So, the way this works is we’re all part of the new social media landscape. I friend you, like you, topsy-turvy you, and your social graph increases, your ‘influence’ grows, and before you know it you’re a guru because you’re rewteeted more often than the guy next to you, who might have a better idea but who hasn’t figured out how to get himself on the social graph.
I’ve been pegged as an evangelist not because of what I say particularly, but because for whatever reason people paid attention and the social graph said that they had done so (at least according to the theory of the social media experts in the crowd).
I wasn’t always an “evangelist” (and don’t think of myself as one), I was just someone who like to write about what he thought of virtual worlds and Second Life.
But the social graph had its way, and even though I don’t have that much useful to say, I’ll be labeled and tagged and, heaven forbid, always be the guy into the metaverse, my interest in cooking or esoteric Latin American literature notwithstanding.
The reality is that outside of the social graph, I’ll talk about a lot of things, I like to solve really weird problems and bring a grab bag of tools to their solution, but within the social graph I’m pegged in a certain way, and that’s fine, it’s intriguing in a way how that happens.
But over the course of several years blogging, there was something I discovered, and puzzled over, and wondered about:
We are told certain things about technology and how it works and what it means, but are these truisms? And did those truisms need to be that way?
You hear the phrase: “All digital content is copyable.” And this phrase has a whole bunch of other conclusions attached to it – like, since all content is copyable, the idea of IP when it comes to content is dead, and therefore business models need to arise which acknowledge the “copy reality” of our lives online.
But are these truly, well, truisms? People argue over whether Android or Apple will WIN – with one camp saying that Android will because only open systems ever win in the end, while another camp might say that Apple demonstrates that the truism about copying, the truism about open systems are merely hypothetical, there are more designs than there are meta-concepts, the rest is just punditry.
So if these truisms are a little more fluid than we think, is the idea of the social graph as cut-and-dried as people make it out to be?
Your World, Your Online Shopping and Socializing Experience
I was struck by a post at BBH Labs. They conclude that the above model of participant media suggests that companies ignore “clever people” at their peril.
And this struck me in particular because I believe, and have written about, the fact that Linden Lab has abandoned its “clever people”.
The Lab turned its back on “Your World, Your Imagination”, as Philip clearly did (and told me so, when I interviewed him at SLCC) and as others at the Lab continue to do.
In the discussions about mesh import, for example, Jack Linden made the point that “there are very few creators” in response to my question about the cultural implications of mesh. This implies that the number is significant, and equates a one-to-one relationship between how many people there are and the influence they have on the culture of an online community.
Jack (and others) would say that mesh changes very little, it doesn’t shift the emphasis out of the in-world experience, because the number of creators is very small.
Now….before I get pegged as being anti-mesh, I’ll state (again) for the record that I’ve been advocating for mesh for almost 3 years now.
But the larger significance is that the Lab’s principle concern is with a volume of people – that it’s the larger “casual users” who matter, the users who haven’t even arrived yet. Philip said to me: “And most of them will never rez a prim, so it’s not really ‘Your World, Your Imagination’ because for them, they’re just shopping and hanging out.”
Which may be true (although I’d argue that you enter a world of your own imagination no matter WHO you are, when you arrive in Second Life and many other online platforms) but places a certain literal faith in the power of numbers alone.
Overlooking Clever People
BBH concluded the following from the social/participatory graph (emphasis added):
It makes us stop and think about how unbelievably valuable the “catalytic creative contributor” is to any community. A digital community designer should want nothing more than to please this particularly small set of people. Even if most brands primarily monetize the “ninety percent”, there would be nothing for this group to engage without the catalytic creative contributor. They are the heart and soul of any community.
A quick glance through digital communities revealed that the highly successful ones clearly cater to this elite base. As we examined what these digital communities did for these special users, we noticed parallels to one of our favorite pieces of business literature ever written: “Leading Clever People” published a few years back in the Harvard Business Review (Goffee & Jones, March 2007) about how to lead those whose skills or knowledge in your organization make them disproportionately valuable. If you haven’t read it and manage people, may we politely suggest you leave our blog and Google it immediately.
This group may be an exceptionally small percentage of the internet, but it wouldn’t surprise us to see an increasing amount of digital experience design just for them. Gamification is a popular trend, but those subtly swimming against the current are seeing success. In fact, the best way to win the game with the masses may actually be by catering to the clever few.
And it made me wonder: does Linden Lab support the ‘catalytic creative contributor’ or has it outsourced that task to the code?
Do they think that by releasing new content creation tools that they’ve effectively managed this group? Or have they abandoned it altogether while they chase after the mass audience?
I mean, replace “SL” with “Digg” in the following from the BBH post and see if it fits:
Having a core base of hardcore creators is likely necessary for any digital experience. However, it’s easy to lose sight of the other value those content creators bring: a passionate base of advocates and recruiters. It’s similar to the idea of Propagation Planning (“planning not only for the people you reach, but the people they reach”) and poses an interesting challenge to user experience designers. Digg and other supposedly “democratic” news systems know this well.
A review of the Top 100 Digg users shows what few people likely realize. A miniscule group actually controls what makes it onto the homepage. That sounds like the opposite of Digg’s offering, but in fact, those users are sought out by the audience because of their influence and reputation. Regular contributors (“editors” in 1:9:90 framework) go out of their way to Digg and link to what these people post. Digg gets traffic and self-propagates. They give these users preferential treatment (the front page favors their submissions), and as a result have a high quality product and a built-in extended audience.
But Is the Social Graph Everything?
Now, here’s the thing. I mean, it might be nice to get all kinds of tools and hand-holding and whatever if you’re a ‘catalytic creative’ but maybe these are truisms that either aren’t true, or aren’t the only truths out there.
Because we’ve been led to believe that the ‘social Web’ works a certain way, that it’s all about evangelists and referrals and influence and social graphs.
But like someone said in, um, Twitter – “Forget the social graph. Just stop making sucky products.”
And maybe there’s a deeper truth to that. Maybe right now it’s simply about making a product less, well, less sucky. One step at a time, plodding along, trying not to be so crappy.
And if that’s true, I’m not worried about social graphs, I’m happy not to worry too much about creative catalysts or whatever, if the end game is a better experience, a better product and better service.
Problem is, that once you DO have a product that works, you might end up needing to tackle that social graph anyways, and you’d better hope there’s a few catalysts left to tell the rest of the world that you’re not so sucky anymore.
Because whether digital or not, having someone tell their friend about how awesome you are is still the best referral of all.
Very enjoyable post Dusan and hopefully some of the decision makers at Linden Lab’s will read it and consider the research via BBH Labs you have noted! While I am not personally close to being in the top ranks as a manipulator of prims by any stretch of the imagination in Second Life, the very aspect that I can and do manipulate prims to explore various areas of creativity (be they good or bad) is a key part of why I still use Second Life. Likewise, the opportunity to explore and to be exposed to other peoples creative exploits in Second Life is essential and inspirational too!
I actually wrote the BBH Labs post referenced above. I just wanted to say I enjoyed this piece. You may be interested to know that Second Life was one of the examples I looked into regarding the catalytic creative contributor base. I found it interesting that at its I inception it may have been, along with Wikipedia, the best example of a small community doing everything while a huge base of tourists swooped in. Recently it seems SL is growing again, but anecdotal evidence points to a core group that’s quite displeased. I thought that was interesting, but ultimately got cut from my post due to length. Should you or others decide to do a deep dive on what you think Linden Labs should do knowing the business need if profit, we’d welcome a response on our blog.
Regardless, thanks for the reference. And good luck!
Excellent post Dusan. Any enterprise wanting to get a share of the ‘hang out and shop’ market is going to have to be offering compelling reasons to hang out and shop. Many of the reasons for hanging out in SL (the exceptional builds, the innovative and education communities, and more lately the art communities) are disappearing. I guess the shops will stay so long as they are making a profit – but they’ll also be setting up in other worlds that encourage the ‘creative catalyst’. If LL keeps going down this dumbing down, homogenising track I don’t see how it can compete in the long term.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Dusan Writer, Doubledown Tandino. Doubledown Tandino said: via @DusanWriter Learning from Clever People: Lessons for Online Communities http://bit.ly/ie6UCH [...]
There is no real replacement for good content, and although traffic can be generated on past glories or future hype the success of a grid will depend on its ability to nurture the content creators. As 90% of what they need is simply good tools you would think that this would be an investment that LL would happily make.
Dragging people into your shop when your shelves are becoming a little empty is not a good business plan for the future.
Jack’s comment is the counsel of an idiot. The number of filmmakers is quite small in relation to the total audience, but that does not stop people going to movies. Nor does it mean that the film industry disregards the contribution of directors, actors, screenwriters. His policies would make Second Life a barren plain, presumably filled with eager residents wandering from mall to mall. He would need to be creative indeed for his deep insights to constitute a drawcard to replace content creators.
hmm,
youre were/are an “evangelist” because you er. “evangelize/d” a belief in a group and system.
youre a writer because you “say” you are.;). and in fact… publish these writing artifacts.
The “social graph digital system” magnifies and accelerates the reach of the artifacts/ideas you choose to enhance. When the pool of readers/interested is small, the echo chamber is loud. But when the echo escapes the smaller audience, and can be made fodder for the larger “mass” (its sellable and marketable babble) it then becomes that “mass media” meme that will have lost any of its authenticity (or evangelists reasons) and become usually a pretty messed up “idea” and assists those who cant see or want any “clever people”. (since clever is only defined by their ways – a MBA or a CS degree.-) and in this case , this insular binary tech group is equiped to see beyond their bais. A self fullfiling irony in binary sytems.. there is no “odd” number..lol
I assume LL didnt offer you the Creative Director job? eh? Dont worry. My resume didnt find interest either.
