Marketing curiosity

I can understand ladies who market themselves with graphic ads and very revealing pictures, and who emphasize all sorts of PSE activities.  But the title of this ad surprised me a bit.  Does she want to attract guys who think of a new girl on the scene in terms of “fresh meat on the market”?  I guess so.

Reading reviews

Mostly, I find myself these days only reading reviews about ladies I’ve seen and know well.  Obviously not to “research” them to find out whether I would want to see her — but it is interesting to see other people’s perspective.  And to occasionally see minor YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary).

As an aside, people use “YMMV” different ways.  In the major sense — that she omitted or added one or more major activities — it may be seen as a drawback unless rare and related to egregious behavior on the client’s part.  Who wants to schedule knowing that, on her whim, he may get less “bang for the buck” than expected?  (On the other hand, if it’s positive — something added for a special client — it has the potential to create problems for the lady when readers start expecting the same thing.)  In the minor sense, though, it’s almost a trite observation: that there will be some slight variations in exactly how everything transpires.  Very common and also good, because few of us like a “scripted” encounter. 

Anyway, minor YMMV often manifests itself as slight nuances in attitude or how she relates to the client.  Completely natural.  It’s not often easily identifiable from reading reviews because: (a) many reviewers aren’t very skilled at communicating those nuances; and (b) not everything you read in a review is necessarily accurate.  But sometimes . . .

I read some reviews recently of a lady I’ve seen frequently and was struck by a few things that suggested that she related to those guys differently than with me.  It occurred to me that some people might characterize the difference as getting less “mileage” than these other guys, and be a bit bothered by it.  I don’t look at it quite the same way; just a different type of feel to the encounter — more “friend with benefits” than “passionate lover” maybe?  (Recognizing that the latter is usually illusion.)  But then, “friend with benefits” is neither uncommon nor bad, just . . . different.  (It’s also something I would have said about my relationship with her anyway, before reading the reviews — they just confirmed my conclusion.)  Who can complain about being considered a friend?  “Passionate lover” is fantastic if that’s how it turns out, but my favorites over the years have fallen into both categories.

(As I was typing this, I started wondering how those ladyfriends would characterize what they were trying to convey, and how they would feel about how I characterized it.  Of course, most of them might not even be curious about the subject, and discussing it might create more problems than it’s worth.)

“What have you learned”

Although there’s often a lot of negativity swirling around discussion boards, there are a fair number of “feel good” threads as well.  I liked this one that Kayla started — maybe I’m mellowing and becoming less jaded/cynical in my old age.

But regarding one item:

The more you talk the less people listen, choose your words wisely and treat them with value.

Oops!! 

“Declining reviews”

A recent thread on ASPD about the fact that the volume of reviews for Dallas has declined significantly from a couple of years ago, rather than increasing as anticipated.  Interesting, although whether this is a long-term decline or something cyclical is not clear.  I agree that recent problems with AMP’s and studios have undoubtedly contributed to the dramatic declines with those market niches.  But as far as independents and agencies?  I think some of the theorizing is misguided. 

For one thing, the “constant addition of new hot girls” at most would have only a marginal effect.  There is too much WALDT (We All Like Different Things) in who is or is not “hot,” and I suspect that number has declined dramatically only if your definition of “hot” is pretty restrictive — in which case, it was a fairly small segment of the marketplace even before, and the vast majority of reviews were of “non-hot” ladies.

Decline in quality of reviews?  I don’t read them that often anymore, but that’s because of a lack of interest more than a lack of quality.  It is my unscientific, uneducated guess that the quality (in terms of being informative) has gone up from, say, five years ago.  I remember what reviews were like back then (my first 10 or 15 were virtually worthless), and today’s are better.  There may be a decline in tone today (another issue, discussed below) — more explicit and more “bragging” — but the reviews are more informative.

Reviews less trustworthy?  I don’t buy that either.  When most of us came along, we “trusted” the reviews not because of anything intrinsic about them but because they were written by people who were there before us — and others who were there before us treated them with respect.  If a short review was posted by someone we didn’t know,  we didn’t put much stock in it.  Let the identical review be posted by, say, Roadking, though . . . well, that was an “informative” review.  Huh?  What we were really saying is that we (thought we) knew the people writing the reviews back then.  We were relying on their opinion, not the review per se.  In fact, the type of review cited as non-informative and not worth BCD credit:

I saw her and she was exactly what I wanted. I don’t know why someone would not want to see her. Great time and will do it again. She did everything I wanted. Real GFE

was exactly the type of review we used to say was very helpful . . . if it came from a veteran we knew.  So this complaint is really about the difference between a bunch of friends talking about the ladies they see . . . and the organized dissemination of information among a large group of people, most of whom don’t know each other.  Notice that most of the complaining is done by the old-timers, not the newcomers — because to the newcomers, the reviews they see today are still by “people who were here before us.”

There have always been hidden agendas, White Knights, cyber-stalkers, etc., and I’ve seen nothing to convince me the problem is measurably worse.  Neither are people’s opinions intrinsically more reliable just because they are old-timers.  A newbie whose taste and preferences in P4P are similar to mine has a more valuable opinion (to me) than an old-timer who likes entirely different types of experiences.  Newbies are no less able to write accurate and informative reviews just because they haven’t been around as long.  If anything, we provide more guidance to newbies on review-writing than we did then.  (They don’t all take advantage of it, but some do.)  Sure, the first few they write may be somewhat less reliable because they have less experience to compare it to.  They visit one lady and think she is absolutely wonderful . . . until they’ve seen seven or eight ladies and realize that many are even better than the first lady.  But that problem rectifies itself fairly quickly.

Splinter boards?  I doubt if that makes much impact either.  Most of them are still dwarfed by ASPD in terms of the number of reviews, and in a lot of cases the reviews posted on those boards are also posted on ASPD.  Ask a lady (assuming she wants a review) where she’d rather have it posted, if it can only be posted once . . . and almost all of them will prefer ASPD over AHC.  You have to go with where your potential market is more likely to read it.

What has caused the decline (if the sample cited reflects an actual decline)?  Personally, I think you need to look at the incentives.  Why does a guy post a review?

• To earn and maintain BCD access on ASPD, without having to pay for it.
• Financial incentives from the ladies.
• To help the lady’s marketing, and increase her business.
• A sense of camradarie with the rest of the community.
• Feedback/appreciation/encouragement.

As far as the first . . . well, it never explained more than a fraction of the reviews.  I always posted more than I needed to get and maintain BCD access.  Plus, fairly early I bought Lifetime BCD access, after which I got no further benefit of this sort from posting reviews.  And a lot of guys are finding it less hassle to just pay for access anyway and not have to put up with all the grief.

Financial incentives do have some impact, but they’re not common enough to have a huge effect.  A few ladies offer, e.g., a $50 discount for the guys who post reviews.  (Which I consider fine and not likely to distort the recommendation, as long as it’s relatively small and publicly disclosed.)  But doing a quality review takes time and has other drawbacks, and often the $50 isn’t worth it.  At one time I took advantage of the program offered by a couple of local agencies, but eventually stopped doing that as well.

To help the lady’s marketing?  Sure; that’s actually about the only reason I do it today, if the lady specifically requests it.  Few do.  And even in the good old days, there were more reviews than the ladies could really benefit from.  The market effect of a new review lasts awhile — three reviews in a two week period might not have much more effect than one review in that same period.  Plus, once a lady is established and has been around awhile, guys will rely on current ads/pics + old reviews in deciding who to see.  (I don’t really know, though, because I haven’t discussed in depth with any of my ladyfriends.)  If the ladies want more reviews . . . they probably can accomplish same, just by suggesting/asking.

I think one significant reason may be that ASPD is just not as welcoming to newbies and review writers as it once was.  The nasty comments, “quack alerts” (for possibly fake reviews), the general confrontational attitude by a lot of members even in discussions, does have an effect in making people feel less part of a community.  (A subject for another post, maybe sometime soon, on dissatisfaction with review/discussion boards.)  If you don’t feel a part of things, or fear that one of the self-appointed “enforcers” is gonna slam you . . . well, why make the effort?  You may still have the first three incentives above, but the last two are attentuated.

The bigger question, though, may be — “Does it make a difference?”  Are reviews as important to both the ladies and the gents as they were a few years ago?  I suspect the answer is no.  Most ladies always got a fair amount of their business from guys who weren’t even aware of review boards.  I suspect that may be going up, as the available arenas for marketing themselves have expanded.   Any one review board probably loses market share to some degree, just as magazines and newspapers and the broadcast networks have lost market share in the era of blogs and cable TV.  Even for the guys who are members of review boards, I sense more willingness to see someone new without having seen a review.  Perhaps influenced somewhat by the whole Craigslist/Backpage phenomenon.

There are things that might help increase the volume of reviews by making ASPD a more welcoming place — more thoughts on that later.  They wouldn’t be easy, but if the decline is more than a temporary cycle, it can be reversed at least in part, if the will is there.

Market niche

I was talking with a ladyfriend the other day who mentioned an interesting experience.  Another client had written a review of her recently and mentioned that they met in a nice hotel just north of downtown.  Someone who read the review contacted her . . . and a significant factor in his decision was the availability at a convenient location.

She and I talked about the whole location issue.  For whatever reason, very few of the local independent ladies are conveniently located for those of us who work downtown.  Five years ago, a lot of the clients worked in Telecom Corridor, before the industry had a downturn; not sure what it’s like today.  But most ladies prefer to get a “permanent” place (which has its own advantages) . . . and most often that means far north Dallas.  Understandable, as a quality permanent location near downtown can be rather pricey — although Jenna, Corie, Violet, Lana Storm, Shea, GUC, and even Rebecca had places down here at one time.  I’m not sure if anyone does now, though.

For some guys . . . Well, for many, a location in far north Dallas may still be convenient to work or home; or they may be able to get away from work more easily without arousing suspicion at work; or they may find it easier to sneak away after work without arousing suspicion at home.  For me, it’s very difficult.  Early morning appointments, on my way to work, are rarely feasible for most ladies.  On my way home . . . fighting rush hour traffic all the way up there, and then again on my way south to go home, is not a pleasant prospect.  And there are few days that it works out well to take a LONG lunch to drive way the hell up there and back.  (Yeah, I’ve bitched about this a time or two before.)

I think there’s an opportunity here that ladies could exploit — setting aside a few days a month to get a nice hotel near downtown.  Maybe advertise the possibility and get feedback from those who contact her about where specifically would be convenient.  Of course, there would be added expense over just staying with their permanent location, so most would be very reluctant to try it without some assurance of significant bookings that wouldn’t cancel or no-show on them. 

Not every lady would attract enough business down here to make it worth her while.  It’s a very personal business, and usually location is only one small factor in selecting who to see.  But if the prospect is attracted to her in the first place, location could easily tip the balance between seeing her or someone else. 

Note:  I’m thinking in terms of her covering the hotel as a cost of doing business and charging at most a bit more than her normal incall rate.  That would make sense for her, of course, only if she can increase her overall business volume — that is, extra appointments she wouldn’t otherwise be able to schedule that would offset the extra cost and leave enough left over to be worth her while.  Otherwise . . . well, one lady with whom I broached the subject was willing to do so, but only at her (much) higher outcall rate and with the client paying for the hotel.  That would work for her, but might put the cost beyond what prospective clients wanted to pay.  It may not be easy to find a balance that would work out well for both parties.

On the other hand, for ladies who don’t have a permanent incall location . . . that does give them flexibility and make downtown a feasible option.  But other than a few agencies, most ladies seem to be avoiding relying exclusively on hotels.  My ladyfriend does, but most don’t.

There are drawbacks and limitations.  But I’m still a bit surprised that there haven’t been more attempts to target this under-served market niche.  Particularly if, as many ladies seem to say, business is down.

AAARRRGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!

Tonight’s “Law & Order” episode.  Female murder victim is found, dressed in somewhat flashy clothing.  Cop says something about her being a hooker.  Other cop challenges the assumption.  First cop lifts her arm to examine it and says . . . “Manicured nails, no track marks.  If she’s not a hooker, what is she?”  [just a run-of-the-mill housewife, as it turns out]

I’m not sure which is more annoying . . . the assumption, based on her clothing, that she’s a hooker; or the conclusion, based on manicured nails and no track marks, that she must not be.

Selection

I’ve been thinking about the whole process of selecting a lady to see, over the last few days.  Partly because my “list” is shrinking dramatically — one lady still hasn’t replied to an email a couple of weeks ago (I suspect she may have decided to retire/disappear for good), and another is experiencing some serious personal problems that may soon lead to her disappearance as well.  Not many “regulars” left at all.  

In any event, I’m only seen or heard of a few basic approaches to the selection process:

• Looking at pictures on advertising sites and reading reviews.  Effectively, the P4P equivalent of picking someone up in a bar, or blind dating?  That works OK for a “one night stand” type of experience, but is less effective for those who are looking for a long-term, continuing relationship.  [*]  The low “success rate” of blind dating is a big part of why it gets such bad press in civilian relationships, although the equivalent seems the norm in P4P — perhaps because so many guys are just looking for a “one night stand” type of experience?
• Attending social gatherings, for an opportunity to chat and get to know some ladies and hopefully find one or two with whom you click.  I’ve tried that in the past, but even if I were networked into similar opportunities today, I’m a certified wallflower and just not very good in that setting. 
• Meet in person one-on-one, say for lunch or dinner, to see what develops.  Well, this loses the efficiency of a social gathering where you may meet several ladies.  But there’s little incentive for the ladies to do this; it takes up their valuable time for no return, unless they think he’s likely to turn into a long-term regular.  I’ve heard of ladies offering this, but it seems unlikely most ladies would be interested unless they charge a substantial fee — in which case, from the guy’s perspective, just as well roll the dice and schedule a session. 
• Some guys initiate cyber-conversations (chat or private messages or emails) to get to know the lady before deciding whether to schedule.  I’ve always been reluctant to do that, since one common complaint by many ladies is the ”time-waster” who doesn’t quickly commit to an appointment.
• Being selected by her — waiting for a cold call (email) from someone you’ve never visited, or a note from someone you’ve seen before encouraging you to come back.  Preferred by the shy and/or passive guys, but very few ladies feel comfortable doing that, so it can be a very long wait. 

In many respects, I guess, all have their equivalents in the world of civilian relationships as well — although there’s less pressure in P4P.  It seems somewhat strange to rely heavily on the first approach for P4P, though, since in civilian relationships I almost never picked someone up in a bar or went on a blind date. 

——————–

[*]  Usually my results were what you might typically expect from blind dating — most often, a nice time with a nice lady, but no sparks and no interest in continuing past the first or second date.  I’ve seen a lot of ladies in P4P over the past five or six years, but looking back, less than 10% of the ladies probably accounted for close to 60% of the encounters.  Probably 2/3 of the ladies I saw only once or twice.  The characteristics that kept me coming back are not easily identified from pictures or reviews; sometimes not even from the lady’s website or ads.

What we call ourselves

A couple of recent items I ran across, which discuss the terms we use to describe our participation in P4P. 

—————————–

First, a thread at ASPD about the meaning of “hobbyist.”  This thread is, I guess, about how guys think of themselves.  Someone who insists he’s not a “hobbyist” to avoid thinking of himself as someone who really pays money for sex?  “Oh, once or twice doesn’t count.”  In that sense, yes, we’re all “hobbyists” — once or twice, or only with one girl, is not fundamentally different from someone who does it a hundred times, and sees 10 different girls.  Denying that is denying reality.

On the other hand, I’ve also seen some ladies draw a different distinction when talking about “hobbyists,” as different from “johns” or “clients.”  For example, in this post from the Call Girl Next Door blog, where “hobbyist” has a definite negative connotation that those other terms don’t carry.  Some see it not only as obsessive behavior, but also as a demeaning attitude toward the ladies they see:

I suppose to put it succintly: Hobbyists truly see all women in this business as prostitutes. And in giving that description, I intend “prostutite” to hold the full force of the connotation behind it (which is a topic for a different discussion).

It opened my eyes a bit, because I hadn’t realized the extent to which some ladies might see my frequent participation, and active membership on a review/discussion board, as enblematic of ”treating them like fucking prostitutes.”  And if it is . . . well, I’d prefer to not be thought of as a “hobbyist.”  Not because I try to deny I’ve paid money for sex but because I’d like to deny having that particular attitude.  So, I started to refer to “clients” instead of “hobbyists,” and “P4P” instead of “the hobby.”

———————————

Second, a post on Amanda’s blog about ther terms “slut” and “whore.”  A quote:

I was occasionally called whore. It never upset me because it was truth (that’s not how I refer to myself, but it was more appropriate than calling me a slut). What upset me was the reasoning behind its use. All that anger toward half the population of the planet. It is a sad and upsetting thing to witness.

At this point in my life, I’m truly tired of those two words. Men who use them have no creativity, no understanding and have not really spent time with a woman. Or maybe they’ve only spent time with women in very limited settings — situations in which they’ve expected something in return — perhaps starting with their first date or their prom?

Perhaps I’m delusional, but few of my clients ever seemed to view me as anything other than Amanda. They may’ve had their own impressions before they met me, but once met, I was a person to them and they to me.

Well, some term is needed.  You can call a particular person “Amanda” rather than “whore,” but if you’re having a general discussion and want to refer to a classification of people, it’s nice to have something shorter and simpler than, e.g., “women who earn a living by engaging in sex, with multiple partners (many of whom they may only meet once) and in return for money rather than because of a (continuing) emotional relationship with the partner.”

Some ladies may consider “whore” or “hooker” or “prostitute” as pejoratives and may prefer other terms, such as “escort” or “call girl” or “courtesan.”  Others proudly use the former terms for themselves.  But . . . since those terms are considered pejorative by some, I usually try to avoid them.  I used to use “providers” fairly frequently — from “adult service providers” — but while that terminology is common in the ASPD community, it’s not recognized elsewhere.  I mostly use “escorts” these days, although I’m not really sure what most of the ladies would prefer.

—————————-

Some might consider this overly solicitous or as “political correctness.”  I don’t.  I think of it as just common courtesy to refer to people the way they prefer.  Same rationale as referring to “African-Americans” rather than “Negroes.”

But even “escorts” and “clients” feel a bit awkward at times.  I think the lack of comfortable terms for describing ourselves perhaps is a result of our society’s negative attitude toward P4P.  Otherwise other terms would have evolved, or we would not have internalized negative attitudes toward the existing terms.

Addition to “The Golden Rule”

A few other possibilities to include on that list of what’s acceptable treatment of an escort versus what is “treating her like a fucking prostitute”:

• Mention “YMMV activities” (ways the session differed from her norm) in a review.  PROBABLY NOT OK  Well, if it’s a negative departure from the standard, of course it’s fair game.  But if something specific (and good) happens that she tells you normally doesn’t happen, or has never been mentioned in other reviews — don’t mention it in a review unless she indicates it’s OK.  (For example, she normally provides oral sex only with a condom but enjoyed a BBBJ with you.)  Yes, it’s possible that the same treatment is available to virtually everyone, rather than just offered to you because of how wonderful you are.  Yes, other guys may want to know that the possibility exists . . . and some guys will realize (as they should) that they’re not guaranteed to get as nice a session as the reviewer.  But there are too many times disclosure puts unwanted pressure on the lady.  Some nitwit will read the review, expect the same thing (even if you say it was YMMV), expect/demand it when he sees her, and write a nasty review if he doesn’t get the same favor.  You’re encouraging other guys to treat her “like a fucking prostitute,” that is, someone who should be willing to do anything, with anyone, for money.
• Complain that she won’t see you, or that she saw you a few times but then cut you off.  DEFINITELY NOT OK  Whether you do it privately or publicly.  Think about what this says: she should be willing to see anyone who puts $$$ in her hands.   If there is any business at all where “We reserve the right to refuse service” makes sense . . . this is the one.  Even if you’ve seen her a dozen times before.

I’m hanging my head sheepishly about this last item . . . because I’ve been guilty of it.  Well, maybe not “complain” in the sense of imply that she should be willing to see anybody, or shouldn’t  be allowed to change her mind.  Hopefully it’s more like “why??  I wish I knew what I did wrong.”  Even that, though, while it carries an implied compliment (that I’m very disappointed I can’t see her), may imply a challenge to or distrust of her judgment.

Efficient market?

A theme that often crops up on discussion boards — usually in response to suggestions of concerted action to affect prices or fears of the same by the other side of the aisle — is that P4P is an efficient market that is not subject to manipulation.  E.g., if a lady prices her services too high, she will get less business and eventually either leave the business or readjust her prices downward.

The belief that P4P is an efficient market seems very widespread . . . but I’m not sure it really is that efficient.

Common attributes cited for a perfect market:

• Atomicity — a small number of producers and consumers, none with large enough market share to influence competitors
• Homogeneity — goods/services are perfect substitutes for each other
• Free flow of information, e.g., about quality and prices
• Low or no barriers to entry or exit
• Producers have equal access to technology and resources
• Independent actions by individual buyers and sellers with no opportunities for collusion or cartels

Well, P4P is a fairly good market in many respects.  Atomicity — check.  Equal access to technology and resources — check.  Difficult to collude — check.  (Some try occasionally, but there are too many willing “strikebreakers” on both sides of the aisle.)  In other respects, though, P4P falls short of a perfect market. 

Free flow of information?  Not entirely.  Information about quality = reviews, and there are serious questions about the quality of the information in reviews.  Further, actual price information is not always available.  Some ladies don’t even advertise publicly, leaving a lot of opportunity for widely divergent prices charged to different clients.  Even for the escorts who advertise publicly, there are a lot of “secret” deals — unadvertised/privately negotiated discounts, and bonuses for that matter I suspect.

Low barriers to entry?  I’m not really sure.  Sure, you don’t have to invest a lot of capital in a factory or “tools,” but a location can be expensive, not to mention advertising and screening.  The investment may seem very low, but you also have to keep in mind that a lot of women enter the profession because they’re in dire financial straits, often with minimal resources.  In addition, there is the non-monetary “cost” — the possibility of criminal prosecution — that inhibits a lot of potential entrants, both producers and customers.  Not to mention that, at least before the rise of the Internet for P4P, it was very difficult for a lady to find much information about how to go about establishing herself.  I imagine it was intimidating.  It’s easier today, but still not as easy to get started as we clients think.

Homogeneity?  OK, there are some guys who have a very broad range of escorts in whom they’re interested.  Some will even say “pussy is pussy.”  But many clients may find a relatively small number of escorts interesting or intriguing enough to plunk down their cash, or have strong preferences for a few specific ladies.  It goes beyond body types or youth or skills or “flavor of the month,” into a wide range of factors that differentiate between ladies and influence the decision.  Why else am I finding it difficult to think of someone I’d like to see today when I have an opportunity?    It’s not just a small number of ”market niches,” and involves much more differentiation than between, for example, different car makes and models.

And all of this, of course, is exacerbated by the fact that P4P participants, both escorts and clients, are far from the “rational economic actors” that market theory assumes.    I get way more emotional about the ladies I see than the car I drive, and the ladies don’t look at market response in the same objective, hard-headed way that GM or Ford do.

P4P is a pretty good market . . . but it’s not as efficient as we make it out to be sometimes.