Raise The Rate 2018 Proposal Letter

[+ purplekow]

Mr. Kesslar you speak of raising rates as a form of resistance. I think lowering rates would be a bigger form of resistance. A token sum to attract more and more people and show that we do not fuck for principle but priniciples. We are not going away and we are not giving it away.

[+ Tarte Gogo]

https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/hire-at-low-rate-only-2018-proposal-letter.135559/

[+ Topseed]

Good luck with all this. Remember, both clients and escorts can borrow a line from Nancy Reagan....

 

Yes, it works both ways. That’s why it’s called a “market.”

[FTM Zachary Prince]

@FTM Zachary Prince goes as far as saying that maybe he'll "tack on a $100 FOSTA/SESTA surcharge just to make a point." My question is, to whom are you making the point?

 

To everyone who enjoys the services of escorts but did nothing to stop the passage of a law that removed our freedom of speech.

 

So you also have a good point. Surcharge waived for anyone who can produce evidence that they campaigned against the passage of the bill or engaged in public speaking to raise awareness about the damage it would do!

[FTM Zachary Prince]

Yeah, let's especially book you less often.

 

You haven’t booked me once, so I assure you it’s not possible for you to book me less often. Nor does it sound like you’re planning to increase your budget or your income in order to experience what I have to offer any time soon. Your prerogative of course, but to pretend that it’s of any loss to me is laughable...

[nate_sf]

When was this?

 

The reference to $500 rates confused me too. I expect it refers to female escort rates, and the template for the letter may have been written with that market in mind, just guessing.

 

I'd think the version of the letter focused on men should mention $300, or maybe $350 as having been the top end from a year or so ago. Before Rentmen removed rates from their app, I'd been tracking rates and had been noticing things dropping a bit over this past year so I think the overall point still applies, just the number is wrong in this case.

[+ stevenkesslar]

But attempting to use SESTA/FOSTA as justification comes across as opportunistic in way that is deceitful and exploitative. @stevenkesslar posted that the move to increase rates seems like an act of resistance. I agree. The problem is, the resistance is directed at paying clients instead of the new legislation (it's easier to protest to your clients than to legislators).

 

Since you quoted me, I'll take the bait.

 

I'm not endorsing this approach, or rejecting it. But you are right. I feel it is one way to resist a bad law.

 

I also said, and will reinforce, that it is definitely not unifying. Touche, Tarte Gogo. Your letter is hilarious parody.

 

Everybody is welcome to their opinion, and - thankfully - their sense of humor.

 

So here's mine. I wouldn't say this is directed at clients, or that it is deceitful or exploitative. Any more than I would say that as a landlord raising the rent is directed at tenants, or is deceitful or exploitative.

 

Everybody here is actually agreeing that FOSTA did not repeal the laws of supply and demand. So if an escort charges too much, they won't make a dime. Just like if I try to charge too much rent, nobody will rent my house. It's just supply and demand. It will work better for some escorts than others, for exactly the reasons Zachary said.

 

FOSTA does increase risk. And as several people are saying, some people will say, "The risk (or price) just isn't worth it." For others, the risk will be worth it. And they'll be willing to pay more. And they'll feel they got what they paid for - including discretion and security and an absence of risk. To take it to the extreme, Miami Looker is right. If you are Donald Trump, $130,000 ain't shit.

 

If I had to complete the sentence, "This action is directed at .............," here's how I would complete the sentence. This action is directed at survival. And I think it actually works both ways. If an escort you know and trust charges more, he's interested in surviving. And if you pay him more, it's because you're interested in surviving. Again, I'm not endorsing this approach, or rejecting it. All I'm saying is nobody should be surprised that it's one way a market will respond.

 

All of this begs a question which I think needs to be discussed, but not in this forum: whose job is it to come up with new legislation? Speaking for myself, that's actually the most important question. And if that's what you want, take that to the politics forum. Assuming that once the law is signed, there still is a politics forum.

 

Sadly, past experience suggests that most escorts and most clients are not going to get on a plane and go meet with Senator Blumenthal or one of his aides to talk about this legislation. I would love to be wrong about that.

 

I want to say more about why I think this will end up being one way to resist, because what Sunday Zip said suggests my point did not quite get across. But first let me paint the picture of a few scenarios that are not likely to happen.

 

My best case scenario is that overnight , millions of people who actually hire what Rentmen now calls "performers" of various types - because I'm pretty sure it is actually millions of people, starting with POTUS - would get on the phone to their US Senator or US Rep and say, "What the fuck do you think you are doing? You will never get a penny or a vote from me again." If millions of people did that, it would have an immediate and profound impact. But, being a pragmatist, I just don't think this is a likely scenario. It didn't happen last year, so it probably won't happen now - when it's too late.

