Feedback from content creators?

I have an idea for a store, but want to run it by content creators first.

I'd like to do a consignment shop, focusing on historical recreations. I don't want to charge anyone mall space, just some (undetermined) percentage of sale.

As it expands, I'll need to be able to move the vendors about, regroup, etc.

However, the way that permissions are set up currently, if I assign each artist a section,
and let them put out vendors themselves, I won't be able to move the vendor

And if I "own" the vendors, so that I can move them about as needed, the artists will have to trust me not only to set up the sales splits, but to give me the item to be sold.

I'd like to do this in such a way that no-one feels taken advantage of, or nervous about it.

So - I guess all of that leads up to:

As content creators, do you think you'd be comfortable participating in a consignment type shop?

and trusting someone to set things up for you?

Or have I complicated this too much, and there's an easy solution to all of this, and if it was a snake, I would have been poisoned by now?

Many thanks

Eleanor

Read my sig line...

Eloise's ONE works on a commission basis. I can happily tweak the scripts to pay you if you don't want to do it yourself. This lets the sellers own the vendors so you've got problems with moving them still, potentially, but they don't have to trust you with copy, transfer versions of their merchandise.

Doc Nielsen, who founded ONE, discovered a mixed response to the commission sales, as have I since taking it over. There are well established sellers who sell happily from ONE. There are new sellers who sell happily. There are estabished sellers who won't touch it with a barge pole. The system can work though and be reliable all round.

The transactions page lets everyone see that you're taking your cut fairly as well of course, and once you get some sellers you can generate more because you can say if you're not sure, speak to any of the existing vendors.

I wouldn't be opposed to it if it were done the way Eloise is talking about. With the permission system being so dredfully limited as it is, I won't put my stuff into any vendor that I don't own. It's just too much of a risk.

Of course, if I'm understanding Eloise correctly, she's taking a risk in trusting that merchants won't try to slip vendors under the radar without her script in them, but as the one who owns and promtes that particular mall, it makes good business sense for her to be one extending her hand, rather than expecting it to happen the other way around.

For what it's worth, I think you're on the right track. I like the commission model much better than the rent model. It creates the right incentives on both ends by forcing everyone to directly participate in a mall's well being.

If a mall owner just collects rent, he or she has no reason to care how well a store does, as long as it doesn't do so poorly that it can't make the rent. The result can be a mall where everyone just sort of gets by without really succeeding.

With the mall owner working on commission though, everyone's on the same team. The merchants and the owner both have tremendous incentive to make sure each and every store does as well as possible.

I say it in RL all the time, the world would be a much better place if EVERYONE worked on commission. Imagine if teachers only got paid if they got students to actually learn. Imagine if cops only got paid if they successfully prevented crime. Imagine if the president only got paid for acting in the best interest of the people. Of course, most of that wouldn't actually be possible to quantify, let alone even execute, but it's nice to dream.

Maybe the solution could be, let the authors use their own vendors with additional script put inside the vendor that will allow you to move it around when necessary? (through dialog interface, stating coordinates in specific channel or whatever)

thanks - will check out the ONE system

and yes - I don't see a point in the rental space system. I want a win-win situation - and something that's useful for shoppers as well. I'd like to think (I may be delusional) that I can do a good job of sorting through a mess of shops, and finding the best goods of use to historical reenacters, and grouping them together.

Joannah - do you have a suggestion for a script that would let me move someone elses object?

Eloise - do you think such a script would work ok with your system?

and any other comments or feedback is greatly welcome!

Re Chosen's point there are ways to code in checks about the vendors. I won't say which ones I use, because they work best if people have minimal information about them, but there are security systems you can build in.

Yes, you could easily add a setpos type script that would only listen to the mall's owner so you could move the object around.

considering how many items i sell, renting on a percentage is just putting a big dent in my income

Something like this should work:

key     mall_owner = NULL_KEY; // put owner key here.
integer comm_channel = 10; // channel for commands.
float   comm_timeout = 60.0; // time to issue commands after prim is touched.
integer comm_handle = 0;

default {
    
    on_rez( integer parameter ) { llResetScript(); }
    
    touch_start(integer total_number) {
        
        key contact = llDetectedKey(0);
        if( contact != mall_owner ) return;
    
        if( comm_handle == 0 ) {    
        
            comm_handle = llListen( comm_channel, "", mall_owner, "" );
            llSetTimerEvent( comm_timeout );
            llInstantMessage( contact, "Communication channel has been open for " + (string)((integer)comm_timeout) + "sec. Use /" + (string)comm_channel + " shift x, y, z to move me around by specified distance." );
        }
        else {

            llListenRemove( comm_handle ); comm_handle = 0;
            llWhisper( 0, "Communication channel has been closed." );
        }
    }
    
    timer() {
        
        llSetTimerEvent( 0.0 );
        if( comm_handle ) {
            
            llListenRemove( comm_handle );
            comm_handle = 0;
            llWhisper( 0, "Communication channel has been closed." );
        }
    }

    listen( integer channel, string name, key id, string message ) {

        if( id != mall_owner ) return;
        
        list tokens = llParseString2List( message, [" ", ","], [] );
        if( (llGetListLength(tokens) == 4) && (llToLower(llList2String(tokens, 0)) == "shift") ) {

            float x = llList2Float( tokens, 1 );            
            float y = llList2Float( tokens, 2 );            
            float z = llList2Float( tokens, 3 );
            vector new_pos = llGetPos() + <x, y, z>;
            while( llGetPos() != new_pos ) { llSetPos( new_pos ); llSleep( 0.2 ); }
        }
    }
}

You will want to put key of person authorized to move things around in the first line instead of NULL_KEY. When the object with script is touched, it starts to listen on custom channel (10 by default) for command in format "shift x, y, z" where x, y, z is how many metres the object should move in these directions. E.g. "shift 0, -1.5, 0.5" to move it half meter up and 1.5 m 'back' along Y axis. After you're done, the communication channel can be closed by touching object again ... or it'll turn itself off after specified time (60 sec by default) ... So overall this should be relatively lag-free and it's passive for most of time.

Cool little script, Joannah. Thanks for sharing that.

Thanks ^^ thinking about is some more this isn't really a convenient way to move things, plus you cannot change rotation... so here's (also shorter) alternative.

key     mall_owner = NULL_KEY; // put owner key here.

default {
    
    touch_start(integer total_number) {

        if( llDetectedKey(0) != mall_owner ) return;
        llSensor( "vendor_placement_beacon", "", PASSIVE, 96.0, TWO_PI );
    }
    
    sensor(integer total_number) {
     
        vector pos = llDetectedPos(0);
        rotation angle = llDetectedRot(0);
        
        while( llGetPos() != pos ) { llSetPos( pos ); llSleep( 0.2 ); }
        llSetRot( angle);
    }
    
    no_sensor() { llWhisper( 0, "Failed to locate destination beacon." ); }
}

now, simply rezz your own object (can be cube or anything) and name it "vendor_placement_beacon". When a vendor with this script inside is touched, it'll do single sensor sweep in search of this beacon object, and if it finds it, it will move and rotate to match position and alignment of the beacon. After you're done moving stuff around, delete the helper prim.

Joannah - thank you so much. I am constantly impressed with the generosity of folks here.

The problem with this notion is that there is more than one set of interests involved in many cases, and they're not in alignment with each other. For instance, it's the usual thing to pay salespeople by commission. This brings their incentives into alignment with management; it's now in the interest of both the manager and the salesperson to sell as much as possible. On the other hand, the interest of the salesperson is now in OPPOSITION to the customer; it's now in the interest of the salesperson to sell as much as possible, and the most expensive product possible (or possibly on the one on which the supplier is offering the largest spiffs this week), even if that expensive product is not the best option for the customer.

In RL, I sometimes think that I'd be a really good salesperson for a certain local computer store. I know a lot about their merchandise, and people recognize that I do; I can barely go into the place without people asking me for advice. But I just can't deal with the fact that it would inherently put me in the position where giving people correct advice would sometimes mean taking money out of my own pocket. If they would just pay salespeople a reasonable salary and no commissions, I would love to work there, but as it is, the psychic contradictions of the whole business would tear me apart.