I previously posted on Slippcat and they were kind enough to send a few points of clarification, primarily pointing out the intent and method to their model. Their Web site has also come out from “under cover” so there’s a bit more detail - head over and take a glance.
Resident Benefits Explained on Slippcat Web Site
The main point of clarification, and correction, is in the form of the payout for the items in the Slippcat system. I previously reported that users would click items and be paid, however this is erroneous according to Brendan Tripp of Slippcat. In fact, it’s the person who “hosts” the object that gets paid. He likens it to Google Ad Words - have a Web site, embed the Google Ad Word widget, and get paid when people who visit the site click the links.
Similar model for Slippcat - pick up one of their couches, desks, lamps…whatever. Throw it in your club or home, and every time another resident clicks the object you get paid.
Slippcat’s Model
With Brendan’s permission, I’m quoting his overview of the system:
The core concept of SlippCat is to allow companies to market their real-life items in-world, NOT to be a vehicle for general ad delivery.
Assume that a company … say (pulling a name out of the aether), Ethan Allen, wants to promote a line of home furnishings it’s introducing, and thinks a “Metaverse” front would be a good addition to an over-all marketing strategy. They (or their ad agency) would approach SlippCat to have these particular items “virtualized” and placed in the SlippCat Warehouse, where they would be available (for free) for SL avs to pick up as they desired.
When the av rezzes the item, say a dining room set, in their home/office/apartment/land it becomes “active” and will PAY THEM (much in the way that Google Ad Words will pay a blogger who hosts their ads) when the item is clicked on. The amount the item will pay depends on the “level of engagement” that the clicking av requires.
The SlippCat-enabled items will have a mouse-over feature that will note, very briefly, that more info is available on that item. If this is then clicked on, a standard SL “blue menu” will pop up, giving in its text block, the basic info on the item. It is MY guess that in 75% of cases, this is as much info that the av will be interested in. However, if the av is interested, there will be other options which could be clicked on this menu:
1: request more info - a texture of a 4-color “ad sheet” that they could export and print
2: teleport - if there is an in-world build related to the product, this would provide a TP
3: web page - open a web browser and visit the product info page of the client company
4: local info - if the av wants to know where the item is available near them, they can enter their postal code (yes, I doubt that many paranoid avs will opt for this!)
5: request assistance - this will “call” an avatar to answer questions about the item (which will be a customer service person from the client company trained to operate in SL, rather than just a linden-worker with a script about the product)
At every point in the process the interacting avatar DECIDES what, if any, information they require. There are no hovering ads (except for the fleeting mouse-over indicating that there is information to be had by clicking), no overt branding, nothing intrusive … just well-crafted copies of real-world items, which are offering as much information as the av cares to request.
Obviously, the client pays more the deeper down that list one goes, and the “owner” of the item gets paid more per click, but the main attraction is in getting a QUALITY item (dining room table, office chair, laptop computer) which is not only free, but has the possibility of producing some Lindens. The “owner” can not click on his/her items, and individual avs can only click once per given time period (still being determined).
Click Capture
Brendan didn’t touch on the other issues brought up in my post, and I leave it open for his comment or reply by e-mail. Namely that Anthony van Zyl stated at a panel discussion at the Virtual World Conference that the Slippcat system would also allow detailed information to be provided to advertisers *including* “buzz words from public chat logs”. This implies that in addition to being able to track the “clicks” on objects, (and, I’m assuming, link those clicks to individual users and start compiling a preference/click history) the objects will collect passive information as well. This could include “look ats”, avatar presence near the object, and other information.
It’s also not clear what Slippcat’s privacy or data transparency policies are. As well, it isn’t clear whether there are opt-in/opt-out provisions, how long the data will be stored, and at what level the data might be aggregated.
Now Gwyn and others argue that tracking of personal data is a “given” in a trackable society. By coincidence, the latest issue of the Walrus arrived in the mailbox this morning (yeah, it’s a Canadian thing, and please, I have no idea why it’s called Walrus, do we even have those in Canada?), in which the author talks about a cultural trend to becoming acceptance of living in a surveillance society.
The combination of things leaves me wondering whether I’ve thought deeply enough about privacy provisions, data collection, surveillance, and, on the other side of the ledger, the benefits we might gain from giving up some privacy for the sake of customized goods. I’ll weigh in on the topic shortly, with a series of interviews with someone who has published extensively in this area.
In the meantime, the day will come when we’re all putting Ethan Allen couches on a special pedestal in our home, inviting not just relaxation but clicks, and throwing “rent parties” for 40 of our closest friends so that in poking our furniture we can grab some Lindens to pay the tier.
I wonder why they’re only thinking about selling “real-life items.”
Imagine if “Billboards of Edmonton, Inc.” only let you advertise things not sold in Edmonton!
EDITA KAYE, THE “SKINNY PILL FOR KIDS,” AND THE ASSOCIATION OF VIRTUAL WORLDS
There is a certain species of entrepreneur that capitalizes on the human desire for overnight solutions to intractable problems. Throughout human history, they have lurked in the shadows of the marketplace, eager to regale consumers with news of their miracle cures. In their haste to turn a profit, they often overlook minor details such as the product’s effectiveness and safety.
One might hope that our scientifically saturated era would be immune to bogus pitches, but the opposite is true. Sadly, exaggerated marketing appeals are common in the computer industry. Indeed, they seem to thrive when emerging technologies are dimly understood by the general population.
The myth of expertise camouflages holes in the huckster’s pitch, and problems remain hidden until the contract is signed and the check is cashed.
A few highly publicized scams and failures can cripple a young industry before it even has a chance to get off the ground. As an entrepreneur who cares deeply about the future of virtual worlds, I was surprised to stumble across this hyperbolic “get rich quick” rhetoric in an advertisement for Edita Kaye’s book Virtual Worlds: The Next Big Thing. My curiosity sparked, I turned to Google. Here I found a long entrepreneurial road littered with controversial products such as The Skinny Pill for Kids.”
The promotional blurb for Edita Kaye’s book breathlessly encourages readers to “Reinvent yourself. Start a business. Find a friend. Make a fortune…all this and more waits for you in virtual worlds. Join the tens of millions of virtual residents around the world who have already discovered this whole new metaverse. Everyone from kids, to corporations is going virtual!”
A self-described “Internet entrepreneur,” Edita Kaye recently emerged on the virtual world landscape as the editor of an on-line publication called iVinnie.Com. Composed almost entirely of hyperlinks to stories found in other publications, Kaye’s web site bills itself as “the number ONE virtual world news network.” But this is not Kaye’s only project. She is also the founder of the Association of Virtual Worlds (AVW). Created earlier this year, the mission of the AVW “is to serve those companies and individuals who are dedicated to the advancement of this multi-billion dollar global industry and reach out to those who have not yet found virtual worlds.” Since the beginning of the year, the organization has pumped out countless press releases, declared August 20th to be “Virtual World Day,” and launched a remarkable member-get-member campaign that has swelled the entity to more than 1,100 members.
Edita Kaye’s profile page on the AVW site describes her as the award-winning author of 16 books. Her list of publications includes Fountain of Youth: The Anti-Aging Weight Loss Program, The Skinny Pill, The Skinny Rules, and Cooking Skinny With Edita.
The rapid growth of the Association for Virtual Worlds is particularly impressive since it has been less than six years since the organization’s founder was defending her Skinny Pill for Kids on such television programs as The Today Show and Connie Chung Tonight. It has been less than five years since she incurred the wrath of the Federal Trade Commission and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for marketing potentially dangerous nutritional supplements.
Beginning in 2000, Kaye used her promotional savvy and web expertise to market a series of weight loss supplements with names such as Skinny Pill A.M., Skinny Pill P.M., and Skinny Carbs. In 2002, she targeted her Skinny Pill for Kids at overweight youngsters, arguing that the supplement was “the FIRST thermic and herbal formula ever developed for weight loss for children 6 to 12″ and announced that it had “been created to help our children win their battle with fat.”
