Ginsu Knives & Impulse buying in Second Life

Bless you.

13k L is usually what ili stop at if its on impulse

I don't have a limit, but 18,000L was my highest impulse buy, for a house I have rezzed once, derezzed and never used.

My highest impulse buys are avatars, the most expensive one L$1200.

Clothes, maybe L$400.

Anything scripted, I'll try and figure out how to do it myself even if it's only L$10. ^^

You've seen my signature, right? Would you do a L$1250 impulse buy? Please?

Sadly, I have no set maximum price for impulse buys. I spent 8K on clothing and skins yesterday. It was more fun than looking through inventory.

It doesn't surprise me, given my experience of the past eighteen months in Second Life, that the majority of residents are not given to impulse expenditure. I voted zero lindens on this despite the fact that, since joining SL, I have converted and spent a considerable sum of real dollars on products in the micro-economy and yes, a fair number of those purchases were impulse buys governed by my curiosity to see how the items would improve my in-world experience.

The fact is that most of my purchases did not improve my experience sufficiently to justify their cost. I have had to modify and adapt so many good but half-finished ideas to suit my purpose that I may as well have taken the trouble to build the items from scratch in the first place, which is what I have found myself doing, more and more often, to the point where I have been buying and spending a whack of lindens exclusively on file uploads for a couple of months now.

Uneven and inconsistent development of the grid and client has thrown up a considerable number of issues that have also given me cause to regret my lack of financial discretion in the past - admittedly through no particular fault of the original sellers but this adds to my reluctance to spend all the same.

I am disappointed, nevertheless, that my confidence in making virtual purchases has waned because it would be just peachy keen to buy what I want when I want it and get on with escaping RL for a few hours, which is what I hoped and still think virtual worlds like SL should be about.

However, the figures quoted by the OP lead me to believe that my current attitude is typical of a fair proportion of SL residents. So why are we so reluctant to casually spend lindens?

I understand that I am treading through something of a minefield here but I do not think it is enough to take lindens from customers without offering them some form of comeback on satisfaction. Linden dollars are not fake, they have a corollary in the RL economy since they are exchanged for real US dollars. Consequently products or services purchased in SL should be subject to some form of warranty or protection for customers.

While a number of ethically minded residents do respond readily to customer complaints as a matter of course, it is my experience that most consider their responsibility for customer satisfaction at an end when the item is delivered to inventory. There are of course far too many breadheads who just take the money and run - no questions answered.

As a potential customer, I have become less willing to 'risk' spending because the chances are far too high in my experience that I will simply be throwing money away on shoddy goods. I suspect that even the most willing consumers are gradually disenchanted for similar reasons and perhaps a more interesting survey would poll whether or not residents are increasing their spending over time and if not, why not?

That question aside, I think it would be helpful if those residents engaging in business within SL were explicitly required under the Terms of Service: to subscribe via a business account, which would show at least some commitment to the product or service they are offering and also help provide a foundation for some regulatory control; to maintain a regular presence in-world and deal with issues related to their product or service, in which case IMs should not be capped for business accounts so that record of unanswered complaints or issues may be used to determine whether or not a subscriber to a business account is behaving responsibly; to demonstrate confidence in the product or service they are offering by backing it up with a money-back guarantee on the reasonable grounds of proven dissatisfaction.

Customer complaints should be bound by reasonable limits of course. I am not suggesting that a refund would be due on something bought twelve months ago: even if the item is rubbish, it would be the customer's responsibility to determine that unfortunate fact within a matter of hours or days. Second thoughts about the suitability of a product would not count: if it does what it is supposed to do and is of reasonable quality there is no come back.

Business will certainly be a good deal harder to pull off in SL because some of these conditions will open a can of worms I think many current sellers would rather remained firmly closed. Nevertheless, SL business is something of a game in itself and I certainly don't mean "how much crud can I shift for the maximum return" kind of game: if we want a *good* game then there should be some ground rules and it should require some effort to become skilled at playing.

