Category: Opinion

Let’s talk – on our terms

Posted on by Inara Pey

Not too long ago Mark Wallace Linden burst upon the scene as the new “Conversation Manager” at Linden Lab. At the time, I found the whole idea somewhat of a mockery, and an attempt to further co-opt the forums and chatter in the “official” SL blogsphere – after all, Wallace loudly proclaimed that his primary role was not so much about encouraging conversations with existing users is it would be about “reaching the people LL want to reach”.

Even if one is prepared to give Wallace the benefit of the doubt, and try to look upon his appointment in a positive light and as a means of trying to bridge the credibility gap between the Lab and its existing user base, it has to be said that the guy got off to an alarmingly bad start in his first attempt to start a conversation. Not only did this ill-conceived, poorly worded and badly defended post cause a storm of controversy, as witnessed by the comments that follow it – it also turns out that Wallace himself was shooting pretty wide of the mark in attempting to pave the way for Mark Kingdon to make his announcement on LL’s latest acquisition.

Yes….once again LL, through accident, design or the sheer ineptitude of a “front line” member of staff (Wallace), royally put its foot in it.

Now it seem the “conversation” is to be further strangled at source, with the announcement today that the old vbulletin forums are to be done away with next week.

That LL have long been intending to shut down the old – and highly popular – forums is no secret. The “plans” have been out there for some time.  What is upsetting is that – despite repeated pleas from a vast number of residents  – LL are going ahead and scrapping vbulletin in favour of the cumbersome, nigh-on unmanageable (from a user perspective) Clearspace toolset which has been a blight on “conversations” and “communications” since its ill-considered introduction last year. What is equally startling is the claim by Linden Lab that, For years, vBulletin has stymied our attempts to maintain the forums as well as they should be maintained, and for this we do apologize. But our resources have been limited, and we chose to focus them on the platform instead — a choice we think you’ll agree was the right one.

Excuse me? vbulletin….one of the most popular, easy-to-use and most widely accepted forum software toolsets has stymied Linden Lab in trying to maintain a forum environment?!

Are we really to believe that vbulletin – something that in used around the world by large corporations down to hobbyist clubs running their websites through small-scale subscriptions, a software toolset that is provided as the ideal low-maintenance forum system by ISPs the world over forces Linden Lab to choose between maintaining its forum OR maintaining the grid? My God, are things really that desperate at LL?!

Or is it more the case that vbulletin is not to LL’s liking because it does not provide them with the level of control they wish to exert over “conversations” among residents? Does LL view vbulletin’s relatively open format as one that allows people too much in the way of choice in the communications they choose to start and the debates they opt to engage in?

Certainly, the reasons for making this long-protested move seem to back this latter view up a lot more than any idea that vbulletin is simply too unwieldy. Under “More focus”, for example, we read: As part of the transition, we’re removing some redundant forums and streamlining others, so you can more easily find the information you’re looking for. We want the forums to be about conversations with a purpose; to that end, we’re paring down to some of the most focused forums. In other words, we’ll determine what it is that can be viewed, and we’ll determine which “conversations” are “valuable” enough to be transitioned and continued under our control.

We’ve already seen that under the “new” system, Resident Answers – which can admittedly be controversial at times, but which has a rich history of meaningful content and debate  – has been usurped by the sanitised “SL Answers” in which any debate or discussion is almost instantly nixed by LL foot soldiers.

Even the assurances that the old forums will still be “available” as they are to be indexed and “archived” after the switch-over seem to ring hollow – and things don’t get much better in Yoz Linden’s follow-up discussion thread.

Here, God help us, the Lab’s frontmen latch on to the idea, put forward by one BlueGin Yifu that LL should consider limiting the number of individual comments a person can make each day under the pretext it would avoid self-appointed moderators of columns and – worse, that LL should consider Limiting the length of individual responses. indeed, Lexi Linden is so enthusiastic about these points that she invites BlueGin Yifu to open a JIRA on these “great moves”!

Yup…limit people’s ability to post and limit their capacity to give reasoned responses or raise issues worthy of wider debate. That is “really” going to get conversations going, isn’t it?

But then. Lexi has hardly been about the more community-building aspects of conversation and debate, given she is the Linden that generally leaps all over for blogrum in hobnail boots, summarily closing threads and issuing statement that threads X Y or Z are unsuitable mediums for “debate”…..

Doubtless there are valid reasons for the changeover – LL seem to be able to throw most of the maintenance issues over the fence at Jive / Clearspace, rather than having to tinker with things themselves – even though, as mentioned, vbulletin shouldn’t be THAT labour intensive by comparison. There may well be licencing issues that win out in Clearspace’s favour; I’m certainly no expert here.

Doubtless, to, the new system will – indeed already has – gain its own horde of fans and users. Nevertheless, the underlying feeling that we’re losing more than we’re gaining by this move is one that cannot be easily shaken, nor to can the feeling that a great wealth of debate and discussion is about to be lost – much as the wealth of interaction within the XStreet forums all but vanished when these were replaced by Pink Linden’s narrow-minded “commerce forum”.

Conversational Identities….

Posted on by Inara Pey

(Mark) Wallace Linden fires off his first topic for “conversation” this week, and it is a doozy on so many levels.  Will the Real You Please Stand Up brings what several Lindens have been mooting for some time  – the linking of real life information potentially directly to your Second Life avatar(s) identity/ies – in to the “public” domain of the flogrum.

What interests me about the post – other than the intense and understandable reaction from users to Wallace’s words – is the lengths to which Linden Research is prepared to go to in order to justify their decision to start putting in place “open” links between people’s RL and SL identities and the fact that the decision has clearly already been made.

As such, Wallace Linden has not so much initiated a conversation around the idea of bringing in the tools to make this possible, he’s more-or-less making a pronouncement LL will be actively undertaking to implement the tools in the coming months.

Let’s start with the former first: the degree of negative feedback from the majority of “residents” – the likes of you and me, whom I’ve opted to start calling “casual users”, on account of the fact that by-and-large we use SL purely as a form of “entertainment” (even if we run in-world “businesses”) as opposed to the “emerging market” of so-called “corporate users” LL seemed determined to try and find woo – is on record. Many are concerned over Facebook’s recent policy changes which have effectively made revealing much of your personal information filed with the company an opt out process, rather than, as it should be, an opt in (or so I understand, having never, ever gotten involved in Facebook in my life).

Yet, rather than confronting these concerns head-on and using them as a means of opening a two-way dialogue, Wallace instead opts to go back further in time – using Friendster’s 2003 approach to “false” identities to somehow further justify the need to link rl and SL identities more closely.

Indeed, were I a total cynic, I might even conclude that there is a veiled threat hidden in Wallace’s choice of example as an opening gambit.

From this dubious outset, Wallace goes on to paint a rosy picture of online interconnectedness that is  – in essence – fair and true. For, as he states, The thing not to miss here — and it bears stating despite how obvious it sounds — is what all these online “identities” have in common. At the center of them all, the hub that ties all these personae together, is the very real, non-virtual, analog and offline “you.” Whether the connections are public or not, your Second Life avatar, your World of Warcraft toon, your Facebook profile, your LinkedIn employment history — all of these and more are just different aspects of a single entity: the person reading these words. They are all already connected to each other, via you.

Yes, yes, absolutely, Wallace. But here is something else not to miss – and it bears stating despite how obvious it sounds – is what, for the majority of us, these online “identities” have in difference to one another. Whether the connections are our Second Life avatar, our World of Warcraft toon, our Facebook profile, our LinkedIn employment history – they are all what we have chosen to reveal of ourselves through these differing media to meet different aspirations, wants and needs. They are all already connected to each other via our real-world self. And as such, we don’t need you, or anyone else at Linden Research trying to engineer / persuade / cajole / drive us into greater degrees of self-revelation than we’ve already opted to make.

Strong arguments to this effect have been made in response Wallace’s post, but what is interesting  – to turn to my point on this having been a “done-and-dusted” decision on LL’s part – is not so much that Wallace has replied to critiques, but rather the wording of his replies.

Not once does he reply directly to the arguments raised against such a move. Not once does he even suggest that LL are seeking to engage with users on the pros and cons of the matter.

No. The only assurance he will give is that there (presumably) still-to-be-defined tools will “opt in”. and really, even this is a pretty bland reassurance, as “opt in” cover a variety of “up-front” sins. Yahoo Messenger, for example, has a default “opt in” user must then physically opt out of in order to ensure the messenger doesn’t deposit cookies (or “biscuits”, as I believe Yahoo calls them) on their computer that enable Yahoo to target users with adverts based on their web browsing. It is only AFTER you’ve gone through the process of creating your account, editing your profile and tracing down the “opt out” function that the “biscuits” are actually removed from your computer…

The only other assurance we get from Wallace is that “I don’t think anyone at LL is in favor of forced identity publication.” Which again, is pretty bland, given it is immediately followed by, “That said…..” – which immediately carries the implication that there is nothing inherently wrong with forced identity publication.

Does this mean we should roll over and accept the inevitable? No. Whether or not this is a done deal within LL’s ivory towers is moot. This kind of social engineering simply is not needed. As Ciaran Laval states, it’s time to say no to this invasive function creep and take care of our own identities, we certainly don’t need social networking sites to manage our identities for us, it seems as if George Orwell was two or three decades premature.

This is the message we need to carry to LL through the flogrum, through posted replies, our own blogs and posts to any and all metaverse sites that report on this move: we are all intelligent adults and we’ve been perfectly capable of managing our online identities for as long as the Internet as a whole has been available to us; we certainly don’t need the likes of Linden Research and/or Facebook or any other organisation or partnership telling us how to do so going forward. And we need to fight every step of the way to make sure than any such “tools” alluded to in Wallace’s post are fully, truly and demonstratively opt-in in every meaning of the term, and not just in some facile “well, it’s sort-of opt-in…” half-arsed implementation that we’ve tended to see in the past where LL’s policy moves are concerned.

Closing the (conversational) circle

Posted on by Inara Pey

It’s funny how cyclical things can be. Back in May 2008 I questioned the arrival of Katt Linden as the new “Communications Manager” at Linden Lab – specifically asking whether her appointment marked a genuine change in LL’s traditional lack of open discourse with users, or whether it was merely window dressing.

While many were initially enthusiastic about Katt’s arrival, I was somewhat cynical – for a start, her role was clearly regarded by many senior Lindens as merely a by-the-by, and not something that would be taken seriously: first mention of the post came in the form of two tacked-on comments to announcements by Robin (Harper) Linden and Catherine (Smoth) Linden the latter of what was in a post on an entirely unrelated subject, and it was still more than a month before we heard anything from Katt (aka former resident Kathleen Craig) herself.

So effective and important was her role that within twelve months, she was gone, again without so much as a whimper, leave alone a bang.

While it would be grossly unfair to blame Katt for her lack of impact – she was obviously employed on a whim and probably had her powers and role rigidly controlled by those above her – it is also fair to say her own attitude at times did not curry favour with residents at large, as I’ve recently commented in my review of 2009.

Now it seems the circle has closed as we’re introduced to (Mark) Wallace (Linden), the new – wait for it – “Conversation Manager“. His arrival on-scene seems to mirror that of Katt, inasmuch as first word of his upcoming arrival came in the form of a by-the-by announcement from a senior Linden  – in this case Mark Kingdon himself, admittedly – and Wallace has been in the role for over a fortnight before he’s actually been able to say anything.

OK – so fair enough, it takes time to get feet under the desk and to begin to understand a new working environment, so one can forgive Wallace for not having hit the blogrum sooner – and at least his position would seem to have a greater weight assigned to it because a) M actually took the time to mention it, and b) he’s a journalist who has actually co-authored a book on Second Life.Valid points all.

Even so, colour me unimpressed.

I’m not going to get into the debate about Wallace’s credentials. Others more knowledgeable than I have done that, and even if you discount some of what is being said as personal bias elsewhere, one has to raise an eyebrow at Wallace’s past and his potential suitability for the role.

No; what has me discounting his arrival as an effective communicator from the outset comes primarily as a result of his working title, Conversation Manager. Sorry, however you dress it up and trying and make it touchy-feely, the title is indicative of one thing, and one things only: control.

