Am I not allowed to put my items inworld cheaper than the mp price?

[angeliclightning]

You keep saying things like this "as this is a regular practice in RL".  You do realize though, that this is not real life, this is Second Life and in Second Life the ones that make the rules, for better or worse, is Linden Labs. There isn't even a valid comparsion between RL & SL because they are completely different.

If you don't like said rules, arguing here does no good at all, you have to take it directly to them and fight with them.  I wish you luck with that though, because it's a rare thing for them to change the TOS.

[Codex Alpha]

Please remember, this is not about me, let's make this clear. Whether I follow the TOS or not, is irrelevant to the discussion. I'm discussing the interpretation of the guidelines, and asking how putting something on sale inworld, whether intentionally or unintentionally even applies as 'anti-competitive' in any way, because one would be only competing against themselves.

But as usual, the discussion becomes about the individual and not concepts, which is not what forums are supposed to be for.

And yes, it is very frequent practice for prices to vary from SLMP stores and their inworld stores, top names doing it regularly, as literal incentive to visit their inworld stores. This would hint that it is not breaking the TOS, or we have mass amounts of top sellers setting a bad example.

eg. "Visit my inworld store to get this item 10% off!".

Other people think this falls under 'anti-competitive behaviour' guidelines, and I've simply asked "How so?" I haven't read a well-thought reply yet.

We need to interpret these lines and apply some logic to it. Would the action or intent be malicious, or for the purpose of deceiving a customer out of their money? If so, then yes its probably against the TOS. If not, it probably is just a harmless sale, a simple (and legal) incentive for people to visit your brick n' mortar store inworld, and is not in any way a criminal or deceptive activity, especially if stated on the blog, the SLMP store or otherwise.

Let's study what 'inflating prices' actually means in the real world, shall we?

eg.

inflating prices in order to make the product appear to be higher quality: This would be like selling a cube for $300L that yo or others would normally sell for $100L, but you sell it for $300L because you claim it is special, and worth the extra cost, though it essentially is the same product.

eg.

inflating prices in order to bolster a sale price (fake sales). Like a cube you normally sell for 100L, but inflate the price to $150L, then say it's no sale for $100L. This may cause a consumer to purchase the item thinking they're actually getting savings, but are not.

There are more examples with a simple Google search on the subject, but it boils down to one point:

DECEPTION. Is it the seller's intent to rip you off?

It is anti-consumerist, and anti-competitive to represent your product at a higher worth than it actually is, to bolster it's value in order to collect it's real price on an alleged 'sale' price, or to raise prices on products that the average consumer needs just because there is a shortage (The $100 Tylenol bottle example).

So no, I don't believe having a sale inworld, or offering sale prices for a limited time, or even as incentive to get people to visit your store inworld is against the TOS, or anti-competitive or anti-consumerist in any way.

There is nothing wrong with LL reviewing it's guidelines, changing or clarifying them, so that people understand clearly what is fair practice or not (besides their own conscience) and everything runs smoothly. Forums are a good area to discuss these matters, and affect change, if change is to be had.

Or at least, it gives me something to do and discuss while I drink my morning coffee, why so serious?

If anyone disagrees with this analysis, tell me why, and give me examples.

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

entity0x wrote:

By your logic, then an inworld 'discount' or 'sale' is anti-competitive (against noone), and is now 'inflating' a price on the SLMP.

This means LL would need to automatically delist thousands of products today who are doing this now.

If anything this needs to be looked at, as I simply don't see the harm to anyone to do this, as this is a regular practice in RL, and done without any malicious intent, but as

incentives for people to shop inworld.

So either LL needs to change the guidelines, clarify the guidelines, or ban a whole swath of products instead of picking on tiny little stores (that probably did it by accident or ignorance) yet ignoring the top (and huge sellers) who are doing it today.

If you didn't want to converse about this, then you didnt need to reply at all.

---

An "incentive to shop inworld" is also an incentive to not use the Marketplace, so the owner of the Marketplace doesn't allow those using it to benefit by it (as a free way to show up in search and post information) while encouraging buyers to not pay the commission that supports it.

