Jump to content

Cain Maven

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Cain Maven

  1. 43 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

    Also hardly anyone thinks about all the free support creators / merchants provide — not for their products, but, for example, explaining how SL works. 

    That is so true! SL has a steep learning curve, and merchants end up doing a lot of explaining of the basics -- something that really should be a Lab job. But if we decline to help customers with these basics, we are told we provide poor customer support :)

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  2. 3 hours ago, Callie Cline said:

    Hoping they come back to us with a new decision on cash out fees

    really hope so too, but I'm not optimistic. They'd have to find an alternate source for the roughly $ 1.5 million that this fee increase represents. (2.5% of $60 mill.)

    Currently, they don't have many options except Marketplace and Premium subscriptions -- unless they get creative...

  3. 19 minutes ago, Froukje Hoorenbeek said:

    Please keep in mind that it takes a lot of work and commitment to be a good innovative content creator, it is a full time job that most of us can barely live off. Skimming more of our income will force us to look for other jobs.  Not because we want to, we love this world, we have given it a lot. But we have families and rent too.

    Well said, Froukje!

    • Like 11

  4. 35 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

    That's how it works. I'm a consumer. Go ahead and raise those prices. You have my permission. Please.

    Oh, I will, if I have to. I'm lucky enough to have a limited number of products, so the effort is quite manageable in my case.

    Longer term, I will also try changing the product mix, tweaking my promotion strategy, and eating fewer carbs. I have not given up.

    I am, however, asking Linden Lab to rethink their strategy for recalibrating the SL economy a little.

    • Like 4

  5. 1 minute ago, Jo Yardley said:

    It might be a good idea for LL to send people an official warning when they haven't logged into SL for say a year that if they don't respond soon their account will be set to non-active meaning their groups vanish, they are automatically removed from groups, they lose land, prims returned, etc.

    Are you taking notes, Linden Lab? :)

    • Like 12

  6. 3 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

    a question for you WFT and other merchants.  Would it be viable or useful to you if LL were to charge a fee per offer/notice sent to your subscribers ?

    It's not a bad idea, but the downside might be that it favors the big, established brands and becomes just another barrier to entry for new, small brands. And I think the playing field is a bit uneven as it is.

    • Like 3

  7. 3 minutes ago, Jo Yardley said:

    If you own a group you can actually remove members who haven't logged into SL for a while.
    Simply sort all members by date they last were online, select the ones you want to eject and do so.

    Good idea -- but why not also let the back end do this? That would also handle cases where the group creator no longer is active. Plus, some group owners may prefer the inflated count... :)

    • Like 1

  8. 30 minutes ago, halebore Aeon said:

    Creators are getting hit? How about the consumers, who are also gonna get hit with a price increase?  In a perfect world, a business wouldn't expedite its costs onto the consumer. However, to make ends meet, pay overhead and to essentially be able to live, since I know some cash out to RL. These costs will be expedited to the customer, in a price increase on goods and services, within SL.

    That's exactly right. Even if the direct impact is on the creators, in many if not most cases the extra cost will be passed on to the consumer. That's how it is in any life.

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1

  9. 4 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

    Actually, it most certainly does if the person cashing out cashes out less than $400/owned full region/month.

    Fair point -- although I'm not sure how many creators that applies to? I would imagine that those who cash out less than $400 / month may not have a full region, as tier would account for over 60% of revenue. I do agree that it doesn't hit all creators equally, though.

    In any event, I'm surprised that LL didn't increase the Marketplace fees first. The current 5% certainly is below "industry standards" and raising it might provide some revenue as well as having the positive side effects of encouraging creators to maintain in-world stores instead of only being on Marketplace.


    • Like 2

  10. 5 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

    a thing that helps merchants a little bit is that the cost to your customers to buy L$ hasn't been increased. In a where is the good news in all this for merchants then I think that's good.  Had LL increased the cost of buying L$ then that would have hurt the customers, bleeding thru to merchants on top of increased merchant fees

    I agree. But that's maybe more in the "not worse" column than in the "better" column? :)

    • Haha 1

  11. I am aware that LL is trying to shift the economy away from a tier-based economy. I am aware that this is not easy. I agree that it is long overdue and vital to the long term survival of SL.

    However, the last few rounds -- including this one -- have targeted creators disproportionately. Doubling the credit processing fee actually is a huge deal, and directly affects the livelihood of people who make a living or supplement their incomes here. It may seem like peanuts compared to "industry standards", but that's beside the point; people who depend on SL income are affected by SL fees, not what others might charge. (Reminder: most creators are not wealthy elites who wade in cash and sneer at the riff-raff.)

    A few of the other changes will also indirectly affect creators. Reducing the group count will make it harder to reach customers. Reducing the number of offline IMs will make it harder to communicate with customers. (As a side note, taking away benefits is a very unfortunate way of treating customers/users -- google "loss aversion" to see why this is a psychological blunder even if it saves a few pennies.)

    No, I have not forgotten about the $20 cut in full region tier. It is a step in the right direction, although it will clearly not lead to dramatic changes. And it does not come close to making up for the doubled credit processing fee.

    It is worth remembering that almost all of the content in SL is not made by LL. It's made by us -- some for free, some for profit. It is starting to feel as if LL is taking creators for granted (where else are they going to go, right?) and by extension, taking consumers for granted.

    Because in the end, this affects consumers as well. If this trend continues, creators will be faced with some unpleasant choices: cut cost through outsourcing and more cookie-cutter products, raise prices, or close shop.

    Dear Linden Lab: If you want to preserve the creative vitality and healthy economy of Second Life, it's time to rethink and rebalance your strategy. Continuing down this path is not good for creators, not good for customers, and ultimately not good for your business.

    • Like 22
    • Thanks 17

  12. On 11/30/2018 at 6:08 PM, Grumpity Linden said:

    I think we should do the more generic case - allow a merchant to disable redelivery for 1) their entire store or 2) on a per-listing basis.   Otherwise, we may get caught up in carving out a variety of exceptions.  Thoughts? (I don't mean from Dakota, I mean from everyone :) ).

    Yes, agreed. There are tons of use cases here, and valid reasons for wanting or not wanting this feature; letting the merchants decide is the simplest and most flexible solution.

    Should we understand your comment to mean that this is actively being worked on? (That would be awesome :) )

    • Like 1

  13. 5 hours ago, Grumpity Linden said:

    Ohai! check out those good looking filters in your transaction history... 

    It works! I had to clear my cookies first, though. Prior to that, it kept appending the date range to the URL, thus overriding the filters and showing a week regardless of which filter was selected.

    After clearing cookies and restarting Chrome it now uses URLs without date ranges, like so:


    I'm using Chrome on Win 10, in case that info is useful.



    • Like 1

  14. 38 minutes ago, Grumpity Linden said:

    Alright! while we're on a roll, tell me please: is there still a (strong) use case for the URL on the transaction page to change when the selected date range changes (basically allowing you to bookmark a specific date range). 

    I've personally never had a need for bookmarking date ranges. It's so rare that I'm interested in anything other than today or yesterday that I don't mind using the calendar controls for those cases.

    Plus, given that only the last three months' worth of transactions are available, date range bookmarks have a limited shelf life.

  • Create New...