Selling on Xstreet just got more expensive

I'm wetting myself thinking that GOM might come back one of those days.

Yep, I wouldn't put it pass LL. The other 3rd party shopping sites will have to think of other ways of delivering products should that happen.

Its strange how a small independent company was able to run it so successfully...it had better UI, better forums, better search...without needing to increase fees. Since LL has taken it over...it's a pile of crock!

Was SLExchange actually turning a profit though? It was unquestionably better for a shpper at least, but if everyone used it like I used it (looking up items on the website, then buying them in-world), they had to be losing money.

Only the SLEX owner can answer that, but i suspect it was. I don't think the slapt.me website owners would have started this long haul project without crunching the projected numbers first.

Just ask Lord Sullivan about Slapt as a profitable project?

And also, XStreet wasn't just a shopping site. It also had a currency market, which if LL is going to merge, they might be sure they're going to lose profits off that. So, that could explain the farking fees.

SLX doesn't have to earn a profit. If it improves the SL experience for residents then it serves LL well even if it loses money. If it was a 100% loss or 100% profit it still wouldn't compare to tier money. Somewhere in the 10-20% range either way would be peanuts for LL.

It's more important that it serve buyers than sellers, because there are a lot more of them.

My experience with SLX has been that it's been ridiculously difficult to find something potentially useful in all the redundant noise, and I'm invariably disappointed with my purchases. Maybe it's because I'm a creator myself and have high expectations, but...I don't think so. I'd have to have really low expectations to be happy with the things I've bought.

This is a good point. Once it became a part of LL it became part of SL as a whole.It should function in a way that encourages as many peole to use it as possible, regardless of whether "it" makes a pfofit. If it succeeds LL should see the benefit in SL overall. Attempting to wring every penny from SLX at all cost tells a lot about their management objectives.

This has been my experience.I think a lot of the stuff especially clothing, more time is spent on the graphics of the ad than on the item itself.
I have bought stuff that barely resembled the ad.

I like to go for the "what you see is what you get" style of ad.

Exactly. LL needs to earn a profit, not Xstreet. Someone in one of these threads defended the changes by stating that every division of LL should earn a profit, including Xstreet. That's ridiculous. Do RL advertising departments earn more than they spend? Of course not. Their goal is to promote revenue to other divisions of the corporation.

One defense of having the L$10 fee is because Xstreet is used as promotion to drive inworld sales. It's certainly accurate to say that Xstreet is used as a promotional tool by some store owners. Xstreet's search beats inworld search, so customers often find items on Xstreet and then purchase inworld.

Yet, we didn't hear about the need for a listing fee when SLexchange was a 3rd party site, even though SLX's owners didn't benefit from inworld purchases. Now that LL owns the site, however, LL benefits regardless of how the user chooses to purchase. Like many others in this thread, I now pay 10 times more tier than I did when my store opened and I pay more in classified fees.

LL is benefitting from all our sales--on Xstreet and inworld--and they should be bending over backwards to help us promote sales MORE, not less.

One thing I noticed following these threads at several locations is people are calling th L99 or L10 fees "Listing Fees". As LL has stated them they are not listing fees they are maintenance fees. If they were a "Listing fee" they would be charge one time when the sellers product was added to the XStreet service (ie when the product was Listed). Instead these fees are being charged monthly (ie a charge to maintain the listing).

I think alot of folks would accept the charges more readily if they were indeed "Listing Fees"

They are fees you must pay to have your item listed on SLX; therefore they are listing fees. They have to be recurring because items do not sell out and listings do not expire.

I referred to them as "listing fees" because that's what LL is calling them. The heading, "Monthly listing fee of L$10 for all items L$1 or greater," is used in the roadmap:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Managing_Freebies_on_Xstreet_SL_Roadmap_FAQ

I yammered on at length about this in a couple Commerce "forum" threads, so I'll try to be brief here:

Unlike the old privately owned SLExchange, LL can't just cash out L$ fees and commissions. LL is responsible for maintaining a stable L$, so they don't just dump L$s at market value, but trade only when demand pushes the LindeX above a target level, managed by Supply Linden. A "sink" like XstreetSL fees only generates revenue for LL if it causes residents to buy L$s in excess of those other residents are selling to cash out.

All other things being equal, removing some L$s from the economy with a fee should cause somebody somewhere to need to buy a corresponding number of L$s to replenish the amount in circulation. But not all other things are necessarily equal. If the fees actually depress resident economic activity, they won't buy those replacement L$s--the SL economy will just shrink, and LL won't realize revenue commensurate to the fees.

On the other hand, if increased fees were to make XstreetSL a more effective marketplace and residents spend more and buy more L$s and LindeX demand increases above Supply's target price, LL could make more revenue from the policy than the amount of the fees themselves.

And pigs could fly in formation over Poughkeepsie at dawn, so don't forget your umbrellas.

Actually, I have a different word for something happening against my choice and being told "you wanted this."

Are people opposed to listing or maintenance fees? Are you opposed to just per item fees, or to fees altogether to maintain the search/database? This is different from the per-item commission fees. I'm asking because I'm toying with charging a fee just to put an item on my inworld shopping system because there is overhead with maintaining the system...but sometimes people won't sign-on to something if there is an up-front cost.

Not QUITE sure if I understood your question, but, in general I'd rather pay a one time and one time only fee, than be dunned in an ongoing 'rental' or 'maintenance' situation.

If this is about listing freebies, it would be great if the whole thing were free. But again I'm not quite sure what you envision.

That's a good question and I'll be interested to see the responses. I don't care how it's charged: listing fees, commissions, etc. I'm certainly not opposed to paying a fair price.

I'm opposed to the changes because they raise the cost too much. Whether someone has only a few listings and makes few sales, or has a lot of listings and will be getting nickle-and-dimed ridiculously, the additional cost is a significant increase added to what we already pay.

Here's a thought - someone mentioned a few posts ago that items do not sell out.

How about a listing fee model that depended on every item having only a finite number available and for a set period of time?

Just tossing this around.

Pay up front to list a set number of an item for sale.
Testing the water? Pay for ten items
Good seller? Pay for 1,000 items perhaps at a lower per item rate.
When stock is depleted item has to be re-listed.
When time period expires items have to be re-listed.

The listing fee would not have to be exorbitant but would force sellers to consider their product and its viability.

This model would ensure sellers maintained their virtual storefront. They could no longer throw an object on the virtual shelf and give it no further thought.

Like I said, this was just a thought as an alternative to a flat listing fee that is still just a 'fire and forget' model. The intent would be to require sellers to be proactive in the presentation of their wares and selling strategies.

Rime

I'm opposed to anything that doesn't encourage new people to create and, if they're good, make some money doing it. I'm also opposed to anything that restricts my casual building or makes it more difficult to do so and/or make what I build available to others.

The new fees favor established businesses, not casual builders or start-ups.

I thought Hank was asking about fees for his HUD.

I know. I was responding to Hank's questions in post #497 on what people would like in his product.

A small one time fee to list an item? If you're not charging a commission on the sale also, I'd have no issue whatsoever.

Hank. If I'm not mistaken, you won't be charging a commission on sales, will you? (I haven't really followed what you're doing and I don't know if it will be possible to buy through your system, or if it will be a system to point people to stores).

Assuming that you won't be receiving commissions on sales, then I would think that people are unlikely to object to some sort of listing fee arrangement. I'm sure you will have overheads, not to mention your time and trouble, and it would be mean-minded to begrudge you a fee of some sort. Even if you sell the HUD, which you may be intending to do, that's a one-off payment but the data to support it has to be continuous, so it wouldn't really cover it for you on its own.