Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Recruiting Animal on July 18, 2008 at 1:01pm

Josh you seem to be saying that a community should allow links outside the site but not if they link to your own source of revenue. That's what I hear.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amanda Papp on July 18, 2008 at 1:11pm

I have 7 or so friend requests that I haven't accepted because of the reasons who are ranting about. I completely agree with you!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on July 18, 2008 at 1:14pm

Commission? I think I lost you. And it's ok to disagree. This is what Josh thinks, in Josh's own words: If you want to advertise, you should pay. Now, we don't live in a black-and-white world, so it's not like saying I'm Pro-Choice or Pro-Life . . . or that I'm on this side of the line while you're on the other. But I can tell you that I don't make free placements or answer any of the littany of LI requests for candidate referrals. Call me crazy, but I do this to make money . . . and I love what I do.

The semantic difference here between us is that I believe businesses should make a profit and that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The world of social media and social networking has presented new challenges to the old-media business model . . . but handling the gray area I described above may be the difference between building a profitable business or just building a network where people come and talk. These are nascent issues, Animal, and it's a tough game to play . . . in essence, the game has changed. But unless JD is willing to go broke and just be a nice guy, I think he's a businessperson who has goals.

If I was consulting any business, I'd say that we need to nail down your business model and I want you to be able to tell me in one line or less how you make money. If you can't do that, you're overthinking.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Canto on July 18, 2008 at 1:15pm

I can appreciate that... but, that was that conversation... not this one. This string originated with respect to things going on here.

And, to be absolutely clear.. I am in search of a solution to help end the overall issue. Not that it's mine to solve. But, that's just how I tick. Call me crazy.. but, I'd rather be part of the solution. And, I know you've been around for a long time.. so I figured you might have some good suggestions.

Whatever Josh was discussing at the link above would probably be addressed there.... especially if referring to him specifically. That's just my opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Canto on July 18, 2008 at 1:27pm

Amazing. I did not know that was here(referring to the link in Slouch's post speaking to wasted time... sorry.. did not realize this post would end up so far down the string) , JD. I was out of the office for about an hour.. and that same member joined my network a posted a bunch of gibberish with a link to some spam site. I actually followed the link because there was something that suggested it could be legit and I wanted to be sure before pushing the "red button" banning the member from my community. I ended up pulling my network connection out and yanking the power cord out of the back of my computer. No exaggeration.

So.. of course... it took time to put my computer back together and then make sure all was ok in my system. So I agree... that kind of member activity can hurt a community... big time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Recruiting Animal on July 18, 2008 at 1:36pm

Hey Josh. A newspaper has to pay journalists. The journalists post here for free. Pretty good deal for the site isn't it? Because it sells advertising just like a newspaper.

You don't want those same people to link to their own events off site because the site deserves the money for any kind of ad. I say the site has already been paid. If you think otherwise and it's your site you can charge. And as long as the majority of users don't care you wouldn't have any problems.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul DeBettignies on July 18, 2008 at 1:36pm

If I were to promote my blog or IT recruiting services to new members without first doing an introduction, without being "friends", without any sense of a relationshsip (definition used as wide as possible), then it is Spam.

If my first message to someone is, "send me your req's", that is not a business opportunity, it is Spam.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Recruiting Animal on July 18, 2008 at 1:40pm

Jimmy. Josh and I are talking about some other issues. You're absolutely right.

1. We already settled the harrassment issue of posting marketing brochures on everybody's chatter wall.

2. We didn't really care about befriending girls only.

3. We discussed censorship according to tone and content

4. Now we're onto the announcement of members' offsite business interests vs paid ads.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Recruiting Animal on July 18, 2008 at 1:41pm

I'd have to see some examples then. Those I've seen say things like I'm in your line too. I work here. Maybe we can do some business together. Let's talk about it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry Albright on July 18, 2008 at 2:12pm

Here's an example - the, ummm, "International" firms...you know, the "offshore" recruiters who do nothing but blast every single member here with their services. They completely lack any sense of approach and are anything BUT smooth. I get sick of seeing to but you gotta figure - 10,500 sales people in one place? Yeah, a few are gonna be clueless.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Canto on July 18, 2008 at 2:12pm

Animal... thanks for catching me up with your post earlier on:
Quoting you here so others can follow: "Jimmy. Josh and I are talking about some other issues. You're absolutely right.

1. We already settled the harrassment issue of posting marketing brochures on everybody's chatter wall.

2. We didn't really care about befriending girls only.

3. We discussed censorship according to tone and content

4. Now we're onto the announcement of members' offsite business interests vs paid ads." ***** Thanks again... that helped.

ok now....

MN.. I agree with you with respect to "approach". But, Animal.. I see where you are going and I agree. Activity breeds activity and activity and good content attract new members.... a.k.a.; a larger audience to support the economic model (whatever it may be) of RBC. That's always been the "feel" of this community as passed down from the top. (my perception)

In addition to supporting the success of RBC, my intense interest in this conversation stems from trying to determine the covenants of the community that I'm building. Currently.. I've less than 100 members... so I don't have many issues. However, I expect significant growth and, I would be very interested to hear feedback from any of you with respect to the "Basic Rules" I've established for my members. They are very basic... but, I'll "turn the dials" as needed. The link will take you to the post. And, please, unless you feel your reply is appropriate to this discussion... please message me privately with your feedback.

Pursuant to this string... is my request above a cheap ploy or a valid approach for me to extract value from my membership and time here on RBC? (speaks to approach and intent)

If it is a valid approach... what has RBC received in return?

Josh.. If you review the link, you'll see that my stance... my personal opinion... is that the member should be able to get something in return as there are so many other Internet addresses where one can spend their most precious asset.... time.

Thanks, in advance for feedback from any of you.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on July 18, 2008 at 3:30pm

Animal, you bring up good points, as I've said . . . but you and I have obviously very, very, very different minds and viewpoints on how social networks can and will be profitable. In trying to smooth this over, this will be my last post in this particular conversation (for the time being):

The issue here has progressed to that of social networks (such as this one) needing to find a way to generate profit. This conversation is very nascent . . . the answers are being written as we speak. To your question, social networks do not have business models that represent old-media. To think we're comparing apples-to-apples here (social networks vs. newspapers) is an extremely flawed assumption. It's a different ballgame . . . albeit not a very easy one to manage today . . . although I must say I'm glad to see that you finally made a comment about the community members: "And as long as the majority of users don't care you wouldn't have any problems." This is the very first time throughout this conversation that you've actually brought up the community base. By doing so, it shows me that you're stepping to the side of ethnocentricity and you're willing to consider the perspectives of the multiple parties involved in the community . . . however it took quite the long conversation to get there.

Here's an idea for a book, if anyone is so inclined to write it:

It's managing the gray area of a social network (the flyers on the poles) that may determine who wins and loses financially in the social networking game. Driving massive eyeballs is not enough to win; you must monetize those eyeballs.

One one hand, you have bylines and taglines on someone's profile (which is normal & accepted). On the other, you have direct & overt advertisements being placed on members' profiles (not accepted and harrassing, to a degree).

The question of monetizing the social network (to me) comes down to managing the gray area in between.

P.S. Remember, you asked JD if I knew of his policies against overt advertisements on user's profiles. So to go back to square 1, considering you would have asked me what I knew instead of asking him: "No, Animal. I didn't know about JD's policies regarding overt advertising posts on community members' profiles."

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page