"" SHES LOW VOLUME "" ???

I have often seen providers with higher rates justifying their price structure as to reason that a client should not mind the higher fee because she is {LOW VOLUME} and only sees one or two clients a day or 3-4 a week etc.

Is the low volume reasoning really on target (Think about it)???

3-4/week X 4.3 weeks/month = 18 sessions a month x 12 = 216 sessions a year.

Now I grant you probably 20% or say 40 or even 60 sessions are repeats, that still leaves 150-180 different clients over the coarse of a year. Lets say you are talking about a provider that is in her late 20's and has been providing since college say 20 years old, that means at this point she has probably seen between 3000 and 3600 different clients over the history of her service, now answer when you call her and she uses the low volume reason does it make sense??

Yes, it does make sense. Nobody claims that being low volume makes for no risk. Is the money worth the lower risk to you? If not, then maybe it doesn't matter to you personally. For me, the idea of seeing a lady who sees ten clients a day would not be appealing for more reasons than increased risk.
Also, some of the ladies have other jobs, families, or may even be going to school. If a lady only has time for 4 appointments a week, then she is going to raise her rates because her time is more valuable.

Or try re-doing your calculations using 3-4 a day as opposed to a week and see what the final numbers are. That 3000 to 3600 figure you came up with will be low volume compared to what that answer would be.

Many years ago Madonna was in a movie called "Truth or Dare" and the idea behind the movie was that X slept with Y, and Y slept with Z, Z was bi-sexual and he slept with anybody so forth and so on until you had connected network all over town where basically everybody directly or indirectly had slept with each other.

Now for the most part everybody has a checkered past of some sort, some worst than others, but now matter how low volume the chance that a provider has come in contact with a client that is high risk is pretty good. For example, when SARS broke out in China several years ago over 50% of the people who died were healthcare workers treating the infected. Last year when H1-N1 broke out how many providers stopped seeing clients based on a unknown health risk, many people here who engage in the hobby provider or client have probably lived at some time a wild sex life many are swingers, bi-sexual, gay etc. There are viral strains of TB specific to sexually transmitted viruses, and guess what you can catch TB just by someones cough forget about the condom.The point being Low Volume means nothing with respect to the overall risk especially if a provider has had sex with 2000 clients over 5-7 years. The incubation period for HIV is 5 years, so feel as safe as you want Low Volume is no gaurantee.

.....that means at this point she has probably seen between 3000 and 3600 different clients over the history of her service, now answer when you call her and she uses the low volume reason does it make sense?? Originally Posted by UNDER THE RADAR

I'm sure it goes without saying, but "low volume" is a relative term. Compare 3000 or 3600 to 6000 or 7200, and yeah, i'd say it qualifies as low volume. That even assumes your numbers are practical. An assumption i'm not fully sold on.

China makes a good point about ladies having other things going on outside of their lives as providers. Though i don't necessarily buy into her suggestion that higher rates come with less availability. I'm no MBA candidate, but i'm guessing higher rates come with the ability to still generate business at those rates, no matter how many people she might see. With that however, I would guess a provider is likely to see fewer people because she can get away with charging higher rates, rather than the other way around. Just a guess.

I do believe that "low volume" has probably become an over used marketing term to a certain extent. Much like "lite" or "low fat". There's a difference between "low fat" or "lite" and "healthy", which is what those terms are intended to suggest. Much like "low volume" doesn't really mean much if A)the girl isn't low volume or B)the girl is low volume because she's not very good at what she does and can't generate business.

A somewhat side note about personal preference. I'd much rather see a girl who did this only as a sideline, as opposed to someone who was fully reliant on the business. If for no other reason, the notion of "exclusivity" is a pretty powerful marketing aspect in it's own right.

"Low volume" is a subjective term. It's also possible that she is just saying that, and how would you know any different?

So are ya'll worried about the elasticity of the "low volume" providers' vajayjay? Why does the economics of the hobby baffle so many?

Originally posted by UNDER THE RADAR:
"The point being Low Volume means nothing with respect to the overall risk especially if a provider has had sex with 2000 clients over 5-7 years. The incubation period for HIV is 5 years, so feel as safe as you want Low Volume is no gaurantee. "

Right, it is no guarantee, but am I correct that you are actually saying that once you reach a certain number of partners, the risk tops out and can't go any higher? Do you really think that there is no difference in risk between someone who sees 4 clients a week and 4 clients a day?

Doove, whether or not you "buy into" my suggestion that some ladies operate that way, it is true. Is it a rule? Well, no, but it has applied to me before. Nothing is a rule, really. Ladies operate differently. If the economy changed and I had to drop my rate by 100 per hour, I would not increase my appointments to make up the difference. My comfort level is more important to me than money.
For the ladies who are more reliant on the hobby, this may not be the case. You also make a good point about "low volume" not necessarily meaning anything. I have found that the definition of low volume varies greatly from person to person as well.

Isn't it amazing how no one talks about "low volume" hobbyists?

I always thought low volume was 2 or 3 clients a week. I only see a max of 2 clients a day sooo, I am low volume.

Wow! I'm jacking my prices up by $100 right now!

Ha ha, Charlestudor...I almost did! I was going to say that I would prefer low volume hobbyists, but I chose not to because it might look like it was related to competition instead of risk management.

If the economy changed and I had to drop my rate by 100 per hour, I would not increase my appointments to make up the difference. Originally Posted by China Doll

I must not have been as clear as i'd hoped as it wasn't my intent to suggest you would. If you had to drop your rate, we should assume so did everyone else. Which wouldn't change the dynamic involved regarding girls who are able to charge more being able to see fewer clients if they so choose.

Separate from that, I was trying to suggest that it would be a very rare situation where a girl who could charge $200 an hour full time would be able to charge $300 an hour because she's only part time and looks to book fewer appointments. Which goes to your point about girls who are too busy to be full timers charging more because their time is more valuable. A girl who can get $300 an hour will charge $300 an hour whether she wants to see 3 clients a week, or 15. So my overall point is that a girl is more likely to see fewer clients if she can charge $300 an hour, rather than charge more because she desires to see fewer clients.

Which, as i read it, isn't any more clear than my first go, but there ya have it. I tried.

I always thought low volume was 2 or 3 clients a week. I only see a max of 2 clients a day sooo, I am low volume.

Wow! I'm jacking my prices up by $100 right now! Originally Posted by Brooke Wild

I didn't know that there were anything other than low volume providers?? If you don't believe me, post a thread asking for one to identify herself as high volume!

Low volume is a meaningless term and one that every girl who can plausibly use it will attach to herself.

Originally Posted by ratboy jam

Not Nice! I'm rasing my RBJ rate by $200 an hour and I'm going to ask Holly to do the same!