[Codex Alpha]

Sorry, you'd have to assume the marketer is both being malicious and deceptive,and is intentionally trying to cheat LL out of monies.

We see shoppers use BOTH inworld and SLMP for purchases, so your claim doesn't hold water. (unless you have stats to prove it)

Also, LL losing out on commissions if inworld still does not make this "anti-competitive' behaviour.. and can easily be solved by taking commissions from EVERY transaction inworld or not.

Now read the rest of the post, about what inflating prices means.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

entity0x wrote:

---

You would think that 'technically' that a product sold inworld is not a 'listing' nor a 'marketplace listing' and therefore should be treated quite differently.

Its a product sitting on land inworld, and therefore should not be subject to MP listing guidelines.

In fact, I would like it to be 2 separate entities, and treated as such.

---

What is being sold in both cases is the license to use an asset from the asset servers. It doesn't matter if that asset is transferred to the buyer's inventory by the Marketplace program, by the in-world "buy" command or by an in-world scripted system.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

entity0x wrote:

Sorry, you'd have to assume the marketer is both being malicious and deceptive,and is intentionally trying to cheat LL out of monies.

Also, LL losing out on commissions if inworld still does not make this "anti-competitive' behaviour.. and can easily be solved by taking commissions from EVERY transaction inworld or not.

Now read the rest of the post, about what inflating prices means.

---

How is using a service and encouraging the buyer to not pay for it not cheating the owner of that service out of monies?

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

The bullet point heading is Anti-Competitive and Abusive Behaviour. The practice is abusing the marketplace system as it stands (using it for advertising whilst encouraging customers to shop in a way which means the seller doesn't pay LL the commission).

Demanding that a commission be charged in-world as well seems a very strange solution to what is essentially one person's objection to the way the bullet points are titled.

[Codex Alpha]

---

Bitsy Buccaneer wrote:

The bullet point heading is Anti-Competitive and Abusive Behaviour. The practice is

abusing

the marketplace system as it stands (using it for advertising whilst encouraging customers to shop in a way which means the seller doesn't pay LL the commission).

---

You might be making somewhat of a valid point of 'anti-competitive' behaviour, but against LL itself, and you would have to also assume that is why the marketer is doing it, and not just having a sale for incentive for people to visit inworld, or simply to have a sale.

So this is anti-competitive in the context of against Linden Lab itself? That somehow offering sales inworld to get customers to visit is an intent to cheat LL out of commissions? LMAO. Is Linden Lab your competitor now? If so, how?

Sales have always been a part of marketing. Personally I've never used it, in RL or otherwise, I charge a fair price for my services and it is beneficial to both me and the customer to agree on one

It's another thing to claim that the marketer is doing it to avoid commissions specifically, which I don't believe would be the intent in many cases. That thought never would cross my mind, as I think the commissions LL charges are quite fair, I personally wouldn't have a need to avoid them, and wouldn't even enter my mind should I have done the same thing by charging less inworld for incentive for people to visit.

I guess that's the difference between an ethical mind and a crook mind. The ethical mind may not even consider such angles unless educated by a crook mind.

---

Bitsy Buccaneer wrote:

Demanding that a commission be charged in-world

as well seems a very strange solution

to what is essentially one person's objection

to the way the bullet points are titled.

---

It's interesting that you change my statements to make me appear hostile, but i never 'demanded' anything. You also like to imply in many of your responses that I am alone in opinions or the topics I bring up.

Can you ever keep your responses to the points being made, instead of pointing the finger at the individual poster?

I offer solutions and practical suggestions, rather than criminalizing a whole group of people who's intent may not be malicious or deceptive at all, and are simply doing what they see in RL in SL (and is not anti-competitive in any way to their peers at all).

[Sassy Romano]

---

entity0x wrote:

So this is anti-competitive in the context of against Linden Lab itself? That somehow offering sales inworld to get customers to visit is an intent to cheat LL out of commissions? LMAO.

It's another thing to claim that the marketer is doing it to avoid commissions specifically, which I don't believe would be the intent in many cases. That thought never would cross my mind, as I think the commissions LL charges are quite fair, I personally wouldn't have a need to avoid them, and wouldn't even enter my mind should I have done the same thing by charging less inworld for incentive for people to visit.

(and is not anti-competitive in any way to their peers at all).

---

Ok, now, you're starting to understand it.

It NEVER was about being anti-competitive among peers, it has always been LL's position (hence in their TOS) that it's anti-competitive to LL and their commission structure.

As for people reducing inworld to avoid commission, YES that's exactly why a lot of people have done it in the past.  Certainly not exclusively but that was very much a sentiment when LL took over the Marketplace.  You weren't around at the various inworld meetings when Pink Linden took over and it was a case of pitchforks at dawn to the point where LL has pretty much never engaged with merchants inworld since.  Only for mostly closed meetings.

At the time, many merchants were incensed that LL should dare to ask for commission having just bought out the only remaining alternate viable marketplace which at the time was XStreetSL.

Now, just to illustrate this, say I was to sell a poseball for L$1,000,000 on Marketplace.  LL would take a commission of L$50,000 on that for a Marketplace purchase.  Around $200 US. 

If I were to offer it inworld with say a reference in the listing to suggest "cheaper in store", would that be fair for me to use Marketplace for the purpose of advertising only?  That is why LL have the statement in the TOS, it's their TOS, their game and their rule to enforce or ignore.

I'd like to point out that my inworld price for the poseball is the same as the MP one

(Personally, I don't care whether someone prices differently inworld, it's not my issue to worry about but the reason for the objection is from LL for the simple reasons above).

Entity, one more thing...for the love of <insert your chosen deity>.... PLEASE could you write, think, proof-read, think, proof-read again before posting?  It seems that LL have yet again broken the forums and a new email is sent per individual change, which means that when you make half a dozen or more minor alterations, those of us who take an email feel, get a new email per change anyway!

[Codex Alpha]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

Ok, now, you're starting to understand it.

---

I hope you understand where I'm coming from, and those that may conduct themselves like me. We're not in this to rip anyone off, or to avoid commissions.. but at the same time see the value in giving incentives for people to visit inworld for discounts

As I suggested earlier, if we just got LL to take commissions from inworld sales as well, this would no longer be an issue,

I also would like people to acknowledge this barely qualifies as 'anti-competitive', even if LL is involved, and that either the policy is clarified, or changes made so that everyone is happy. The commissions are more than fair, so even if applied to inworld products, at least LL would be happy, and people can market here like they might in RL, avoiding confusion and people getting into trouble for doing what they might in RL (and honestly so)

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

PLEASE could you write, think, proof-read, think, proof-read again before posting?  It seems that LL have yet again broken the forums and a new email is sent per individual change, which means that when you make half a dozen or more minor alterations, those of us who take an email feel, get a new email per change anyway!

---

Sorry about that, I will try. I frequently have to clarify, change things, or add new responses for posts, all the while trying to keep them organized. Thanks for the heads up on that.

[Sassy Romano]

---

entity0x wrote

As I suggested earlier, if we just got LL to take commissions from inworld sales as well, this would no longer be an issue,

I also would like people to acknowledge this barely qualifies as 'anti-competitive', even if LL is involved, and that either the policy is clarified, or changes made so that everyone is happy.

---

LL had a plan to implement their own vending system which wouldhave linked to the Marketplace Direct Delivery system as it was at the time.  They wanted to charge a commission to sell via that vending system.  The plan never saw the light of day.  Even today, you would expect a HUGE backlash if they wanted both land tier payment and then commission for the sale on top. 

You see, this is one reason why i'm against the idea of merchants saying "I charge a bit more on MP because of LL's commission". They have had to pay LL for land tier already so selling only on MP delivers LL no benefit without a commission system and yes, it's a fair amount.  Both land tier and commission are just costs of sale.

As for barely qualifying as anti-competitive, it's LL's rule - theirs to enforce or not.

By the way, my L$1,000,000 poseball makes no claim to being of higher quality just because of the price, yes people have flagged it for "inflated listing price" (incorrectly) and the MP listing carries the apology text from LL for incorrectly de-listing it.  It doesn't matter what the phrase is interpreted as elsewhere, LL define it explicitly in their TOS for use in conjuction with Second Life.

