Jaffe Juice

November 13, 2007 Who's responsible for SL's lack of reach? Filed Under: Pithy Conversation Catalysts

Comment Total: (43)

SPONSORSHIP Jaffe Juice – brings a fresh new marketing perspective and commentary from industry thought leader and author Joseph Jaffe. Click here to find out more about sponsorship opportunities. Jaffe Juice continues below...

follow jaffejuice at http://twitter.com

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/307546/23313728

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Who's responsible for SL's lack of reach?:

Comments

An excellent point and I've always been amazed by how coverage (Wired, Forbes et al) in the summer was able to take the line: Brands invested in Second Life / Their efforts failed / So the medium must be at fault!

Eh?!

Say a brand did a sponsorship deal with a TV programme and it failed miserably. Would any media pundit seriously blame the show....or would the blame quite rightly fall on the heads of the agency and brand owner?

Posted by: Dirk Singer

Asking people to take responsibility for their own failings is sure to make someone unhappy. Looking forward to the... feedback.

Posted by: csven

Joe -- These are some interesting points that I've been exploring as well in talks and internal meetings. I like the analogy of early explorers, but if you parallel what they did, they came over, saw the potential and then had to sell the people back home. They then had to believe it, make the leap to leave their comfort zone and travel across the seas.

Personally, I think there are a couple of forces at work to form new, digital seas that we have to get people to cross. First is awareness from the majority of the population. You're starting to see things pop up in mainstream media (CSI:NY and the Office), but the biggest shift may be in the youngest generation who is now growing up with virtual worlds. Webkinz (and other virtual worlds) are early training grounds that are getting people familiar with the environment the same way my little cousins can use a computer better than my aunt. They're becoming fluent.

Second, I think one big barrier to entry is just the creation of the avatar itself. This isn't like using the net where all you need is a connection. You have to install the app, make sure it's up to date, create a profile, create an avatar and you have to learn how to walk again. People ask me all the time to just teach them how to get around. It's basic, but could be frustrating beyond belief for a new user.

It's up to us to keep pushing the envelope, keep building new things, keep evangelizing the medium and leverage the publicity it's getting in the mainstream media. It will be out fault if we don't keep innovating and making cooler, bigger things.

Posted by: Matt Dickman

A good question you presented and I agree in part. We are to blame for some of the lack of reach, but not all.

Linden Labs could make our jobs a bit easier by improving the intuitiveness and ease of use/creation of the avatar. Within the past couple of days I am beginning my journey into SL and documenting it on my blog. I've spent at least 2 hours alone figuring out the various "ins and outs" and trying to get my avatar looking appropriately. This is a huge barrier.

But again, I think it in part lands on our heads as SL residence to get others on board as the most convincing evangelists. At the same time, I think Linden could do various things to help us out.

Posted by: Nathan Snell

At the beginning of the year, 3000 Australians were in Second Life. After Telstra BigPond, ABC TV and others created installations, it doubled to 6,000. Not logging on daily, just 6000 Australians have SL accounts. Out of a population of 21 million. (by comparison, nearly 2 million Australians signed up for Facebook since May).

But it's worth doing for the press coverage alone, including 60 Minutes (Australia), 4 Corners and Sunday programs on free to air TV. They are thinking: don't worry if no one logs into SL, just get the front page of the newspaper. You couldn't buy coverage that cheap.

(Education aside - they are usually locked down for students only - which have clear purpose, and commitment of members).

As a social network strategist with virtual worlds, everything I do - EVERYTHING - speaks to the culture of the community. Think useability on a website and it becomes sociability in a virtual world. Purpose, Places, Profiles, Events, Rituals, Roles etc. Linden does some things well, and others... no way. The community takes it's lead from the hosts. Host gets it right, and appropriate behaviour will follow. If you don't clarify the purpose, your members won't get it.

How many overwhelmingly successful SL installations have there been? 1. If you think the number is too low, that is Linden Labs fault. 2.If you think they are ALL successful bar one or two, then the one or two failures must be the corporates fault. I'm with scenario one. A lot of failures means the platform isnt set up right. (I had a lecturer who said "in 20 years no one has ever passed this test". My response was "that says more about the teacher than the student").

The ball is fairly and squarely in Linden Labs court. They are guiding the corporate installations (or should be). No excuses.

Posted by: Laurel Papworth

I say blame Linden. There's only so much a person can and should have to do to connect with a brand or medium.