Such claims set off red flags, and nutritional experts soon chimed in with concerns that the pill’s ingredients (including the diuretics juniper berry and uva ursi) posed genuine risks for liver toxicity and kidney damage in children (Hopkins, 2004). On December 8, 2002, Kaye appeared on Connie Chung Tonight, defending her product against nutritional experts who characterized the supplement as “junk science.”
“The same foods that made you fat are going to make you skinny,” explained Kaye. “All you need is to have a watch to be able to tell time. In the morning, have an orange. At night, have some peanut butter. Take some of these supplements.” (CNN Transcript, 2002).
Other experts viewed things differently. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce initiated an investigation a few months later, and its Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations conducted a hearing on dietary supplements in June 2004. In this hearing, Keith Nayoob, Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Certified Nutritionist at the Albert Einstein Medical Center testified that the information on Kaye’s site was “scientifically baseless, blatantly exploitative, and potentially very harmful to children.”
The FTC agreed with Nayoob. In a complaint filed against Kaye’s company (Fountain of Youth LLC) in a US District Court, the FTC argued that the “defendants’ law violations have injured consumers throughout the United States” and “defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of their unlawful practices.” In Feburary 2004, a settlement with the FTC prohibited Kaye from “making any weight-loss or health benefit claims for the Skinny Pills and similar products” in the absence of “competent and reliable scientific evidence to support such claims.” The settlement included a $6 million judgment, which was suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay.
To anyone who has worked in sales or marketing, aspects of this story may spark a twinge of recognition. Whether writing a research grant or selling a product, there is a very human temptation to puff one’s claims by stretching the limits of language.
Edita Kaye has done a remarkable job of bringing people together in a very short time. In the interests of the community that she hopes to serve, it is crucial that she shy away from the hyperbolic rhetoric that characterized her past marketing efforts.
In all sectors, is essential that virtual world proponents take great care when evangelizing the technology. This is a technology that many people view as sexist, violent, and potentially addictive. Explaining the power of virtual worlds to our colleagues and clients is a full time job in itself. The last thing we need is the additional burden of explaining away snake oil diet scams.
Let’s try to get it right this time.
janedoe - I worked with Edita Kaye briefly in 2007 on her virtual worlds products, including iVinnie and the AVW. Most of my negative experiences with her were personal problems…personality conflicts and such that don’t merit any public airing.
One relevant point I can offer, however, is that Edita Kaye has never set foot into one of these virtual worlds, at least not in any fashion that was more than glancing. She does not feel it is relevant to her role in the business. This was always a huge sticking point for me: If your entire business model revolves around virtual worlds, should you not at least be familiar with a few of the hundreds that are popping up? Take it for what it’s worth, but a person who creates an association for virtual worlds, and who is writing a book on the subject should be, in my opinion, interested in them. Also for what it’s worth, the last time I spoke with her early this year, the book was still non-existent, other than the cover and the blurb.
It should also be noted that on iVinnie.com, they are classifying such things as Facebook and MySpace as virtual worlds. At best, grouping social networks in with virtual worlds is a stretch. I think more likely it’s an attempt to capitalize on a very lucrative segment of Web 2.0. at a time when the buzz about virtual worlds is dying off amid technical issues and two years under-delivering on their high expectations. Good for them if they make it profitable, but personally it makes me think they don’t know their own subject-matter.
The whole experience for me was a rough one. I don’t wish any ill will towards Edita Kaye or her business ventures in virtual worlds. She has several fine people working with her who I appreciate and respect. But I would seriously caution anyone to do their own investigating before jumping head first into business relationships with this particular venture.
I am the Executive Director of the Association of Virtual Worlds. In other words, I helped Edita found the Association and now I lead and run it (and live and breathe it.) To learn about my years practicing law, advising global corporations on HR matters, and leading global IT functions for a Fortune 200 company, please take a look at http://www.linkedin.com/in/delchoness.
Since I started exploring virtual worlds, I have been cited as one of the most knowledgeable legal experts in virtual worlds, quoted in Forrester Research reports, interviewed, and asked to speak to large audiences about virtual worlds. That all said, the Association of Virtual Worlds is not about any single person. It is about its membership, its content, and its mission.
Edita Kaye is very engaged in virtual worlds study and follows developments religiously. In starting the Association she had a vision for a platform agnostic organization of people passionate about virtual worlds, with its own virtual headquarters for them to meet in and learn together. And that vision is coming true. In less than two months, the Association grown to nearly 1,300 members from or intrigued by virtual worlds of all shapes and sizes. The Association has announced its first title, The Virtual Corporation, a serious book on how virtual worlds technologies will impact the traditional corporate functions. The Association will be launching its virtual headquarters later this year. There are more developments to come for the benefit of the industry, but perhaps more importantly, that will deliver a compelling and thoughtful message about virtual worlds to a sometimes skeptical public.
By the way, in my extensive dealings with Edita, I have found her to be a highly compassionate and intelligent person with integrity.
I understand that people can say whatever they like in a public blog, and I absolutely treasure that right, but we need to focus on what’s happening in the here and now: a member focused organization, producing excellent discussions, and more to come, without any significant interference from any sort of hierarchy. Any questions, please contact me.
“Brendan didn’t touch on the other issues brought up in my post”
Dusan …
Sorry to have have let responding to you slide for a couple of weeks!
Frankly, I have not been “in the loop” (as it were) for the discussions of the details of the Metrics capabilities of Code4 Software’s “V-Tracker” in relation to its implementation in SlippCat.
I’m assuming that nothing is “carved in stone” at this point, and that the whole question of data collection is going to be evolving as we work through the beta … and I wouldn’t be surprised it the question remained fluid, adapting the system to the specific needs of different clients.
Anyway, the Metrics questions would be far better addressed to either Antony or Jared.
thanks,
- B.T.
Thanks Brendan. It’s um, tripped off a debate amongst others, and a more serious debate with a university prof friend of mine. Interesting, because there is an article based on some work out of Queen’s University in Kingston about public attitudes to surveillance and tracking - sort of concluding that, well, most people don’t care. They feel there are advantages to being monitored and their purchase patterns and behaviors tracked. I’m not entirely sure where I come down on the notion, I’ll say at the bare minimum there should be transparency and an option to opt out.
However, more on the more general notion of the advantages of data collection, the cons, and the role of privacy and identity in the Internet world with a series of posts to follow.
Dusan, you are letting yourself be easily whipsawed and brow-beaten by these people, and that’s a disservice to all of us.
Catch up on the issue that still persists for all of us here:
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2008/07/metanomics-fuel.html
1. It doesn’t matter if the tower is paying the host, and not the clicker — so what? The data scraping issue still remains as a privacy problem.
2. Code4 Software and the empire of Ancient Shriner and Chrischun Fassbinder that sustains their claim to “market expertise” in SL is what is at the root of the illegitimacy of SLIPPCat, and they need to sever the relationship or pressure these two cunning exploiters to remove their towers that deface sims and hijack other people’s business traffic on their tiny 16 m2 plots to scrape their data.
Code4 is a discredited business using unscrupulous methods now, inworld, in ways that are completely the opposite of what SLIPPCAT claims. Chrischun Fassbinder, who only just yesterday quit putting extortionist prices on his 16 m, gained his empire and his resources through this extortion for 3 years in SL — SLIPPCat should not be dealing with people like that.
And they have not stopped their view hijacking and eyeball hijacking. They are all over on sims where people DID NOT ASK them to come where they scrape data and take OTHER PEOPLE’S CUSTOMER TRAFFIC and parasite off it to use as data to sell their software to these much bigger outworld companies.
Dave Elchoness is merely engaged in distractions here, he must not have an inworld business.
Sorry, but outworld businesses and fancy old boys’ clubs like Metanomics simply do not get to pursue their brand of subsidized networking on the backs of inworld business, destroying their value by engaging in, or supporting, or whitewashing, unscrupulous business practices.