Acerca de

Mountains in Fog

Alternative Screening Challenge

Challenge

​Do you have a novel, practicable way for clients to show they're safe and committed to a session to offset a companion's risk?

 

Please take an objectives-first approach to designing your mechanism. Put yourself in the companion's shoes: clients have multiple ways to be certain of a well-branded companion's legitimacy, but companions have nothing for clients who won't screen. Think about ways clients will game the system; take those into account and come up with a way to still reach the desired outcome.

 

Overview

Luxury companions in the US usually rely on a combination of references and personal / professional verification to screen clients. These methods aren't immune to falsification and have different benefits and drawbacks.

 

References from reputable companions are difficult to fake. They give a companion some assurance the client has behaved well in the past, but relying on references alone allows clients to shapeshift, evade blacklists, and selectively mistreat companions.

 

A client's legal identity is more permanent, but knowing a client's name doesn't mean it's easy to hold him accountable. The protection gained by knowing a client's identity can vary depending on the strength of his position, his risk tolerance, and his legal firepower.

 

Redundant screening methods offer stronger assurance of a client's authenticity, but stronger screening dissuade some clients from booking, which hurts the companion's income. Common client concerns include not having any references and fear of revealing personal information. I'm interested in experimenting with new screening methods that reduce friction on the client side while still protecting companion safety.

Purpose

To encourage the development of new, convenient screening methods that benefit both client and companion.

Judging

Judging will be based on the innovative nature and technical feasibility of your screening method, the credibility of your assumptions, and our ability to quickly put your method into practice.

The method should not put undue effort on the companion.

Prize

If you propose a new screening method that meets with my approval, I will screen you with your method instead of requiring your references and personal information.

 

But my hope is that you're doing this because you enjoy designing incentives and want to reduce friction in the industry for both clients and companions.

 


 

Bad ideas

  1. Meeting in public for an in-person interview

This puts the companion at risk, offers dubious protection, and rewards clients who won't screen with a free social session.

Risks and costs to the companion

  • Meeting in public gives clients the opportunity to observe the companion from afar (perhaps discreetly taking pictures of her, noting the make/model of her car and license place, and following her home).

  • Not all clients handle rejection well. Screening means turning some clients away, which is safe and straightforward online. Turning down a client in person puts the companion at risk of client aggression.

  • The client may no-show.

  • The companion loses time preparing for, traveling to, and conducting each meeting.

 


2. Chatting online to get to know each other

Arduous, uncertain benefit. Rewards clients who won't screen with extended conversation for free.

Proposals