Ethics in Advertising?

[Guest t****ster***ke]

I am curious what the cerb community thinks about providers creating profiles on dating sites for the purpose of soliciting business. After a few exchanges, they offer their time in exchange for compensation. I realize it probably serves as an excellent opportunity, as freshly rejected men are a pretty soft target. Does anyone find that this practice crosses an ethical line?

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

Ethical advertising? Isn't that an oxymoron?

[EmilyRushton 253370]

Personally I think its wrong...Either you are looking to benefit your business or your looking for a personal piece. You cant have both, but if you are a companion you don't need to be on a dating site with your SP Photos.

[IsaMassage 54318]

Personally I think its wrong...Either you are looking to benefit your business or your looking for a personal piece. You cant have both, but if you are a companion you don't need to be on a dating site with your SP Photos.

 

 

I have to agree 100% with Emily in this one...

[Hoppinhorny 1219]

I was about to say the same thing! :)

 

Ethical advertising? Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

 

Now, if said advertisement makes no mention of compensation and completely leads the 'customer' to believe it is truly personal and not a business thing, then yes, it is very wrong. If it is not mentioned but comes out in conversation later (before meeting), then I would say that's being very deceptive and is not appropriate...

 

The type of people that make ads like that though tend to have no sense of ethics anyways, so unfortunately we'll never see it stated upfront by said people...

[CristyCurves 169032]

Does anyone find that this practice crosses an ethical line?

 

Where or how someone advertises is really up to them, wether or not I think it is ethical is pointless as it's not going to stop them . Many will question the ethics in hobbing and providing, that won't stop me. To each their own. I would say if somone is trying to snag clients there and you get that sense while you or someone else is searching ads ask upfront then you'll know and be able to choose to go forward or to cease communication.

[roamingguy 300292]

Completely unethical. You go on sites like CERB to seek out professional companions. Likewise, you would go on a dating site to seek dates. To me a SP marketing herself on a dating site is practicing bait and switch advertising.

And there is no reason for an SP to advertise on a dating site. Seeing escorts is legal, and escort recommendation boards like CERB are legal.

So why a SP would advertise on a dating site where the guys are looking for dates, not escorts, escapes me

RG

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

If they advertise on sites such as LL and the like, you would get banned pretty quickly for discussing anything related to their SP work in their ad profile so...

 

I too think it's technically deceptive but I don't have a big problem if they stick to the "intimate" sections on dating sites. For attached people, using SP's is a much better option than hooking up with someone on a dating site anyway. Believe me, I've run into some crazies on "dating" sites and prefer CERB!

 

I have a bigger problem with women on dating sites posting numerous profiles in the relationships, dating AND intimate sections. Leave the intimate section for those people just looking for sex only. I'm sure you can find sex in the dating and relationships section! Don't mean to rant but, c'mon!

[loopie 15358]

Does this happen often??? It seems like bad business to me because the SP is investing a lot of time and effort to set herself up for either rejection or haggling.

[SamanthaEvans 166766]

Dating sites are very good at banning SPs who use the sites to find business so I can't imagine that it's a good use of a lady's time to try to advertise there. One complaint is all it takes to get banned.

[mrgreen760 37785]

Ethics like a lot of things in this game is in the eye of the beholder.....

 

Peace

MG

[IsaMassage 54318]

Completely unethical. You go on sites like CERB to seek out professional companions. Likewise, you would go on a dating site to seek dates. To me a SP marketing herself on a dating site is practicing bait and switch advertising.

And there is no reason for an SP to advertise on a dating site. Seeing escorts is legal, and escort recommendation boards like CERB are legal.

So why a SP would advertise on a dating site where the guys are looking for dates, not escorts, escapes me

RG

 

That is so true... Even when it comes to sites where a mutually benefitiial relationship is presented... Or so called "sugar daddies" sites... One thing is proffesional companionship and other very different is present yourself as someone that is interested in a personal relationship and thenturns out you are actually there to find cleints. Mixing personal and business never a good idea.

