A top Second Life brand of landscaping supplies has banned a SL landscaper which I think is uncalled for. No need to name anyone, but it does raise some thoughts.
Over the past four years I have hired many SL landscapers, which is not an uncommon thing to do on Second Life with your parcel or region.
Some SL landscapers have made a name for themselves, and just in case you didn’t know, some of them are charging a hefty price for virtual landscaping.
Landscaping is a Second Life business. Like for any businesses, it’s not all rosy. Not all customers are created equal and business owners are not always the nicest of people. I have heard many horror stories, as many business owners would have.
Great landscaping is a skill; a skill that anyone can learn. After all, anyone can rezz a few trees and flowers here and there. Some people are more gifted than others though. They have an eye for putting things together that will look breathtaking.
I don’t have time, nor do I want to learn landscaping as I own so far two regions. When I log in to Second Life, I have enough things to do, and I find virtual shopping and hanging out with friends to be more therapeutic than doing landscaping.
Hiring someone is easy, and nothing new to a lot of us. It’s a choice. It’s our money. You do you, and I do me.
Are SL landscapers breaking unspoken rules?
SL Landscapers need to buy plants, decor, and buildings (depending on the scope of the project). As a Second Life Resident and consumer, you’re paying the SL landscaper for the service of placing the landscaping supplies they paid for on your land. Of course you may suggest what kind of trees or flowers you want. You may already have your own house. The SL landscaper may have it, or if not, he or she will just go and buy it.
Easy transaction, isn’t it?
What about the suppliers for all SL landscapers, should they worry about business?
Most of the time I have hired a landscaper, I already owned what they used. I have also asked landscapers to buy some trees and plants that I owned as I wanted them to be included in the design.
Look around any sims. Most of the time you don’t need to go into edit mode to know who made that palm tree or that rock. It is free advertising for the suppliers. I have bought plants and trees just because I have seen them on a sim.
When you see something you like, chances are you will buy it.
One SL landscaper I hired didn’t give me the rights to move his objects, so I had to get one type of trees I didn’t own, so that I could tweak the landscaping design.
The same way marketers have to stay on top of the latest strategies to sell services to their clients, landscapers would have to buy the latest fatpack of this and that in order to stay on top of their game, and to satisfy their clients.
As far as I know there is no written rules about this, nor should there be any, (and this is Second life after all, the virtual world of mostly no rules).
Anyone can click on an object and see who made it. Nothing is secret in Second Life.
I don’t hire a landscaper to save money, I hire a landscaper to save time (and because they do a better job than me). As such I don’t think any businesses are missing out. It is more of a win-win situation.
If one landscaping business has to be banned for running their business as everybody else does, then all landscapers should be banned. Otherwise, it is simply unfair.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter about how they are running their landscaping business, they are ALL doing the same thing: landscaping with Second Life products they rightfully bought all over Second Life. And we, the Second Life consumers, go and buy more stuff, needed or not, just because we saw it somewhere.
Another solution, might be to sell some sort of license to allow landscapers to use stuff on a commercial basis. This is a common practice with the sale of graphics, fonts, etc. I fear though that it could bring more problems than there is for something that is being done for the longest time.
What do you think?
I think it’s entirely unfair of a creator to ban a landscaper for using their products when providing their services. Copyable products are typically higher in cost for a reason. The creator takes it on the assumption the customer could be using it multiple times for various reasons so they take that into account when pricing the product; at least they should and many have from my experience. I have seen furniture creators price a set for copy and no copy differently for this very reason. If a creator wants to restrict the usage they can increase the price of a copyable version and make a package containing a number of non copyable items at a cheaper price. This would be different if the customer were reselling the product itself to their clients but they are allowing the usage of it under their ownership so they are well within their rights to do so. Once a customer buys something their relationship with the creator of that item is over unless their is an issue with the product and they should have no say in how it is used. If a creator doesn’t like it then they can change their own business model/practices and prices to suit their needs or fit what they feel it is worth. How would this be different if I were to buy landscaping items for several sims that I own and rent out to increase the value of the land I have and get money from that? I would use those items over and over again and get value from it because customers would pay more for the pleasure of a nicely decorated place to live. Simply put, there is no real difference. This is just a case of a creator with bad business practices. This is all based on the idea that the ban is because the SL landscaper was using the creator’s products (after buying them) for their business and not any other reason.