Better regulation of business and at least some ethical standards in-game would result in: increased customer confidence in quality and service, which would undoubtedly raise sales figures - both impulse and otherwise; improved quality since developers would be less inclined to market shabby products likely to result in a flood of complaints or demands for refunds when they log in; a more interesting grid since SL would not be peppered with dead shopping malls and ugly ad farms that no one visits after their first couple of weeks as a newbie; a more active and creative community since residents who are less confident about their capacity to do business under stricter terms might focus on other outlets with better results for all.

Hard work but SL shouldn't begin and end with turning a fast buck.

If you order today, you'll get a ginsu knife and a smokeless ash tray.
Now how much would you pay?

As I understand it LL provides the grid for us to make our world according to our imagination. If they also supplied a government with law enforcement and a judicial system I imagine they would have to charge a lot more than they do now. There do seem to be a lot of people who do want that kind of service so maybe someone will set up a virtual world like that.

$19.95

But who would go there? That's what we have in Real Life. (tm)

In 3 easy payments.

They also created a micro-economy that involves exchange of cash for goods. However laudable the concept of shaping a virtual world according to our imaginative powers might be, there is nothing imaginary about the currency used to make purchases.

I'm not advocating an in-world "government with law enforcement and a judicial system" but what is wrong with the concept of making someone accountable for the quality of their product?

Accounts are banned or canceled all the time and for any number of reasons such as abusing or griefing other residents for example, which is not unfair. I don't see why someone should not be prevented from taking lindens in exchange for shoddy services or goods.

As for charging more: the Lindens could introduce taxation for businesses with turnover above a significant threshold and use that income to fund a regulatory system.

Basic and premium accounts would not be directly affected since they would not be involved in commercial activity. Perhaps pricing might rise in general but that is a factor I would personally prefer to deal with if it meant some assurance of quality or comeback and made spending lindens worth the effort.


We also have shysters, sharp practice and downright incompetence in RL. Do we put up with it?

Has to depend on what. Easily over L$ 6000 if you are talking buildings or boats. L$ 500 is a cup of coffee at Caribou Coffee or the Baltimore Tea Company, so probably that for anything that catches my eye.

When you say
"I don't see why someone should be prevented from taking lindens in exchange for shoddy services or goods."
did you mean to say you don't see why they *shouldn't* be prevented?

"what is wrong with the concept of making someone accountable for the quality of their product?" sounds as if you want some sort of penalty for those who sell inferior goods.

It occurs to me that the Lindens might be hoping that people who want more regulation will band together, buy land, and set up covenants with the kind of rules they want, rent only to shopkeepers they believe to be reputable or whatever. And attract visitors who want some assurance that they are not going to be scammed.

I don't see them hiring a whole new department any time soon to try to figure out rules that would suit everyone on the whole grid and how to enforce them. I think it's more likely that some kind of private "consumer guide" group might emerge, whose recommendations on merchants and merchandise will be good enough to win the trust of sl consumers.

In real life, as a society we spend a huge amount of money, time and energy trying to stop people from harming and taking advantage of each other. So far the effort is only moderately successful.

My apologies and I have corrected the error.


If they don't respond to reasonable complaints or offer a refund to dissatisfied customers then yes, they should be prevented from conducting business. If you consider that a penalty then so be it.

I understand that there is a great deal of potential for unscrupulous consumers to have refunds on goods they are perfectly happy with but wish to have for free. In this case I would see the regulatory system working for the business in question: I'm sure the item could be removed by the Lindens from the complainant's inventory using the object and avatar UIDDs when the creator provides proof of a refund from the transaction history. If this operation had to be performed repeatedly above a certain threshold (and I am sure the Lindens could easily confirm that it is not a griefing operation run by a plethora of alts) then it would be reasonable grounds for dissolving that business and removing the product from the Grid.

Nevertheless I think that a fair proportion of residents would play fair and complain only when they have reasonable grounds.


I can assure you that I am not connected with Linden Labs or any such aspirations that they might have regarding regulation of business in SL. I am a daily and almost constant resident with a high regard for the entertainment potential of virtual worlds in general: it is my opinion that the medium will be as important as television, cinema and literature in the very near future and I would prefer to see some controls in place sooner rather than later since they are an inevitable necessity in my opinion.

