Dissatisfied users - Irrelevant R Us?
With how busy I've been, my time online is limited & I'm doing more skimming than reading some days (if I'm online at all!) Snatching a few minutes at the library, I saw LJ's first news post about the latest changes & thought nothing of it. Words like 'streamlining' and 'simplifying' didn't seem like they should raise concern, and I continued to read through past days' posts on my friends page. But to see another update from the news community so soon after, and lots of comments on each post? I paused my skimming to read more. Not until I started reading comments did the truth of the scenario become clear.
As most of you know, SUP (a Russian company) acquired ownership of LJ a few months ago. A lot of people were skeptical from the beginning, but I tried to remain optimistic. Surely they couldn't make thing worse than 6A had, could they? But trust is something SUP would need to earn from their userbase, whose experience with 6A left users cynical and untrusting of the new management.
If earning trust was SUP's goal, there is something seriously wrong with their business plan. The news of the past week is this: Without a word of announcement to their users, mentioning it only under the guise of 'streamlining & simplifying the creation of new accounts,' the option of creating a new Basic account was removed on March 13.
Current users who have Basic accounts were not affected (as far as I know), but it means that new users no longer have a free, ad-free account option.
Now, a Plus account (free, but with ads) or a Paid account (ad-free, but $$) are their only choices. And not it's not just new users who are affected by this change, but any current users who want to create a new account for whatever purpose. (For use on different communities? Because they want an additional private-post-only journal? Whatever other reasons.. and does their reason for new account creation need to meet everyone's approval for it to be seen as legit? I don't think so..)
The main issues at play are these:
1) The action was taken without any word to the userbase first. Why? People with Paid/Permanent accounts actively recommend LJ to friends as a free, ad-free service. They are paying customers & have a vested interest in the services & policy changes in LJ. Keeping people informed is a business courtesy, if not a consumer's right.
2) Lacking honesty. When they were called out on it, SUP didn't apologize or acknowledge any wrongdoing, but brushed it aside with a slam to the intelligence of their users (3 account options was too confusing? 2 is so much easier?!) and tried to play it as a necessary business decision. BS much?
3) It is a shortsighted decision. Yes, LJ is a business. Yes, it does require money to keep things running. But it is also a service that depends on its userbase for content. Satisfied users are happy to pay for its service, but the lack of trust that is permeating interactions between LJ-owners and LJ-users is a detrimental thing for this business model. If people who would usually pay for the service don't feel like they can trust the company, they are going to be reticent to continue to spend their money or to continue recommending LJ to friends. Users & content are essential to LJ's survival as a company. There are a lot of people who love LJ, but they do have their limits.
Does SUP intend to test those limits? *shrug* I'm curious to see where things go from here.
ALSO, some people are coordinating a Content Strike, which you can read more about over here. (And to make it easier to figure out time zones, check this out :)
If enough people participate, it will be a big enough thing to perhaps get SUP's attention & communicate that users' use of the site is an important part of their business equation.
It's not just a lack of posting- For 24 hours, it means not posting or commenting on LJ. Not in our own journals, not in communities. Not publicly, privately, or under friends-lock.
I'm still undecided about my participation, but I'm considering it.
What do y'all think?
As most of you know, SUP (a Russian company) acquired ownership of LJ a few months ago. A lot of people were skeptical from the beginning, but I tried to remain optimistic. Surely they couldn't make thing worse than 6A had, could they? But trust is something SUP would need to earn from their userbase, whose experience with 6A left users cynical and untrusting of the new management.
If earning trust was SUP's goal, there is something seriously wrong with their business plan. The news of the past week is this: Without a word of announcement to their users, mentioning it only under the guise of 'streamlining & simplifying the creation of new accounts,' the option of creating a new Basic account was removed on March 13.
Current users who have Basic accounts were not affected (as far as I know), but it means that new users no longer have a free, ad-free account option.
Now, a Plus account (free, but with ads) or a Paid account (ad-free, but $$) are their only choices. And not it's not just new users who are affected by this change, but any current users who want to create a new account for whatever purpose. (For use on different communities? Because they want an additional private-post-only journal? Whatever other reasons.. and does their reason for new account creation need to meet everyone's approval for it to be seen as legit? I don't think so..)
The main issues at play are these:
1) The action was taken without any word to the userbase first. Why? People with Paid/Permanent accounts actively recommend LJ to friends as a free, ad-free service. They are paying customers & have a vested interest in the services & policy changes in LJ. Keeping people informed is a business courtesy, if not a consumer's right.
2) Lacking honesty. When they were called out on it, SUP didn't apologize or acknowledge any wrongdoing, but brushed it aside with a slam to the intelligence of their users (3 account options was too confusing? 2 is so much easier?!) and tried to play it as a necessary business decision. BS much?
3) It is a shortsighted decision. Yes, LJ is a business. Yes, it does require money to keep things running. But it is also a service that depends on its userbase for content. Satisfied users are happy to pay for its service, but the lack of trust that is permeating interactions between LJ-owners and LJ-users is a detrimental thing for this business model. If people who would usually pay for the service don't feel like they can trust the company, they are going to be reticent to continue to spend their money or to continue recommending LJ to friends. Users & content are essential to LJ's survival as a company. There are a lot of people who love LJ, but they do have their limits.
Does SUP intend to test those limits? *shrug* I'm curious to see where things go from here.
ALSO, some people are coordinating a Content Strike, which you can read more about over here. (And to make it easier to figure out time zones, check this out :)
If enough people participate, it will be a big enough thing to perhaps get SUP's attention & communicate that users' use of the site is an important part of their business equation.
It's not just a lack of posting- For 24 hours, it means not posting or commenting on LJ. Not in our own journals, not in communities. Not publicly, privately, or under friends-lock.
I'm still undecided about my participation, but I'm considering it.
What do y'all think?