?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
19 June 2009 @ 11:48 am
June 2009  
Minutes
Advisory Board Meeting
June 10, 2009

Attendees:
Brad Fitzpatrick – Board Member
Danah Boyd – Board Member
Esther Dyson – Board Member
Stephanie Gravelle – CFO LiveJournal Inc.
Annelies Van Den Belt – CEO SUP
Benjamin Wegg-Prosser – Director of Corporate Development
Boris Ovchinnikov – LiveJournal Project Leader

Apologies:
Suhel Seth – Board Member
Larry Lessig – Board member

May Highlights

  • Growth in traffic volume and unique visitors

  • LiveJournal Live Messenger system to be deployed across LJ

  • 10th anniversary events planned in September in Russia and in US

  • LiveJournal US office moved

  • Advisory Board Elections to start the week of June 15

  • Management team “Emerging Media” presentation at New York University


User Rev Share Project

  • LiveJournal intends to offer users, who wish to, the opportunity to commercialize their journals through a number of different initiatives over the next six months.

  • Among discussed opportunities, there is a project to develop the functionality that will give users, who will decide to join the program, the tool to run the ads via external ad network and to receive revenue directly from this network.

  • Management received feedback from Board members on these initiatives with focus on implementation and communication principles.



LiveJournal Positioning

  • Management received feedback from Board members on how to position LiveJournal in the marketplace to future advertisers.
 
 
( Post a new comment )
Leslielesliepear on June 19th, 2009 06:55 pm (UTC)
Thank you for posting this. Where was the user rep?
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
Sushisushimustwrite on June 19th, 2009 07:06 pm (UTC)
Nonexistent, I'd guess, since last year's AB rep term was from 1 June to 31 May, and this year's is from July to June. As the meeting was in June, there was no elected user rep in a position to serve.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
(no subject) - catscan on June 19th, 2009 07:09 pm (UTC)
Sushisushimustwrite on June 19th, 2009 07:17 pm (UTC)
Good point, but it also explains the lack of other LJ rep.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
(no subject) - (Anonymous) on June 19th, 2009 07:20 pm (UTC)
Matthew Robertsonrebelliousuno on June 19th, 2009 08:43 pm (UTC)
I'd give them a tiny smidgin of credit these are better than previous "Minutes" not much but a little
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
(no subject) - (Anonymous) on June 19th, 2009 07:22 pm (UTC)
elusis on June 19th, 2009 09:25 pm (UTC)
yes, we still can't search our journals' contents after 10 years, but we can commercialize them!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
shadowplays are figments of their own imaginationsciaan on June 22nd, 2009 05:59 pm (UTC)
the entire meeting was on how to make more money from ads?

Looks that way. Siiiiigh.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Kate the Short: failkateshort on June 19th, 2009 07:39 pm (UTC)
It's nice to see this "report" being posted pretty quickly after the fact.

But these aren't minutes! There's nothing discussed in terms of substance. Old business vs. new business. What got tabled? What got voted on? What were the specific recommendations?

If these are all things that can't be shared due to NDA stuff, then say so!
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
taking over livejournal, one post at a time...readysteadystop on June 19th, 2009 08:20 pm (UTC)
When it's OUR content that's being used to lure advertisers, then it shouldn't be subject to any NDA in the first place.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Loganloganberrybunny on June 19th, 2009 08:50 pm (UTC)
If these are all things that can't be shared due to NDA stuff, then say so!

*hollow laughter* This is LJ we're talking about. The organisation that after several years still won't let you do an Interests search for "doo-wop music" and still won't explain why the filtering is so laughably crude, but just that they "can't" explain the reasons. (It was marta who initially told me that, so I'm sure it's the truth. Doesn't stop it being insane to the nth degree.)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Vakkotaur: bugsvakkotaur on June 20th, 2009 03:04 am (UTC)
I still suspect this is the result of an out-of-court settlement with a secrecy clause, assuming it's real and not just something even more petty (which would not surprise me, alas). That one cannot search for "doo-wop" shows an amazingly poor filter implementation.

It's sad when one has to resort to Google's blogsearch to search within one's own journal, even if that limits the search to public entries that have been made indexable. Given that, I'd like a way to make previous entries indexable. Flipping that switch only make new entries indexable. And of course locked entries mean a purely manual search, since the right tool is missing from the LJ toolbox.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Logan: look both waysloganberrybunny on June 20th, 2009 07:52 am (UTC)
I still suspect this is the result of an out-of-court settlement with a secrecy clause

*Shrugs* Quite probably; I don't let this bother me any more for the most part, but like to mention it very occasionally to let off steam and make it clear that it still irritates me slightly. Why on earth they wouldn't be allowed to say something like "We can't explain further for legal reasons, I'm afraid" though is beyond me: the strong impression given has been that even adding something as vague as "for legal reasons" is too much to ask...

As for a proper journal search? We've been promised that since about 1485, so again it's something I've just learnt to live with except when I'm feeling particularly irritated - like now!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Kentkent on June 19th, 2009 08:42 pm (UTC)
brad must just sit there chuckling, shaking his head and rolling his eyes.

These are not minutes. They are, at best, an agenda.
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
Knorg Knorgsson: Bullshit Warriorcrackpig on June 20th, 2009 07:32 am (UTC)
I bet he only turns up for free Coffee and Donuts.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Knorg Knorgsson: Candiacrackpig on June 20th, 2009 09:47 am (UTC)
When I say free, I mean "supported by advertising and sponosored journals coffee and donuts."
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Ju Ju Bee: Twilightjulieannie on June 19th, 2009 09:24 pm (UTC)
Remember how in every other post we demanded minutes and not an agenda? I'm glad to know you weren't listening.
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
Aidian Prydeaidian on June 19th, 2009 10:13 pm (UTC)
Welcome to Livejournal - all the administration, none of the "sit the hell down and do some programming". I continue to advocate my "nerds locked in a basement with pizza and source code" method of change.

*Are* there any programmers working for LJ anymore? Or is it just a place for management and marketing personnel to go... to die?


[oops, edited for spelling]

Edited at 2009-06-19 10:14 pm (UTC)
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
Cesycesy on June 20th, 2009 08:56 am (UTC)
They fired a lot of the programmers back in January. They still have a couple, but not many.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Aidian Prydeaidian on June 20th, 2009 06:39 pm (UTC)
The site will develop itself and magically become relevant again if the management and advisory staff have more vague meetings. It was clearly the right thing to do. Programmers just smell bad and take up space anyways.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
anthologie on June 20th, 2009 01:19 am (UTC)
These are not minutes.
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
DC: moneyradiantsoul on June 29th, 2009 09:45 am (UTC)
I wonder what proportion of existing users are really interested in monetising their journals. My suspicion is that it is likely to be quite low, moreover the average journal has such a small readership that any revenue is likely to be minute.

So is the aim of allowing people to monetise their journals and attempt to appeal to other potential groups(such as corporations, etc).

What is livejournal going to get from this, is it going to get a share of the revenue or is it about merely increasing traffic to the website?

I presume that a monetised journal would be far less likely to be friends locked and operate on a broadcast model. Is this an attempt to enter into new market(perhaps those that SixApart are involved in). The fact this is over a year since the sale might mean a restriction placed at that time has expired...
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)