Am I MSOG friendly?

However, a lady cannot demand a good review. Well, she CAN, but you're under no obligation to acquiesce. No one can MAKE you write anything.

. Originally Posted by CarolineDavenport

But a lady with all your personal information can sure make you think about writing anything negative about her.

Think about that and how that can effect the review process.

There is not one single lady that can guarantee that your privacy is completely safe. In fact it has been my experience over the years to observe ladies use everything in their arsenal to ensure their business model stay successful. That includes snuggling up to Mods, fighting with other ladies they think a threat, and subtle hints about private information. I'm not accusing you of any of those things specifically but you are human and that is what humans do.

you need to be MSOG or NOT. When you get wishy-washy about it I think you set yourself up for angry clients and bad reviews. Of course not being MSOG will lose you clients that demand MSOG and being almost MSOG will lose you clients through potential negative reviews from clients that didn't get MSOG, so the safest most widely appealing bet is to be MSOG. If your not MSOG, I see the session going this way - the guy walks in and then spends the next hour rubbing your raw, because he is holding his nut so he can get every minutes worth and nut at the last second. MSOG sessions for me tend to be more laid back and pleasurable.

Not being MSOG is a deal breaker for me. I like a minimum 1 hour appointment, because sometimes it can, as you say, take a while to get in sync and I might take the whole hour to work up to the nut. Other times there is a great chemistry and connection and I can nut almost immediately. I want an MSOG provider, because in that event, I would like to go again. I read reviews where guys write - I was getting pretty excited and had to ask her to slow down, so I wouldn't nut. WTF? I would just a soon get mine and spend some time on you while I wait for a second wind. or as some ladies prefer to not have their needs met we just lay and talk while I get a second wind which is nice too. Maybe I am strange but MSOG scenario sounds like a much more relaxing session for both of us, then the NO MOSG non stop fuck fest. the only other scenario I see is paying for an hour and nutting in 15-30 minutes and being told see you later dude - which would make me feel like I have wasted some of my money, because I didn't get the full time. So, I would either not see her again, or if I had to see her again I would only book a 30 minute session. Either way she is making less from me then she could have.

Ultimately, I think you have to choose which you want to be MSOG or not, because trying to qualify MSOG to a certain grey area is just too hard to manage and will result in unnecessary negative reviews which I think was the point of the thread ...no? Originally Posted by 5T3V3

No, that was not the point of this thread.

First, I don't NEED to be anything or not. I set the terms of what I offer. You decide if it is right for you. You don't tell me what I offer you.

Again, reading comprehension would help. Almost nothing you said even applies. I don't get a guy off quickly and then show him the door. Doesn't happen. IF, somehow, we get through the main event and have plenty of time to spare, absolutely we can go another round. It just rarely happens quickly enough in a one hour appointment.

And you mention that being MSOG is most widely appealing. I know. I've already stated that I don't intend to be widely appealing. I intend to be appealing to a certain type. That type understand that we are going to take our time and enjoy many things about each other, not just a penis/vagina. That being said, again, nowhere did I say I don't offer MSOG. I'll reiterate AGAIN.. I only said that it is UNLIKELY during a ONE hour appointment.

Also, consider as has been pointed out, that I've been doing this for years, and I have yet to experience the backlash you describe. I'm not new. I don't need schooling. I know exactly what I'm doing, and I do it very well.

I don't appeal to you because you demand a different kind of session than I offer. Great. Mission accomplished. I say this without malice, distaste or any other negative feeling. I don't want YOU as a client. You obviously aren't the type I like to see. Nothing wrong with that, just wrong for me.

I took it as advertising and some damage control to prevent customers in future sessions from expecting to "go again" and you having to shut him down. c44 is known to be an abrasive jackass but I consider his points to be accurate and credible. Originally Posted by GlobeSpotter

That is exactly how I took it...CD is doing what wine marketers have know for years. They try and sell you on their overall experience being better to justify the price differential of a bottle of wine you may like at half the price.
Let us change the word wine in this article to hooker. http://thinktraffic.net/cheap-vs-expensive-wine-can-you-taste-the-difference

The Hooker “experts” who rate wines for big magazines can have a big affect on what we like, but not necessarily because we think the Hooker taste better. The Hooker ratings in major publications are highly correlated with the price of the Hooker, meaning a more expensive Hooker is likely to score higher.


As consumers, we’ve been conditioned to expect a positive correlation between price and quality. Ever hear the saying “you get what you pay for?”
It turns out that in Hookers and other “positional goods” (what economists call products and services whose value is mostly a function of their desirability), price is often used as a marketing tool. A more expensive price signals value, affluence and high status to potential customers.

As consumers, we often prefer the more expensive good or service over the cheaper one, even though the cheaper one might satisfy us better. This may be because we enjoy the status that expensive things convey upon us. Your friends know that you like expensive Hookers, so they perceive you as being high class.
It could also be that we prefer more expensive products just because we’ve been conditioned to expect them to be higher quality. That’s the power marketing has over us.

There are many companies I've complimented by saying they must have great salesmen.....because their product or service is crap, but they make billions. More power to them....unfortunately. Originally Posted by GlobeSpotter

Exactly...CD is a great saleswoman. Were fuctards to do a blind taste test on her punnana they would not be able to distinguish it from a top notch BP lady's hoochie.

She is a better marketer...to some. Mostly to the wine snobs who think price always correlates with quality. Which has been proven time and time again not to be true in this type of industry just like it has been proven not true in the wine industry.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/cheap-wine-vs-expensive-wine_n_2457984.html


THE REDS
Cheap Red
Trader Joe's Charles Shaw Blend Cabernet Sauvignon (a.k.a. Three-Buck Chuck), California, 2011 -- $3
Expensive Red
Laurel Glen Cabernet Sauvignon, Sonoma Mountain, Californa, 2007 -- $65
Price difference: $62
Tasters' verdict: Only 38 percent of our tasters correctly identified the more expensive wine, and 62 percent preferred the $3 variety from Trader Joe's. Surprising, right? Think about how much more wine those tasters can get for their buck.

But a lady with all your personal information can sure make you think about writing anything negative about her.

Think about that and how that can effect the review process.

There is not one single lady that can guarantee that your privacy is completely safe. In fact it has been my experience over the years to observe ladies use everything in their arsenal to ensure their business model stay successful. That includes snuggling up to Mods, fighting with other ladies they think a threat, and subtle hints about private information. I'm not accusing you of any of those things specifically but you are human and that is what humans do. Originally Posted by WTF

This is true. Human nature can be awful. If a person doesn't think I can be trusted with their personal information, then they definitely shouldn't give it to me.

That is exactly how I took it...CD is doing what wine marketers have know for years. They try and sell you on their overall experience being better to justify the price differential of a bottle of wine you may like at half the price.
Let us change the word wine in this article to hooker. http://thinktraffic.net/cheap-vs-expensive-wine-can-you-taste-the-difference

The Hooker “experts” who rate wines for big magazines can have a big affect on what we like, but not necessarily because we think the Hooker taste better. The Hooker ratings in major publications are highly correlated with the price of the Hooker, meaning a more expensive Hooker is likely to score higher.


As consumers, we’ve been conditioned to expect a positive correlation between price and quality. Ever hear the saying “you get what you pay for?”
It turns out that in Hookers and other “positional goods” (what economists call products and services whose value is mostly a function of their desirability), price is often used as a marketing tool. A more expensive price signals value, affluence and high status to potential customers.

As consumers, we often prefer the more expensive good or service over the cheaper one, even though the cheaper one might satisfy us better. This may be because we enjoy the status that expensive things convey upon us. Your friends know that you like expensive Hookers, so they perceive you as being high class.
It could also be that we prefer more expensive products just because we’ve been conditioned to expect them to be higher quality. That’s the power marketing has over us.




Exactly...CD is a great saleswoman. Were fuctards to do a blind taste test on her punnana they would not be able to distinguish it from a top notch BP lady's hoochie.

She is a better marketer...to some. Mostly to the wine snobs who think price always correlates with quality. Which has been proven time and time again not to be true in this type of industry just like it has been proven not true in the wine industry.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/cheap-wine-vs-expensive-wine_n_2457984.html


THE REDS
Cheap Red
Trader Joe's Charles Shaw Blend Cabernet Sauvignon (a.k.a. Three-Buck Chuck), California, 2011 -- $3
Expensive Red
Laurel Glen Cabernet Sauvignon, Sonoma Mountain, Californa, 2007 -- $65
Price difference: $62
Tasters' verdict: Only 38 percent of our tasters correctly identified the more expensive wine, and 62 percent preferred the $3 variety from Trader Joe's. Surprising, right? Think about how much more wine those tasters can get for their buck. Originally Posted by WTF

I was wondering when you would show up. So predictable.

There will always be guys like you who are offended that I get what I want and you think it is more than I deserve, so you feel the need to lash out and insult me. I can't help you with that, but I'm certainly not inclined to bring myself down just to make you happy. I guess we'll both just have to live with your displeasure.

I was wondering when you would show up. So predictable.

. Originally Posted by CarolineDavenport

No more predictable than another Hooker thread in CoED.

There will always be guys like you who are offended that I get what I want and you think it is more than I deserve, so you feel the need to lash out and insult me. I can't help you with that, but I'm certainly not inclined to bring myself down just to make you happy. I guess we'll both just have to live with your displeasure. Originally Posted by CarolineDavenport

I'm not offended ... I, like GS only pointed out what this threAD really is. I then pointed out how good wine gets labeled so. It has a lot more to do with marketing than taste. Just like in Hookerville. The higher end wine has never liked me pointing out these facts, you are no exception.

THE REDS
Cheap Red
Trader Joe's Charles Shaw Blend Cabernet Sauvignon (a.k.a. Three-Buck Chuck), California, 2011 -- $3

Expensive Red
Laurel Glen Cabernet Sauvignon, Sonoma Mountain, Californa, 2007 -- $65
Price difference: $62

Tasters' verdict: Only 38 percent of our tasters correctly identified the more expensive wine, and 62 percent preferred the $3 variety from Trader Joe's. Surprising, right? Think about how much more wine those tasters can get for their buck.

