers. RLC need to be careful they don't alienate existing customers by trying to squeeze 'premium' payments for not a lot extra offered and by charging for things that were not previously charged for. The idea for an entirely premium only apartment is only likely to alienate standard subscribers than galvanise them to go premium. 'More for Less' is a much better mantra. Car makers continually offer more features and do not always ask for more money. RLC are of course dealing with human beings. Imagine their delight in being able to present Katya and Ruslan. On the surface two attractive people (well Katya is beyond gorgeous) and yet when they move in they turn out to be drug and or drink driven, dirty slobs who can't handle the scrutiny of the cameras. What a let down for RLC and subscribers. Equally Sophia and Roman turn out to be more boring than watching paint dry. So how should RLC react? Well trying to squeeze more money out of subscribers will not work when the quality of product has diminished. Moving up market is the way. Better apartments. Better cameras, more cameras and probably more apartments. Keep stimulating discussion KarenKraft it is very refreshing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dth Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Van I read most of what you said and I agree. to put it in simple terms I get coffee AT Starbucks an only Starbucks because the 11 cup is free. Some say I pay to much for my coffee. Maybe I do but I love the service Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bobbyjoe Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 is it possible some premium members on rlc here can give opinion about this couple? they are good or bad?they work in journey?j need really more information about this couple,thanks. one think is sure,j don't want pay 45$ with nothing information with this couple,j need one free camera for see what's happend inside this appartment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts