I made an earlier suggestion that the agencies should consider migrating their website photos of their girls to videos but it may be a while before they ever catch on.
The randomness of the Montreal selection process is what bugs me the most about heading up there.
a) The guys/women on the phone don't give accurate descriptions of who works there.
b) Some agencies don't perform an edits and say to women: "You meet the standards for this agency. You don't meet the standards for this agency." This results in very uneven service and selection standards.
c) What photos there are are often retouched and Photoshoped.
The higher end agencies supposedly have standards and the fact that they can charge what they do and get away with it is proof that this is a problem in need of a solution and guys will pay to get rid of this randomness.
The result is that calling an agency is like opening a box of chocolate. You never know what you are going to get.
It also has the effect on me of not wanting to take too many chances and sticking with girls who I know. I book multiple hour sessions with them instead of exploring.
Then add to this the fact that we all have different tastes and preferences. One man's outstanding is another's acceptable or sub-standard.
My ratio of bad/sub-standard sessions as a proportion of all sessions in Montreal is something like 30%. In Germany where I have a chance to assess the offering, meet the women first and have conversations with them, its more like 10%.
Alors, quoi faire?
Then I had a thought: why can't we move towards Amazon.com type reviews?
If you buy a book on amazon.com they make suggestions: "If you bought this book, you might want to check this out too. Or: Buyers of this book also bought the following."
Some guys are very new to this and don't have points of referral when they say that a chick was very good or very bad.
Somehow understanding the mongering resumes of posters while reading their reviews would put this all in perspective and help us all avoid unacceptable sessions.
The randomness of the Montreal selection process is what bugs me the most about heading up there.
a) The guys/women on the phone don't give accurate descriptions of who works there.
b) Some agencies don't perform an edits and say to women: "You meet the standards for this agency. You don't meet the standards for this agency." This results in very uneven service and selection standards.
c) What photos there are are often retouched and Photoshoped.
The higher end agencies supposedly have standards and the fact that they can charge what they do and get away with it is proof that this is a problem in need of a solution and guys will pay to get rid of this randomness.
The result is that calling an agency is like opening a box of chocolate. You never know what you are going to get.
It also has the effect on me of not wanting to take too many chances and sticking with girls who I know. I book multiple hour sessions with them instead of exploring.
Then add to this the fact that we all have different tastes and preferences. One man's outstanding is another's acceptable or sub-standard.
My ratio of bad/sub-standard sessions as a proportion of all sessions in Montreal is something like 30%. In Germany where I have a chance to assess the offering, meet the women first and have conversations with them, its more like 10%.
Alors, quoi faire?
Then I had a thought: why can't we move towards Amazon.com type reviews?
If you buy a book on amazon.com they make suggestions: "If you bought this book, you might want to check this out too. Or: Buyers of this book also bought the following."
Some guys are very new to this and don't have points of referral when they say that a chick was very good or very bad.
Somehow understanding the mongering resumes of posters while reading their reviews would put this all in perspective and help us all avoid unacceptable sessions.