Why? Because one of the greatest fantasies of SL is that we live totally outside of RL restrictions and quite a number of unscrupulous merchants are taking advantage of that naivety to make a killing. The knock-on effect of this is that I believe residents become progressively less inclined to 'risk' spending on new products having been stung once too often.

And that is not good for consumers and producers alike in any economy - real or virtual.


That would be a start but the big question here is how would such a group wield sufficient authority as to encourage change amongst SL businesses? At this point, I am unwilling to accept recommendations from most consumer-related web sites or publications on SL and even other residents on these forums because they almost always lack clear standards of objectivity and discrimination.

Perhaps this is a JIRA issue but I think it would be far easier for the Lindens to instigate an efficient mechanism for promoting and regulating good business practice before the grid becomes saturated with unsatisfied customers and inventories stuffed with dross.

I don't strongly disagree with anything you're saying. I'm just having trouble visualizing how effective regulation could work without being expensive.

I'm no economist but I understand that until someone comes up with a better idea, taxation would appear to be the sine qua non of any reasonably stable society because it finances development of infrastucture and the community itself.

I know that the very word will put a dampener on most residents' idea of a good time but I don't see how it would even affect the majority who do not turn over or even spend a significant amount of lindens. However it would finance a mechanism via profits, which both creators and consumers alike have generated, that would ultimately build confidence in spending.

Personally I would not resent paying a tax of between 10 and 20% on my SL income if I were making anywhere in the region of 1,000 USD in a month.* Those dollars came from other residents and it is not unreasonable to put some of it back into the economy so that everyone benefits.

The current "take it or leave it" arrangement just doesn't work.

* As a matter of fact I have made precisely 300 lindens on the sale of a texture I created as a favour for another resident sometime early last year. Although I have long since been in a position to put out a range of very saleable products, I have refrained from doing so largely because I am not confident that the current system allows me to have a responsible relationship with potential consumers. The result is that I now spend exclusively on developing my own inventory, which is very rewarding on a personal level, but it means very little in terms of the general development of SL.

In SL that taxation comes in the form of tier, lindex fees, and things like upload charges and group payments. We are already taxed, don't pretend otherwise.

Think twice eh? heh, in that case my threshold is 0L. Literally. I've refrained from "buying" demos because they were 1L (I don't mean that I'm boycotting those). Then in other places in other times I've just bought the hair, skin, etc. instead of buying demos (mostly when the skin/hair/etc. is some number closer to demo price, 1L, than 1000L).

I could say, under a different definition, that I've "impulsively" bought items costing upwards of 100K (really, land - impulsively put in a bid, "accidently" won). Going back to the definition in the thread here (not to imply the definition is somehow "wrong", I seriously think about purchasing 1L demos. Granted it might be at most 10 seconds of thought, at most. And sometimes do not buy the 1L demos. Mostly because you can end up spending 1000s of Lindens without paying attention by buying 1L demos (I mean buying 1000 one L items, not some issue where you accidently bought a 1000L item). Why just the other day I "impulsively" bought a 3499 full avatar and refrained from impulsively buying 1L demo skins from the same place (and I did think about it; impulsively in quotes because not really impulsively. heh, I heard about the item, went there, couldn't really see what I was buying, thought about it, then bought; had also gone to get the demos, guess the impulse "purchase" here was to not purchase the demos). Later went back and refrained from buying another full avatar, and bought the demos for the skin. Think I spent 10L on the demos and I haven't even looked at them yet.

Heh heh .. ya I know this poll is really hard to put a firm figure on and I've totally done the same as you ... waivering on even picking up a 1L demo one day and not hesitating to drop a few thousand lindens the next. I've got so much crap in my inventory that I've either not used at all or just once, although sometimes it's fun to discover stuff you forgot about .. it's like SCORE!

I'm not 'pretending' anything, Argent. I was answering Kaimi's speculation about how the expense of regulation might be addressed.

And strictly speaking we are not being taxed in lindex charges, tier fees, group payments and upload fees. The items you listed are charges not taxes and their apparent purpose is quite disparate from the issue I'm discussing here. But if we must split hairs in a purely speculative argument then I suppose we could talk about income tax or value added tax.

In short, any form of revenue from profits and income generated by sales that would directly fund a better system with adequate respect for consumer rights would be welcome, in my opinion.

