Manager Turnover
blahblahblah23
>:( 🧚🏼♀️💃🏼 busy being a "psycho bitch" 🤣
What do you all think of clubs with high manager turnover? I know on here everyone frequently talks about dancer turnover, but I haven't seen any discussions yet about manager turnover. Something I've been noticing about Portland clubs is that these clubs have rather high manager turnover, and also frequently appear to be sold/changed up or whatever. This is also one of the few areas in the whole nation that it is relatively easy to magically appear into existence a new club in a location that didn't used to be a club cuz there is no zoning or local ordinance to make it literally impossible like in most areas...
What I think sucks about Portland is it seems like the good and awesome managers usually don't stick around for long. I am wondering if the pay is subpar or it is too much drama or a bit of both going on.
What I think sucks about Portland is it seems like the good and awesome managers usually don't stick around for long. I am wondering if the pay is subpar or it is too much drama or a bit of both going on.
50 comments
I'm used to clubs that have had the same manager for forever.
If they get replaced it has to be for something big like stealing money. Doing shit that could get their business license pulled.
That was a combination of low pay and limited talent pools in rural PA which I presume to be very different from Portland.
I can think of a number of reasons a newer strip club manager wouldn't stick around for long and the drama and low pay you mentioned are at the top of the list. I also imagine a lot of guys go in thinking it will be glamorous and it will involve them gucking dancers before reality sets in. There are probably some of the same stigmas that dancers face (but to a lesser extent) when their family and friends find out about their new job.
With new owners, it seems they think they can do better with a change in manager. I don’t know if that change really helps.
I have known two managers in my years of club patronage. One guy was really good, and he worked hard to attract features and keep the club up to date with parties and promotions (he was a manager for a long time - until he encountered health issues). The other manager wasn’t so good - but the club was in an odd location - and he didn’t last long.
If owners keep firing managers - and bringing in new managers - they might be trying to find that special sauce - or rainmaker - that gets the club going. Many times that just leads to high turnover and no results.
I probably also don't know who is a shift manager, a bar manager, a floor host, etc in a lot of cases too. So when I see a guy at one club for a while, then see him at another one I don't know if a floor host left one club to be a shift manager, or if a shift manager left to be a general manager elsewhere. Or I suppose it could go the other direction, where they get fired as a floor manager and have to take a spot as a floor host or whatever.
What defines a good manager is probably subject to heavy influence of perspective too. For example, I like that the managers at Cheetah Pompano do things like ensure a girl remains on the stage dancing until the next girl arrives. I like that they keep the clothed/topless/nude thing going. I like that they have girls when they open and towards the end of the shift. I'd bet many if not most dancers don't so much like those things, as they'd like to have more autonomy to do as they please. Whether a GM or owner likes them probably depends on their stance on those things, or if they are bit more hands off then it may depend on the financial success of the club as it operates that way. There's probably some standouts that are either terrible or excellent and manage to please or piss off the dancers, the customers, and the owners the majority of the time, but my guess they're basically always bad or good depending on perspective.
Obviously if ownership treats management like shit it can be a flag. Portland is probably weird because I assume there is ample opportunity to move up by moving out.
I think on the monger side of things consistent management is sometimes good for mileage. If girls know if they get caught sucking dick in VIP they will get sent home early and maybe banned for a week then allowed to return, it keeps mileage higher. But I can also envision situations where the managers are consistent hard asses.
I don't think of it at all unless it affects my experiences directly, like the adoption of new more onerous policies.
IME most managers don't have much control over things like LD/VIP prices, drink prices, cover charges, etc. Those decisions most often come from ownership.
Almost every time I've seen a club go to shit due to manager incompetence, it was because he overcomplicated things and made himself part of the show. When the girls don't want to work for a guy because he's a dick, they usually have lots of other choices nearby. They also don't respond to calls when a a roster is short staffed and the manager is trying to convince them to help out. IMO good managers are able to find that sweet spot where they're not letting the inmates run the asylum, yet they don't make working for them feel onerous.
LULZ
I'm just guessing, of course, because I tend not to notice managers much. As a matter of fact, the few times I did notice managers they have not done anything to really improve the situation.
And it seems that the strippers are more content and less disgruntled at those clubs too.
What is the minimum amount of time a manager can be working in order to have an affect on the club (positive or negative)?
I know - if a manager takes over at an extras club and stops dancers from performing extras - that can kill things pretty quickly.
This is more along the lines of reasonable changes from a manager. Maybe using social media more? Adding themed party nights. Hiring some girls that he determines to be an improvement (likely girls he thinks are hot). Bring in a better - different - DJ?
Would it be a 3 month type of deal to see if a change in manager will have a positive effect on the overall club? A one to two month trial period seems too short - but maybe that’s what owners want?
Negative - not too long IMO and IME.
Positive - potentially many months or longer, depending on all of the factors 25 said. Especially once a place develops a bad local rep for being dangerous and/or putting pigs and fuglies on stage. I've seen it happen twice with two small local clubs and in each case it took a year or more.
Each time I witnessed it, they first made the club safer by implementing tighter security at the door and, when necessary, on the floor. This is the quicker fix though. Once you make the place safe for old men to spend their money in, then it is always and forever about the girls.
The problem then becomes one of the chicken and the egg. Hot girls get impatient quickly when they struggle to make money in a club, but it's hard to bring good money in when you don't have them for a while. This is where a manager's real skill, or lack thereof, shines.
In each case I witnessed, the managers slowly built up the roster by making their clubs easier to work in than anywhere else. Easier to come and go, no drama or micromanagement, etc. Believe it or not, a certain % of girls will actually sacrifice a certain level of earnings for a place they feel appreciated and comfortable in. One of these clubs also beefed up their roster by serving as the place of last resort for hot girls who got fired from the other local clubs.
All of this of course came with a little more behind the scenes drama than some managers will tolerate. But when you're trying to overcome a bad rep and are competing against other clubs with strong talent and perhaps better facilities, you have to make some tradeoffs.
Then it is just a function of time. More guys come in and keep coming back because they like the scene. Customers follow their "last resort" dancers. Etc., etc.
It seems the clubs where the club keeps a larger % of dance fees, or charges dancers to work, are more likely to hire uglier dancers, or criminals, or just not do any vetting when hiring and not fire dancers as much?
Whereas clubs that have minimal fees would vet the dancers more?