Inworld Marketing and Advertising Best Practices

[Phil Deakins]

---

Ciaran Laval wrote:

 

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Dartagan. What you wrote is more-or-less correct but don't you find it disheartening or annoying that the "platform" provider works hard at undermining your inworld business because they created a financial interest in people buying elsewhere?

---

If LL have a need for more sinks, then yes the marketplace is the way to go and as Supply Linden sales were well down, it does seem that they need more sinks, but the marketplace is a means to indirect income for Linden Lab, it's not direct income as in land tier, they can't bank those commission fees, so it would seem to be a risky business to try and put too many of their eggs in the marketplace basket.

 

---

So you don't mind LL selling you a product (land for your store) and then doing its best to undermine the business you set up on the land, while continuing to collect rent on it form you? I certainly mind such bad practises.

 

[Darrius Gothly]

 

---

Dartagan Shepherd wrote:

This is pretty much the stance we take. The path of an entrepreneur being one of personal motivation and responsibility, the decision to work with SL as a platform is already a done deal. ...

---

 

Once again Mr. Shepherd, you demonstrate the greatest weakness in your line of reasoning, that being a complete and self-imposed blindness toward the damage your "business partner" (SL) is doing to your efforts.

The people that post against the changes are not saying "Oh woe is me, I don't know how to market successfully." They ARE saying "Please stop working against us!"

For those people (and myself too), we also accept the "done deal" of working with SL as a platform. That decision is not in contention. What most irritates, and in the final analysis does the most damage, are the capricious and thoughtless changes TO that platform that do not benefit anyone.

For example, changing the maximum size of Classified Ad text. What benefit did that achieve? Who benefitted from that change? What was the REASON it was implemented? Can you point to a statement, a transcript, a blog or any official document from LL that states why such a damaging change was made? No? Well neither can I. But I can point to hundreds of statements, posts and blogs that point out why that change should not have been made.

We operate our businesses on this Platform. We accept that foundation from which to attempt our commercial success. But we object to changes that have no explicable reason, no discernible benefit ... and only damage as the measurable result.

I demand you stop insulting the business people that operate in SL by calling them slackers, whiners and idiots. They are none of those. They ARE responsible, creative, intelligent and dedicated people struggling mightily to make the best of their efforts. Your position that they are just not trying hard enough is diingenuous and fallacious as they DO try hard. It is the counter-productive and senseless changes imposed on them for no apparent reason and no discernible gain that they call out against.

[Dartagan Shepherd]

 

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

---

Dartagan Shepherd wrote:

This is pretty much the stance we take. The path of an entrepreneur being one of personal motivation and responsibility, the decision to work with SL as a platform is already a done deal. ...

---

 

Once again Mr. Shepherd, you demonstrate the greatest weakness in your line of reasoning, that being a complete and self-imposed blindness toward the damage your "business partner" (SL) is doing to your efforts.

We operate our businesses on this Platform. We accept that foundation from which to attempt our commercial success. But we object to changes that have no explicable reason, no discernible benefit ... and only damage as the measurable result.

I demand you stop insulting the business people that operate in SL by calling them slackers, whiners and idiots. They are none of those. They ARE responsible, creative, intelligent and dedicated people struggling mightily to make the best of their efforts. Your position that they are just not trying hard enough is diingenuous and fallacious as they DO try hard. It is the counter-productive and senseless changes imposed on them for no apparent reason and no discernible gain that they call out against.

---

 

I responded to a person that contributed to the topic at hand, which to me is what we can do, given the topic for Inworld Marketing and Advertising Best Practices.

I already know what limitations are there, that doesn't mean I choose to derail a post to use as a rant, it means I'm interested in talking about what people are doing and can do for marketing practices, not what can't be done.

There are places better suited to specific issues about search, Marketplace bugs and ideas to improve advertising rather than every post being a catch-all for gripes, such as Jira reports for bugs, a separate thread for those specific issues, or putting these issues on the agenda for the next user group meeting.

I've never been involved in a marketing discussion anywhere that focused only on what you can't do, so your concept is a bit strange to me.

You may also want to stop "demanding" what I contribute or how I contribute my personal opinion to these forums, that's not your place.

Even stranger is the bit of word twisting in your last paragraph. You may want to consider the fact that there are many people who are successfully marketing in SL, and so you might want to let those people speak rather than turn this thread into some righteous cause, as those are the ones people (including myself) would love to hear some input from.

Which is kind of the point of this thread I'm imagining, sharing marketing successes and best practices in our existing efforts as merchants.

[Ciaran Laval]

 

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Ciaran Laval wrote:

 

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Dartagan. What you wrote is more-or-less correct but don't you find it disheartening or annoying that the "platform" provider works hard at undermining your inworld business because they created a financial interest in people buying elsewhere?

---

If LL have a need for more sinks, then yes the marketplace is the way to go and as Supply Linden sales were well down, it does seem that they need more sinks, but the marketplace is a means to indirect income for Linden Lab, it's not direct income as in land tier, they can't bank those commission fees, so it would seem to be a risky business to try and put too many of their eggs in the marketplace basket.

 

---

So you don't mind LL selling you a product (land for your store) and then doing its best to undermine the business you set up on the land, while continuing to collect rent on it form you? I certainly mind such bad practises.

 

---

No Phil, I wasn't saying that at all, indeed I raised concerns about LL owning the marketplace and its potential to do damage to inworld stores pretty soon after they bought SLX and OnRez and it's a concern I've raised since more than once.

 

[Darrius Gothly]

*Edited for Harassment*

[Mickey Vandeverre]

 

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Mickey Vandeverre wrote:

Even with some first page search slots, my traffic is as low as it ever has been, and I suspect that the redzone issue has something to do with that, because I'm doing the exact same things that I've always done.

It's not the effect of redzone - it's the intentional effect of Linden Lab's unscrupulous practises. As we move through each new year, more and more active avatars were created in the new year and fewer and fewer were created in previous years; i.e. people don't stay in SL very long and the bulk of the active population is always the more recent;ly created accounts. LL has been pushing new people at the marketplace for quite a long time now. They push it in the website, on account dashboard pages, and in frequent emails. They push it everywhere they can (at the literal expense of inworld stores), never even mentioning inworld stores, and newer people are bound to be very influenced by that. As time goes by, the marketplace is becoming the normal place to shop for SL goods and inworld stores are becoming the abnormal way. It's LL's doing, and it's intentional. So I think it's a bit rich, to say the least, that a Linden suggests discussiing "Inworld Marketing and Advertising Best Practises" when they are doing their utmost to undermine all of it.

[Robert Galland]

I do not think RZ is affecting this too much either.  The drop in traffic and in-world sales coinciding with the rise of MP sales for me was very pronounced and starting right after Christmas.  I tweeted last week to the effect that for the first time in 4 years, I had a day with more house sales occurring on the MP than in-world and was a large enough sample that it had meaning.  Houses are something people usually want to walk through, right?

The net result is I still had a good day and LL got a lttle commission.  But, striving to be adaptable, the business plan now includes the possibility of selling one of my sims this year.   People are undoubtedly changing their shopping habits, so I have to ask, can I present my products just as well and net more with MP sales while paying less tier to LL?  So far, things are trending towards "yes." 

 

         

[Porky Gorky]

 

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

As time goes by, the marketplace is becoming the normal place to shop for SL goods and inworld stores are becoming the abnormal way. It's LL's doing, and it's intentional. So I think it's a bit rich, to say the least, that a Linden suggests discussiing

"Inworld Marketing and Advertising Best Practises"

when they are doing their utmost to undermine all of it.

---

 

I agree Phil, and it makes me wonder exactly what sort of Muppets are running this show? Driving sales to SLM results in less traffic in-world which results in less requirement for commercially used land which results in less tier in LL's pocket.

So the question is, does the increased commission from SLM sales offset the loss in tier from in-world merchants? If it doesn't then someone (else) needs to get fired.

[Darrius Gothly]

 

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Mickey Vandeverre wrote:

Even with some first page search slots, my traffic is as low as it ever has been, and I suspect that the redzone issue has something to do with that, because I'm doing the exact same things that I've always done.

It's not the effect of redzone - it's the intentional effect of Linden Lab's unscrupulous practises. ...

---

 

I wholeheartedly agree Phil and Mickey. Since the change to In-World Search on Feb 15th, the bulk of my sales are now coming from the Marketplace. As was pointed out elsewhere, some products make this transition perfectly, some fare okay .. but some fall flat in a 2D and non-functional presentation. Since my product line is based on "Neat Stuff That Works", sales of functional items from the Marketplace are nearly non-existent.

And if people want to see how the device works In-World, they have to hunt for that itty bitty link that says "See Item in Second Life" ... the one below the description, well disguised and virtually invisible.

These two sales venues, Marketplace and In-World stores, CAN be cooperative partners. They CAN work together to help bolster sales all around. But to date the changes seem to be more competitive in a very cannabilistic way. The end result is they both suffer.

[Mickey Vandeverre]

 

 

[Darrius Gothly]

 

---

Mickey Vandeverre wrote:

I don't have a clue on how to suggest to immersionists, fantasy players, roleplayers, escapists, anonymous fun players, and the list goes on and on (you know, those people who buy stuff to play with).....that they should create a Real Life account on Facebook, and tie their real life info with second life adventures,  in order to find out what is going on inworld. 

Strongly oppose creating a RL acct. and tying the two together.  Major mistake.  Would NEVER set one of my friends or shoppers up for that risk.

 

 

---

Hear Hear!! I don't have an FB account although my wife does. With all the info lately on how widespread your RL info gets spread, she has begun backing away from FB. I think it a big mistake to tie an imaginary virtual existence to a RL and permanent ID.

Socialize .. sure. But expose to threat and risk the disclosure of info you CANNOT change with the click of a mouse? Not gonna happen.

[Porky Gorky]

I closed my Facebook account 3 years ago. I have absolutely no exposure to anything Linden Labs does via Facebook.

[Dartagan Shepherd]

Get all that, that you've said and how to say this without coming across like the bad guy? But here goes ...

 

Doing business in SL is not something to depend on unless you're willing to understand and take bigger risks if you're a larger merchant, running your own business never is, as there's always risk. That we understand that risk, in this case that SL is still a new platform and a new company. While it may have been able to mature faster, virtual worlds are still a very hard sell out there (which is why continuing to reach out to social networking is important, at no time did SL ever try to make SL into Facebook or force SL users to get Facebook accounts, that bit is far overblown).

The company itself is an experiment in management style and forward thinking. That there will be successes and failures is a given. That the technology is still evolving is a given, no one else is leading this charge more than LL, all other efforts are very minor in terms of traction and users, when you bottom line it, pipe dreams aside.

If it helps you to think that LL can barely handle the technology, that's your right and everyone elses to be cynical in that regard, although not having a frame of reference (no one has done it bigger and better, or even close).

So seasoned merchants know that conditions are changeable and decide to take that risk into RL income, right? Well, if you're a seasoned merchant you know things can change at any time that may affect sales, as this world evolves, and that's going to continue to happen.

So at what point, does a merchant who claims one SL flaw after another not understand that changing factors (and sometimes mistakes and experimentation) are not business as usual? I mean, how far do you need to look to understand this?

As a merchant I know the risks, my place could drop out of search tomorrow, I may have to tweak all my items, I may not be able to do any packing today because SL is acting weird again, I may not be able to have an important meeting in my group because of chat lag?

And yet, I can start a business in SL with zero investment and be successful. I know people who've done it and continue to do it? They understand the risks and continue anyway. And of course there are people that made a go of business and failed, there will always be more of those than successes.

And yet again, a recent article tells me that one of our own merchants, a shoemaker here written up in Forbes that's made $750,000 US over a couple of years tells me that it's due to his marketing. And I've heard him speak about marketing best practices in fact. Tons of useful advice he has on marketing, how to handle support, etc.

So that's what I think of when I think of a best practices marketing discussion, someone that's got some great advice in spite of what state SL is currently in.

Not to say that bugs, issues and feature requests shouldn't have lively debate, but to pollute a sticky in a forum with those issues rather than have a great resource available to new merchants who might find that wisdom (sometimes old and oft repeated, but still great wisdom) useful and might help grow their SL business? Really?

I say it carefully because I'm huge on idea flow and constructive debate and such, and certainly not directed at anyone in particular, but on a personal level I think if these issues dominate your success or failure to the point that we can't have a discussion on good marketing practices in at least one decent sticky thread then you're over-extending yourself in business risk or expecting too much of the platform, or maybe don't understand that SL (even in business) is a form of entertainment, and if it's not primarily fun enough for you to be able to have a great discussion on doing business in SL, you may be doing it wrong, despite whatever SL may also be doing wrong.

[Pamela Galli]

I don't know why we should reinvent the wheel. There are a number of good threads on the wiki. I forget now who it was who had a lot of great advice on her blog, and someone else added it to the wiki (since we didn't have stickies) but now I can't find it. Anyway, there is a good and a better and a best way to do things, and sometimes I am not quite sure some ppl stop and think to distinguish between them. 

 

I know this is a new format but we are not new to the merchant group, so is starting from scratch with this thread the BEST way to accomplish the task?  Or has someone not really given it much thought?

[Darrius Gothly]

 

---

Dartagan Shepherd wrote:

...

The company itself is an experiment in management style and forward thinking. That there will be successes and failures is a given. That the technology is still evolving is a given, no one else is leading this charge more than LL, all other efforts are very minor in terms of traction and users, when you bottom line it, pipe dreams aside.

...

And yet, I can start a business in SL with zero investment and be successful. I know people who've done it and continue to do it? They understand the risks and continue anyway. And of course there are people that made a go of business and failed, there will always be more of those than successes.

---

 

These two points bear closer discussion.

The technology that drives SL is leading edge .. some would even say "bleeding edge" .. and that is well understood. But the technology and business methods that drive the commerce model extant here are not. There are 100's if not 1000's of prime examples all around the web of how to do things properly. I can totally understand those Sim Server rollouts that suddenly fail, but I cannot comprehend a failure to use all the fantastic examples already out there to make a Virtual Marketplace that is up to par.

Experiment with the New Stuff ... but by all means stop reinventing the wheel for those things that are already well understood and implemented by others.

Zero Investment? Pardon me?!? I doubt there is a single merchant here that has ever put a "zero investment" product up for sale .. and had anything come of it. For my products, hours and hours go into research, study, coding, building, tweaking, fixing, uploading, testing ... and all the other "ings" that go along with a new product. Perhaps that is why LL is so cavalier about breaking the tools .. they feel that we are all zero-investment merchants so there is no loss to us. If so, that is totally and inexcusably the wrong assumption to make.

So I'll put a challenge to you Mr. Shepherd ... trot out the names of those "Zero Investment Successes" and lets see how much of that Zero is really quite a bit larger than you make it out to be.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Porky Gorky wrote:

---

 

 I agree Phil, and it makes me wonder exactly what sort of Muppets are running this show? Driving sales to SLM results in less traffic in-world which results in less requirement for commercially used land which results in less tier in LL's pocket.

 

---

I've read plenty of posts and group comments from people who are closing down and dumping land. I've recently abandnoned 3/4 of the land I had due to deteriorating inworld sales. I abandoned it instead of selling it, specifically to prevent LL from getting any tier on it for quite some time, and I refuse to give LL one cent more than is necessary, so I've never used the marketplace and I never will.

Ciaran mentioned earlier that the L$ commissions aren't real money to LL, which is true, but it translates to real money for them because L$ are taken out of circulation in those commissions which means more has to be bought for real money. The loss of tier since the marketplace rose up is great and, although I may be wrong, I can't imagine that the money generated through commissions gets anywhere close to covering the losses. So it seems to me that the people who make those decisions at LL really haven't a clue. But it's only to be expected, I suppose. On the whole, they don't have the competence to run the SL business, imo, so it's only to be expected.

[Luna Bliss]

Can you tell me how to get...

    how to get to Sesame Street?

[Rene Erlanger]

 

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Porky Gorky wrote:

---

 

 I agree Phil, and it makes me wonder exactly what sort of Muppets are running this show? Driving sales to SLM results in less traffic in-world which results in less requirement for commercially used land which results in less tier in LL's pocket.

 

---

I've read plenty of posts and group comments from people who are closing down and dumping land. I've recently abandnoned 3/4 of the land I had due to deteriorating inworld sales. I abandoned it instead of selling it, specifically to prevent LL from getting any tier on it for quite some time, and I refuse to give LL one cent more than is necessary, so I've never used the marketplace and I never will.

Ciaran mentioned earlier that the L$ commissions aren't real money to LL, which is true, but it translates to real money for them because L$ are taken out of circulation in those commissions which means more has to be bought for real money. The loss of tier since the marketplace rose up is great and, although I may be wrong, I can't imagine that the money generated through commissions gets anywhere close to covering the losses. So it seems to me that the people who make those decisions at LL really haven't a clue. But it's only to be expected, I suppose. On the whole, they don't have the competence to run the SL business, imo, so it's only to be expected.

---

 

 

100% agree with you Phil......i can't see how the extra 5% commissions would compensate  for the shortfall due to abandoned Lands. There are stats showing that 41% of Mainland is now Linden owned (Made up of abandoments, Mainland infrastructure  & public areas)...i'm pretty sure abandoments or termination of rentals (particularly smaller parcels) are being replicated on Estate sims too. (e.g take a look at the Azure Commerical sims)

Well from that website which contained LL employee comments past and present.....the common complaint was that LL Management  being clueless, rudderless and without direction. Let's hope Rod Humble can turn it around and ditch the company Tao in the process..

[Rene Erlanger]

 

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

---

So I'll put a challenge to you Mr. Shepherd ... trot out the names of those "Zero Investment Successes" and lets see how much of that Zero is really quite a bit larger than you make it out to be.

---

It get's tiresome reading the ramblings of a Corporate shill! :smileytongue:

 

He thinks of investment as being only in monetary terms, when in fact it's the time spent (man-hours)....an opportunity cost.

[Dartagan Shepherd]

 

---

Rene Erlanger wrote:

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

---

So I'll put a challenge to you Mr. Shepherd ... trot out the names of those "Zero Investment Successes" and lets see how much of that Zero is really quite a bit larger than you make it out to be.

---

It get's tiresome reading the ramblings of a Corporate shill! :smileytongue:

He thinks of investment as being only in monetary terms, when in fact it's the time spent (man-hours)....an opportunity cost.

---

 

I don't really think that needed a disclaimer that I was talking about up front monetary cost. Or that a hobby turned business isn't a cost as all hobbies are cost, otherwise the government says you're a business over a certain threshold.

Or that until you're an actual business whether you consider time an investment or not is pretty arbitrary, unless it's actually on your books and factored into your accounting. Otherwise it's generally nothing more than personal preference to use as a factor in costing. The whole time-as-cost-thing isn't engraved in stone, it's an entrepreneur-ism.

Takes more work to nitpick out details that can't all be covered in a forum post than a simple understanding of what someone meant, or might have meant. I think that particular time sink might be considered a time related cost as well.

About those advertising and marketing practices you find useful and worth sharing, anything?

[Darrius Gothly]

---

Dartagan Shepherd wrote:

I don't really think that needed a disclaimer that I was talking about up front monetary cost. Or that a hobby turned business isn't a cost as all hobbies are cost, otherwise the government says you're a business over a certain threshold.

Or that until you're an actual business whether you consider time an investment or not is pretty arbitrary, unless it's actually on your books and factored into your accounting. Otherwise it's generally nothing more than personal preference to use as a factor in costing. The whole time-as-cost-thing isn't engraved in stone, it's an entrepreneur-ism.

Takes more work to nitpick out details that can't all be covered in a forum post than a simple understanding of what someone meant, or might have meant. I think that particular time sink might be considered a time related cost as well.

About those advertising and marketing practices you find useful and worth sharing, anything?

---

Umm .. huh? Time always equates to money, there is no business math that separates the two. Entrepreneur or Mega-Corporation, all time expended goes toward the bottom line. Your artful dodge is as empty and tortured as is your business acumen.

We have all put forth ideas, suggestions and practices designed to promote or improve our in-world businesses (and hobbies). The most effective ones ALSO involve the cessation of LL's constant gerry-mandering with the commerce engine.

It is annoying, to say the least, to be quizzed and prompted (yet again) to put out valid and useful ideas that have seen us to success ... when those that make the most business sense are totally ignored and, even worse, dismissed as being the rantings of "negative critics" simply because they are things that only LL can do.

Once again you have proven how totally clueless you are Mr. Shepherd. You put forth total balderdash worded to sound like rational sense ... then when called on your vacuous rantings, you retreat into distraction, additional crap-spreading ... and evasion.

You know, if you actually HAD any business sense, we might actually take your words seriously. But once again you've demonstrated your total lack of wisdom or actual experience.

Now I'll turn that last bit of your post onto you. Instead of opining how others are feeble and whiney because they can't handle the constantly shifting rules ... why don't YOU put your successful ideas to print and ... while you're at it ... explain how they are also immune from being slaughtered with the next update or "fix" dropped into our midst like a pipe bomb at the Olympics.

