I'm no Fey: ;)

[ex_uniquewo]

Plus, I'm lazy and it's pretty late here so I'm just gonna quote news, 'k?

"We've also added an opt-out setting for virtual gifts. Paid members can choose to disable receiving all virtual gifts, or just of sponsored v-gifts. That setting is also found on the Viewing Options page

Comments

[matgb]

We also don't want to block Paid members from participating in Sponsored content if they choose to participate

Aye; blocking v-gifts is good (across the board, I never wanted them at all), but I like the idea of sponsored comms (if done right) and contests (although, y'know, I'd like to be able to enter them).

Thx for the updates. Although I note the Herald has an easier job of coming up with titles...

[foxfirefey]

You can enter this contest, you just have to do it from the post they link to, that's all.

[matgb]

Promotion is open to individuals who are legal residents of the United States or its territories (excluding Arizona, Puerto Rico and any other jurisdiction that may require a translation of these Official Rules)

From the comp rules. First thing I checked for. First thing I always check for...

[foxfirefey]

OH DUH. I knew that, but for some reason I was thinking it was referring to you paid status. Durrrrrr. Eclipse watching gives me sleep deprivation.

[mskala]

I hope that "Did you know your ads are running on a site that hosts objectionable content?" routine won't become a common tactic among people who dislike ads on Livejournal. Actually, I hope it'll be solidly condemned and never repeated. It's exactly the same tactic that WFI was using against the fanfic people, it's extremely damaging to the community, and I'd like to think that we who dislike ads are better than WFI.

[ex_uniquewo]

Personally, I filed a complain at the BBB because I think LJ is not respecting their own TOS, not out of misguided revenge. I'd like to believe that my complaint would not have been validated if it wasn't valid.

[ex_uniquewo]

Those sponsored gifts were taken out. I think we'll have new ones pretty soon from other companies. There's no reason why they wouldn't try to bring them back.

Yes, but I think people going to the BBB, etc. gave us the opt-out and the note to paid users.

[anildash]

I'll double-check to make sure I'm right here, but I am pretty confident that the opt-out was already in progress because we wanted to do it, and I know for a fact the note to paid users was because ljkrissy and the team just wanted to do the right thing. Going to the BBB honestly just made more work for the communications folks to deal with (talking to the BBB to resolve things) on top of writing News posts and talking to the community.

Again, that's my two cents, not an official statement of LJ policy, but I saw that one with my own eyes. I'd just rather see folks like rachel and ljkrissy doing things like participating in LJ communities than dealing with outside parties, whether it's WFI or the BBB or anybody else. I'm pretty sure everybody on LJ would prefer that in the long run, too.

[ex_uniquewo]

Personally, I doubt the opt-out was already in progress. I've already replied to one of your comments why I thought so.

I know for a fact the note to paid users was because ljkrissy and the team just wanted to do the right thing.

I don't believe that. At all. Sponsored content was introduced in May. That's three months ago. It isn't till users made a hell of a fuss that LJ decided to say this. Before that, all we got fed was the 'sponsored content is not advertising' line.

Going to the BBB honestly just made more work for the communications folks to deal with (talking to the BBB to resolve things) on top of writing News posts and talking to the community.

Are you kidding? My feedback/support request from Hell about sponsored content was made on July 26th, before the sponsored gifts went live. It was obvious then LJ had little interest in talking with the community - or maybe I and other users are not considered as being a part of it. Who knows? There was concern expressed then and LJ deliberately went with it anyway

[av8rmike]

I looked at that IJ post and saw "whilst", "advert", and "Britvic", cluing me in that it's not Americans talking. Why is a British guy writing to the British Pepsi distributor about ads on web site headquartered in the U.S., and why is he getting credit for Pepsi pulling their LJ ads? Am I missing something here?

[ex_uniquewo]

*frows* What's your point here? That because he's British and LJ is American and he complained to the British branch of Pepsi, it should have no effect? Pepsi in Britain is still Pepsi. I'd like to think British consumer services communicates with American ones.

Plus, AFAIK, there is no feedback form on the US Pepsi site.

[av8rmike]

My point was that it didn't make sense to me. Maybe like you said, jackandahat couldn't contact PepsiCo U.S.A., and so contacted the U.K. distributor instead, hoping it would work its way up the chain. It makes more sense to me to do what you did and file a claim with the BBB of California. I just question whether his (and presumably others) e-mail to an advertiser had any real effect on the situation.

[ex_uniquewo]

To be honest with you, I don't know if BBB complaints have any effect just as I don't know if complaining directly to the advertiser has any effect. All I know is that sponsored content - including Pepsi ads - is still visible on the site. If Pepsi asked for the removal of all their ads, it's obvious it didn't work though I'm not sure they could ask for such a thing so maybe preventing people from 'using ads' from now on was a compromise. If people who complained at the BBB asked for the removal of ads for Paid and Perm users, it didn't really work either. Of course, the latter issue is much trickier to resolve, providing LJ wants to resolve it which, at this point in time, is something I'll believe when I see it done.

[makomk]

By the way, how long have there been ads on news for logged-out users?

[matgb]

January
http://community.livejournal.com/no_lj_ads/tag/plus+communities