Freebies

[Red Paul]

The comments on the Dangerous Curves controversy include reports that DC's proprio makes it up to jilted customers by giving them a free hour (or hours) with a girl (or girls) on his team. And a feature of the Montagne parties is the rafflles in which the lucky winner gets free time with an SP.

I assume that in either case the agency involved pays the girl whatever she would have made if the customer were parting with cash. But I don't really know if that's true. Does anybody else?

 

[HonestAbe]

Why is this a foreign concept?

A business interested in keeping its clients happy can do whatever it feels appropriate to make up for inconveniencing a client. Its their choice to do so, or not. Accepting such an offering bears no shame. If it bothers you, don't accept it. Its a non-issue.

 

[metoo4]

Car companies give freebees to car reviewers. Of course, they expect a positive review but they also accept the fact it might not be as positive as they want or even plain negative. The reviewer's objectivity is what count in these matter, not how much was paid. Some will give stellar reviews for a simple discount, some will review it as it really was even if it was free.
Same apply to escorts. All goes down to the reviewer's integrity, objectivity, reputation and ethical sense. If somebody consistantly give good review to SP that normally have bad ones, then it's for us to beware. Opposite is also true.

 

[Red Paul]

Dee

Looks like you should have started that separate thread -- so far your point has raised a lot more interest than mine. For my part, I agree that there's no problem if the reviewer who accepts the freebie says so in his review. People who see something unethical about accepting a freebie as payback for agency bungling are just confused about the issue.

Femaleluver

What do I mean? I can't even tell what you mean. And please accept that as a joke.

For what it's worth, here's my question again. Let's try it this way. An agency grants a freebie. The client gets laid and does not pay. Does this mean the girl gets no money, or does the agency pay her the sum that ordinarily would have been her cut from the fee charged the customer?

If anyone has an answer, please also explain how you know.

 

[HonestAbe]

Correct me if I'm wrong

I believe the controversy is over whether or not it is ethical for a poster to take a freebie from an agency and then post a great review in return.

One side says its ok because the agency is just trying to make up for its own screw up as many businesses do, and the client is entitled to some compensation for loss of time or unsatifactory service.

The other side says that when a poster on this board accepts a freebie for whatever reason the perception of that member being "bought off" exists if they then turn around and post a great review of the agency and delete any original negative review.

 

[Uncle Kracker]

Thanks Abe...

In that case, I think it's fine for the poster to prvide an ACURATE review of the service whether it's paid for or a freebie...

They should also let everyone know up front that the service was free... And if the first hour sucked, they should say it... And if they're given a make up hour and she becomes a fucking dynamo in bed, then they should say that too...

I don't find anything wrong with posting an acurate review as long as the poster clairfies PAID FOR or FREEBIE...

I'm not sure if I should throw gas on the fire, but oh well...

XFactormtl, where you at the last party? Have you been to all the parties? And when you do go to the parties, do you meet and remember every single persons name/handle/etc.?

What agenda could Freewill be pushing? All I see are opinions and facts being posted... And after reading them I don't feel they're pushing anyone a particular way...

Maybe you're reading into them something I'm not...

 

[Red Paul]

One side says its ok because the agency is just trying to make up for its own screw up as many businesses do, and the client is entitled to some compensation for loss of time or unsatifactory service.

You're leaving out full disclosure. We feel it's ok to take the freebie as long as the taker explains in full when he writes his review.

That just seems like the common sense view, and I bet most clients would agree w/ it.

 

[HonestAbe]

I never disagreed

You're leaving out full disclosure. We feel it's ok to take the freebie as long as the taker explains in full when he writes his review.

That just seems like the common sense view, and I bet most clients would agree w/ it.

I originally said it was a non-issue. I agree fully however that every poster should give a fair and accurate description of every aspect of the encounter, including any history behind it. The fact that someone is getting a freebie is definitely a part of the history behind the encounter.

 

[Mod 2]

XFactor,

As per the Posting Guidelines and Rules of Conduct, I am closing this thread and booting you out.

2) Forbidden Activities:
iii) Personal attacks on others, flames, fights, name-calling, etc...

Whoever FREEWILL was in his previous incarnation has to do with him only. If he wanted to tell you, he would. It`s obvious you are here to disturb and cause trouble only, and we don`t want you on this board. Go play somewhere else.

EDIT: Actually no, I am not closing this thread. I cleaned it up and reopened it. XFactor is causing trouble and there is no reason for me to punish everyone by closing a thread on a subject that otherwise have generated interresting discussions.

Thank you

M2

 

[Red Paul]

Honest Abe

But disclosure isn't a nonissue -- it's the crux. If you're going to summarize our position, you have to include it. And your post to Uncle Kracker did not. That's all I'm saying.

 

[orallover]

I originally said it was a non-issue. I agree fully however that every poster should give a fair and accurate description of every aspect of the encounter, including any history behind it. The fact that someone is getting a freebie is definitely a part of the history behind the encounter.

Actually, in my opinion, it is not necessary to mention freebie/discount or not in the review. However, if freebie/discount was offered in exchange of review then before accepting it tell the owner that review will be done based on the experience and do not expect a good reivew just because of freebie/discount.
In this respect, I congratulates Celine with her hot summer promotion idea. all she asks is reviews - good or bad - up front so nothing is hidden.
*just my 2 potatos worth opinion*

 

[Robin]

Actually, in my opinion, it is not necessary to mention freebie/discount or not in the review

I'm sorry I have to disagree with you here orallover. It is OK to just mention you got a special deal without revealing the discount, but it seems deceptive to hide the fact that there was a special arrangement.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Robin-

I agree that it is very deceptive to fail to disclose any special arrangement. Anyone who writes such a review and fails to make full disclosure of special arrangements is a shill, plain and simple.

 

[orallover]

Robin-

I agree that it is very deceptive to fail to disclose any special arrangement. Anyone who writes such a review and fails to make full disclosure of special arrangements is a shill, plain and simple.

Would you consider a review a shill if it is a bad review but the encounter was a discount?

 

[HonestAbe]

Not arguing with you

A business interested in keeping its clients happy can do whatever it feels appropriate to make up for inconveniencing a client. Its their choice to do so, or not. Accepting such an offering bears no shame. If it bothers you, don't accept it. Its a non-issue.

Rpaul,

I never said "Disclosure" of a freebie in a review was a non-issue. I thought as you said that it was a common sense view that a poster should always include in the review that it was a freebie to make up for another time where service was bad or never showed up. I was merely trying to summarize for Uncle Kracker what the argument was about. Sorry I didn't mention disclosure specifically. Uncle Kracker seems like a smart guy but maybe someone else would need that to be pointed out to them.

Thanks, Abe

 

[Red Paul]

Sorry, Abe, I don't mean to argue w/ you either and I hope I didn't give any offense. We're agreed on the need for disclosure, and our difference is only that I think a summing up of the debate has to mention that a freebie recipient must disclose he is a freebie recipient. But what gets into or gets left out of a summary isn't the biggest deal in the world. So onward and upward.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Would you consider a review a shill if it is a bad review but the encounter was a discount?

Orallover, you just don't get it. It has been the case MANY times that the reviewer is given a discount but doesn't feel the discount was enough and then he plunges the knife deeply into the back of the agency owner, and the review is worthless crap.

The guys who look for discounts in exchange for reviews are generally cheap bastards, and a cheap bastard is always going to think that the discount was not enough. The mentality here is "I want something for nothing, and if I don't get something for nothing, fuck you!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

You make full disclosure or you are a shill. Period!

 

[orallover]

Orallover, you just don't get it. It has been the case MANY times that the reviewer is given a discount but doesn't feel the discount was enough and then he plunges the knife deeply into the back of the agency owner, and the review is worthless crap. CASE#1

The guys who look for discounts in exchange for reviews are generally cheap bastards, and a cheap bastard is always going to think that the discount was not enough. The mentality here is "I want something for nothing, and if I don't get something for nothing, fuck you!!!!!!!!!!!!!" CASE#2

You make full disclosure or you are a shill. Period!

EB,
I never thought case#1 scenario in terms of reviews.
and as for case#2 scenario, when I say discount I meant discounts offered because of previous encoutner with that agency went wrong (case#1 but only discount being offered). But I see your point. and since you put it that way I agree that disclosure of discounted encounter or not should be mentioned.
I tend to think all of us are good people and honest but somehow you seem to think of some scenarios when some of us can turn bad and nasty

 

[MySP_love]

For what it's worth, here's my question again. Let's try it this way. An agency grants a freebie. The client gets laid and does not pay. Does this mean the girl gets no money, or does the agency pay her the sum that ordinarily would have been her cut from the fee charged the customer?

If anyone has an answer, please also explain how you know.

I know when I worked in Toronto that the agency I worked for rarely offered freebies, but when they did, the girls didn't recieve a penny for the free hour. So, I went indie. I still gave a free hour here or there, but generally that was for a birthday of a regular client, or a make-up session if I screwed up previously, and always was in conjunction with additional paid hours.

Maybe one should ask the girl if she will recieve her regular rate for your meeting, and then if you recieve a freebie, and the girl treats you as you expected, be nice and give her a tip.

Melanie

 

[EagerBeaver]

EB,
I tend to think all of us are good people and honest

Orallover,

Only in heaven is this true, after God has sorted everything out.

Until that sorting out comes, don't believe that all the reviews posted are of the legit variety.