Yes, real-life politicians are always loading us down with "that's not really a tax" charges, too. The bottom line is the same, whether they call it a tax, a user fee, a surcharge, or anything else.

Lindex charges serve the RL purpose of "income tax". Value added taxes are regressive taxes that proportionally cost more for the people who can least afford to pay them.
The cost of such a system would increase the costs of transactions in SL to the point that it would pretty much clobber the economy, they would lead to abuse and inefficiencies, and cause hardship for both customers and vendors, and they would not solve the problem you're trying to solve.

In SL as in rl I would be happy to pay a part of my income (call it taxes or fees or whatever you like) for extra service that would make things run more smoothly for everyone. And the more income I have the more I'd be willing to pay.

For me it is a bit different in general, because most of my purchases are for my business. For that part I would put my impulse "border" at around 1000 linden: over that price I do think if I really need it, under that price I can be quite impulsive. Because of that I do own most of the hippo stuff,where I could have done with much less My latest purchase for example was a set of animations at 20k, and for that one I did really think a bit longer.

The reason so many people do hardly spend, is simple in my opinion. SL is free. Most accounts are free accounts. many people use it as a social platform where they never actually pull out a credit card to purchase lindens. Maybe some initial camping or money chairs or moneytrees to create their avatar, but no need for their own place. And freebies enough around for them.

As far as tax goes, a big NO. There is no way to guarantee quality anyway, I mean RL has tax and lots of crap around as well. And in the end, people selling good quality stuff with good customer service are the ones that survive.

What SL does need though is a better response system to AR's, especially where scams are involved. That way people ripping of others would be out of the game soon enough. Furthermore, remove those BIABS full of stolen content. That way, lindens spent in game do at least end up at the right plaves instead of at scammers.

I have learned from my experience of buying in SL during the past 18 months that the more successful a business becomes, the less likely the business owner is to spend time in-world - at least on the account of the avatar he or she has used to produce the commodities. Furthermore, when they are actually in-world, owners of successful businesses are generally slow to respond to complaints and being busy is not a reasonable excuse as far as I am concerned. This is an issue of quality and yet they continue to thrive because of the way business works in SL and the general complacency of residents regarding the issue.

There are honourable exceptions, I am happy to admit, and fair dues to those people for putting in the hard work required to support their product and their customers. Otherwise the choice of "take it or leave it" is not good enough. When potential customers opt out of buying it is to the detriment of all.

Introducing tax is only a potential solution mooted by way of discussion on how to support customer rights and improve quality of product in SL. I joined this thread because it made think about the 1,500 USD - excluding tier fees on my parcel - that I have spent between the second and sixteenth months of my SL. Not all of it was wasted, and I dare say a good deal of it would remain wasted due to my inexperienced eye for what is actually possible when it comes to content creation. Nevertheless, I would probably have circulated some of that expenditure on more worthy products and have an inventory that reflects that expenditure at this point in my SL. Undoubtedly I would also have continued to spend at a similar rate if I hadn't come to the conclusion that impulse buying in SL is too much like throwing good money after bad.

Frankly I really don't care how a consumer support system would be funded but I am absolutely convinced that it is necessary to have a mechanism for deleting an unsatisfactory item from one's inventory within an acceptable period of time in return for obtaining a refund where one has grounds to do so. Call it an approval period, if you will.

In an earlier post on this thread I mentioned UIDDs. Perhaps the client could be adapted with a 'Return to vendor' option effectively deleting the product from inventory and allowing for a refund of cash spent on the product? I don't see how any extra effort would be involved apart from the decision of the consumer to reject the purchase and some jiggery-pokery by Linden Labs with the software. Allowance would have to be made for determining a suitable period of approval and of course delaying transfer of funds to the vendor until such time as the product is accepted by the consumer. I'm sure that is a distinct possibility, even though I'm no great shakes at scripting.


A better response system to ARs would involve more manpower and expense to Linden Labs so we're right back where I raised the issue of taxation and I quite agree to drop that chestnut.

However, it has occurred to me that the whole Business-in-a-Box phenomenon would evaporate, along with many other undesirable aspects of SL commerce, if vendors were required to operate on a business account as I suggested in my initial post.