Maturin Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Herding young people who probably don't know any better into some barely furnished compound, expecting them to perform to make you money, then quibbling with them over agreed rates of pay because - profit margins, is fucking gross. Is this where the "voyeur," industry is at now? @Voyeur House TV you need to think really long and hard about whether this is a sustainable/ethical route that you want your business to go down - I'll give you a clue, it really isn't. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanley Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 RLC doesn't attact the desperate, RLC doesn't have drama caused by low payments. And before anyone says that it's not fair to compare a new site like VHTV with RLC which has been going 5 years. When RLC was the same age that VHTV is now, there was never any issues with low pay that VHTV has today. I wonder if the difference is that RLC pays direct to the tennants (ie the tennants get 100%) whereas VHTV pays to a middleman (ie the managers) who take the lions share of the money. Maybe VHTV it's time to get rid of all the managers and manage the apartments yourself. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daleys Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 1 hour ago, stanley said: RLC doesn't attact the desperate, RLC doesn't have drama caused by low payments. And before anyone says that it's not fair to compare a new site like VHTV with RLC which has been going 5 years. When RLC was the same age that VHTV is now, there was never any issues with low pay that VHTV has today. I wonder if the difference is that RLC pays direct to the tennants (ie the tennants get 100%) whereas VHTV pays to a middleman (ie the managers) who take the lions share of the money. Maybe VHTV it's time to get rid of all the managers and manage the apartments yourself. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
golfer06 Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 1 hour ago, stanley said: RLC doesn't attact the desperate, RLC doesn't have drama caused by low payments. And before anyone says that it's not fair to compare a new site like VHTV with RLC which has been going 5 years. When RLC was the same age that VHTV is now, there was never any issues with low pay that VHTV has today. I wonder if the difference is that RLC pays direct to the tennants (ie the tennants get 100%) whereas VHTV pays to a middleman (ie the managers) who take the lions share of the money. Maybe VHTV it's time to get rid of all the managers and manage the apartments yourself. that's a direction that they probably should go. i doubt that all the young people especially at the compound will still be on vh after the summer. they should use this time to find some people that are a little older & allready have their own apts. there are plenty of apts now. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voyeur House TV Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 As being said before, our participants get the 50% share of premium views volume they get. In case these participants are hired by managers (for example, every participant can hire any other people and become their manager), they usually give their employees a choice - either getting paid by result (the same share model where participants actions directly affect the payout he or she gets, considering the 100% share is what their manager left them from his or hers original 50% from VHTV). What we really like in this approach is that participants revenue depends on his or hers actions solely. There are no limits, and many of our participants use this advantage for their own benefit - they earn more and more each week at VHTV. - or getting a fixed rate. We all know what are pros and cons of this. Let me recap: the main advantage for participant is that in the beginning he or she gets fixed amount of money, which does not depend on how good or bad he or she performs. The main disadvantage - you won't probably get more if you work more at the moment, that's a matter of bonuses which may be (or may not, if they have shitty manager) paid sometime later (every month/quorter/year/etc.) We will talk to Alex&Lina on your comments to see if their participants do really have problems with payouts or their volume. As we do provide quite a share of revenue to managers, we are interested in the money to be delivered to everybody involved in the process. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clivebb2 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 with the money this site make i think they can pay better their tenants and everybody will be happy.the most important is the quality of the tenants and appartments and not the quantity....i imagine all the pression they can receive by VH and the members here for fuck i am not surprised they don't stay longer it's not easy job i agree with that. not many clicks = not many money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sr71gn Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 We have no way of knowing how these participants are really doing --VH never publishes a list of how many views each couple or house is getting.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daleys Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 You advertise on the top left corner of the site Real Time Real Lives yet all everyone talks about is SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX ORGIES FOURSOME AND WHATEVER you should just called the site Porn house tv and be done with it. All the couples are doing is competing to get the most viewers and not having real life where sex comes natural. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miscvoyeur Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 21 hours ago, Voyeur House TV said: There are no limits, and many of our participants use this advantage for their own benefit - they earn more and more each week at VHTV. Except here are the two faults with this. A couple like Chloe and James will never be able to "compete" with a couple like Anna and Alex, since by definition this model does nothing but promote unnecessary competition. And doing this puts more strain on a couple to try to keep attention than it needs to. You can't advertise real life if the couples aren't acting real but instead acting in a way to keep attention. It turns all apartments into fake wanna game shows... which is fine if that's what you want to do, but you can't have it both ways. You either have real couples living real lives or you have couples duking it out for attention everyday. 21 hours ago, Voyeur House TV said: or getting a fixed rate. We all know what are pros and cons of this. Let me recap: the main advantage for participant is that in the beginning he or she gets fixed amount of money, which does not depend on how good or bad he or she performs. The main disadvantage - you won't probably get more if you work more at the moment, that's a matter of bonuses which may be (or may not, if they have shitty manager) paid sometime later (every month/quorter/year/etc.) Couples shouldn't have to "work". They should have the freedom to be as natural as they are. Once their activities, whether it be sex or anything else, is seen as work then they become nothing more than dime-a-dozen porn stars. Granted that the key is to find naturally uninhibited people/couples to where their activities, whether it be sex or anything else, are things they want to do for THEMSELVES only. Getting these young, -presumably- inexperienced and financially unstable kids (meant in the figurative sense) in a house and then put the responsibility on them to be consistently interesting for the world, and all for the good chance of a laughable paycheck just seems a little off. Of course this is just my two cents. I have no dog in this fight either way. Obviously others will disagree, but whatever. I'm just speaking my piece. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sr71gn Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 Why is this apartment so dark you cant see anything --waste of my money---anna's apartment????????????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foamy T. Squirrel Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 If they have sex, people will bitch that it's not real. If they don't have sex, people will bitch that they don't get to see porn. The fact is that real people I know do not have a camera in every room of their house, nor do they fuck every goddamn minute. I would hate to run any of these voyeur sites. All people seem to do is bitch one way or the other. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ze81 Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 On 18/07/2017 at 9:52 PM, stanley said: RLC doesn't attact the desperate, RLC doesn't have drama caused by low payments. And before anyone says that it's not fair to compare a new site like VHTV with RLC which has been going 5 years. When RLC was the same age that VHTV is now, there was never any issues with low pay that VHTV has today. I wonder if the difference is that RLC pays direct to the tennants (ie the tennants get 100%) whereas VHTV pays to a middleman (ie the managers) who take the lions share of the money. Maybe VHTV it's time to get rid of all the managers and manage the apartments yourself. Would hate if VH become like rlc...were half dozens apartments are more than dead..residents do the same couple teases again and again and again..guests cover cams..and were people stay for more than an year in an house basicaly being hide rlc clients for 80,90% of the time.Maybe the payment of Rlc could be better but in a lot of things VH it's better and keeping get better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.gif.e335e3b234713d678b8911e6eec69d7b.gif)
Recommended Posts