More generally though, I love the line in the new book by the guy who started Frog. He talks about innovation, and how to sell ‘new ideas’, especially when you can make a rational argument for returns, clear goals, all that. And his closing argument is:

“OK, so maybe this isn’t for you. But if we execute this plan for your competitors, and it works like we say it will, where will that leave you.”

Now, for that to work, WE have to work - to make sure we have a very clear value proposition and a plan that’s “big enough” and strategic enough that if we use that line above it will give someone pause.

Having said that, I recognize that we ARE still at innovator phase, and not everyone wants to risk being innovative, so we just kind of move on.

Eventually the world will see what we’re talking about, right?

I hope that Metanomics IS a model for enterprise, or non-profits, or whoever, and that more things like it keep popping up - because it’s the back chat where the real lessons come from and maybe, and the tweets and the blog comments and the cross-posts. What start as fairly institutionalized messages - the latest study, say, or someone pitching Forterra or Blue Mars or whatever…become a source of discussion, criticism, cynicism on occasion or downright snark. But there are some lessons in that, and it has something to do with being transparent, and open to the slings and arrows, because maybe they help to hone our understanding, or give us a read on where we stand in a community, whatever.

There’s a weird balance though that it feels like Metanomics needs to try to keep - and it’s the balance between, hmmm….I’ll call it ‘authority’ or maybe Rob would prefer ‘curated exploration’, and the kind of tribal chant that I’ve seen at some in-world events where it’s more like a mob than an intelligent discussion.

I’ve railed about the shift to a tribal morality because I don’t think people are thinking through or articulating more broadly what we give up, when social order and the ‘wikification’ of knowledge dilutes individual knowledge and expression. I’m not saying tribal morality is de facto wrong, but rather that taken to extremes its no different than the extremes of a property-based one…we need to continually be aware of where the edges are.

For enterprise, the challenges include things like balancing the voice that you give to customers in how new products and services should be designed, and faith in your own powers to give them something that they might not even recognize they want until they see it.

Again, virtual worlds are one site from which to view these challenges.

As for the Lindens - I’m less worried about enterprise being behind firewalls or whatever, and am more worried about the other silos that are being created. I know that with clients we talk to, they about split between people looking at being on the main grid, and those who for different reasons need to be behind a firewall, or who have a narrow goal that doesn’t require the rest of it. You still hope that they sign up for the public Grid though, and experience some of the real magic that happens in a pick-up event or the back chat at a community forum.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Lab launch an “Education” sub-domain maybe, or a “Not-for-Profit” one (competing http//:betterverse.org probably).

It’s not the partitioning off and firewalls, it’s the possibility that we lose the serendipity on the main Grid which makes it so vibrant. If users are categorized, sent down certain paths, and end up living out their days on the education continent or the adult continent or some corner of Mainland whose purpose isn’t quite clear anymore, then we risk ending up with ghettos of shared interests, when what I love about SL is finding shared experiences with those whom I have nothing, seemingly, in common.

But if they can pull off the balancing act of providing streams of access for different user groups, AND launch a new viewer and an ad campaign or something so they reach that 5 million monthly user thing that M talked about, then maybe the Grid will be big enough to contain it all, and developer FIC or not, maybe there will be enough opportunity to go around.

https://blogs.secondlife.com/community/workinginworld/blog/2009/07/21/white-house-deputy-cto-held-mixed-reality-event-in-second-life

Rezzable snark and dismissal and an IBM infomerical:
http://ow.ly/iuwD

The debate around Beth Noveck’s visit, which is partly about some roleplayers’ saying cynically, “why bother with VWs that aren’t ready when nobody wants their fantasy invaded” to my more alarmed concern that “government already welded social media right into the White House, look out, VWs at least prototype if not get welded too” to a Linden saying ominously “I will delete you”. Sigh.

then there’s the Linden’s own infomercial, which is actually pretty well done if you haven’t seen it yet:
http://work.secondlife.com/whyslwork/whatis/

I think all of this has lots of good stuff in it and I don’t think in fact the Lindens are guilty of hyping their platform, really, they’re realistic for example about avatar limits.

But I wonder why they so zealously drive people to solution providers as if everyone really needs expensive handholders (like yourself lol!)

I’d be happier if there was more of a broader pitch to groups of all kind, so that nonprofits or a neighbourhood committee could get value out of it too. I’m hoping to try an experiment like this myself soon.

The other thing that I find discomforting is this aggressive isolation. Philip used to tell us that we didn’t have to worry about corporations coming to SL because they’d all be hidden on islans and closed off to the public and we’d never see them. But…on the other hand the Lindens keep talking this good game about the rich robust world teeming with resident-made content, and then refer people to XStreetSL to go and buy whiteboars and business skins.

What that suggests to me is that they are creating a sort of elite content creation class among the gold providers who interact with the biz islands and sell to them — and, well, it’s yet another institutionalization of the FIC. This already began, of course, back in 2006-2007 when naturally those with the big solutions provider contracts put their friends’ stores on the islands or hustled their friends’ content to corporations. That’s all “normal” in SL, of course but…I really would like all this to work more toward an open society, a real civil society online.

And that brings me to your point about “the agenda” being set. At one level, it seems great to have online communities having a virtual outlet or inlet to manifest themselves, on the other hand, for all the reasons I’ve invoked around Beth Noveck and the awfulness of the White House blogs I really actively worry how that is going to turn out, especially when we have the TOS and “I will delete you” Lindens on hand.

If I wasn’t already completely worried about Beth’s theories in the last 4 years from going to obscure SL meetings or reading obscure journals, I’d be actively worried by looking at how the social media MMORPGy web site works, with its double-plus good proposals crafted by unseen munchkins and voting of people’s comments up or down into the memory hole — and then rapid closing of every topic, synthesizing of best proposals, and closing off further debate.

It’s such a sharp contrast to Metanomics. As you know, I’m a big critic about Metanomics but I feel my criticism is about making it better. And we have to acknowledge the great achievement of Metanomics which is the institutionalization of the backchat and the multiple streams on different sims of chat around the event that becomes a legitimate aspect of that event and its knowledge and information.