Business in a 3D world has always been a bit of a thorn in the side for me. The psychology of the idea is scary- imagine a overweight generation with 3D online world social skills but very little real world contact. It is just "easier" somehow to be yourself where nobody really knows you. As for a marketing vehicle, I do not think it dead, I think it is only just starting. With bigger internet pipes and Africa slowly getting connected I think we will see real 3D worlds very soon...

As a society we should get ready for this.

Thanks for the article.

Nicholas
www.nicholasgrobler.com/blog

I can’t dismiss entirely the questioning of the value of Second Life in the Wired article, but it also reminded me of comments that were made by some big IT consultants in the mid-1990s when the web was just taking off. At that time, the consultants calculated the full cost of mounting a web site and the "real cost of business" to do so. Speaking to an audience of IT administrators in higher education, the consultants said that there was no justification for web sites on a cost-benefit basis. Even then the argument did not ring true, and it didn't take hindsight to know that these consultants knew the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

This cost of business line of reasoning was extended to another bit of ridiculous thinking back in the early days of the web when it was common to hear business people say "I just don't know how you can make money off of the web." Those people did not understand that the web was not a product to sell, but rather an infrastructure and enabling technology. (One has to wonder whether people said to Alexander Graham Bell, "well, the phone is an interesting experiment, but I just don't understand how you can make money off of the telephone.")

Part of the cost of doing business is experimentation. Not all experiments are fully successful, and it is common for success to come in a form different than the one originally envisioned. The development costs for corporations to create a presence in Second Life as cited in the Wired article seem large, but are no doubt small potatoes compared to the total marketing budgets of these corporations. There may not yet be enough repeat traffic on Second Life for American Apparel or other retailers to develop and maintain an island right now, but there is some evidence that Second Life is starting to have legs. If it does take off then we are likely to see a second or third wave of businesses enter (or re-enter) the virtual space -- which is very much what happened when the web matured.

This is all a case of businesses not being able to see the virtual forest for the Second Life trees...about which more here: Is Second Life A Dip or A Cul-De-Sac? (http://www.sentientservices.com/blog/2007/07/is-second-life-dip-or-cul-de-sac.html)

It's refreshing to hear some logic and common sense being applied not just by an author but by those making comments. Thanks for providing a break from the unfortunate norm.

To address the questions:

"Is Second Life on the way out as a marketing vehicle?" - I've never considered SL to be a proper marketing vehicle; rather a marketing testbed until it, or something like it, provides a worthy platform for marketing product. For what it's worth, some of what I think we'll be seeing in the near future might change how I think of SL. The "grid of grids" initiative might solve the (real) reason Wells Fargo moved to Active Worlds. And the "avatar liberation" effort is equally interesting to me.

"Do other 3D environments have more potential for ecommerce?" - That depends on the needs of the company and the kinds of products they market. It's easier for an automotive manufacturer to create their own little world than, say, a company that manufactures mops. People aspire to own cool cars; I don't know anyone that brags about the kind of mop they use. Consequently I could see a "Scion World" as part of the Multiverse network but would say that something like Second Life - which is more of a social platform than a marketing vehicle - is probably a better option for companies like Libman.

It seems many of Second Life's detractors haven't gotten through the learning curve on Second Life before dismissing it (and that learning curve is also one of the reasons SL isn't ideal for mass marketing purposes). Many recent writers betray their lack of experience with Second Life in their critiques.

It also appears that the previous enthusiasm of large companies and their eagerness to have a "presence" in Second Life overshadowed more careful consideration of what to expect from these endeavors. Expectations are easy to disappoint if they miss the mark in the first place.

Educators and social networkers are the ones who seem to truly grasp what the virtual world is good for - and it's not mass marketing. It's social connectivity.

Also, small businesses and designers seem to understand how incredibly easy Linden Lab makes it for a resident to part with her/his money. Just a right click! That and the fact that shopping is the number one activity make Second Life really great for small businesses, if not big multi-national corporations.

Thanks for this article. This broader perspective on the subject of marketing in virtual worlds gives some fresh air and i hope will help people to think a little bit more on the potential of such tools.

I'm flat out managing my FIRST life to even both with a virtual second life. Crickey!

You hit the nail on the head Paul.

Second Life started life with a poor branding name and will suffer as a result (something that amazes me pro marketing folk seem to ignore). Further, the reality of SL is just that, a second life, and not many consumers have computer activities high up on their priority list of other things to do with their spare time. SL is competing against long-standing activities, such as playing sports, spending time with the family, watching TV, even napping. But it doesn't market itself accordingly.

cj

"can’t dismiss entirely the questioning of the value of Second Life in the Wired article, but it also reminded me of comments that were made by some big IT consultants in the mid-1990s when the web was just taking off. At that time, the consultants calculated the full cost of mounting a web site and the "real cost of business" to do so. Speaking to an audience of IT administrators in higher education, the consultants said that there was no justification for web sites on a cost-benefit basis. Even then the argument did not ring true, and it didn't take hindsight to know that these consultants knew the cost of everything and the value of nothing."

the difference is you can't really compare the closed and clunky system of second life to the constantly evolving and open nature of the web. and frankly i don't remember it consultants saying this about the web back then.

i still don't see the value. asking companies to dance a jig in second life to get attention doesn't seem well thought out. offering games? you can do that better on a webpage. and how many companies are giving out games? not many, good game development isn't something you can do on the cheap. what else can companies give me on this 3d world that i can't get from a webpage? nothing to be honest. perhaps an online interaction with an employee, but frankly thats not what most people want to do with their spare time, talking to company spokesman.

a 3d world based interface is inferior for most things. what people care about is speed and accuracy. hence the success of google. google doesn't play animations wasting my time on the way to a search destination, it just gives me results. i could care less about walking around some virtual headquarters, i'd rather search for what i want and find it instantly. how does one impliment something like tabbed browsing where people easily juggle a lot of information from different sources in a 3d world? there is just no advantage.

as for webstores, i could care less about walking down a store isle. eventually some webpages might have a 3d picture of the product you can fiddle with sure, but theres no reason to be standing in a virtual isle to do that.

theres simply nothing exclusive and compelling a company could give me in a virtual world. i don't want to spend my time at ford or levi's headquarters. what kind of lemmings do they think consumers are? people keep bandying about the "value" and "compelling" when being apologists for sl without ever specifying anything viable and specific and something that really justifies having to go to second life to get it.

the only thing that would get most people into a virtual showroom is cold hard cash discounts. but that basically means its worthless:P

> would be a grave mistake to dismiss the notion of marketing and selling in virtual worlds simply > because of the shortcomings of Second Life.

Yep. But keep in mind that SL has been a pioneer in this field. The problem is that people overhyped the technology and made it out to be more than it really is. Underpromise and overdeliver, not the other way around.

> What do you think? Is Second Life on the way out as a marketing vehicle?
As it stands yes, definitely, it does not stand a chance.

> Do other 3D environments have more potential for ecommerce?
Not at the present moment but I am a strong believer that others will emerge. You can be certain of that.