I'm not debating the definitions, nor rights or wrongs, just trying to fill in some blanks as like some others, I have a lot of history in this area.

[Neural Blankes]

On 12/20/2016 at 10:43 AM, Sassy Romano said:

---

Now, just to illustrate this, say I was to sell a poseball for L$1,000,000 on Marketplace.  LL would take a commission of L$50,000 on that for a Marketplace purchase.  Around $200 US. 

If I were to offer it inworld with say a reference in the listing to suggest "cheaper in store", would that be fair for me to use Marketplace for the purpose of advertising only?  That is why LL have the statement in the TOS, it's their TOS, their game and their rule to enforce or ignore.

 

I was going to post a new thread on this, but am necro-ing this thread due to a few of your comments.

For starters, regarding the quote above:  Have you considered the cost of tier in world?  If you have a store in world, that's the equivalent of $200-$300/month for LL regardless of whether or not your pose-ball sells (yes, I'm ignoring homesteads because your example is also on the top end).  Doesn't matter if you personally pay $5/month for a tiny parcel, the sim is generating the full amount for LL.

Ironically, the ToS subsection statement itself is anti-competitive behavior.  LL is competing against it's own users and it's own product.  It is absurd that they do not want people to use their product, but that is effectively what is going on.  "we want you to use our website, not Second Life".

Regarding the statement that we pay no fee to list things...   I don't recall paying listing fees to the independent predecessors of the MP either, and they didn't use a ToS to threaten users with de-listing products if you dared to sell them cheaper in world.  So that puts LL in a somewhat negative light.  They killed off EB and XStreet and are now acting not unlike the mob.

I would love to see the entire clause removed, but I would be absolutely happy with a compromise that would  be a modification to allow "abusive" to be defined as long term pricing of more than 15%.  Heck, it would be awesome to have an integrated "sale" system with the MP where you can set a product on "sale mode", and the listing automatically throws up a "this item is on sale in world, here's the SLURL:" for a set period of time.  If people find the item on sale outside that time frame, they can report it under the anti-competitive clause.  As long as the fee is reasonable (L$10 per item), they could even charge on a weekly basis for the listing to show the "on sale in world" tag.  The marketing options on the MP show that such a system is already in place.

All I'd like to see is the ability to have an in world "sale" without having to worry about LL looking over my shoulder like a tax collector.

The marketplace is vital to a lot of content creators, but in-world activity is vital to Second Life.  A compromise that allowed users to draw people to their in world store would allow content creators to do things like "Black Friday Sale" events to generate in world interest in their store, and add value to the MP as well.

 

[Alwin Alcott]

19 minutes ago, Neural Blankes said:

 A compromise that allowed users to draw people to their in world store would allow content creators to do things like "Black Friday Sale" events to generate in world interest in their store, and add value to the MP as well.

 

not sure where you been past weeks, but there were not just a few, but a huge lots of black friday sales inworld.

Also.. don't forget sales, and land, are the businessmodel for LL, you can disagree on that, but SL isn't owned by a charity, it's a company that wants to earn a decent amount of money....from?...yes, residents.

[Neural Blankes]

31 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

not sure where you been past weeks, but there were not just a few, but a huge lots of black friday sales inworld.

Also.. don't forget sales, and land, are the businessmodel for LL, you can disagree on that, but SL isn't owned by a charity, it's a company that wants to earn a decent amount of money....from?...yes, residents.

Wow..  did you even read my entire post, or are you simply posting from some internal desire to be condescending and controversial?

1. Encouraging in world sales encourages tier payments.  In case this isn't simple enough for you to understand, this means LL makes money

2. The compromise I offered includes not only benefits for the content creators, but gives LL a way to give creators incentive to purchase marketing options in order to temporarily enhance their in world sales.  In case this also isn't simple enough to understand, this also means LL makes money.

3.  I participated in the BF sales at the end of November.  Your assumption that I am some sort of mentally deficient moron that is somehow blocked from having sales *without* having Linden Lab provide convenience factors and incentives as I listed is noted.

Considering that I made these things clear in what I wrote, I'm not going to bother explaining it further. 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Neural Blankes

[Pamela Galli]

[Chic Aeon]

I do agree in principle that having the MP "hooked into" a vendor system so that sales could be easily adjusted for both places at once would be a useful idea. Inworldz at one time (if my brain isn't too terribly foggy) was trying to do that --- or someone IN Inworldz as the parent company had nothing to do with the Marketplace.  

That being said I absolutely hate vendors personally LOL so I would not be happy with a change on that level.  It seems that historically having flash sales of items for a day or three inworld is not the issue with that clause in the listing rules. It is the constant differences in prices.  I don't have sales  but I do mark down prices and when I do that I mark them down in both places. 

 

BUT if I were to have a "today only" sale I really wouldn't be worried about getting reprimanded. That usually comes when someone reports an infringement (oftentimes a competitor - what can I say). The Lab doesn't have time to police all the stores on a daily basis and really a brief sale could ALSO be just on the Marketplace. 

 

 

[Dakota Linden]

1 hour ago, Neural Blankes said:

I was going to post a new thread on this, but am necro-ing this thread due to a few of your comments.

For starters, regarding the quote above:  Have you considered the cost of tier in world?  If you have a store in world, that's the equivalent of $200-$300/month for LL regardless of whether or not your pose-ball sells (yes, I'm ignoring homesteads because your example is also on the top end).  Doesn't matter if you personally pay $5/month for a tiny parcel, the sim is generating the full amount for LL.

Ironically, the ToS subsection statement itself is anti-competitive behavior.  LL is competing against it's own users and it's own product.  It is absurd that they do not want people to use their product, but that is effectively what is going on.  "we want you to use our website, not Second Life".

Regarding the statement that we pay no fee to list things...   I don't recall paying listing fees to the independent predecessors of the MP either, and they didn't use a ToS to threaten users with de-listing products if you dared to sell them cheaper in world.  So that puts LL in a somewhat negative light.  They killed off EB and XStreet and are now acting not unlike the mob.

I would love to see the entire clause removed, but I would be absolutely happy with a compromise that would  be a modification to allow "abusive" to be defined as long term pricing of more than 15%.  Heck, it would be awesome to have an integrated "sale" system with the MP where you can set a product on "sale mode", and the listing automatically throws up a "this item is on sale in world, here's the SLURL:" for a set period of time.  If people find the item on sale outside that time frame, they can report it under the anti-competitive clause.  As long as the fee is reasonable (L$10 per item), they could even charge on a weekly basis for the listing to show the "on sale in world" tag.  The marketing options on the MP show that such a system is already in place.

All I'd like to see is the ability to have an in world "sale" without having to worry about LL looking over my shoulder like a tax collector.

The marketplace is vital to a lot of content creators, but in-world activity is vital to Second Life.  A compromise that allowed users to draw people to their in world store would allow content creators to do things like "Black Friday Sale" events to generate in world interest in their store, and add value to the MP as well.

 

Hello Neural,

I think there are a few misconceptions in your post that I am happy to clear up.

SLExchange/XstreetSL did have a restriction on in world prices for items listing on those websites. However, they set the difference at no more than 5% of the cost of the item.  So you could sell the item in world for up to 5% less than the item price on the web site. Products that were found to be offered for greater than the 5% difference were unlisted from SLX/Street for the violation.  The policy was written directly in the Terms of Use/Service for those respective web sites. 

The anti-competitive clause is not there because it affects Linden Lab, it is there because it affects your fellow merchants.  It is not fair to someone who does not own land, or have an in world store. If they sell a similar item of similar quality for 500L on the Marketplace, and you offer an equal quality item for 500L, but also give a 10L discount to your customers to buy your item from your store in world, that gives you a direct, and unfair, advantage over the user that does not have an in world store. 

The Marketplace has been, from the very beginning, a place where users can offer their items for sale on an even playing field.  Offering discounts to push users to buy items in world tips that balance towards the user who tries to drive users to their store with discounts. 

Every merchant is more than welcome to, and completely free to, have in world sales on their items. They may not, however, use listings on the Marketplace to advertise those in world sales. 

Again, that would bestow an unfair advantage on sellers who have in world stores compared to those who do not. 

Purchasing Product Listing Enhancements for items on the Marketplace does not offer an unfair advantage, because all sellers can purchase the same Listing Enhancements for their own items and Listing Enhancements do not automatically translate into sales, so no unfair advantage is given to one merchant over another. 

I hope this help clear up some misunderstanding with regards to why that restriction is in place in the Marketplace Listing Guidelines. 

 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Dakota Linden

[Neural Blankes]

Thank you for that clarification, Dakota.  Would it be possible to have it written into the ToS somehow to note that an in world "sale" is not considered anti-competitive if the marketplace is not utilized as a means of advertising that sale?

I understand the issue of how the marketplace could be used as an advantage to those who can afford an in world store, but if the anti-competitive clause is there specifically to say "you cannot use the marketplace as a means of advertising in world lower prices", it would be nice to have that clarification added.  The way the ToS reads currently is a bit broader and, obviously, leads to interpretations that lower prices in world are outright against the terms.

Also, the obvious question: Can I quote your statement here if the topic arises in group chat?  (No idea if you are on the legal team or not).

[Pamela Galli]

I put sale signs in the store and on  Facebook  and my weekly notices, and people can receive a discount/refund regardless of where they buy. 

[Sassy Romano]

9 hours ago, Dakota Linden said:

The anti-competitive clause is not there because it affects Linden Lab, it is there because it affects your fellow merchants.  It is not fair to someone who does not own land, or have an in world store. If they sell a similar item of similar quality for 500L on the Marketplace, and you offer an equal quality item for 500L, but also give a 10L discount to your customers to buy your item from your store in world, that gives you a direct, and unfair, advantage over the user that does not have an in world store. 

With respect Dakota, I believe you're on exceptionally shaky ground with that statement!

The 5% thing was always quite clearly explained by Pink Linden and with regard to the above, that holds no correlation where merchant A who purchases say a mesh template, sticks a floral texture on it and offers it on MP for L$500 and merchant B who purchases the same template, also slaps on a floral texture and offers it for L$10 inworld.

Second Life operates entirely on caveat emptor and if a buyer cannot find the cheaper, similar quality item, that's their failure, it has NEVER been a role of Linden Lab to police fairness in pricing between merchants either in-world, on Marketplace or between the two.  If you're sure about your statement, please cite that section out in the ToS.

Taking an example of my L$1,000,000 poseball (which is now on MP only) over which we've had such fun in the past, what you're saying above is that now if someone else offers a poseball that offers the same feature in-world but for L$1, LL will then take action?!  If so against who?  Me for offering the one with a high price or the other merchant for offering the other one at a lowball price?  What you've offered above makes no sense!

Lets reference the listing guidelines:-

https://marketplace.secondlife.com/listing_guidelines#abusive-behavior

Anti-Competitive or Abusive Behavior. Examples include, but are not limited to:

• inflating prices on the SL Marketplace, in comparison to in-world or other e-commerce sites,

Now, if you *really* want to make examples "not limited to" the bullet point given there, then I'll expect to see a change to that to the following effect:-

• inflating prices on the SL Marketplace, in comparison to in-world or other e-commerce sites, or other similar quality items from other merchants.

I don't believe that i'm ever going to see that in writing, thus I really think that you need to reconsider the statement about comparison with other merchants.

If you retain your statement then you are also directly contradicting the ToS https://www.lindenlab.com/tos pointing specifically to 1.4 where it's made perfectly clear that LL does not control and is not responsible or liable...

Similarly, section 6 " We are not responsible or liable for the conduct or content of any user"

Section 9:-

"9.1 Linden Lab is NOT liable for its users' actions, and you release Linden Lab from any claims relating to other users.

You agree not to hold Linden Lab liable for the Content, actions, or inactions of other users. As a condition of access to the Service, you release Linden Lab (and its officers, directors, shareholders, agents, subsidiaries and employees) from claims, demands, losses, liabilities and damages (actual and consequential) of every kind and nature, known and unknown, arising out of or in any way connected with any dispute you have or claim to have with one or more users, including whether or not Linden Lab becomes involved in any resolution or attempted resolution of the dispute."

Your statement claiming supporting "fairness" between merchants quite clearly indicates an intent to control and take responsibility of users and content as content will also include the price and any inference of leveling price is interference via control.

Either LL is involved or it's not, the ToS absolutely states in numerous places that it's not.

[Sassy Romano]

12 hours ago, Neural Blankes said:

For starters, regarding the quote above:  Have you considered the cost of tier in world?  If you have a store in world, that's the equivalent of $200-$300/month for LL regardless of whether or not your pose-ball sells (yes, I'm ignoring homesteads because your example is also on the top end).  Doesn't matter if you personally pay $5/month for a tiny parcel, the sim is generating the full amount for LL.

Ironically, the ToS subsection statement itself is anti-competitive behavior.  LL is competing against it's own users and it's own product.  It is absurd that they do not want people to use their product, but that is effectively what is going on.  "we want you to use our website, not Second Life".

Regarding the statement that we pay no fee to list things...   I don't recall paying listing fees to the independent predecessors of the MP either, and they didn't use a ToS to threaten users with de-listing products if you dared to sell them cheaper in world.  So that puts LL in a somewhat negative light.  They killed off EB and XStreet and are now acting not unlike the mob.

My point was that an inworld store is a cost of doing business, the 5% MP commission is a cost of doing business. In both cases, the merchant can chose whether they use one or the other or both, they're not forced down any particular route and I remember the dialog with Pink Linden that it was considered a fair amount for running the platform.  Pink Linden was ex Ebay, Ebay doesn't host listings for free, it makes no sense!

You're not the only one to point out LL's own goal about MP taking away inworld store sales.  When other merchants were suffering huge swings to MP, mine was quite resilient with something like 95% sales still inworld so MP made little difference to me.  A few months ago I closed inworld and now list just a few items on MP only (much of this was my own lack of effort but the trend eventually caught up to MP sales being significant), so yes, another inworld sim user gone.

There are many things that have been requested with regard to MP integration but they don't happen.  People have asked for the ability to do sales, like reduce the price across the whole store by a percentage (even on MP only) for a short time but that didn't happen, it's just too impractical to edit listings one by one.

When people have had sales in the past, it has also introduced problems since if you discounted an item and someone put it in their cart but didn't purchase but then the price reverted, the item in the cart would still be charged at the price it was when it was put in the cart.  Opinions will vary as to whether this is the right or wrong approach but I don't know if that has ever changed.  I've never done a sale.

An integrated system where you could reduce across both MP and inworld if you wished, an inworld sales system that wasn't a scripted vendor but still coupled to MP billing... all quite possible but there's no appetite from LL which is a shame.  We've all had great ideas and given input but... *crickets*

[Love Zhaoying]

Aren't there ways to work around this?

Example: Offer a coupon/Gift cert. inworld with purchase. Coupon provides credit for additional purchases.

P.S. Well technically, so long as no one *thinks* this is a violation and reports you for it.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Love Zhaoying

[Dakota Linden]

5 hours ago, Sassy Romano said:

With respect Dakota, I believe you're on exceptionally shaky ground with that statement!

The 5% thing was always quite clearly explained by Pink Linden and with regard to the above, that holds no correlation where merchant A who purchases say a mesh template, sticks a floral texture on it and offers it on MP for L$500 and merchant B who purchases the same template, also slaps on a floral texture and offers it for L$10 inworld.

Second Life operates entirely on caveat emptor and if a buyer cannot find the cheaper, similar quality item, that's their failure, it has NEVER been a role of Linden Lab to police fairness in pricing between merchants either in-world, on Marketplace or between the two.  If you're sure about your statement, please cite that section out in the ToS.

Taking an example of my L$1,000,000 poseball (which is now on MP only) over which we've had such fun in the past, what you're saying above is that now if someone else offers a poseball that offers the same feature in-world but for L$1, LL will then take action?!  If so against who?  Me for offering the one with a high price or the other merchant for offering the other one at a lowball price?  What you've offered above makes no sense!

Lets reference the listing guidelines:-

https://marketplace.secondlife.com/listing_guidelines#abusive-behavior

Anti-Competitive or Abusive Behavior. Examples include, but are not limited to:

• inflating prices on the SL Marketplace, in comparison to in-world or other e-commerce sites,

Now, if you *really* want to make examples "not limited to" the bullet point given there, then I'll expect to see a change to that to the following effect:-

• inflating prices on the SL Marketplace, in comparison to in-world or other e-commerce sites, or other similar quality items from other merchants.

I don't believe that i'm ever going to see that in writing, thus I really think that you need to reconsider the statement about comparison with other merchants.

If you retain your statement then you are also directly contradicting the ToS https://www.lindenlab.com/tos pointing specifically to 1.4 where it's made perfectly clear that LL does not control and is not responsible or liable...

Similarly, section 6 " We are not responsible or liable for the conduct or content of any user"

Section 9:-

"9.1 Linden Lab is NOT liable for its users' actions, and you release Linden Lab from any claims relating to other users.

You agree not to hold Linden Lab liable for the Content, actions, or inactions of other users. As a condition of access to the Service, you release Linden Lab (and its officers, directors, shareholders, agents, subsidiaries and employees) from claims, demands, losses, liabilities and damages (actual and consequential) of every kind and nature, known and unknown, arising out of or in any way connected with any dispute you have or claim to have with one or more users, including whether or not Linden Lab becomes involved in any resolution or attempted resolution of the dispute."

Your statement claiming supporting "fairness" between merchants quite clearly indicates an intent to control and take responsibility of users and content as content will also include the price and any inference of leveling price is interference via control.

Either LL is involved or it's not, the ToS absolutely states in numerous places that it's not.

Hello Sassy, 

Please re-read my post.

My post specifically states, and ONLY states, Marketplace Merchants. Not inworld merchants.  My post also does not state, anywhere, that Marketplace Merchants must sell similar items for the same price as other Marketplace Merchants. 

I said that in the example of 2 Marketplace Merchants who sell a similar item of the same quality for the same price that it is not fair for one merchant to advertise that they offer the item in world for a discount. 

I am unsure why you seem to believe that anything I said is even remotely close to what you are claiming, but personally, I am offended.  

 

 

 

[Dakota Linden]

16 hours ago, Neural Blankes said:

Thank you for that clarification, Dakota.  Would it be possible to have it written into the ToS somehow to note that an in world "sale" is not considered anti-competitive if the marketplace is not utilized as a means of advertising that sale?

I understand the issue of how the marketplace could be used as an advantage to those who can afford an in world store, but if the anti-competitive clause is there specifically to say "you cannot use the marketplace as a means of advertising in world lower prices", it would be nice to have that clarification added.  The way the ToS reads currently is a bit broader and, obviously, leads to interpretations that lower prices in world are outright against the terms.

Also, the obvious question: Can I quote your statement here if the topic arises in group chat?  (No idea if you are on the legal team or not).

Hello Neural,

I am not on the legal team, as noted in my signature

If you wish to suggest updates or changes to the Terms of Service, Marketplace Listing Guidelines, or other policies, it should be submitted in writing to the Linden Lab corporate office. 

 

[Sassy Romano]

6 minutes ago, Dakota Linden said:

My post specifically states, and ONLY states, Marketplace Merchants. Not inworld merchants.  My post also does not state, anywhere, that Marketplace Merchants must sell similar items for the same price as other Marketplace Merchants. 

It shouldn't matter whether the merchants have presence only on MP or inworld or both, per the ToS, any issue between residents and thus by definition, their pricing should be between residents, it's not an LL matter.

7 minutes ago, Dakota Linden said:

I said that in the example of 2 Marketplace Merchants who sell a similar item of the same quality for the same price that it is not fair for one merchant to advertise that they offer the item in world for a discount. 

Not fair to whom?  Why is this an LL concern?  It's a resident to resident issue, buyer, sellers.  LL has no factor in this.

8 minutes ago, Dakota Linden said:

but personally, I am offended.  

Come now Dakota, you know me well enough to know that my post is not intended to cause offence and you shouldn't take it but what you've stated is contrary to all the previous information that has ever been given about the MP terms statements and the reason for the phrase "anti-competitive against inworld and other e-commerce sites".

I suggest that the MP ToS is more clearly defined such that the phrase "but not limited to" is removed and all conditions are explicitly stated, then there can be no need for confusion and no offence taken!