The Diet Pepsi Max sponsored theme has been up and running along with the the sponsored mood theme. The mood theme image is served from stat.livejournal.com, like other mood themes
( Read more... )
Re: Reply from feedbackex_uniquewoJuly 27 2007, 20:38:20 UTC
And now we're back to sponsored things are not ads:
"It seems that the point that you most disagree with is the "sponsored" versus "ads" issue. We believe that sponsorship is different from ads and don't believe in preventing paid users from accessing a feature simply because it's a sponsored feature. Whereas you believe that they are the same thing and should be restricted accordingly -- that paid users shouldn't have access to or view sponsored items like mood themes and journal themes.
We haven't changed our policy on paid users viewing ads. We believe that the FAQ stating that paid users won't see ads is accurate; they aren't. Paid users may see sponsored mood themes, journal themes or other content if they're viewing the journal of a user who has chosen to use one of the sponsored features. "
My answer:
All right, that's a completely different tune but at least it makes sense and it's not unexpected. Can you tell me how they are different? If the word Pepsi wasn't written and there was no Pepsi logo, I would maybe agree with you but, as things are, explain to me why LJ doesn't think they're ads? Seriously, how can you tell that they're not ads? You know what it reminds me of: http://community.livejournal.com/lj_biz/237699.html To quote Brad, "sponsored 'whatever' are ads". And now you're telling me they aren't. So, I'll ask again: has there been a change of policy? Are sponsored whatever now considered as not being ads contrary what had been said?
Re: Reply from feedbackelfwreckJuly 27 2007, 22:52:48 UTC
I got that one, too.
I replied: "Sponsored content:" Someone paid LJ to place the content on LJ, in the hopes of selling their product(s). "Advertisment:" Someone paid LJ to place the content on LJ, in the hopes of selling their product(s).
I'm not seeing any difference there. Whether the ads are, or are not, integrated into journal functions doesn't change them being ads.
Dictionary.com says:ad·ver·tise·ment 1. The act of advertising. 2. A notice, such as a poster or a paid announcement in the print, broadcast, or electronic media, designed to attract public attention or patronage.
Are you using some exotic definition of "advertisement" that the rest of us are unfamiliar with?
(We swap notes, you know. It is *fascinating* seeing the same cut-and-paste replies to different comments. That's a terrific way to make your customer base believe you're ignoring everything they say.)
It also makes you look incredibly dense when you ignore half a comment and only reply to the part you had a canned answer for.
In case you didn't notice, the other issues were: 1) Why can't we advertise for anyone, not just the people who've given LJ money, if "your journal, your choice" is important? and 2) When will the FAQ be updated to indicate that Paid accounts are not ad-free?
Re: Reply from feedbackex_uniquewoJuly 27 2007, 22:58:52 UTC
Your answer kicks ass.
And they totally ignored our suggestion giving user the choice to see Sponsored content or not. I was ready to hear all about how it was a bad/unfeasible/unpractical idea for reason x, y and z.
Re: Reply from feedbackelfwreckJuly 27 2007, 23:32:21 UTC
They didn't "ignore" it, exactly... or not in the sense that people ignore comments on LJ that they don't want to deal with. They ignored it like customer service reps ignore complaints that aren't their department.
They have a small collection of answers for "complaint about ads"--and they trot out whichever one seems most appropriate. Doesn't matter if it doesn't match the question being asked... it's kinda like tapping into an elaborate voicemail program.
I gather that they're not reading the comments at all, except to check for legal issues.
I suggest we start making a list of the canned responses, and try to find the strangest phrasing that will trigger one of them as an exercise in dadaism. (I.e. if I ask about "can I take one of the sponsored themes, download the artwork and change it around on my computer, and then use that on my paid account?" will that trigger the same "respect user's display choice for their journals" reply?)
Hmmmm.... are we allowed to play with the artwork on the sponsored themes? (How about the non-sponsored themes? Are they copyrighted or public domain?)
Re: Reply from feedbackex_uniquewoAugust 1 2007, 01:48:02 UTC
"Dear user,
Writing to feedback@livejournal.com is a method for you to provide your feedback regarding the site's direction and decisions; it is not a method for you to demand a complete rationale regarding every decision we make. Your concerns have been addressed in previous responses; we cannot continue to engage you in conversation regarding this matter."
