SF SC Management
mjpenn07
California
Wow, just found out that one company runs all but two of the SC's in San Francisco (Mitchell Bros and Crazy Horse being the exceptions). Is this common? When I read that all but two were run by one company I instantly guessed the exception. They definitely have a different feel to them.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/08/pr…
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/08/pr…
31 comments
Back when it was hookers, homeless and addicts, trolling block to block in that area was entertaining. Last few visits it was just homeless and addicts. No thanks.
BTW, MSC is Market Square Cinema.
that's why i hardly do vegas anymore. tj is my place now. (with an occasional visit to coi clubs.)
My wife and I were working on having kids around this time, so I wasn't doing FS of any variety away from home, so I ended up on a couch on one side of the room getting a HJ while watching two couples on other side of room enjoying FS and a BJ.
I fully expected there were hidden cameras and we were being live streamed to the Internet too.
Market Street Cinema. It was an anything-goes strip club / brothel, low prices (for SF), multiple public rooms, multiple private rooms. Lots of skanks but you could find plenty of gems, too.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/08/pr…
As I see it, the real issue is how much the management restricts front room action. You need to be able to get to know your selected girl, and do it in an unstructured manner. In the front room, you can still be handing her money, but you are not locked into any time and money formula. Either party can break it off if it is not going anywhere.
AMPs, Lingerie Modelling, and NV Brothels do not offer this unstructured fraternizing. But strip clubs can.
Anytime sex workers are asked, what they always want is to be able to handle the entire interchange in their own way. And in the least restrictive realms, this is how they do it. And when there are enough women that they need to compete, they get very aggressive.
Even in our own no touching clubs, some girls will engaqe in intense DFKing, to make sure they end up with an OTC. They need some dicking before they can go to sleep.
I read this somewhere, I think wikipedia, they said that Deja Vu was a think tank and that they offer management consulting.
So I don't how many of their clubs are actually owned by Deja Vu. As their forte seems to be the management, they would have been able to expand faster by just getting management contracts, while not tying up money in ownership right off.
So they would be a think tank in the sense that they have really observed and thought through the interchanges which go on in strip clubs. They have figured out how it all works. And herein lies the problems.
In a mom and pop strip club, the owners have never really tried that hard to figure it all out. And so if it is a high mileage place, it is really being led by dancers. And this is how things get going like the Texas Chair Forts. The house doesn't try to control that. They act like they don't even see it. So it is just you and probably a handful of extremely friendly girls.
But in a Deja Vu club, they will have had discussion groups, and including former and current dancers, and it all will have been laid out on the table.
So they have figured out that in many places they will never get busted for what goes on in the back rooms. And also, the idea of the expensive open ended fantasy. The girls will never refuse anything, its just that it will be extremely expensive. What this means is that they will almost never be called upon to deliver. It all makes it easier for them to stay on script and stay in complete control. And this is why I say, 'buying dances is a chumps game.' The chumps are there fantasizing about what rich guys get, while handing over what money they have.
Whereas in the loser place, girls just do it as they want, and often someone who has learned how to come on to them, will indeed be able to get front room makeout sessions going and will be able to get girls way off script and then get phenomenal back room action, as well as taking the girl home with him to continue.
Deja Vu has figured out how to play it so that they are not taking much risk with LE, but they can still give guys what they technically want, or what they feel they can afford, but without girls really opening up to them. This is why I decided apply a term from Larry Flynt's book, "Clip Joint". It plays on fantasy to separate marks from their money. This is the modern version of that.
Whereas, at a club where it is just the girls doing it themselves, it won't be a clip joint. The girls may have limits, but it won't be that mercenary. Most of the time, skillful mongers will be able to get girls completely opened up to them and entirely into civilian mode.
In the last year I have learned that DV does have distinct 'business models". Now of course Pahrump and TJ are special places. But they have different models which they may apply everywhere. Different for alcohol and no alcohol, different for branded versus unbranded, and different for the temper of LE in different places.
