Day 70: Nextdoor Is Becoming a White Paper on How Not to Communicate

At this point, my ongoing experience on Nextdoor could become a white paper on corporate communications.

Unfortunately for Nextdoor, it would largely be about what not to do.

There are two names that naturally come up in this conversation: Kelsey Grady, who leads Communications, and Nirav Tolia, because he's ultimately the CEO.

But for a moment, let's forget that today is Day 70 without receiving the detailed research I've requested.

Let's even forget that Communications finally responded by sending me links to the same blog posts I've been referencing—essentially answering a question I didn't ask.

I want to look at something bigger.

How Do You Communicate a Change Your Customers Aren't Going to Like?

Nextdoor has changed how businesses can participate in conversations.

As I've previously discussed, when a neighbor asks for recommendations for a service, businesses may encounter Nextdoor's new pay-to-comment model to respond as a business.

Think about who this affects.

The plumber.

The landscaper.

The handyman.

The house cleaner.

The dog walker.

The locally owned restaurant.

The contractor who has spent years building a reputation among neighbors.

These are precisely the kinds of small businesses that helped make Nextdoor useful in the first place.

And I've seen business owners who are not happy about the change.

Here's where my Learning & Development brain kicks in.

My first question isn't:

"Why are people complaining?"

It's:

"How was the change managed?"

Because when you're introducing a change that affects how people operate—and potentially their wallets—the communication strategy matters almost as much as the change itself.

Where Was the Buy-In?

I'm genuinely curious about what happened before rollout.

Was there a focus group of small-business users?

Was there a beta program?

Were businesses shown different pricing or participation models?

Was feedback collected?

Were objections identified before launch?

Did Nextdoor explain the business problem it was trying to solve?

Were longtime business users prepared for the change before suddenly encountering it?

And perhaps most importantly:

Did anyone ask the small businesses what they thought before asking them for more money?

I don't know the answers.

Maybe Nextdoor did extensive research.

If so, show us.

That's communication too.

Because good change management isn't simply:

"Here's the new policy. Good luck."

It's creating awareness, explaining the reason, gathering feedback, building understanding, addressing resistance and giving stakeholders an opportunity to participate in the change.

Will everybody agree?

Of course not.

You aren't getting 100% buy-in on a change that asks people to pay for something they previously did differently.

But there's a significant difference between:

"I don't like this change, but I understand how and why we got here."

and

"Wait...you're charging me for WHAT now?"

That's where communication earns its keep.

Kelsey and Nirav: This Is the Bigger Question

This is why my criticism goes beyond one unanswered research request.

Kelsey leads Communications.

Nirav leads the company.

So I'm increasingly interested in understanding the philosophy behind Nextdoor's communication strategy.

When people criticize the company, comments are often unavailable.

When I requested research, I spent weeks without an answer.

When Communications finally contacted me, I believe they answered something different from what I requested.

And now small businesses are publicly questioning a monetization change that directly affects how they participate on the platform.

These may look like separate issues.

I don't think they are.

They all raise the same fundamental question:

Is Nextdoor communicating with its stakeholders—or communicating at them?

That's a distinction worthy of a white paper.

Nextdoor talks extensively about community.

But community requires dialogue.

Businesses aren't just revenue opportunities.

Shareholders aren't just ticker symbols.

Users aren't just WAU.

They're stakeholders.

And stakeholder communication isn't measured by how many announcements you publish.

It's measured by whether people understand the message, have an opportunity to respond, and believe someone is actually listening.

Maybe Nextdoor's new business model ultimately proves successful.

Maybe businesses eventually embrace it.

But if the rollout creates unnecessary anger because the people affected weren't properly prepared, consulted or given a compelling reason to buy in, that's not simply a pricing issue.

That's a change-management and communications issue.

Day 70.

At this point, I'm not merely studying Nextdoor anymore.

Nextdoor is providing the case study.

Follow the continuing experiment and full timeline at NielFlamm.com/blog.

Day 69: The Experiment Has Changed

For 68 days, the story was simple:

I asked Nextdoor for detailed research. Nextdoor didn't answer.

Then something finally happened.

Nextdoor Communications responded.

So Day 69 isn't another "Nobody answered me" post.

The experiment has changed.

Now I have something arguably more interesting to examine:

What happens when a company answers the question you didn't ask?

Communications sent me links to the two publicly available Nextdoor blog posts and explained that they didn't believe a response was necessary because the studies were already public.

Except Nextdoor's own language creates a problem with that explanation.

The Financial Advising and Investing post describes itself as a summary highlighting key insights and tells readers interested in the complete findings and detailed data to contact Jacob Chavis.

That's what I've been requesting.

There's a meaningful difference between:

"Here are the highlights."

and

"Here is the underlying detailed research."

If a restaurant menu says, "Ask your server for the dessert menu," and I ask for it, showing me the dinner menu again doesn't fulfill the request.

It proves you heard me.

It doesn't prove you listened.

Hearing Isn't Listening

This distinction particularly stands out to me because I have more than 20 years of Learning & Development experience.

I've been the person standing in front of learners.

I've been the instructional designer building the learning experience.

And I've been the manager responsible for helping others develop the skills to do both effectively.

Across different industries and verticals, I've repeatedly highlighted one deceptively simple concept:

There is a difference between hearing and listening.

Hearing tells you that words reached someone.

Listening requires understanding what was actually communicated—and responding appropriately.

It's a distinction I've taught because it matters in customer service, leadership, sales, management, coaching, and virtually every interaction between two people.

And now I'm watching that lesson play out in real time.

Nextdoor Communications clearly heard me.

They know about my requests.

They know which studies I'm discussing.

They know how to contact me.

They even know about my duplicate-account experiment.

So we've moved beyond:

"Maybe nobody has seen this."

They've seen it.

The question now is:

Did Nextdoor actually listen to what I requested—or has it chosen not to provide it?

Those are two very different things.

If the detailed data isn't available to me, say that.

If it's available only to advertisers or prospective clients, say that.

If Nextdoor has decided not to provide it specifically to me, say that.

If the blog wording overpromises what's available, fix it.

All four answers give me useful information.

Sending me the summary I've already read doesn't.

Day 69 Is About the Gap

Companies spend enormous amounts of money studying customer journeys, employee listening, AI, analytics, sentiment and engagement.

Sometimes the most revealing measurement is much simpler:

Did we answer the question that was actually asked?

That's my Day 69 case study.

Not whether Nextdoor responded.

They did.

Not whether Nextdoor knows who I am.

Apparently, they very much do.

The question is whether a company built around connecting neighbors can close the remarkably small communication gap between:

"Contact us for the detailed data."

and

"Here is the detailed data."

After 69 days, that's the experiment.

And I'm still collecting data.

Full timeline at NielFlamm.com/blog.

Nextdoor Has an AI Day. Maybe It Needs a Communication Day.

I came across an interesting HR Brew article about Nextdoor's HR team dedicating one full day every month to AI experimentation.

Full article:

https://www.hr-brew.com/stories/nextdoors-hr-team-halts-people-work-once-a-month-and-dedicates-the-day-to-ai

First, credit where it's due.

As someone with a Learning & Development background, I like this idea.

Nextdoor Head of People Tony Castellanos told HR Brew that the HR team clears its calendars one day each month—no meetings, interviews, or reports—so employees can experiment with AI and build solutions.

That's experiential learning.

That's giving employees permission to experiment, iterate, and learn.

I can get behind that.

But given everything I've been documenting about Nextdoor, another thought immediately crossed my mind:

Could we dedicate one day to communication?

I've spent more than two months trying to obtain a Nextdoor Insights study from Jacob Chavis.

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

Then Nextdoor published another Insights report directing readers who want detailed information to—you guessed it—Jacob Chavis.

I followed those instructions again.

Short email. Kinder, gentler reset. Two studies requested.

I'm still waiting.

That's why this article fascinates me.

Nextdoor can pause routine HR work for an entire day each month so employees can explore AI.

Great.

But technology doesn't solve every organizational problem.

Sometimes the solution isn't another AI agent.

Sometimes it's:

"Hey, somebody answer that email."

HR Brew also reports that Nextdoor's "People Brain" reviews content published to public channels to help ensure messaging and policy align with the People team's core content.

Now that makes me curious.

If AI is helping evaluate Nextdoor's public messaging, I'd love to know what it thinks about:

Community without conversation.

Communication posts with comments disabled.

Research advertised as available while requests go unanswered.

A shareholder spending more than two months asking for an answer.

Maybe those aren't AI problems.

Maybe they're leadership and execution problems.

I've repeatedly said I want Nextdoor and NXDR to succeed. I'm a shareholder. Financially, that's in my interest.

AI Days could genuinely improve efficiency.

But innovation shouldn't distract from the basics.

Artificial intelligence is impressive.

Answering an email doesn't require it.

Perhaps alongside AI Day, Nextdoor should try a Communication Day.

I'll volunteer my inbox for the pilot.

Full timeline at NielFlamm.com/blog.

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 65: A Reset—But Not of the Clock

It's Day 65 since I originally requested Nextdoor's Home Insurance Insights study.

That clock isn't resetting.

What I'm getting at with a semi-reset is my approach.

I've written plenty. I've sent detailed emails. I've asked questions about communication, leadership, moderation, accountability, and most recently, whether my experience represents differential or discriminatory treatment.

Today, I stripped all of that away.

Simple. Short. To the point.

I sent Jacob Chavis an email requesting two things:

1. The Home Insurance Insights study I've been requesting for 65 days.

2. The full “How Neighbors Approach Financial Advising and Investing” study, which Nextdoor recently published and specifically tells readers to contact Jacob for additional detailed data.

That's it.

No lengthy explanation.

No 65-day history.

No commentary about Nirav Tolia, Sarah Leary, Communications, or Investor Relations.

Just two requests.

Now let's see what happens.

Maybe Jacob responds.

Even better, maybe I simply receive both studies, and we can finally put this particular question to rest.

If I don't?

Then the question I've recently raised about discrimination or differential treatment becomes even more interesting to me.

I'm not asserting that unlawful discrimination has occurred. Whether there is a viable legal claim—and whether any broader group has experienced comparable treatment—is something an attorney would need to evaluate based on the facts and applicable law.

So I'll put this out there:

Is there an attorney experienced in discrimination, corporate practices, consumer rights, or shareholder matters who finds this situation worth exploring?

Potentially even whether there's a broader pattern affecting others?

If an attorney believes the facts support an individual or class-action case and is willing to evaluate it on a contingency-fee basis, I'm open to a conversation and, if appropriate, serving as a lead plaintiff.

Reach out.

But I'd much rather have the simpler outcome.

Two studies requested.

One short email.

Let's see if Nextdoor responds.

The reset starts today.

The 65-day clock does not.

Full timeline at NielFlamm.com/blog.