Yesterday Gregor Kondo of Text 100 presented his views in Second Life on “The New Publics” in a gathering of the Kuurian Expedition. Unfortunately, a real-world meeting called me out of the question and answer period, but I have posted the transcript of Gregor’s talk below (if I find a version with the full Q&A I will link to it here - [full transcript]).
First, a few thoughts of my own come to mind:
Gregor's thesis is that we are living more individualized lives today that are not as “regulated” (influenced) by public institutions, brands or even our doctors and lawyers. Gregor stated that as a result of this people are building trust in “new ways” – i.e. with people that share our interests – and that technology allows us to find these peers.
Gregor refers to “new publics” as people inventing their life in communities of peers.
In actuality, people have always lived their lives in communities and “trust networks.” Today those communities may be geographically dispersed and trust networks may be larger, or perhaps more narrowly focused; but the fact is people have always trusted each other more than organizations - always. In fact it is these peer communities that often track to the demographics marketers and media use so heavily today to segment markets.
There is no causation in the formation of peer communities to the lack of trust in institutions.
There is, however, causation between technology-connected people networks and the expansion of peer communities. People have always trusted each other; networks are simply amplifying their ability to connect to each other.
The result is organizations have lost some/much of their power as intermediaries.
Because people were previously limited in their ability to connect by pure geography, organizations (of many kinds) served as connection points. Today, the role of the organization is changing/diluted to that of a participant within a community of interest because people are not dependent upon any organization as the hub.
This is where marketers, communicators, and business leaders fall into a bit of a trap – thinking of participatory technologies as creating “new publics.” Anyone who has suffered through one of my presentations can hear me saying at this point “this is sociology, people, not technology." All those “web 2.0” applications are simply enabling / amplifing something we as people (publics) have always been doing. The difference is marketers, communicators and business leaders are seeing it and feeling it. It is the “democracy” effect.
But what about the question of “new publics” in Second Life? I believe the answer is yes – virtual worlds may indeed be creating “new publics.” But not because people are connecting in “micro communities” within SL as either an augmented or an escapist social network.
I believe virtual identities open up the question of “new publics.” People are people inside SL, just like outside SL. But their interests are typically quite different in virtual spaces, their needs and desires are different in virtual spaces, as well as what it is possible for them to attain. Their values may even be 180-degrees different in virtual worlds. My virtual and real-world identities might be transparent or they may be completely hidden from each other. But in either case what I value and what I wish to experience in each environment may intersect very little.
The nature of Second Life – and massively multiplayer online environments in general have ‘role playing’ as a core feature or value. People can of course role play in the more “transparent” virtual spaces of 2D social networks, like MySpace, but it is less of a core feature – or as easily maintained – as in 3D immersive environments like Second Life.
In virtual worlds social capital is at least as important as, and perhaps more important than, financial capital. One’s virtual identity creates, expands and spends this social capital – and it does not necessarily impact in any way one’s real world social connections.
In my mind, learning how virtual identities create “new publics” is where marketers and communicators will need to focus. That means they will also have to participate through their own virtual identities. Hmmm. How interesting will this get?
What are your thoughts on “new publics” in virtual worlds?
Here is the transcript of Gregor’s presentation:
Gregor Kondo:
Welcome everyone!
Can you hear me? :-)
Please apologize that I’m sitting here, I simply didn’t want to stand throughout the whole session
Why would that include a talk about New Publics?
As you might know, the Kuurian expedition was sent “to the wild and foreign lands of cyberia” in the spirit of scientific expeditions of the 15th to 19th centuries
Is there such a thing as New Publics at all?
To answer those questions we need to take a look at the bigger picture
There are fundamental waves of change going through society, business and technology.
We all experience them somehow. I can’t go into detail, but here are a couple of catchwords:
In society, we are seeing much more flexibility, but also more risk for the individual. We are also seeing demographic change, gaps of wealth and values, migrations, etc.
In business we have to deal with globalization, super-fragmented markets, commoditization and price wars, lost loyalty with customers and employees, increased social responsibility, etc.
And in technology, we are seeing the rise of distributed computing, open systems, participatory technologies (I don’t like “web 2.0”), biotech, clean tech and much more.
All these developments are closely related and would deserve a large discussion, of course.
But for today, let’s just look at how these changes play out for our topic: the publics.
Let’s start from the society angle:
The relation between the public and the private is being redefined. We are living more individualized lifes that are not as regulated by public institutions as they used to be for our parents and grand parents.
As a result, people are building trust in new ways. They have less trust in established public institution like governments or brands, but even in personal advisors like doctors or lawyers.
Instead they increasingly build trust with people who share an interest with them: their peers.
In other words, we have more confidence in each other than in institutions.
For example, while our grand parents would have blindly followed the advice of their doctor, we are looking for someone else who suffers from the same disease before we undergo that surgery.
In addition to this social dynamic, we are empowered by new internet technologies to find our peers. We can use search engines to find someone else with that same rare disease who lives on the other side of the planet.
And we can create or join a community of patients with that disease on blogs or social networks.
Our more individualized life style and the technologies to push it through also results into increasingly fragmented markets.
Just consider this: while a grocery store in the fifties might have carried 3,500 items, today’s supermarkets will carry ten times this number.
Now, how do virtual worlds like SL relate to this?
We believe they are just a more radical technology for people to create an individual life and connect with their peers
They are an interesting version of the New Publics that are released from old institutions.
But in principle they are part of the same dynamic you can observe in any social network today, be it online or offline: people are inventing their life in communities of peers.
So, the New Publics are not a resort of virtual worlds, they are a dynamic of our time.
Against this background, we can also challenge the old distinction between the public and the private.
Is your SL identity private?
It is in the sense that you might hide from your RL communities that you are Super Girl in SL.
But then again you also live a public life as Super Girl within the virtual world, and the relationships there are very real.
From that perspective, it is rather your RL identity that is private, or even virtual!
Let’s add the corporate level to the discussion.
Today, we have corporations like IBM that do have a RL and a SL presence.
I think as a first step it is important to realize that the New Publics are everywhere in this system.
There are communities of interest inside Second Life, and there are communities of interest emerging inside corporations.
In the case of the RL corporation IBM, there are thousands of blogs on their internal blogging platform where people can find their peers they share an interest with.
Of course, they can do the same in SL, but in a more creative, experimental way.
For example, if there were an IBM project on monkeys, the IBMers could meet in SL in the jungle.
Now, theoretically I don't see any reason why all these different communities couldn't connect.
If and only IF there is an interest they share!
IF there would be indeed an interest they share, the COULD connect.
That said, as of yet, they rarely do,
because they are too much focused on their own agendas
rather than mutual benefits.
On the business side,
many are runniung into SL like they ran for internet domains ten years ago.
Often without being clear on their own objectives
and even less clear why the SL community would bother.
But also on the SL side, there are "immersionists"
who live and work in SL
and seem to feel threatened by the corporate immigrants
rather than considering how they could enrich the virtual world.
But there is even another layer we have to add:
The media. Both in RL and SL
The New Publics don't need them to connect.
That was different for hundreds of years.
But they still have a huge role to play:
as clarifiers and amplifiers.
Again, that's true in theory, not always in practice.
But I do believe that Public Relations can help to build all those connections between the New Publics.
I know we can in RL.
I"m confident we will learn to do it in SL!
Thank you!
I think the publics are all about the relationships between individuals.
Regardless of the fact whether their identity is unveiled.
Today, individuals can connect without the media.
They are empowered to have their own voice.
Still, the media can help with the connection.
As clarifiers and amplifiers.
Make sense?
[13:35] Denials Frazer: it does, but i would like an example
[13:36] Gregor Kondo: Okay, so my son is a penguin enthusiast.
[13:36] Farley Scarborough: /nods
[13:36] Intellagirl Tully: doesn't the media sometimes serve to cloud things, to present only one side, misrepresent instead of connect?
[13:36] Gregor Kondo: He can find his community using a search engine.
[13:36] Gregor Kondo: And they can connect withot traditional media.
[13:37] Gregor Kondo: On all things penguin, like the last movie
[13:37] Gregor Kondo: the next zoo
[13:37] Gregor Kondo: the best travel agency
[13:37] Vincent Doctorow: wasn't it the media that made people aware of the movie, however?
[13:37] Vincent Doctorow: wasn't it the media that made people who went and saw happy feet that the movie was out in the first place?
[13:37] Gregor Kondo: But he will still enjoy an article in a magazine that provides him some context
[13:37] Vincent Doctorow: more than other peopel saying, "look, here's a cool movie about penguins coming out"
[13:37] Frank Koolhaas: here it will become more and more important to manage public relations. so, the elder ppl in SL have some advantages, because they know better this environment. what will think the ppl with a big experience in RL and no experience in SL. They will accept that?
[13:37] Gregor Kondo: like the ecosystem of penguins and what they need for their life
[13:38] Denials Frazer: so the media can provide a context
[13:38] Vincent Doctorow: Yeah good question.
[13:38] Gregor Kondo: I'm surprised you would see it like that.
[13:39] Gregor Kondo: I believe that companies have much less control on these gatherings today.
[13:39] Gregor Kondo: Think of a drug company...
[13:39] Gregor Kondo: and the community of patients discussing nasty side effects
[13:39] Decka Mah: Except that they actually own the place we a re meeting in...and control the rules around it
[13:39] Vincent Doctorow: I can see where Rik is coming from. The internet that has united penguin enthusiasts and amplified their interest in penguins can just as easily unite terrorists and amplify their interest in extermism.
[13:40] Gregor Kondo: How would they have been able to do something like that in the past when they are dispersed across the globe?
[13:40] Vincent Doctorow: It could bring a core or mainstream group of people closer together but just as easily pull the fringers father apart.
[13:40] Gregor Kondo: Well, we are still exploring what we can do, but
[13:41] Gregor Kondo: we will try to help building relationships between the New Publics that will be a win-win for all.
[13:42] Gregor Kondo: You don't need to get spammed.
[13:42] Decka Mah puts her hand on her heart and hears violins as the "win-win" tune plays in her head ...NOT
[13:42] Gregor Kondo: I think the filters for users will get always better. Think RSS in a big way.
[13:42] Frank Koolhaas: I see that there are still some skeptics around. when I talk about SL, some still laugh. when will it change?
[13:42] Gregor Kondo: On the branding q.
[13:43] Gregor Kondo: I think we are seeing a shift in brand development.
[13:43] Spizaex Stepanov: I think that is the point.. You are not interested in pills, because you are sastisfied with this. The media have to discover what are your new interests, or create one for you, that you could buy..
[13:43] Gregor Kondo: From the corporations to their communities.
[13:43] Gregor Kondo: Think of the Treonauts blog.
[13:43] Gregor Kondo: It was created by Treo users.
December 21, 2006
Kevin Dugan asked my opinion about where Second Life tracks on Gartner’s Hype Cycle. In his post on the topic he targets Second Life at the down slope of “Peak of Inflated Expectations.”
