Day 78: Blocked Again — While the Stock Does the Slide

Today is Day 78 of my continuing Nextdoor case study.

And apparently we're doing two kinds of sliding:

The NXDR stock price is sliding.

And I've apparently slid right back onto Nirav Tolia's LinkedIn blocked list.

Well, that didn't take long.

On August 29, I was once again able to comment on Nirav's LinkedIn posts.

So I did.

I surfaced the same questions I've been raising publicly about how Nextdoor is being run: leadership decisions, communication, accountability, transparency, customer experience, and what I believe are some very questionable strategic choices.

And now?

I'm blocked again.

I have to admit, this one really gets me.

I'm one guy.

I'm not running a public company.

I'm not a Silicon Valley CEO.

I'm not appearing on podcasts discussing leadership, entrepreneurship, community, and human connection.

I've never sat in one of those big chairs on Shark Tank deciding whether somebody else's company deserves an investment.

I'm just a small shareholder with a website, a LinkedIn account, questions—and apparently a remarkable ability to locate Nirav Tolia's block button.

Meanwhile, Let's Talk About the Stock

NXDR has been doing a little slide of its own.

The stock closed at $2.68 on August 10.

By August 28, it closed at $2.27.

Stocks go up. Stocks go down. Eighteen days certainly don't determine the future of a company.

But shareholders are allowed to ask questions when the direction isn't the one we'd like to see.

And Nextdoor's latest quarterly results still included a net loss of $2 million.

Yes, that's a significant improvement from the $15 million loss during the same quarter a year earlier. Nextdoor also reported positive adjusted EBITDA.

I acknowledge progress when it's there.

But a loss is still a loss.

And here's what gets me:

The CEO of a public company can receive compensation worth millions while shareholders watch the stock struggle and the company continues reporting a GAAP net loss—and somehow my LinkedIn comments are enough to get me blocked again?

That's fascinating to me.

I'm not the person running the company.

I'm one of the people invested in it.

Imagine This on Shark Tank

An entrepreneur walks into the Tank.

The Shark starts asking uncomfortable questions:

Why are you losing money?

Why is the stock struggling?

Why isn't the strategy producing better results?

What are customers saying?

Why should investors believe in the turnaround?

The entrepreneur doesn't like the questions.

So instead of answering...

they block the Shark.

🦈 “And for that reason, you're blocked.”

I'd watch that episode.

Leadership Isn't Tested by Compliments

It's easy to talk about transparency when everyone agrees.

It's easy to talk about community when everyone is applauding.

It's easy to talk about listening when the message is flattering.

Leadership gets more interesting when someone says:

I don't think you're doing this well. Explain why I'm wrong.

Maybe I am wrong.

Show me.

Challenge my argument.

Explain the strategy.

Tell me why the decisions I'm criticizing make sense.

I'd welcome that conversation.

Blocking is easier.

And apparently we've chosen easier again.

Day 78 — And the Questions Haven't Been Blocked

I'm still waiting for the detailed Insights data that started this entire counter.

I'm still documenting what happens.

And I'm still a shareholder who wants Nextdoor to succeed.

That's precisely why I'm asking questions.

Nirav can block my LinkedIn account.

He can prevent my comments from appearing underneath his posts.

But here's the problem:

Blocking the shareholder doesn't block the questions.

It doesn't change the earnings report.

It doesn't move the stock price.

It doesn't improve communication.

And it doesn't end this case study.

So here we are.

Day 78.

The stock has been sliding.

I'm blocked again.

The detailed data still hasn't arrived.

And somehow, one guy with a blog keeps being worth blocking.

That's becoming a story all by itself.

Read the complete continuing Nextdoor case study at NielFlamm.com/blog and subscribe at NielFlamm.com to see what happens on Day 79.

Day 64: I’m Not Asking for the C-Suite. I’m Asking for Someone.

It's Day 64.

I sent another email today regarding the study I originally requested from Jacob Chavis.

This time, I want to make something clear:

I don't expect a C-Suite executive to contact me personally.