So if you engage with one of their girls, you are facing one of these business models. Not like this in mom and pop mileage clubs. In the latter, the owners don't want to know what the girls do or how they do it.
So I do not know in how many places they have unbranded clubs, besides San Francisco and Detroit. These will be the ones which are the least predatory. And then because of the rules of enforcement and the alcohol rules, it will be the unbranded no alcohol where the remaining chances are the best.
So in San Francisco these would be 20's, Eden. Darlings, and New Century. Note also that New Century is much bigger and it has a maximum mileage reputation. But Darlings looks to be black.
So to our OP and everyone, might you be able to delineate what makes the DV clubs different from the two others, and how free are things in the front room at these four unbranded no alcohol DV's?
SJG
DVJ's management is absolutely, squarely to blame ... mostly. As in any other complex environment, there are other factors also, but DJV is 90% of the problem and the proximate cause for SF not being one of the best SF cities in the country (the ONLY problem here should be price). Look at two crucial facts:
1. Local law enforcement -- both the police and DA -- are pretty open in indicating that in-the-club prostitution is not a priority for them, period. The last time the police tested this principle, 15-ish years ago, the DA dropped all charges and publicly refused to prosecute anyone. Prostitution enforcement efforts focus on street prostitution and "human trafficking" (code word for AMPs and underage internet-based prostitution).
2. To repeat, before DJV became a near-monopoly here, SF was arguably one of the best SC cities in the country. Once they took over, we became one of the worst. While correlation does not equal causation, it's easy enough to see why their management policies have been so detrimental.
Even just taking #1 by itself -- LE doesn't care about extras -- means you have a fairly unique opportunity here to build lots of amazing clubs around what most customers actually want, ITC extras. You must be able to see that someone is missing the boat?
Yep, sounds like the place.
"what most customers actually want, ITC extras. "
Yep, if someone would open a club in Atlanta with a front room like Oasis, front room mileage about 50% of Follies (I wanna grab a lot of ass, touch a little bit of boob, and have jocJr rubbed on a little bit; I'm ok leaving the all out groping, FIV, and HJ for VIP), and Follies style/price ITC extras in Tattletales style rooms, then they could just set up a direct payment plan to my bank account.
So this Oasis is good, about 50% of Follies?
SJG
So, MY ideal club would need to ALLOW the solid 50% I described, plus kissing (I forgot that part), and as you said, the girls should be allowed to decide what they want to do up to that limit. VIP would have to have no limits imposed by the club (like Follies), and a clear "we will not bother you until time is up", while continuing to keep the pervs out (took some getting used to at Follies that anyone could just stick their head in at any time).
The reason MY ideal club would have a front room like Oasis is that it is tastefully decorated, has high ceilings and good ventilation, the music is only as loud as it needs to be so you can have a comfortable conversation, the kitchen is excellent, the bartenders are wonderful and very attentive, most of the waitresses are the same, the stages are arranged well and easy to see, the bathroom is large and clean, and the bathroom valet actually adds value that is worth a tip.
I'd leave out all that VIP/bottle service/reserved table crap, cause if you did all the other stuff right, you'd make enough money without having to shakedown customers for a place to sit.
"plus kissing (I forgot that part)"
"the girls should be allowed to decide what they want to do up to that limit"
Very well put!
But joc13, you only want 50% of the Follies floor mileage, not 100%? So if a girl takes it to 51%, then a bouncer is to intercede?
When you think it has gone far enough, you just invite her to the back room. You get to have your limits too. Just don't forget to take her home with you afterwards to continue.
Subraman wrote,
"To repeat, before DJV became a near-monopoly here, SF was arguably one of the best SC cities in the country. Once they took over, we became one of the worst. While correlation does not equal causation, it's easy enough to see why their management policies have been so detrimental."
And he remains our San Francisco expert without any challenge.
And about the DA dropping cases, I believe he is referring to Camille Harris and the final attempt by SFPD to take down Market St. Cinema. It was Subraman himself who clarified my own understanding about this episode.
One thing about San Francisco is that just prosecuting dancers will get the newspapers on your ass. But prosecuting custies is too politically explosive,and prosecuting the owners, like it was with Jim and Artie, is extremely difficult.
So San Francisco should be an awesome place, but for some reason it really is not.
SJG
Good points, but they make this far worse by trying to apply these "business models", and make the dancer's adhere to them. That makes them targets for challenges to contractor status, and the scale and centrality of their micro level controls are what could open the door to RICO.
If instead they just did what Market St. Cinema and Pink Diamonds did, let the girls take care of themselves, they might lose some clubs, but the money would still be much much better, and they would be much more fun places.
And as far as corporate standards, that is exactly what kills them in these challenges to contractor status, as it would also in most any other kind of lawsuit.
And it prevents us from having what one local SF club goer had described as, "A Sexual Disney Land".
SJG
Yes, in MY ideal club, I want the front room to be a cool place to hang out, and I want to be able to enjoy a good meal while I'm hanging out.
It's hard to enjoy a good steak when some guy too cheap to take a girl to VIP is finger banging her at the next table, or some girl desperate for money is jerking off some guy and I have to worry about getting extra "salad dressing".
OK, I know it's a strip club, but is a LITTLE decorum too much to ask for.
So you want bouncers to enforce these rules, YOUR RULES?
Remember, your own account of SF clubbing was of a big common VIP Room, not actual privacy. Being in a place where others are doing sex acts is a big part of what loosens all of the people up.
You said it was your, "most off the hook sexual experience I've had in a semi-public setting"
For me it was seeing a super cute black girl whom I was going to try and invite to lunch, duck into New Century, and then her open tongue kissing with another girl on stage, and then being on my lap, which completely shattered my world view.
The lack of real privacy is a big part of it. It gets people going. I couldn't help but comment on her kissing the other girl. So of course things happened. And I am glad that there weren't bouncers around instructed to enforce any strict limits, or that we did not have to move to a back room and start metering it in songs, as that would have completely messed it up.
For Jim and Artie, they said that it was not for sexual gratification, as it was in view of other people, so it was an audience participation cabaret show, and hence not prostitution.
Otherwise Diane Feinstein would have been able to incarcerate them and that would have been the end of contact strip clubs.
It was after this that first the Mob, and then DV came in, with booths and back rooms, after the legal battles had already been won.
These booths and back rooms typically did not increase the mileage, they only increased the cost and ruined the quality.
SJG
Again in MY ideal club, it wouldn't be necessary for bouncers to enforce rules. The girls and the customers would respect the front room conventions because the customers who come there and girls who worked there would be ones who share the same idea of a good place to hang out and of a good place to work. The only reason to even have bouncers would be to make the girls feel comfortable that unruly customers would be dealt with (and as a customer, I would also want unruly customers to be dealt with).
If anyone didn't agree with how MY ideal club operated, they could go across town to SJG Emporium and hang out in YOUR ideal club. Towns the size of Atlanta or SF ought to have room for at least two clubs.
Note that the article cited as the basis for this thread is almost three years old. Furthermore, my observation of that article is that BSC Management may only be a hiring agency for San Francisco strip clubs. It says it "manages" a long list of clubs. I question how much "management," outside of hiring employees, that actually involves. I really can't see a nationwide chain, like the Vu, contracting out for management services.
Things may have changed in San Francisco since the article was written. Attempting to update my knowledge of San Francisco clubs, I looked at Deja Vu's own website. It lists Centerfolds as it's only current club in S.F. (I'm aware that the Vu's own website is out-of-date in some areas. So, it could be in the area of club listings, as well.) It's my recollection that there were several more Deja Vu-owned clubs in San Francisco, particularly on Market Street. TUSCL's listing of S.F. clubs shows other Deja Vu-owned clubs, than just Centerfolds (Little Darlings, Garden of Eden, and Hustler), but it too may be out of date.