My answer: So I'm just dear user now. Nice.
I'm sure you've noticed that, 4 days ago, I told you to tell me if Feedback wasn't the proper place to answer my questions. None of you indicated it wasn't until now. Moreover, I'm not demanding a complete rationale regarding every decision you make. I asked, repeatedly, if a change had been made considering I wasn't seeing ads until recently and am seeing some now. Arie explained to me that LJ didn't consider that sponsored content was ads. I asked again if a change had been made seeing as what I'd just been told contradicted what users had been told a while ago. I did not ask you why you made this decision. I never asked you to do that so telling me I'm asking you to justify your decisions is not true. All I'm asking you is to tell me if a change has been made. I don't know why you refuse to answer. Again, if Feedback is not the proper place to ask questions which would clarify LiveJournal's policies concerning ads and Paid users, tell me where I can go to get some answers.
I didn't get any answer and the request has been definitely closed. I can't reopen it.
Re: Reply from feedbackex_uniquewoAugust 2 2007, 17:01:38 UTC
It was all the more surprising to me that I had never, ever been disappointed by the answers I has gotten @ Feedback before - whether I liked what they said or not. Staff members who answered me there had always been seemed to be patient and willing to listen to their users and to answer them.
That they clammed up - no less than three times - and acted rudely when I asked them difficult questions completely baffled me. As you said, I did not feel this was good customer service. So I've decided not to give LJ another cent.
Re: Reply from feedbackcomponentAugust 2 2007, 17:08:15 UTC
Same here. I already decided when they put permanent accounts on sale that I wasn't going to bother paying anything ever again. I can honestly say that this is the best journaling site out there, but for the things that are cool that are worth sticking around for, I don't need to pay them to get those things. And I can find the same features on other sites. It's just not worth it anymore. Something similar is happening over at deviantART.com. A lot of people are moving because the staff has become unbearable and they changed they're faq several times to placate a small group of people who were offended by certain images. Now people are being banned from the site because they disagree with the new policies. Even linking to other accounts on your page is forbidden. Lets hope LJ doesn't get that drastic. though I would like to see a lot of people leaving LJ for another site, just to show them we the users actually make a difference.
Re: Reply from feedbackmadderquoiseJuly 30 2007, 22:40:49 UTC
1) Why can't we advertise for anyone, not just the people who've given LJ money, if "your journal, your choice" is important?
I think it would be interesting to see users make a selection of very attractive themes and mood sets based on companies that have not bought advertising space on LJ, and pass them around to be displayed. Your journal, your choice, after all.
Making themes and mood sets based off anti-ad/culture jamming organizations like Adbusters and ®™ark has a certain appeal as well.
Re: Reply from feedbackelfwreckJuly 31 2007, 15:03:00 UTC
Gah. Had reply. Hit wrong button. It got eaten.
If I had design skills (and lots of free time, and html skills), I'd put together a layout & mood theme for Coke's direct competition to Pepsi Max.
Creating layouts & mood themes for nonprofits shouldn't be an issue; LJ's TOS doesn't say you can't support a company, just that you can't "Engage in commercial activities within LiveJournal or on behalf of LiveJournal without prior approval. This includes, but is not limited to... Displaying a banner that is designed to profit you or any other business or organization"
But by definition, no amount of support is designed to "profit" a nonprofit organization. So we can (theoretically, if their TOS is worded in legalese instead of the sloppy language used in the FAQ) promote Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Adbusters, the EFF, and so on. (What's ®™ark? Can't google for symbols.)
Re: Reply from feedbackmadderquoiseJuly 31 2007, 16:39:38 UTC
It's RTMARK without the special characters- you can go to the Wiki page for more info, or just stop by the ®™ark official website. Looking up 'culture jamming', 'anti-advertising', or 'anti-consumerism' will get you a long list of similar organizations.
Showing support for consumer alternatives, like the DIY ethic approach, can also be a form of advertising protest. In the case of the Pepsi Max ads- make a point to post homemade soda recipes (or give links to small, independent soda companies that don't engage in advertising you find obnoxious).
Supporting non-profit organizations via themes/icons/links/posts (and personal mood sets, for those with access) would probably be a step in the right direction.
