Log in

View Full Version : New Trend Developing?



Pages : 1 [2]

Melonie
09-26-2009, 04:35 AM
i.e. say the dancer used to pay $50 a night stage fees/locker fees to the club - if the club now takes $50 from the income of dances/VIP rooms before it passes on the dancers share, the dancer is no better or worse off.

Agreed in principle. However there are other considerations. First is that adding yet another $50 a night to the club's 'cut' to compensate for the loss of stage fee revenue ... on top of the 36% 'cut' necessary for the club to break even on the new taxes / insurance premiums / accounting and legal fees it must pay as the result of the state of MA forcing clubowners to treat dancers as 'employees', potentially puts the club's total 'cut' above the 50% mark. Also, keep in mind that the $50 cash paid to the club by dancers was very easy to 'forget about' when the club declared their income, whereas the club's 'cut' will be fully accounted for and fully taxed.

Adding to the club's 'cut' in order to pay DJ's and Bouncers in the absence of mandatory tipouts only makes the situation worse. But keep in mind that by bringing DJ's and Bouncers onto the 'books' as employees in order to pay them out of the club's 'cut' of dancer earnings will also spawn similar new expenses to the club for tipped minimum wage salary, 'employer's share of Social Security tax, comp and unemployment insurance premiums, and accounting for DJ and Bouncer paychecks. Thus to 'break even' the amount of money that the club would need to add to the 'cut' would need to be 36% higher than the present amount of cash tipouts !

You point about productivity also has a flip side ... that dancers must 'work 36% harder' in order to earn the same amount of money.

And this whole line of speculation is based on the assumption that dancers and customers are 'captives' of the new 'employee' dancer system. In fact they are not. As mentioned many times already, Rhode Island and Connecticut are not all that far away. And if some enterprising clubowner were to open up a new club on the New Hampshire border it would only be 'minutes' away. If 'hot' highly productive dancers refuse to work under the new 'employee' dancer system, it will render all of your economic assumptions invalid ... because in the absence of high earning 'hot' dancers and their high roller club customers the amount of club 'cut' that will need to be extracted from mediocre dancers to allow the club to stay solvent will approach 100% !!!


To answer your other question, as an independent contractor a dancer must pay both the 8.75% 'employer's' share and another 8.75% 'employee's' share of Social Security and Medicare taxes. As 'employees', the dancers would continue to pay 8.75% but the club would have to pay the other 8.75%. But there is a wrinkle with IRS rules for independent contractors that the 8.75% 'employer's' share of Social Security and medicare tax paid by the dancer can also be counted as a downward adjustment to taxable income (which will be lost when the dancer becomes an 'employee') ... meaning that the net advantage is not the full 8.25%

As to a dancer actually being able to take advantage of unemployment and workmen's comp benefits, this is NOT as straightforward as it might appear. Workmen's comp does not cover paid sick days or the inability to work based on reasons that aren't directly related to some event that happened while working in the club. There is an elaborate 'hearing' process where the 'employee' must apply for workmen's comp eligibility and the 'employer' can dispute the claim. As such, unless a dancer can document that her leg was broken as the result of her 'employer's' faulty installation of the dance pole, the real world probability of dancers actually being able to collect workmen's comp is not very high. If the dancer catches swine flu from a private dance customer, or breaks her leg due to being drunk or high and losing her grip on the dance pole, she collects zip in paid 'sick days' and zip from workmen's comp.

As to unemployment insurance checks, there is a flip side to this also. For example, if a club that allows 'employee' dancers to earn $300 a night winds up going bankrupt, the ex-dancers at that club cannot collect unemployment insurance checks if a club down the street that allows 'employee' dancers to earn $100 a night is willing to hire them ! Similarly, if the $300 a night club goes bankrupt but there is another club down the street that allows 'employee' dancers to also earn $300 a night ... but the $300 earnings potential is the result of the club illegally encouraging dancers to provide HJ's and BJ's to customers ... the dancer will be denied unemployment benefits if she refuses to work at the 'extras' club.

xdamage
09-26-2009, 06:22 AM
It's OK though, the club will not be losing any revenue since they are going to raise the house fee and tip-outs to compensate...

It seems that the idiots missed the part in the Mass laws about tip-outs being illegal to begin with...

But they key point is that the club owner (being a human) is likely to do a normal human thing, and reply by finding someway to re-coupe the lost income. And if it turns out they cannot increase tip-outs or must drop the house fees they'll just respond by raising the cut they take from the LDs.

One way or another though, it is probably not going to mean more money in the pockets of the dancers. Best case scenario for dancers (unfortunately) is they are likely to break even and otherwise the rules don't change.

WiseGuy_TX
09-26-2009, 06:41 AM
...its time to rename this site stripperwebnerds.com

Melonie
09-26-2009, 07:35 AM
But they key point is that the club owner (being a human) is likely to do a normal human thing, and reply by finding someway to re-coupe the lost income. And if it turns out they cannot increase tip-outs or must drop the house fees they'll just respond by raising the cut they take from the LDs.

But yet again, keep in mind that clubowners cannot operate in a vacuum. If a MA clubowner, or all MA clubowners, decide to start taking a 50% cut of dancer LD money, dancers are not going to sit idly by ... or at least the 'hot' high earning dancers won't because their incomes will be the most affected. If those 'hot' high earning dancers decide to bolt for the RI / CT state line, taking a number of their customers with them, exactly how are the MA clubowners going to generate additional revenue for the club to cover the 'new' costs of SSI tax, unemployment and comp premiums etc ? By taking 100% of the LD money from the dancers and customers who remain ?


One way or another though, it is probably not going to mean more money in the pockets of the dancers. Best case scenario for dancers (unfortunately) is they are likely to break even and otherwise the rules don't change

No this is NOT the best case scenario. For a fact, for every 'employee' dancer working in MA, ~$150 per week is going to start flowing to to the state of MA insurance funds that currently flows into either dancer's pockets or clubowners pockets. The clubowners are simply not going to 'eat' 100% of this cost on top of eating 100% of 'new' payroll / withholding / legal costs. Best case scenario is probably the clubowners and dancers sharing the 'new' costs and reduced net earnings equally.


...its time to rename this site stripperwebnerds.com

I hear you !!!! However, this is a potentially career threating development that is fraught with negative 'surprises' for dancers, so it warrants some analysis work up front.

Djoser
09-26-2009, 07:46 AM
Well Christ talk about 50% of lapdance money going to the club, it's damned near that as it is in the Deja Vu chains. And they are all over the goddamned place. Of course most dancers hate those motherfuckers and will drive a ways not to have to work in one.

If they start this shit in Mass I would predict a lot of Mass dancers working just across the borders, and a lot of clubs springing up around them. What's that Kentucky city right across from Ohio border with all the clubs again? I'm tired from friday night and can't remember. You'll get a lot of that.

Phil-W
09-26-2009, 07:47 AM
You point about productivity also has a flip side ... that dancers must 'work 36% harder' in order to earn the same amount of money.

I'll pick up on your other points later, but I'd be interested in your and the other dancers POV's on "working harder".

OK, you've got to do more dances to maintain earnings and I've no doubt that's mentally and physically tiring.

On the plus side you would (hypothetically at least) with fewer dancers on a shift:

(a) Have less 'rejections' when you ask for dances
(b) Be in an environment where there is less tension between girls - because it's a little less cutthroat
(c) Maybe have less of a problem with extras because it's now a little easier for girls to hit their financial targets
(d) Be kept busy throughout the shift - so the time passes faster
(e) Probably be surer of consistent earnings

So from the dancer POV (I haven't got a clue as a guy) are there enough pluses to outweigh the minus of the extra work required?

Phil.

Djoser
09-26-2009, 07:59 AM
I'll pick up on your other points later, but I'd be interested in your and the other dancers POV's on "working harder".

OK, you've got to do more dances to maintain earnings and I've no doubt that's mentally and physically tiring.

On the plus side you would (hypothetically at least) with fewer dancers on a shift:

(a) Have less 'rejections' when you ask for dances
(b) Be in an environment where there is less tension between girls - because it's a little less cutthroat
(c) Maybe have less of a problem with extras because it's now a little easier for girls to hit their financial targets
(d) Be kept busy throughout the shift - so the time passes faster
(e) Probably be surer of consistent earnings

So from the dancer POV (I haven't got a clue as a guy) are there enough pluses to outweigh the minus of the extra work required?

Phil.

Sorry Phil, I disagree, though as you know I have tremendous respect for your opinion.

b) There will possibly be even more tension between dancers if they are making less per dance. The desperation factor/hunting-competitive instinct will be sharpened. That's what causes cutthroating, and often subsequent screaming matches, brawls, etc.

c) Might mean more extras as more dancers cross the line in an attempt to make the same kind of money per dance expressed as an average through the night. If you are used to doing 20-30 dances a night and getting 3-400$ a night and then it's still 20-30 dances a night but you're getting 2-300$, you're going to be tempted to try to get around it. Fuck the law, the laws are antiquated anyway. You think lapdances are legal in the vast majority of the country? I beg to differ, technically they usually aren't. Ironically enough stricter laws often have the effect of increasing extras in many areas.

d) If they are making substantially less per dance the fucking nights will drag, believe you me. People outside the industry don't generally realize how long and hard the nights are when the dancers aren't doing well.

e) Not necessarily, and probably the opposite. If they are making less per dance they are making less per dance, it's hard to get around that. Earnings will likely be tougher, ergo less consistent.

The key will be turning more clubs into corporate chains, with massive advertising to lure more customers in. Endless fucking two-4-one dances, T-shirts, all that horrible crap everyone but the owners hate. More variations of the Deja Vu model--but it will mean further depersonalization of the workers in the clubs as they are treated more and more like Walmart employees. Which again is why so many dancers hate fucking Deja Vu.

Phil-W
09-26-2009, 08:27 AM
Sorry Phil, I disagree, though as you know I have tremendous respect for your opinion

Hey Djoser, you can disagree as much as you like..... ;)

If you plough back through a few previous posts, you'll see I was having a bit of a debate with Melonie as to whether clubs would shift from the "I'll make as much as I can from shift fees" model to one where they minimize tax liabilities by actually having fewer dancers on the roster. (They may be forced to do this as a result of the impending changes in the law).

I've been knocking a few figures through a spreadsheet (a dangerous habit I know) and I reckon the average for dancer earnings is primarily dependent on the number of dancers on the shift - the clubs can control that a lot easier that they can control the number of 'bums on seats'.

Now, if Massachusetts clubs have to pay tax on every dancer they employ, the "I'll make as much as I can from shift fees" model is no longer as attractive to the clubs. So clubs might have to learn to function with fewer dancers - and they'll tend to retain the higher earning ones - hence my recent questions.

And a question for you (cos you'll know far better than I): if you improve the ability of dancers to earn by reducing the number per shift - does that reduce the amount of extras on offer?

Phil.

Djoser
09-26-2009, 08:56 AM
Hey Djoser, you can disagree as much as you like..... ;)

If you plough back through a few previous posts, you'll see I was having a bit of a debate with Melonie as to whether clubs would shift from the "I'll make as much as I can from shift fees" model to one where they minimize tax liabilities by actually having fewer dancers on the roster. (They may be forced to do this as a result of the impending changes in the law).

I've been knocking a few figures through a spreadsheet (a dangerous habit I know) and I reckon the average for dancer earnings is primarily dependent on the number of dancers on the shift - the clubs can control that a lot easier that they can control the number of 'bums on seats'.

Now, if Massachusetts clubs have to pay tax on every dancer they employ, the "I'll make as much as I can from shift fees" model is no longer as attractive to the clubs. So clubs might have to learn to function with fewer dancers - and they'll tend to retain the higher earning ones - hence my recent questions.

And a question for you (cos you'll know far better than I): if you improve the ability of dancers to earn by reducing the number per shift - does that reduce the amount of extras on offer?

Phil.

An interesting question, Phil. Less dancers per shift can mean more earnings per dancer, yes--especially if the hiring standards are raised which always helps. But there also definitely comes a point where less dancers means less customers as they get bored with the same rotation or tired of waiting for the fewer dancers to take care of all the customers waiting in line! ;D

There comes a point where say 20 dancers instead of 40 can only handle so any customers, and customers will only wait around so long before getting dances from even very special dancers. Guys tend to wait one rotation if they like what they see in general, then either wait again until their favorite is done onstage, if they don't grab her first (harder to do if she's busier dancing for less money from more guys) or decide to check another club to see the rotation there.

I suspect if you do succeed in creating a situation as you describe which does work, the temptation for extras will be reduced. Especially if in the more corporate environment a closer eye is kept on the dances by bouncers, etc. But there will always be some dancers who will willingly do the extras if they can, especially if they can make more by bending or breaking the laws. I think in Mass. it would depend on how strictly the laws concerning lapdances are enforced by police and management, in conjunction with these proposed changes in payment policies.

xdamage
09-26-2009, 11:29 AM
But yet again, keep in mind that clubowners cannot operate in a vacuum. If a MA clubowner, or all MA clubowners, decide to start taking a 50% cut of dancer LD money, dancers are not going to sit idly by ... or at least the 'hot' high earning dancers won't because their incomes will be the most affected.

Time will tell but I've seen so many business owners make so many bad decisions I am not going to assume they factor it in; but as I said in previous posts, they may well just change the demands (or try) too which is to require the dancers they do keep to earn at least $X per night or fire them.

Then again at some point the club owners might just not care. See...

We actually have very few bars left around here that are strictly bars. Those that remain, that live on selling drinks alone are run down dives. The nice places are part of some other venue and the drinks are supplemental income (e.g., casinos, restaurants, hotels).

That is another possible outcome that the SC owners care less, invest less, let the places fail. Happens all the time that businesses just fade away slowly as the owners stop caring, keep whatever profits they can, and don't give up until it starts costing more then they make.

yoda57us
09-26-2009, 12:16 PM
One way or another though, it is probably not going to mean more money in the pockets of the dancers. Best case scenario for dancers (unfortunately) is they are likely to break even and otherwise the rules don't change.

Which brings us back to the original conclusion in my OP. Dancers will be leaving Mass clubs and heading for RI and CT clubs.

What it boils down to is a few disgruntled dancers who where being treated very badly by an idiot club owner (King Arthur's Lounge in Chelsea, MA) decided to sue. They won and they will get a lot of money in a windfall settlement. If these ladies had danced just about anywhere else and got treated a bit more fairly (note, I said more fairly, no one ever gets treated completely fairly) they would have been making decent money and never would have thought of suing. What is unfortunate is that no other dancer will benefit from this ruling in the long run, only the 70 or so in the class action suite of King Arthur's. In fact, most will lose money...

Melonie
09-26-2009, 03:19 PM
Phil and Djoser, the only real world example of the scenario you are discussing that I am familiar with is a club called GoGo Rama on the Jersey Shore. This club's business model is to tightly control the number of dancers to a level that is (subjective guess) 1/3rd the number of dancers typically found in other clubs with a similar number of customers. As a result, customers must literally 'take numbers' and wait in line for private dances from their favorite dancer(s), and dancers spend virtually 100% of their working hours either dancing on stage or dancing in the private dance area.

But two fundamental things have to happen in order to sustain this business model. The first is limiting the 'quality' of all dancers to 9's and 10's. If customers are going to forego 'chit chat' / personal attention from dancers outside of the private dance area, the 'eye candy' factor and stage performance factor must be sufficient to hold customer attention. Thus any dancer who lacks these 'credentials' doesn't stand a chance in hell of being hired by this club.

The second is a constant injection of 'fresh meat', so that despite the small number of dancers working during a particular shift compared to the total number of customers, repeat club customers are constantly exposed to at least 50% 'new' dancers from day to day / week to week. With a handful of exceptions (i.e. girls who are 10+ or who captivate customers for whatever reason), club management limits the number of days per month that a particular dancer can work at this club to 7 days.

Which brings us to door #3. Even though girls can earn a significant amount of money working 7 days per month at this club, this is typically not sufficient to economically sustain most dancers - meaning that most dancers must also work at some other club. But GoGo Rama's management has established a de-facto rule ( which club staff actually polices by hitting other area clubs regularly as customers) that any dancer who works at another club in the same area will NOT be allowed to work at GoGo Rama again - which accomplishes two very important things. First it eliminates the option of GoGo Rama customers patronizing other clubs in the same area to find their favorite GoGo Rama dancers on nights that they are not scheduled to work at GoGo Rama - because those dancers simply won't be there. Second it allows GoGo Rama to draw on a pool of top notch travelling dancers rather than depending on local talent.

But the prime movers of GoGo Rama's business model are A. the ability to consistently draw high rolling customers who are not afraid to spend a lot of money on 'top shelf' dancers, and B. the ability to provide those 'top shelf' dancers with a HUGE earnings potential which encourages them to keep returning to GoGo Rama and (almost literally) dance their asses off for one week per month. But neither of these prime movers is going to be possible under the Mass 'employee' dancer scenario.



So from the dancer POV (I haven't got a clue as a guy) are there enough pluses to outweigh the minus of the extra work required?

Well you tell me. If a 'hot' top earning dancer now working in Mass is able to comfortably sell say 25 private dances per night and keep 100% = $500 of the private dance money as an independent contractor, and that dancer is given the opportunity of A. staying in Mass as an 'employee' dancer, doing the same number of private dances, but only keeping 50%= $250 per night for her efforts, or B. staying in Mass as an 'employee' dancer, busting her ass to double the number of private dances to 50 per night in exchange for the same $500, or C. travelling to GoGo Rama to work as an independent contractor dancer, and being able to keep 100% = $1000 per night in exchange for busting her ass to do the same 50 private dances (and maybe working in Manhattan / RI / CT during alternating weeks), which option do you think that she is going to choose ?




Which brings us back to the original conclusion in my OP. Dancers will be leaving Mass clubs and heading for RI and CT clubs

At the very least, the 'top shelf' dancers will leave - because it is they for whom a $105 per week minimum wage paycheck means the least, and it is they who will lose the most potential earnings in dollar terms if the clubs start extracting 50% of their private dance / VIP sales. On the other hand, 'mediocre' dancers are likely to be happy about the Mass 'employee' dancer arrangement. First off, they will now be paid the same $105 per week minimum wage paycheck as the 'hottest', top earning dancer would receive. Second, for whatever it's worth, they receive the same unemployment and comp coverage that the 'hottest' top earning dancer would receive. And it is they who will suffer the least if the club institutes a 50% 'cut' of private dance / VIP money, since in dollar terms their level of private dance / VIP sales is probably 1/3 to 1/4 the level of the 'hottest' top earning dancers to begin with.

Arguably, the 'mediocre' dancers will be all that is left for Mass clubowners to attempt to operate their clubs with. If human nature ( or incidental history at particular clubs who have already been forced to go the 'employee' dancer route) is any example, the new business model will begin to revolve around much lower levels of private dance / VIP sales and much lower 'officially reported' income levels. After all, if dancers are only selling 4-6 private dances a night they 'lose' less money to the 50% 'cut', and if dancers are only selling 4-6 private dances a night the club's cost of SSI tax, unemployment and insurance comp premiums etc. is much lower (based on the dancers' much lower 'officially reported' earnings). Of course in the real world most dancers can't survive on $105 a week in minimum wage base pay plus a $40-$60 per night 50% cut from the 4-6 private dances they sell. But the ONLY avenue open to the dancers to increase their incomes without sharing 50% of their additional earnings with the club is to sell 'extras' directly to customers 'off the books' ... which is indeed what will happen almost immediately. The new availability of 'extras' is also the ONLY real avenue open to the club to continue attracting local customers back to see the same 'mediocre' local dancers week after week.

~

xdamage
09-26-2009, 03:58 PM
Which brings us back to the original conclusion in my OP. Dancers will be leaving Mass clubs and heading for RI and CT clubs.

What it boils down to is a few disgruntled dancers who where being treated very badly by an idiot club owner (King Arthur's Lounge in Chelsea, MA) decided to sue. They won and they will get a lot of money in a windfall settlement. If these ladies had danced just about anywhere else and got treated a bit more fairly (note, I said more fairly, no one ever gets treated completely fairly) they would have been making decent money and never would have thought of suing. What is unfortunate is that no other dancer will benefit from this ruling in the long run, only the 70 or so in the class action suite of King Arthur's. In fact, most will lose money...

Well in this we agree completely. That is also a likely outcome I see. A few will walk away with some money, and the rest will be hurt. And yes I suspect if the drive is not too far they'll do just that, work in other states.

Hey, maybe some dancers will start their own clubs and run things differently, but the basic story seems to repeat itself. Too many club owners really don't seem to have much interest in long term dancer contentment, and selectivity to maintain a quality experience, which would bring in more customers. That would be a smart long term strategy you'd think.

yoda57us
09-26-2009, 05:07 PM
If they start this shit in Mass I would predict a lot of Mass dancers working just across the borders, and a lot of clubs springing up around them. What's that Kentucky city right across from Ohio border with all the clubs again? I'm tired from friday night and can't remember. You'll get a lot of that.


Actually the interesting thing is there are already lots of clubs just over the Mass border in RI and all are at least as busy as Mass clubs if not more so. The contact levels are much higher so a lot of dancers have avoided working there but if the prostitution loophole is closed and the clubs are forced to dial-back the contact levels a bit it could create a perfect storm for dancers to migrate south. CT also has a ton of clubs as well.

yoda57us
09-26-2009, 05:13 PM
Well in this we agree completely. That is also a likely outcome I see. A few will walk away with some money, and the rest will be hurt. And yes I suspect if the drive is not too far they'll do just that, work in other states.
The drive is not far at all. In fact, many of the girls who already dance in Providence RI or in parts of CT already commute from Mass.


Hey, maybe some dancers will start their own clubs and run things differently, but the basic story seems to repeat itself. Too many club owners really don't seem to have much interest in long term dancer contentment, and selectivity to maintain a quality experience, which would bring in more customers. That would be a smart long term strategy you'd think.

Not likely to happen since getting a liquor and entertainment license for a new strip club is just about impossible in Massachusetts. The climate has not been favorable for quite a while and isn't likely to change. Additionally, I have met very few dancers over the years who have any desire to open a strip club. Most share the goal of coming in to work, making their money and going home.

xdamage
09-27-2009, 09:57 AM
Not likely to happen since getting a liquor and entertainment license for a new strip club is just about impossible in Massachusetts. The climate has not been favorable for quite a while and isn't likely to change. Additionally, I have met very few dancers over the years who have any desire to open a strip club. Most share the goal of coming in to work, making their money and going home.

Unfortunately if I was betting I'd bet with you on this because the combination of right person, who saved enough to do start a club, who has the business skills and desire to deal with the hassles of running a business, is a fairly rare combination. Factor in that it is difficult to get a license and yes, it is doubtful. But hey, things change. There is a market for ghetto clubs too (we have a few around here that have been in business for a while).

Melonie
09-27-2009, 12:48 PM
^^^ yes but why would any potential new clubowner in their right mind invest $1 million ( if not $2 million) to open a new club in Mass ... where they will face the extra costs of doing business associated with being an 'employer' ... instead of opening a new club just across the New Hampshire state line where they won't have these extra costs of doing business 'weighting down' their return on investment ? If a new club were to open up near the MA state line south of Nashua or better yet Salem NH, they would be within 30 miles of Boston and 1/2 of the population of the state of MA - as well as right in the 'thick' of NH's industrial corridor. On the other hand, Rhode Island clubs are not much farther than 30 miles away from Boston either !

xdamage
09-27-2009, 02:17 PM
^^^ yes but why would any potential new clubowner in their right mind invest $1 million ( if not $2 million) to open a new club in Mass ... where they will face the extra costs of doing business associated with being an 'employer' ... instead of opening a new club just across the New Hampshire state line where they won't have these extra costs of doing business 'weighting down' their return on investment ?

Yep, agreed!

yoda57us
09-27-2009, 02:46 PM
Actually it would have to be RI or CT. New Hampshire is a strip club waste land...

Interestingly the clubs in MA vary in quality and contact very much by geography. Clubs in puritanical Boston are no touch, three foot rule and very expensive. The clubs north of Boston are very similar just cheaper. This is, I believe, is due to the fact that there is really NO competition from NH. OTOH, the clubs south and west of Boston allow varying levels of one and two way contact primarily because of competition from club in RI and CT.

Most dancers are much smarter than club owners. I can't imagine any of the dancers I know being dumb enough to try and open a strip club.

KiwiStrawberry Splenda
09-27-2009, 10:30 PM
Yoda, why is NH such a wasteland for strip clubs? Are the laws really strict there? I'd imagine it could be a golden opportunity, assuming one can legally operate a club in the state.

yoda57us
09-28-2009, 04:04 AM
Yoda, why is NH such a wasteland for strip clubs? Are the laws really strict there? I'd imagine it could be a golden opportunity, assuming one can legally operate a club in the state.

I don't know too much about the laws in NH but I suspect it may have as much to do with the population base and lack of big cities as it does with regulations. NH is in the lower four or five states in the US as far as population and much of it is rural or mountainous. A big part of it's appeal is as a vacation destination. Not really a great local for strip clubs or for dancers. I know a few girls from NH who dance. Even though there is one strip club and one "lingerie shop" in the southern part of the state they choose to drive to Mass or RI to dance.