In reading some of the feedback to Om's post, I've seen LiveJournalers worried that we're going to turn around and start charging, close the LiveJournal source, own the content on LiveJournals, force the users to use TypePad/Movable Type and plaster their sites with advertisements. (We're not going to do this).
What is your justification of "~12% + X%= Y%" = "~12% + 83%= 95%" ∴ X=83 and Y=95?
LiveJournal has been ambivalent in the past to advertising. In [link here]some parts of the site[/link here], they have indicated that they would never run advertising. In [link here]other parts[/link], they have indicated that advertising hasn't been used simply because it wasn't deemed necessary, and annoyed the LiveJournal owners. That ambivalence has been resolved by the decision to establish a [link here]new tier[/link] of service, which provides some features previously only available to paid users to free users, provided that they agree to run advertising. The impact of this is under debate, as [link to insomnia_lj's page]some people[/link] predict this will mean that most free users of LiveJournal will see these ads, while [link to opposing view]others[/link] think the amount of LJ users that opt in will be low, and thus the number of viewers of advertising will be commensurately low.
Certainly, all people who opt for ads will see them, as will all free users of the site who visit those users pages. That's approximately 95% of the total membership. Perhaps a tad more.
Paid users for LJ are the only ones who aren't going to see ads, right?
« Older Britain's New Labour have very short memories!
... | Hide the kiddies, hide the wif... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt