Does Second Life need to be saved?

I wonder if anyone has considered the notion of restructuring? That Linden Lab is ensuring the company has a sustainable business model for the future.

This post is prompted by Grace McDunnough's blog post (and was unfortunately too big to post there )

I also posted around the issue of sustainability a few days ago.

Today I speak about comments on Grace's blog.
 
Uncertainty and Insecurity Spreads Rumours 

Will this plug fit the vacuum?

I agree with Jamys notion that there is confusion in the market place over the future of Second Life. However, when a CEO leaves any company suddenly, this is often the case.

Jamys also suggests that the vacuum is being filled with rumours and fearful whispers. Jamys must have been reading about Claude Shannon and one of the axioms of Uncertainty Reduction Theory - that high levels of uncertainty cause increases in information seeking behavior.

- This vacuum needs a plug because when uncertainty levels decline information seeking behaviour also decreases so rumours will lessen.

People are naturally insecure, like putting money into a bank, many have invested a lot into Second Life, myself included. When there is uncertainty, people look for anything to plug that gap - rumours will do. People plug these gaps with whispers rather than deal with unknowing and uncertainty.

Resistance to Change

Tateru is quite right (as always) in Grace McDunnough's blog post 'Save Our Ship? USS Second Life' and her own blog.

Change is natural and inevitable, as are death and taxes. Do we all need rescuing from change?

What am I supposed to do with this?

From comments in Grace's blog, it would appear that there is a perception that some do not want to see Second Life grow or change. In fact, the perception is that it was all one big happy family and some would sooner see it die than change.

Many of the people have a vested interest in the death of Second Life as they have now gone for the cheaper seats in other platforms and open sims, some to recreate the Second Life 'of old'.

What is left to Linden Lab is something that may indeed be sustainable.

From my own recent research (soon to be published), it appears that new users expect expansion and growth.

What is the Future Perception?

Back to the comment of DrFran. Perception is everything indeed and good marketing helps improve perception. There is a well-documented phenomenon about technology adoption. As soon as the naysayers are out and on the street corners hewing and crying and the product is no longer newsworthy - that is when the company and product has come of age and is mature enough for corporations to consider climbing aboard.

It is my belief that Linden Lab are regrouping and about to attack the market with a more powerful and sustainable marketing message - one that will be attractive and competitive internationally. Before you ask me 'Do I have insider sources?' - I don't, but I ask you, would I really reveal that if I did?

Gaze into the future

- Of course, this is all just my own opinion.

Does A Virtual World Avatar Have a Psyche?

Does an avatar have a ‘life’? Does it exist inside the virtual world, and outside of the person at the keyboard? Interesting questions, rather like ‘does a tree make a sound when it falls if there is no one there to hear it?’

Avatar, is a term that comes from Sanskrit for a being or God descending from a higher plane of existence, wearing an incarnate manifestation, before returning to the higher place. It is used in reference to gods, and by that definition, I guess we are all gods looking down into the virtual places, manifesting through virtual representations.

It is true, that we ascribe personalities to avatars, just as we do to cartoon characters on the screen. Yet, as with godly avatars, these are self-built creations, everyone has built them for themselves and decide upon the way they will look.

Therefore, each avatar is an expression of those persons’ hopes, dreams, imagination and usually their ‘perfect self’. I admit this is not always the case, and some have a fun time trying out different styles, however after a longer period of use, people usually settle with something they feel will reflect who they are in the real world, or who they would like to be seen as.

As you can see above – my avatar reflects how I would ‘like’ to be perceived. It is my ideal self at around 18 years of age, how I looked and dressed... with the wisdom I have now of course. Oh! not the hair - that came straight out of my imagination - and a virtual shop.

Without going to deep into the psychology of it all. Studies in psychology have shown that each of us exists in the same mindset as one another; we share common vision and common goals. We are seen in virtual worlds as we are ourselves in the real world. Even thought we think we hide our true personalities, yes even as a ‘fox’, ‘rabbit’ or man in women’s clothes, we show who we are. We are identifiable and can be matched up with the human behind the keyboard.

Personality traits, characteristics bleed through so we are never as anonymous as we think. So those who cling helplessly to their anonymity may have to get used to the fact that even though they are trying to hide their true identity – there is no hiding in virtual worlds, we give ourselves away.

What I keep going on about is treating each other with respect. Many people who use virtual worlds have come across ‘griefers’ or people trying to do harm at a psychological level.

Again, I plead for mutual respect for each individual avatar – because behind every avatar there is a vulnerable easily hurt human, and like everything else in virtual worlds emotions are amplified fivefold – what you do to someone there is five times better / worse than in the real world because people are more vulnerable as they have not typically put up their defenses that are normally in place when dealing with others face to face.

For me, the best way I deal with these things is to ask to meet people in the real world, or at least talk with them on the phone. That way I try to get a real perspective of who they actually are, without the mask of the avatar. I know that people who know me will be saying "you don't always get it right" - but I don't always get it right in my daily life either.

Finally, I have to add that I have met some delightful people and made some great friends this way...

Second Life’s Second Life - Through To Sustainability

It’s official, Second Life is no longer sexy. Newspapers don’t want to write about it and its newsworthiness has gone.

No longer the darling of the games and entertainment industry, people are saying ‘it’s finished’. But that is not the way I see it. From a long career as a business and IT analyst, I have observed many organisations’ ups and downs over the years.

Oddly enough in my own experience I have found that press coverage and revenues are often inversely correlated, that is - they are opposite. High press exposure (good or bad) = lower income. Lack of press coverage = increased income.

Typically when a company is no longer ‘sexy’ it is either dead or sustainable. Linden Lab has been through a tumultuous couple of years, where it has been trying to find itself in the marketplace.

Like many fledglings that are trying to fly, it has tried different methods to take off. Many of which have now been discarded along with inappropriate business models. However the organisation seems to have found some sustainable models to move forward with.

The key here is ‘sustainability’. An associate of mine, a CFO from a mainstream organisation, has very recently been asking about Second Life as a platform for corporate use. This indicates a change in perception. Corporates play safe, they don’t want to be seen as ‘risky’ and therefore have a thing about sustainability, governance and compliance when looking at technology.

These two things  tie up (lack of newsworthiness and corporate interest in a technology), because often after a technology and company have crossed the adoption gap, they are no longer ‘new’ and newsworthy, so there is a lull - a disinterest - from a news point of view. Then, if the company survives the lull, mainstream people and their organisations take it up and we are into the realm of mass adoption.

Many new companies and products fall into the sinkhole of ‘The Chasm’ never to return. This is where restructuring takes place, jobs, strategies and even businesses may be lost. Within surviving companies this is where a sustainable strategy is devised and pursued.

Products that succeed in making the leap out of the chasm can make it in the big time. Survivors then face the adoption phase – the mass-adoption phase, with it's own different set of trials and tribulations..

Second Life has undergone the final climax of The Chasm and appears to have made it to the other side. Curiously within Second Life, I see growth occurring not falling away. As part of a team that runs a significantly sized community within that environment, we have more users and greater satisfaction.

Providing Linden Lab keeps its eye on sustainable growth, and that means supporting the people and organisations that use it, it might enjoy the rise in early majority and growth of a strongly sustainable business.

This means Linden Lab will need to behave as a sustainable IT vendor, such as Microsoft, Apple and Oracle, taking care of the people that promote it and its products (such as  Second Life), and supporting its value added resellers.

Relationships and romance in Virtual Worlds

I never thought I would write about Second Life and romance... but here goes.

This post was prompted by an approach from a new user in the orientation area. He was around 6 minutes old and a brand new user . Let us call him Mike.

Mike ran up to me in this virtual world and immediately intruded on my private space, now that was OK, because I have been around a bit and know this is the behaviour of many new users. He was obviously used to ‘games’ because he managed to start up a conversation in Instant Message (private chat window) with me.

He said ‘Hello baby’... so I thought to myself – righty oh … here we go, another sexual predator to fend off and get rid of. So I responded with a ‘hi’. He was persistent and asked what there was to do in this game, so I told him it is a game of your own making that you can immerse yourself into any adventure you choose to. He wasn’t interested in all that and wanted to be my ‘friend’ instead, so I accepted his ‘friendship’.

He asked me to be his girlfriend (fast mover this one). I told him I wasn’t interested in a virtual romance and that I was old, fat and ugly – when this didn’t work I told him I was also married, thinking this to be the ‘piece de resistance’. This still did not deter him, but he changed tack slightly. He told me he wanted to find a girlfriend and had been told that he could do so in Second Life.

Of course being the usual female sucker for a guy in distress, I decided I could help him (I know, I know – you’re thinking ‘idiot’ – you fell for that old ploy). So I showed him part of the London Sims where he would meet people who are what I would call ‘relatively safe’.

The London Gateway is a place where newcomers are ‘born’ and where there is a team of helpers who are there to make their learning experience easier. When we arrived, he saw all these new females (I did tell you my avatar is female?) and as a friend I advised him to start a chat with one of them. I leave this story here because this is where I exited, after introducing him to a female I knew was kind and helpful.

However, the real reason I am relating this story is as an acknowledgement that people do join Second Life looking for a relationship. Yet is that a bad thing?

Many young people (and not so young) look to these places for an alternative way to tackle issues they have in their lives.

As in my example, young people, learning how to deal with the opposite sex (and same sex) in relationships, both with different agendas, can learn how to negotiate these relationships with relative safety (unless they invite the other person right over to their place in the real world, and let’s face it, that’s rather a stupid thing to do).

More mature people, or those that have so far succeeded at navigating the pitted road called ‘relationship’ come up with a crisis at some point and seek a mechanic or alternative vehicle with better upholstery to tide us over, or even to transfer to.

Second Life is one place that there is a vehicle for these situations. Although it has been accused of causing them, it appears to be more of a victim of the symptoms that people have in their lives and of existing issues, rather than a direct cause of problems.

Over the years of using virtual worlds, I have found that some things people come to virtual worlds for when they are looking for a relationship are:

- To run away from circumstances in which they feel there is no escape, such as a disability or a situation in which they are a carer
- Mundane circumstances they would rather leave temporarily and have a small part of themselves in a fantasy world, such as low income and no employment
- To explore their sexuality and if they have never had a sexual partner, explore dealing with relationships in a relatively safe environment
- To have sex, such as people who are in a tired sexual relationship with no external outlet (apart from pornography)
- To have love and caring, those who are perhaps in a relationship where they feel the love is missing and need human compassion
- The relationship with the life partner has fallen off the rails, such as those in difficult relationships, perhaps abusive or simply absentee partner
- Finally, the first-timer, is someone who has never had a relationship, and is exploring the opportunities in a virtual world as a test for their future

So, is Second Life (and other virtual worlds – including World of Warcraft) a substitute or a searching for something missing in people’s lives and more than just recreation?

I would say that it is possible. People use virtual worlds as recreation, true. But often for one of the above reasons, they are also looking for a relationship. This is likely to be an unconscious need in them that is not openly expressed.

It is well to remember that the other person you are dealing with in these environments is not a ‘robot’ or a ‘character’ in your game, they are real people sitting behind the screen. Please always remember that because one day, you may meet them. Like you, they are looking for people in their life to add to their life and although they could possibly walk out of their front door to do this, most choose to do it virtually – of course with the exception of those who are not able bodied. Please treat one another with respect, and if you are not using virtual worlds, please remember that these people are not ‘freaks’. They are human like you.

However, there is a happy end to the story. Many people find happiness in virtual worlds like Second Life. Many ‘partner’ in the virtual world and develop close and intimate relationships in relatively short periods of time. The intensity of these relationships, can equate in a 1: 5 ratio. 1 day for every 5 in the real world, and many virtual relationships consume more attention than real relationships do. The intensity of the relationship is deep.

The result of this is that when people do come together, after knowing one another virtually, they know one another at a depth seldom (if ever) experienced in the real world. Thus many relationships formed through virtual worlds are subsequently very stable and enduring.

The message: -

For a good relationship, start it in a virtual world first.

When did Marketing turn into Social Media

Marketing as a function within an organisation appears to have declined. Similarly Social Media is springing up everywhere. How did this happen?

I guess it was inevitable from the start. As the Internet spread, marketing has become more of a pull and connect activity than the passive TV style push ‘at you’ effort.

‘Social Marketing’ has become the norm. Ad-words, Twitters, Blogs and emails are full of marketing material. Users are so accustomed to them. Messages thrust through the ether as subliminally constant droplets of marketing pour constantly through our friends and associates.

This has been spreading since the Internet came about. The rising tide of Social Media jobs and loss of journalistic and marketing jobs points to a change in direction. Now it is big business – a flood of subliminal sales presentations that come by stealth behind us through our most trusted loved ones.

As corporations are pruning their marketing teams, they are taking on Social Networkers, people who seem adept at making friends and influencing people. Stephen Fry is one example of a great social networker with interesting things to say and to tell us. He gives us useful information, entertains us and delights us with his life.

Other networkers might be less altruistic and be less obvious in their intentions. They might be working for organisations to sell you things, as associates, on commission, even paid a salary or on a contract basis. They will be good at making you feel ‘special’, especially if you have a network of people too. This is guerrilla marketing, used as a weapon. We call it Social Networking. But can you really trust these people?

In the world of social media, are we being ‘taught’ that this is a good product, by our peers and influencers. How do we know if our new found social friend is not just a human marketing bot ‘portraying’ a ‘typical’ person within that market segment – hopefully to catch you with the bait of ‘they’re just like me’ to try their product. Perhaps that ‘friend’ you made online, who you divulged your deepest secrets to, is nothing more than a social media expert who is cynically using you to sell to and to promote through your own network of pals.

Social Media is the future. It influences small pockets of a target market, which have feeds into other small pockets via the individuals in that group. Other terms for it are viral marketing, or neural networks. This has been understood since the 1940’s but has only now been able to be fully exploited with the onset of social networking.

To look at some of the theory behind this we have to look back to the 1940’s.

The study of Neural Networks is a fascinating revelation of what is happening in marketing today. Alan Turing’s initially random B-type network from his 1948 work on ‘Intelligent Machinery’ shows what a loosely coupled marketing network looks like – the one we see today in Social Media. However, he aw computers as the ‘unorganised machines’ that eventually self-organise their information and get it to the right place through random distribution. Targeting individuals through connectionist models is part of a well-understood method of neural learning.

As for the future, we will increasingly see the rise of virtual social ‘marketeers’ parrying and thrusting their offerings to us and through us. Virtual ‘avatars’ add you to their friends’ list of over 1000 people. They send you notices to events miles away from you – that you have no chance of attending. They ask you for personal information ‘because you are friends’ then use it to target you for their clients’.

‘Social Media’ is the new ‘Marketing’. If your friend is really a ‘friend’, they will come over to talk to you in the real world, not email you or IM you. A friend is someone you touch, smell, see and hear – in the real world. Someone you party with and cry with – and hug, for joy and pain – to feel the real warmth in human interaction.

We all have to watch out for social media experts masquerading as your friend. If virtual they are and virtual they remain, then can you trust them? – ask them for money – see if they will lend it to you, or ask to meet them next Wednesday.

The commodity of information

Information used to be highly prized, but with the advent of networking sites and social media, information value has decreased to almost zero. Information is now a commodity, easy accessible and at different qualities. Most people will go for cheap and cheerful, or even ‘free’ if it is available.

We now have forager mentality, where people casually seek information from many sources, and use comparative sources to assess the value of the gleaned information. Some use sophisticated software to validate and authenticate the source of the information, but this is rare and usually inside the domain of the organisation.

Does this mean that information has less value?

The inevitable answer is - Yes.

Just in any scenario of supply and demand – the more available a product is, the less value it has to the consumer. Perhaps information sources should take a look at the diamond market model – however, because of the relatively few diamond producers, diamonds can be kept at premium prices.

However, due to a proliferation of information disseminators, there is unlikely to be a consensus agreement. One supplier will always break the cartel, even if it is Uncle George writing his blog in his garage.

Whether to enter the fray is always an issue – so many ‘networking’ sites and ways to communicate now, how do you choose?

One curious turn of events that appears to be coming out of this is the value of ‘following’, a known and valued commenter, who adds Insightful and relevant comments to blogs and other sources, might be thought of as more relevant than the initial blog item poster.

Free e-books now proliferate the market, from great minds and novelists. I wonder what will happen as information keeps being reduced in value.
(See: "The latest craze: Free e-books offerings" http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090807/ap_on_hi_te/us_free_e_books )

One free book that is worth reading as it is an expose of the IT industry written as a novel: http://www.martinbutlerresearch.com/

So, in summary.

Is the information we issue irrelevant, simply because as even 'history' changes at such a fast pace, we cannot keep up, or that one opinion is rapidly superimposed by others ?

If this is indeed the case, and there are issues of task switching and attention deficit here also, where do we go from here?

Why did they do that?

16 May, 2009 at 2:25 am

Thank you for this article Tateru, this is a nice article.

It is true that everyone has their own set of utility values, which differ from person to person (as well as information, experience and circumstance).

All choices are therefore subjective and according to each individual’s collective understanding, embedded into the experience and circumstance of that person who is making the decision.

Therefore, I agree Tateru, with the underlying principle of Information Theory, we all make the best decision we can at the time based on the information we have at that time.

I also agree that different people do not make decisions for the same reasons, because all our ‘reasons’ differ because all our aims also differ.

Before you criticise another person (corporation or organization), it is wise to appreciate that they are doing the best they can with the information they have at the time, given their own particular goals and identifications.

If you want to encourage an alternative decision, I suggest that the best way you do this would be to add to the decision makers information pool with accurate, detailed and quantifiable information.

… criticism welcomed … add to my information pool please

*smiles*

Continues......

Debs Butler (Debs Regent inSL) says:

16 May, 2009 at 3:59 am

As I stated earlier, there is a body of evidence in Information Theory that supports Tateru’s arguments here, for corporations as well as individuals.

Many large corporations follow well established and proven economic principles to increase profits - their ‘utility value’ is in maximising profits for the benefit of the shareholders whether it be legislated or not, massaging their individual bonuses in the process.

With the recent increase in information (and collapse of share prices and occasionally bonuses), errors in the ‘thinking’ processes of the corporations are being made increasingly apparent making change happen with new choices being the outcome.

Once again we go on the merry-go-round of information available + utility value leads to choice made (leaving out the added complexity of probabilities).

Again, back to Tateru’s original posting, “they’re making that choice with good reasons”. - reasons to ‘them’ that is.

*thanks you for feedback*