To those of you familiar with San Francisco strip clubs (I'm not), is there still a lingering affect of too many Deja Vu clubs? Or, are the changes in the S.F. club scene really a function of who owns or manages a large number of the clubs? Or perhaps it's just been changes in "market forces?" As I've mentioned in the past, I feel that in the past three years, and longer, the availability of internet-based adult entertainment has cut into the strip club industry, almost anywhere.
As you've figured out already, OP is correct -- all the clubs except for two are owned and run by Deja Vu. Things are always more complex than a single factor, and the surrounding market plays a role. That said, Deja Vu is an easily identifiable most-important cause. It is NOT just correlation that the rapid slip from "best SC city" to "among the worst SC cities" happened over the few years of DJV establishing their monopoly; although MBOT was so dominating and provided such an amazing experience, that until it imploded (for a number of reasons, including a devastating lawsuit) in 2007, its presence by itself made SF a great SC city. But with MBOT a disaster since 2007, the city has few redeeming qualities as far as SCs.
You all know ad nauseam how I adjusted my SCing M.O. post-2007, from an ITC extras focused experience to a social drinking experience ITC at the no-extras clubs, followed by the sexual part being mostly OTC.
fuck. im heading to tj in a few minutes. at least inconsistenticy in tj is realitively cheap. and fun.
DV runs everything in San Francisco except MBOT and Crazy Horse. This includes all the food and alcohol places too. Its just that they have taken their name off of everything except Centerfolds. So these 'unbranded' clubs should be at least somewhat looser. But it is hard to tell.
Could you tell us more about what you see as the common features in DV run clubs?
As I see it the issue is the regulation of the front room action. If the girls can do what they want, this will often mean lap sitting, and even makeout sessions. Its just a matter of learning how to relate to them. But if the girls are restricted, then it is just 'wanna dance'. Besides increasing the costs, this just poisons your interactions with the dancer. So this is why I call such clubs, "Clip Joints". Go there only when there is nothing else available.
So Joc13 does not want to recreate his off the hook sexual experience from being in a common VIP Room at pre-DV New Century, and he wants the front room action to be limited in strip clubs, and enforce by bouncers:
"
It's hard to enjoy a good steak when some guy too cheap to take a girl to VIP is finger banging her at the next table, or some girl desperate for money is jerking off some guy and I have to worry about getting extra "salad dressing".
"
May he either learn to eat his food someplace else, or may his cock fall off.
SJG
In short, while I don't understand what corporate organization this all folds up into, there is a single layer of management at the top who treat them all as one big organization. But I don't know if that organization is legally called BSC or Deja Vu or whatever -- I don't really care, it's the impact to the city's SC scene overall that I care about
What has changed is that besides just having branded clubs, they also now have these unbranded clubs. They have not explained what the purpose of this is, but it seems obvious that with the branded clubs they feel a need to protect themselves by being more conservative. Where as with the unbranded, they could probably run looser.
But it still remains to be seen just how much looser they really are. Again, as I see it, the issue is unrestricted front room friendliness. Especially in SF, front room make out sessions, and even FIV, are not going to get them busted. But such things do create the impression that anything goes in the back room. But in San Francisco, I still don't think LE will do anything about it.
When you can engage with your girl in the way that she and you like, and when it is still very flexible, in the front room, then the back room action will be awesome.
And with girls, it is usually monkey see monkey do. Front room intimacies loosens everyone up.
And if a club brings more people in, it will make more money. They do not have to force all action into the booths and back rooms just to be able to collect a toll. As I see it, best to do that only when the guys pants are to come down, and it still could be one big collective VIP room. And then people say that at Venom Tuscon, it is only $15 for 15min for their cabanas. That $60 per hour is just like it is in AMPs.
Also best to let girls come and go as they like. Just hire lots more girls to facilitate this, at try to make it share a parking lot with a motel, keep it within stripper shoe distance, and supply robes for the girls..
C_G, can you quantify what it is you see in the DV Seattle clubs which makes them distinctive?
And I think it most noteworthy that the impact of DV was enough to shift Subraman from ITC action, to just going to drink with the girls in the front room. Wanna dance places are clip joints!
SJG