Anyone notice the slim selection of kgirls at LA’s CAKDolls?
Lots of fond memories with the LA KDolls. Its a tough business in LA.
I know several girls who specifically refuse to work in LA. OC or SD only. They gave the exact same reasons. Don't want to offend anyone by listing the details, but it's the customers.
LA customers are too rough!!!
How would that work? Since you posted and up to today, the OC section has zero options. OC is listed first. That's all that I see.
The selection still looks pretty good to me. And the booker is the best in the biz. The k-doll line up changes, so even if there are relatively fewer girls now, next month, it might be a whole different story. That said, I'm a big proponent of booker diversification. It's a good idea to have solid relationships with all of them.
I'd say the booker situation in LA and the many to one relationship means that you DONT have to maintain good relationships with all the bookers and bootlick them or ignore their bad behavior.
Ie, if ten bookers book the same girl, and one of them is difficult to work with you can just use nine other ones. Whereas "exclusive" orgs often have only one way of entry
have gone independent and are using multiple bookers block the ones that are hard to work with. You may still see that booker advertising a girl who is blocking him, but you won't be able to get the appointment. He's just using the girls he can't book anymore for bait and switch. He'll try to sell you on the girls who have not blocked him . . . . yet.
Agreed. Still a good selection available in my eyes. Though it's harder to find just the GFE ones.
The main selections at GardenSecrets are GFEs (Amber, Stella and Asia). The rest of the kgirls on that site are ones who have multiple bookers and the accuracy of the pics are questionables.
There are certain girls who can only be scheduled through one booker. There are also groups of girls who are only booked by a certain limited groups of bookers. There are very few girls who are booked by ALL of the bookers; in fact, I would venture to say there are probably none. So, if you want full access, you need to maintain good relationships across the board.
I didn't say that every girl is booked by all the bookers. I said it's a many to one relation. Many bookers don't book any exclusive girls at all and are redundant. In many cases a girl has like five or six bookers all booking her.
And redundancy here us close to useless to the customer unless there are some reasons why you'd contact one and not the other.
I got exactly what you meant and it is very true.
Just to be clear as I don't know the LA markets at all (from a direct experience perspective). Are you saying that the bookers may change periodically even when only one is representing a popular girl, or only a few are representing a few girls. Or were you saying that some subset of all the bookers will give access to these particular providers.
If the represent booker changed periodically, even when the K-girl only lets one represent her, then I can see you're statement being applicable as a general statement. If you don't know who might have the keys in the future don't burn those bridges.
Alternatively, if you're only talking about rather static subset of bookers then you don't need to maintain the good relationship with all bookers, but the good ones that represent the K-girls you're interested in seeing. That's a bit different than keeping on good terms with all LA bookers but your statement could be read as "across the board" as being those bookers that do tend to represent those K-girls I want to see.
I get what rocket was saying about the many-to-one, but that claim also hangs on the stability of the many-to-one relationship. If those relationships are not stable then you do need to think about who you might be dealing with in the future. If it could be anyone of the bookers you burned the bridge with, then you're out of luck if that is who you need to talk with -- or if there were more than one bridge that got burned and those are the only bookers for now....
In a prefessional setting I do think a good rule of thumb is not to be the asshole in a situation, even if things are not going well. It just cuts off a path in the future where an opportunty you want presents itself. But if the booker is never trustworthy and never as K-girls you think are worth seeing you don't loose anything if you tell them to go take a leap. But the future is never known so....
I dont advise anyone to be an asshole to bookers just because. It doesn't make sense and it will create an adversarial situation for no reason.
No, I advise everyone to be courteous, polite and follow the rules. However, if/when a booker is rude, b&s you, is asleep for some reason when you text that you parked, says "oh btw this girl has a period lol forgot to tell you when you booked lol" after you're already parked and ready to go balls deep, and other shit that is unprofessional, you don't need to go along and just take it. If there's another booker that you like and who doesn't do unprofessional shit or maybe does it less, just use him/her instead! Don't even need to burn bridges per se, just use another booker.
People like to portray it as if I'm saying wage a war on bookers. Nah. All I'm saying is whether you're selling turnips, diesel fuel, janitorial services or sexual services, the customer rights remain the same. It's not some kind of privilege we should be lucky to get and bow down for. We pay for goods and services, and customers deserve to be treated right.
Understandably, when there's one asshole booker who is the only guy who books the girls you really like, many will swallow their pride and just go along. When there's ten, get the one who treats you well.
You are missing the point. Yet again. (Not sure why I am surprised by that.) Booker diversification doesn't mean licking anyone's boots or accepting poor treatment. It means maintaining open lines of communication with all of the bookers so you can select any girl you want. It is to your benefit to remain calm and professional, even if the booker is a dick occasionally. That said, your example of bookers falling asleep on the job is absurd. That has never happened to me in 15 years of enjoying the k-girl scene in LA, OC and elsewhere. If it happened to you or someone you know, I can only guess it's because that booker didn't value your business. Perhaps because you argued with him too much, making idiotic points about irrelevant topics - LOL!