I'm a shareholder with a relatively small position. I understand that Nirav Tolia, Sarah Leary, and other senior leaders have responsibilities far beyond answering my emails.

But here's what I don't understand:

Why hasn't anyone been delegated to respond?

Sixty-four days.

No study.

No substantive explanation.

No, "We can't provide it."

No, "You've reached the wrong person."

No, "Let me connect you with someone who can help."

Not even, "Niel, the answer is no."

That's what makes this increasingly fascinating to me.

Today I expanded the email distribution list to include Kelsey Grady and Michael Kiernan, along with the people I've previously contacted.

Why?

Reach.

And hopefully, finally, an answer.

At this point, I'm no longer asking only:

Where is the study?

I'm asking:

How does a publicly traded company allow a relatively simple shareholder inquiry to reach Day 64 without assigning someone to handle it?

That's a process question.

That's a communication question.

And, increasingly, I believe it's a culture question.

Someone inside Nextdoor could end this particular chapter with one email.

The answer doesn't have to be what I want.

It doesn't have to come from Nirav.

It doesn't have to come from Sarah.

It doesn't even have to come from Jacob.

I'm asking for someone to respond.

One person.

One email.

One clear answer.

I've spent 64 days documenting what happens when communication doesn't happen.

I'd much rather spend Day 65 writing about what happened when someone finally decided to communicate.

The email has been sent.

Your move, Nextdoor.

Join the discussion at NielFlamm.com/blog. Leave some feedback—I'd genuinely love to hear your perspective.

Day 61: A Rising Stock Doesn't Erase the Questions

It's Day 61.

While NXDR is up for the week, as I'm writing this it's down approximately $0.02 today.

Perhaps some short-term players are taking profits. Perhaps it's ordinary market movement. I don't pretend to know why someone else presses sell.

But I'm watching.

While I've been bearish on Nextdoor, I'm also a shareholder. I benefit when NXDR rises. I'd rather be writing about a company delivering undeniable value than explaining why I continue questioning its direction.

My concerns aren't based on one red trading day—or one unanswered email.

They're cumulative.

From my perspective, several leadership decisions under CEO Nirav Tolia deserve scrutiny.

I've questioned the investment in an elaborate new Dallas headquarters while the company continues reporting a GAAP net loss.

I've questioned a strategy that appears to ask some small businesses to pay additional money to respond to potential customer leads.

I've questioned a moderation model dependent on unpaid neighbors while seeing examples that make me wonder about consistency and quality control.

I've questioned a platform built around community and conversation while Nextdoor's corporate LinkedIn presence doesn't permit comments and Nirav has blocked me on LinkedIn.

I've tested Nextdoor's identity/address verification myself and raised questions about whether reality matches the rhetoric surrounding "trust."

And, of course...

It's Day 61 since I requested a study from Jacob Chavis.

No study.

No explanation.

No acknowledgment.

That has become less about Jacob and more about leadership.

I've contacted Nirav Tolia, Sarah Leary, Investor Relations, Communications, and others.

At some point, accountability travels upward.

A CEO doesn't personally answer every email, moderate every neighborhood, or respond to every shareholder.

I understand that.

But a CEO does own the culture and direction of the organization.

That's the distinction.

I don't know what's happening internally at Nextdoor, and I won't pretend I do.

I'm documenting what I can observe and asking whether these decisions create sustainable value.

NXDR can rise 5%, fall 2%, or trade sideways tomorrow.

The ticker tells us what the market thinks the company is worth at a particular moment.

It doesn't tell us whether today's leadership decisions are right for the next five years.

That's the conversation I'm interested in.

I'm watching leadership, execution, culture, communication, moderation, monetization, and shareholder value much more closely than today's ticker.

Day 61. Still watching. Still asking.

Join the discussion at NielFlamm.com/blog.

Leave some feedback—I'd genuinely like to hear what you think.

Day 57: The Stock Is Talking—But I Still Want to Hear From the People

It's Day 57.

Today, I want to put a different twist on this.

As I'm writing this, NXDR is up 4.12%, trading at approximately $2.66 per share.