Second Life, in my opinion, lacks the adaptability that less radical platforms easily enable (video games, websites, etc...).

Like video games, evolution is one of the most important factors for a platform to grow. New generations are usually introduced every 4 or so years, blowing away their predecessors.

Second Life, is near that 4 year marker, and unless an enormous leap in is made in presentation, usability, and feature wise, I think they'll be in the same boat for many years to come.

Mix fun and interaction, you've got gold. Second Life is copper at best.

Posted by: Travis

Copper isn't bad for a medium that's less than 5 years old. I just keep thinking about all the folks who are busy creating in there. I'm setting up a store to promote Ecoutee organic t-shirts in Etopia Eco-Village and every time I visit there, the growing community of residents has added something amazing - a Fair Trade Coffeehouse, a Landsat satellite photo exhibit... It sure isn't their fault (or Linden's) that marketers haven't connected with them yet!

Posted by: ahoving

(disclaimer - I am not a techie so my terminology is probably all wrong).

A tale of two lifes...

So one day about one year ago I downloaded SL on my then computer. It barely "fit" but it seemed to work. I then created an avatar not knowing how, who or what. It was not hard but it took time and if I would have had a second, more informed chance, I would do it differently of course.

I then had to learn how to move around. It wasn't hard but it took time. And I didn't know where to move to. Or how to get there. I landed on an island where I was bashed over the avatar by some warriors. I flew away. Figured out how to type in a destination. Found CC at Crayon's island. Learned a lot from interacting with someone "in the know".

Came back once or twice after that. But... it was never satisfying. Chatting? I have almost every IM engine on my computer. Gaming? Same thing, plus I have a PSP. Sex? Please, my own partner and bed are much more fun...

So, in the end it was the lack of (for me) appealing content that did not draw me back in. I was bored. It was too cumbersome and not interesting enough to make the effort.

-0-0-0-0-0-

Exactly one year ago I created my Facebook page. It was part of a company sponsored event. I tend to sign up for EVERYTHING new, because I believe you can only judge it if you are in it.

I played around with it for a little bit, but it seemed a bit of a black hole where not a lot was going on.

I also had active profiles on MySpace, Hyves, LinkedIn and Windows Live. At least with MySpace you got spam... daily (not anymore... I don't hear from my MySpace at all anymore)! And LinkedIn seemed to be the business for business.

Fast forward to the beginning of this year. All of a sudden I am beginning to get messages through Facebook. Friends started linking. Former co-workers found me, and I them. Applications started to come through, not "advertised" but through other users.

I never got Twitter (I still think it is a fad) but I twitter away on Facebook - where I am, what I am doing, posting photo's birthday messages, etc. etc.

I am now an active Facebooker. It satisfies and gratifies. It is quick. Intuitive. Responsive. Easy. And it feels "real".

That is my tale of two... what? Lives? One is Second Life, one is My Life...

Posted by: latentsettler

You raise an interesting question...should marketers leverage societal trends or go the extra step and help to create them?

But also find it ironic that the author of "Life after the 30 Second Spot" is suggesting that we buy a spot to promote SL presence.

Posted by: Tim Collins

Anyone remember Mosaic? Good first attempt - but it took others to bring the browser to the mainstream. AOL & Compuserve provided built in easy to use navigation, etc. Social networks are even more recent but follow the same path: Classmates > Friendster > MySpace > Facebook.

Second Life is just the first iteration of many virtual life/world products to come. Someone will come along and build a better interface addressing the issues you mention above. This is not a bad idea. In fact, it's a brilliant idea - just not executed for the average internet user. Once that product is made, I would bet that the response will be better than those of their forefathers.

The gems here are the advertisers who took a risk in these VL and already have learnings on how they work. These will be the champions in the SL to come as they will have an idea of what works already.

Posted by: Olivia McKinsey

Wow, just wow. I'm not sure if your post is meant to be sarcastic, but you're blaming the users (and me) for the lack of Second Life's success? That's like blaming people for buying cds and not the minidisk, isn't it? I think history has shown that plenty of innovations have failed, simply because they did not solve the problem that they were addressing effectively.

In the case of Second Life, if I want to reach my fellow human, I can just as easily wave, pick up a phone, drop a line, instead of launching an app and immersing myself into a world that seems both awkward to use, and without any clear advantage over other means of communication, or over virtual worlds with a much more clear-cut purpose (e.g. games). The only thing I've heard Second Life is being used for nowadays is sex, advertising, and job-interviews… which I guess makes it much too close to First Life for comfort ;)

Pithy Conversation Catalyst indeed.

Posted by: Vincent van Wylick

Just catching up now to all the comments:

@timcollins - just beautifully articulated!

@vincent - I'm absolutely NOT blaming the users at all, although you do bring up an interesting point as to whether the community made life too hard for marketer newbies and in doing so, arguably became their own worst enemy (yes I know, you'll probably say brands were never welcome to start with...but still)

what do you think about that?

Posted by: Joseph Jaffe

So far I'm not disappointed. Except for maybe the apparent reluctance to discuss "experimentation and innovation".

Posted by: csven

So if I hold a fantastic marketing event on the top of Mt. Everest or on Easter Island, and nobody comes to it, it's *my* fault for not promoting the venue or the event enough.

You're right that it's not the fault of Linden Labs, etc (any more than it would be Nepal's fault for nobody coming to my Everest party). You are correct that it is, in fact, the marketer's fault. But not for insufficient promotion. The fault is for being stupid and locating their event in a place that nobody wants to go to.

Second Life is not, as you say, like the New World -- the Web is like the New World, but not Second Life. Second Life is more like a tiny desert island with lots of sunlight but with no food and no drinking water. It's a place that, for most people, really sucks.

Posted by: Christopher Fahey

"The fault is for being stupid and locating their event in a place that nobody wants to go to."

Let's assume for a moment that for "most people" SL sucks. And let's acknowledge that the *current* technology limits the number of individuals on a corporate island to 40. Fair enough. But with 30,000+ people for whom SL *doesn't* suck logged in 24/7, why are corporate islands not continuously full?

Surely there should be a line of eager consumers waiting to get into those areas, what with all these experienced(?) marketers unleashing their professional campaigns. After all, what *else* in Second Life could possibly be more interesting to the majority of users who aren't busy cybering?

Now I realize that metrics are all that really matter to most marketers. Measuring *quantifiable* things is how most people gauge success. Okay, so it's not the ocean. But with a fishbowl full of users, why is the catch rate generally so disappointing? If the people are *in* SL already, then the "it's too hard", "it's not pretty enough", "it's too [insert excuse here]", doesn't really apply, does it? And when someone compares notes between the traffic on a real company's sim with the traffic on some average guy's plot and discovers that the little guy is attracting more people, don't the marketers out there ask themselves: "How can that be"?

-

Perhaps SL is analogous to a focus group and they're providing feedback. And the lack of interest is the consumer telling brands: "If we're not herded into a brand-controlled environment and *forced* to interact with brands in exchange for something we *do* want, we'd avoid you like the plague."

Posted by: csven

I am sticking to my own (N=1) experience, so maybe, just maybe the content is just not that engaging. And so people create avatars (and from what I understand are then "a user"), but after a few visits do not come back.

Why do so many new TV shows die shortly after their launch? Because content is king... In SL it would have to be Engaging Content is Emperor for people to make the effort and interact.

I think there is potentially a double whammy at play:

"clunky" not so consumer friendly platform
+
so-so content
-------------=
(insert that eary wind sound from SL here)

Posted by: latentsettler

Wow. You're taking a beating on this one.

I'm going to stick my neck out there with you, Jaffe.

I'm bullish on Second Life in the short run, and extremely bullish on Virtual Worlds in the long run.

To Jaffe's point, if a company built a new promotional website, and then sat back, looked at the stats and said, "Nobody is here...? This web thing doesn't work! I built a website, and what now, I actually have to promote it for anyone to show up! What gives?"

Well, yes. Nobody came to websites until companies started adding their [dot]com to the end of their TV spots and print ads. Then buying banner ads and text links on relevant search terms, etc.

But this is all only one third of the story.

2nd third:
If you look at who was driving brands to Second Life, it was not the advertising agencies. It was their PR firms. Edelman was in the game early. For the early adopters, developing in Second Life was never meant to promote to SL users, it was a means of generating valuable PR to the mass market. For every $50k in development costs a company spent in Second Life, they could be guaranteed a ROI of $10MM+ in free press coverage. Magazines, Newspapers, morning talk shows, etc. were all over it. The first brands in saw amazing returns. The also-rans jumped in thinking there was a market in there for them, and were left scratching their heads.

3rd of three:

Second Life is a lot more like a conference call than it is like the web.