[Dartagan Shepherd]

Ok, really veering off topic, in trying to talk about being on topic, heheh.

Disclaimer again: Not saying many people haven't already contributed a wealth of information, much of it has been a gold mine of wisdom, and would love to see more of that ... merchants are the movers and shakers here and so on a personal level I'm far more interested in hearing their successes and how they achieved that.

Wasn't belittling anyone, I respect the innovation and creativity here a great deal. There are some things I wish the world would look at, like some of the best customer service models that are implemented by merchants here in SL. I'm afraid that you've done the twisting of words here.

If you really want clarification about the time-is-money thing, yes that's true that you should place value on your time. However, a merchant with a private and personal business doesn't need to factor their time if they don't want to, that's the great thing about a personal business here in the US.

Joe and Jane can work for themselves, Joe can value his time at $1,000 per minute and work 5 minutes a month and go broke, Jane can say "forget this, I put no price tag on my time, I need to work enough to pay my bills and buy a car next month". No one can say either of them are wrong. There is no "business math" involved on that level for most merchants in SL.

Unless of course they decide on a more complex business structure and need to report payroll to the government, then there's your "business math" and a correlation between time and money that everyone must "do the math" on.

HOWEVER, if you make those decisions for that company, you can set that rate at any value you decide to. So Joe and Jane can value their time as paid employees in their company completely differently should they desire.

So yes, there's a cost when people must be "paid". There are things that fit as liabilities. But no one but the government dictates the "business math" that forces people to value their time in any particular way and to do accounting accordingly, or who has the power to audit and make decisions on "how" or "how much" valuation you put on your time or anyone elses.

As far as sharing a suggestions, sure I'll start gently with something known by many and immune to SL issues. Word of mouth. Make it as strong a factor as you can manage. In SL, people talk about things they like. Some people become fans of creators that they like.

Not sure how much more clear, or less dodgy I can be.

[Darrius Gothly]

One of the best pieces of advice ever is this old saw: "Work smarter, not harder."

The hours on the clock are a very finite resource. Whether you hang a value of $1000 or 2 cents on each hour invested, that hour is spent and cannot be recouped or spent elsewhere. This is one of the primary reasons we do attempt mightily to work smarter .. so that each second of time invested yields the highest possible return.

And why we get so upset when our time investment is dictated for us by LL .. needlessly.

Working smarter primarily means not doing things that will need to be redone later. However that goal is often undone, with little to no reason or warning, by the changes forced upon us.

No amount of hard work on other means will compensate us for the time wasted doing and redoing needlessly. This is a simple fact. So my BEST bit of advice .. and the BEST Marketing and Advertising Practices are ...

"LL stop messing with things blindly and start letting us get involved in the changes you NEED to make."

That means put out the word that specific changes are needed. Explain why they are needed. State what you think would help and how it might hurt ... and then LISTEN.

Case in point is the upcoming switchover to AIS (Delivery from Inventory on Marketplace). There's lots of talk, lots of questions, but no details that can help us get prepared and keep us from doing things that will later need to be undone. What is the harm done in publishing the exact specs now? It's not like anyone can steal the idea from LL. And yet this veil of total secrecy goes on .. eventually leading to many people upset and confused and out many hours work because they had no idea what the final implementation would look like.

[Phil Deakins]

On this "starting an SL business for free" sub-topic:- I agree that there need be no, or precious little, cost to starting and succeeding with an SL business. On the whole, SL is a passtime for which time spent cannot be thought of as a cost in the way that real money is a cost. An SL business almost always starts as a hobby and the time spent doing it cannot be thought of as a cost, any more than time spent watching TV, fishing, etc. can be thought of as a cost. If an SL business becomes a serious earner, then perhaps time can be considered as being a cost. So SL is an excellent platform for starting and running a business for free, or for peanuts.

However, when LL does things that make the time and effort put into the hobby business turn out to be wasted, then that time and effort is perceived as being a big cost to the business owner, very much like a financial cost. The marketplace is one such thing. It's not that the marketplace exists that's bad - it's a good addition to the overall SL experience. It's because LL try their very best to push all users to buy from the marketplace, at the literal expense of inworld businesses. Inworld business owners have put time and effort into their businesses, even though they are mostly just hobbies - that's one cost. Another cost is the loss of sales because of LL's unscrupulous behaviour towards their customers, by pulling the rug out from under inworld businesses (while still charging tier).