You are a first time client. The agency doesn't set up first time clients with new ladies. They are not the only agency that does this by the way.

It's a policy that helps the ladies feel safer. For the record, some ladies that have been with TBD for even longer periods will not always see first time clients either. I know it's a drag to not be able to see the lady you had in mind but TBD puts the safety and security of it's ladies above all else-as does any good agency. That is as it should be.

I hear you! Let me tell you a similar story I had 4 years ago !

A Long Island NY agency had a policy similar to what you describe. I tried to book an appointment with their top reviewed girl, and was asked, "have you used our agency before"? I replied,  "No, but I'm a gentleman, a very well known hobbyist with dozens of reviews, dozens of references, and am a member of one of the top verification services".

I was informed that, "That's great, but you have to see one of our 'lesser' girls FIRST before you see our top girl because you are an agency NEWBIE"!!! We don't let her see 1st timers!"

WHAT  THE FUCK ????

Colorful bastard that I am, I told them I didn't want their fucking "ground chuck", and if I couldn't have their "Prime Filet Mignon", they'd NEVER do business with me, and I'd see to it none of my friends ever did business with them either! I was SO put off by the whole experience that to this very day, I tell ANYONE who asks me to avoid the agency like the plague 4 years later.

Moral of the story-- be careful who you fuck with! & if guys are treated shabbily, they won't EVER forget it.  

Your post struck a raw nerve, and personal pet peeve with me !  

BTW, my post is not a slam on TBD !  If they DO have a policy like the agency I dealt with in LI, I'd advise changing it however.

Happy Hobbying to all !

Fuzzy









-- Modified on 10/28/2008 6:51:05 PM

1.  I have worked primarily independently for the duration of my time in the business (2 years) though I have moonlighted with several agencies with various screening procedures.  These experiences are the basis of my comments.

2.  An agency / service which is established and has a determined set of practices which do not waiver caller to caller must be respected, irrespective of our [the caller or bystanders] assessments of the practicality of those practices.

Potential callers / clients should be more concerned with the agencies which very obviously vary their standards caller to caller depending upon how the wind blows, how busy business is that day or who is answering the phones.

3.  As one who has worked with a service and said:
"I do not want to see anyone new currently"-
my decision was based on the fact that I simply didn't feel like dealing with unknown quantities.

Not the fact that I couldn't "handle" unknown quantities.

Everyone is speaking as though all instances of girls who won't accept new guests with a service are brand new to the industry.
This is ludicrous.  Most traveling providers (I would venture to guess nearly all) are not new to escorting.  They have some experience independently OR with services local to their home/market or previous touring experience.

A service is a service is a service.  10 miles away from home or 1000.  There is nothing new, different, unusual or difficult to navigate about answering a phone, hearing "you have a 1-2p with John Doe," hanging up the phone and conducting session with a check-out at 1:55p.

The only difference that Holly Hobby who is working under a service with this request of "no new guests" is experiencing is a little blip on the phone about who John Doe is and what his tendencies are ("Hon, you're seeing John Doe at 1p-he sees all the girls and they say he's really nice and good looking" or "the girls say he's a prick- kick him out if he gets fresh but I think you can handle it").

She's not necessarily better shielded or guarded from clients with the potential to become psychotic, LE or other undesirables.

4.  Though I respect TBD's policy from afar because it has been mentioned here several times in recent months and from where I sit it demonstrates CONSISTENCY I think that the business which does not allow for subtle, private exceptions to it's rules will lose worthwhile clients and leave a bitter taste in their mouths (as at least three people have expressed above).

You're on the phone with John Doe screening.  He's obviously excited about participating in your service.  He says that he is a gentleman hobbyist who participates often and has stellar references, a positive online hobby history and is willing to provide all of the information which would make you (the screener), the owner AND the entertainer happy.

If I were screening callers I would accept all of the information and review it.  If it checked out as perfectly as he suggested it would I would call the provider and lay it down for her. If she were down with an exception to the policy I would then call the owner.

I just can't see how this appointment request  (and those like it)couldn't have been a home run.

As Fuzzy said above, the agency which is relying on other girls to effectively screen guests (even if simply behaviorally) is being negligent during the screening process.  An agency which is commanding a 40% fee should be able to GUARANTEE that its screening procedures are so rigorous that EVERY guest accepted is the real deal and has their total confidence.

Anything less is negligence.

My suggestion to the agency is this:
Maintain policy publicly for the sake of uniformity, consistency, comfort and preservation of current clientele

BUT

Work smarter - not harder.

-- Modified on 10/29/2008 11:15:41 AM

is that just because a girl is new with the agency doesn't mean she's new to the business yet the agency treats it as such, and new clients can't see them, I've been turned down as well.  Good thing there's plenty of talent to go around elsewhere in the State.

-- Modified on 10/30/2008 7:36:58 AM