Think about this. When you're on a company's website, you don't see who else is there— who is on the same web page. Statistically, even a site with massive traffic like Amazon, on any given page, if you were to observe who else was looking at the same page, with the exception of the best-sellers of the moment, you'd be sitting there on that page all alone. But on the web, you don't observe who else is there. In Second Life, you do.

-----

What's changing:

If you go in to Second Life all alone, and wander around, and especially if you don't know where to go, it can be quite boring. If, however, you schedule a meeting, and go to a specific location, it can be a very high-quality experience.

There are things that can be experienced three dimensionally that simply cannot be conveyed over a conference call.

Right now, the interface is still evolving. One of the greatest things has been the incorporation of VoIP. In time, I am convinced that, as the graphics become more realistic, as VoIP becomes more widely used, the next step will be HMDs (head mounted displays). Once you're "in there" vs looking "at there", people will grasp the significance of virtual telepresence.

Before anyone poo-poos the idea of HMDs and tries some witty "I won't be wearing headgear" wisecrack, remember what portable headphones looked like before the Sony Walkman came along:
http://tinyurl.com/2mcero

It will take someone clever product design to turn it from being merely utilitarian:
http://tinyurl.com/35zzyo

To fashionable:
http://tinyurl.com/38kwzk

This will happen to the HMD too.

It's coming.

Ready or not, it's coming.

When the telepresence of virtual worlds becomes immersive and realistic enough to suspend disbelief. It will make the teleconference seem as old school as the telegraph.

I have written about this a bit more at GigantiCo, where it has stimulated some good conversation, including a comment from, and featured link on IBM's Metavangelist, Roo Reynold's blog.
http://tinyurl.com/ynk7da

BTW: In Second Life, my name is ChristopherBest Daviau.

Posted by: Chris Grayson

>>Let's assume for a moment that for "most people" SL sucks. And let's acknowledge that the *current* technology limits the number of individuals on a corporate island to 40. Fair enough. But with 30,000+ people for whom SL *doesn't* suck logged in 24/7, why are corporate islands not continuously full?>>

That's an easy one: Because they don't come to Second Life to interact with brands. YOUR BRAND IS NOT MY FRIEND.
SL, as it currently exists, is an escapist fantasy world. And why would anyone think the people actively playing this game would want to interact with any real brand when they were there. They are there to play SL, not to be marketed to. And unlike the early web, being marketed to is definitely not one of the experiences anyone is looking for on SL.

@Chris Grayson: I've said many times that the TECHNOLOGY behind SL has great potential for business conferencing. But if I go on SL for a conference, I'm not going to stay to go shopping at the virual Adidas store or buy a virtual Coke. I'm busy. I'm there for the call and then I'm off.

Posted by: Tangerine Toad

"That's an easy one: Because they don't come to Second Life to interact with brands."

No, they normally don't. However, before the gates opened there were plenty of pirated trademarks on virtual products (and there still are). It was *very* common to see Toyota- and Nissan-branded vehicles. The Apple logo was popular and there was at least one Apple store selling virtual electronics inside SL. And Disney-branded items were in high demand, especially as avatar clothing accessories. And none of these were licensed. In fact, prior to Linden Lab answering a series of trademark questions I posed on their official Hotline, the understanding was that real life companies weren't permitted inside Second Life. Yet SL was full of real brands.

-

"They are there to play SL, not to be marketed to."

The problem I have with this statement is that it infers people *want* to be marketed to ANYWHERE. This isn't an SL-only issue. The same is true, for example, with television. I don't know about other people, but I don't turn on the teevee to watch commercials. If I'm unique, then why all the crying over TiVo?

Do marketers actually believe that most people actually *want* to be marketed to in ANY medium? Seriously?

Posted by: csven

No csven, no one wants to be marketed to if they're doing something else.

For the most part however, people accept TV commercials as the price for free television. (That's why there's HBO)

But your point is misguided: people in SL have to actively seek out marketers. It's not thrown at them as it is on TV or even online or in newspapers. And my point was broader: I suspect SLers would reject most experiences with any sort of corporate tie-in, simply because they reject any sort of corporate, real-world presence in their fantasyland.

Posted by: Tangerine Toad

"For the most part however, people accept TV commercials as the price for free television. (That's why there's HBO)"

Do they "accept" it or do they tolerate it? I'd say they tolerate it. Semantics, yes, but an obviously important distinction afaic. Especially since people will pay hard-earned money to be avoid commercials (THAT's why there's HBO).

