<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: LJ Content Strike?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://netninja.com/2008/03/20/lj-content-strike/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://netninja.com/2008/03/20/lj-content-strike/</link>
	<description>I mock you with my monkey pants!</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:27:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Addlepated</title>
		<link>http://netninja.com/2008/03/20/lj-content-strike/#comment-607</link>
		<dc:creator>Addlepated</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Mar 2008 01:47:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://netninja.com/2008/03/20/lj-content-strike/#comment-607</guid>
		<description>I'll be sure not to post in my LJ on that day.  Of course, I've only posted in it once, to note that I don't use LJ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll be sure not to post in my LJ on that day.  Of course, I&#8217;ve only posted in it once, to note that I don&#8217;t use LJ&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raven</title>
		<link>http://netninja.com/2008/03/20/lj-content-strike/#comment-605</link>
		<dc:creator>Raven</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:57:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://netninja.com/2008/03/20/lj-content-strike/#comment-605</guid>
		<description>For what it's worth, I am participating in the strike, but I really have no problem with them taking Basic accounts away.  I see that as a smart business decision, although I agree that they should have at least warned people with some sort of "This is your last chance to get a Basic Account" announcement in their Biz community.  

But what I found more worrisome, and strike-worthy, was the fact that they were back to editing the list of user interests to interests they approved of.  They eliminated interests like "bisexuality," "sex" and "fanfiction" off the list of most popular interests.  Once a blog company starts fiddling with user-created content like that, I get nervous.  

I don't believe the strike will have any economic impact; I don't think that's the point.  I think of it more as a showing that, yes, your customers *can* get pissed at you.  And if they do, they will leave.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For what it&#8217;s worth, I am participating in the strike, but I really have no problem with them taking Basic accounts away.  I see that as a smart business decision, although I agree that they should have at least warned people with some sort of &#8220;This is your last chance to get a Basic Account&#8221; announcement in their Biz community.  </p>
<p>But what I found more worrisome, and strike-worthy, was the fact that they were back to editing the list of user interests to interests they approved of.  They eliminated interests like &#8220;bisexuality,&#8221; &#8220;sex&#8221; and &#8220;fanfiction&#8221; off the list of most popular interests.  Once a blog company starts fiddling with user-created content like that, I get nervous.  </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t believe the strike will have any economic impact; I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s the point.  I think of it more as a showing that, yes, your customers *can* get pissed at you.  And if they do, they will leave.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: xnbomb</title>
		<link>http://netninja.com/2008/03/20/lj-content-strike/#comment-598</link>
		<dc:creator>xnbomb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:54:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://netninja.com/2008/03/20/lj-content-strike/#comment-598</guid>
		<description>Thanks for bringing this to my attention.  Reflecting on what I have read, a couple of things pop into mind:

1)  They bought, they own it, they can change it if they want to do so.  But as is the case in any business that depends on its customers for its continuing success, not consulting with your customers before making significant changes to the services you provide to them may be hazardous to your bottom line.

2)  So far, they have eliminated the Basic account as an option for people establishing new accounts.  If/when they unilaterally convert all existing Basic accounts to Plus (advertising supported) accounts, that'll be a different ballgame (and my bet is that they will do this at some point).

3)  They must think it is in their business interest to eliminate Basic accounts.  That may or may not be true.  If the effect is to eliminate a significant proportion of content producers and consumers that use LJ, they are not going to come out ahead.  There is something to be said for the argument that Basic accounts add value to the system as a whole.

4)  I think what this really comes down to (from the business point of view) is a calculation of what proportion of Basic account holders would balk at using LJ at all if they only had the Plus option to use.  The total number of Basic vs. Plus accounts in existence would tell that story as well as anything ... I wonder what the numbers are.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for bringing this to my attention.  Reflecting on what I have read, a couple of things pop into mind:</p>
<p>1)  They bought, they own it, they can change it if they want to do so.  But as is the case in any business that depends on its customers for its continuing success, not consulting with your customers before making significant changes to the services you provide to them may be hazardous to your bottom line.</p>
<p>2)  So far, they have eliminated the Basic account as an option for people establishing new accounts.  If/when they unilaterally convert all existing Basic accounts to Plus (advertising supported) accounts, that&#8217;ll be a different ballgame (and my bet is that they will do this at some point).</p>
<p>3)  They must think it is in their business interest to eliminate Basic accounts.  That may or may not be true.  If the effect is to eliminate a significant proportion of content producers and consumers that use LJ, they are not going to come out ahead.  There is something to be said for the argument that Basic accounts add value to the system as a whole.</p>
<p>4)  I think what this really comes down to (from the business point of view) is a calculation of what proportion of Basic account holders would balk at using LJ at all if they only had the Plus option to use.  The total number of Basic vs. Plus accounts in existence would tell that story as well as anything &#8230; I wonder what the numbers are.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Laura</title>
		<link>http://netninja.com/2008/03/20/lj-content-strike/#comment-597</link>
		<dc:creator>Laura</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:24:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://netninja.com/2008/03/20/lj-content-strike/#comment-597</guid>
		<description>http://rhapsody11.livejournal.com/483666.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://rhapsody11.livejournal.com/483666.html" rel="nofollow">http://rhapsody11.livejournal.com/483666.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.594 seconds -->