Back in the 1990s, British Telecom instigated a series of saccharine laced touchy-feely television adverts fronted by the “hard man” actor Bob Hoskins. These adverts were intended to portray BT as a kindly, warm-hearted enabler of conversations betwixt families and friends under the catchy by-line it’s good to talk. In reality, the adverts were an attempt to cast a warmer, friendlier light on a monolithic corporation that was seemingly growing ever more distant from its customer base, was just beginning to feel the pinch of fledgling competition in the residential communications market, and which seemed to give the merest lip service to the concept of “customer services”.

Reading Wallace’s first post, those old BT / Hoskins ads came instantly to mind: comfy to watch, jolly in their japes – but wholly lacking in substance and utterly divorced from reality.  It’s very clear that despite the flowery language, Wallace’s role is not about encouraging open, two-way and involved conversations between LL and its residents. Not at all. If one read his post carefully, it is clear that his role is about directing one-sided “conversations” outward from Linden Lab towards those the company most wants to reach.

And the people they want to reach are not the residents – not by a long shot. Wallace himself admits this in a throw-away line, I want to help both the company and the Residents of Second Life — as well as the people we’re trying to reach (my emphasis).

“As well as the people we’re trying to reach.” Here, in a nutshell, we have the core aim of LL’s broader “communications policy”. The primary aim of LL’s communications is not to engage with existing residents. Its aim is to bypass us completely in the drive to entice new corporate and (probably to a lesser degree) “casual” users into signing aboard the good ship Second Life.

Hence Wallace’s focus is not so much on the blogrum – which is the primary (in theory) means of communicating with the majority of existing SL users – but rather on the already over-hyped use of other social media tools such as Twitter and Facebook.

Some are hoping for good things to come of Wallace’s arrival, and are trying not to let cynicism creep into their posts. Good on them. Me? I’m altogether too long in the tooth when it comes to LL’s view on “communications” and “conversations”. It’s not so much the I don’t believe the leopard can change its spots as the more optimistic are hoping; I tend to believe that in this case, once again, the leopard has no intention of changing its spots.

Assessing Assets

Posted on by Inara Pey

I’m not overly technical. I make no bones about that; but I do have two redeeming characteristics that help overcome this shortfall, however: generally, I’m a quick learner, and while the devil of th details in terms of coding, etc., may well elude me, I can quickly grasp concepts, and meanings; secondly, I’m ready to got out and read-up / find out about things that aren’t obvious to me, even after they’ve been patiently explained.

Which is why, amidst all the Linden spin and twirl, I’ve always appreciated posts from Frank (FJ Linden) Ambrose. Here is one of the few senior members of LL’s staff who is prepared to communicate openly and honestly with residents. His postings are refreshing because they are devoid of spin, and he tends not to simply cherry-pick the rosy replies residents post in response, but actually takes the time to tackle the harder questions and deal with concerns and fears head-on.

This is visibly demonstrated in his latest post on recent updates to in-world services. What is warming about FJ’s posts is the disarming and genuine honesty, We have tried (and failed) in previous attempts to upgrade our mysql version he openly admits, before going on to express both pleasure that the updates performed on Wednesday 6th Jan 2010 went smoothly, and regret at the fact that Residents were still inconvenienced in order for the update to be rolled out.

Personally, I see little cause for regret, Frank: you and your team worked hard to develop this much-needed update, you carefully planned and communicated it to all – and the resulting outage  / issues users experienced during the update process were, frankly (no pun intended) absolutely trivial.

Leave us not forget that a few short years ago, this kind of work was regularly shutting down the grid every Wednesday for anywhere from three to six hours at a time; in this respect, the technical bods at Linden Lab have performed a marvellous job, and if anything, they should feel a justified sense of satisfaction in the professional manner in which this update was handled, with residents being “inconvenienced” for around an hour.

Kudos all!

FJ’s post is not limited to what has happened, however. Rather than simply dwell on the past, or make (in contrast to others I’ve recently commented on) sweeping generalisations about “future directions”, he takes the time to spell out what he and his team will be looking at in the coming year to further enhance grid performance. Of course, some of the technology being looked at does raise concerns – as shown in the responses from residents on the subject of cloud computing and outsourcing. And again, FJ wins kudos for responding to these concerns, rather than (again as is the wont of some of his colleagues) to sweep past such questions and simply respond with touchy-feely la-la-ness at comments that are more gushing with praise towards LL or which focus on trivialities.

