With the economy getting worse and discretionary income, for many being decreased - Has anyone noticed any decreases in prices from providers? The rest of us can only hope!

I feel that the activity for many of our loved ones will slow with the economy like it is. They will have to decide if charging less is good for them. Maybe yes..maybe no. Perhaps a real job if they can find one.  WE COULD ONLY HOPE.

That's a funny reply to a post on an escort discussion board. Find A Real Job? Goodness luv, I never considered my website, travel and expenses pretend... they are very real, especially my advertising fees that are emailed each and every month like clock work LOL!!! I'd like to find a more " Real Job" than this.

I've had a "real job" and trust me, this is MUCH better! The corporate web of deception and politics can kiss my shapely white butt! I agree with Kym, this takes a diligent effort and is exactly like running a small business. I wonder what our friends "real job" consists of.....

I don't have any data but I seem to recall the boards illustrious statistician Levendi, in his last report indicated a small decrease in average rates but it seemed it could have easily been a statistical fluctuation.  Myself with business the way it is I'm certainly watching my expenses more but in this area that means paying attention to value not necessarily price.  
Providers in fact are small business people and the more successful ones understand the basic principals of business (product quality, customer service and professional integrity) and will be successful in this as well as other endeavors.
Akro

I track Los Angeles incall escorts with 16 or more reviews on TER. At the end of September the average price was $299.03. Last week (my most current calculation) it was $306.47.

Currently the most popular escorts with TER reviewers (prices are for 60 minutes except as noted) are: Ali ($400), Sonya ($400), Angela with the 323 area code ($250), Shayla ($350), Renee/Samantha/etc. ($250), Tia/Kitty Yung ($200 for 30 minutes).

Note that 4 of the 6 most popular escorts are charging more than the average price (and Ali is booked solid until sometime in November the last time I checked). A few less popular escorts have dropped prices, but in general if there is downward pressure on prices I don't see it.

Value and price are not the same thing of course. I'll go way out on a limb here and give the list that I think represent the best value in today's market. This is based on prices and TER reviewer rankings. Note that I have not even seen all the ladies in this list. (I have been lucky enough to see 8 of them.) Remember also, this list is taken from the list of Los Angeles escorts with 16 or more reviews who offer incall -- outcall only providers are not included. As always, your mileage (and opinion) may differ.  

Anyway, here is the list (best value first):
Ali (primarily outcall),
Celeste,
Tiffany/Tina/etc.,
Luscious Laurel,
Sonya,
Sasha,
Jasmin,
Amy,
Felicia Foxx,
Cumisha Amado,
Nasty Jade,
Nikki (primarily Orange County),
Aria,
Veronica Love,
Cheridan,
Angela (with the 323 area code),
Christy Spice,
Mellissa (primarily San Francisco),
Samantha/Katrina/etc.,
Darcy.


-- Modified on 10/16/2001 11:09:08 PM

A couple of the hotter DC area providers (Chennelle and Kimberly of Laurel) seem to have hiked their prices recently.

I think Akro hits the nail on the head with his observations about this being an industry made up of primarily small business operators...exlcuding agency operations.

I'm no economics expert, put I think it's a proven axiom that in any business it's much more profitable to have repeat business than to depend to a large degree on attracting new customers.  When I pay a return visit it's because of the overall quality of service...with honesty, integrity & customer satisfaction being more important than "packaging".  I've seen a couple of the ladies on Mathersar's "quality list", as well as a couple of others, & have to say that's definitely true when applied to them.

But another thing that should probably be added to the mix in this discussion are the gals who are just entering this field (& there seems to be a larger number than before) or who aren't well enough established to have built a reputation & a customer base.  Like any other business, these may have to offer something extra (IE: a lesser price) in order to attract customers.  We've seen numerous examples of this on this board in past reviews---a new gal hits the scene, gets anumber of good reviews & then raises her prices.  No big deal, just another marketing technique.  That's one area that Mathersar's stats   don't include due to the requirement for a specified number of reviews.

I start by summing the last ten numbers for appearance and performance (i.e., those on the first page of the profile). This gives me an appearance score and a performance score (both in the range 10..100).

I want to combine these into a single score.  I decided that a simple average (such as TER does) would not do. These two scores are really orthogonal. Conceptually I plot them on a graph with appearance score on the x-axis and performance score on the y-axis. This gives me a single point on the graph for the escort. I then draw a line from the upper-right corner of the graph (the point with x = 100 and y = 100) to the point representing the escort and measure the length of this line (the shorter the better). Actually, this is all done with a single formula -- I don't actually do the graphing. Finally, I weight the performance score twice as heavily as the appearance score and transform the final result so that for any value 'n' a point with x = n and y = n has the value 'n'.

The resulting point score determined from appearance score and performace score is (greywolf, you were asking about this -- here it is):

point_score := 100 - (((100 - a) ^ 2 + 4 * (100 - p) ^ 2) / 5) ^ 0.5

where 'a' is the appearance score, 'p' is the performance score, and '^' is the power (exponentiation) operator.

For example if a = 85 and p = 88 then point_score = 87.34.

