Day 87: Is Anybody Driving the Nextdoor Bus? 🚌
It's 10:45 AM EDT on Day 87, and I'm picturing the Nextdoor corporate bus.
The engine is running.
The shareholders are sitting in the back.
The businesses are wondering why there's suddenly a toll booth.
The neighbors are arguing over who parked the bus incorrectly.
And I'm standing in the aisle asking:
“Ummm...who's driving?”
NXDR is down to approximately $2.17 as of this writing.
Meanwhile, I've seen no new posts or updates today from Nextdoor or CEO Nirav Tolia.
No answers on my two outstanding studies either.
Maybe everyone is working feverishly behind the scenes.
Maybe Communications is preparing something spectacular.
Maybe Nirav is recording another podcast.
Or maybe the bus is just rolling downhill while everyone debates the seating arrangement.
It's still early.
I'll give Day 87 a chance to unfold.
I may be back later today.
Hopefully someone grabs the wheel before then.
👉 Follow the continuing ride at NielFlamm.com/blog
Day 86: Is Nextdoor Laboring? Or Are We Back to Business as Usual?
Labor Day is over.
It's Day 86 of my continuing Nextdoor case study, and after wondering yesterday whether Nextdoor was taking an extended holiday weekend, I checked again today.
I haven't received any communication regarding the two detailed Insights studies I requested.
And NXDR?
As of this writing, it's hovering around the low $2.20s. Market sources were showing roughly $2.24 late this afternoon after Friday's $2.24 close, so the exact number is moving as I write this.
Hey, at least we're talking pennies now.
Is Nextdoor laboring?
I'm still trying to figure that out.
But something Nirav Tolia posted on X on September 3 caught my attention.
“A 2025 Study Found...”
In the post, Nirav wrote:
“A 2025 study found AI-generated fake reviews are now indistinguishable from real ones...”
And immediately I thought:
Here we go again.
A study.
Which study?
Who wrote it?
Where was it published?
What was the methodology?
What was the sample size?
What exactly did “indistinguishable” mean?
This probably sounds familiar to anyone who has followed my 86-day adventure in Nextdoor research transparency.
Here's the interesting part: I looked, and there is identifiable research behind Nirav's statement.
In a Fortune piece published the same day, Nirav identified it more specifically as a 2025 study from Nottingham University Business School.
Peer-reviewed 2025 studies examine AI-generated fake reviews, including a Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services study analyzing 714,016 reviews and finding meaningful linguistic differences between AI-generated fake reviews, human-generated fake reviews, and authentic reviews.
So my criticism isn't:
“The study doesn't exist.”
My question is:
Why not cite it in the original post?
If you're going to use research to establish credibility, give readers enough information to evaluate the research themselves.
Study name. Authors. Publication. Link.
Four things.
Done.
Especially when you're the CEO of a company currently promoting the idea that provenance matters.
That's almost too perfect.
Fake Reviews Didn't Arrive With ChatGPT
Another part of this discussion bothers me.
AI didn't invent fake reviews.
AI made them faster, cheaper, and easier to produce at scale.
Humans have been manipulating reputations for a very, very long time.
In fact, the history is pretty entertaining.
1800s: Walt Whitman anonymously published glowing reviews of his own Leaves of Grass. That's essentially the 19th-century version of creating a burner account and giving yourself five stars.
Early 1900s: Newspapers were already dealing with fabricated information, exaggerated claims, and “fakers.” By 1913, the New York World had established a Bureau of Accuracy and Fair Play partly to address complaints and “stamp out fakes and fakers.”
Pre-internet advertising: Businesses used testimonials and endorsements as marketing tools, creating the same fundamental problem we face today: Is this person recommending the product because they genuinely love it—or because somebody benefits from the endorsement?
Early Internet: Message boards, review sites, and eventually e-commerce let businesses and individuals create accounts and manufacture praise—or attack competitors.
Ironically, Nirav himself co-founded Epinions in 1999, one of the early user-generated review platforms. He now acknowledges that the review economy eventually became vulnerable to manipulation.
2010s: Fake-review businesses became an industry. Businesses could purchase positive reviews, competitors could be attacked with negative ones, and reviewers could operate multiple identities.
2020s: Review farms became increasingly sophisticated. Investigators found coordinated reviewers praising unrelated businesses across countries, with identical reviews sometimes appearing under different names.
Today: Generative AI has dramatically changed the economics. Instead of paying humans to crank out hundreds of reviews manually, someone can rapidly generate enormous quantities of convincing text. Research now shows LLMs can produce deceptive reviews with human-level capabilities, even though researchers can still statistically identify some linguistic differences.
Same scam.
Much better machinery.
Which Brings Me Back to Nextdoor
Nextdoor's current pitch is that verified identity and neighborhood accountability can make recommendations more trustworthy.
That's an interesting strategy.
But verification alone doesn't make an opinion truthful.
A real person can exaggerate.
A verified person can have a grudge.
A real neighbor can recommend their friend's company.
A legitimate customer can receive an incentive.
Two verified neighbors can have completely different experiences with the same business.
And, as I've previously documented, I've had my own questions about how robust Nextdoor's verification system actually is.
So “verified” is a trust signal.
It isn't a magical truth serum.
Provenance Matters? I agree.
That's actually what makes Nirav's post so interesting.
His broader argument is essentially:
Where information comes from matters.
I agree.
Completely.
Which is why when the CEO says:
“A 2025 study found...”
I want the provenance.
Name the study.
Name the researchers.
Link to it.
Let readers inspect it.
And that's precisely what I've been asking Nextdoor to provide regarding its own research.
For 86 days.
Nextdoor published Insights findings.
Nextdoor publicly told readers they could request detailed data.
I requested it.
I've emailed.
I've followed up.
I've expanded the distribution.
I sent another request Saturday.
And I'm still waiting for the two detailed studies.
Day 86
Yesterday was Labor Day.
Today I'm asking:
Is Nextdoor laboring?
Because I'm still doing the work.
Waiting for somebody at Nextdoor to answer the questions.
Nirav's post argues that provenance matters.
On that, we agree.
So here's my Day 86 suggestion:
Practice it.
When you cite research, show us the research.
When Nextdoor publishes research, show us the methodology.
When your own blog tells readers they can request detailed data, provide the detailed data—or explain why you won't.
Because whether we're talking about a restaurant review, an AI-generated recommendation, or a corporate Insights report, the principle is the same:
Don't just tell me to trust it. Give me enough information to decide whether to trust it.
Follow the continuing Nextdoor case study at NielFlamm.com/blog.
Happy Labor Day — Day 85: Nextdoor, Did You Forget the People Who Do the Work?
Happy Labor Day! 🇺🇸
Today is Day 85 of my continuing Nextdoor case study.
Before I get to Nextdoor, it's worth remembering what today actually represents.
Labor Day isn't simply the unofficial end of summer, a three-day weekend, mattress sales, barbecues or one last trip to the beach.
Labor Day recognizes the contributions and achievements of American workers and the labor movement that fought for better working conditions, reasonable hours, fair wages, and greater protections for working people.
It became a federal holiday in 1894, and more than 130 years later, it's still an opportunity to recognize the people whose work keeps businesses, communities, and this country moving.
Which brings me to Nextdoor.
Hello? Anybody Home?
As of this writing, I haven't seen a Labor Day post on Nextdoor.
Nothing from CEO Nirav Tolia either.
Maybe something will appear later today.
If it does, I'll happily update this post.
But right now?
Crickets. 🦗
And I find that remarkable.
This is a company whose entire identity revolves around neighborhoods, communities, local businesses, and the people who make those communities work.
Teachers.
Nurses.
First responders.
Restaurant workers.
Retail employees.
Construction workers.
Delivery drivers.
Small-business owners.
Landscapers.
Electricians.
Plumbers.
Mechanics.