Re: Reply from feedbackbubble_blunderJuly 28 2007, 02:45:55 UTC
We believe that sponsorship is different from ads
I'm sure that Pepsi would disagree with this rather strongly since I a would be willing to bet that the sponsorship is a line item in their ADVERTISING budget.
Do these people even read what they are cutting and pasting anymore?
LiveJournal and Six Apart: Making hard working employees look like completely illiterate morons since 2005.
"And, before anyone gets a chance to bring it up, we'll be honest: paid users are going to see the (unobtrusive!) sponsorship information on pages about sponsored features. We don't consider it to be advertising (though I'm sure some of you might disagree!). Our sponsored features are partnerships with companies who can make it possible for us to offer cool and nifty things we wouldn't be able to do otherwise, and we think that giving them credit is the right thing to do. It's what makes these partnerships attractive, and lets us be able to give you guys more stuff."
The result: about 3,700 comments on this very first post and what? Six "clarification" posts?
I can't believe they're trying to spin the same thing. Do they think we're stupid?
"It seems that the point that you most disagree with is the "sponsored" versus "ads" issue. We believe that sponsorship is different from ads and don't believe in preventing paid users from accessing a feature simply because it's a sponsored feature. Whereas you believe that they are the same thing and should be restricted accordingly -- that paid users shouldn't have access to or view sponsored items like mood themes and journal themes.
We haven't changed our policy on paid users viewing ads. We believe that the FAQ stating that paid users won't see ads is accurate; they aren't. Paid users may see sponsored mood themes, journal themes or other content if they're viewing the journal of a user who has chosen to use one of the sponsored features. "
My answer:
All right, that's a completely different tune but at least it makes sense and it's not unexpected. Can you tell me how they are different? If the word Pepsi wasn't written and there was no Pepsi logo, I would maybe agree with you but, as things are, explain to me why LJ doesn't think they're ads? Seriously, how can you tell that they're not ads? You know what it reminds me of: http://community.livejournal.com/lj_biz/237699.html To quote Brad, "sponsored 'whatever' are ads". And now you're telling me they aren't. So, I'll ask again: has there been a change of policy? Are sponsored whatever now considered as not being ads contrary what had been said?
Reply
I replied:
"Sponsored content:" Someone paid LJ to place the content on LJ, in the hopes of selling their product(s).
"Advertisment:" Someone paid LJ to place the content on LJ, in the hopes of selling their product(s).
I'm not seeing any difference there. Whether the ads are, or are not, integrated into journal functions doesn't change them being ads.
Dictionary.com says:ad·ver·tise·ment
1. The act of advertising.
2. A notice, such as a poster or a paid announcement in the print, broadcast, or electronic media, designed to attract public attention or patronage.
Are you using some exotic definition of "advertisement" that the rest of us are unfamiliar with?
(We swap notes, you know. It is *fascinating* seeing the same cut-and-paste replies to different comments. That's a terrific way to make your customer base believe you're ignoring everything they say.)
It also makes you look incredibly dense when you ignore half a comment and only reply to the part you had a canned answer for.
In case you didn't notice, the other issues were:
1) Why can't we advertise for anyone, not just the people who've given LJ money, if "your journal, your choice" is important? and
2) When will the FAQ be updated to indicate that Paid accounts are not ad-free?
Reply
And they totally ignored our suggestion giving user the choice to see Sponsored content or not. I was ready to hear all about how it was a bad/unfeasible/unpractical idea for reason x, y and z.
Reply
They have a small collection of answers for "complaint about ads"--and they trot out whichever one seems most appropriate. Doesn't matter if it doesn't match the question being asked... it's kinda like tapping into an elaborate voicemail program.
I gather that they're not reading the comments at all, except to check for legal issues.
I suggest we start making a list of the canned responses, and try to find the strangest phrasing that will trigger one of them as an exercise in dadaism. (I.e. if I ask about "can I take one of the sponsored themes, download the artwork and change it around on my computer, and then use that on my paid account?" will that trigger the same "respect user's display choice for their journals" reply?)
Hmmmm.... are we allowed to play with the artwork on the sponsored themes? (How about the non-sponsored themes? Are they copyrighted or public domain?)
