Month: November 2009

Surveying Content

Posted on by Inara Pey

I’m a content creator. I’m not a major player; I’d don’t build as a “business” I build because a) it is creative, and I can build better than I can paint or draw in rl;  and b) the things I make are comparative quality-wise with other items in the same market categories and so selling them helps offset my land costs.

So… being something of a small fish, I was surprised to find an e-mail from Pink Linden (she who is “in charge” of XStreet and commerce). Here’s the content:

Second Life always seeks to improve your experience with us. In order to improve that experience, we are surveying merchant opinions to understand more about how you sell virtual goods now and how you might like to sell them in the future.

The survey presents several concepts that are example of ways Linden Lab might be able to further support Second Life merchants and the inworld economy. None of these concepts are currently on our development roadmap, they’re just hypothetical scenarios that we’d appreciate your thoughts on.

Please take the survey (link below) and give us your input. It should take about 10 minutes to complete.

Follow this link to the Survey:
[removed]

If you have questions about the validity of of this survey, I invite you to contact me in world.

Thank you in advance for your time,

Pink Linden

The link in question lead to a multi-page survey relating to XStreet, merchandising and what Linden Lab “might” do (and I’ve long ago learned that “might” in Lindenspeak tends to mean “will”). And it makes largely horrifying reading. To summarise:

  • LL are considering introducing an in-world vendor system that will provide a “guaranteed delivery” and “comprehensive sales statistics” that will allow merchants to sell the goods they have listed on XStreet in-world. The lab will take between a 10-15% “commission” on all sales passing through these vendors.
  • LL are considering a “cross listing service” whereby you can sell your item in-world, on XStreet and get a featured classified for 5-10USD per item you chose to have in this promotion.
  • LL are considering establishing a mall where merchant of any size can have a store for “free” (as in no tier), but LL will take a 30% commission on each and every sale.

Even if the above are being posited as being mutually exclusive to one another, they are all insidious.

  • In-world vendor system: err, these already exist and supplied by a range of in-world creators. Think Hippo, think Jevn, etc. So Linden Lab are now proposing extending their content creation efforts (which started with prefab sims) to compete drectly with established names in SL. Is this the thin edge of the wedge? Even the terminology “guaranteed delivery” is offensive as it is suggestive both that a) other systems are not as reliable (they are, almost ALL failures to deliver goods can be attributable to failures within the SL infrastructure rather than external websites) and/ or b) these vendors will magically circumvent said failings in the SL infrastructure.
  • Cross-posting: many content creators are not in it for the business, they are here for pleasure. As such, a $5-10 US DOLLAR (not Linden Dollar) per item would cripple their ability to “make” money. Thus, LL are immediately creating a favoured nations status of classified ads and promotions only available to those merchants with high turnover, while the smaller merchants are left to struggle onwards.
  • LL-defined mall: again, another opening to LL-defined and controlled content. And that’s assuming it would be “a mall”. Practically speaking, were any decent number of merchants to sign up for this option, LL would have to think seriously about multiple malls in order to (among other things) a) avoid crippling lag; b) provide sufficient space for creators (they promise to support “everyone”, so just 4 or 5 builders of residential properties are going to represent a massive investment in land area). And again, how many store holders will benefit? How many actually have 30% of their income floating around to justify taking up space in the “mall”? What about any existing stakeholdings in land they have? Again, high turnover merchants may benefit – but what about the smaller people. And there’s more: how is this “super mall” or mall network going to be promoted? What impact will it have on existing malls and stores? With (no doubt) MOTD banners point to it, e-mail drops to users, etc., just how much interference will it cause to other businesses of this time?

Beyond this, one has to question how any of these ideas will sit with some of the “content management roadmap” proposals. For example: Merchant A meets all the criteria outlined in the “roadmap” (has an account in good standing, has a turnover in excess of X, etc.), and goes through all the pain of registering as such. Merchant B however, forgoes sign-up because he does not have an account in good standing but opts to use “LL certified vendors” and/or take a slot in the “LL certified mall”. How do buyers distinguish between the two? Both would appear to be equally-well “certified”….

Some have said that even if enacted, these proposals will be voluntary, not mandated, and so they don’t present a “risk” or aren’t a matter of concern.

Wrong. While the programmes may not be mandatory (so those screaming about having to shell out more money can calm down) – the fact remains they will create more of a two-tier content retail environment. The are also setting a precedent for further direct competition with merchants – today vendor systems tomorrow houses or furniture or (God help us) “LL certified BDSM toys”? The mind boggles at the potential avenues for direct competition this opens up for LL.

True, were any one of these proposals (and I do rather suspect that, in typical LL “tried and trusted” “programmes” in the past, it’ll be more a case of were all three of these proposals rather than just one or two of them) to be implemented, the impact on in-world commerce would be initially small – but it would be cumulative over time. And it would be the smaller merchants hit the hardest due to their inability to compete with those who can afford LL’s effective patronage.

Then there is the risk of abuse – the risk that unscrupulous merchants can use these proposal to their advantage simply but throwing money at LL. As mentioned above, people can gain the appearance of being “LL certified” simply by using so-called “certified tools”.

These are bad ideas.

The only idea that potentially has merit, and the one I’ve not mentioned so far, is the “Merchant Marketing Program” which, in the LL spiel:

would provide exclusive use of branding systems, customized store systems (such as a custom URL/SLURL and web storefront), and automatic consideration for large scale promotions. Also included is a data dashboard to enable you to track purchases in real-time. Customer service tools such as AvaLine mean that you are always able to talk with your customers.

Membership in the merchant marketing program would be available at a cost of $10-100 USD monthly, depending on sales volume.

Providing people with the means to break out of the god-awful XStreet listing environment and present their goods in a branded, manageable web store is clearly a valuable and viable option. What is more, the fact that the commission charged is based on sales volumes means that this option becomes as affordable to small merchants (who may already be paying around $12 a month for promotional listing on XStreet to get noticed) get a dedicated storefront and URL they can promote themselves any way they like for potentially the same cost. For merchants operating large land areas, the option is equally attractive: land holdings (and associated tier) can be reduced in favour of a custom on-line store, with the need to retain only land sufficient enough to demo goods to those who wish to view before they buy.

Beyond these specific proposals, a final issue I had with the survey was it’s sheer intrusiveness. LL demanded to know, for example, my gender, age range, the hours I spend in SL, my preferred activity (singular) while in-world (I regard my interests here as being divided between building (+scripting / texturing), role-play, socialising and exploring – yet I could only define my time in terms of just one of these). It is hard to see how such questions could have an impact on any decision to implement one or more of these proposals – so why include them.

At the moment, the vociferous (and partly ill-informed) firestorm over on the LL blogrum related to this survey is a little over the top. BUT, by the same token, that yet another “marketing specialist” in LL is pushing an agenda that comes across as potentially hostile to some sectors of the community, people should be aware of these suggestions, and have a right to be concerned.

Further Confirmation

Posted on by Inara Pey

The other day, I posted a response to the Behind the Firewall product announcements. In it, and in a reply to a comment / question from Prokofy Neva , I stated pretty much that I felt that people were misunderstanding the SL Enterprise (as it is to be called) “model”  – and on two scales.

The first, and more trivial, is that some in SL have perceived the new product as applying to them  – even to the extent of expressing shock at the quoted price of $55,000 (I think people were expecting it to be a kind of “pay-to-use” content-populated OpenSim competitor.

The second mistake I tried to sum up in my response to Prok’s comment, where I stated:

This is why I really don’t think that the new channel [the “Work Marketplace”] is “the mecca for all content creators to aspire to”. The majority will be excluded simply on the basis of what they make. Joe Schmoe (or indeed Inara Schmoe) who makes nice houses and skyhouses isn’t going to cut the mustard. If corporate minds are going to want a shiny edifice in-world or on their squeaky-clean sim in a box, they’re going to want a Name behind it; someone with a Reputation and Qualifications. They are also not going to need comfy sofas, beds, lamps, cars, planes, boats, BDSM gear… and so on.
Thus, the channel will remain more of a funnel, bottlenecked at one end to prevent the “unsuitable” getting in while directing others to the status of favoured elite.

In other words, the Work Marketplace will be carefully filtered, throttled and guarded to prevent the likes of you and me participating because our wares are “no good enough”.

With the possible exception of Anne O’Toole, I seem to have been somewhat alone in voicing this view – even though the evidence is abundantly clear elsewhere. Hence, I’m a little surprised that Prok herself states outright disbelief at a recent statement by none other than Justin Bovington, CEO of Linden Lab’s bed mate, Rivers Run Red.

In the piece, Bovington states in reference to the Work Marketplace:

It has [to] be less Xstreet, more Wall Street. It has to reflect relevance, rather than drowning us all in deluge of content: clothing, furniture and avatars,” he wrote, adding “if [Linden Lab] attracts the right people to develop these apps, this could be the tipping point.

In other words, it will be the jealousy-guarded filter I described.

Bovington’s comments also tend to support the idea that the grid is to be further messed with – or as Amanda Linden euphemistically calls it, “improved” – as he also states:

We also think that Corporates will create a mixture of hybrid behind-the-firewall closed-off spaces on their Intranets and a private, gated Internet-accessible space for their partners and collaborators.

In other words, if he and his ilk get their way, stand by for a scenario I touched upon while commenting in Prok’s blog earlier today when commenting on the idea that avatars may soon be “streamed” by “type”:

This might be good from a sign-up perspective to some degree, but IF carried beyond that (admittedly a big “if” at the moment) I’m not entirely sure it’ll do SL any favours. With users so corralled / siloed, how hard would it be to start demarking areas of the grid as “no go” based on avatar type (e.g. your avatar is recorded as “role-play”, therefore “business only” regions are off limits to you)?

In reviewing the SLE product release, I referred to Amanda Linden’s seeming hostility toward the user base at large. In Bovington’s comments the hostility is now approaching a state of warfare.

The writing on the wall is becoming clearer every day. There are those  – as again I stated in my last post – who see SL a world of to unequal halves: those involved in corporate endeavours – and everyone else. And those of us in the latter category are to be tolerated, rather than embraced. To use a phrase I believe (in all fairness) Prok herself used not long ago: we are now the “legacy product”.

Behind the Firewall

Posted on by Inara Pey

Well, it’s here, with ballyhoo aplenty. The much-vaunted “behind the firewall product”.

Yippee, one might state. Others might be more ecstatic. Some, poor benighted souls, might even think it is for them (I did find it hilarious that one “SL businessman” expected the new “sim in a box” to cost around $100 USD, and was stunned at the $55,000 price tag!).

Make no mistake. This “solution” is not about, for, or really involving “business” as the majority of us in SL go about it. Nor is it really geared towards the education sector LL has (until recently) been treating as a possible bedfellow. No, make no mistake, the Behind-the-firewall “sim in a box” is aimed at one market and one market only: the big corporations.

You might say it is 2006-in-a-box. Remember back then, all the hype and trumpeting about SL being “the place” for business, with the like of NBC, Toyota, Nike, Coca-Cola and others flocking into SL….doing next to nothing and then stampeding out again six months later….

I really don’t know that this new product has a market or whether it has been built on wishes and daydreams. To read the hype, a lot of it has been specifically engineered in ways that suggest it goes far beyond the capabilities of the main grid. However, seeing is believing, and as I’ve not seen, I can say either way. Certainly, as a “next generation” communication tool, it’s going to have its work cut out to effectively and efficiently compete with the millions big corporations have invested in direct-to-the desktop communications and collaborative tool sets, the ability to host face-to-face meetings with the participants hundreds (or thousands) of miles apart (or separated be several floors in the same building) without the need to either ldeav their desks or poke around with some 3D “image” of themselves in a digital utopia…..

But…that isn’t my concern. so long as LL don’t hang all their hopes on this yet-to-be “solution” and as a result crash and burn should it crash and burn, I don’t really care if they hit the mark or shoot themselves in the foot.

What concerns me is what else they are doing alongside this announcement. Because frankly, this “sim in a box” now seems to be the thin end of the wedge (or chisel) that could fracture SL.  Ciaran Laval, in his blog, cuts to the heart of the matter.

Several times I’ve fought shy of posting to the official forum “discussions” challenging Amanda Linden as to why LL simply can’t develop a “Corporate mini grid” to which, if they wish, those corporations employing the new “sim in a box” product can connect at some future date. It’s been obvious for some time that the tool on its own would be limited in scope in terms of a revenue stream and that  – given the emphasis on collaboration – somewhere would be needed where corporations could meet, not only with each other but with LL’s vaunted “Gold Solutions Providers” and perhaps with potential customers; so why not simply section-off server capacity and build a grid specifically for that purpose?

Now we see the reality: LL don’t have to go that route, as they appear to have already earmarked the main grid for this purpose. Many suspected this when they thrust the “Adult Content Policy” on us. I and several others challenged LL on precisely this point, and were told we were wrong.

Well, seems we were wrong in a rightish sort of way.

What is really worrying though, as Ciaran makes clear, is that now the gloves are really coming off. LL is moving beyond inconveniencing its user base (vis-a-vis the OpenSpace sim fiasco, the Adult changes, etc.), and into open hostility we’re being told “our world” is now a “serius” place of work, that if we want to be taken seriously “in business” we must start wearing suits. The implications in Amanda Linden’s post on the sim in a box are clear: if things don’t match the corporate-friendly image LL require, then “improvements” will be made – so step aside!

In this respect, I actually disagree with Ciaran’s assessment. He refers to the move as a “stealth takeover”. Actually, I’d say that up until now it has been “stealthy”; but now it is blatant and in our faces. And the stink is even worse for that.

Of course there will be the inevitable cooing from LL about how their “core business” – you and I – still matter. And we will; so long as we stay in our nicely corralled environments, overseen by the Lindens themselves (Zindra) or by their new Land Baron friends, who will doubtless vigorously police their estates and “themed lands” in accordance with the meme that “residents should be seen (on a map) but not heard”.

I’d given go so far as to say that LL are actually looking to keep us around, albeit nicely constrained and within markets that the new “big boys” won’t want to touch. To name but two of the markets and the reasons I say this:

  • Markets like land (corporations are going to be interested in running zillions of sims and renting out parcels, obviously) – but the big land barons are, and guess who are already being enticed with “beta programmes” by Jack Linden et al to buy more land, and to possibly take on management of “themed” Mainland.
  • Markets like the Adult community. Sure, we might not be appealing to LL’s corporate image, but we’ve all now been brushed under the carpet, tucked away in private sims or on Zindra. And while we may be “unsavory” – the fact remains that the Adult community is one of the most creative in SL, and one where businesses can thrive with huge turnovers (and Stroker Serpentine isn’t alone in this). It has a lively, nay, bubbling community that cannot help make T Linden’s quarterly reports look good. Ergo, so long as we behave, we Adult Market users stay – which is likely the real meaning behind all the hollow assurances LL gave back in the Adult Change fiasco that they were not “changing” their attitude towards the Adult market.

And the reason both stay? Two words: fall back.

It’s insidious and it is nasty. LL are aware that they are taking a gamble. They are aware that if it succeeds, then they break their reliance on the “casual” or “home” user – those who have, as many keep saying, made SL the “success” it has been. They can finally move beyond the “narrow” opportunities we afford them and move into a bigger marketplace and Do Things, as I seem to remember Mitch Kapor demanding of the company back just before Mark Kingdon showed up.

But…they can’t just let us go. Oh no, not yet; because everything still might go, as my father was once fond of saying, tits-up. If that happens, LL will need a fall back position – you and me – in our nice, constrained environments in SL, still turning our hard-earned cash over to the Lindex mill in order to keep their coffers topped-up.

It’s a pessimistic view on things, I admit. And I hope to high heaven I’m wrong.