 

To Mr. G... Not really there is still a minimum of not just business ethics.., but just the kind of person you are...

[Guest t****ster***ke]

Where or how someone advertises is really up to them, wether or not I think it is ethical is piontless as it's not going to stop them.

 

i see your point, but i am not really trying to stop them, just curious what the prevailing thought on Cerb was, because for the most part, the ethical standards on here exceed most business environments. maybe it's to counter act the social stigma placed on the industry, but the Cerb SP's i have had the pleasure of meeting have been more professional than the people i do business with every day.

 

not trying to change the world, just trying to learn a little more about it ;)

[Tallguy007 4172]

Dating sites are very good at banning SPs who use the sites to find business so I can't imagine that it's a good use of a lady's time to try to advertise there. One complaint is all it takes to get banned.

 

I agree; reputable web site are those which work to ensure that they are providing what they are offering: to match up people looking for relationships. You get what you pay for.

 

I did the dating sites a little while back and the "too good to be true" profiles would get deleted rather quickly. At the same time, I didn't know about cerb back then so I wouldn't have been averse to meeting an SP, knowing what she looked like (which you don't get from newspaper ads) and having an established line of communication (really nerve-racking for the hobbyist-wannabe to make that first contact). Looking for love sometimes takes time, and every now and then it's nice to release a little pressure.

 

These are nowhere as bad as the outright scammers, though. These are outright after your money with no interest in ever even meeting you. My first contact on such a web site was a Greek woman living in Ghana. Turns out Ghana is Nigeria for romance scams. "Too good to be true" saved my ass here again.

[marc123 281]

Does not make sense to me why someone would waist their time on dating site unless they are trying to get new clients to open their eyes to this industry. I definitely don't think there is a lack of clients and good ones.

[Jabba 18389]

I'm gonna play a little of the Devil's Advocate here & side with those who believe "ethics" is a relative term....this is especially true in advertising (or anything else in the worldly, human culture).

 

A long time ago during my University years, I had a little debate with one of my profs. I was taking a course in Design. My prof had experience in designing weapons. I asked him if he was comfortable in the knowledge that the sole purpose of the product he was designing was intended to end life. Wow - talk about a loaded, ethical question!

 

Now, I have no love of weaponry. I had/have my personal belief system. Is a death causing agent a necessary evil?...IMO, they have their place and you can debate that 'till the cows come home.

 

Back to my point. My prof responded as: "If you don't do it, somebody else will". I heard that tired old rationale many times. On that day, my ethics were outraged & challenged. As much as I hated to admit it, he was right. I remember that lesson to this day.

 

I wish I could live in a world where "ethics" were applied equally across the board for all of humanity for all time. Does anyone actually think that's realistic for all cultures or even going to happen for North America?

 

So I'm not going to equate death & weaponry to truth in advertising - but I believe there is a common theme here. If an SP chooses to cast a net in a market designed for earnest singles & finds no takers, or they get banned - they will soon abandon the effort. The market will eventually even things out.

 

But, if an SP finds takers on the dating sites - there may be gold in undiscovered country. How can any SP smile and be comfortable in the knowledge they are being "ethical" and going bankrupt while their competitors are gaining a financial advantage by being "unethical". My prof's words will ring true: "If you don't do it, somebody else will". Who will debate the ethics of this practice now?

 

Harsh, eh?

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

Ah, rationalization rears it's ugly head.

 

Jabba, I know your just playing the devils advocate here so this isn't directed at you but, I think I remember reading about Nazi soldiers saying something similar during the holocaust "if I don't do it, someone else will".

If those soldiers refused to participate they may have been killed so this may not be a great example but generally, rationalizations are always self-serving and hasten our descent.

 

We all do it consciously and even to some extent sub consciously(to block internal feeling of guilt). In todays society rationalization seems to be a virtue, certainly in business. The real virtue is to have the courage of your convictions. Without your convictions there is no courage!

 

I am in a mood today! Sorry for yet another rant!

[SamanthaEvans 166766]

As I said, above, I don't think that dating sites are great places for finding prospective clients. Good profiles take a lot of time to write. Escorts' profiles are quickly banned, making the sites a poor return on one's time investment.

 

Having said that, let's not over-praise the integrity of these sites' users. Every profile presents its author in their best or most ideal light, including, for example, accidentally forgetting to mention that one is already married.

 

Even when it comes to sites where a mutually benefitiial relationship is presented... Or so called "sugar daddies" sites... One thing is proffesional companionship and other very different is present yourself as someone that is interested in a personal relationship and thenturns out you are actually there to find cleints. Mixing personal and business never a good idea.

 

There are different opinions about "sugar babies" and "kept women." I'm pretty hard-nosed about it: if he wouldn't give her money unless she has sex with him, it's paid companionship. If a lady wants to consider herself to be something else, that's up to her.

 

We have different business models, too. I do, indeed, have personal relationships with my clients. They tend to be relationships that happen, say, every Thursday morning, but over time the level of personal and intimate engagement is considerable. This is a model that works for me. Other companions work differently.

 

While the Sugar Daddy sites purport to be all about the ongoing relationship, many, perhaps even most, of the men are not always looking for something quite so steady and regular, but seek occasional playtime with one or several women. Even "sugar babies" have a hard time finding those ongoing, stereotypical benefactors.

 

If an SP chooses to cast a net in a market designed for earnest singles & finds no takers, or they get banned - they will soon abandon the effort. The market will eventually even things out.

 

But, if an SP finds takers on the dating sites - there may be gold in undiscovered country. How can any SP smile and be comfortable in the knowledge they are being "ethical" and going bankrupt while their competitors are gaining a financial advantage by being "unethical". My prof's words will ring true: "If you don't do it, somebody else will". Who will debate the ethics of this practice now?

 

Frankly, I agree. I would never advise someone not to advertise somewhere just because the clientele or readership may not expect to find her there. When I manage to convince the editorial board of National Geographic, Scientific American, or even GQ to accept my very tasteful, carefully-worded ad, I'll be paying for the space.

 

Jabba, I know your just playing the devils advocate here so this isn't directed at you but, I think I remember reading about Nazi soldiers saying something similar during the holocaust "if I don't do it, someone else will". If those soldiers refused to participate they may have been killed so this may not be a great example but generally, rationalizations are always self-serving and hasten our descent.

 

With the greatest respect, Steve, comparisons with the Nazis are invidious at best. Speaking for myself, when my children's father had descended to refusing to support our children if they lived with me, my only options were between entering the sex trade or losing them. My choice was not a self-serving rationalization, it was the right thing to do. What it took to find clients was also right and appropriate.

 

I say: Ladies, advertise where you can. No matter who you are or where you post, most of the men who read your ads will take a pass. Don't be discouraged. Be careful, be diligent, be creative and resourceful, ask other ladies for help and feedback. You only need some men to make bookings. It's hard to know where you may find them, but they're out there.

[Jabba 18389]

Ah, rationalization rears it's ugly head.

 

Jabba, I know your just playing the devils advocate here so this isn't directed at you but, I think I remember reading about Nazi soldiers saying something similar during the holocaust "if I don't do it, someone else will".

If those soldiers refused to participate they may have been killed so this may not be a great example but generally, rationalizations are always self-serving and hasten our descent.

 

We all do it consciously and even to some extent sub consciously(to block internal feeling of guilt). In todays society rationalization seems to be a virtue, certainly in business. The real virtue is to have the courage of your convictions. Without your convictions there is no courage!

 

I am in a mood today! Sorry for yet another rant!

 

Steve - in the spirit of friendly debate, thanks for your reference to Nazis - you are a rascal. I like it :biggrin:!.

 

I have some dear German friends who would just love to frolic and dance and roll around & ridicule this reference. Trust me, they have a genuine sense of humour & opinion on this topic too. They have no love of Nazis.

 

Being a child of the era, I think I need to provide a realistic spin on the Nazis. Nazis were not about rationalization, but they presented an opportunity for self-determination and freedom from an oppressive treaty. The Nazis were a political movement spawned by the Treaty of Versailles. The centre-piece was a man who saw opportunity and was an expert manipulator. The Nazi party overwhelmed the gentle, agrarian population & deceived & manipulated & bullied the population into aggressive posture.

 

I can assure you there was no reference to anything like: "if I don't do it, someone else will"....that is absolute falsehood. I ask you to quote who said that!

 

What I can assure you is that generally, people who were found guilty of war crimes said that they were "only following orders".

 

Let's not deceive ourselves and re-write any history in the interests of making a point on ethics. I believe ethics can be observed as a baseline behaviour in a certain social context. If the behaviour is accepted, it is ethical. Nothing more. If killing for weakness is acceptable, then it's ethical.

 

Let me gently return to my point that ethics are a matter of perspective.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

Hi Samantha,

 

I don't know how to highlight sections of posts but, point taken about Nazi's. I respect your thinking and realize I could have picked a better analogy and apologize for offending anyone.

 

Btw, I don't think what you did requires rationalization as I don't feel sex work needs to be rationalized, in my mind anyway.

 

However and with equal respect, I still stick to my overriding point though that rationalization(or making excuses, as I define it) is self serving. When someone rationalizes something they are trying to find reasons that favor their foregone conclusion.

 

I take the blame for getting us off track. As I said earlier, I'm in a mood today.

 

EDIT: Just saw your post Jabba. I meant only that the soldiers rationalized with something similar to "if I don't do it, someone else will". I wasn't quoting anyone other than your post and didn't mean to rewrite history. As mentioned, I take back the analogy. Best regards.

[MightyPen 67414]

I'm gonna play a little of the Devil's Advocate here & side with those who believe "ethics" is a relative term....this is especially true in advertising (or anything else in the worldly, human culture).

Points to you for doing the thankless devil's advocate job! :) As you'll see I disagree, but I don't hold your argument against you.

 

I have to say, though, that I don't think you've at all demonstrated that ethics are relative. Instead, what you've shown is that people will do clearly unethical things for selfish reasons.

 

On the subject of the SP trawling for clients on a dating site, it's clearly unethical; she's engaging with other people under a false premise. Worse, it's messing with at least some people where they're probably the most vulnerable. #1 cardinal rule of life: don't fuck with people's hearts.

 

As an aside: on the subject of weapons, it's a different matter entirely. Weapons are tools, and even lethal weapons can have perfectly ethical uses. Manufacturing a gun is no less ethical than manufacturing a hammer. (This is a different issue from how the distribution of weapons is regulated, something for which I'm a determined advocate.)

 

To elaborate on both cases at once: let's say that a meat factory is functioning up to health code, but sees that a competitor is achieving higher profits by cutting corners and rendering diseased cows along with healthy ones. This puts consumers at terrible risk. If the owner concludes "meh, might as well do it, everyone else is", that doesn't prove that ethics are relative. It proves that the owner is a miserable, greedy son of a bitch, and will do something objectively unethical in the pursuit of a buck.

 

And that's how I would feel about anyone who trawls for paying clients on dating sites.

 

Note: No Nazis had their reputations harmed in the production of this post.

[lipualipua 4704]

@ Jabba: you wrote:" Let me gently return to my point that ethics are a matter of perspective".

Whose perspective? Friend, you advocate disaster for if, according to my ethics, deceiving people and defrauding them is right, who is to tell me that it is wrong and impose sanctions should I so act?

 

You also wrote: "If an SP chooses to cast a net in a market designed for earnest singles & finds no takers, or they get banned - they will soon abandon the effort. The market will eventually even things out."

Aaah, the market! the market!. The invisible hand of the market will weed out the impostors after these have destroyed some wretched hearts

[Jabba 18389]

 

I have to say, though, that I don't think you've at all demonstrated that ethics are relative. Instead, what you've shown is that people will do clearly unethical things for selfish reasons.

 

Note: No Nazis had their reputations harmed in the production of this post.

 

Selfish perhaps..but that's a value judgement. I mean that in the politest possible (and maybe the most annoying) way. I have an alternate POV: Maybe it's just an innovative business approach. Isn't all business based on the premise of profit? As a business entity you have to be prepared to explore and innovate.

 

I think those who engage in on-line courtships are now well aware of the dating environment. I think the playing field is relatively level for those who are prepared or wish to be informed of the risks in engaging in on-line dating.

 

Unethical - the jury is still in session. I haven't seen anything unethical yet. If you believe otherwise, show me. The meat market is the meat market - Caveat emptor.

 

Otherwise - Freaking love your sense of humour!! :icon_lol:

Have you seen "The producers"?

[MightyPen 67414]

Selfish perhaps..but that's a value judgement.

Maybe it's just an innovative business approach. Isn't all business based on the premise of profit? As a business entity you have to be prepared to explore and innovate.

Dude! :) Let's stick with the meat packer for the moment. You can't really believe that tossing in sick cows is just an innovative approach to business. It's plainly, purely wrong. People could get sick or die. It's freakin' evil. Putting other people's health at risk to protect a profit is purely selfish, and in a really bad way.

 

Let's venture further. Let's say people get sick, and it's traced back to the plant and they have to shut down. Awesome! The market prevails, right? And it's this risk that keeps people from doing the sick-cow thing. No need for abstract ethics.

 

But... no. A thousand times NO. First off, people may be dead; the market isn't going to help them. But even if nobody gets sick, it was innately unethical because each and every time, the owner risked his customers' health dishonestly. That the risk wasn't realized doesn't make it alright.

 

(And if you're not sure about that... let's say I invite you over to my house but, while you're busy studying my art collection, I secretly take out a gun and point it at you. I also roll a die. I promise myself that if I roll a 6, I'll shoot you. I roll the dice ten times and never get a 6. I put the gun and die away. Were my actions ethical because you're still alive?)

 

Businesses, and markets, promote one single, solitary driving imperative: effective behaviour. "Does it make a profit? Then it's okay!" That's not anywhere remotely the same thing as ethical behaviour, unless by coincidence. The market is neither an angel, nor a devil: it's absolutely a-moral. The problem is, lots and lots of people still inexplicably confuse markets and business with angels.

 

I think those who engage in on-line courtships are now well aware of the dating environment. I think the playing field is relatively level for those who are prepared or wish to be informed.

If the consumer is informed up front that professionals may respond to ads, then everything is cool. Noboody is lying. But if the site purports otherwise, it's not; people have resorted to outright lies to bait their hook. The site has rules, and everyone should obey them. Even if the consumer knows "professionals may be here trying to scam you", that doesn't make the deceivers' behaviour ethical; they're a problem people must actively avoid, and make the whole site worse for everyone. Similarly, just because I "should" know ahead of time that being in some parts of the city at the wrong time means I might get mugged, that doesn't make the muggers ethical.

 

OH, I could go on! :) However... this is CERB, not r/ethics, so I think I'll probably leave it there.

 

Otherwise - Freaking love your sense of humour!! :icon_lol:

Have you seen "The producers"?

Totally! "Springtime for Hitler". Under the right circumstances, even the most taboo stuff can be hilarious. (Didn't help Roberto Benigni with Life is Beautiful, though, at least with a lot of people. I was one of those who liked the movie a lot.)

[PatrickGC 10792]

Personally I think its wrong...Either you are looking to benefit your business or your looking for a personal piece. You cant have both, but if you are a companion you don't need to be on a dating site with your SP Photos.

 

I am in total agreement as well.

 

Personally I would shy away from any person or conversation which shifted in intent from a casual play business proposition. That is a clear indication of problems ahead it regardless of the original intent. It also does a disservice in directly to other workers because it makes a mess of boundaries for readers, who might carry their assumptions over to other sites and conversations.

 

PatrickGC