MadamHydra (madamhydra) wrote,

The recent LJ mass 'suspension' fiasco....

Well, LJ finally got around to explaining (sort of) their actions, apologizing (belatedly) for the blatant screw-up, and promising (vaguely) to fix things.

For me, the apology basically boils down to this: "We made an oopsie, but it was an oopsie anyone would/could make. And because a lot of you noticed and got really mad, we'll try to fix it, so please don't be mad at us anymore."

Can anyone tell that I'm singularly unimpressed? >_>

It's not that I object to the general principle of deterring exploitation and abuse of children, but their procedure (or rather, the obvious lack thereof) is incredibly slip-shod.

LJ's recent behavior regarding the mass deletions suspensions of journals, reeks of gross incompetence AND laziness. And when people naturally complained, LJ went into CYA-mode -- first, by making defensive comments to the media; and second, when the media spin failed, they finally tried talking (and apologizing) to the people most directly affected.

Let's put aside any notions of 'trust', etc., and look at this situation in a purely pragmatic perspective.

What LJ needs to (and massively failed to) understand:

(1) they are a business in a highly competitive market;

(2) they are NOT the only game in town;

(3) they need to inspire 'brand' loyalty by treating their customers (the users) with respect and consideration;

(4) and finally, if they piss off their customers/users, they will lose those customers/users to their competitors.
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded