The Great LJ Mutiny Of 2006
For those who don't know, LiveJournal has been slowly rolling out a new feature where advertisers would create "sponsored communities" to interact with LJ users on specific topics, like movies, products, TV shows, and so on. This is on top of the "Sponsored +" level of LJ, where users have ads appear on their pages to subsidize their membership. The first such "sponsored community" is for the new Michel Gondry movie scienceofsleep. If you're a paid accountholder (as I am), or a permanent account holder, you won't see ads on people's LJs once you log in, but you do see them on the sponsored communities.
The response, as you might imagine, has been overwhelmingly negative. Don't be put off by the number of "ZOMG! OH NOES!" comments...many of the respondents have very well-thought out and considered issues with this. There is the point about LJ quietly revising its terms of service to enable advertising.insomnia makes some excellent arguments, specifically the idea that corporate communities might usurp genuine fan communities, and that corporations might push for more copyright enforcement and takedown notices, which will absolutely stifle LJ users' creativity. This could lead to a less dramatic version of something
Casey brought to my attention: the possibility that owners of copyrighted properties such as Harry Potter might lay the smackdown on LJ fansites if they disapproved of the usage of the content.
And what about a new wave of trolls, sockpuppets, and shills that might come to LJ to pimp their products or wares? You're fooling yourself if this doesn't already happen, but this move may legitimize it and open the floodgates, as it were.
The general upshot of the LJ community's reaction is that LiveJournal is not MySpace, and people come here to build genuine networks with their family and friends, and to indulge their creativity without being bombarded by ads, malware, and stalkers. This is a view I support, needless to say.
Brad has posted a response to the fracas that doesn't really seem to be addressing people's concerns, but I do understand his side of the issue as well. To wit, here are the salient points:
Six Apart Needs To Make Money To Survive. Forget all the corporate blather about "profitability." Anyone who's ever run a business of any kind can tell you that you incur huge costs just to break even. Hosting such a massive enterprise as LJ requires lots of server space, lots of attention, and a decent amount of cash. When LJ was originally invite-only, this would not have been an issue, but now that it's public, worldwide, and free, it's got to keep money coming in just to cover its costs. So on that level, I can accept the need for advertising. If I were running a standalone blog on Blogger or WordPress, you can bet I'd be signing up for Google Adsense and Blogads as fast as my hot little hands could type. Remember, psychic income doesn't pay the physical rent, and nothing in life is free but air.
Six Apart and LJ Have Handled This Very Poorly. Stealthily changing your Terms of Service and springing these changes on your userbase is not the way to win friends and influence people. I'm surprised that Brad and company have not learned from Facebook's similar screwup. Anything on this level needs to be announced beforehand, and feedback must be genuinely respected and given weight. I'm also a bit annoyed by Brad's snarky reply which basically boils down to "We're not changing our minds, but if you can make this suck less, we might give you a cookie."
There's Actually A Net Neutrality Connection! This issue cuts to the heart of what net neutrality is about--if one person pays more than the other person for a service, it's implied that they get better quality for their service. But should the other person's service suffer as a result? In this case, why should I, as a paid user, be forced to see ads in sponsored communities when I've specifically put up money to avoid that? I can, of course, simply not frequent any sponsored community, but as many of the posters said, it is a slippery slope. No level of LJ service should be lower than the basic free level, and any concessions you make to upgrade your status--seeing ads, paying a flat fee--should absolutely have the requisite benefits attached. Any changes to said benefits should be made clear and upfront BEFORE they happen.
To Sum Up. As much as my heart goes out to the devoted anti-corporate sentiment of the anti-sponsorship crew, the reality is that LJ needs money to function, and you can't expect something for nothing. With that said, I am absolutely against the idea of sponsored communities, as it opens the door to a chilling effect of freedom of expression that could turn LJ into MySpace with slightly better layouts. I also think that any paid or permanent user account should never, ever, ever see ads of any kind, anywhere, unless they specifically and explictly choose to "opt in," as it were. Speaking of explicitness, LJ and Six Apart really need to reassess how they are treating their customer base and how they handle new product rollouts. You have a devoted base of hundreds of thousands of users, many of whom devote precious time and man hours to improving this system, and many more who have made LJ the bedrock of their online experience. Don't piss in their eye and tell 'em it's raining, and they'll trust you.
Thoughts?
The response, as you might imagine, has been overwhelmingly negative. Don't be put off by the number of "ZOMG! OH NOES!" comments...many of the respondents have very well-thought out and considered issues with this. There is the point about LJ quietly revising its terms of service to enable advertising.insomnia makes some excellent arguments, specifically the idea that corporate communities might usurp genuine fan communities, and that corporations might push for more copyright enforcement and takedown notices, which will absolutely stifle LJ users' creativity. This could lead to a less dramatic version of something
Casey brought to my attention: the possibility that owners of copyrighted properties such as Harry Potter might lay the smackdown on LJ fansites if they disapproved of the usage of the content.
And what about a new wave of trolls, sockpuppets, and shills that might come to LJ to pimp their products or wares? You're fooling yourself if this doesn't already happen, but this move may legitimize it and open the floodgates, as it were.
The general upshot of the LJ community's reaction is that LiveJournal is not MySpace, and people come here to build genuine networks with their family and friends, and to indulge their creativity without being bombarded by ads, malware, and stalkers. This is a view I support, needless to say.
Brad has posted a response to the fracas that doesn't really seem to be addressing people's concerns, but I do understand his side of the issue as well. To wit, here are the salient points:
Six Apart Needs To Make Money To Survive. Forget all the corporate blather about "profitability." Anyone who's ever run a business of any kind can tell you that you incur huge costs just to break even. Hosting such a massive enterprise as LJ requires lots of server space, lots of attention, and a decent amount of cash. When LJ was originally invite-only, this would not have been an issue, but now that it's public, worldwide, and free, it's got to keep money coming in just to cover its costs. So on that level, I can accept the need for advertising. If I were running a standalone blog on Blogger or WordPress, you can bet I'd be signing up for Google Adsense and Blogads as fast as my hot little hands could type. Remember, psychic income doesn't pay the physical rent, and nothing in life is free but air.
Six Apart and LJ Have Handled This Very Poorly. Stealthily changing your Terms of Service and springing these changes on your userbase is not the way to win friends and influence people. I'm surprised that Brad and company have not learned from Facebook's similar screwup. Anything on this level needs to be announced beforehand, and feedback must be genuinely respected and given weight. I'm also a bit annoyed by Brad's snarky reply which basically boils down to "We're not changing our minds, but if you can make this suck less, we might give you a cookie."
There's Actually A Net Neutrality Connection! This issue cuts to the heart of what net neutrality is about--if one person pays more than the other person for a service, it's implied that they get better quality for their service. But should the other person's service suffer as a result? In this case, why should I, as a paid user, be forced to see ads in sponsored communities when I've specifically put up money to avoid that? I can, of course, simply not frequent any sponsored community, but as many of the posters said, it is a slippery slope. No level of LJ service should be lower than the basic free level, and any concessions you make to upgrade your status--seeing ads, paying a flat fee--should absolutely have the requisite benefits attached. Any changes to said benefits should be made clear and upfront BEFORE they happen.
To Sum Up. As much as my heart goes out to the devoted anti-corporate sentiment of the anti-sponsorship crew, the reality is that LJ needs money to function, and you can't expect something for nothing. With that said, I am absolutely against the idea of sponsored communities, as it opens the door to a chilling effect of freedom of expression that could turn LJ into MySpace with slightly better layouts. I also think that any paid or permanent user account should never, ever, ever see ads of any kind, anywhere, unless they specifically and explictly choose to "opt in," as it were. Speaking of explicitness, LJ and Six Apart really need to reassess how they are treating their customer base and how they handle new product rollouts. You have a devoted base of hundreds of thousands of users, many of whom devote precious time and man hours to improving this system, and many more who have made LJ the bedrock of their online experience. Don't piss in their eye and tell 'em it's raining, and they'll trust you.
Thoughts?