Brands in Second Life Missing Out on Fundamental Element

Most of the big brand name sims in Second Life are empty or register little traffic, despite the wide media coverage of every press release announcing a new brand name Second Life presence.  Many events are less-than-well-attended.  Most of these brands are examining the potential and possibilities of Second Life for marketing, and for some, its operational benefits. 

So, it just begs the question: why are brands not using the most fundamental social structure available in Second Life?

A recent survey of 18 brands to recently jump into Second Life shows only one has created an identifiable public in-world Group as of a week ago.  That is worthy of nothing short of a “WOW.”

Groups are the most fundamental social structure in Second Life.  In fact, they largely define “who” an avatar is.  One of the first things people do while traveling around in Second Life is to use the handy right-click Profile maneuver to see when someone was ‘born’ and what groups they belong to.  That list of groups immediately conveys information about a person's interests, why they are in Second Life and they help establish a persona.  Without standard real world cues to rely on, avatars are defined and identified by the groups they belong to in Second Life. 

Groups are a short-hand to reputation in Second Life, They are the equivalent of the three-second first impression.    They are a big part of in-world identity.

More importantly for brands, it is also the “opt-in” mechanism in Second Life.  Just like an opt-in email list, people join groups to keep up on what’s going on with like-minded people.  They want to know when events are happening and people are gathering.  They can instant message an entire group when online and arrange “flash mobs.”  They shout out help to group members.  Group notices posted by the administrator of the group often wind up in real world email boxes when people are offline.  It is a bridge between real world and Second Life. 

Joining a group is one of the first things people do on entering Second Life, and one of the first things they ask about when they stumble upon something or some place of interest. In-world journalists and bloggers join groups to get the news.

Brands are roundly missing out on perhaps the single most vital engagement factor in Second Life.  They are missing the opportunity for Second Lifers to "identify" with them.  The fact so few have taken this simple step also underscores their need to strategically evaluate their Second Life presence.

Thompson NetG is the one exception to the brand name Group dearth.  They created a group, NetG Chat, which anyone can join (free).  While still light on members, the option is available.  A few companies have created groups for their employees, however they haven’t taken the step to create an opt-in group.  Virtual world developers, Electric Sheep has a public group that they use to disseminate information on client projects or event news; and Millions of Us has created temporary groups for specific events, mostly for day-of event communication.   

Understanding the need to connect directly with their fans, the band Duran Duran has an official fan club group with over 450 members.

A recent article by David Berkowitz on Search Insider tells marketers they need to step up to “virtual world optimization.”  David gives a few good tips on being searchable via the in-world Search feature – and even points to some “carbon world” search tools. Making sure you can be found in Second Life through search is good. Good when someone takes the effort to search; but  brands need to build a better connection than search.

Second Life is a virtual social world.  So far brands are missing out on a very basic human (and marketing) concept. If brands hope to get a life there, they might want to consider the ‘social’ part of “social world.”

Photo credit: jeremyvaught, bucket

November 2, 2006
 

Comments

[Taran Rampersad (aka Nobody Fugazi)]

You make some great points here, but I think it fair to add the warnings -

(1) Don't spam the group. Keep messages short, concise, and in one line if possible.

(2) Don't allow people to abuse group communication.

(3) Encourage people to IM others directly for 1 to 1 communication.

Nothing spams a screen worse than an offtopic conversation coming from a group during the middle of what may be a more pertinent direct chat conversation. Get enough IMs going, and it can get really messy really quickly. :-)

[Linda]

Great points on etiquette, Nobody. Thanks for adding that to this topic!

For the most part, I find group communication is rather under-utilized. But you bring up the need for best practices on using/integrating the various communications tools, such as IM, chat, group communications, presentations, etc.

Want to collaborate on it?

[zingg akami]

I agree with Linda that the group chat is rather under-utilised. I am a member of some interesting groups that i hardly get any messages from. I joined them to meet likeminded ppl, share some business or creative ideas with or stay updated on certain developments. It is kinda disappointing that this tool hardly gets used what it could be used for, creating strong social networks.

[Taran Rampersad (aka Nobody Fugazi)]

I don't know about the need to collaborate on this... ultimately, people shuffle their feet no matter what we decide. I, for one, leave groups because of group chatter. Until I can temporarily mute a group chat, I don't see it as effective. I might be in the middle of a discussion when a group has an argument over the color fuchsia - which is, of course, extremely important to them. But I don't care about fuchsia, so I would tune them out.

At present, with the tools available, tuning a group out means leaving the group - which is counterproductive for the purposes of other information. :-)

[Kevin Dugan]

Linda: Found you through Kami Huyse's blog. This is a great resource. Thanks for investing the time and energy.

That said I have another possible reason for discussion. Too many brands are simply building a mirror image of their RL brand in SL.

During the very short time I've spent on the grid, it would seem one of SL's biggest benefits is to try new things you cannot try in RL.

Every citizen can fly. That's our first clue. The CDC offers more compelling examples of course.

From there, let me point to two brands as examples of what not to do and what to do.

American Apparel is a cool brand...cool enough to jump into SL. Its customers spend time there, so they invested time and money to be there. But the store (I assume there is only one location) is basic and mirrors their RL presence. This is an opportunity wasted in my opinion.

Wired Magazine, on the other hand, capitalized on the opportunity. Wired understands its brand and the value it brings to its readers. They took advantage of this when designing their presence in SL.

Comparing the two might seem unfair, but I think it gets the point across to anyone having spent time in both locations.

Let me know what you think.

[Linda Zimmer]

Kevin, thanks for your thoughts here.

I'm curious as to how specifically you see Wired's presence different from American Apparel. Are you referring to their plans to offer events and lectures? Versus a virtual store?

Raz Schionning of American Apparel is the first to agree with you, by the way. They were one of the very first big name retailers to start experimenting with Second Life - and they freely admit it is a laboratory for them. So, I don't agree this is a wasted opportunity for AA.

AA is looking at this and asking "is this a 3D catalogue;" is this a new consumer (avatars); is this a different business - or business model; is this the next iteration of the web?"

I'd like to see Wired start to experiment with 360-degree content. I admire the fact they are taking their print publication into offering new types of "content" (lectures and events). But I'm hopeful they won't stop at the obvious and will start showing us what content looks like from every side - that's going to be innovative.

Your point about the CDC is a good one. It points out that not every company is looking at - or will innovate with - Second Life in the same ways. Some will use it for operational benefits; some will use it for marketing; others, like one of IBM's projects, will shrink the globe into virtual spaces.

I agree that virtual worlds like Second Life should free our thinking and push us beyond the ordinary. But personally, I applaud any company that is in there learning and experimenting right now. I think many are missing the point, but how better to understand it than to jump in and start learning? As a consultant, I also know that you go with what you can sell internally and that you sometimes have to work incrementally.

But you and I will continue to push them to "fly." :-)