First, my response was to Jensen.
Second, I did not say booker diversification means bootlicking. I said the exact opposite. Many different bookers booking same girls means you don't have to deal with asshole bookers and can just deal with non-asshole bookers. Not sure why this is so hard to get.
Third, your assumption is that I argue with bookers. I don't. But if they dont answer for 15 minutes past my appointment because they fell asleep, or they cancel me last minute (and if it's last appointment I'm often shit outta luck) I voice my displeasure like any customer would.
Fourth, your assumption is that because something that never happened to you but happened to someone else must mean that someone did something. It doesn't work this way. In your 15 years of mongering, how often have you made last appointment or after hours (after midnight) appointment? I have, a lot. But if a booker advertise after hours or alte appointments, guess what? They shouldn't fall asleep or forget about the appointment made.
Merlin: "That said, I'm a big proponent of booker diversification. It's a good idea to have solid relationships with all of them."
rocket: "the many to one relationship means that you DONT have to maintain good relationships with all the bookers and bootlick them or ignore their bad behavior."
First Merlin was not clearly making some causitive statement relating to two points -- multiple bookers and "solid relations hips with all of them." That can be read as two separate and independant items. He certainly never said solid relationships requires licking boots or ignoring bad behaviors. He clarified that in his later statement.
So you seem to be misunderstanding/mischaracterizing Merlin's statement, then starting an argument where none needed to be. You also seem to want to claim it is Merlin that somehow is getting you wrong. He was just defending his statement from your strawman. And then you seem to wonder why someone might poke fun at you about being argumentative.
If that's how you view it I think you misunderstood my point.
I didn't say merlin advocates for bootlicking. Nor have I implied it.
The only point I contested (aside from the dubious logic of if the booker did x then you probably deserved it, which is basically victim blaming) the need to maintain any "solid relation" with bookers who you (or me or him) consider assholes.
Let's just say the sentence ended here then
"the many to one relationship means that you DONT have to maintain good relationships with all the bookers"
Regarding the implied/nterpretation aspect. I never said you advocated being rude or and asshole. I said I understood your point. You, however, felt the need to clarify that you in fact were not advocating being an asshole. How was your response to Merlin so different from my comment that he, or others, should not take it to mean you think he thinks it necessary to suck up to bookers regardless of how they behave where mine comments suggested something about you? If you had that response shouldn't you understand others might have a similar response to your more direct statement?
The core of the issues, IMO, here is that you are talking about something different than Merlin was. I think Merlin's first statement regarding booker diversification fits well with your statement. There need be no reason to see some hiden disagreement with those positions as both seem to point to the benefits of having multiple paths to one's goals.
But the second statement, the good idea of keeping a bridge open to all bookers seems to related to a case where the girl you want to see ends up being booked only by the booker you might have cut ties with or alienated. In other words, seem like his second statement is more cavate that you want to reject. But that was actually part of the post to which you responded with your clarification but completely ignored. The claim that you don't need to keep good relationships simply because there is some many to one structure only holds under certain conditions. Admittedly I didn't get a response to the question from anyone -- though perhaps CDL's comment apply. So if one makes a reasonable assumption that given what Merlin descrived it's possible that on some occations LA mongers might find themselves having to book though a booker they don't like/behaves badly because the girl is only being booked by that book at the time is your counter claim to him still valid? (I'd note that you seem to have conceeded that point already in your posts so it's kind of a rhetorical question that points to the whole "why are you still arguing about things" here?)
I didn't really get the crux of your first paragraph. If I phrased it wrongly, then I apologize. But I thought I clarified it afterwards.
I don't think Im talking about something different than Merlin was.i just disagree with him.
To put it in kindergarten terms:
Merlin - more bookers means more relationships to keep good, yay
Me - more bookers means say "fuck em" (not literally ) to the asshole bookers. if I can book through other bookers, asshole bookers are dead to me
I don't believe in keeping good relationships with people who don't treat you well. And many to one relation means that you (not you in particular, but any monger) dont have to keep up the appearance of a good relationship while cussing them under your breath. You don't have to have thousands of faces or have fake courtesy or a fake smile. Hence my initial bootlicking comment. I understand the need to have a good relationship with an asshole if this asshole is the only entry point to something you want. When there are multiple entry points, maintaining good relationship with the asshole doesn't make sense to me.
if Merlin has been around for 15 years it's likely he has seen Cari and experienced her booker, for example. Let's just say that booker is not regarded highly by a lot of mongers. I'm sure if there was a way to book her with several near universally liked bookers, many would choose that way instead and just not engage with the asshole booker.
It seems we all agree that there are asshole bookers. We just don't agree with how we should go about them if there are alternatives for each such asshole booker.
Seems like ever since candy girl la hit The booking changed. There used to be more bookers that had 3-5 girls now you see the same girls on every site. Can’t really tell if there’s more talent (Kgirls) In LA now than there was five years ago. What I miss is when one booker only had a few girls at a time you got to know what book you could trust him who you couldn’t. Now that they all the same girls you’re kind of just winging it.