Indeed, his responses are considered and balanced. No promises are made (such as guaranteeing no outsourcing will take place), while every assurance is given (such as LL retaining as much control over data as possible). In this it is again evident that  – refreshingly – there are efforts being made in LL to improve the grid not just for a select few or “emerging market”, but for us all.

So thank you again, Frank, for taking the time and effort to make sure our virtual lives suffer minimal disruption during what are very necessary (and beneficial) changes o the grid infrastructure, and for advising us on how you see things developing and the options you and your colleagues are considering for further improvements over time.

M’s People: Looking through Kingdon’s Spyglass

Posted on by Inara Pey

Mark Kingdon bounces into the Blogrum with a buoyant post looking to the future. Once one gets through the initial paragraphs, it is interesting to note where he lays emphasis for plaudits during 2009 and what he sees as being important for 2010.

First, his view on 2009 is interesting for the degree of spin evident – some of which borders on a complete re-writing of history, vis: We acquired two virtual goods e-commerce sites and began integrating them into the Second Life experience so that Residents can buy virtual goods both inworld and on the web. While it cannot be denied Onrez and SL Exchange were bought-out, to say they were both “integrated” in any way is far short of the mark. For a start, Onrez was simply killed stone dead, while the “integration” of SL Exchange (now XStreetSL, or XSL) has been nothing less than controversial, has seen LL (again) turn a deaf ear to many legitimate concerns of users, and has contributed further to the lack of trust between residents and the lab.

Similarly, his commentary on the Content Protection Roadmap and the Solution Provider Program fall wide of the mark for the majority of users. The former simply has no teeth, so is hardly something to chalk up as a “success”, while the latter is clearly aimed an LL’s belief in the “corporate market” and has little, if anything, to do with “casual users” (although many of us would like to think it does).

Looking more closely at the Content Protection Roadmap, many seem hung-up on the fact that it is all about “making” people have avatars that reflect their “real lives” (this coming off the back of Amanda Linden’s Work Avatar blog post, which was itself widely misunderstood – I hope).

However, the real threat here is not so much in the risk of people being “outed”, but more the case that the roadmap insidiously suggests that only those who (quote) meet a minimum threshold for content transactions will be able to partake in the new “content seller program”. Who will define this threshold? LL? LL in consultation with a few (and proven elitist) merchants (paging Ami Hoi….)?

What of those merchants who meet all the other criteria but fail to meet this threshold? They have payment info on record, they make quality goods for niche markets, they are in “good standing” with LL – are they suddenly to be outlawed for failing to hit sales of a few thousand linden dollars?

Similarly, the comment that merchants must be in good standing and not have been suspended for any violation of the Second Life Terms of Service is worrying given the way LL have suddenly started wielding the ToS like a big stick over merchants: “if thou knowingly mention a rival web commerce site on XSL, thou wilt not only have thine offending item removed but thous shalt face the wrath of Linden Lab, who will smite thee with a three-day account suspension” (believe me, this has happened, as reported on the Slapt.me forums).

Similarly, the commentary around the Linden Homes is suspect. Again, I’ve hammered out my view on this enough recently to make people possibly sick of it – but I have to say, M’s spin tends to mirror my thoughts: what he calls making it “web easy” for new residents to obtain their first home, I call “funneling” a section (Premium Account holders) joining SL away from the open market for land and homes, and towards a channelled experience that can either be used downstream to boost sales of the labs own “themed sims” – or used to direct users into the gleeful hand preferred land barons as the users find they need bigger land holdings as their experience grows.

And “channeling” (or “siloing” or “corralling”, whichever term you prefer) “casual users” (i.e. the likes of you and me), is very much a consistent theme with Kingdon of late, as I’ve previously mentioned. It is also in step with calls from the likes of Justin Bovington to “stream” the SL experience, and harks right back to another of my chestnut observations, Kapor’s own call for we “pioneers” to step (or get moved) aside for the “pragmatists”.

Little wonder, then, that the “Enterprise solution” (was there ever a problem with business enterprise that warranted a solution?) is flagshipped as the first 2009 “platform improvement”. And while the LLNet may well benefit “casual users” in the increased stability it brings, one cannot help but feel that this is a non-benefit as far as LL is concerned: LLNet is also about being able to furnish the corporate market, by providing high-speed, reliable connectivity between “behind the firewall” installations and a gleaming SL-based “shop front” corporate users can use to promote themselves among their peers and meet the LL-vaunted “Gold Solution Providers”. Again, such an environment has cropped up in several of Amanda Linden’s posts in the past.

