Rating the chains
inno123
<p>Looking at the Top 100 I noticed that there isn't any representation from the big chains of clubs until you are several pages in.</p>
<p>I am wondering if this is an attitude thing among the membership about being part of a chain making it harder to feel like it is a great club or if there really is something about being part of a chain (like franchise fees or corporate overhead) that makes it harder to provide a high value.</p>
<p>In addition, for those of you who have been to multiple locations of the same chain. How would you rate usint the tuscl scale (1-10 for club, dancers, value) of the chain as a whole rather than individual locations.</p>
In addition if founder is interested in new features maybe have pages available for each chain like we have for cities and countries.
<p>I am wondering if this is an attitude thing among the membership about being part of a chain making it harder to feel like it is a great club or if there really is something about being part of a chain (like franchise fees or corporate overhead) that makes it harder to provide a high value.</p>
<p>In addition, for those of you who have been to multiple locations of the same chain. How would you rate usint the tuscl scale (1-10 for club, dancers, value) of the chain as a whole rather than individual locations.</p>
In addition if founder is interested in new features maybe have pages available for each chain like we have for cities and countries.
16 comments
1) They are managed by a central office, which probably means they streamline their procedures - mileage-wise - to the lowest common denominator. That way, all the clubs operate the same with the least amount of risk.
2) They have more to lose with a bust, so again, they may tend to play it tamer than always necessary.
3) They have large(r) advertising/marketing budgets, so they can offer less and still pack in the crowds - two trends which I'd rather avoid.
So, 3 strikes and their out of my consideration, as compared to locally run clubs.
I think you can make an analogy to pre-corprate Vegas and the current Vegas. In the old days (mid 60's and before) the Las Vegas casinos were very liberal in their comp policies and would be kind to even the casual gambler. Now they only want the high end customer and ignore the average guy. I no longer go to Vegas for the same reason I avoid high end or chain stripclubs, I feel like they don't appreciate my business.
There are a few clubs (usually in groups of two) in downtown Montreal that are apparently owned by the same management, but none of them rise to the level of chains IMHO.
Chains tend to be generic, while independents tend to cater more to the areas wants and needs.
Though I've been to Hustler in Detroit twice for lengthy visits, I've never even bought a dance there as the prices quoted are just unrealistic unless you haven't been anywhere else.
On the other hand I read the detailed reviews of one SR location and I can almost imagine tht they are talking about the one that I have visited. SR gives much more of an impression of being a tight ship.
My take: SR Chain projects a more upscale image vs Deja Vu, which is a McClub kind of place. My experience with SR has been in SoCal clubs, which is their main concentration. Being in/near COI, mileage is very good, but I'm not sure if their Boise, Lexington, or Dallas locations would mirror COI/ LA Downtown experience. On the downside, higher than average prices, extremely clipped song lengths, and high pressure "BTLAD" keeps this chain from being a slam dunk 1st choice for the area.
Deja Vu has a greater number of clubs, and more geographic diversity. They are almost universally nude juice bars. In many cases, they are in areas with little/no meaningful competition. I went to several such areas many years ago. In my current situation visiting club dense areas, DV clubs aren't high on my wish list.