
Originally Posted by
Melonie
Actually Eric, I was trying to address that particular point in a somewhat tactful manner by referring to 'other' sources of income ... which as you point out bypass the club's cash register (thus avoiding having to pay an official club 'cut'), but which may still involve paying off the host / bouncer if the 'extras' take place inside the club.
I would also speculate that business managers of these upscale clubs are increasingly finding themselves between a 'rock and a hard place', as a higher percentage of total dollars being spent by club customers seems to be migrating towards 'extras'. Yes the club gets 'room' money, but it does not get a cut of the 'extras' money. This is not a good situation from the selfish financial standpoint of club investors, who see their property taxes going up, their utility bills going up, their insurance costs going up, their legal fees going up etc. but who also see the club's 'cut' from non-'extras' customer spending staying the same or even declining.
Moreover, there is no way that a club can officially set itself up to collect a cut of 'extras' money without going on record as knowing that 'extras' are taking place, plus allowing / facilitating / promoting those 'extras' taking place. Doing so would open a Pandora's Box of potential prosecutions of club management ( which are currently not possible due to plausible deniability - 'gee, officer, I had no idea what was going on back there !!!'). But charging dancers a large up-front cash stage fee does provide the club with a means of collecting some measure of 'extras' money without being specific as to the source of that money.
Ironically, when 'extras' are tolerated by club management in clubs that use the high fixed dollar stage fee business model, the financial incentives equation for dancers quickly changes. As you have already pointed out, instead of providing a financial incentive for 'marginal' dancers to move on to other clubs with no / lower stage fees (thus supposedly raising the average appeal level of the club's remaining higher earning dancers and perpetuating the super-upscale club image), the toleration of 'extras' simply provides more incentive for 'marginal' dancers to offer more 'extras'. As club customers get used to the availability of 'extras' they come to expect more 'extras', which in turn forces higher appeal dancers who have not offered 'extras' to accept a lower earnings potential or start offering 'extras' themselves !!!
Dredging up memories of the last major downturn in the NYC area economy (tech bust of 2000 + 9/11 attack), at that time the super upscale club(s) were not known for 'extras' and still drew in a generous customer base of high rollers, celebrities, corporate types etc. Also at that time, the 'dirty' clubs seemed to continue operating as usual. It was the 'middle of the road' clubs, which didn't have wall to wall top shelf dancers and which also didn't offer 'extras', that took the brunt of the last economic downturn. The reason that I mention this is that today it seems that even the super upscale clubs have become known for 'extras' ... which implies that when the current economic downturn really starts to hit that no 'clean' dancer is going to escape the financial pressure even if she is top shelf talent.
~
Bookmarks