Girls get sooooo annoyed when guys ask stuff like this, it ruins the mood and to be honest its none of your business.
Dont ask any one here.

Another annoying question, "how many guys have you seen today"

...during a discussion with a lovely lady in Atlanta who works as an indy, the lady told me that she once worked for an agency, but only for a short time, and the agency took 50% of the gift required for service.  That struck me as exorbitant and was in disbelief.  I believe this subject has come up before on the discussion board, but could not turn up any info via a search (may not have used the correct search words and have faulty research skills). Nevertheless, I am curious as to what the usual take is for agencies in DC area.  If any of the guys are in the know--and, of course, any ladies who care to share information on this matter without causing themselves problems--I would be interested in knowing, and perhaps others who read this also care.  50% seems excessive and unreasonable, but may be wrong. Realize that the ladies have no collective bargaining rights, so it is what it is, but some things do not seem to pass the "smell test," and think this may be one of them.

Are you willing to pay what it costs to spend time with a lady.   What her "take" of your gift is should not be part of your analysis.  You may be curious, but your curiosity goes nowhere because none of us are in a position to make a deal for a lady.  I know that the agencies share is generally less than the 50% you mention just through casual conversation with ladies, but it's not my business what arrangement a lady has with an agency.  

I am not going to slam you for being curious.  I just say that you could use your energy on something you can affect.  How a lady splits her gift is not one of them.  You can limit yourself to indies.  Many guys do.  Frankly, if I found a few ladies that could cover my desires I would too, but right not that is not the case.  Agencies will always have ladies and their agreement is their agreement.  End of sentence.

I am on no side her except the side where I get to meet nice ladies who are generally happy.  I don't control anything else.

67dc

You obviously do not care, and that is your prerogative, of course.

Its a 60-40 split, in favor of the provider.
Mind you, the same bird told me the provider pays for her own flight, hotel, etc.

This birdie was from DC, and lived in an agency nest but has since moved on and is an indy out west.

It's not that I don't think well of the ladies.  However, where does this conversation go?  It's uncomfortable, it's way off subject and it's not our business.

Good day:
Before I attempt to address your base question I will point out your question presupposes an implied  frame work that that the fundamental relationship of agencies and associates are an exploitative one.  Rationally speaking such a view would fall into the realm of "absolute thinking" and I'm sure and you must agree reality is not absolute.

THE DIRECT ANSWER:
Industry standard ranges from 30% to 60%
However, there are a lot of factors which can determine this and it changes from market to market and what social class, target audience, the agency is "functionally at".

PERSPECTIVE CORRECTION:
I'm going to correct a perception which needs to be made clear. In an operation which is run with a serious legitimate business mindset, clients belong to the Agency not the associate. The agency decides what it's charge for access to those clients.  We are the one who acquire the client base in the first place, maintain it, pay for advertising, websites ( in our case two separate servers for redundancy), incall locations, photo-shoots and all of the other expenses running this business.  The perception that as an agency owner I sit on my ass all day doing nothing is a lie. As many agecny owners will tell you, we put in 50 to 60 hour weeks, you don't just throw up a website and wait. Well, you could but then you'd be one of those where today gone tomorrow companies.

What does the associate bring to the table? Herself, that's it.   Speaking strictly within a business frame work and only in this vain, that is disproportional model of value.  Therefore, to make the claim we take their money is ludicrous at best.

Are there agencies which truly are exploitative? Absolutely!  Just as there are companies that exploit their workers and those which don't.

GAMES SOME AGENCY OWNERS PLAY:
There used to be a national touring agency which used to be on theses boards (run by a woman) and she would charge 30%. But the girl had to pay 100% of her own hotel rooms, cost of their photoshoots, in some cases part of their advertising and if a client canceled, the girl eat the cost. After you were done with the back charges and did the math that 30% turned into 60% plus.

By the way, I don't play games with my associates, which is why I have VERY little turn over.

BOTTOM LINE:
You can't judge by a percentage alone.

As for the comment ( not yours) on collective bargaining, sure bring it on!  For all the good it will do and if anything it will drive up the end user cost (that would be you guys).  Three words for you... American Automotive Industry.  Do I need to say more ?


Lee Dreams
"It's all about integrity."

It's not the concern of the hobbyist what the provider's take is, and it's a nosy question that will invades a provider's privacy.  If the provider is not happy with her take, she can leave and go independent or join another agency.  All you need to worry about is her performance and whether it is worth the donation given.  That's it.

..... a client asked one of our associates, she put him in his place immediately.  She was so offended that I got an ear full at the end of the appointment.

I can relate to the situation however it's not a problem with our Member Clients however it is a problem with our Ohio operation which overall is on the  lower social-economic scale.




Lee Dreams
It's all about integrity.

my business, and many others, operate on commissions where the person providing the business space, business equipment, and support personnel takes 50% of all money to cover expenses and accounting etc.  Really, what's the issue. Anyone can go out on their own, keep all income, and pay all the bills.

...in the second paragraph. That addressed the question.  Your are wrong about the implication of the question, your comment about an exploitative one.  I said: "50% seems excessive and unreasonable, but may be wrong"; "may be wrong" is the operative phrase.  That was one reason for raising the question; I did not know if I had an appropriate perspective.

Your response was somewhat illuminating, but would have been better appreciated minus the didactic tone, but that is probably just the way you address questions.

With respect to encouraging people to ask questions of the ladies, as was suggested by one post, that was not intended. That is perhaps like saying the God is pro-sin and encourages misconduct since we humans came into being with free will. I did not ask the lady the question.  People ask questions and usually do not need encouragement, unless they are very mentally slow; at least that has been my experience. We were just chatting and she made note of journey in the escort world that included a short stay with an agency.  I know Cindy, of TGND fame and sorely missed, once told me that the ladies who worked for her gave her in 20-25% range, and one was actually slightly less than that, for a reason I do not remember.

Again, thanks for the thoughtful response.  

As an aside, your comments about the deleterious effect of collective bargaining on the auto industry in America, some may buy your explanation, but I do not.  Part of the problem was obviously quality--e.g., I put 3 transmissions in a 1981 Chevrolet Caprice station wagon before I got one that finally worked--and the other has been the cost of welfare benefits, especially health care, which many of our competitors have provided to their employees via national health insurance. Am sure there is obviously many other reasons, but do not think the rights of worker to collectively bargain caused the problem.  Much is obviously due to the poor management of salaried employee, who got all the benefits and more that the union-represented workers got at the bargaining table.  All of us who come to appreciate the 40 hour week, eight hour day, and a few weeks of paid vacation, company paid health insurance and pension plans can thank the labor unions who first one these benefits.  My two cents.  That and $2 bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Live long and prosper.

"50% seems excessive and unreasonable"

Well, it is.  So is 60/40.  OTOH, the [politemode]agents[/politemode] in the tech industry garnish about the same amount.

"her performance and whether it is worth the donation given"

If any worker's performance is worth the money paid, shouldn't the worker get most of the money?

Seriously, I can tell you with absolute certainty, if you're hiring a computer guy through an "agency", you're getting someone who is worth at best half of what you're paying (or alternately spends his day wishing you and his "agent" dead).  I would be astounded if that didn't apply in every other field.

"In most jobs that base pay on revenue generation  ( I've worked retail and direct sales) the typical commission rate is 10-20%."

Quite true, and the various flavors of "agents" are _nothing more than salesmen_  and deserve no greater portion of the cut.

And sorry hoss you arent the one doing the tough end of the job.  Tell you what you can run your pie hole when you have serviced clients for a week, All about integrity yeah right.  Tell me another story boy.

By your response above hey we all know that integrity is your #1 priority. Give it a rest.

You got that right!!

Say you should read my 3-5-11 post titled "a modest proposal". How can nay business survive if it pays its associates more than half of the revenue. In most jobs that base pay on revenue generation  ( I've worked retail and direct sales) the typical commission rate is 10-20%.

Been to Starbucks lately? Its called "overhead" in the defence of the agency. All parties no the % before they start . Could be a million page blog on collective bargaining. Atleast with a union a slack ass can survive. No pride in your work is the problem in this country. For millions here you can make more by sitting on your ass.

When some youngster in his Mao or Che guevara T-shirt tells me Capitalism and the free enterprise system doesn't work, down with evil rich people and the unions will save us all. I resist the urge to smack him and call him "Susan". America ultimately was not built on "slack asses", success takes hard work to which one should be rewarded for.

The guy / gal in the shop who works or produces the most should make the most money at least in my world. Oh but wait, if it's a "union shop" Mr/Ms slack ass will make the same, humm isn't that what they call "social justice"?

Personally I love people who take pride in their work and those are the ones, I want to buy from and do business with.

Long live mom and pop shops....


Lee Dreams

"It's all about integrity.."

It is a hobbyist's business what the provider takes in.  All things being equal, "better" providers will be drawn to those agencies that provide a higher provider take, thus a hobbyist should select those higher take agencies.  A provider will be happier the higher her compensation, thus making for a happier session with a hobbyist.  To achieve her financial objectives, a provider will have to see fewer customers if she has a higher take, thus resulting in better sessions.

Consider the following parable that has been widely circulated through the years.

There was a staunch union member who decided to visit a house of ill repute.  He was OK with the $300 fee for an hour of fun, but was aghast that the lady would only receive $100.  So he passed on the first house and went to second house.  The madam informed the unionist that her house was fully unionized and that the fee was $300, with the lady receiving $200.  The unionist was much pleased and requested the services of Stacy, a buxom 20ish lady with a derriere to die for.  However, the madam informed the unionist that he would be receiving the services of Maude, a 65 year old lady, because of union seniority rules.

"All things being equal, "better" providers will be drawn to those agencies that provide a higher provider take"

All things being equal, hobbyists who don't ask personal questions, will receive better service.
Who can perform with a pain in the neck?

That union must not be sh*t. If it was doing it's job Maude would've retired at fifty and 20% of Stacy's pay would got towards paying Maude pension.

It would be unproductive for a hobbyist to ask an agency provider what her take is or how many customers she has had that day.  However, that data would be most helpful to the hobbyist if the data were available.  That is probably why the OP anonymously posted the question on this board, rather than asking individual providers.

Interesting Discussion.  As an indy, I can tell you I spend a LOT of time fussing with when and where to advertise and checking references, yuk!  Time with my "friends" is my JOY!

...right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug."

Do not necessarily disagree with your comment.


However, "peak" according to "Dictionary. com" on my iPhone also seems to work:
"be at a height, come to a head, crest, culminate, top out, crest"--i.e., my interest or curiosity was heightened.

example: verb
interest has peaked: reach its height, climax, reach a climax, come to a head.

But "pique" may have been a better word, according to the same dictionary:
(verb) "his curiosity was piqued: stimulate, arouse, rouse, provoke, whet, awaken, excite, kindle, stir, galvanize."

Thanks.

I was going to make the same point, but it's interesting that "pique" is french for "prick". That makes it especially apropos.

... clarification; it was delivered with such grace, civility, omnipotence, and courage. Anonymity certainly facilitates such valor in delivering insults.

When I'm with a  gorgeous woman,  I just hope I don't peak too soon!