"But your point is misguided: people in SL have to actively seek out marketers. It's not thrown at them as it is on TV or even online or in newspapers."

Misguided? Really? "have to actively seek out marketers"??? Exactly how much experience do you have in SL? You speak as if it's substantial, but based on this comment I'd venture not much.

You're speaking here as an authority on Second Life, so impress us all with an in-depth explanation as to why some of the marketing techniques being used inside Second Life aren't considered equal to even a simple newspaper ad. Of course this excludes probably everything that's been done by real world brands who've tried SL, but they're only a small part of what's going on, as someone with your experience is certainly aware.

"And my point was broader: I suspect SLers would reject most experiences with any sort of corporate tie-in, simply because they reject any sort of corporate, real-world presence in their fantasyland."

And my point is broader still: most everyone rejects being marketed to, and only tolerates it because the control mechanisms attached to the medium force consumers to endure it in exchange for something they want. Do they like a television show? Well, networks make them pay the price by having them endure an onslaught of commercials. Fantasyland with a ball and chain, eh? Nothing like a feminine hygiene ad in the middle of a broadcast movie or playoff game to bring everyone back to reality. {But don't use TiVo, people. Remember: you *like* commercials.}

-

As you're such an expert on Second Life, perhaps you'd like to continue this conversation inside Second Life. Maybe join Jaffe and me for a discussion. Perhaps we can get some other people involved and you can show us around. Put your expertise on display. Explain your assertion made above. Maybe even land a client.

What's your avatar name? Probably one of those old names, right? Older than mine, I'm sure, since you seem comfortable calling someone like me "misguided".

Posted by: csven

When you calm down, I'd be glad to have a rational conversation. Either in Second Life or on here.

Posted by: Tangerine Toad

"When you calm down"

You seem to have a tendency to write as if you *know* something when it appears to me all you have are assumptions. Furthermore, there are other people reading these comments, and there's nothing stopping you from answering the questions posed for everyone's benefit... unless you don't have answers; just the poorly-reported junk the mainstream media has been disseminating. So this appears to me to be an excuse to avoid continuing this exchange for fear of revealing how little you actually know.

No? Is *my* assumption incorrect? Then maybe you can just start by explaining this definitive claim of yours: "people in SL have to actively seek out marketers."

Please. Dazzle us with your rational. Not for my benefit, but for everyone else's.

Posted by: csven

@csven and @tangerine toad, get a room :)

And now, back to our regular programming...

Toad, I believe the ball is in your court.

Posted by: Joseph Jaffe

I'd rather it was all of us at a WA. I've been observing one off and on for a few weeks now. Nothing new really. Not too much notecard spam. The occasional sales rep/avatar model hanging out attracting the attention of generic newbies. Worn "billboards" on occasion. Nothing major, but still interesting.

Posted by: csven

Like I said, CSVEN, when you calm down, we can have a real conversation.

Sorry Jaffe, I've learned a long time ago not to engage the enraged. There's no conversation, just a lot of schoolyard lines like "Dazzle us with your rational."

Not my game.

Posted by: Tangerine Toad

Wow. All caps. Does that mean someone is losing their temper? Curious.

One minute I'm getting the "misguided" lecture as if Toad is my parent or something, and the next minute Toad is ducking out on claims I'm "enraged" (truth is, I'm laughing at Toad's effort to avoid continuing this conversation; it's pretty amusing).

Oh well. It's clear to me that Toad simply doesn't have any justification for his assertion and doesn't want anyone to know it. And afaic it's okay if Toad clams up. Having conversations with people who assert an unwarranted level of expertise and then seek ways to save face when their puffery takes a hit is not *my* game.

So have a nice evening, Toad. Maybe take a break from the intarwebs. And most especially continue to stay clear of SL. There are people on it who are at least your equal and that might frustrate you; it's not a controlled space like what you're probably used to. Unlike television land, people there talk back. Just like now.

Posted by: csven

So now that you've calmed down:

Second Life, for most of its most dedicated players, is a rich and beloved fantasy game with roots in less rich but equally complex games like SimCity. And while I'm aware that players can receive marketing messages as they go about their day-to-day business, Jaffe was asking about corporate islands, which are places that players actively need to seek out.

You yourself had asked "But with 30,000+ people for whom SL *doesn't* suck logged in 24/7, why are corporate islands not continuously full?"

My answer was that corporate islands were places that players had to actively seek out and that they seemed artificial in context of the game. When players brought logos in "unofficially" that had a very different feel to it than something a marketer provided since it was organic, not artificial.

This is all a part of my treatise "Your Brand Is Not My Friend™" which I invite you to read, either on my blog or on Daily Fix (mpdailyfix.com) In a nutshell, the theory is that people do not want to hear from marketers in places like Facebook, MySpace or Second Life-- anywhere they go primarily to interact with their friends. There are a few very popular "Prom King" brands that are exceptions to this rule, but for the most part people do not want to hear from marketers in places they socialize.

I have never said that SL is crap or compared it unfavorably to TV- I'm not quite sure why or how you made that leap. The two are completely unrelated except that they have been used as advertising mediums. And enjoyment of one does not exclude enjoyment of the other.

I think the technology behind SL has quite a bit of potential for everything from retails websites to corporate conferencing and look forward to seeing how it develops.

Posted by: Tangerine Toad

And now that you've figured out how you're going to respond...

"Jaffe was asking about corporate islands, which are places that players actively need to seek out."

... you've apparently decided to rewrite history.

Jaffe wasn't asking specifically about corporate islands. Reread his post. He mentions an "island" and makes inferences to past efforts that probably used them, but that's not the general topic being discussed. The issue is reaching consumers, with the primary complaint of marketers being "the lack of reach". That's the topic here.

As Jaffe says, this lack of reach is "linked to the Ghost Town observation", but only because that's been the almost universal approach taken by marketers, and the one most often mentioned in the press. And why do brands set up on remote outposts? Simple: brands set up isolated islands because they have greater control on them by virtue of the platform, and that makes their approach closer to the one-way "shove it down their throat" media solutions with which they're familiar.

Where Jaffe is going with this is spelled out: "it is less about Second Life and more about Virtual Worlds on one hand, and Second Life as a metaphor for experimentation and innovation on the other hand." Almost everything he says afterward is about the lack of experimentation and creativity in the service of marketing a brand... in this "New World". In podcasting. Not just on "islands" inside Second Life.

And he's right. Brands generally haven't been using SL to experiment and innovate; to finds ways to connect with consumers in a synchronous environment. Instead, they've tried to port old methodologies (and attitudes) into a new and different medium. It's not necessarily the fault of the brand or of the developer. I've been told on a few occasions that it was inexperienced ad agencies that controlled the project. People with *no* Second Life experience overriding the suggestions of developers who were very familiar with both the platform and the users.

That's what this is about. Not "corporate islands", but learning how to deal with the realities of an increasingly empowered consumer. Figuring out ways to become part of the conversation without demanding consumers "accept" or decline, because as you like to say "YOUR BRAND IS NOT MY FRIEND" (oh look, you're now using the trademark and pitching your wares; how... enterprising of you).

Furthermore, this was the exchange between us:

-

You: They are there to play SL, not to be marketed to.

Me: The problem I have with this statement is that it infers people *want* to be marketed to ANYWHERE. Do marketers actually believe that most people actually *want* to be marketed to in ANY medium?

You: No csven, no one wants to be marketed to if they're doing something else. For the most part however, people accept TV commercials as the price for free television. But your point is misguided: people in SL have to actively seek out marketers.

-

So we were talking generally; across media and technologies. And then you came along and made the assertion that my general comments were "misguided" because SL was different (from television, radio, etc); because "people in SL have to actively seek out marketers"... which is completely untrue.

That sort of assertion is, it seems to me, based on an outsider's understanding formed almost entirely from reading MSM articles (like the one in Wired you mention on your blog which points out the deserted VirtualThirst pavillion; like walking to the Rose Bowl a week after the big game and saying "See, no one comes here"). Articles which are almost always pathetically researched, riddled with errors, oblivious to the "experimentation" angle Jaffe is raising here, and cited as gospel on marketing blog after marketing blog.

-

As to *my* question regarding the lack of traffic on corporate islands, you seem to have missed that point entirely; which was: for all the excuses, why can't marketers at least attract the attention of those *already* using SL?

With little exception, people don't seek to out television commercials. They're interested in the show; the content. You say viewers "accept" it; I say they "tolerate" it, and if given the opportunity they'll avoid it (e.g. use TiVo). Well, if a company simply makes a branded island, then isn't it just common sense they'll avoid it the same way they skip over commercials?