And, yes, the employees who actually keep Nextdoor operating.
If there were ever a holiday that practically writes itself for a company claiming to be the “essential neighborhood network,” wouldn't Labor Day be it?
Talk About Out of Touch
This isn't about whether every corporation is required to publish a social-media post for every holiday.
Of course not.
It's about awareness and consistency with your own brand.
Nextdoor has plenty to say when there's an opportunity to talk about advertisers.
It has plenty to say about businesses building brand recognition.
It has plenty to say about reaching verified neighbors.
It has plenty to say when there's a new product, advertising opportunity, or monetization strategy to promote.
But Labor Day?
A day specifically recognizing the people who actually do the work in those neighborhoods?
Nothing so far.
From my perspective, that's another example of how out of touch Nextdoor's corporate communications can appear.
And this isn't exactly a surprise holiday.
Labor Day has been on the calendar for a while.
You can even schedule a post.
Nobody needed to abandon the barbecue this morning to log into LinkedIn.
Meanwhile, I Worked Saturday
While Nextdoor was apparently enjoying the holiday weekend, I sent another email on Saturday.
Yes.
Another one.
The subject remains the same issue I've been documenting for nearly three months:
Where are the two detailed Insights studies?
These are the two studies where Nextdoor's own published material told readers they could reach out for additional information, including detailed data, additional audience segments, and strategic recommendations.
I followed the instructions.
I've followed up.
I've clarified that I'm requesting the detailed data—not links to the summaries I've already read.
I've expanded the email beyond Jacob Chavis to include others at Nextdoor who can answer the question.
And now we're at:
Day 85.
At this point, the answer doesn't even need to be complicated.
Yes, Niel, here's the information.
Or:
No, Niel, we're not providing it.
Or:
It's only available to certain customers, advertisers, or partners.
Pick one.
I'll take clarity over silence.
The Irony of Labor Day
Maybe that's what makes today's silence particularly interesting to me.
Labor Day is partly about recognizing the value of people's work.
And one of the themes I've repeatedly raised throughout this case study is whether Nextdoor adequately recognizes the value created by the different people surrounding its platform.
Neighbors create the conversations.
Neighbors provide the recommendations.
Small businesses provide the services.
Employees build and operate the platform.
Advertisers provide revenue.
Investors provide capital.
Every one of those groups contributes something.
A healthy organization understands that relationships with those stakeholders require more than polished marketing language.
They require communication.
Listening.
Trust.
Transparency.
And accountability.
Day 85
So, Happy Labor Day to everyone working today.
Happy Labor Day to everyone fortunate enough to have today off.
Happy Labor Day to the small-business owners who don't really get holidays.
And Happy Labor Day to Nextdoor's employees too.
As for Nextdoor and Nirav Tolia:
Maybe the Labor Day message is coming.
Maybe somebody will answer tomorrow's email.
Maybe I'll finally receive those two detailed studies.
We'll see.
But as of this writing, Day 85 looks remarkably similar to many of the previous 84 days.
.I'm still waiting for somebody at Nextdoor to demonstrate that communication and accountability aren't just words used when they're convenient for the brand.
Happy Labor Day. 🇺🇸
Follow the continuing Nextdoor case study at NielFlamm.com/blog.
Day 83: Nextdoor Has $100 Million for Stock Buybacks. So Why Isn't It Buying?
It's Day 83 of my continuing Nextdoor case study.
Today I want to talk about something different:
NXDR shares.
More specifically, if Nextdoor's leadership believes the company is undervalued and believes strongly in its direction, why isn't it aggressively buying its own stock at these prices?
Before somebody jumps into the comments with a correction, let me make one myself.
Nextdoor DOES have a stock-buyback program.
And it has bought shares.
According to Nextdoor's SEC filings, during the first six months of 2026, the company repurchased and retired approximately 17 million shares for $28.7 million, at an average price of $1.69 per share.
But here's the part I find interesting:
During Q2 2026, Nextdoor repurchased ZERO shares.
