Trends: Second Life et al ---The Future of the Internet?

On my first day at Second Life, I learned how to fly---but only in one direction. That's why the 'photo' here presents an unflattering view of my avatar-self from the rear. Just as well---I haven't had time to buy new hair yet so my current hairstyle, the default for female newcomers to SL, is little more than a giant puff of hair on each side of my head. It's only my avatar-self after all, but it's still embarrassing.

Okay, so it's a small sacrifice to get a look at what some believe is the future of the web: 3-D Internet. Marketing within virtual worlds such as SecondLife, There.com, Worlds of WarWorld of Warcraft, etc., is one of the most talked about 'trends' right now.

But the portrayal of virtual marketing as a hot new trend is as much of an illusion as the virtual real estate that's changing hands in Second Life at out-of-the-world prices. While Dell, Starwood Hotels and Adidas, as well as Reuters and CNET, and even the CDC, have opened outposts in SecondLife, BusinessWeek points out that "amid the hype surrounding Second Life and its growing popularity, it's easy to overlook other three-dimensional online worlds — many with “populations” dwarfing that of Second Life and potentially signifying larger audiences for brands." Worlds.com, a shining star whose light was dimmed by the dot com bust, built 3D virtual worlds for Aerosmith, IBM, Visa, and Coca-Cola in the 1990's.

BTW, Google Earth, provides users with a free version of Sketchup, a 3-D modeling program used to build 3-D structures on top of Google Earth. You can add your own domicile, and tag it to make it geographic specific, or add it to the 3-D warehouse where you can use other developers' creations, such as a model of the White House, the Empire State Building or the Statue of Liberty, for free. Can Googleville be far behind?

Illustrations: Statue of Liberty from 3-D Warehouse, avatar at Wells Fargo ATM - ActiveWorlds from BusinessWeek

Comments

[csven]

Linda said "I don't agree, however, that SL as a media outlet is a waste of time.

I don't recall saying that SL as a media outlet is a "waste of time" If I did, I stand corrected. I believe I said it was a waste of "money". That difference is important in the context of my comments since I'm arguing that rather than throwing money at something *without* spending time to understand it, companies should balance time and money in proper proportion to the media platform. This is new stuff and cannot, I think you agree, be treated in the same manner as other platforms... at least not yet.

Regarding your other comments, I'm in complete agreement (I don't think SL is the future either, but I'm on record saying I think there might be a successor already in the planning stages).

[Linda Zimmer]

I'm coming in a little late on this discussion (catching up!). I'm with csven on this - and he knows of what he speaks. Most assuredly, I agree that you cannot rely on MSM for your facts or knowledge on this topic - you must spend time in SL and virtual worlds to grasp the possibilities and what the environment truly offers. I appreciate csven's insight that SL isn't just about "marketing."

I don't agree, however, that SL as a media outlet is a waste of time. IBM - and even American Apparel - are researching what virtual enviroments mean for their different purposes, and media should be looking to virtual environments and experimenting with new content categories and new ways to present information (*not* advertising).

And as for "it's not the future" - I've been around long enough to have hear those words being said as confidently about the WWW. Second Life isn't the future, but 3D virtual environments *are" - we are already seeing them beginning to emerge in Microsoft's new OS and within social networking applications. SL is a great sandbox - and smart companies will take a serious look at all the areas virtual environments can benefit them - from training and learning, to global collaboration, to prototyping to R&D.

[Anne]

Always good to hear from you, Ann! Perhaps we'll 'meet' virtually in SL one of these days.

[Ann Handley]

Anne -- What I appreciate is that you are forming an informed opinion...you are in there, trying it out, and seeing for yourself. Kudos.

[Anne]

I think we are in agreement on *most* points. I appreciate your perspective and look forward to reading your blog.

[csven]

"My point was that there is a lot of hype about marketing within virtual worlds, and, in particular, Second Life, but that ‘virtual marketing,’ had been occurring for some time before the present buzz about Second Life erupted."

And my point is that there is a significant difference between partnering with a developer to create a highly-controlled 3D commercial and something which is closer to the anarchy of the internet. There.com and the rest are like old media channels: they control the dial and feed mastercontrolled-interactivity to a willing and receptive audience. Second Life is more like YouTube where the audience can, if they wish, turn a corporation's content against them. You're more likely to see a repeat of the Chevy Tahoe YouTube incident in Second Life than in any other virtual space.

Furthermore, there are quite a number of people calling out the hype and summarily dismissing the whole works *without* performing due diligence. They don't even know the differences and may not even have bothered to try any of them. I'm suggesting there's much more going on and that relying on MSM is a mistake. By way of example, how many people who read these articles will understand your own words: "It's only my avatar-self after all, but it's still embarrassing." That makes no sense to quite a lot of people.

"Whether utilization of Second Life as a media outlet “is a mistake and waste of money” remains to be seen, particularly if, as some have suggested, communicating in a virtual environment represents the evolution of the Internet."

As stated, that is my opinion. Nothing more. And I'm not suggesting virtual environments are *not* the evolution of the Internet. Far from it (my own blog , reBang, is a name I chose for my business in the 90's in anticipation of these developments; and I now work consulting to those consultancies of whom I'm speaking).

What I'm saying is that there is *currently* a better approach and the "media outlet" game should wait. That activities of companies like IBM - with their R&D mindset approach to Second Life - is the kind of thing I'd recommend (as does the person behind the MIT Advertising Lab, someone who recently completed his dissertation on this very topic and who recently posted agreement with this approach on my site). Treating it like old media - like a television commercial - is, imo, where the mistake lies.

[Anne]

Thanks for your comments (and correction.)

My point was that there is a lot of hype about marketing within virtual worlds, and, in particular, Second Life, but that ‘virtual marketing,’ had been occurring for some time before the present buzz about Second Life erupted.

You’ve provided some great texture around some of the buzz about Second Life. Whether utilization of Second Life as a media outlet “is a mistake and waste of money” remains to be seen, particularly if, as some have suggested, communicating in a virtual environment represents the evolution of the Internet.

Another commenter on this post disagrees but I think as more and more people have access to broadband and it becomes easier to traverse virtual environments, there will be more organizations and individuals utilizing virtual platforms to communicate their message, although perhaps not necessarily advisedly or well. There are always companies that will rush like lemmings to participate without considering whether it makes strategic sense to do so.

[csven]

What you don't mention is that there is a significant difference between Second Life and all the rest. World of Warcraft (not "Worlds of War") is entirely developer created... with the very occasional hack. No company can simply enter this virtual space without direct approval and support of the developer.

There, the Makena-operated sim, allows for user-created content, but has a difficult to use system (a combination of a dead 3D tool, gMax, and some very dated files which must be spliced into place) and a very lengthy submission and approval system. Furthermore, Makena also controls their world, so a company cannot simply plop its brand inside There.

The same is true of most every virtual world except Second Life. And even Second Life didn't officially allow real companies to enter until they were forced to acknowledge that a) trademarks were already being used inside their world and b) their official line that user-created content would drive adoption and those illegal trademarks conflicted, since even avatars prefer an illegally-branded pair of Levi's to a homegrown virtual brand.

So what you have is a virtual space where any corporation can set up shop *without* ever having to deal with the owner of that virtual world. Furthermore, so long as what they're doing is legal, they can do whatever they wish... and then some.

That said, their appear to be two ways that corporations are approaching SL: as another form of media outlet and as a platform to conduct research for future opportunities. My opinion is that the media outlet approach is a mistake and a waste of money. What I see is a group of savvy consultists playing on the fears of companies who have watched the marketing and advertising world fall into disarray and who convince those with money to spend to create what amounts to 3D commercials. I consider that shortsighted; just the kind of approach I expect from most.

On the other hand, you have companies like Amazon and IBM who take a different approach. Their activities suggest that they use SL as a playground for new ideas in reaching the consumer. They're actively involved in the virtual space and gaining insights into who these people are; the kind of knowledge that will benefit them when something better comes along (and there will almost assuredly be something better; perhaps already here with an announcement yesterday).

I would suggest that rather than depend on BusinessWeek (which sometimes doesn't get the facts straight), take some time to immerse yourself. Don't spend a few hours or a few days. Give it a few weeks. Truly get to know and understand what's going on. Because you might find yourself, as I did, entirely caught off guard by what isn't communicated in all the journals and blogs discussing this topic. Or you can sit back and more than likely be surprised at what develops... just like how most everyone was surprised at what happened with YouTube and MySpace.

[anne simons]

Hmmm. You may be right, Doug. A downside of participating in these virtual worlds is that they require signficant effort to get up to speed, what with selecting and customizing an avatar, learning how to fly, etc. It's hard to say how many people will actually make the effort. We'll see.

Thanks for stopping by.

Anne

[Doug Karr]

It's niche, but I don't think it's the future. :)

Regards,
Doug