Isn't it common sense that until the content is sufficiently compelling, they'll avoid these message-heavy efforts the same way they avoid commercials shown on television shows they don't like? And when it's something interesting, they'll "accept"/"tolerate" the branding message that comes with the package?

It's common sense to me. That's because “YOUR BRAND IS NOT MY FRIEND”.

But I guess when you're in the industry you own a television to watch the commercials and forget that brands aren't your friend in ANY medium under most any circumstance; regardless of whether or not people using them "go primarily to interact with their friends" (a convenient clause for the old school people). That, and you rely on mainstream media to teach you about a new medium instead of, from all indications, experimenting with it yourself.

Well, Toad. It's been fun, but like I said, having conversations with people who, based on assertions like yours, obviously are talking about something with which they have too little experience isn't my game. Especially when it starts becoming a means to pitch themselves.

Fortunately, this is a two-way conversation, so I can escape.

Posted by: csven

csven, I like your passion. But at the same time, dude, get a (carbon-based) life, not just a lame (binomial) second one. Come out of your stinky clam! I'll buy you a real coke (and a smile). Pepsi if you like, since you are so brand seeking friendly.
Jaffe, stop instigating. A room would be fun with me and you, virtual or real.

Posted by: DM

I had to Twitter this conversation.

I generally agree with the feelings of Toad, but I have to say that I'm somewhat impressed by the super intense passion of csven. The dude is a maniac, but perhaps SecondLife needs a few more like him.

The concept of SecondLife reminds me of a speech I heard several years ago by the author James Fallows. He was talking about the then recently defunt Webvan and the struggling DrKoop.com. He said that he felt that they were good ideas, but it was a little for them to succeed as imagined. The experiments we now see on SecondLife will play themselves out, new methods - the ones that csven passionately refers to might come about.

But in the meantime, csven, calm down. Please.

Posted by: Jonathan Trenn

DM, just so you're aware, I don't spend an inordinate amount of time using Second Life, and go months without logging in. Thus the fact that I'm more versed in it than the marketing gurus who speak with sham authority regarding it says more about their lack of due diligence than any amount of time I spend observing it (and observing it for my own professional reasons; which I won't bother to explain here).

As to my own life - which you can get a sense of by reading my LinkedIn profile - speaks for itself. I'd say spending time on four continents and living all over the U.S. takes me out of the clamshell category. However, cutesy jokes playing on tired clichés makes a person look old and out-of-touch. Just sayin'.

Posted by: csven

@Jonathan who said "the ones that csven passionately refers to might come about."

They're already in progress. If you've not heard recent reports out of China and their interest in creating a massive virtual retail space, you might want to read up. Regardless of what people here think, they're moving forward (they certainly have the money).

From a Guardian story earlier this month: "Goods that were made in China could have web addresses to take western buyers direct to a Chinese website for further purchases or replacements." (thus bypassing middlemen/ODM customers).

When I earlier referred to recent observations I was making in Second Life, I was paying particular attention to the Asian community and their marketing efforts.

Posted by: csven

DM, I am most certainly not instigating, but that said....this is AWESOME. Man, this is what conversation is all about.

Toad and Csven - drinks on me the next time you both are in NYC. DM, you can come as well.

Or if schedules don't allow, we can always meet in world!

Posted by: Joseph Jaffe

Csven - I'll investigate what's going on in Asia. Thanks.

Posted by: Jonathan Trenn

@Jaffe: I'm in Manhattan 5 days a week. So let me know where ;)

@Csven: The Chinese innovation is exactly what I was talking about re: the potential for the technology behind Second Life. Is your evident frustration on here fueled by constant pushback you get offline? Just trying to understand where you're coming from, since what you're saying doesn't appear to be radically different from what I - and a lot of other people- have been saying about SL.

Posted by: Tangerine Toad

@Toad who defensively croaked: "Is your evident frustration on here fueled by constant pushback you get offline?"

Is that the best you can do, Toad? Is this a representative example of a professional copywriter's rapier wit and facility with the English language?

Rhetorical question. "Your Bruised Ego Is Not My Concern™"

-

As this thread has grown ripe, let me just say "Thank you". You've proven to be an excellent source of amusement.

Cheers.