Reply
Reply
I think the next thing is to start insisting that the FAQ be changed to indicate that paid users will be seeing some ads.
Reply
Writing to feedback@livejournal.com is a method for you to provide your feedback regarding the site's direction and decisions; it is not a method for you to demand a complete rationale regarding every decision we make. Your concerns have been addressed in previous responses; we cannot continue to engage you in conversation regarding this matter."
My answer:
So I'm just dear user now. Nice.
I'm sure you've noticed that, 4 days ago, I told you to tell me if Feedback wasn't the proper place to answer my questions. None of you indicated it wasn't until now. Moreover, I'm not demanding a complete rationale regarding every decision you make. I asked, repeatedly, if a change had been made considering I wasn't seeing ads until recently and am seeing some now. Arie explained to me that LJ didn't consider that sponsored content was ads. I asked again if a change had been made seeing as what I'd just been told contradicted what users had been told a while ago. I did not ask you why you made this decision. I never asked you to do that so telling me I'm asking you to justify your decisions is not true. All I'm asking you is to tell me if a change has been made. I don't know why you refuse to answer. Again, if Feedback is not the proper place to ask questions which would clarify LiveJournal's policies concerning ads and Paid users, tell me where I can go to get some answers.
I didn't get any answer and the request has been definitely closed. I can't reopen it.
Reply
Reply
That they clammed up - no less than three times - and acted rudely when I asked them difficult questions completely baffled me. As you said, I did not feel this was good customer service. So I've decided not to give LJ another cent.
Reply
Reply
Same here. I'm still waiting for elephant-like fandom to move. :)
Reply
I think it would be interesting to see users make a selection of very attractive themes and mood sets based on companies that have not bought advertising space on LJ, and pass them around to be displayed. Your journal, your choice, after all.
Making themes and mood sets based off anti-ad/culture jamming organizations like Adbusters and ®™ark has a certain appeal as well.
Reply
If I had design skills (and lots of free time, and html skills), I'd put together a layout & mood theme for Coke's direct competition to Pepsi Max.
Creating layouts & mood themes for nonprofits shouldn't be an issue; LJ's TOS doesn't say you can't support a company, just that you can't "Engage in commercial activities within LiveJournal or on behalf of LiveJournal without prior approval. This includes, but is not limited to... Displaying a banner that is designed to profit you or any other business or organization"
But by definition, no amount of support is designed to "profit" a nonprofit organization. So we can (theoretically, if their TOS is worded in legalese instead of the sloppy language used in the FAQ) promote Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Adbusters, the EFF, and so on. (What's ®™ark? Can't google for symbols.)
However: Submissions for new public mood themes are not accepted currently, due to the increase in bandwidth caused by new mood themes...
So creating mood themes for other people is now a paid privilege.
Damn. I remember hoping to make & share a nifty mood theme when I first joined LJ, 'cos I didn't particularly like any of them.
Reply
Showing support for consumer alternatives, like the DIY ethic approach, can also be a form of advertising protest. In the case of the Pepsi Max ads- make a point to post homemade soda recipes (or give links to small, independent soda companies that don't engage in advertising you find obnoxious).
Supporting non-profit organizations via themes/icons/links/posts (and personal mood sets, for those with access) would probably be a step in the right direction.
Reply
I'm sure that Pepsi would disagree with this rather strongly since I a would be willing to bet that the sponsorship is a line item in their ADVERTISING budget.
Do these people even read what they are cutting and pasting anymore?
LiveJournal and Six Apart: Making hard working employees look like completely illiterate morons since 2005.
Reply
"And, before anyone gets a chance to bring it up, we'll be honest: paid users are going to see the (unobtrusive!) sponsorship information on pages about sponsored features. We don't consider it to be advertising (though I'm sure some of you might disagree!). Our sponsored features are partnerships with companies who can make it possible for us to offer cool and nifty things we wouldn't be able to do otherwise, and we think that giving them credit is the right thing to do. It's what makes these partnerships attractive, and lets us be able to give you guys more stuff."
The result: about 3,700 comments on this very first post and what? Six "clarification" posts?
I can't believe they're trying to spin the same thing. Do they think we're stupid?
Reply
Leave a comment