"Select" merchants

[Pamela Galli]

First was SL Exchange, then after LL purchased it, for a while it was XStreet. Apotheos was  still around. Then came the (traumatic) migration to SLM, with Pink in charge, then after she was fired, grant and Brodsky, until they got fired. Then Jack sort of assumed the mantle, until he got fired. Then Brooke, who I liked, but who keeps a very low profile.

Then after a few years of failed Magic Box deliveries, the switch to Direct Delivery. That may have been the thing they called beta that we called alpha, where listings got all messed up (and some remain so), there have been so many traumatic events my memory fails on this point. Then VMM. Now beta search. I am sure I have left things out.

Dakota would be the authority on all this.

 

ETA If Dakota wrote a comprehensive history of the evolution of the marketplace, I am sure it would be new information to some, if not many, involved in it, and might explain why some, if not many, merchants feel each new iteration as more salt in the wound.

 

 

[Darrius Gothly]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

Xstreet remained operational alongside SLM but only for certain functions, such as configuration of ANS settings and also old transaction reporting.

 

As far as I recall though, it did not operate in parallel as a delivery mechanism or for purchases via website.

 

Maybe the confusion is around magic box vs direct delivery which did run in parallel for objects with copy permission?

---

Thank you. That's in line with my memory as well.

@Jacob - So the question stands: What overlap did you enjoy that the rest of us did not? (That's so like .. *harumpf* UNFAIR!)

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Phoebe Avro wrote:

As far as I know all those Amazon deals are from Amazon only and not 3rd parties.

---

Interesting comparison. When Amazon sends you an E-mail saying, "You might like this book because you bought that book" - are they promoting themselves, or the book, which is only sold by Amazon but almost certainly written and published by a third party which is in competition with other writers and publishers?

If they're promoting themselves, isn't Linden Lab just doing exactly what Amazon does, or if they're promoting the book, doesn't Amazon do exactly what Linden Lab just did?

 

[Pamela Galli]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phoebe Avro wrote:

As far as I know all those Amazon deals are from Amazon only and not 3rd parties.

---

Interesting comparison. When Amazon sends you an E-mail saying, "You might like this book because you bought that book" - are they promoting

themselves

, or the

book

, which is only

sold

by Amazon but almost certainly written and published by a third party which is in competition with other writers and publishers?

If they're promoting

themselves

, isn't Linden Lab just doing exactly what Amazon does, or if they're promoting the

book

, doesn't Amazon do exactly what Linden Lab just did?

 

---

I shop on Amazon a lot, never had an email suggesting I buy anything. 

If I buy a book, they have a list of other books that people who have bought my book, have also bought. Like, it is another in the series, or on a similar topic. I doubt these are hand picked by Amazon for special consideration that no other books are eligible for -- they have some algorithm, I assume based on sales data and maybe review rank. 

I understand some people, even some merchants, do not understand why others of us really, really like selling in a free market where we are free to compete entirely on the basis of our own work, without any interventions on anyone's behalf from LL.

That's fine, I don't expect to convince anyone of anything.

[Phoebe Avro]

OK lets make this basic,

Amazon own a 'Market Place' where they sell items made by 'manufacturers', they also allow 'Merchants' to sell items (made by the same) manufacturers'

when Amazon send out emails for special offers they are linked to the items that Amazon sell not those that 'merchants' that use amazon to sell.

LL say they don't compete with residents so they are saying they do not make or sell items themselves and only have the LL MP to sell ' other Merchants' Items.

[Tari Landar]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Interesting comparison. When Amazon sends you an E-mail saying, "You might like this book because you bought that book" - are they promoting

themselves

, or the

book

, which is only

sold

by Amazon but almost certainly written and published by a third party which is in competition with other writers and publishers?

If they're promoting

themselves

, isn't Linden Lab just doing exactly what Amazon does, or if they're promoting the

book

, doesn't Amazon do exactly what Linden Lab just did?

 

---

Personally, I've never had amazon, or any other retailer, email me anything of the sort(not saying it doesn't happen, it's just never happened to me).

As far as the advertising bit goes, I will revert back to my previous comment, and suggest that you clearly do not understand marketing or advertising if you honestly believe that merchants do not PAY for that kind of advertising. Or, perhaps I did not explain it clear enough in my prior response, for which I apologize. I'll break it down a bit easier, if it helps, and this is from my perspective as someone who has dealt with advertising and marketing for retailers(big, small, online and brick and mortar)

Manufacturer decides who gets to distribute, or sell, their products. Once chosen, most if not all, manufacturers will set a MSRP(manufacturer's suggested retail price). Though I am sure some exist, I have not personally run into a manufacturer that does not send product with a MSRP. That doesn't mean the retailer sells it at that price, it was just simply a way created to help balance out, or standardize prices from retailer to retailer. Most retailers will sell those products at or near the MSRP. Retailers then offer advertising to said manufacturers(or distributors in some cases), at a price. It is never free, at least, not in any retail business I have ever seen. The cost will vary, of course, and could simply be an exchange of activity(advertising, linking back, yadda, yadda) or it could be(and usually is) a set monetary cost. This is how retailers determine what products will go where within their own departments too, incidentally, alng with following trends, fads, and an understanding of their target audience. Those who pay more for advertising, or prime real estate, will get those spots that the retailer has determined are the most effective in overall traffic and sales(foot traffic for brick and mortar, web traffic for online). retailers also offer manufacturers the opportunity for more advertising spots, including big sales, special promotions, etc.. Those advertising bits are *always* monetary costs, in my experience.

When a retailer, be it online or brick and mortar, advertises a specific product in their ads(in whatever form those ads may come, paper, mail, websites, emails,whatever), the ad HAS been paid for, in some sense. It is never just free advertising simply because. The reputation of a manufacturer may play a large role in other aspects of sales, but it rarely(if ever, I've never experienced it, but I won't discount the possiblity) plays a role in the advertising opportunities offered by a retailer. In my experience, retailers like to leave such opportunities open to all, because it will generate more good will between customer and merchant(ie..retailer and manufacturer), as well as between end user, merchant and customer. It also generates more revenue for both retailer and manufacturer, which is of course the bottom line. Retailers shouldn't, limit advertising opportunities to only a select few, because it negates the benefits of advertising. They leave the opportunities open to all. Now whether or not all accept and take advantage of those opportunities, is anyone's guess, and it is really just a matter of personal choice, but the *opportunity* still exists for ALL.

I bolded the last part, because I think it's the most relevant to the topic at hand. The difference between LL's promotion here, and what other retailers/merchants do, can be found in that bold section. The fact that LL does not leave promotions open to *all* is what folks are irked about. Not because they believe everything in life should be, or will be, fair, or that they are entitled to something, or because they're super gods and godesses that demand ALL THE ATTENTIONS....But because the methodology chosen by LL(and this is not a one time thing) is so against the typically normal, and widely accepted/used, practices of advertising and marketing.  By selecting only a few, and doing so for free at that, LL is indeed cutting off their own nose to spite their face.  They are cutting the potential for gained revenue and traffic, both their's and merchants', off. It not only seems odd, but also highly suspicious, given their track record of doing things like this. Whether it was because someone thought it was a fantastic idea and didn't think it through, or there are other motives behind it..I won't venture a guess. I can say, however, I have never once seen this kind of methodology successful, it has *always* been an epic fail in the end, serving absolutely no purpose for anyone. That's why it's not a commonly used practice, it tends to soak up money and time, with little to no return.

TLDR; Advertising is never truly free, it always comes at some kind of cost(usually monetary), the general practices used in marketing/advertising, go very much against this methodology LL has chosen. I think their methodology is way out of whack and more likely to fail than succeed. I'm not so sure they thought this promotion through, to be honest. I can't wrap my head around the potential reasons for this choice, primarily because I know that the results have never been successful in any instance I have ever heard of or experienced.

I may just be one little peon, with limited knowledge in some areas, but I am a well versed little peon when it comes to advertising and marketing choices retailers make, and why they make them So, that's my horse in this race, not so much that this promotion negatively affects me as a merchant, but because it negatively affects all of sl, and I kinda like sl No one could possibly prove whether or not this promotion has hurt their own sales as a merchant. However, no one can prove that it doesn't, either. That's why it's thought to be best that we  avoid such scenarios and tactics, because hard evidence and facts means something, whereas speculation isn't likely to garner too many positive results. Evidence suggests, this is a bad way to succeed at advertising and garnering revenue, and a great way to fail at both creating the opposite effects. This IS a business move, after all(whether we know the motives or not), which is how one should look at it, to better understand why it seems half cocked, and fully twisted.

[Phoebe Avro]

I am not replying to you Pamela, just your the last poster,

LL have done this because they wish to be associated with shiny stuff, this shows big time with the Editors picks on the login page, they like stuff that looks cool in the photos, it does not really matter on what the actual destination is really like in SL just the Image it presents. In the past I have reported a place in the Destination guide because it had camping and was full of bots etc but that place remained in the editors picks for ages. All LL care about is Image.

Now to the comments about Sansar, LL are aiming at Pro content this is obvious, but the thing that made SL great was that amateurs could chuck together some prims and sit back and be proud of them!

LL are going to walking a tightrope with this. and i predict .... Fail

I have yet to meet a single person in world that is even thinking about going to Sansar, not a single person, yeh there are some on some forums that are trumpeting it but that's it.

LL are building Sansar for one reason and that is 'More Profit' or so they think.

I predict some very disappointed people in the future.

[Pamela Galli]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

Jacob...

 

Although not one of them because I know better, there are many merchants who PAY for listing enhancements.

 

Then along comes LL and super boosts, for FREE, the competitors of these merchants who PAY for advertising.

 

If in your world, this is a fair scheme by what is supposed to be just the platform operator, then that's a world where I probably need a special passport to visit. A very special passport indeed!

 

THAT Jacob, is why this was I'll conceived and unfair to the Merchants who paid to advertise, only to have potential customers directed towards their competitors.

 

Surprised that this isn't pretty obvious really.

---

This.

 

I don't see how there can be any doubt whatsoever that buyers have a finite supply of money, and that any sales that are diverted TO one group of merchants is going to be diverted FROM another. That is just axiomatic.

I pay LL a lot of money every month. My tier alone is $1200. The idea that LL shows its appreciation for my businees by taking it upon themselves to divert potential sales dollars to a "select" group does not go down well with me.  Weird, isn't it, that I feel that way?

[Pamela Galli]

Well said, Tari. Crystal clear to me. 

[Phoebe Avro]

This is also what is happening in the real world where large billionaire corporates are sucking all the money out and not paying much back in by employing new workers or wage rises.

At the end of the day there is only so much money.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Tari Landar wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Interesting comparison. When Amazon sends you an E-mail saying, "You might like this book because you bought that book" - are they promoting

themselves

, or the

book

, which is only

sold

by Amazon but almost certainly written and published by a third party which is in competition with other writers and publishers?

If they're promoting

themselves

, isn't Linden Lab just doing exactly what Amazon does, or if they're promoting the

book

, doesn't Amazon do exactly what Linden Lab just did?

 

---

Personally, I've never had amazon, or any other retailer, email me anything of the sort(not saying it doesn't happen, it's just never happened to me).

---

I've got one sitting in my E-mail right now, and it wasn't even based on a purchase, it was based on a search.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Tari Landar wrote:

---

When a retailer, be it online or brick and mortar, advertises a specific product in their ads(in whatever form those ads may come, paper, mail, websites, emails,whatever), the ad HAS been paid for, in some sense. It is never just free advertising simply because. The reputation of a manufacturer may play a large role in other aspects of sales, but it rarely(if ever, I've never experienced it, but I won't discount the possiblity) plays a role in the advertising opportunities offered by a retailer. In my experience, retailers like to leave such opportunities open to all, because it will generate more good will between customer and merchant(ie..retailer and manufacturer), as well as between end user, merchant and customer. It also generates more revenue for both retailer and manufacturer, which is of course the bottom line. Retailers shouldn't, limit advertising opportunities to only a select few, because it negates the benefits of advertising. They leave the opportunities open to all.

Now whether or not all accept and take advantage of those opportunities, is anyone's guess, and it is really just a matter of personal choice, but the *opportunity* still exists for ALL.

---

There's a difference between those stores and the Second Life Marketplace that you can drive a truck through. In a RL store the store also gets to decide what to carry so a choice has been made before advertising starts at all. A manufacturer can't say, "You're going to carry my product whether you like it or not." With the Marketplace anyone with PIOF can open a store.

[Darrius Gothly]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Tari Landar wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Interesting comparison. When Amazon sends you an E-mail saying, "You might like this book because you bought that book" - are they promoting

themselves

, or the

book

, which is only

sold

by Amazon but almost certainly written and published by a third party which is in competition with other writers and publishers?

If they're promoting

themselves

, isn't Linden Lab just doing exactly what Amazon does, or if they're promoting the

book

, doesn't Amazon do exactly what Linden Lab just did?

 

---

Personally, I've never had amazon, or any other retailer, email me anything of the sort(not saying it doesn't happen, it's just never happened to me).

---

I've got one sitting in my E-mail right now, and it wasn't even based on a

purchase

, it was based on a

search

.

---

Okay .. and the point being that YOU inspired selection by your actions. Amazon is doing a targeted mailing TO YOU that is based on your past SEARCH. I would bet that either every seller gets that for free .. or those sellers featured in such targeted campaigns paid something to be included. (And I would bet on the latter before the former.)

And I definitely bet that if I contact Amazon and ask "Can I get my store's products into one of your targeted marketing campaigns please?" they'll answer forthwith including instructions needed to sign up.

We would like that opportunity through Linden Lab and their targeted campaigns too. It would even make them extra money. Bankable money .. not the worthless zero-value ride coupons we call Linden Dollars.

[Darrius Gothly]

Ummm .. a very massive and also very final (no way to argue with) bunch of language in the ToS and Guidelines for the Marketplace state that Linden Lab can choose to allow or remove your products at their will.

I kinda think that qualifies as them reserving the right to pick which products they display on the Marketplace just as Amazon chooses what products to list on their site, and just like any Retailer chooses what products to carry in their store.

It can be very reasonably argued that a lot of the value in the Marketplace comes from the fact that Linden Lab routinely lets lots of people show off their stuff with very few introductory requirements. They do take action against folks .. and they do refuse, take down and ban people as well.

So .. where again is this truck-sized hole?

[Darrius Gothly]

I'd like to expand on this last point a bit more. As Tari's posts have pointed out .. albeit not in "surface language" rather as a hidden truth behind her words ... it is very possible and also routine these days to staff and make profitable a "Marketing Center" that helps sellers get involved in promotions, teaches them how to advertise and make more sales, and gives them solid reliable advice on what to do and what not to do.

Even though the micro-economy on which SLM operates doesn't provide a lot of margin to hire real people, the SIZE of the economy magnifies returns by a pretty healthy factor. Some basic grass-roots campaigns, managed and sold to a wider number of Merchants could actually net LL some healthy income. Most likely enough to offset the expenses of one person working up the campaign, the guidelines and the promotional mailouts.

It probably only took one person to think up and execute the mailout that inspired this thread. What would be the harm in winding up someone to "do it right"?

ETA: Sometimes my internal spell checker is turned off ... 

[Pamela Galli]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Tari Landar wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Interesting comparison. When Amazon sends you an E-mail saying, "You might like this book because you bought that book" - are they promoting

themselves

, or the

book

, which is only

sold

by Amazon but almost certainly written and published by a third party which is in competition with other writers and publishers?

If they're promoting

themselves

, isn't Linden Lab just doing exactly what Amazon does, or if they're promoting the

book

, doesn't Amazon do exactly what Linden Lab just did?

 

---

Personally, I've never had amazon, or any other retailer, email me anything of the sort(not saying it doesn't happen, it's just never happened to me).

---

I've got one sitting in my E-mail right now, and it wasn't even based on a

purchase

, it was based on a

search

.

---

This is fascinating. I wonder why you have been chosen to receive spam from them. Do you get an email from Amazon every time you search for something?  Do you get unsolicited emails from other stores you search?

Is the item(s) being promoted one of Amazon's own items or from a seller- manufacturer?

 

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

Ummm .. a very massive and also very final (no way to argue with) bunch of language in the ToS and Guidelines for the Marketplace state that Linden Lab can choose to allow or remove your products at their will.

I kinda think that qualifies as them reserving the right to pick which products they display on the Marketplace just as Amazon chooses what products to list on their site, and just like any Retailer chooses what products to carry in their store.

It can be very reasonably argued that a lot of the value in the Marketplace comes from the fact that Linden Lab routinely lets lots of people show off their stuff with very few introductory requirements. They do take action against folks .. and they do refuse, take down and ban people as well.

So .. where again is this truck-sized hole?

---

Linden Lab only chooses who to remove, not who to add (unlike some other virtual marketplaces.) Tari's argument was that retailers shouldn't choose who to advertise among their sellers to treate everyone "equally." A retail store makes a decision who to "treat equally" before they have anything to advertise at all. In the Marketplace, just like any business of selling, you say that all stores are equal but some are certainly more equal than others.

 

[Darrius Gothly]

Here's the discrepancy Theresa: Neither I nor anyone else arguing against the email promotion that started all this wants "everyone equal". We want "equal opportunity". Those two concepts are VASTLY different.

When you've mastered the difference, c'mon back and I'll settle your nerves too.

[DartAgain]

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

Here's the discrepancy Theresa: Neither I nor anyone else arguing against the email promotion that started all this wants "everyone equal". We want "equal opportunity". Those two concepts are VASTLY different.

When you've mastered the difference, c'mon back and I'll settle your nerves too.

---

Business opportunities abound. I'm thinking Middlemen for Dummies. Not that most companies need it and they should probably receive a free copy.

Meanwhile, need to go downtown today to talk to a company that's been in business for over 50 years, has a fraction of the employees that LL has and makes at least 10 times the profit that LL makes. As founders of a trade organization in their field, they refuse to advertise beyond a basic listing as it'd send the wrong message to the other members. And of course, there's equal opportunity for advertising and listings.

The disconnect between RL and here continues to be a chasm  It would appear that horse sense is something that can't be taught.

 

[Pamela Galli]

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

Here's the discrepancy Theresa: Neither I nor anyone else arguing against the email promotion that started all this wants "everyone equal". We want "equal opportunity". Those two concepts are VASTLY different.

 

---

 

I don't think there is much point in trying to further explain the concept of equal opportunity, level playing field, free market economy, etc. It is not that they are too complicated to understand, but clearly not everyone thinks they are worthy goals to aspire to. And no one is going to make them.

[Tari Landar]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Tari Landar wrote:

---

When a retailer, be it online or brick and mortar, advertises a specific product in their ads(in whatever form those ads may come, paper, mail, websites, emails,whatever), the ad HAS been paid for, in some sense. It is never just free advertising simply because. The reputation of a manufacturer may play a large role in other aspects of sales, but it rarely(if ever, I've never experienced it, but I won't discount the possiblity) plays a role in the advertising opportunities offered by a retailer. In my experience, retailers like to leave such opportunities open to all, because it will generate more good will between customer and merchant(ie..retailer and manufacturer), as well as between end user, merchant and customer. It also generates more revenue for both retailer and manufacturer, which is of course the bottom line. Retailers shouldn't, limit advertising opportunities to only a select few, because it negates the benefits of advertising. They leave the opportunities open to all.

Now whether or not all accept and take advantage of those opportunities, is anyone's guess, and it is really just a matter of personal choice, but the *opportunity* still exists for ALL.

---

There's a difference between those stores and the Second Life Marketplace that you can drive a truck through. In a RL store the store

also

gets to decide

what to carry

so a choice has been made before advertising starts at all

. A manufacturer can't say, "You're going to carry my product whether you like it or not." With the Marketplace anyone with PIOF can open a store.

---

I know there's a difference, you're the one that used them as comparisons here, not me, lol. You seem to think that other retailers promote certain products(during sales, and whatnot) because those retailers *choose* to do so. It's not true, manufacturers/distributors opt in for advertising and promotion, and it comes at a cost, not free.

[Tari Landar]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

Ummm .. a very massive and also very final (no way to argue with) bunch of language in the ToS and Guidelines for the Marketplace state that Linden Lab can choose to allow or remove your products at their will.

I kinda think that qualifies as them reserving the right to pick which products they display on the Marketplace just as Amazon chooses what products to list on their site, and just like any Retailer chooses what products to carry in their store.

It can be very reasonably argued that a lot of the value in the Marketplace comes from the fact that Linden Lab routinely lets lots of people show off their stuff with very few introductory requirements. They do take action against folks .. and they do refuse, take down and ban people as well.

So .. where again is this truck-sized hole?

---

Linden Lab only chooses who to remove, not who to add (unlike some other virtual marketplaces.) Tari's argument was that retailers shouldn't

choose who to advertise

among their sellers to treate everyone "equally." A retail store makes a decision who to "treat equally" before they have anything to advertise at all. In the Marketplace, just like any business of selling, you say that all stores are equal but some are certainly more equal than others.

 

---

That wasn't my entire argument, but there is a lot more to retailers choosing which products to sell than you think, too. Still the MP/LL does choose who can sell on the MP, whether it's to the same degree as other retailers may differ, but I wouldn't cal that a truck sized hole.

You're still missing the entire point that advertising isn't done by retailers on a whim. It is always an opt-in situation, where the opportunity is open to all not a select few only, regardless of the reputation or quality of the prduct(s). The choice to opt-in, is up to the manufacturer/distributor/merchant(where applicable, like places such as Amazon). The cost for such opportunities is determined by the retailer, based on whatever crtieria they so choose. It's far more complex than a retailer simply saying "I think we should advertise Boby Joe's products, but definitely not Jane Ann's". The latter causes a rift between manufacturer/distributor/merchant and the retailer..and potentially a rift between end-user(ie, retailer's customer) and the retailer. There is a very good reason why advertising is an opt-in thing...because it works!

[Polymath Snuggler]

Oh you want an equal playing field?  That's a noble goal.

A noble goal to be aspired to~ for sure.

A goal that is achieved??  Rarely if EVER.

 

I'd like to point something out to you all.  When I go to cash out L$ I get the same conversion rate that everyone else gets.

I'm glad for it.

I go out into the "Real World" Job market and suddenly I'm faced with a 21% Tax on my income for being female...

Yes it's something to be angry about ~ but not something to expect to change anytime soon.

 

I'll take my 12% Linden Tax on my marketplace and my marketplace instability, along with LL's poor decision making about promotional offers and I'll go to bed happy.

 

Edit:

I'm also going to throw this out on the table: There's no PROOF that the ads were FREE.  The merchants were SELECTED. Yes.

But I've seen no proof that it was FREE.

 

I'm also going to float this idea: You've never seen a "Black friday" sale on Sex Toys on Amazon.com's front page have you?  No. Because merchants are SELECTED there too.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Tari Landar wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

Ummm .. a very massive and also very final (no way to argue with) bunch of language in the ToS and Guidelines for the Marketplace state that Linden Lab can choose to allow or remove your products at their will.

I kinda think that qualifies as them reserving the right to pick which products they display on the Marketplace just as Amazon chooses what products to list on their site, and just like any Retailer chooses what products to carry in their store.

It can be very reasonably argued that a lot of the value in the Marketplace comes from the fact that Linden Lab routinely lets lots of people show off their stuff with very few introductory requirements. They do take action against folks .. and they do refuse, take down and ban people as well.

So .. where again is this truck-sized hole?

---

Linden Lab only chooses who to remove, not who to add (unlike some other virtual marketplaces.) Tari's argument was that retailers shouldn't

choose who to advertise

among their sellers to treate everyone "equally." A retail store makes a decision who to "treat equally" before they have anything to advertise at all. In the Marketplace, just like any business of selling, you say that all stores are equal but some are certainly more equal than others.

 

---

That wasn't my entire argument, but there is a lot more to retailers choosing which products to sell than you think, too. Still the MP/LL does choose who can sell on the MP, whether it's to the same degree as other retailers may differ, but I wouldn't cal that a truck sized hole.

You're still missing the entire point that advertising isn't done by retailers on a whim. It is always an opt-in situation, where the opportunity is

open to all not a select few only, regardless of the reputation or quality of the prduct(s)

. The choice to opt-in, is up to the manufacturer/distributor/merchant(where applicable, like places such as Amazon). The cost for such opportunities is determined by the retailer, based on whatever crtieria they so choose. It's far more complex than a retailer simply saying "I think we should advertise Boby Joe's products, but definitely not Jane Ann's". The latter causes a rift between manufacturer/distributor/merchant and the retailer..and potentially a rift between end-user(ie, retailer's customer) and the retailer. There is a very good reason why advertising is an opt-in thing...because it works!