As a shareholder, that's good news. I own the stock. I'd like the number to increase.

I've been bearish on Nextdoor, but bearish doesn't mean I'm rooting for failure—quite the opposite. I want to see the company create sustainable value for users, advertisers, employees, and shareholders.

The market appears pleased right now.

But stock price and corporate culture are two different measurements.

Which brings me to someone I haven't discussed nearly as much:

Sarah Leary, Co-Founder of Nextdoor.

I've noticed Sarah appears to have been absent from X for some time—unless she's posting from another account I'm unaware of.

And that makes me genuinely curious about her perspective.

Sarah helped build this company.

She watched Nextdoor grow from an idea into a publicly traded company serving millions of users.

So I'd be interested to know:

What does Sarah Leary think about what's happening now?

What does she think about the current moderation model?

The increasing monetization of interactions between businesses and neighbors?

The company's approach to accepting—or limiting—feedback?

And yes, what does she think about a shareholder reaching Day 57 without receiving the requested study or even an acknowledgment?

I'm not asking Sarah to agree with me.

Actually, I'd be interested if she disagreed with me.

Tell me why.

That's a conversation.

Perhaps she believes the current strategy is exactly right.

Perhaps she thinks changes are necessary.

Perhaps she hasn't followed any of this.

I don't know.

But that's precisely why I'd like to hear her perspective.

I've spent 57 days talking about Nirav Tolia, Jacob Chavis, Investor Relations, Communications, moderation, culture, and accountability.

Maybe it's time to hear from one of the people who helped create Nextdoor in the first place.

The stock is speaking today.

NXDR: $2.66, up 4.12%.

Now I'd like to hear some of the people behind it speak, too.

Sarah, what's your take?

Join the discussion at NielFlamm.com/blog. Leave some feedback—I'd love to hear your perspective.

Day 56: At This Point, the Silence Is a Decision

It's Day 56.

I've been following up on why Jacob Chavis hasn't sent the study I requested.

I've asked why Nirav Tolia, Investor Relations, and Communications haven't acknowledged the situation.

I've emailed.

I've followed up.

I've posted publicly.

I've documented the experience at NielFlamm.com/blog.

So today, I'm looking at this differently.

Maybe the lack of communication is the communication.

After 56 days, it's becoming increasingly difficult for me to view this as an overlooked email or something that fell through the cracks.

Maybe someone made a decision not to engage.

Maybe nobody wants ownership.

Maybe Nextdoor believes responding will encourage more questions.

Maybe the study can't—or won't—be provided.

I don't know.

But that's exactly the problem.

Silence creates its own narrative.

And here's where this gets bigger than my study.

Nextdoor's entire value proposition revolves around neighbors communicating with neighbors.

CEO Nirav Tolia frequently talks about community and connection.

Yet my experience as a shareholder has been the opposite:

56 days without a conversation.

Think about that from a customer-experience perspective.

If I were designing training around this scenario, I wouldn't focus primarily on whether the customer—or shareholder—was right.

I'd ask:

How did something this simple reach Day 56?

Where was the escalation?

Who owned the request?

When did someone recognize that the lack of a response had become a bigger problem than the original question?

And perhaps most importantly:

What does the organization learn from it?

That's what accountability should ultimately accomplish.

Not blame.

Not defensiveness.

Learning followed by change.

I've written before that we inspect what we expect.

So I'm inspecting.

I'm watching the moderation model.

I'm watching the increasing monetization of small-business interactions.

I'm watching the financial results.

I'm watching corporate communication.

And I'm watching how Nextdoor handles a shareholder who keeps asking a question it apparently doesn't want to answer.

Maybe someone inside Nextdoor believes I'll eventually get tired of asking.

After 56 days, that seems like an increasingly questionable strategy.

Because the longer this continues, the less interesting the original study becomes.

The case study is becoming Nextdoor itself.

Join the discussion at NielFlamm.com/blog.

What does 56 days without an answer tell you? Leave some feedback—I'd love to hear your perspective.