Yes, shes gotta be the most verbose cum bucket in the business.
I was wondering what you guys are up to. It seems reviews have really slowed down. We are seeing mostly only reviews of Asian agency girls 80 percent of which are clearly fake. Take reviews of lilian the first 6 out of 8 glowing reviews are made by profiles which only have 1 review or have only reviewed agency girls and locations all over the country. What are real reviewers doing, have you been scared off by Ice raids. Has traffic slowed way down because of unrest in Minneapolis. I would be interested to hear whats going on
Independent providers that charged $300/HR pre-covid are now charging $500-$600/HR. Wish my pay kept up with inflation, but it hasn't.
.
I don't do agencies due to unwanted attention from LE.
Definitely part of it.
Cheap? Maybe. Is it affordable? Maybe for some...
A lot going on in a big radius around DT.
I don't need that either.
I typically only do agencies now. I did see a few independents multiple times, but once these girls jumped their prices 200+ I was done. I caught myself spending $900 a week for months and realized it's not worth it. Sometimes $1,200/per week. Now, I get my fix with the Asian agencies for a lower cost. Plus they offer kinky services that i enjoy that most independent providers don't attempt.
Basically, I honestly, honestly, HONESTLY, can't justify spending $400+ for a session. It just doesn't make sense to me to waste that kind of money on one session that could potentially only last for 30min. I only mention this because "just once" is never enough and then your caught in a whirlpool.
From a business viewpoint, there is an old saying that goes something like the cure for high prices is high prices. With the rate increases you would expect a large increase in new talent entering the market. My opinion is we are not seeing it exception being the Asians.
I think the rapid rise of OnlyFans is directly correlated with increasing rates. Providers can make a lot of money on OF if they're popular.
.
Maybe sex work supplements OF income for some.
I believe OF is a totally mixed bag at least for higher end gals. Some make great money and can work less and be more selective. Some make only enough to make rent or car payments. Others just use it as a form of advertising and to stay in touch with regulars, and it’s not much of a revenue stream.
I just hit Tryst for my market ...
For $500+ gals only 15 list OF and six are visiting not locals. Without OF there are 202 providers for $500+ so that’s only 7% of gals.
If I exclude the rate and include OF there’s only 25 gals out of 465 ads, so only 5%. But my market may be very different from yours.
P.S. this isn’t exact because if you search OF vs onlyfans you get very different results for obvious reasons.
The rise of OF is a huge reason. A person can make 10 videos and 100 pictures. Then sell a 'subscription' for $20 a month..... on automatic renewal. So to supplement you get 100 people to subscribe... that is $2K a month. Might not seem like a lot. But you can see 4 less guys at $500 a pop. Raise your rates $100 a session. Many will pay it and those that don't you got your OF money.
Plus the sugar daddy scene is supplementing the income as well.
It’s also the influencer generation and the attractive girls can make enough from social media that they don’t need to get into this hobby full time and they typically have a few sugar daddys for additional income.
Otherwise, it’s basic economics, supply is down but demand is still there so price goes up, but the supply quality is subpar compared to even five years ago, so those of us that have been in this hobby for awhile can tell the money they charging now is not worth it.
1) rates rising faster than my disposable income
2) not as young or as physically fit as I used to be
3) too many hoops to jump through making the whole process less enjoyable than it was
I agree, but pre-2000 was the best
From my perspective, January was an amalgam of fear and compression. Post-holiday spending fatigue, W-2/1099 season (tax prep), inflation pressure, visible federal presence, and local unrest. Basically the financial and emotional equivalent of “maybe let’s sit tight for a minute.” That’s a lot of noise at once.
What I noticed personally was this: local inquiry volume was down, but inquiry quality was up. The men who reached out were decisive. Much less orbiting and reassurance needed. More “are you available on X date, at X time, for X hours?” and fewer 17+ texts/emails. At the same time, there were more reschedules and cancellations from Minnesota regulars who pushed into February “until things settled.” Which, honestly, is what I would have done and is very on-brand for us as a state. Cautious, practical, and mildly allergic to chaos.
It’s also worth remembering that January through early April is historically softer across much of the country, especially in Midwest markets. Holidays, credit card bills, weather, taxes. The holy trinity of “yeah not right now.”
When disposable income tightens, people don’t stop they optimize. So shorter bookings, agencies over independents usually, fewer sessions, lower friction (screening &/or deposits) &/or lower upfront rate. That’s not necessarily about quality. It’s financial psychology... Costco logic applied to our industry. Minnesota clients consistently say they value clean, discreet incalls, real beds (not a mattress on the floor), safe parking, calm environments, low drama, discretion. All of that costs something to sustain. This isn’t a “you should pay more” argument. It’s simply asking clients to recognize what you’re actually valuing.
When budgets tighten, the decision filter often shifts to lowest friction + lowest immediate cost. That’s human. No client is wrong for managing a budget. No provider is wrong for managing overhead. Tension shows up when expectations don’t align with price tolerance. From a purely economic standpoint, what we’re seeing isn’t collapse but a market sorting itself which... inflation does that.
Minnesota has always been practical and somewhat price-sensitive. At the same time, there’s more out-of-state money entering the city (biz travel is still happening) and a generational shift happening among clients. That friction is real and it’s probably not going anywhere.
And about OnlyFans; just a gentle correction because the mythology isn't accurate. It’s not the golden goose many imagine. The 2024 “State of the Creator” data showed most accounts don’t even hit the top 10%, which was roughly $1,500/month gross. Then OF takes 20% off the top, and any decent accountant will tell you to hold back around 30% of what remains for taxes. So that $1,500 becomes $1,200 after platform fees, and closer to $840 after tax withholding. It’s supplemental income for many, not a magical “replace four clients/mo” money.
As for skewed reviews, independents may be leaning more into regulars (who sometimes don’t re-review) or longer engagements, while agencies are running higher visible volume. That shifts what you see on the board. Visibility isn’t always the same thing as activity.
But if February inquiry patterns are any indicator, the sky is not falling.
Kinda hope these topics make it to the GD board.
“Costco logic applied to our industry” is gold!
It’s interesting that “visible federal presence” and the recent bust in Bloomington does not seem to have deterred visiting providers, though I’m currently focused on private incalls not hotels.
Yep your OF math maths. I didn't think it has much impact on gals availability or pricing to your point. One local gal who maybe posts twice a week tried to convince me she grosses $8K/month and my eye roll was met with icy glare 
But hey maybe she has some whales to back it up.
Yes, shes gotta be the most verbose cum bucket in the business.
Well said.
Again, I make good money, but I don't find the value in the rise in costs. I'll stick to McDonald's and avoid whole foods in the meantime.
You did a great job of covering everyone's view honestly.
Paige for President.
Who’s with me?
Shes got my vote. I love reading her posts so insightful and always makes sense and she speaks her mind and make her point without any of the negative tunes to it. Love her.
I think you are missing my point about OF. So as an example is that you bump your rates $50 or even $100 more. (which is some peoples gripe on this site). If you only lose 2 or 3 clients (regulars) over this.... it isn't that devastating when you have $10K (your example) of Only Fans money coming in. Because your other regulars paying the price increase and OF money is making up for the lose of 2 or 3 clients.
It isn't the "golden goose". But a provider could be now be lower volume and the OF supplements not having a few extra clients and off sets the price increase.
So just simple math.... A provider has 5 weekly regulars and the rate was $400. That is 2K a week. Now they bump the price to $450. They lose 1 regular. That is now still the same amount of income with the other regulars paying that $50 increase. Then add in the extra $200 from OF... it isn't a loss at all. (your math with $840 a month income) Again it is all per provider and maybe they don't have 5 regulars. But showing even $10K a year off of Only Fans.... is still an boost to supplement a price increase and any loss of clients. Then add in if they provider has another job and isn't a "full time" provider. Plus it is less work than going to see a client. Post a video once a month/ever other week. OR get make up, dress, transportation logistics, etc.
Again I am not saying it is the "golden goose". But $10K a year (your numbers) can off set price increase loss of clients.
I see what you’re saying. And you’re not wrong that in theory supplemental income can cushion elasticity but the spreadsheet version of this assumes a pretty stable ecosystem. A few things the simplified math doesn’t account for:
1. OF income isn’t guaranteed month to month. Subscriber churn is real. Platforms throttle visibility. Algorithms change. SWers get shadowbanned or deplatformed and have to constantly market just to maintain baseline revenue. Payment processors and banks freeze accounts. It’s not passive like people think.
2. That $840/month net example assumes someone is actually in the top 10%. Most aren’t. The median creator is significantly below that. And content production still requires time, energy, marketing, editing, admin, and endless messaging. It may be “less logistics than an in-person session,” but it’s not zero labor.
3. Rate elasticity isn’t always “lose one regular.” When inflation hits everyone at once, you might lose two or three regulars. Or frequency drops from weekly to biweekly. That math changes fast.
4. Price increases rarely happen because someone made $10K on OF. They happen because insurance, rent, flights, incall leases, platform fees, screening tools, advertising, and life in general went up. You’re looking at substitution. Providers are often looking at cost absorption.
Now, you’re absolutely right about one thing: diversified income lowers desperation pressure. If someone doesn’t need five weekly regulars to survive, they may prefer three higher-quality ones. That’s not greed though, that’s optionality. And providers deserve options just like clients do. But that dynamic isn’t new. Sugar dating, second jobs, investments, inheritance, spouses, and other revenue streams have always existed in this space. OF just made some of it more visible.
That said, the core force hasn’t changed. When disposable income tightens, clients optimize. When overhead rises, providers adjust. The friction lives in the middle. And respectfully, posting one video a month isn’t what drives meaningful OF revenue. If it were, most providers would have retired from FSSW by now.
Honestly, I think part of this conversation would be easier if we were just transparent about what’s underneath it. Sometimes it isn’t about economic theory or what platform us girls are sending lewds and nudes on. Sometimes rates have moved past someone’s comfort zone. That can make individuals feel priced out of the market, or priced out of seeing providers they genuinely wanted to meet, and that’s frustrating.
That frustration isn't wrong, it's human. But it’s different from concluding the entire market is irrational, greedy, or broken as some have alluded.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
"That frustration isn't wrong, it's human. But it’s different from concluding the entire market is irrational, greedy, or broken as some have alluded."
(Of course it's nice to imagine this is all rational, but there is no algebra that explains economics divided by horniness multiplied by the eternal ability of women to capture men's heads.)