---

I think I've figured out the problem we're having understanding each other. In the real world I'm in the entertainment field. It's fundamentally unequal and everyone knows it. Actor A can get $20 million from a producer to make a movie; Actor B can give the producer $60 million and not be assured of getting distribution. Not only does everybody not get a chance to be in any given project, many projects are built around pre-selected people. I doubt most people in the entertainment field expect that they would be - they'd find the idea absurd. A new actor going into a producer and saying, "How can I get the opportunities and publicity you're giving [famous actor]" would probably get a very rude reply, because the presence of a big name can at least give the possibility of paying everyone's salary.

But you don't hear people in the entertainment industry talking much about "competition." Rivals, yes; enemies maybe; but not so much "competition." The reason is that entertainment isn't usually a zero-sum field. Someone going to a famous movie doesn't mean that they won't go to the raggedyboned plays I help to put on - each one is independent and someone choose to go to one, the other or both.

Second Life products are really a lot closer to "entertainment" than real-world merchandise. A "luxury item" in SL might cost $20. In RL I've bought one bed in fifteen years. In SL I've probably bought a dozen beds in five years between me and my extended family of alts. Not all SL retailers seem to worry much about "competition." Truth Hawks is half-owner of  the Uber shopping event but there are other hair merchants featured there. One of the top car makers in SL rents to two other car makers - I've actually bought more from the "competitive" stores than the owner of the sim, but that doesn't mean that I won't buy from the sim owner if I see something Iike.

[Tari Landar]

---

polysail wrote:

 

 

I'm also going to float this idea: You've never seen a "Black friday" sale on Sex Toys on Amazon.com's front page have you?  No. Because merchants are SELECTED there too.

---

Or, those manufacturers did not opt in for the advertising promo, as is the most common, and logical if you understand advertising and marketing in the least, reason.

There are a lot of products you won't see advertised on black Friday, or any other large promotion(even small promotions and sales for that matter). That does not mean the retailer CHOSE those who would get advertised or promoted, it means those manufacturers/distributors/merchants did not opt-in for the chance to BE advertised or promoted. In my experience, the reason to not opt-in is most often due to monetary costs and that not matching the manufacturer/distributor/merchant's bottom line or projected outcome. Retailers that do not open up advertising/promotion opportunities for all of their manufacturers, don't live very long in the business world, though it's likely for a myriad of reasons, their inability to understand marketing and advertising does play a large role. It's simply NOT a productive, prosperous or successful endeavor, and causes more problems than it solves. Not because it's "not fair", because nothing in life is ever truly fair(nor should it be) but because a retailer should never *want* to do something that would cause a rift in the relationships between them and their manufacturers/distributors/merchants, or the end user. When you're in business, you quickly learn that you can't please them all..a very good lesson I might add. But you also learn that you should do your best to please as many as you can, and not intentionally do idiotic things that WILL cause a rift, and problems. It's just stupid to suggest that retailers should, or would, for that matter. You limit your negative impact, not increase it (ok, you *should*, anyway, assuming you know what you're doing).

I know many people take a "I don't care who I piss off" attitude towards lots of things in life, but in business, it really doesn't bode well for most to do that consistently. That's why they choose *not* to when it comes to marketing and advertising, since there are plenty of other areas where issues might arise and some might find "unfairness"(again, because life isn't fair, and some folks have difficulty accepting that). In business, you limit the amount of "unfairness" you cause, you don't intentionally increase it and hope that it won't affect your bottom line(it will, I guarantee it). In marketing and advertising, there is simply NO logical reason for "unfairness" when it is a cost-based scenario, as it always is. Why would a retailer choose to not accept payment from a specific manufacturer for increase advertising/promotion opportunities? There is no logic in doing that, at all, from any point of view, lol. Hence...opt-in opportunities are available *for all*, open for participation should a manufacturer/distributor/merchant choose to do so.

In other industries, it may make sense, but that's not what we're talking about here, lol. 

 ETA: Damn typos, I apologize, eye isn't having a very good day today apparently. Note to self:ALWAYS use TTS on here....