I then do a regression analysis using all escorts with a 1-hour price to determine how the market currently values the point score.

Currently the regression equation is:

expected_point_score := 0.06319243 * price_for_one_hour + 55.16897

For example if price_for_one_hour = $350 then expected_point_score = 77.29

Most escorts have a 1-hour price given in their profile but a few do not.  For those who do not I estimate a 1-hour price. Most escorts discount longer sessions.  Roughly, on average, it appears that price increases as the 2/3 power of the length of a session (e.g., if a 1-hour session costs x then an 8-hour session will cost 4x). I use this rule-of-thumb to estimate a 1-hour price from the given price from a longer (or shorter) session.

Next, I calculate a relative score using the formula:

relative_score := point_score - expected_point_score

For example if point_score = 87.34 and expected_point_score = 77.29 then relative_score = 10.05.

Finally, I sort the list by relative_score.  Relative_score is my value index.

-- Modified on 10/17/2001 8:24:48 PM

There is only one I've seen lower her rates, and it's Heather Baron out of LA....primarily because it's her birthday.   The other ladies should take a lesson from this sweet and fun lady.

My appologies to Mathesar.  I think his post supports the point that there is a small cadre of providers who are simply a good cut above the rest of the pack for not all that much more $$.  If you look carefully you can find others less well known who are at or very close to this elite group for significantly less $$ for reasons that I think are well explained in Greywolf's post.  Of course you can spend a significant $$ searching and that's part of the value of this board.  Not to mention the stimulating exchanges.
Akro

I am currently tracking over 80 Los Angeles incall providers. The list I posted contains the top 20 for value. I regard all providers listed as being a good value.

Sorry that my original post was unclear about that.

You're a scream. And I thought ~I~ was anal-retentive.

I live in the Tampa area, and therefore don't have the large base of providers or reviews with which to work. I note that you limit your tabulations to those providers who have 16 or more reviews -- what's the manner in which you arrived at that minimum number? I also note that you weight performance_score as twice that of appearance_score -- what's the manner in which you arrived at that ratio? Finally, I note in the elaborate formula, that the divisor of the figure in the root is 5. What the heck?

Anyway, I don't exactly know how to go about this, but I'd like to figure out some reliable way of tabulating the women in the Tampa area similarly. And I think it would be interesting to figure in the RELATIVE scoring of each reviewer. That is, if he habitually gives 8s, 9s, and 10s, then his 9 should be worth less than the 9 of someone who habitually only ever gives 6s and 7s ... unless of course the 7 guy usually sees people who average something like a 7 and his 9 went to a woman who tends to average 9s ... and so forth.

Discussion?

-- Modified on 10/18/2001 4:23:35 PM

In my area (Tampa) prices aren't necessarily diminishing on the websites of higher class providers. But the incall ladies at massage parlors are more open, in a general sort of way, to negotiations, and the line-ups for women who usually could have relied on having someone in the waiting room, and therefore could just dismiss any negotiator with a fare-thee-well, have disappeared. Furthermore, new providers are appearing whose initial base-rates are lower than those rates of the established providers ... this is always the case, that the beginners charge less than the established ones, but the difference in rates between beginners and established seems to be slightly greater than before 9/11. I don't have stats like Mathesar, but it's my general "impression" that the market is becoming a little bit more of a buyer's market, hoorah. Couple that with a drop in police activity at the strip clubs, and Tampa is halfway back to what it used to be like before the Super Bowl. Halfway.

-- Modified on 10/18/2001 4:28:02 PM

A lot of what I do is subjective. You have picked up on two of the major items.

Greywolf commented that I miss the new providers by requiring 16 reviews. That is true and is in part the reason that I do it. Another part is that reviewers are not truly drawn at random from the population. The first review may be from a guy who just happened to love her or just happened to hate her, who knows. After she has a half a dozen reviews guys can start to judge what she is like and my impression is that the reviewers start becoming self-selected on the basis of her previous reviews.

If reviewers were drawn at random the random error of the estimate of her mean score would decrease as the square root of the number of reviews. Of course, the reviewers are not picked at random and the quality of the ladies' service may vary over time so using a very large number of reviews may actually be counter productive. Basically I compromised on ten reviews because there are ten reviews on the first page of the profile and it is easy to grab the first ten scores. I require sixteen reviews to start because that gets rid of the first six which I don't think are necessarily representative.

Weighting performance score at twice the appearance score is purely subjective. First and foremost I do this for myself to decide who to see next and that is their relative importance to me. (Incidentally, ratings mean nothing once you've seen a lady. You know what the chemistry is between the two of you then. As it happens two of my three favorite ladies are at the top of my value list: Ali and Celeste. However, the third lady is Christy Spice and she is way down the top 20 list that I posted. Numbers should be our servants. We should not be slaves to the numbers.)

The 5 is simply the normalization factor. I want the point score to always be between the appearance score and the performance score and the 5 makes it happen.

What you are proposing in the last paragraph is interesting, but it is simply too much work for me to do in my spare time (unless I want to give up seeing providers completely LOL).

-- Modified on 10/18/2001 8:02:07 PM

-- Modified on 10/18/2001 8:04:12 PM