C3- Once, one of the only 3DVR Evanglists.- then i saw doG.;)
I don’t know whether I’m a “clever person” or a “catalytic converter” or whatever. But the Lindens are elitist prigs, starting with Philip, despite their socialist hippie claims, and they don’t realize that people who shop and design their homes are creative, too.
But…we’re repeating ourselves. Is there anything new to say? Is there anything that will change?
As for Digg, that 10 percent power content creator class that Saneel Radia is feting is exactly what prevents Digg from scaling and growing. It’s hella stupid going there and finding 3 or 10 hysterical TSA stories clogging the headlines when people are being killed in Afghanistan. I go on the “foreign news” and their idea of “foreign” is merely some lolcat story somewhere. It’s heavily retarded and that culture — the same geek culture that a blogger is describing at Hacker News that made him quit — is what has to erode or these platforms won’t grow.
OK, they don’t have to, if they are making money — and they claim they are — they don’t have to care what we think.
While I think LL is wrong to think in the way that they do, it seems somewhat obvious that what they are saying is true. In SL, it is quite a bit different then other systems, because every1 has to find a way to pay for everything. Paying for the sim or just a plot of land is not an insignificant task, not to mention stuff for your avatar. So, in a sense, every1 is generating money in some way to pay for SL. In the end tho, there are only a few thousand that really profit, and only a few hundred that do it enough for fulltime work. Again tho, it is very hard to compare SL to anything else because of the dynamics.
1 of the biggest things that I think drives SL is individuality. We all somewhat strive for this. Some more than others. Most of us grew up playing games where we were all the same characters going down all the same paths. I remember the first time I played a game that was wide open, instead of single tracked, and I was allowed to approach the objective however I wanted. That was probably the first game I ever really got into. Most of the decisions were mine and I was fully invested.
In SL, you can be and do whatever you want. It’s the freedom to be whatever and whoever. If you can’t find what you want, you make it. The marketplace thrives because the options are as unlimited as any market can be, and growing daily. Despite all the recent problems, merchants still have incentives to create.
This is why I think LL is wrong. SL grows because of it’s diversity. It is the small merchant that creates this diversity. So, if I were LL, I would promote the diversity, which helps the smaller merchant and in turn, also the larger merchants. The fashion side of SL does more than enough to promote itself, lol.
To all those smaller merchants that think mesh will ruin them, remember that you learn how to use SL. You learned how to make objects with prims. You can learn how to use 3ds max, or maya or blender. I actually find creating a mesh less time consuming and much easier than building with prims in SL. Plus, all the added benefits for creative input and customization. I come from a more traditional art background, so my perspective it that each program is just a tool. Sometimes the artist needs a fan brush, and sometimes you need a paint knife, and sometimes airbrushing is the perfect tool. Mesh creation is an awesome new tool that we will have access to, and I’m still kinda drooling.
right, not more to say about LL..thats been the point. and the silence is heard..crickets…..;)
now onto Unity3D and something next…. and damned the damage done to real systems of people, by those who either “believe” in virtuality myths, or those who just “market” the BS.
meanwhile, a perfectly decent medium is wasted again for just a few. and all the “humanitarian” projects using SL as a medium will just go away… To be “regenius” by a new unity3d crop of FIC and 20 somethings from their moms basements and parent paid dorm rooms…. tlak about Socialism and the state….lol…. Libertarians my ass in SV. stanford …lol
and software is no longer “just a tool” it hasnt been in world affect for over 2 decades.
one gun is a tool…. 100 million is a society.
swords and plow -shares ?…but it was another “evangelist” who said that…
they just dont make evangelists like they used to…;0. the power of self twittering.lol
http://mediabastard.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/the-ted-2010-conference-presentation-they-wont-let-you-see/
clever people .;)
Oh, stop it Medhue, you’re a condescending prig. You don’t just ‘pick up’ 3-D art tools “just like that”. There’s a big difference between learning how to operate menus that are more or less straightforward (although there are LOTS of them) to build in SL, even at a primitive level, and making content that is good to look at. I can make objects with prims. I can’t make *good* objects with prims. But my being able to at least make *some* things with prims means that I can buy prefabs and modify things and decorate and make a sense of place.
I CANNOT DO THAT WITH MESH.
Me, really? Sorry, I happen to think people can do alot more than they think they can. I see it all the time. Some people actually think you need to be born with skills to have them. Guess what? All skills are learned, and almost any1 with the interest can learn them.
There is a huge difference between I actually can’t do something, and I don’t want to, or I have no interest to do it. For many people, I can’t is simply a delusion that has been pounded into their heads.
Oh, I “did” just pick up 3D art tools. Many of them. 5 years ago, I could barely use Photoshop. On Youtube, there are tutorials for every single 3d program out there, covering every single feature. Many creators in SL had no real experience before SL, but we all learned. I also know many more people that have learned just like that. Just go look at the mesh forums and you’ll see hundred of them all learning from each other.
Quoting Medhue:
“There is a huge difference between I actually can’t do something, and I don’t want to, or I have no interest to do it. For many people, I can’t is simply a delusion that has been pounded into their heads.”
I have to disagree with you Medhue. Not everyone has the ability to make good mesh. They may with effort be able to learn to make shapes and such, but it requires some artistic talent to shape mesh and texture it.
I don’t see this as a problem though. After all, not everyone can script. Not everyone has the voice for internet radio or the ability to talk smoothly and well on the air. Not everyone has the ability to make animations well. Not everyone writes well.
My point is that very, very few people can do it all. In Second Life people will do what they have always done. Those who wish to create content will find what they do well and do it.
We must also remember that not everyone wants to create content. Some are here to socialize, host events, play games, role play, and just have fun. They support the rest of us by buying what we make.
Quoting Prokofy:
“I don’t know whether I’m a ‘clever person’ or ‘catalytic converter’ or whatever.”
I do not think you are either of those things Prokofy. As long as you call people or their ideas names as you usually do, such as calling Medhue a “condescending prig,” you cannot consider yourself a reasoned voice, debater, or intelligent conversationalist. Name calling means you are trying to be inflammatory and that makes you a troll, and that is all.
And now I await your expected name calling and sputtering that you consider a reasoned response, and at great length. At least you are predictable.
“As long as you call people or their ideas names as you usually do, such as calling Medhue a “condescending prig,” you cannot consider yourself a reasoned voice, debater, or intelligent conversationalist.”
Alas, that presumes rationality and connection with reality.
It’s too bad to see how the discussions start in a genuine effort of collective discussion among the residents/users but then seem to deteriorate to bickering. Maybe it’s the unease we all feel about the uncertain future/direction of our favored virtual world.
My two cents: Skills are different from natural aptitudes. Some have a natural ability to remember design and color while others have a natural ability to remember and manipulate numbers. Ditto when it concerns constructing, writing or working with music.
As a teacher of English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), I’ve observed classes where many learners have spent hours practicing and be extremely motivated to learn. They do eventually acquire success and skill. However, there are some who simply have a natural ear and ability to learn a new language when they aren’t necessarily better or work harder at it.
Creativity, skill and talent abound in all areas; the skill level is for the subjective discernment of the resident (or marketplace). Those who don’t build/construct will organize, manage or write about those who do. Most people will gravitate toward what feels like a natural ability and what is gratifying, sometimes through trial and error. Some simply won’t spend their time with Second Life but in some other form, perhaps.
That ‘uh-huh” moment of self-discovery about a previously untapped/unkown ability is what has created many serious devotees to Second Life.
Second Life offers second lives–or another world, avenue in their life’s journey. What a shame should that quality get lost in search of hyped gamification de jour.
Well, sorry, for taking up so much of the conversation.
@ Prok – Why can’t you build things with mesh? Do you not think that people will make meshes for builders, or builder packs. The reality is, that people will make what the market wants. Lots of people used sculpties yet never had to know how to make them.
The bottom line is that sculpties are a waste of triangles, and mesh will actually be less data for every1′s pc to download. In many cases, alot less data. Custom faces and texture maps will vastly reduce the total amounts of textures that are required for every build. What would normally take 8 textures, now will be done with 1. This was somewhat possible before, but was way to complicated for any1 to actually do on builds any impossible for some1 else to edit.
I actually plan on releasing all the texture maps for my creations with the products, so If some1 is good in photoshop, they can totally customize the product with their own perfectly mapped texture.
Medhue, caught in your techie microcosm you obviously do not get a single word of sense out of Dusan´s brilliant essay.
Unfortunately the results of favoring pre-made, off-world skill based content over in-world creativity will not favor you in the end. Nor anyone else. Not even Linden Lab.
That would make about 2,200 ‘Catalytic Creators’, 22,000 ‘Creators’, 220,000 ‘Commentators’ that Prokofy has zinged
, and 2.2 million actual people using SL. Hmm.. sounds about right to me.
So lets extrapolate downward: there should be 220 Lindens running around, 22 actually doing any work, and 2 swapping the CEO job back and forth.
LL turned its back on me. i was no miracle but come one, blogging daily, 1000′s of flickr pics, speaking at conferences, and having 19 sims?
with about 6 support tickets in two years, i think a $3000 a month customer like me could warrant a tweeted hello eh?
oh well, life moves on and so do virtual worlds . . .