And as of June 30, the company still had $100 million available under its current share-repurchase authorization.
So my question isn't:
Why doesn't Nextdoor have a buyback?
My question is:
Why aren't you using it now?
Nextdoor reported $378 million in cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities at the end of Q2.
The Board has already authorized up to $100 million for share repurchases through June 2028.
Meanwhile, NXDR has recently been trading in the low-$2 range.
If management believes Nextdoor's strategy is working...
If management believes the market is undervaluing the company...
If management believes all these new products, small-business initiatives, AI features, and advertising strategies are going to create substantial future value...
Why wouldn't buying your own stock be an attractive use of at least some of that authorized capital?
Put Your Money Where Your Podcasts Are
I've watched Nirav Tolia make the podcast rounds.
I've heard the vision.
I've read the press releases.
I've seen Nextdoor describe itself as the “essential neighborhood network.”
Okay.
Show me the confidence with capital.
A meaningful stock repurchase at a price management genuinely believes is substantially below intrinsic value can send a very different message than another podcast interview.
It says:
We believe our shares are worth more than this.
And we're willing to put the company's money behind that belief.
Nextdoor itself made almost exactly that argument when it announced its original buyback program in 2022, saying the plan reflected confidence in its strategy and a belief that the market valuation didn't reflect the company's opportunity.
So what does management believe today?
Then There's Stock-Based Compensation
There's another side to this discussion.
Nextdoor reported approximately $14.9 million in stock-based compensation in Q2 2026.
Stock compensation isn't automatically bad. It's extremely common in technology companies and can help align employees and executives with shareholders.
But shareholders should still ask what happens to their ownership percentage as equity compensation is issued over time.
Dilution matters.
If you're issuing equity to employees and executives while the stock struggles, shareholders have every reason to ask whether repurchases are sufficiently offsetting that dilution—and whether compensation is producing the performance shareholders are paying for.
That's particularly important to me when we're discussing executive compensation.
I've repeatedly questioned how Nirav Tolia's compensation aligns with the value being delivered to shareholders.
Here's another way management could demonstrate confidence:
Buy the stock.
Imagine the Message
Forget another Business Wire release for a moment.
Imagine Nextdoor announcing that management believes NXDR is materially undervalued and therefore intends to meaningfully utilize its existing $100 million repurchase authorization.
That's a statement I would notice as a shareholder.
Not because buybacks magically fix a company.
They don't.
Nextdoor itself warns investors that repurchases aren't guaranteed to increase long-term shareholder value and that they reduce cash available for other purposes.
That's fair.
If Nextdoor can invest $1 internally and generate substantially more than $1 in long-term shareholder value, invest the dollar in the business.
But if management believes its own stock represents one of the best values available to the company?
Buy it.
That's capital allocation.
This Is Really a Question About Confidence
Nextdoor's Q2 wasn't all bad.
Revenue increased 15% year over year to $75 million.
Platform Weekly Active Users reached 22.9 million.
Adjusted EBITDA reached approximately $10 million.
The GAAP net loss narrowed dramatically to approximately $2 million, compared with $15 million a year earlier.
And the company finished June with approximately $378 million in cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities.
Those are real improvements.
So here's what I want to understand:
If management believes those improvements are the beginning of something much bigger, why did Nextdoor repurchase zero shares during Q2?
You already have the authorization.
You have substantial liquidity.
You've bought shares before.
And the stock remains at a valuation that has frustrated shareholders like me.
Day 83
I'm still waiting for the two detailed Insights studies.
I'm still questioning the small-business monetization strategy.
I'm still questioning corporate communication.
I'm still questioning leadership.
And now I'm adding another question for Nirav Tolia and Nextdoor's Board:
You authorized $100 million to buy back NXDR shares.
At these prices, what are you waiting for?
If leadership believes in the direction of Nextdoor, I'd like to see that confidence demonstrated not just through words, podcasts and press releases.
Show shareholders through decisions.
Because ultimately, confidence isn't what management says about the company.
It's what management is willing to do with the company's capital.
Follow my continuing Nextdoor case study at NielFlamm.com/blog.
Day 82: Is Nextdoor Taking Another Four-Day Weekend?
It’s Day 82.
I’m still here.
Still reaching users.
Still talking to businesses.
Still raising questions for investors.
Still documenting my disappointment with Nextdoor.
And Nextdoor?
Well, from where I’m sitting, it looks like the company may be sticking to a familiar communications playbook:
It’s Friday before Labor Day weekend. Things have gotten very quiet.
No new post today that I’ve seen from Nextdoor’s corporate communications channels.
Nothing new from CEO Nirav Tolia.
And those two detailed Insights studies I’ve been requesting?
Still nothing.
But I do have some exciting news.
NXDR Is Up a Penny! 🎉
As I write this, NXDR is up approximately $0.01.
Hey, at least it isn’t down.
After 82 days, I’ve learned to appreciate the little things.
One penny at a time, people.
Of course, a penny on one trading day doesn't tell us much about the company's long-term value or investor confidence. What matters is sustained performance and whether management's decisions ultimately create shareholder value.
Will We Hear From Nextdoor on Labor Day?
My guess?
Probably not.
We'll see Monday.
But I have to wonder: how difficult is it for a corporate communications organization to schedule a Labor Day post in advance?
You don't exactly need someone sitting at a desk Monday morning typing:
“Happy Labor Day!”
Schedule it.
Go enjoy the barbecue.
Problem solved.
Then Tuesday arrives.
Maybe we'll get another beautifully polished message about verified neighbors, trusted recommendations, local businesses building brand recognition, and how Nextdoor is strengthening communities.
That's the messaging.
I'm interested in what happens underneath it.
Because the Bigger Questions Are Still Sitting There
How is Nextdoor's increasing monetization of small-business interactions going to affect the businesses that helped create the platform's local value?
Where are the two detailed Insights studies that Nextdoor's own previous blog posts invited readers to request?
How does executive compensation align with sustained shareholder value creation?
When does Nextdoor move from improving its losses to delivering the consistent profitability and value shareholders ultimately expect?
And when does somebody simply say:
“Niel, let's talk.”
That's the part that continues to amaze me.
This Could Have Been Very Different
I've said this before, but it becomes more relevant with every passing day.
If someone from Nextdoor had simply reached out to me almost a year ago, I doubt I would be this invested in documenting accountability today.
Not because they needed to agree with me.
Not because I expected special treatment.
Not because one phone call magically solves every disagreement.
Because somebody would have demonstrated something incredibly basic:
Accountability.
“We hear you.”
“We disagree.”
“Here's why.”
“Here's what we can do.”
“Here's what we can't do.”
That's communication.
Instead, I've spent months documenting what happens when questions linger, communication breaks down and a dissatisfied shareholder becomes increasingly interested in understanding why.
And here we are.
Day 82.
And No, I'm Not Interested in Being a Keyboard Warrior
Somebody reading all of these posts might think:
This guy just likes fighting with people online.
Actually, I'd much rather have a conversation.
In person.
By phone.
By web conference.
I'll even make it pleasant.
Let's Have a Virtual Coffee Date ☕
Anyone from Nextdoor who wants to discuss what I've been documenting is welcome to contact me.
I've provided this information before, and it's available on my website.
Email: niel@nielflamm.com
Phone: (843) 212-6824
Nirav, Communications, Investor Relations, Insights—or someone else at Nextdoor:
Pick up the phone. Send an email. Schedule a video call.
Coffee is on me.
Well, technically, my coffee is on me. Yours is on you.
Enjoy the Weekend
Maybe Nextdoor surprises me Monday.
Maybe there's a Labor Day post.
Maybe someone sends the studies.
Maybe my phone rings.
Maybe NXDR goes up another penny.
At this point, anything is possible.
Because almost a year ago, a conversation might have been enough.
Now we're on Day 82.
The invitation remains open.
Let's talk.