This is true. Human nature can be awful. If a person doesn't think I can be trusted with their personal information, then they definitely shouldn't give it to me. Originally Posted by CarolineDavenport

The only way you can trust another not to share your personal information , is to not give it to them.

I don't mind, just calling it like it is. Wine people will like what they like despite statistics. They know you think they're full of shit. They don't care. They still like it.

If I can tap that market and be what they like, too, then yay for me.

Caroline Davenport is absolutely gorgeous and is an astute marketer. I'm surprised this has gone 6 pages. She got it and she knows she got it and how stupid men are for sex or companionship. She will continue to be wildly successful as long as she outmaneuvers the many pitfalls that are hardwired in this business. I wish the best to her and looking at the outside her I wish I could hit the 300 million dollar lottery like now. Listening to what she is really saying and the inside her I'm glad I'm just an average dude with an average life who is happier and more positive than most people I know and can't afford her. Everyone wins.

I don't mind, just calling it like it is. Wine people will like what they like despite statistics. They know you think they're full of shit. They don't care. They still like it.

. Originally Posted by CarolineDavenport

You are not understanding the statistics. The statistics show they are full of shit. It is not me thinking they are full of shit that makes it so but the statistics.

If I can tap that market and be what they like, too, then yay for me. Originally Posted by CarolineDavenport

You are just taking advantage of their vanity and insecurity. I say , Good for you. I absolutely believe a fool and his money should be parted. I hold you no ill will for doing so. I'm questioning these fools, not your marketing ability. You are doing exactly what wine makes have done for decades. Taking a 3 dollar bottle of wine and sticking a 50 dollar price tag on it and selling less wine and making more money. Nothing wrong with that.

Caroline Davenport is absolutely gorgeous and is an astute marketer. I'm surprised this has gone 6 pages. She got it and she knows she got it and how stupid men are for sex or companionship. She will continue to be wildly successful as long as she outmaneuvers the many pitfalls that are hardwired in this business. I wish the best to her and looking at the outside her I wish I could hit the 300 million dollar lottery like now. Listening to what she is really saying and the inside her I'm glad I'm just an average dude with an average life who is happier and more positive than most people I know and can't afford her. Everyone wins. Originally Posted by shinepro

Thank you.

Caroline Davenport is absolutely gorgeous and is an astute marketer. I'm surprised this has gone 6 pages. She got it and she knows she got it and how stupid men are for sex or companionship. She will continue to be wildly successful as long as she outmaneuvers the many pitfalls that are hardwired in this business. I wish the best to her and looking at the outside her I wish I could hit the 300 million dollar lottery like now. Listening to what she is really saying and the inside her I'm glad I'm just an average dude with an average life who is happier and more positive than most people I know and can't afford her. Everyone wins. Originally Posted by shinepro

Dude you can afford her....there are a thousand CD's out there , just at a lower price point.

You are missing the point here.

There is something out there for all and in the case of wine and pussy the price point for the most part is the only deviation.

You are not understanding the statistics. The statistics show they are full of shit. It is not me thinking they are full of shit that makes it so but the statistics.



You are just taking advantage of their vanity and insecurity. I say , Good for you. I absolutely believe a fool and his money should be parted. I hold you no ill will for doing so. I'm questioning these fools, not your marketing ability. You are doing exactly what wine makes have done for decades. Taking a 3 dollar bottle of wine and sticking a 50 dollar price tag on it and selling less wine and making more money. Nothing wrong with that.


Originally Posted by WTF

I have to admit, I'm more than a little surprised to discover that you understand my business model, albeit with a healthy dose of cynicism, better than most of the guys that are arguing about what I'm supposed to offer them. You understand that it isn't you I'm after, and you accept that. I wonder why it is so hard for others....

I have to admit, I'm more than a little surprised to discover that you understand my business model, albeit with a healthy dose of cynicism, better than most of the guys that are arguing about what I'm supposed to offer them. You understand that it isn't you I'm after, and you accept that. I wonder why it is so hard for others.... Originally Posted by CarolineDavenport

Me thinks it was you that started this thread....not the guys. You invited their opinions. That is all they are. Me, I like to separate opinions from facts.

Me thinks it was you that started this thread....not the guys. You invited their opinions. That is all they are. Me, I like to separate opinions from facts.
Originally Posted by WTF

Well, she did, and I think her business is all the better for it. I always encourage the ladies to use the board for what it's supposed to b for, a business tool and exchange of information. Info includes safety and here I am in case u want to see me plus more. With this thread, she has done one of those things, so more power to her, and I certainly am still enjoying the exchange.

Me thinks it was you that started this thread....not the guys. You invited their opinions. That is all they are. Me, I like to separate opinions from facts.
Originally Posted by WTF

Point taken. I started the thread and invite all opinions, even if I think some of them are complete wastes of bandwidth.

The fact is that if you NEED MSOG from every session to be satisfied, then I'm not your girl. We are wrong for each other and our priorities in a session are not well matched. I'm just amused by the guys that can't wrap their minds around that simple truth.