This has been posted on a LI group.
Those who know me and who have followed Landscape Juice for the last 7 years will know how open and transparent I am. As the LI group isn't open to view to everyone I wanted to give everyone the chance to consider the points raised.
Written by Gary Cobb
From its inception, Landscape Juice and the associated Landscape Juice Network has had transparency at its heart. It could be said it was probably its core principal, (and one that I thought was laudable). Combined with its ideal of practitioners progressing through continual professional development, (rather than annual inspections - another principal which I'd like to see taken up more widely), prospective clients could read a member of the networks posts, view their portfolio, view their profile and make an informed decision on whether to contact them from there.
Recently, this whole concept as been thrown upside down in one of the biggest U-turns you're likely to see. Now members of Landscape Juice, (a privately owned, Limited company by the way), have to pay an annual fee to "unlock" their profile page. By that I mean without paying the fee, a members address, email, web site details and social media profiles are all hidden from view. In one foul stroke, the network as gone from 3049 visible members to 31 visible and 3018 hidden !, (correct at time of posting).
For transparency, I used to be a member of Landscape Juice and whilst there, I was one of a core group who was all for a paid for section within the network. What was discussed most at the time was perhaps some subscription only groups where one could discuss business matters away from the public glare, (amongst other ideas). What never got proposed, (in our wildest dreams), was a situation where 0.01% of the Association would be made visible and the other 99.99% would be hidden, (actual percentages by the way).
Of course, "premium membership" is open to everyone, so if the other 3018 members suddenly pay up, I suppose it's problem solved !
Landscape Juice as seen itself as an "Association" almost since the beginning I think. Personally I've never regarded it as such, (in the use of the word which it purports to). It's basically an online network of people within the Landscaping and horticultural trades, (mostly) and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, I and many others applaud the growth of the network, its ability to give practitioners a voice and its principal of keeping the trade bodies and press on their toes, (although this has suffered badly in my opinion by the often vitriolic and biased reporting). Even in its own eyes, it must surely concede that it can no longer be viewed as "An open association of Landscape Industries", other than in the loose sense that it has always occupied in my view.
I just don't think you can have an entity purporting to be a Trade Association that is both privately owned, (by a single individual) and with the vast majority of its members details hidden form the public.
Of course, even before premium subscription, many of its senior members had anonymous names, avatars and hidden profiles. Almost as though they didn't want their businesses associated with the network or the content on there, (I'm not sure - I never did really get that aspect).
Finally, I thought I'd post this topic as a lone Landscaper. Landscape Juice as been most vociferous in its monitoring and commentary on the UK's trade bodies and publications over the last few years. If one of the trade bodies had made such a massive U-turn, throwing out one of its core principals and effectively hiding 99.99% of their members from view, I'm absolutely certain that Landscape Juice would have had an absolute field day, (and rightly so). I'm not so sure our trade bodies and press are so keen to wade in online and comment in such a way and face the flack, (I don't blame them). So if the practitioners, (and public), who have lost out because of this business decision don't voice an opinion, who will ?
Views: 45
Replies
Thanks Kevin
I've invited Gary Cobb along to the Bristol meet-up.
Some valid points there, just lost in comments that, for me at least, miss the point in many ways.
If LJN claimed to be a non-profit making co-operative, that would be one thing, but it doesn't. Effectively, you still have free membership, just have to pay if you want the benefits of, essentially, advertising to boost your profile. Why's that a problem?
The other risk is being seen to be in the "pay" of sponsors and advertisers, losing independance and stifling open discussion, but that's always been a possibility and doesn't seem to have been an issue.
Ultimately, LJN's growth is a threat to other "associations", and there has been open criticism of them on here, so it's only to be expected they'll have a go at any changes I suppose. Rise above it!
I don't think he's questioning your personal openess and transparancy Phil, however some of his points are true, particularly;
"Recently, this whole concept as been thrown upside down in one of the biggest U-turns you're likely to see.",
True in my opinion.You stated regularly that you had no intention of making LJN a subscription based site
"Now members of Landscape Juice, (a privately owned, Limited company by the way), have to pay an annual fee to "unlock" their profile page".
again true
"By that I mean without paying the fee, a members address, email, web site details and social media profiles are all hidden from view. In one foul stroke, the network as gone from 3049 visible members to 31 visible and 3018 hidden !, (correct at time of posting)".
again a true fact.
And I do totally agree with the following sentence;
"Even in its own eyes, it must surely concede that it can no longer be viewed as "An open association of Landscape Industries".
Which LJN is now not, and I feel is misleading to say so in the banner across the site. Perhaps a "semi open association" would be more accurate!
Personally I'm sad to see LJN go this way, but understand the logic behind it.
Just my opinion before I get screeched down for not 'conforming' to the perceived wisdom again!
"True in my opinion.You stated regularly that you had no intention of making LJN a subscription based site"
That's not quite true Phil. It was always my ambition to keep it free. LJN continues to be free.
I think there's a misinterpretation of open. There is no intention to mislead. Every member here is able to start and participate in discussions that have an impact on their industry. This has not changed.
I have developed and run LJN for four years and I've probably earned less that most people earn in six months. It is imperative LJN makes money for it to develop and move forward. The alternative to there not being LJN does't bear thinking about IMO.
Phil Voice said:
"It is imperative LJN makes money for it to develop and move forward. The alternative to there not being LJN does't bear thinking about IMO"
Now I'll agree with you there!
May I ask if the take up of premium membership is broadly in line with your expectations at this stage?
"May I ask if the take up of premium membership is broadly in line with your expectations at this stage?"
Yes you may. The number who've requested membership thus far is 54 (that includes Premium Suppliers).
I had no preconceived notion of how well membership would build but in less than seven days I am happy with take up.
You must have a target figure in mind though Phil, otherwise would it be worth it? Too little take up and for example, whatever replaced the KBO (an under-used resource in my opinion) would quickly become stale and turgid wth the same people posting ie no fresh blood.
No Phil, I didn't.
Those who will know me well might tell you that I came close to closing LJN down before Christmas.
I had no spare money, I was spending the vast proportion of my week helping other people.
After talks with my family and trusted friends I decided that if I was to continue working to help other people then other people would have to help LJN. It's as simple as that.
Phil Crossley said:
i feel that for the £40 membership cost is well worth the cost for the support and help gained from the site . the seo gained from the site is to me is priceless as web sites is something i out of my dept with i am happy to pay the £40 it 2 1/2 hours work
why should Phil stand the costs of running the site on his own we are all in this together
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 10 Next