Melonie
04-25-2015, 12:00 AM
usually, good spenders want some discretion, in my experience. one issue that might give the club incentive to prevent photography is the risk these "photographers" take photos of good spending customers, thus outing the customers' identities, which would be a loss in the club's income if that big spender does not come back
This was the very issue I was thinking about when I posted earlier that clubowners would be loathe to provide the actual identities of customers to dancers for ANY purpose.
Indeed, many strip club customers do not want to have their strip club patronage noticed, recorded, or publicized. This was actually a major issue when strip club streaming video technology initially appeared. There were LOTS of complaints by customers who could potentially be 'caught' by the club's streaming video surveillance cameras, and those customer complaints quickiy led to clubowners abandoning their attempts to develop websites based on streamed strip club video.
While the gray area legal issues regarding the photographing of a strip club customer present in a 'public' place were never settled, the potential negative financial impact on the clubowner of losing camera-shy customers because of the possibility that they might be photographed / recorded proved to be highly effective. But dancers complaining about being similarly photographed / recorded ultimately doesn't carry the same financial 'leverage' with clubowners, since ( in the minds of many clubowners at least ) a dancer who quits the club over the issue costs the clubowner nothing and can easily be replaced with another dancer who doesn't voice similar objections.
Also, 'upscale' strip club customers are more likely to object to being photographed / recorded in a strip club, for somewhat obvious reasons. To be able to afford patronizing an 'upscale' strip club, customers need to have high incomes. This implies that such high earning customers will be 'professionals', or will be small business owners ... whose jobs / businesses depend on a favorable reputation which could be harmed by having pics / videos of their strip club activities posted to the internet. As a practical matter, this makes 'no photography' policies at 'upscale' strip clubs something which the customers, the dancers, and the clubowners, all have a reason to support.
However, where neighborhood / suburban clubs with a customer base of 'average' people are concerned, some number of those customers obviously wish to take photos / video of dancers. A customer base made up of 'working class guys' is also likely to be far less sensitive over the possibility of being photographed in the strip club. And neighborhood / suburban clubowners garner a major piece of club income from door cover charges, from bar / drink minimum sales, etc. rather than from VIP / CR sales to club customers. This strongly implies that neighborhood / suburban clubowners are more likely to resist kicking out customers for any reason. As such, where neighborhood / suburban strip clubs are concerned, it is probably only the dancers who would fully support a 'no photographs' policy.
This was the very issue I was thinking about when I posted earlier that clubowners would be loathe to provide the actual identities of customers to dancers for ANY purpose.
Indeed, many strip club customers do not want to have their strip club patronage noticed, recorded, or publicized. This was actually a major issue when strip club streaming video technology initially appeared. There were LOTS of complaints by customers who could potentially be 'caught' by the club's streaming video surveillance cameras, and those customer complaints quickiy led to clubowners abandoning their attempts to develop websites based on streamed strip club video.
While the gray area legal issues regarding the photographing of a strip club customer present in a 'public' place were never settled, the potential negative financial impact on the clubowner of losing camera-shy customers because of the possibility that they might be photographed / recorded proved to be highly effective. But dancers complaining about being similarly photographed / recorded ultimately doesn't carry the same financial 'leverage' with clubowners, since ( in the minds of many clubowners at least ) a dancer who quits the club over the issue costs the clubowner nothing and can easily be replaced with another dancer who doesn't voice similar objections.
Also, 'upscale' strip club customers are more likely to object to being photographed / recorded in a strip club, for somewhat obvious reasons. To be able to afford patronizing an 'upscale' strip club, customers need to have high incomes. This implies that such high earning customers will be 'professionals', or will be small business owners ... whose jobs / businesses depend on a favorable reputation which could be harmed by having pics / videos of their strip club activities posted to the internet. As a practical matter, this makes 'no photography' policies at 'upscale' strip clubs something which the customers, the dancers, and the clubowners, all have a reason to support.
However, where neighborhood / suburban clubs with a customer base of 'average' people are concerned, some number of those customers obviously wish to take photos / video of dancers. A customer base made up of 'working class guys' is also likely to be far less sensitive over the possibility of being photographed in the strip club. And neighborhood / suburban clubowners garner a major piece of club income from door cover charges, from bar / drink minimum sales, etc. rather than from VIP / CR sales to club customers. This strongly implies that neighborhood / suburban clubowners are more likely to resist kicking out customers for any reason. As such, where neighborhood / suburban strip clubs are concerned, it is probably only the dancers who would fully support a 'no photographs' policy.