The Nanny State

The problem is that group 1 are much more important to the in-world economy than group 4, because group 1 are likely to be the ones who inject the most US$ into the economy. All four groups may buy land and pay tier, but group 1 is the one most likely to be paying someone _else's_ tier too.

This is correct, and it takes scores or hundreds of Group 1 residents to support a single member of group 2. But their importance is to the in-world economy, not to LL's revenue.

LL only gets revenue if people pay tier, are premium members, or contribute to L$ sinks that end up generating buys on the LindeX. Sure, a vibrant in-world economy draws in new residents who will do these things, but for LL's business it really doesn't matter which of these Groups to which a resident belongs. What matters is that they either own land, or cause somebody else to own land, in order to generate tier revenue. The whole rest of the economy is noise to LL's bottom line.

Hence, LL's whole business is optimizing tier revenue by getting people to hold virtual land for homes and businesses. What is the biggest threat to that? Anything that disrupts the perception that virtual land is worth holding--or that it is "land" at all. (Stand next to a 60m tall "tower" of particle-spewing "advertisement" and say that with a straight face. But I digress.)

*Of course* they need to offer zoned mainland. And it's not about how much they can get at auction--that's noise, too. It's about being able to sell the damned stuff at all.

...Weedy suggested on the Jack thread that it may be time to just nuke the Mainland and start over. I read that post as a desperate plea of a resident, but you know... I'm beginning to think it may be the smart business move.

Sorry, Sansara. Better luck next time.

I went to stay with friends over the weekend, and they live in a 'housing estate' built on the outskirts of the city, they have a few of them, they are all partly in the country and surrounded by fields and trees etc, but here are no shops or places for social activities and everyone hates living there.

RL? And if that is the case, why do they hate it? And how old are these people? In SL, everything is a TP away so there is no "commute time" so you can have your country home and be in the city in an instant.

Yes RL the City is Peterborough in England, all ages, it's really godless though, I'd rather be dead than live there, I wanted to be dead after 24 hours, all amenities are a 10 to 15 minute car drive away.

If they had this in SL I guess I would want to be dead in 10 minutes than be there.

Yes RL the City is Peterborough in England, all ages, it's really godless though, I'd rather be dead than live there, I wanted to be dead after 24 hours, all amenities are a 10 to 15 minute car drive away.

If they had this in SL I guess I would want to be dead in 10 minutes than be there.

...the pejorative epithet.
2. "consumer masses"
3. ok not an epithet but the "mercenary objective"

What I mean is that it appears, given many of their initiatives and positioning, that they mean to move away from making money from end users like us, and towards acting as a "hub" to more stand alone grids hosted by other organisations.

This is correct, and it takes scores or hundreds of Group 1 residents to support a single member of group 2. But their importance is to the in-world economy, not to LL's revenue.

As a category 4 resident, I have to say I am not very happy with your suggestion that a lack of mercenary objective implies that my content is objectionable. Many of the worst eyesores are commercial premises, and the most abundant, huge floating spinning advertisment blocks, are entirely made and used by those seeking to take real money out of the SL economy.

I'm not saying that all "group 4" content is objectionable......These will overwhelmingly be group 4 builds. The group 4 people who can and do produce quality aren't any part of the problem.

Thank you for the calrification. We will have to agree to differ on this point though. My perception is that commercially motivated builds are as commonly objectionable as others. However, I am prepared to admit that it all depends on the bias/taste of perceiver. (Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that).

However, the proposition, in Jack Lindens closing remarks on the mainland consultation thread, of the need for professional advertising model, might indicate an additional intention to establish an income stream based on advertising revenue, in common with other large successful internet services.

That conjures up the awful scenario of being subjected, mid teleport, to ghastly "now a word from today's sponsor" screens and the destination taking suspiciously longer to contact...

Bulids that are "commercially motivated" in the sense that the service being sold is the REMOVAL of the build is clearly objectionable.

However, builds that are "commercially motivated" in the sense that the build is being sold to people who choose to purchase it because they WANT to make use of it are, _generally_ less objectionable in terms of "ugliness" than others. This is simply because, if it's low quality it doesn't sell, it thus it tends to get removed, or at least not to show up in as many places.

Of course there is the issue of "objectionable content", such as expertly built d***ett items that are sold, but that's a whole other issue beyond the "ugliness" problem (and probably brings back the "do we need a PG/M/XXX distinction" argument).

I think to some extent this is being driven from within, by the effects of the SL economy. I mean, essentially we have:

1) The content consumers who want purely to pay money for the quality items on offer;

2) The professional content creators who want to sell their content for money, and who therefore are likely to focus on making the most popular content, because it will sell best;

3) The "for-the-love-of-it" content creators who create for the joy of it, and may/may not sell their work; these are also likely to focus on making the most popular content because many enjoy the attention and, since they love creating, creating anything is just as good;

4) The "casual/dreamer" creators who create things purely for their own use, often which is way outside the mainstream, and may or may not sell it, but who divide their time between creating their content and using it.

The problem is that group 1 are much more important to the in-world economy than group 4, because group 1 are likely to be the ones who inject the most US$ into the economy. All four groups may buy land and pay tier, but group 1 is the one most likely to be paying someone _else's_ tier too.

Group 1 are accustomed to using content made by groups 2 and 3, which may well be higher quality than that produced by group 4, because group 4 does not put all of its effort into content creation. As a result, what a group 4 person might consider their own, unique, original content is just seen as an eyesore by the group 1 person on the adjoining parcel - and economically, they _must_ be given higher priority, because they bring in more US$.

I'm not sure quite what can be done about that other than trying to find a way of making the market more flexible so that the group 4's can join one of the other groups...