Second Life

Second Life Next: 2011

So it’s the first day on the job as the new CEO of Linden Lab. You’ve done your homework, of course, and you spent time with Philip and maybe even Mitch or other board members. You’ve read a few of the blogs, tracked back through Google to do a sort of Second Life history lesson, and you’ve been mulling over what you learned at your last job.

You have a pretty good idea that the staff will be restless. And it’s true – most of them have been keeping their heads down the past few months, not a lot has actually been done other than a few token pokes at projects, and there’s none of the fervor that marked life at the Lab in the past, and maybe that’s a good thing. They smile happily when they meet you, but you can read the watchful waiting in their body language – something that says “OK, so what the hell are we going to do.”

The Second Life user community seems cranky about a few things but relatively calm. Without the benefit of having lived through several years of SL history, you might not really grasp how incredible the drop-off is in people writing or being passionate about Second Life….blogs that have gone silent may have had the benefit of reducing the level of drama, but this has also reduced the broader level of advocacy (and usually for very good reason).

But maybe that’s a good thing too. It’s not like the world is falling apart, exactly – things are stable or sputtering but not thriving, quiet but not exciting, and things don’t break as much as it seems they once did.

First day. Clean sheet.

We all know your mandate – build Second Life into something that someone, somewhere would want to buy. No pressure, no hard-and-fast deadline and we won’t say it in public, but let’s face it – there’s no IPO in the future, and while a profitable Linden Lab can put money in someone’s pocket, the end game here is sale and not some sort of endless annuity.

So, welcome to Linden Lab. All eyes are on you.

Your Imagination Unlocks a World of Play
I picked up a copy of Create, the game that Rod Humble, (the new CEO of Linden Lab) headed up while at EA (amongst other jobs). And it’s not such a bad game – but even better is the box, which has headlines that read:

- Spark Your Imagination! The game that rewards you for being creative
- Create your own scenes
- Use your imagination to unlock rewards
- Experiment to solve fun challenges
- Open up more ways to play

All of which is to say that Create is a sort of cartoonish version of the Second Life value proposition (although it’s probably a lot closer to a more complex version of Little Big Planet in terms of what it actually does) aimed at a much younger demographic.

Create takes the approach that you can facilitate user creativity by mapping out activities, learning and ‘making’ against rewards and unlocking points and so on. But the game mechanics shouldn’t distract from the fact that it’s primarily a toy rather than a game, with rewards and stages/phases that are more extrinsic than they tend to be in Second Life, unless you sell stuff or rent land.

His work on Create, and more specifically an interview he did with the Guardian give me some faith that he understands the main value proposition of Second Life: that when you help people to create things you are at the center of a deep kind of value – what some people call fun, but which can also unlock rewards of other kinds.

And so at a basic level, the idea of Second Life will be familiar to the Lab’s new CEO, he’ll get it (perhaps more handily than someone who comes from an ad agency, as Kingdon did) and with virtual goods and ‘user-generated content’ remaining buzz words in both Silicon Valley and on Wall Street (albeit with Second Life no longer considered even a remote contender for either) he’ll be working on ideas that are in favor with the Facebook/gaming crowd, albeit for a company that pretty much no one cares about anymore.

But for me at least Second Life takes us beyond ‘user-generated content’ and ‘virtual goods’ and it would be a mistake to now try to follow the buzz words that SL originally created, and that have been picked up by others. Second Life has taken us beyond, even, what it means to create a world.

To understand where Second Life can go from here, it’s important to understand that it is the place where, for many people, the future has been tested and we have come to an accommodation with a wider world of change.

User-Generated Content is Not a Business Model
I’ve been thinking about this a lot over the last few months (well, even more so than usual I guess) – about how user-created content is reaching us in more places and how ‘older’ forms of content are finding new life and meaning, whether videos or TV shows or books or even old cartoons or magazines (re-purposed as iPad apps, say), because they are being accessed on new devices and in new formats and are thus more amendable than ever to being ‘remixed’ or (to use the current buzzword) curated.

This has been driven in particular because of the breathtaking growth of mobile computing and has led to an acceleration in the reach and impact of this new ‘digital/mobile/Internet everywhere’ world, rolling through (or over, depending how you look at it) one media, one area of life, and one industry after another (my own included).

A few years ago the idea of multi-screen access to entertainment seemed like it would remain the province of digital natives – Tweeting or “Facebooking” as they watched television or holding chats in YM or MSN with their friends. But at Christmas, I watched my father surfing an NFL iPad application as he watched a game on TV and I saw my mother texting information from Google maps that she was looking up on her new MacBook Pro. Maybe not the widest survey of consumers in the world, but a pretty good indication of how ubiquitous user-curated media consumption has become.

Now, in the business world or on Wall Street the idea of user-generated content is often interpreted as….well, as “we get stuff for free from our users”. And while there are times when Linden Lab has tipped from facilitating user-content to mining it, what makes Second Life fairly unique is that the platform owner is not the only party who can make money off of the users’ content, because of its unique combination of technology, economy, policy and community.

Tyler Cowen, who appeared on Metanomics, points out that user-generated content isn’t just the stuff we ‘make’, it’s the way that we parse, surf, edit, read, participate, comment, edit and append as we live more and more of our lives online. Through his book Create Your Own Economy he points out that value in the digital age has shifted. We are living in the new economy of, well, of “me” – meaning that value is no longer simply dispensed and consumed, but is dispensed and then achieves its value once we create our own meaning and context from it through the process of “curation”, remixing, editing, participation, and co-creation.

On Metanomics, he commented on how virtual worlds demonstrate this wider trend:

“I think what the web is and what Virtual Worlds are, it’s a blooming, buzzing confusion that can be intimidating or it can be bewildering. But the way you make it work for you is to go out there and literally impose order on it and use good filters, have ways of drawing from it what works for you, whether it’s your Twitter feed or RSS or what island you go to in Second Life. A world that appears completely unordered, in fact in each of our individual minds, a high degree of coherence and meaning, we do the ordering. It’s like we create these private worlds of our culture, using the powers of our own mind.

…I think we’re usually buying little dreams. We not only buy food and shelter, but when we choose styles or when we buy clothes with any kind of fashion, when we decide how we’re going to have our hair cut, we’re all, in a way, buying virtual goods because their importance exists only insofar as they are interpreted by other human beings. What’s important about them it’s not like their physical attributes, but, again, how they are interpreted by other people within this common framework of meaning.

So what Virtual Worlds do is, they take that common framework of meaning and somehow make that more explicit technologically, like there’s an actual virtual space. But I think it’s copying something we’ve been doing all along, I think that’s a big part of why it’s powerful, actually very natural. It’s very biological, I think. People think of Virtual Worlds as like contrary to biology or contrary to what they call atomic space.”

To Cowen, an economist, the economy of today is self-created – we assemble value on our own through our process of both creation but also through our acts of parsing the imaginative acts of others.

But the phrase I love best: “I think we’re usually buying little dreams.”

In this context, he’s referring to tangible goods – and making the important point that even physical goods aren’t always about their tangible aspects (excepting commodities, although even that can be argued), but their cultural connotations and meaning. The economy of things has become, even before this digital age, an economy of shared context and meaning (because ‘goods’ had continued to shift beyond the commodities necessary for survival) – an economy which to date had been largely facilitated by broadcast and mass media and distribution.

But in the digital age, we can still share and communicate this framework of meaning but with a difference – because the site in which that meaning is communicated allows for deeper personalization and choice, and the creation of the artifacts from which meaning is constructed are accessible to everyone, are more democratic, and aren’t reliant on a few delivery points or distribution channels.

The hammer force reality of this, if you take it to its deepest extremes, is that this capacity, which has been facilitated by digital technology, is upending nearly everything.

Because whether we’re going to the doctor’s office or going to work, whether we’re headed on vacation or to a concert, whether we’re watching TV or reading a book on our Kindle – we have become accustomed (or feel entitled, depending on what you’re talking about or your point of view) to a world that offers us the ability to curate, to remix, to choose, and to assemble experiences that fulfill our own personal definition of dreams rather than simply to adopt the assembled dreams of others.

In the developed world, this process of assembly and curation is most often associated with the media we consume.

But over the past year I’ve seen how powerful this notion is not just in its impact on how we entertain ourselves or connect with others….but in how entire industries and enterprises are structured, the meaning and construction of the jobs we do, and the expectations we place on the wider culture and institutions (which increasingly seem like relics in a more fluid and dynamic landscape). In the industries that I work in, which once seemed as immutable as possible in the face of change, I’m seeing one foundation stone after another crumble in the face of our individual ability to assemble dreams. (And I can’t help thinking that the implications for the developing world are staggering.)

Second Life is not a virtual goods platform, and it’s doesn’t have a business model based on user-generated goods: it is, instead, a fully contained prototype of a version of the future in which technology has continued to take us in the direction of limitless choice in how the world we live in is constructed, how we decide to interact with each other and the content that we choose to consume.

The business model of Linden Lab is to develop and support the tools that allow users to participate in an online environment in which they have a maximum amount of choice in how their digital lives are constructed and curated, and to be a transactional partner in the buying of little dreams.

The Mission: Second Life, Enhancing Our Humanity
Linden Lab is nowhere near fulfilling its mission to ‘connect us all to an online world that advances the human condition.’

To many people, however, Second Life has positively advanced their condition, whether in tangible monetary ways, or in the less tangible ways of creating connections where there were none, overcoming the constraints of geography, or providing access to safe communities from places where safety wasn’t a given.

But I believe that for many people Second Life has done something equally important: it has allowed an understanding of what it means that we are all connecting to an online world, and I’d propose that this meaning is perhaps more important than being connected in the first place.

Because in the face of the enabling, terrifying, and cataclysmic change that comes when we “connect us all to an online world” making sense of it alll has a deep and profound relevance.

In Second Life individuals and organizations have discovered a way to explore the meaning of a world in which the tools for content creation are democratically accessible; it has allowed us to grapple with issues of community and trust in a world where ‘identity’ is not as transparent as even conventional wisdom (insofar as Mark Zuckerberg represents conventional wisdom) would have us believe; it has provided us insight into how value can be created collaboratively, across time zones and bridging physical abilities and disabilities; it has provided a test bed for exploring issues of ownership and monetization in the face of the idea that all digital content is copyable and therefore value-less (and was able to put the lie to this notion as an axiomatic truth); it has helped us to understand the power of creativity to shape opinion, feeling and understanding by allowing us to stand inside the creative process and to remove the distance between author and ‘reader’, creator and consumer; and it has helped us to explore what it means to be human, to be ourselves by, ironically, placing a distance between who we ‘really’ are and the avatars that represent us.

This meaning isn’t always easy to articulate, and maybe it doesn’t seem obvious watching a bunch of avatars out dancing – but if you dig deep enough, or ask the right questions, you’ll discover the things that Tom Boellstorff discovered in his anthropology of Second Life (required reading for any LL CEO), who I interviewed a year or so ago, and who saw in something as seemingly insignificant as “AFK” or the use of the term “lag” a wider meaning:

Clifford Geertz, who’s a very famous anthropologist, once said something along the lines that anthropology often involves sort of hacking back and forth between the most local of local detail and the most sort of global of global issues to try and bring them both into clearer view.

And that often what you, you know, what you want to do with this kind of stuff, what as an anthropologist I try and do is look at the really obvious everyday stuff, whether that’s AFK or lag or building or whatever it is, but then also try if I can to step back and say okay, what’s some of the big picture stuff that’s going on here? What can we learn from this? You know, learning about AFK that’s cool. But then are there any bigger take-home points or broader issues that we can look at.

So when I try to, tried to sort of step back from this research I’d done in Second Life, to step back and say okay, what were some of the really big picture issues that might be interesting, even to people who could care less about virtual worlds or you know, to anyone sort of interested in contemporary life. What can we take home from virtual worlds, take home to think about things more broadly?

So after just reading around, thinking about things, because this is about technology, I started, you know, what does technology mean, where does that word come from? And so I got interested in this idea that technology is rooted linguistically in action, in the term techne, meaning something much more like craft or arts.

And so that was interesting to me, that techne is about art or craft. I immediately started thinking about how important building and making things is in Second Life. And then I started looking at – there’s as whole range of philosophers and thinkers who for a long time now have been talking about how in the original formulation, techne’s opposite is knowledge, or episteme.

Claude Shannon and all these people who did this early cybernetics work, it was all about information, right, the mode of information and all this, all this kind of stuff that they were talking about. And so I just sort of kept putting these pieces together in my head, right, going back and forth between the everyday experience I’ve had in Second Life and the writing I’d done about Second Life on the one hand, and then on the other hand, this interesting stuff about knowledge versus craft.

And then it got me thinking what’s happening here where in what’s supposed to be the age of information, we’re getting all of this stuff happening in virtual worlds about craft, not about knowing about houses in Second Life, but about building a house in Second Life. Building relationships and all the crafting stuff seems to be so important.

And so that’s why the third part of my book is called the Age of Techne. It’s asks: what if this actually may be not the age of information or only information, but about the age of craft or about sort of a new working towards craft. I mean I can make a house and live in the house, but that isn’t quite the same thing as what’s happening in Second Life, where it’s like craft sort of turns back on itself and you have craft creating the whole world that you’re living in.

And so what does that do to the way we think about craft and the way that we think about knowledge? And it’s really at that point then that I really start to really question no, I don’t have the answers, I don’t know entirely where that’s going. But I am pretty sure that I’m onto something, that there’s something going on with that.

That there’s something about virtual worlds and it’s opening up new possibilities for crafting, new definitions of what it means to craft and how might that change the idea of even like friendships and relationships, that you craft them in a certain sense.

To Boellstorff, Second Life offers insight into a future in which our notion of technology can be rooted  in our ability to craft  and in so doing, to take ownership of a future outside of the conventional view in which our world is governed by the algorithm of data.

Advancing the human condition is a noble goal – and in many ways the Lab will continue to move towards this goal because of the power that Second Life has to help people to understand how our collective connection to online worlds has a profound meaning. It allows us to discover this meaning through casual social interactions, participation in art, falling in love, creation – all of those things which may seem ‘trivial’ but which are windows to the wider implications of a connected world. And in so discovering, Second Life helps us to recognize the power we have as individuals to influence the direction of our lives online – a direction which, in my world at least, includes technology that prefers virtual hugs to pokes, which treasures serendipity over algorithmic certainty, and that provides a richer meaning than what we visualize when we think of the social graph.

The Strategy is NOT Fast, Fun and Easy
Linden Lab is a victim of wishful thinking. Time and again it tries to tackle the same problem using pretty much the same solution and thinking that, somehow, this time, the outcome will be different.

And the wishful thinking goes like this:

- Second Life would succeed if it had more users. More users are good because they can benefit the virtual economy, they can increase the use of ‘land’, and lead to all kinds of other activity.
- The problem with increasing the number of users isn’t finding new users, it’s in keeping them once they arrive. The data shows it – run a banner ad, and you’ll have people show up on the home page. It’s not an issue of attracting people, it’s an issue of retaining them through the funnel of sign-up, first hour, first week, first purchase.
- Therefore, the primary issue is retention.
- If this is the primary issue, then we need to look at the reasons for a lack of retention. These issues are multi-factorial, but they typically come down to a few things: it’s too hard to sign-up, it’s too hard to learn and use the interface, and it’s too hard to find people/things to do.
- The solution, therefore, is to overhaul sign-up, change the interface, and come up with new ways to search and find content.

There is absolutely NO evidence that a new take on this old strategy will work now when it has never worked in the past.

You can throw everything at this problem: you can introduce new “light clients”, you can put Second Life on cell phones, you can throw Unity3D clients at the front end, you can have a browser-based viewer, you can assign mentors or put in place Community Gateways….heck, you can even PAY people to log-in and stick around (whether that “pay” is with free virtual goods, or a free Linden Home, or some kind of points or awards system). They won’t work, or if they work the results will be temporary or yield an incredibly disappointing return on investment (just ask Tom Hale how his investment in ‘making bank’ went, or how well a new Viewer did in influencing sign-up and retention).

From Mitch Kapor through Philip Rosedale and on to Mark Kingdon, everyone who has ever had a word to say about Second Life has looked at the issue of how to grow the world in the same way and failed.

And the reason they’ve failed is that, first, it’s the wrong problem. And second, you can’t design the future solely by extrapolating from past data…and yet time and again, we’ve seen from Linden Lab a reliance on past data as the main metric for planning the future.

For a company as ‘visionary’ as Linden Lab is supposed to be they have continually acted like – well, like engineers I guess. But even engineers can be design thinkers and turn the impossible (an online music industry in an era of Napster) into the merely improbable (the iPod).

This may seem counter-intuitive. It may seem counter-productive. But I’d propose that Linden Lab spend almost zero time worrying about new users or advertising to new users or marketing to them and devote all of its time to helping its current users to have better experiences. It may seem, coming from a current user, that this is a bit self-serving.

But I’m willing to stake whatever it takes on a simple precept: if you tackle the problem of Second Life by tackling it through the eyes of current users, you’ll have more new users than you know what to do with.

And the reason for this is that Second Life is, in the end, a technology that facilitates experiences, and the experiences which it facilitates are created by current users.

See, my dad may love his iPad because it’s fast, easy and fun. But he also loves his television set which takes three converters to turn on and operate. Even now when I go home and watch a DVD with my parents we can still get into confusion about which converter does what – one controls the volume, one the channel, one the DVD. But you navigate through all of that complexity because of the experience of watching the show.

It’s not the box. It’s not the converter. It’s the fact that there’s a show or movie or football game to watch in the first place. (Having said all that, television itself has lost its way, and there are very few shows on it anymore which are worth the pain of learning how to juggle three converters).

And I’d propose that as fast/easy/fun as the iPad might be, if it didn’t have any “channels” on it that my dad wanted to watch, it would end up on the shelf gathering dust and he’d be claiming that it was too hard to learn rather than just saying: well, there was nothing on.

Fast, Easy and Fun is an important benefit but it’s not a strategy.

The first task is making sure that people can create great experiences – and thankfully, the Lab has actually made significant progress on this over the last few years. By reducing crashes, improving voice, reducing load times and a whole bunch of other things the experiences that people can create are more reliable. The tools for creating “content” are robust and getting better and things like mesh and (please?) standard scripting languages will move this capacity even further.

But while the virtual part of the world is in better shape, the social part of that experience is mind-bogglingly awful.

Focus on how to help users do the things they need to do, and most importantly do so in a way that looks beyond the walls of the virtual world.

And this is critical, because if you think about improving the current user experience solely from the perspective of what happens in the world (or on its associated Web sites) you’ll end up with a laundry list of things like lag, search and all the rest of it. But users need to be viewed more holistically.

Second Life is part of a wider engagement with technology, and yet trying to do anything so that it is simple and effective is nearly impossible.

Try managing a group. Try to send out a notice for an event using multiple platforms (Facebook, e-mail, groups). Try inviting a bunch of friends who have never been in Second Life to join you in your virtual beach house to watch a movie. Try creating virtual art and inviting a potential patron to see it. Try being a musician and promoting a concert on Facebook.

The problem isn’t that the interface is hard to use. The problem is that the current users have no reliable way to get the word out, no reliable way to bring people in, and no reliable way to manage their connection to those people once they arrive.

The marketing platform, the promotion, the word of mouth, the viral campaigns, the source of marketing – are the current users. Linden Lab may have created the converter, but the current users have the show, they have the content, and they simply need a way to reliably put their shows on, and far, far, far better ways to let the world know to tune in now.

A New World
Second Life can succeed because it still has the capacity to deliver content experiences that are unique and profound. It can succeed if the Lab stops worrying about the funnel coming in, and worries instead about the funnel headed the other direction.

When I think about Metanomics, what I think of is a massive missed opportunity. I would LOVE to promote it more widely, to have Google Alerts and Facebook ads, to send out widgets to blogs across the Web and to tap into e-mail lists. And we do a lot of that….but those tools should be de facto standard things provided by Linden Lab.

We have incredible content and we have a stable platform on which to ‘perform’ that content, and yet we’re working with a platform provider who seemingly has no interest in making it easy for us to build and maintain a community – and, shockingly, this is true within Second Life as much as in our ability to reach out to wider markets.

Groups don’t work, advertising doesn’t work, search is ineffective, there are no e-mail channels, few Web channels, few ways to reach out to current users let alone reach out to the crowds on Facebook except by our own effort.

I mean – if you’re a game developer you look to develop your game on a platform that provides more than technology – you’re looking for a platform that can also provide distribution, advertising, promotion, support.

So, it’s not really that complicated. Start with the user base you’ve got and help them to help you.

In so doing, you’ll realize that your advertising is suited to an age demographic which (mostly) doesn’t exist in Second Life, that the key to growing the platform is in attracting groups not individuals, and that in shunning enterprise and education you’ve neglected important voices in a world shaped by imagination, and narrowed the choices we can make as we craft the future.

So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing. It is my job to create universes, as the basis of one novel after another. And I have to build them in such a way that they do not fall apart two days later. Or at least that is what my editors hope. However, I will reveal a secret to you: I like to build universes which do fall apart. I like to see them come unglued, and I like to see how the characters in the novels cope with this problem. I have a secret love of chaos. There should be more of it.

Do not believe—and I am dead serious when I say this—do not assume that order and stability are always good, in a society or in a universe. The old, the ossified, must always give way to new life and the birth of new things. Before the new things can be born the old must perish. This is a dangerous realization, because it tells us that we must eventually part with much of what is familiar to us. And that hurts. But that is part of the script of life. Unless we can psychologically accommodate change, we ourselves begin to die, inwardly. What I am saying is that objects, customs, habits, and ways of life must perish so that the authentic human being can live. And it is the authentic human being who matters most, the viable, elastic organism which can bounce back, absorb, and deal with the new.

- Philip Dick, 1978

44 Comments

speak up

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site.

Subscribe to these comments.

*Required Fields

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.