Would You Like a Bed With That?

I'm not exactly a fan of the gimmick-y promotions that some businesses will offer (a la the carrot on a stick) as a way of hopefully getting more people to try whatever it is that their hawking. Why does there have to be a gimmick? What's wrong with just making it cheap? Is it so that you're more apt to want to tell your friends about the gimmick because it will sound cool, but you're not so apt to want to tell your friends that you got a great deal because they'll think you're a cheapskate? Look, there's a difference between getting a good price and getting something that's cheap. And there's nothing wrong with cheap pricing! It doesn't mean someone is (necessarily) a cheapskate! It's financially sensible, for cryin' out loud!

But there's a hotel in San Diego which has managed to combine cheap pricing (sort of) with gimmicky (totally). The Rancho Bernardo Inn is currently taking reservations for their Survivor Package which is available August 16 through August 31. The Survivor Package includes Deluxe Accommodations and breakfast for two for only $219. But wait! There's more! Or less, as the case may be. See, That $219 includes everything that you would expect a hotel room to have. The question here is do you NEED to have all of those things? If there are certain things that you can go without, you can get the price down as low as 19 bucks! But that 19 bucks is for just the room. JUST the ROOM. As in four walls and a ceiling. As in nothing else. Not even a bed! Wait. No bed?

No bed. No lights either. Not to mention no toilet paper, pillows, air conditioning and/or heat either. The general manager is a one John Gates and according to CNN, Mr. Gates said that he and his staff "...wanted to come up with something different than the same promotions and discounts" while at the same time "We wanted to do something fun and clever." He claims that this Survivor Package is "a way of making the best of these bad economic times and trying to give customers an experience." So, you're taking the opportunity during "bad economic times" to show people what REALLY bad economic times would look like? No bed. No toilet paper. And there you are, crammed in a hot, dark, stuffy room and trying to sleep during these "bad economic times". Sounds sort of like the capitalist version of "If you don't stop crying I'll really give you something to cry about!" (No bed would make me cry.)

Now there are things I could absolutely do without. And I almost appreciated this deal for a minute there. But it's not quite so simple. See, they have the "amenities" on sort of a tiered pricing scale. If you could just pick and choose which things you could do without and have that amount deducted from the original cost, that could be very appealing. But the way they have it? Not so much. It kind of reminds me of a game on The Price is Right, but I'm not sure which one. Maybe the Grocery Game. (NOT Plinko! That I'm positive of.)

Here's how they have it priced out:

$199 without breakfast
$179 without honor bar
$159 without A/C or heat
$139 without pillows
$109 without sheets
$89 without lights
$59 without linens
$39 without toiletries
$19 without bed

I could go as low as no breakfast and no honor bar. (Is there a dishonor bar?) After all, I'm usually too drunk to eat breakfast, so there's not really a point in paying for those. No A/C? In the middle of August in San Diego? No way. But I could also go without the toiletries (like I can't pack my own toothpaste and little shampoos that I've lifted from other hotels?) and probably the pillows (if I'm packing my own toilet paper, I'll just chuck a pillow in there also). What are linens? Towels? See, I would have thought sheets were linens, but sheets have their own category, so I guess they're not. Regardless, I'll bring a towel just in case I feel like hosing off after my night of roughing it.

They don't specify as to whether or not "lights" is synonymous with "power". "Lights" I'm fine with not having. The light emulating from the TV will be plenty, thanks. "Power" I am not so fine with not having. It's really hard to get your laptop online without any power. Also, it doesn't say if "sheets" includes "blankets". Maybe blankets are linens? Who knows? But they really should specify. Again, I'd be fine without sheets, but I do prefer some sort of textile material draped over my body as I slumber. It's comfortable.

And while they were doing all right towing the gimmicky line for a while, they seemed to get a little bit carried away and went just a tad too far in my opinion. Mr. Gates explains the situation should you get down to the point where you're willing to for go a bed by saying, "For $19 a night, a customer gets a shell with a tent inside." Behold!

This is quite possibly one of the more ridiculous things that I've ever seen and/or heard of. I'm guessing that management or whomever is responsible for decisions such as this one, are unclear as to the purpose of a tent. See, one uses a tent when there is no roof from which to protect them from that which is overhead. Tents are commonly used out of doors where there is NO ceiling. But when one is indoors, there is little use for a tent as you already have the main component that the tent serves to provide. The CEILING! The ROOF! Both of them? Overhead? Both of them? In a hotel! What in the hell good is a tent going to do me? Seriously! What is the purpose of the tent? Unless you're shoving me out onto the balcony and then locking the door behind me, I'm not so sure that I have ANY use for a tent if I am actually INSIDE of the room.

I think that if it weren't for the tent thing, it might not be such a bad idea. But the tent? Too much. Toooooo much. Unless they're going to expand this promotion and take it to the next level by going down to ten bucks, but for that price, you're in your room with nothing but a tent...and some other lodger with his own tent! It'd be like your own little indoor KOA. THEN the tent would be appropriate. (Of course, the whole idea overall seems somewhat inappropriate, but they started it! I'm just throwing ideas out there.)

I do kind of like the idea of paying just for what you want to use. It's sort of like a lifestyle version of a vending machine. Look at the selection, see what you'd like, and choose accordingly. I'll be interested to know how much repeat business they get from folks who tried the $19 room and then thought, "You know, this wouldn't be half bad with a bed. We should come back some time and give that a try." Actually, I'm more interested in how many folks go for the $19 room and then after about an hour show up at the front desk wanting to upgrade to a room with a bed in it! I mean, a deal is a deal and all, but this is a hotel room floor we're talking about!

Sphere: Related Content

Economical Hookers In London

Today I learned that it is cheap, very cheap, we're talking dirt cheap, to get a hooker in London. London whores? Extremely inexpensive. I also learned that there are many, many, many brothels in London at which to find and pay for the cheap ass whores. Who knew? I'm guessing the Londoners, but other than them? Well, not me.

There's a group called the POPPY Project in Southwark and their purpose and mission is to "provide education about prostitution and to help victims of sex trafficking." That according to the fine chaps across the pond at BBC News. Therefore, to fulfill that mission, they had their researchers pose as "potential punters" ("Punters"? Is that British for "john"? They have to have their little names for everything, don't they?) and call some brothels that they found advertising in newspapers. Wow. Whorehouses in the newspaper. While that's interesting, it's not exactly the most shocking part of this aspect of the story. No, that aspect would be that those whorehouses that they called? Yeah, there were 921 of them.

921 brothels in London?! 921 whorehouses?! What's the average number of whores per house in London? I don't know either, but let's assume it's 5. (I realize that's a low estimate, but the number is going to seem huge as it is. I see no need to get carried away.) That would mean that there are 4605 whores in London. That's approximately 28 whorehouses for each of London's 33 boroughs. (A borough is basically like a town or a city. There they go again with their fancy little names. What's wrong with just "town", London?) Holy whorehouse, now THAT'S a lot of whores.

(Say, is there a correct term for when more than one hooker gathers in the same location at the same time? Like a gaggle? A flock? A herd? A pride? (Oh, it most certainly is not called a "pride of hookers". The term "hooker" itself automatically implies that it is devoid of any "pride" in the first place.) I'm just going to go with "handful". A handful of hookers. Catchy, no?)

So, the sneaky, punter posing researchers learned that some of the brothels charge as low as £15.

Now, over there in the UK, they don't use the Euro. No, as we've already learned, the UK needs to be all fancy, so their unit of currency is pounds sterling. (Pounds sterling? Rather pretentious sounding, don't you think?) Pounds sterling is represented by the " £ " sign, which is yet another pretentious UK personalization. To convert pounds sterling to US dollars, every £1 is the equivalent of approximately $1.772 USD. Thus, £15 would convert to $26.58. For a hooker!

Look, I know the economy is rough and all, but less than thirty bucks for a whore? And while she is a whore and all, even thirty bucks seems low for a whore. The article does say that if you want unprotected sex, that can run you another £10 or $17.72 USD. (Me, personally, I'd be wanting to pay extra for super-duper, over protected sex. She IS a hooker, remember?) That's $44.30 for unprotected sex with a hooker in London. You can't go on a date with a non-hooker for less than $50! Holy canoli! And the article doesn't mention a coupon or frequent flyer program or anything like that, so I can only assume it's just the regular going rate.

By the way, if you're the sort of person who this sort of thing appeals to, well, thanks for reading. But aside from that, if you're going to partake in such an activity, might I suggest that you don't actually count out the change for the hooker? Think of it as a tip, perhaps? But don't be asking her if she has a penny or anything like that. Just fork over the cash and get down to it. (I'm sure that information is available on a brochure at the Chamber of Commerce there in London, but his way, you'll already be prepared.)

With prices like those, how profitable are these brothels anyway? Good question. The answer will shock you (especially when you factor in the $26.58 per whore price tag). The researchers estimated that "the brothels generated between £50m to £130m a year." Here's a bit of foreshadowing: That little "m" after the 50 and the 130? Yeah, that's stands for "millions". And after I do the math, you will know that turns out to between $88,600,000 and $230,100,000! WTF?!?!

OK, something is wrong with their math! There is no way in hooker hell or hooker heaven (depending upon your perspective) that those slut sanctuaries are generating millions and millions of dollars or pounds sterling or whatever the hell unit of currency you horny bastards are forking over to them hand over fist (innuendo so implied!). NO way! Oh, wait a minute. I forgot that there were 921 of them, for cryin' out loud! Geez. You just don't think of someplace like London having 921 brothels, you just don't! So then that comes out to approximately $249,837 per brothel in London per year. And some of these chicks are doing it for less than fifty bucks per punter! (See? I can be uppity and British too!)

Actually, according to these researchers, the "average price for full sex was about £62." That's a little over $108 USD. And while that's more reasonable for the person getting paid for all of the sex, it's still an abomination. I'll bet that even if Wal-Mart had hookers, they'd get paid more than that! But what is "full sex"? After you've eaten? The article doesn't say.

And here comes the scientific conclusion that the researchers arrived at: "This research shows the disturbing prevalence of the sex industry in every corner of London - fuelled by the demand for prostitution services." First of all, what in the hell else would it be fuelled by if not the "demand for prostitution services"? And second, why is what is being focused on the "prevalence of the sex industry on every corner in London"? Personally, I'd be more concerned about the seemingly insatiable "demand for prostitution services" in London. I mean, shouldn't you want to know why those uppity Brits are so damned horny randy all the time that they need a brothel on every corner like they were 7-11s? The brothels are just meeting a need. Don't blame the brothel!

So what have we learned today? More than any of us wanted to, that is correct. But let's review anyway.

You can get a hooker in London just about anywhere you go for very, very cheap. It has been estimated (by me) that there are thousands of whores working the many, many brothels in London for a mere pittance paid in pounds sterling every time they jump in the sack with a punter. (And not the kind of punter that you'll find in the NFL, either. Well, not always that kind of punter.) We also learned that the whorehouses make a boatload of money every year. And finally, we learned that sometimes, when they feel it's necessary, scientists/researchers can be very, very sneaky in conducting their little experiments and gathering all of their data. But probably only the British ones are like that. I'm sure that the scientists and researchers in this country (even the ones working for the Federal Government) aren't sneaky hardly at all.

Sphere: Related Content