• Avoidance of Publicly Reviewed Venues—even if Purely Positive—by Our Niches Many members of our niches are concerned that public reviews of venues they visit could pose uncontrollable exposure risks to them. Especially among Review Sites that Accept User Photos

  Misaligned Impetus to Topic of Reviews

  Avoidance of Reviews Despite Thousands of Verified, Prepaid Reservations via Online Travel Agencies

  A primary objective of our niches is to avoid uncontrolled exposure. The usual foci of mass markets in hospitality and routine conferences involve opposing interests. Even a purely positive review about us would open risky exposures, and would therefore be harmful. People who are not relevant to our services often cannot comprehend these concepts.

  People outside of our niches occasionally express frustration about the proportionately small quantity of reviews about us on online travel agencies, despite how we have had thousands of verified, prepaid reservations through online travel agencies, since making ourselves available to the public, instead of being purely private. Our core markets generally stay away from anywhere that would have detailed reviews, but we are grateful for the high quality of reviews from relevant, longtime clients of our core markets who provide competent and informative reviews.

  Are you searching for amateur reviews about us so that you can ascertain whether you would want to stay with us? We'll save you the trouble by being earnest and up-font. No, merely the search itself indicates that your preferences are likely misaligned with our specialties. You would probably be better served by a mass-market hotel.

  We are occasionally presented with unsolicited reports from search-engine consultants (complete with appallingly detailed user information gleaned from tracking cookies) showing the large numbers of searches for reviews about us. Most members of our core markets, and the general realm of privacy protection, strongly avoid the irretractable security compromises of social media.  Likewise, almost any high-security facility, safety refuge (such as a panic room or contracted paramilitary bunker), or private residence of a high-profile family would obviously not allow the essentially unrestricted public access, effectively unlimited photography (frequently including candid exposures of other patrons, which are often copied by other sites worldwide that are not limited by privacy laws), or intrusive (and often false or out-of-context) social-media exposures that are rampant with customary US hotels.  Although slightly more focused, the Web sites that host amateur reviews and discussion boards pose the same types of risks, for which most members of our client niches instinctively avoid needless exposure. 

  

  Merely asking the question about reviews would suggest that someone is not pertinent to our core specialties; therefore, we (again) respectfully recommend that such travelers would be recommend that the preferences of such travelers would be better aligned with mass-market hotels. Our primary niches are profiled by clicking here. Anyone who is within our niches would seek to maintain a low profile.

  The longstanding culture among the honorable professionals of some of our niches involves using deliberately vague verbiage with specifically understood definitions. In their context, the "way of life" pertains to an ingrained sense of self-aware discreetness. To post anything online with inherent acknowledgments of travel destinations and schedules would be a foolish and needless exposure. Regardless, most of our clients are extremely busy high-profile and/or high-risk wealthy individuals, and most such individuals would not usually spend their time writing an amateur review.

  Almost everyone in certain professions of foreign relations and high security maintains a constant way of life that includes being discreet. Congruent with safehouse fundamentals, our longtime clients know that we historically never had an interior or exterior picture of any safehouse-related facility, even if merely to convey a concept, and that we certainly never published any related address (or neighborhood whereabouts) in any publicly accessible medium, even being careful about only using single-instance corporate holdings of real estate leases (not ownership).

  An introductory explanation of the value of such professionals is provided by clicking here.

• Some Members of Socialist Cultures Prejudice against Our Niches and Services by Some Personas

  Niches Drawing Ire from Micro-Cultures

  People and businesses in covert fields related to ours draw the prejudice of antagonistic and anarchist groups:

  • conspiracy theorists who use malice, libel, and tortious business interruption against the types of people they believe are trying to hurt them;
  • anti-capitalists (especially those who do not like investment bankers and corporate executives);
  • those who do not comprehend the peacekeeping benefits of clandestine foreign affairs;
  • those who are spiteful or jealous towards successful leaders (actually, conspicuous consumption is contrary to the interests of our discretion-oriented clients, but some people instantly associate our high prices with being for luxury—not primarily for security);
  • people who tend to jump to conclusions and to assume the worst; and
  • various other acerbic groups.

  

• Verified Reviews

  Online Travel Services that
  Verify Each Submission

  Fortunately, some online travel services only accept reviews of their customers who have been verified to have reserved and to have completed the relevant travel.

  Inevitably, now that we offer services to the general public, some members of those aforementioned groups will stumble into reservations with us, and we only hope that they will use extremely careful precision and not to stray into libel or other tortious misdeeds.

Examples of Aligned Niches

• Referrals by Transactional Attorneys Business • Talent • Finance • Military

  Legal Clients

  We should explain about how our legal-services market segment tends to be averse to online posts. Our concept partially originated as a service to legal clients, for whom our associated attorneys who enable privacy while aggressively and sophisticatedly responding to defamation, libel, slander, breaches of confidentiality, business interruption, and other tortious damages.

  

• IC of USA Friendlies

  US-Friendly IC

  Some consumers do not automatically consider that clients who hold the deepest and most grateful loyalties to us customarily would regard an online review—despite being thoroughly positive—as normally having harmful or risky effects.

  Almost everyone in certain relevant professions of USA/UK/Israeli-friendly foreign relations and high security maintains a constant way of life that includes being discreet. Congruent with safehouse fundamentals, our longtime clients know that we historically never had an interior or exterior picture of any safehouse-related facility, even if merely to convey a concept, and that we certainly never published any related address (or neighborhood whereabouts) in any publicly accessible medium—being careful about only using single-instance corporate holdings of real estate leases (not ownership).

  (Anyone reading this who is a member of the IC would know about the bureaucratic role changes of lawyers and financial executives in the field.  We are from the Cold War generations.  In the 1990s, there was a dramatic change of roles and legal-related culture.)

  In this way of life, to post anything about one's opinions of brethren, positively or negatively, would be—at best—irresponsibly dangerous, or could even be treasonously selfish.  Under the circumstance wherein we represent a vital service, on which clients sensitively depend for their security and the security of others, the natural stance would be to protect that fragile resource with discretion.  To post a review would go against the fundamental reasons to stay with us.  Inherently, nobody from our core markets would want to stay somewhere with excessively publicized details, regardless of the format.  The requests to loyal clients for online reviews was met by enthusiastic willingness to be supportive, coupled with a nervousness of asking what could be written online.

  Some consumers are naïve in believing that an ostensibly anonymous post cannot be easily traced (no, a simple VPN is insufficient).

  Concepts of familial culture abound in the IC, and we care for our clients with family-like discretion. Therefore, nobody in our core markets would ever think to waste their time whining or pretentiously evaluating consumer-style hospitality.  To our knowledge, we have never had a client from our core communities who determined that we did not provide sufficient care, thereby deciding against using us in the future (although some have decided that they cannot justify our expense, which is reasonable and understandable).

  With images distorted by movies that attempt to integrate exciting elements of renegade action-filled heroism, most members of relevant communities would be better described as self-sacrificially loyal heroes.  To avoid misunderstanding, we should mention widespread philosophies in the friendlies IC of entrepreneurially pro-capitalistic self-reliance.  Trust, loyalty, and duty are all constantly vital.