Day 66: The Kinder, Gentler Reset Continues

It's Day 66.

Yesterday, I tried something different.

A kinder, gentler reset.

No lengthy email. No dissertation about corporate culture. No recap of the previous 65 days.

I emailed Jacob Chavis and asked for two Nextdoor Insights reports:

The Home Insurance Insights study I've been requesting, and the newly published Financial Advising and Investing study.

Short. Polite. Direct.

Now I'm wondering something beyond my own experience:

Is anyone actually able to obtain the detailed studies referenced on the Nextdoor Blog or LinkedIn?

Nextdoor's latest Insights post directs readers who want the complete report and detailed data to contact Jacob.

So I'd like to hear from someone who has done it.

Did you request one? Did you receive it? How long did it take?

That comparison matters as I examine whether I'm experiencing terrible communication or being treated differently.

Meanwhile, Back at NXDR...

The broader market slid yesterday, and NXDR followed suit.

The stock had been making gains following Nextdoor's Q2 results and was approaching its two-year highs. That enthusiasm appears, at least for now, to have been short-lived.

As a shareholder, I want NXDR to succeed. That's what makes my feedback counterintuitive: financially, I'm rooting for the company I'm criticizing.

I've also noticed E*TRADE now provides additional visibility into options activity, giving investors another interesting data point to watch.

And Then There's the Legal Question

Finding an attorney interested in evaluating a potential discrimination claim isn't as simple as announcing, "Lawyer wanted!"

There's a process.

An attorney would need to determine whether the facts support a viable claim, which law applies, what damages are available, and whether others have experienced comparable treatment.

The same applies to a potential class action. There needs to be an identifiable class with common legal and factual issues.

I'm exploring those questions.

Nextdoor also has substantial cash on hand. Using the figures I've been reviewing—approximately $377.97 million in cash against $27.70 million in debt—that's roughly $350 million net of debt.

But that's not a pot of money automatically available to plaintiffs or attorneys. Any recovery would require an actual viable claim followed by a settlement or judgment.

So I'm not counting imaginary settlement checks or contingency fees.

First comes the simpler experiment.

I sent the polite email.

I asked for the studies Nextdoor tells people they can request.

Now let's see what happens.

And I'd particularly like to hear from anyone who has successfully requested and received a Nextdoor Insights report.

Day 66. Kinder. Gentler. Still documenting.

The complete timeline is at NielFlamm.com/blog.

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.

When a Communication Strategy Becomes a Communication Problem

I've spent 61 days documenting what I see as a fundamental communication failure at Nextdoor.

At this point, it's no longer one unanswered request.

Look at the pattern I've experienced:

Nirav Tolia blocked me on LinkedIn.

Comments are routinely turned off on Nextdoor's LinkedIn posts.

I've sent direct emails to Jacob Chavis, Nirav Tolia, Sarah Leary, Communications, and Investor Relations, but have not received a substantive response to my request.

And now there's another example involving Sarah Leary.

I had been commenting on an older X post she reposted about a Massachusetts community—if I remember correctly, Beacon Hill—preparing for significant snowfall and other neighborhood happenings.

The post eventually accumulated approximately 180 comments.

I'd estimate at least 75% were mine, documenting my ongoing Nextdoor experience.

Then the post disappeared.

To be clear: I don't know why it was deleted or whether my comments had anything to do with the decision.

But it got me thinking.

Yes, there may have been steam coming from my ears. 💨

If Nextdoor had an effective communication strategy for handling critical feedback, would any of this be happening?

That's when I started thinking about Kelsey Grady, Executive Vice President of Communications at Nextdoor.

I looked at the typical responsibilities associated with an executive communications role. At that level, we're talking about responsibility for an organization's internal and external messaging, brand reputation, public relations, crisis response, and advising executive leadership on communication strategy.

Which raises some fascinating questions.

Is ignoring my emails an intentional communications strategy?

Was blocking me on LinkedIn part of a strategy?

Is routinely disabling comments part of it?

Did anyone advise Sarah to remove that X post?

Or are executives individually deciding how—or whether—to engage?

I don't know.

I'm deliberately asking rather than pretending I know what happens inside Nextdoor.

But that's precisely why communication matters.

A coordinated communications strategy shouldn't leave outsiders spending 61 days trying to determine whether there even is a strategy.

And ultimately, responsibility travels upward.

Kelsey Grady may oversee Communications, but Nirav Tolia is CEO.

The buck eventually stops there.

One of the most important responsibilities of executive communications is crisis management.

Now, I'm certainly not suggesting one small shareholder asking for a study constitutes a corporate crisis.

But something that could have been resolved with a simple email has now generated 61 consecutive days of public commentary about Nextdoor's leadership, moderation, culture, investor relations, verification, business strategy and communication.

That's the part I find remarkable.

My grade for handling this particular situation?

Crisis Management: F.

Not because Nextdoor hasn't given me the answer I want.

Because after 61 days, Nextdoor still hasn't given me an answer.

Perhaps the most useful question isn't "Why does this shareholder keep posting?"

Maybe it's:

"How did we allow a simple request to become a 61-day public case study in communication?"

I'd genuinely like to hear Kelsey Grady's perspective on that one.

Join the discussion at NielFlamm.com/blog. Leave some feedback—I'd 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 60: At What Point Does Ignoring One Shareholder Become a Corporate Strategy?

Day 60.

Yes, I marked the occasion with some spectacular signage. If we're going to reach a milestone this ridiculous, it deserves appropriate recognition.

But underneath the humor, I'm genuinely wondering:

Where is Jacob Chavis?

Today, Nextdoor published a LinkedIn post featuring content from Groundworks:

The Hidden Cost of "I'll Deal With It Later"

🔗 Read the post/article:

https://www.groundworks.com/resources/the-hidden-cost-of-ill-deal-with-it-later/

The irony of that title isn't lost on me.

The article, credited to Leah Leitow as Content Writer, focuses on the costs homeowners can face when they postpone addressing problems.

"I'll deal with it later."

Really?

Because I've been asking Nextdoor to deal with something for 60 days.

What caught my attention is that this type of business-oriented content feels like exactly the kind of material where, historically, I might have expected to see research, insights, or someone such as Jacob Chavis referenced.

Instead, nothing.

I've previously noted that I haven't seen a new Nextdoor Insights post since July 6.

I haven't received the study.

I haven't received an email from Jacob.

And now we're at Day 60.

Maybe these things are completely unrelated.

Maybe Jacob is working on something entirely different.

Maybe Nextdoor reorganized responsibilities.

Maybe the company's research strategy changed.

I don't know—and that's precisely the point.

Nextdoor could clear up 60 days of speculation with a remarkably simple act:

Communicate.

Which leads me to a question that I find almost absurd to ask:

Can one individual shareholder with a relatively small position really create this much reluctance to engage at a multimillion-dollar public company?

I don't believe I have that kind of power.

So why does it feel like engaging with me has become harder than simply answering the original question?

I'm not asking for a board seat.

I'm not asking to approve the quarterly earnings.

I'm not asking Nirav Tolia to hand me the keys to headquarters.

I asked for a study.

If the answer is no, say no.

If it can't be distributed, please let me know.

If the study no longer exists, explain that.

If Jacob's responsibilities have changed, say so.

Sixty days later, the unanswered request has become far more interesting to me than the document itself.

And perhaps today's Groundworks headline provides the best leadership lesson of this entire experience:

There can be a hidden cost to "I'll deal with it later."

The longer an organization avoids a small issue, the greater the chance that the response—or lack of one—becomes the bigger story.

So, Nextdoor:

It's Day 60. Who wants to spill the tea? ☕

Join the discussion at NielFlamm.com/blog.

Leave some feedback. What is your perspective?