Tuesday, May 14, 2013

The Worst That Could Happen?

From time to time I will call your attention to a story where a business disaster happened against all logic; when there really wasn’t anything the management team or anyone on the payroll could have done to prevent the problem, and even the other stakeholders were caught by surprise. There is no way you could have predicted that turkey vultures would take a shine to a hospital and start roosting on the windowsills of patient rooms, for example, or that a sudden (world-wide, web-based) interest in the output from your small soda bottling plant will draw so much attention that the franchisor will decide that you have violated your territorial limits and threaten to pull your franchise. The idea that people might use the Linked-In business networking site to advertise escort and prostitution services, however, shouldn’t have been all that hard to predict…

You can pick up the Business Insider story here if you want to, but the basic idea is simple: since personal “adult services” like prostitution are legal in many parts of the world, and since business people are the primary demographic targeted by such services in the first place, a number of individuals involved in that “business” sector have started listing their services on Linked-In. Of course, most of the listings on Linked-In that mention prostitution directly are from law enforcement, medical, criminal defense law or governmental personnel who deal with the criminal aspects of the business, but apparently enough escort services and massage therapists advertise on the site to push matters into the grey area. What makes this story remarkable is that Linked-In is trying to suppress such listings…

Craig’s List has been having problems, both customer relations and legal, with services of this type for years now, and has actually attempted to eliminate the “Adult Services” category on their site more than once. Unfortunately, none of their efforts at suppressing these ads has had any effect on either the popularity or the profitability of such services. As a result, those individuals (and organizations) selling sex on Craig’s List have just changed the euphemisms they were using for prostitution and continued on as escort services for lonely business people who are only in town for a few days, massage therapists who work in the nude, or dating services for people who don’t mind paying to get laid. There is no possible way for Craig’s List to eliminate all possible euphemisms for sex services from its site, and even if they did they would have no way to identify apparently legitimate businesses that are merely a front for these (or any other) criminal enterprises…

If anything, Linked-In has it worse, both because of the aforementioned legal sex services and also because their business model is predicated on retaining a professional, businesslike image. Crag’s List and the other Internet bulletin-board sites make no pretense of professionalism; you can sell a sack of fertilizer you made at home or offer your new fertilizer gift pack (“Smith’s Can ‘O Crap!”) without any pretense of reaching out to a community made up entirely of businesspeople in expensive suits. Adult escort services – or even genuine call-girls – would probably raise the tone of many transactions carried out on some of those sites. But there’s no way anyone is going to pay the (outrageously high) rates Linked-In demands in order to gain access to an online community frequented by “undesirable elements” – let alone try to put those charges onto their expense account…

But while the motivation for trying to keep such businesses – and professionals – off the Linked-In service is obvious, what the company intends to do about it is not. Criminals in general are not known for their willingness to adhere to company policy; companies that already operate in a legal grey area are unlikely to be impressed by a private company trying to tell them what to do. And anyone who runs a search on Linked-In using those particular key words probably already knows that such individuals and organizations are represented on the site. I’m not saying that Linked-In should just give up and let anyone who wants to do business over their service do so; I’m just suggesting that a strongly-worded policy is unlikely to have any effect on the outcome…

No comments: