On LJ and ads.

[arib]

Apparently, the folks who run Livejournal have decided to do away with their "free" tier of service, leaving only "paid" and "ad-supported" levels.

This seems to have caused a kerfuffle amongst some LJ bloggers to the tune of "how dare they take away this totally free thing they've been giving me, and replace with a totally free thing with the same functionality, but some ads so they can make money! Rar!"

I have one paid LJ (this one), and one ad-supported LJ (my old reparo account.) From what I've seen, the ads are fairly benign, and are on par with the sorts of banner ads that can be seen on sites like cnn.com, or the bbc's news site outside of the UK (or on webcomics like Sluggy or SP). They're relatively inoccuous, and easily ignored.

Could someone please tell me what all the fuss is?

(Furthermore, could someone explain to me how holders of "free" accounts boycotting or leaving LJ would any sort of affect on them?)

Comments

[sundancekid.livejournal.com]

It's not as much about what they did as how they did it. They didn't announce they were getting rid of free ads -- normally that would warrant a post to the news comm, but instead an LJ staffer just mentioned it in a comment, and their explanation was that having three choices was "too complicated," so they got rid of a choice. We're not dumb. They did it because free accounts don't make them any money. (Although I would argue that free accounts are a good draw to get people to sign up, and then *become* paying members.) So it's about the fact that they did it, didn't mention they were doing it, and claimed it was because their users are too stupid to figure out how to choose among three.

[arib.livejournal.com]

That's a fairly crappy business practice, I agree.

(That said, have you met the average internet/computer user? They may not be entirely wrong... *grin*)

[guppiecat]

Actually, it WAS announced in the Russian version of the news. I attribute the problems to poor communications post-acquisition. Business-wise, I think it makes perfect sense.

[sundancekid.livejournal.com]

Also, apparently the president of SUP (our new overlords) has said in interviews that he doesn't consider himself accountable to LJ users, that he considers the proposed content strike on Friday "blackmail," positions I find troubling.

It sucks that even if things get really bad, there's nowhere else to go. JournalFen has serious problems, and IJ just doesn't have the money or servers to support the kind of traffic LJ does. *frustrated*

[arib.livejournal.com]

As much as Aliza and my sister nudge, I don't see myself moving over to facebook any time soon, either.

(I know, different sort of service, but it's a timesuck I don't need right now.)

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

On that last.

I don't come to LJ because of the content they provide, and I don't come to LJ because of the content only PAID accounts provide. I come to the content.

If the content is damaged or diminished, everyone loses.

[arib.livejournal.com]

I don't know that a banner ad would damage the content in any realy way. If people get annoyed and leave, it would be diminished.

I still don't quite see what the source of the annoyance is, beyond cultural differences in business practice. Maybe I've spent enough time in other countries with similar sorts of practices (Poland, some businesses in Israel) that it just sort of rolls off and doesn't bug me.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

If people get annoyed and leave, it would be diminished.

Exactly. I wasn't making predictions, just explaining the model.

Being required to see ads - annoying. Being forced to, when under the old regime it was an option, more annoying. Not being told in advance - very annoying.

The decision itself is not important to me. It shows a poor stewardship of the product they purchased, is all.

[tovaks.livejournal.com]

I agree with you, Arib. I switched over to the ad-supported one, and it was annoying for a day or two but I barely notice the ads anymore.

The content of people's personal blogs isn't damaged or diminished if there are some ads on the side of your browser--they're quite easy to ignore.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Firefox and Ad-Block make a far improved browsing experience.

At work I use IE. Bleh.

[arib.livejournal.com]

There's a reason it's pronounced "aiyeee!" when you read it aloud. :-)

[sorek.livejournal.com]

I was under the impression that the ads were of the hyperlink kind, where you'd write the word computer and the software woud convert that to a bright blue hyperlink that would have bubble text of "buy computers at ibm.com!" and would redirect you to ibm.com if you actually clicked on them.

[arib.livejournal.com]

That's not what they have in the ad-supported journals currently.

[sorek.livejournal.com]

Hm...interesting.

I still think they'll have them at most a year from now. they already have to turn a blog text into real html, adding those style of ads in the middle of that process is likely trivial.

[rosefox]

This interview is behind a fair amount of the current outrage.

[dmmaus.livejournal.com]

There's ads in my LJ? Really?? I hadn't noticed anything different at all.

[dizzdvl.livejournal.com]

Hee! I <3 you! :)

[griffen.livejournal.com]

Regarding ads: So if you were posting about being Jewish, and you saw an ad pop up on your journal telling you how you should contact such-and-such Baptist church and accept Christ into your life, you wouldn't have a problem with that?

That's been the experience of several gay and autistic LJers who have "Plus" accounts and have seen ads for "curing" homosexuality or autism show up on their posts about coming out or about being autistic. That's not okay, and I won't support it.

That's my fuss about the ads.

As I've already said in my LJ more than once, the issue for me has several aspects:
* I pay for content that includes the content of free users. LJ closing that option off reduces the content I want to see and am paying for. That's not okay.
* Free users also contribute, just not financially. They contribute content. It does not have to be financial to be valuable.
* LJ/SUP has once again shown that its promises hold as much water as a sieve during a rainstorm; i.e. none. Its promises of transparency and open communication with users have been broken so many times that they're worthless.
* LJ/SUP has once again allowed one of its employees to speak negatively to the press about the users, and no apology for that has been given.
* LJ/SUP is treating this site like the only important thing about it is the platform, when the really important thing is the community - a non-salable commodity.
* People who blog on LJ are providing content, so they really are not customers. They are sponsors. That distinction is vital.

I am striking today. I wish I could convince you and others who seem to think this is a ridiculous idea that it's important. It bothers me that I'm not getting through to anyone.

[arib.livejournal.com]

So if you were posting about being Jewish, and you saw an ad pop up on your journal telling you how you should contact such-and-such Baptist church and accept Christ into your life, you wouldn't have a problem with that?

Oh, I certainly would, and I'd complain to whoever it'd be appropriate to complain to. That said, I don't know how LJ/SUP manages their ads. Is it a basic google ad setup? Do they approve each ad that gets posted? I don't know. (Wil Wheaton had something like that crop up on his [admittedly wonderful] blog. In that case, he had either inadvertantly approved an ad for something he didn't approve of [a book by Bill O'Reilly], or the ad was misinserted into his blog by Google.)

Further, I haven't heard that complaint related to his boycott until you brought it to my attention. That said, I get "convert to Christianity" and "cure homosexuality" ads inserted into my gmail all the time. I just ignore it. I've yet to buy anything off of an internet banner ad, and I don't see myself starting any time soon.

I am striking today. I wish I could convince you and others who seem to think this is a ridiculous idea that it's important. It bothers me that I'm not getting through to anyone.

I just don't see the strike as important, or particularly effective. It reminds me of the 24-hour gas boycotts that get forwarded around the internet, or people who want me to sign an online petition to make sure JJ Abrams doesn't "ruin the new Star Trek movie."

If everyone who was planning on boycotting for a day chose instead to switch to a different blogging system (GJ, IJ, DJ, Blogger, whatever, as long as they moved en masse) permanently, and leave en masse, that'd get the message across. A one day boycott, no matter how much publicity it gets won't even register.