And so we turn to M’s view of 2010….and for the casual user, I have to say, it is pretty glum. Once again, from a platform perspective, the emphasis is primarily on the perceived corporate market. Sure, there is much talk of the introduction of C# and of APIs and new protocols – and these will have some benefit to the user base at large – but make no mistake, the primary aim of these new tool sets are “business users”.

Not even the mini-list of “Technical Must Dos” is in anyway a comfort: the majority of them are “must dos” LL promised to deal with – or start dealing with proactively (as opposed to reactively, as is currently the case with things like inventory / asset problems) in 2009…and 2008…and 2007…and 2006….

M’s statements on the “ecosystem” offer little further comfort – indeed words like “seller directory” hold nothing but cold, empty dread while screaming “FIC!”. Similarly, the idea of XSL being further “integrated” holds concerns for me as a content seller, and the idea of it being “segmented” causes concerns for me as a “casual” user. While I can understand segmenting the needs of the corporate user away from those of the “casual” user (the former are, at least in theory, going to be largely looking for API and application-based tools and services not houses, furniture, clothes and the like that interest the rest of us) – the worry here is that things are going to go deeper: will Adult Content, for example, come under new and harder controls to “improve” the “user experience” in accessing and using XSL (or whatever it becomes)?

Of all M’s comments, those relating to Viewer 2.0 are perhaps the most relevant to the casual user.

There can be no denying that the current “official” Viewer is long in the tooth, is technically handicapped and cumbersome to use. While they may be forced to use broadly the same front end as the “official” Viewer, the major reason for 3rd party Viewers being so popular is not because they may be useful for illegal / unsocial behaviour but simply the fact that they avoid many of the issues inherent in the official viewer (memory leaks, etc.) and offer functionality users have been clamouring for over the last three or so years.

As such, a Viewer that addresses this issues, and provides greater flexibility of use (or is – to use LL’s own horrendous term – “localised”) should be welcomed, even if it will doubtless take us all time to get used to using it after years of ingrained use of the current Viewer.

One should also welcome the idea of new discovery tools – with the caveat being so long as said tools do not supplant existing tools (such as Landmarks) while offering less functionality / flexibility of use.

The idea of the new orientation program is one I’m very leery of, because again it smacks of M’s mime of “streaming” users into defined (easily-managed) groups, presenting the opportunity to further channel new users in directions LL would prefer them to take, rather than allowing them the more open thrill of discovery (even if the latter can mean a degree of confusion for some).

Again, while some hand-holding of new users is to be welcomed and encouraged, let’s not go too overboard. According to LL’s own hype, in the six years SL has been active, “millions” of users have made it through the first hour experience and “millions” of us have gone on to enjoy SL in all its forms and pleasures. So while there are issues to overcome with getting to grips with the software – it can’t all be bad.

Thus, the idea that – as Kingdon again suggested in his interview with Tateru Nino – it is now the first five hours of user’s in-world time which needs to be “addressed” – strikes me as a trifle excessive, and suggestive not so much of orientation but rather indoctrination.

Given LL are creeping ever deeper into the realm of service provisioning in-world (i.e. First Homes, “themed” mainland and private sims) and appear to be toying with entering the content creation business, one cannot help but wonder just how directed / channelled / siloed / corralled new users will be on emerging from their “first five hours” – and at what cose to resident-based businesses.

Overall, M’s post says nothing new. It confirms (if this needed emphasising) that LL has nailed its colours to the corporate environment masthead – but is not yet confident in its new shipmate to entirely let go of all pretense of regarding casual users as the core of their business.  Perhaps the saddest element in Kingdon’s post is the fact that it simply doesn’t embrace any of the core values that have so long earmarked what makes SL unique: the sheer diversity and creativity of we “casual users” and our ability to create and grow personal and group visions that are both exciting and enticing to the community as a whole, and which have, for six years, enabled Second Life, warts and all, be summed up in a single word:

Fun.

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.