 

There is another worst case scenario that no one is talking about, thank God. The rhetorical threat that was used last year, that obviously didn't work, is that this would drive people back to street corners and dark alleys. Maybe members of Congress likely didn't believe it, or maybe they just didn't care. My own two cents is that it was a very lame argument. In part, it implies that a certain amount of sex trafficking on the internet is okay, so that I can have it easy on the internet, too. What a lot of politicians said is that a certain amount of sex trafficking is absolutely not okay. You can say that's cynical, but you can't say it's surprising.

 

But that doesn't mean that Blake and Zachary are packing their bags and going to live in a dark alley, either. Again, thank God. Because if they were smelly and homeless, my guess is nobody would want to hire them. The internet ain't going away, and neither are Blake or Zachary or lots and lots of others like them. Sorry, Congress. Nice try.

 

So to me the realistic scenario is that escorts like Blake and Zachary are just going to hunker down and figure out how to survive in the new era of repression. And that's not rocket science. There may be fewer clients, and there may be a higher risk premium. And it will all be governed by the same rules of supply and demand. Honestly, speaking for myself, I'm glad I'm older and don't have to deal with it. I prefer the good old days, thank you.

 

FOSTA was intended to take a swipe at sex traffickers who are alleged to thrive on the internet. It was clearly written by people who mostly don't have a clue about prostitution. They probably heard a whole bunch of really disgusting things from cops and moral warriors. FOSTA was not at all about making things more rational, safer, or better for the actual market of "performers," or the millions who hire them. It is not at all clear how one gets from where we are today to a rational and safer market that is decriminalized or legal, or even just tolerated.

 

So, actually, what Blake and Zachary are talking about is a realistic best case scenario, I think. The reality we know is that what the cops are saying is a complete myth, and most people simply are not being trafficked. They are "performers" or entrepreneurs or whatever you want to call them. They'll figure out a way they can survive and thrive, even if the overall market shrinks. It's still a huge market, with millions of customers. And, sorry Congress, it ain't going away.

 

Meanwhile, it's going to be interesting to see what happens with sex trafficking in the three years between now and when the GAO has to report back to Congress. Backpage is gone. But will trafficking survive on the internet? Will there be serial closures of whatever websites the traffickers migrate to? Or will they go to the dark web? Or will they just be driven off the web? I know what the goal is, which is to dramatically reduce the number of people trafficked, which advocates of FOSTA think was driven up by allowing it to thrive on the internet. I sincerely wish them luck.

 

My hope - you can call it my utter naivete if you wish - is that in three years time there is a better informed and less puritanical debate than the one we just had. I hope that some of what was intended in terms of going after sex traffickers actually works. And I'm 100 % sure that somehow, someway, the misdirected attacks on "prostitution" will fail. That's exactly why I said that, as much as this is an act of resistance that has nothing to do with politics, it actually could have a significant impact on the future of this political debate. By surviving, it's at least possible that escorts will actually pave the way for having a somewhat more realistic discussion about what makes sense down the line.

 

If we are going to blame anybody in this picture for being exploitative, let's blame the traffickers. I don't think Congress is to blame for wanting to go after them. I personally applaud their intentions, if not the actual details of the law they passed to do it. And I don't think we should blame escorts or the people who hire them for trying to survive and deal with the realities of a deeply flawed law.

[Walker1]

http://laterslater.com/resume.png

 

Kevin Slater

I see you put your PM skills to good use with charts, stats etc etc!

[+ José Soplanucas]

Wow. This thread-wormhole to another dimension is still open.

[cany10011]

I appreciate the escort's point of view. But, as a client, if my regulars raise their rates to 500 an hour, I would rather find an NYU or Columbia boytoy on seeking arrangements who would be happy with 3K monthly for frequent meetings.

[+ FreshFluff]

Most of the advice--self-care, better pictures, etc--is good and can help some escorts command higher rates. The problem is that this is an attempt at forming a cartel, and cartels are notoriously unstable. All you need is one crafty escort in each city who doesn't buy in. "Hey, clients, if you still want an hour appointment option, I'm offering it. I also charge $100 less than anyone else." Bang! He siphons off a lot of clients. A few other escorts, now short on business, do the same thing. And eventually, the whole thing falls apart.

[Guest RBmont-real]

https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/hire-at-low-rate-only-2018-proposal-letter.135559/

 

I think this (above from Tartegogo) ended up as thread contribution in which some comments became embedded rather than following the typical thread flow.

[Guest RBmont-real]

I think this (above from Tartegogo) ended up as thread contribution in which some comments became embedded rather than following the typical thread flow.

 

Oops, my bad ... now I understand it is imported commentary from The Lounge.

[MikeBiDude]

I would rather find an NYU or Columbia boytoy on seeking arrangements who would be happy with 3K monthly for frequent meetings.

And it won’t be THAT much monthly...

[+ José Soplanucas]

Who said that in moments of crisis you reveal your real character?

[FTM Zachary Prince]

Most of the advice--self-care, better pictures, etc--is good and can help some escorts command higher rates. The problem is that this is an attempt at forming a cartel, and cartels are notoriously unstable. All you need is one crafty escort in each city who doesn't buy in. "Hey, clients, if you still want an hour appointment option, I'm offering it. I also charge $100 less than anyone else." Bang! He siphons off a lot of clients. A few other escorts, now short on business, do the same thing. And eventually, the whole thing falls apart.

 

Your post assumes that higher priced products and services can’t succeed in the presence of cheaper options, tho. You can study any industry in existence with differentiation between the various options being offered to learn that this isn’t true. Demand for escorts can thrive simultaneously at both $150 an hour and $500 an hour. They’re not even in direct competition with each other at that point. There will always be budget shoppers, and there will always be those who prefer Veblen goods and services. And besides that, the service offered by escorts is highly personal and largely not interchangeable with what another escort is offering, especially with someone who has managed to hone his craft enough to command a higher rate. Sure, someone could be charging $400 an hour and offering a very generic service that’s exactly the same as someone charging $200 an hour, in which case your analysis might apply. But that’s generally not the case.

 

$150 a night hotels don’t ruin the market for $350 a night hotels. And a lot of the time, $150 a night hotels offer way more free amenities than $350 a night hotels!! So why does anyone continue to book the $350 option when they can get a better deal at the $150 option? Simple: human nature.

 

I don’t think this is an attempt at forming any type of “cartel”. Rather it’s an attempt to encourage as many escorts as possible to raise their rates together so that clients can see it as the coordinated and necessary move that it is in an industry where we don’t have the same privilege of formal organising as do other industries that aren’t criminalised. Which is why I joked about adding a SESTA/FOSTA “surcharge” as a gesture of solidarity.

Edited April 7, 2018 by FTM Zachary Prince

[Guest RBmont-real]

Or because the spendthrifts are, sadly, psychologically inhibited in terms of standing at attention and blowing their load on any but the highest threadcounts.

[+ FreshFluff]

Your post assumes that higher priced products and services can’t succeed in the presence of cheaper options, tho. You can study any industry in existence with differentiation between the various options being offered to learn that this isn’t true. Demand for escorts can thrive simultaneously at both $150 an hour and $500 an hour. They’re not even in direct competition with each other at that point. There will always be budget shoppers, and there will always be those who prefer Veblen goods and services. And besides that, the service offered by escorts is highly personal and largely not interchangeable with what another escort is offering, especially with someone who has managed to hone his craft enough to command a higher rate. Sure, someone could be charging $400 an hour and offering a very generic service that’s exactly the same as someone charging $200 an hour, in which case your analysis might apply. But that’s generally not the case.

 

$150 a night hotels don’t ruin the market for $350 a night hotels. And a lot of the time, $150 a night hotels offer way more free amenities than $350 a night hotels!! So why does anyone continue to book the $350 option when they can get a better deal at the $150 option? Simple: human nature.

 

I don’t think this is an attempt at forming any type of “cartel”. Rather it’s an attempt to encourage as many escorts as possible to raise their rates together so that clients can see it as the coordinated and necessary move that it is in an industry where we don’t have the same privilege of formal organising as do other industries that aren’t criminalised. Which is why I joked about adding a SESTA/FOSTA “surcharge” as a gesture of solidarity.

 

I made no such assumption. Of course escorts differentiate on quality, services offered, etc. To use your example, $350 hotels differ from $150 on factors other than price. The $350 hotels typically offer a better location, better service, larger or better appointed rooms.

 

Whatever you call it, you're attempting to organize to control prices. There's nothing wrong with that morally, but it tends not to work unless there is some way to enforce the price increase. To continue the example above, let's say that you posted this on a hotel forum instead of this one. As a result of your post, all hotels in NY raised their price by $100 in unison, not because a particular hotel's quality increased or because of increased demand but simply because they deserve a raise.

 

Let's say there are 5 hotels near Times Square that are similar in quality and service and locatio. They used to charge charging $150 on Monday nights in April. Afater seeeing your posts, all 5 of these hotels imposed a $100 "surcharge. " If they stuck together, travelers would either have to pay the $250 rate or settle for a lower quality. That's the power of acting in unison, which is why your posts says:

 

This is only possible if everyone does it.

 

The problem is that merchants, whether hotel owners or escorts, are opportunistic. One of these 5 hotels that decided to raise its ratemight offer a $100 discount one week, luring travelers away from the hotels that kept their rates at $250. Seeing the success of this strategy, another hotel might try the same strategy. And the game continues until everyone is back at the former market price. The dynamics of supply and demand work the same way for the escorting industry as well.

 

As for Veblen goods, these are rare and usually associated with conspicuous consumption. Under the current laws, clients are not looking to hire escorts in a conspicuous manner.

 

As I said, I think the advice about improving pictures and so on is definitely helpful. If a given escort is not using his best photos, this could help him increase his price. But it won't cause an across the board increase in willingness to pay

Edited April 7, 2018 by FreshFluff

[+ SundayZip]

US Federal Trade Commission, Price Fixing:

"Price fixing is an agreement (written, verbal, or inferred from conduct) among competitors that raises, lowers, or stabilizes prices or competitive terms. Generally, the antitrust laws require that each company establish prices and other terms on its own, without agreeing with a competitor. When consumers make choices about what products and services to buy, they expect that the price has been determined freely on the basis of supply and demand, not by an agreement among competitors. When competitors agree to restrict competition, the result is often higher prices. Accordingly, price fixing is a major concern of government antitrust enforcement. <...> A plain agreement among competitors to fix prices is almost always illegal, whether prices are fixed at a minimum, maximum, or within some range."

 

Escorts in the US don't work within the confines the law, so I guess they don't need to worry about price fixing.

[Guest RBmont-real]

But serially, for many of us consumers the notion of "craft", whatever that is, does not yield a logarithmic function effect that favours the net gain of providers.

 

Human nature is loss aversive ... neither $150 nor $350 hotel ratepayers are very accepting of percentage increases. Of course, setpoint reference ranges vary according to taste and wealth, etc, but change usually introduces a looming bias that favours the status quo. Change is the subject at hand.

 

Here is a more reliable logarithmic function to be mindful of: subjective loss for the consumer (viz fee increase) is more psychologically overweighted the more the change. Gradual and progressively incrementally smaller percentage increases may be more palatable. That may help to explain some of the consumer blowback in this thread.

[+ Lance_Navarro]

I know alot of female sex workers, and there rates are certainly higher (on average) than most men. Many of them that I have spoken to charge $500-600/hr and only do multiple hours. I don't believe the rates for male escorts will, nor should be the same. At $200-300 an hour, one can live quite comfortably, as long as they can grow and hold onto a good clientelle. I also think life is made too complicated by having clients at all different rates. I've only raised my rates twice in 8 years. I know you didn't write this @BlakeBenz , but I'm just curious, of the advice in there, which are you planning to implement? Do you have a professional photoshoot lined up? Website?

[kevininsa]

I just have to say, for someone who purports to be 23 years old, you seem to have such awesome marketing skills and knowledge. I guess it's a good thing you work in an industry that attempts to fly under the radar. Because what you are suggesting is known as "price-fixing". In most industries it is illegal, and were this a legitimate trade you would be getting called on by the FTC about now. Illegal or not, it's a poor way of conducting your business. And as someone else said, just you trying to stop being undercut.

[FTM Zachary Prince]

As for Veblen goods, these are rare and usually associated with conspicuous consumption. Under the current laws, clients are not looking to hire escorts in a conspicuous manner.

 

Studying the female escort industry would prove to you that Veblen services have an extremely strong demand even when their usage is inconspicuous, which is a commentary on human nature that deems your analysis marginally irrelevant. Yes they may be “usually” associated with conspicuous consumption, but that does not preclude their dynamics from applying in the case of escorts. And many clients DO hire escorts in a “conspicuous” manner, for example every client who comments on this board as a poster and every client who has ever written a review online. The reports about hires may be anonymised under an Internet handle/personality, but they are conspicuous nevertheless. BUT typically those who hire high-end escorts are much LESS likely to post on review and discussion boards, contrary to your ideas about conspicuousness being a driving force behind paying a premium for what is assumed to be top-tier service. Typically, what clients expect most seriously when paying a premium rate is flawless professionalism and absolute discretion.

[+ nycman]

I wish you luck.

 

The market will decide.

[+ oldNbusted]

I know alot of female sex workers, and there rates are certainly higher (on average) than most men. Many of them that I have spoken to charge $500-600/hr and only do multiple hours.

 

I'm curious, since it has been mentioned here before, do they also require full disclosure of client identity to facilitate background checks? Not saying they are wrong to do so, I have no experience on the straight side. It was just a bit of a surprise to hear this as standard practice.