Why I don't see this apartment?

[teufel]

he is addicted and drink and she dances on the bar

are less at home and fuck every 2 day

[Guest bobbyjoe]

he is addicted and drink and she dances on the bar

are less at home and fuck every 2 day

ok,thanks but j prefer waiting rlc add this couple in standard membership,j have all my time for see this couple

and j don't want pay 45$ for rlc,it's too expansive

[KarenKraft]

KarenKraft that was a very good essay on competition and the business world. As you say fairness is not an issue to most (if any) businessmen.

What I find interesting about the modern business world is that businesses no longer care whether they piss off existing customers.

I was always taught that the cost of obtaining new customers far exceeded the cost of holding on to existing customers, hence the development of discounts or rewards for loyalty. Whether it's the influence of the internet or not businesses now constantly offer better terms or offers to new customers that leave existing customers at a disadvantage.

Car insurance is a typical example. A renewal notice usually contains a re-quote that is higher than that for a completely new customer. This is done in the hope of ripping off the existing customer who 'might' let the renewal automatically go through and therefore pay more than he should have done.

The company may think this is 'clever' because the existing customer has paid more than others, but is it clever? What is the reaction of the existing customer when he realises he has been ripped off? He resents the company and next time walks away.

Another example is mobile phone companies who offer long contracts that appear good at the time but then are undermined by new offers. The existing customer is 'locked' into the contract and therefore has to continue paying more than is offered elsewhere. The contract ensures the company gets the benefit of the income but what does the consumer think? He resents being handcuffed and as soon as he is free he 'escapes' to another supplier.

Loyalty is destroyed, consumers are encouraged to be disloyal. 'Brands' were meant to encourage loyalty but stupid businessmen have destroyed the notion completely. Instead 'buyer beware' has become the byword for consumers.

RLC need to be careful they don't alienate existing customers by trying to squeeze 'premium' payments for not a lot extra offered and by charging for things that were not previously charged for. The idea for an entirely premium only apartment is only likely to alienate standard subscribers than galvanise them to go premium. 'More for Less' is a much better mantra. Car makers continually offer more features and do not always ask for more money.

RLC are of course dealing with human beings. Imagine their delight in being able to present Katya and Ruslan. On the surface two attractive people (well Katya is beyond gorgeous) and yet when they move in they turn out to be drug and or drink driven, dirty slobs who can't handle the scrutiny of the cameras. What a let down for RLC and subscribers.

Equally Sophia and Roman turn out to be more boring than watching paint dry.

So how should RLC react? Well trying to squeeze more money out of subscribers will not work when the quality of product has diminished.

Moving up market is the way. Better apartments. Better cameras, more cameras and probably more apartments.

Keep stimulating discussion KarenKraft it is very refreshing.

Thanks, Van, but if I might: We have two different concepts at play in your auto insurance and phone service examples.  Also, we need to remember that retention of current buyers ("loyalty") is more valuable when geography restricts the potential pool of buyers (supermarkets, gas stations) than it is in an amorphic churning global pool of passers-by.  In the global pool, it is more important to draw in new people since the marginal cost is much lower than the average cost.  And remember that, with respect to insurance, in most places there cannot be a "loss leader" rate.  Rates are published and available from governing authorities much of the time.  It is not 'ripping off' renewal customers when they (the customers) do not inquire as to any discounts (age, job, miles driven per year, grade point averages for younger drivers, senior safety driving course for older drivers, etc.).  Insureds who are too lazy or underinformed so that they don't bother to inquire are not being 'ripped off,' they are not given advantages given to those who press to get a good rate.  It is not the job of the company to call the insured to let them know that they should take the free safe-driver course over at the local adult education facility; it is their job to sell business.  When the insured has a broker, it is the broker's job to hunt down the best rate, the discounts that would apply, etc. 

As for the cellular telephone companies:  The reason they give a discount on the purchase of a new phone, offer unlimited this or that, family and co-conspirators' discounts, etc. is not to be "nice."  It is to get you to sign the one-or-two year contract.  As competition challenges their marketing during that contract period, they must offer better deals to new oncoming customers in order to get them to sign up for the same or similar length contracts.  They aren't ripping off the existing customers by offering additional incentives to new  customers.  Consider it a loss leader required by competition in the market place. 

One of the problems a lot of people have is what I  call,"looking at the other person's chip stack."  Rather than focusing on the deal they made and planning how to negotiate a better contract for themselves in the future, they spend their time worrying about some other deal some other person got and, as we have discussed before, out comes the dreaded and counterproductive FAIRNESS rule. 

Let's say, for example, the Army needs artificial intelligence code writers and launches a campaign at the nation's colleges to recruit current students and entice them into committing to four years of service as code writers once they have matriculated.  The Army agrees to pay tuition, room, board, and $12 per year for CamCap membership fees in exchange for that commitment.  The following year, it is determined that the need for code writers is even greater than they had previously estimated so, in addition to the above "goodies," the Army also pays all new students who sign the very same commitment agreement the first group signed, a brand new hybrid car that runs on spent tofu fumes.  The first group is not being ripped off.  They are getting the deal they wanted, liked, and agreed to.  It is always a waste of time to base ones own situation on the [better] situation of another person. 

Most people understand this.  Many of those who don't, as I have said before, are the folks who majored in Feelings with a minor in Fairness.  These are often the same people for whom the only path to equity is equality.  That is to say, if everyone doesn't get the same deal on everything everywhere, the system is, by their superficial definition, unfair. 

[albacore]

I really have no idea what the French gentlemen were saying as google translation was not understandable.  I did however, notice the words about justify capitalism as if some how capitalism is bad.

If someone does not like RLC just do not look at it.  If you do not like paying for it then just stop renewing your subscription.  No one is forcing anyone to view this cam site.  Actually - instead of complaining why don't you start your own?  Then you could do it properly and to your liking.

Fairness is everyone being able to make the choice.  An in this case people can choose not to look.  It is really that simple.

[KarenKraft]

Oh, if only life were so simple.  The complainers never want to break a sweat or pull the laboring oar.  They prefer to sit back, relax, and cast aspersions on the politics of those who produce goods and services.  See, everyone who makes a buck is evil, by definition.  Anyone who takes charge and manages ventures is the same.  They have collectively felt that way since 1789.

Je devrais être en mesure de regarder la petite pipe gratuitement parce que mon arrogance incroyable exige. Mais attendre, laissez- moi vous parler de la grandeur de nous.

[hampelo]

I love this!  The inevitable clash between the entrepreneurial mindset and the entitlement mindset.  I say this not intending to offend anybody in particular, by the way.  I have seen this on several other boards.  In some, the owners/administrators have an online commentary presence and, periodically, remind members that their business (their board) is not a democracy.  I also suspect that there is an age-gap at play on many boards: those people who grew up in the 50s, 60s, and 70s tend to understand the inherent inequities of not owning something they like.  If you don't own it, you don't run it.  Those born in the 80s and more recently tend to see all things public in terms of "fairness." 

That thought would never occur to an older person, I suspect.  They see a world of choices wherein you go with what you like and pass on what you don't.  Market forces decide success and failure, not some quixotic notion of situational fairness.  Leaving politics out of the equation, it boils down to this: Many shallow thinking people would support a new law stating that the at-the-pump retail price of gasoline to consumers shall never exceed $1.  They "feel" that that is "fair" because the oil companies make zillions of dollars raping the environment on lands historically stolen from the rightful owners and, most importantly, BECAUSE IT'S FAIR.  Other people attempt to explain that it costs more than a dollar to deliver that gallon of gasoline to the retail pump so the oil companies would not participate in retail gasoline sales, but instead ship their products to places where such a law does not exist.  The reply from the foggy folks is that that is unpatriotic and the oil companies need to step up and do their fair share!

There is no way to convince the entitlement-minded that "fairness" doesn't play much of a role in business decisions.  "Why, I pay to be a member, so it's unfair that someone who pays to be a premium member gets more than I do!"  Great.  Nice sentiment.  But nobody threw "fairness" into the equation.  They balance each decision based on its resulting effect on the company's position on the demand curve.

"If we increase video delivery from X to Y, will the increased viewer revenues pay for the additional costs?  Will the disappointment of current users result in so much decreased revenue to offset the projected gains from the premium service?  Should we open a new website with different apartments and only let Super-Premium Members access those apartments?  What will happen if we restrict viewership so substantially that competitive providers enter the marketplace?  Will the loyalty of our current viewers be such that we can still compete?  Will we need to give open (unpaid) access to a few bedrooms in order to stifle said new competition?  Can we make enough money now to be able to afford to purchase the new competitor after it has established a large membership population?"

I do not know who owns RLC but I have a strong hunch that, were one to be sitting across the table from him/her and ask what they thought was fair, in terms of viewer rights, all you would get is an inquisitive but essentially blank stare.  "What?"

i doubt it is possible to say this any better.

[Foamy T. Squirrel]

There is an enormous difference between State Capitalism (international and national socialism are their stage names) and Free-Enterprise Capitalism. I might be willing to discuss this at length at Old Dudes. But it seems to me that State Capitalists seek to blame Free-Enterprise Capitalism for all of their socialist failures every chance they get, when indeed, they themselves caused the problems.

C'ya at Old Dudes. We should reserve this thread for the three people here who can watch this couple.

[albacore]

There is an enormous difference between State Capitalism (international and national socialism are their stage names) and Free-Enterprise Capitalism. I might be willing to discuss this at length at Old Dudes. But it seems to me that State Capitalists seek to blame Free-Enterprise Capitalism for all of their socialist failures every chance they get, when indeed, they themselves caused the problems.

C'ya at Old Dudes. We should reserve this thread for the three people here who can watch this couple.

Agreed - on all of your points - and this is the wrong board for this.

[Foamy T. Squirrel]

Agreed - on all of your points - and this is the wrong board for this.

It's settled then. Let's split this pop stand and have some fun at Old Dudes.

[Linked]

Agreed - on all of your points - and this is the wrong board for this.

It's settled then. Let's split this pop stand and have some fun at Old Dudes.

Says the King of throwing topics off subject.  :o  ;D

[Cho]

Agreed - on all of your points - and this is the wrong board for this.

It's settled then. Let's split this pop stand and have some fun at Old Dudes.

Says the King of throwing topics off subject.  :o ;D

Lord & Master spoke ! How pathetic we are...  ;D

[magekiller]

this apt is on the list now I see lol