Posted by: csven

csven ... remember, in the virtual world you can hide behind your words, so morons - company included - can lash out without recourse. Proof you are spending too much time in your dingy virtual world. Troll. Admittingly I know next to nothing about tech and this world you talk about, but I am plenty smart enough to see a good argument and points worth reflecting on. Whereas you started down that road, your retorts have weakened in insight. Dude, does it pain you that no one visits with you in 3-D land? Quite being a joke. And I don't care if you are harsh with me or with anyone else; I don't play politically correct nor am I sensitive. I'll take it and dish it. But dude, you are now just throwing crap out. I went traveling too my friend, and saw plenty of jack-offs doing the same, so the fact that you lived on all four continents impresses me only slightly. These four continents btw, did it ressemble a Risk board? Either convince me with your arguments or shut t-f-u. Bring it.

Posted by: DM

@DM - as already mentioned, anyone who wishes to learn about me can look me up by simply clicking on my name here and surfing through to my LinkedIn profile (the link should take you to my blog at http://blog.rebang.com but for the challenged among you, here's my LinkedIn profile url as well: http://www.linkedin.com/in/csvenjohnson ).

Unlike those who only provide an anonymous Hotmail address, I don't hide; either online while commenting on blogs such as this or in any virtual space (feel free to ignore verifying this fact if you're okay with continuing to put your ignorance on display).

Now that everyone is clear about who I am, perhaps you'd all like to share your real names and link to supporting/identifying information. I'm sure everyone is as unconcerned with "push-back" and "recourse" as I am. Or are you?

Posted by: csven

I'm neither a technie nor a marketer. I am an attorney, HR consultant, and former IT outsourcing exec. I founded VRWorkplace because I believe in virtual worlds as an enterprise communications tool.

Nevertheless, here's my two cents:

1. SL is too big for the average computer. When people try to download it they are too often met with delay, difficulty, challenge.

2. Creating an avatar that looks sort of human is too difficult. Navigating is too difficult. Lag is too frequent. Using SL can be frustrating.

3. Tell me if I'm wrong, but trying to market in SL is like putting up a billboard in the least traveled part of town, say above a dentist's office. No one sees it. No one cares.

Now, make the part of town hip, fun, friendly, build a community and then people care. Put the bulletin board on top of the coolest club in the nasty part of town and it gets attention. People start to see it. Care about it.

In order to create a community, the Lindens have to improve the system. In order to achieve successful marketing, I would think that you'd want to change the nature of the game. SL and virtual worlds are ultimately about the novelty of interpersonal interaction regardless of physical distance. Build your product, brand, whatever around that -- "remote togetherness" -- and I believe things will change.

Posted by: Dave Elchoness

Are "we" to blame? To the extent that "we" have failed to convince clients of the value of participating in VW's, yes. "We" -- all of us -- are to blame.

But, there's something larger going on here than simply comparing SL's reach with that of a website: the chink in the armor of mass media, which isn't working as well as it has in the past. I find it fascinating that no one is comparing the reach of SL to TV; they're comparing it to Facebook...as if the marketing industry really is ready to pit one participatory media against another. In SL, marketers can learn to wean themselves off of mass media with less risk than doing so in the "real" world.

The fact is, SL is difficult for many marketers exactly because of it's strength: the ability really engage people, if done right. But doing it right takes imagination, time, listening, and a little guts. It's so much easier to do what marketers have been doing for at least 50 years: buy some media time (or space) and talk at people. Even if that's not working as well as it once did.

Usability is one issue dragging adoption. However, Linden Lab does need to make SL into a platform that is more robust, stable, and useful. One of the reasons we're all talking about Facebook now is because of it's API. SL needs a good api, especially one that talks better to the web. Then, 3rd party developers can create more applications that are useful, fun, and relevant to people.

Still, it takes innovative thinking to make SL work for marketers. It's my belief--but one I haven't rigorously thought through /w/ research -- that in general the most innovative companies in terms of marketing are ones that don't have access to a national TV advertising budget.

I just finished "Three Cups of Tea", which may be an odd place to learn marketing lessons, but there are a number of places in the book where Greg Mortenson gave talks to audiences of as little as six people, but those talks ultimately had a huge impact on his career...and possibly our nation.

At the end of the day, business is about people. And so are Virtual Worlds. We are to blame for not talking persuasively enough; however, marketers are also to blame for not investing in their future.

Posted by: Joel Greenberg

yes. you all are to blame.

Posted by: larryr

yes. you all are to blame.

- the future

Posted by: larryr

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: