The New Publics: Text 100 Presents a Second Life View

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

Comments

[Taran Rampersad (Nobody Fugazi)]

A lot of this just seemed like a rehashing of a lot of Pierre Levy's molecular concepts with a commercial spin.

I wasn't really impressed. I notice my comments didn't show up in the transcript.

[Linda Zimmer]

Taran, as I noted this wasn't a complete transcript. I'm looking for one! I wish I had been there for the Q&A period to hear your comments. You always add value to the topic!

[Jonas]

The transcript should be up soon. And Nobody's questions are included...

[Gregor Kondo (aka Georg Kolb)]

Many thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, Linda!
I totally agree with your view that communities are mainly about the SOCIAL dynamic of peers connecting. Without this dynamic, p2p technologies wouldn't gain as much traction as they do. However, I beg to differ with this other statement of yours: "[...] the fact is people have always trusted each other more than organizations - always." I think most of us could find anecdotal evidence that our parents and grand parents socialized more through public institutions than through peer networks they created themselves. They mostly had one religion, one job, one family, one place to live for all their life and stuck mostly with the same brands. We are much more released from these frames of reference, we are much more mobile in any sense, and again not only because we can command some new technologies. That is a question of mind-set and public discourse, not only of technical connectivity. Individualization is the underlying social process. While individualization is a longer term development in modern history, it has been universalized and radicalized in the postmodern society. If you are looking for evidence to support this view beyond anecdotes, the sociologists Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck provide it.

On your other point: how different are the new publics in virtual worlds? 3D environments certainly do have unique specifics, like other platforms have theirs. This is something to consider for communicators. But I still believe that the new publics inside SL are part of the same social dynamic as the ones outside SL. I doubt that the characteristics you mention are unique to virtual worlds. You don't need cyberspace to create a virtual identity that might differ from what you know of a person otherwise. Think of what you can do by simply writing letters. Think of the different identities Valmont is creating for himself with his letters in the 18th century novel "Dangerous liaisons". And role-playing is as old as the theater. Even off stage and outside virtual worlds people do role-play more than ever today and combine characteristics in their life that would have been totally contradictory or unacceptable in the past. Today, we might even look at a diverse life style as being balanced or complex rather than being contradictory. Sociologists speak of patchwork identities. Anyway, I’m not saying virtual worlds aren’t unique, I’m only saying I would look for other specifics such as their immersiveness (you touch on that) or the immediacy of interaction.

Thanks again for your post. It's great to see that this event inspired such interesting thinking.
Best,
Georg

[Linda Zimmer]

Gregor, thanks for stopping by and chatting about this!

We aren't that far off from each other in our thinking. You are right that institutions provided the connection point, but I don't believe that has anything to do with trust. Just because the institution was the connection point doesn't negate the fact people will always trust other people more than an institution. It was simply that the trust networks were once more geographically dependent upon the institutional hubs. People still formed trust networks of other people within the geography of those old hubs.

I believe you are equating the *connection point* (institution) with the trust network (social dynamic). I see them as two different things.

Yes we are more individualized, but it is because public discourse is widely available - and technology has indeed enabled it to happen - print, radio, television, air flight, wireless phones, now, the Internet. Without these the "mind set" could not develop into the social process it has. This "social process" or mind set is not evidenced in closed societies.

The publics within SL are still people and the same social dynamics do exist. I don't disagree with you at all on that point.

My point about virtual identities is not that it is a different social dynamic - but that virtual environments may be creating "new publics" because what an individual values and what he/she can attain may be quite different than their RL identiies. A very simple example - I can be a man in SL. How does that change what I want to buy in SL versus RL? How does it change the activities I spend time on in SL versus RL?

You do not need cyberspace to create a virtual identity. My thesis is because it is so easy to do in cyberspace versus the real world, it becomes accessible for any one to do so. Just like simple blogging technology has made it possible for anyone to publish, and the Internet has made it easy to connect with interest peers, I believe virtual identities will become massively available - thus these may very well be the "new publics" - albeit following the soical dynamics you speak of.

[Gregor Kondo (aka Georg Kolb)]

Hope you had a great Christmas, Linda. Thanks for your response!

Let me try to clarify my view on the trust question: I am not “equating the ‘connection point’ (institution) with the trust network (social dynamic)”, as you suggested. However, I do think that institutions are much more than “connection points”. They are structures of social order governing human behavior, often enforced but also often trusted as the right thing to do. “In god we trust” is still printed on the US dollar bills. It reflects a trust in religious institutions that goes beyond trust networks of individuals.

I also don’t believe that an increase in connectivity will necessarily lead to an increased degree of individualization. Today’s terror networks do make advanced use of all media we know, in particular the internet. And yet the individual means nothing to them, their values everything. The history of cultures is larger than the history of the media.

So, yes, I believe there is such a thing as trust in institutions, and I also believe it has changed in the highly industrialized parts of the world. People used to trust institutions like the church or marriage more than they do today. They also had more trust in the employer they worked for, the media they read or the brands they preferred, etc. Just to be clear, I’m not saying people only used to trust institutions in the past whereas they only trust their peers today. Trust in institutions and trust in peers have both existed before and they still exist both, but the balance between the two has changed in favor of peer networks. Forrester has done research to support this view, Edelman’s annual surveys have some points, too.

Finally, I’m not sure individualization will be seen as progress by all, and I’m not sure it will be sustainable on a large scale. While some might find it liberating to invent their own world, others will see it as a burden and happily trust the safe environment of an institution, regardless how connected they are. With discussions like this we are always in danger of simplifications or generalizations, even if we might have lost many readers by now, because they might find our posts inappropriately long for a blog discussion or simply see them as intellectual dodges. I did enjoy it, though, your thinking helps me with mine and I thank you again for your time.
Best,
Georg

PS: Got your point on the new publics of SL specifically, and it makes perfect sense. In my presentation I put more emphasis on the commonality of the new publics inside and outside SL, because I wanted to show that first and second life are actually much closer than many people inside and outside SL seem to think.

[Linda Zimmer]

Gregor, we agree on many points - perhaps mostly that we have likely lost many readers. :-) However, the nice thing about blogs is only those who are interested need to slog through our dissertations! It has been fun thinking out loud with you.

And, I agree we cannot simplify or generalize. For example, I did not intend to imply people do not trust institutions at all - only that human nature is such that we instinctively trust other humans - even if institutions serve some of our purposes more effectively. I won't start the debate about where ideology fits in here. :-))

The studies you reference look at mass behavior patterns - which have been enabled by technology. While institutions may have held greater *power* over the individual in the past, trust is a different issue to me. The fact that people can connect with others more easily expands their trust networks beyond their geography and a consequence has been that institutional power is diluted.

At any rate, thanks so much for your thinking and for engaging in this little debate. Happy New Year!!

[Gregor Kondo (aka Georg Kolb)]

Happy New Year! :-)