It was said by a certain character that even so much as discussing a boycott on a message board can result in "damage" that is raising prices by orgs. I've yet to see any, even anecdotal, evidence of this being true.
So I have to ask this in a separate thread- guys, is there any evidence that this is a thing ?
Rocketbro,
So far as I know, EBKBEAUTIES has raised their hour donation rate from $220 to $240.
Thank you brother twoon for answering this. I don't really see the link here, because I think they raised it before the boycott was discussed, but it certainly is some evidence.
And I do appreciate your answer,without going into personal attacks or attacking my posting styles. Much appreciated.
You are certainly under no obligation to correctly quote anyone. As you’ve exhibited in many cases. Some people are even considering giving you an award for your creative reading achievements. All this misquoting others just to justify a rant is damaging that reputation for telling the truth you claim to treasure so much.
You are free to speculate and accuse others of saying what will give you the greatest opportunity to rant all you want. There are other trolls on here who will support and befriend you while giving you the attention you seem to desire so much.
However, if you ever want to simply have a civil and open discussion on the topic sans ranting and posturing, please let me know.
Enjoy!
-- Modified on 10/13/2020 10:57:09 AM
-- Modified on 10/13/2020 10:59:26 AM
-- Modified on 10/13/2020 11:02:36 AM
-- Modified on 10/13/2020 11:05:11 AM
-- Modified on 10/13/2020 11:07:39 AM
-- Modified on 10/13/2020 11:08:25 AM
Sounds like you're the one who ranted here.
It's a simple question. Is there a link or any evidence that discussing boycotts can lead to orgs raising prices? You can say no, there isn't. Or yes there is. Providing some evidence, even if anecdotal, for both.
As far misquoting, I will re-quote this again. The topic was on boycott.
"I agree with your assessment for what will drive up prices if anyone disrupts the market at this point in time. The orgs, like many of us, have been running through their cash reserves already. If something else negatively impacts their ability to drive revenue they will inevitably start taking counter measures just like any other business. Increasing prices being one of the easiest for them.
Frankly, even seeing this kind of discussion in the forums will already have them thinking about it, I’m sure. I suggest we move on before any further damage is done. Do we honestly think they aren’t reading these threads and putting contingency plans in place already? "
Does anyone have the link between" even seeing this kind of discussion in forums" and having "further damage" being done? I'm not asking you anymore, useyrhead, because clearly you declined to answer this question when I asked you multiple times.
So now I'm asking everyone else.
Thank you twoon for at least attempting to answer my question.
You’re still doing a pretty poor job of reading what I wrote. But, hey, you are free to make things up however you wish. Since, according to you, you’re not getting laid these days, nobody can blame you for being a bit off your reading game.
What you meant because I think what's quoted is pretty easily understood.
Yet somehow he thinks I’m saying there is solid evidence and a direct link. Some people will misread even what most will say is easily understood.
I’ve tried to clarify for his reading level multiple times on multiple topics. As have several others. He routinely misinterprets and misquotes in just the right way to justify one of his rants.
So, I’ll reply sometimes. And answer questions where something I said might reasonably be understood. But that’s as much troll feeding as I’m willing to do.
-- Modified on 10/13/2020 1:52:20 PM
I think he was referring to a comment I made about price increases by providers. The suggestion was that if quantity demanded was dropping it was not something driven by prices. Therefore, if the women are not paying their bills at their current rate, and given reducing prices would not be expected to increase number of visits, they really loose nothing by increasing their prices. In fact increasing the price to the point where their limited sessions would then support their basic needs makes sense.
Is that what is really going on? I don't know but at least the logic of the argument seems to hold.
Will the agencies act that way? No idea -- they might just change the split and then accept that the top girls will go on vacation or something. They might also raise rates as it might be the profit maximizing approach given the market situation under COVID S&D structure. So a antagonistic campaign might just incent some of them to do so out of spite as well.
First, thank you for actually answering. We don't really see face to face on many things,but I will give you props here. And I mean it.
So, then my understanding is that the quoted was just speculation on how orgs will react to "an antagonistic campaign". Not much evidence for or against. The orgs will supposedly say fuck these guys we will raise the prices out of spite. And the plea to stop talking about it from useyrhead was due to fear of orgs being spiteful.
One thing though, it's pretty risky to antagonize people already thinking of boycotting with higher prices. Not only it requires cooperated collusion between orgs (remember most collusion in real world actually DROP prices to drive away competition), it can cause even more unrest and irritation among the people who are tired of shit. If you were already dissatisfied seeing a milf rebrand in her 40s instead of what was on the pic for 260, imagine seeing the same milf for 380.
I'm not sure if "the quoted" is what you quoted from useyrhead's post in the other thread or something I wrote.
In my case it can only be speculation, both because I'm not privy to pricing decisions by the agencies nor do I think we have clear observations that could easily be interpreted not sufficient observations for statistical significance. About the best I have is that in this area we tend to have more cordial relationships with agencies and generally try to resolve issues privately rather than making be public issues. It seems to work for us. BA seems to be a more confrontational setting and has a much less pleasant situations from all I can tell. Why and which is the chicken and which the egg? Don't know; maybe neither or perhaps it was a mutually emergent outcome.
Useyrhead can speak for himself but I don't think "due to fear of orgs being spiteful" is the only way to interpret his statement. Seems one could simply take it as a view of potential results that are not desirable that than fear of something. A bit like pointing out to someone on a plane, standing at the open door without a parachute, they will likely die if they fall is not really a statement of fear but noting the effect of converting the potential energy of being 10,000 feet in the air and then converting that into kinetic energy upon hitting the ground. (Not that I think prices or agency behavior are nearly as law governed as physics).
To your last point, if the hypothesis about prices rising is correct (or part of the explanation) then they don't care if some people respond to a price increase by organizing a boycott because even with the lower volume they are still at the preferred revenue point. The boycott would need to be able to shift those margins and that is highly questionable for anything organized on TER. So if you want to make that counter argument at least first suggest why the suggest explanation on price behavior doesn't hold.
Right, your plane analogy makes sense - but the point is, if death was not feared, it wouldn't make sense to say that.
My point is that I see no evidence where discussion of boycott on forums leads to orgs doing this. Useyrhead also mentioned that boycotts were tried, and even that they have worked before.
So naturally, I assumed that such boycott discussion before would exhibit the same results as claimed in the speculation - that the prices rise. If, on other hand, we have a data point where a boycott was acrually tried and price were not raised, and have no other data points that proved otherwise, wouldn't it make more sense to assume that in fact no such thing happens in the world of kgirl orgs?
I don't really get your last point. The claim was that even speaking on a boycott on any message forum might cause orgs to raise prices. I'm simply arguing against this concept. I'm saying, any producer seeing a backlash against their product, is likely to think twice before doubling down and losing even more customers. Yes, ter is likely too small of a community.
However, if theoretically, every small and large active forum runs with this idea, which isnt easy to do I'll admit, my speculation is orgs will feel the heat. It's a supply and demand thing after al. I'm not that versed in economics, but cutting off demand due to quality and then cutting off demand because of prices then will mean the orgs have to either operate at price point higher than equilibirum to still make profit, or operate at a lower price point and hence lose money.
So while I agree that an actual big boycott will likely make the orgs raise prices if (big if) they don't comply with demands, I see no evidence that merely talking about it will make them raise the prices. It's not to their advantage to do so.
The reason why mant boycotts don't work is because of lack of coordination and the fact that there are people still willing to buy at higher price point. The thing is, many mongers are only in the kgirl market because of price to service ratio. LA prices are hitting close to 400 now with l upcharges. If there's a price hike due to boycott, they will lose all but most loyal customers imo. And remember, many orgs specifically make a lot of money off newbies.
But again, thank you for having this discussion. I believe we are doing it in a very civil manner. Thus far.
I don't think there is a DIRECT link between boycotts and price increases, but since its a supply and demand market, it certainly makes sense that if demand drops, orgs will close up some of the incalls, thereby reducing the number of available work spaces for Kgirls. When the boycott is over, and there is a surge in demand, it is an opportune time to raise prices before meeting the demand by adding more apartments to the incall inventory.
The last significant price increases in SoCal came out of the chaos when CV closed down completely and TER closed access within the US within 2 months of each other. The orgs that depended completely on CV as their advertising platform were caught flatfooted and the girls weren't getting any business, so the orgs that already had proprietary websites, or could create them quickly could both raise prices AND capture market share.
I would humbly add my theory about the Bay Area. The reason that the average age of kgirls is skyrocketing (bordering on the absurd that they are still advertising as 20-somethings) is because price point is way higher in most other markets. We’re becoming a backwater the way emeryville is to the greater Bay Area. Just a thought. Maybe I’m totally wrong.
Makes sense too -- and I don't really think there is just one thing driving the outcome.
I would add that the lack of incoming girls due to both travel restrictions and fears by Koreans about the state of COVID in the USA is also part of what is going on.
If it helps any, seems like in Toronto all the girls are 19. LOL Though the times I've been there and seen one they have all be attractive and good shape so not worried about that discrepancy personally (in fact, just looking at most of the pics you know they are not 19 from the start).
That all the girls at one agency are 26, at a few others they are 23, and most all of them are never older than 27. I guess some agencies just get lucky that way. Then we show up to see these supposedly "low-mileage" girls and are sometimes confronted with a pussy with so many miles, its out of warranty. Lol
Speaking of age, one thing I dislike severely about ter is that profiles stay static and aren't updated unless girl age on ad is updated.
Ie, was looking through a kgirl profile a usual. She is listed as 23 in her ter profile. She has reviews dated back as long as six years ago. I mean... we all know most of these girls are nowhere close to their 20s, but I feel like once profile is created and age is established at the time it should be incremented accordingly. Not doing that just adds to confusion imo. Time flies the same for everyone.
Right now the kgirls aren’t trusting each other very much when it comes to Covid prevention. The Bay Area girls look at the stats for LA and want nothing to do with anyone from down there. Though that’s easing up from what it was a few months ago.
It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the girls in LA feel the same about the Bay Area.
The best thing we can do right now, in my opinion, is be ambassadors of rational thinking and calm.
[note: longer explanation than I would like is about to follow]
I know it’s hard (no, not that) to not jump on the drama train. But in times like this hysteria is too close to the surface. And, like yawning (but frequently with much more severe consequences), it is a well proven social phenomenon that once it starts in one place it spreads in mysterious ways to others. And, especially in this activity we all enjoy, nobody needs that kind of drama.
I know some people like to blame all issues on the orgs. But sometimes we forget we also have LE here. As well as the wide mix of personalities that are attracted to any highly addictive, illegal behavior. I specifically recall the LE involvement on the boards leading to the bust of those guys in Seattle.
And before the trolls jump in and yell (or post egregiously long walls of text) that any sort of reasonable caution is a sign of fear, let’s think this through. What do we gain from buying into any sort of drama in this market? Unless you’re one of those people who is simply wired such that conspiracy and emotional reactions feeds you, there is nothing to be gained. And what I would consider an unacceptable increase in the possibility that we will lose something. But I freely admit even a slight increase in the possibility of loss is something I dislike.
It is my suggestion that we will all be better off if we can avoid letting the stress get to us and feeding into the drama in any way. Once the little fires start popping up it gets increasingly hard to put them out. You all, of course, are free to do whatever you wish, though.
-- Modified on 10/15/2020 8:17:11 AM
-- Modified on 10/15/2020 8:34:23 AM
-- Modified on 10/15/2020 8:35:20 AM
-- Modified on 10/15/2020 8:38:01 AM
concentrated in low-income "hot spots." East LA has had over 2000 new cases in the last month, while Malibu has had less than 50, and dropping steadily. That's why our state gov just moved the goal posts by declaring the whole county must meet certain guidelines before opening ANY PORTION of it up, even if a hot spot is 50 miles away. East LA has a problem with its citizens following the Covid guidelines and wearing masks, so the Malibu residents who do follow the guidelines will also be punished. This is similar to what the Nazis did during WWII when they would line up a whole town and then just randomly shoot every 10th person in the line because the "resistance" groups scattered throughout the town were still fighting back. At least they haven't started shooting us yet for not wearing a mask, but its still a draconian measure.
Oh my God, you have to wear a mask, such Nazi measure!
Might even save another live or two if you're infected, what a terrible proposition.
He referred to the punishment as being not able to “open up”. Not wearing a mask.
Wearing a mask apparently also is a punishment for him.
That may or may not be true. My comment only dealt with the content of the post above where he only referred to punishment in regard to opening.
The punishment is not being able to open up ANY part of a county because other parts still have a problem because certain areas are not complying in efforts to control the spread of new cases. Wearing a mask isn't a punishment, but it IS an annoyance, but still a duty if you are in an area with a lot of new cases. Me wearing a mask does NOT save lives unless I have Covid, which I don't. If I get it, then I WILL wear a mask.
Most people dont know when they get covid until they test for it. Many don't have any symptoms. Wearing a mask might save someone's life.
Tbh I don't know why I even got into this conversation. I want to got back discussing boycott and prices rising. I'll have to commend useyrhead because he did finally answer the question. I don't get why it as so hard to do it before. I may not agree with his response but I respect it.
let's NOT keep rehashing old COVID shit. And not just saying that to you rocket; let's just try to keep this board at least on K related discussions.
I agree. Let’s keep this about k-girls.
I think that is far preferable than doing the market analysis for the orgs to help them justify a price increase. I’m amazed that the most anti-org monger (or the guy who professes to be anti-org) wants so badly to help them out.
I don't think I ever said I'm anti-org. I'm anti-bullshit, and unfortunately, they be peddling a whole lot of ol' bullshit.
I disagree that drama or any other ramblings on the board or in reviews, have any impact on justification for price increases. I think it's simply a non factor. A real boycott or an attempt at one where demand actually decreases, could be a factor. Discussion of one isn't, imo.
The orgs already don't have much moral obligation to make justifications to themselves or others. You actually have to have integrity to have such obligation. If they want to raise prices, they will.
The consumer has no other outlet here aside from voting with his wallet and spreading word of mouth via forum and reviews, publicly.
I get it.
Anything that looks like it could hinder you from creating the drama you love must be wrong. You certainly have no sound basis for that position. If you do, you have so far not presented it. Though I can agree with most, if not all, of your last sentence.
Enjoy your moment.
-- Modified on 10/16/2020 12:54:37 PM
-- Modified on 10/16/2020 1:00:38 PM
-- Modified on 10/16/2020 1:01:44 PM
It took you more than 7 minutes and 3 edits to make this comment?
That is not my reasoning at all. I simply am not convinced, or haven't seen any indication that "drama" as you call it creates opportunity for orgs to raise prices. Some orgs already been raising prices for certain providers. I do not know whose call it was (provider's or the orgs'), but I certainly did not remember much drama around those small raises.
The shit that is posted on forum, especially this one, is fairly low impact. I mean people have been saying this for a while. I wish we had more impact than we do, and orgs do read us, but I don't think they make a deal of my or your posts,for example.
Again, I do thank you for answering my question I asked so many times. I think we are having a constructive dialogue, and we should keep it this way. Cheers.
those that are high-risk be responsible for their OWN health and look out for themselves. I'm not my brother's keeper, so why would I do it for a stranger? If they are worried about catching Covid, then they should operate on the premise that EVERYBODY else has it, and do what they have to do to protect themselves. My dad is 95, and he wears a mask AND a face shield, and carries hand sanitizer in his pocket. He' being responsible for himself and assumes he is coming in contact with others on a daily basis that are shedding Covid virus. Like I said, is I do get it, I will take additional precautions, but I don't see the need to wear a mask all the time I'm away from home. No one in my office has worn a mask during this whole covid period. We do a temp scan when people arrive and so far have not had to send anyone back home.
If you possess any type of insurance or contribute to social welfare programs, which you likely do, you're in direct opposition to this philosophy.
for my employees, but I use a HSA for myself, so I'm self-insured. So you could say I'm looking out for others who can't fully look out after themselves, but I don't consider it a social welfare program, because its a closed group. Nice try, though. You took a calculated risk that the odds were in your favor because average Americans usually have insurance. However, I'm not an average American. You don't look that dumb this time. Congrats. Lol
You don't pay payroll tax or contribute to Social Security and Medicare? Sad. What sort of risk calculation do you do for a comment online? This isn't actuarial science.
the employer's portion of Social Security and Medicare, because those are required by law. Your question was about CONTRIBUTING to social causes. Then it was about buying insurance. Now its about whether I pay the tax man sums that ARE REQUIRED BY LAW. You're moving the goal posts again, a sure sign that you know you lost this debate. Lol
If I can't get into some place without one, and there are many businesses like that in OC where I live. It's actually better for the species as a whole if those with weak genetics are culled form the herd. Why allow them to pass their shitty genes onto another generation? In the every-man-for-himself of our current society, the concept of personal sacrifice for the greater good is a thing of the past. You may find these comments shocking, but its the way most people thought a couple of generations ago, not to mention its backed up by science.
you were going to follow up the "I only wear a mask . . ." with "when I join into a TER Boycott!"
It’s a new game!
“I always wear a mask.. whenever my mother in law comes over.”
“I always wear a mask.. so that I don’t have to cover my mouth when I yawn.”
“I always wear a mask.. whenever I know I’m going to run into a SJW.”
“I always wear a mask.. whenever I’m replying to a TER forum SJW.”
Let’s all play. Anyone?
Shocking? You're reciting the same perverted adaptation of the Ubermensch/untermensch concept, hat, ironically enough, Nazis used and liked. Not shocking at all.
And Im not surprised at all you balk at the concept of personal sacrifice for the greater good.
Why would you eschew something which gives you an additional sense of anonymity, if nothing else? Even if the incall doesn't require it but the people around there use them, you stand out.
apartment complexes, there are just about as many people without masks as there are with masks. OC is ahead of LA in the phased reopening of everything.
Reopening doesn't mean you don't still have to wear a mask, if anything, it's the opposite because businesses are experiencing increased foot traffic.
wear one while you fuck if you want, or are you one of those low-volume guys who is using coronavirus as an "excuse" for not seeing Kgirls? I'm not worried. According to my doc, I'm in better shape than most guys half my age.
apartment complexes, there are just about as many people without masks as there are with masks. OC is ahead of LA in the phased reopening of everything.
...or is it more of your bullshit? "...it's the way most people thought a couple of generations ago." EXACTLY - a couple of generations ago. People's thinking, not to mention science, have made incredible advances since "a couple of generations ago." And the herd immunity theory has never been tried to stop a pandemic. You really have contempt for the readers of your posts, don't you? You expect them to swallow your bullshit and ask for more.
I wonder if Halsey is returning to LA. We swapped numbers but haven't heard back in a bit.
There's another atf who went underground and charges $300/hr for close, close regs.
but to get it i need you to "kill 3 guys with a fucking pencil"!!!!!!
sorry couldn't help it. its the matrix!!!!