Category: Opinion

The Privacy Zone

Posted on by Inara Pey

It is now some 20 days since the RedZone farrago came to an “end”. While that tool has now gone from Second Life, the wider issue of people’s right to a reasonable expectation of privacy while using the platform remains wide open – and Linden Lab remains resolutely silent on the matter.

Some might argue that the reason RedZone was removed isn’t important; it’s simply enough that it was eventually taken down. But the fact is, we do need to know why it went; was it finally considered to be in violation of the Terms of Service (ToS), or was it simply that the signal noise from the community reached a pitch where removing the device was viewed as the most expedient means of getting everyone to quieten down?

Beyond this is the fact that RedZone was not the only system grabbing information; some have been removed, others haven’t. Gemini CDS is still in use, for example; whether it is capable of account matching or not is irrelevant – it is sending information to a database under the control of a private individual outside of SL. Together with LL’s relatively low-key toughening of the Community Standards, it sends the message that the non-consensual havesting of user data – including that which might be regarded as “private” – for whatever purpose, is perfectly OK.

“Privacy is not something that I’m merely entitled to, it’s an absolute prerequisite” – Marlon Brando

While it is true that some link real life to Second Life as a natural part of their work, hobby or whatever, the vast majority are involved in SL as a means of stepping back from the realities of life and indulging themselves – and anonymity is important to this ability to do so. This point seems to be lost on the likes of Hamlet Au, with their constant (and completely inaccurate) cry that it is avatar anonymity that is “holding back” Second Life.

Even where people do link real life information with a Second Life account for business or other professional reasons, they may also wish to use alternative accounts to explore opportunities, activities and lifestyles that might cause them untold embarrassment if known to peers, family or friends. As such, there needs to be firm Chinese Walls between the accounts they create, and an assurance from Linden Lab that it is doing all it can to maintain those walls.

In short, any linking of real life to Second Life should always remain a matter of choice for the user, and never something thrust upon them by Linden Lab – and it should never be a matter of covert linking carried out without any form of explicit formal consent.

“The first duty of government is to protect the citizen from assault. Unless it does this, all the civil rights and civil liberties in the world aren’t worth a dime.” – Richard A. Viguerie

Linden Lab’s response to RedZone has been weak. There has been no public clarification of what will and will not be tolerated in terms of data harvesting within Second Life. While section 4 of the Community Standards now includes a reference to the sharing of avatar account information, it misses the point entirely – possibly deliberately so.

Attempting to regulate the sharing of data is about as effective as shutting the stable door when the horse has not only bolted, but is sitting on an exotic beach somewhere enjoying a quiet cocktail in the sun. Once data has been successfully culled from Second Life, then there is no way Linden Lab can prevent it from being howsoever those gathering it desire; and as RedZone ably demonstrated, when it comes to private individuals gather said data, it can never be assumed they are doing so with any honourable intent. Ergo, the issue is the gathering of such information in the first place that must be addressed.

Of course there are times when some information needs to be made available elsewhere – as the Linden Lab privacy Policy explains, certain services require data to be passed elsewhere in order for users to benefit from those services. There are even arguments to be made for LL pushing things like Profiles out to the web not only to ease server loads elsewhere, but to enable them to draw on possible advertising revenues through the use of the space on Profile pages. This is all understood and accepted.

What is not acceptable, however, is allowing people to attempt to drill through the existing Chinese Walls simply because it can be done (due to weaknesses in the Viewer software), or as a result of some unsustainable excuse (“the existing security tools aren’t good enough” – a weak excuse used when in fact someone is unwilling to take the time to use said tools properly, as this would inconvenience them far too much).

“I believe in a zone of privacy” – Hillary Clinton

A zone of privacy must exist for users of Second Life in order for us all feel confident that activating one aspect or another of the Viewer’s features is not going to end up in something unpleasant happening – or that we are being spied upon or possibly stalked.

While it is fair to say that no-one expects anything to happen overnight, the fact remains that time is passing – time in which Linden Lab have had the opportunity to do more to reassure the user community that they are in fact working to give each and every one of us a reasonable expectation of privacy. And yet, as it stands:

  • The Media Filter is still not available in Viewer 2, despite the code being available to Snowstorm for nigh-on a month. Instead we have bouncy bits; and while these may have a short-term “wow” factor, as soon as the code is available in the likes of Firestorm and Dolphin 2, which do have the Filter code, people will quickly switch away from Viewer 2
  • JIRAs such as SVC-6751, SVC-6793, and VWR-24807 – all common-sense measures to help provide areasonable expectation of privacy remain unassigned
  • Sections 4.3 and 8.3 of the ToS remain somewhat in opposition to one another
  • The Community Standards remain vague and the Privacy Policy barely offers any firm comfort to users in terms of safeguarding privacy.

It is understandable that the last two of these bullet points will take time to resolve – assuming they are being worked on at all. But given all that has happened around RedZone, keeping silent or avoiding the JIRAs and pushing back on the Media Filter – even as an interim solution – does not give any kind of indication that LL take people’s privacy seriously.

Frankly, people need the assurance that Linden Lab will not tolerate:

  • The creation, distribution and use of any device that seeks to link and / or make available information on alternative accounts by any means, either directly as an in-world device, or via any method using the Second Life Servers or via transmission to any third party database or server
  • The creation, distribution and use of any device that seeks to link avatar accounts with other ancillary information related to user accounts, such as IP addresses, for the purposes of alternative account detection or which may be considered by Linden Lab to infringe on the privacy and security of other users.
  • That such infringements of privacy include the subsequent distribution of any gathered information, either directly (by providing online access to the data) or indirectly (through the transmission of the data to any devices held in-world).

People need to see this enshrined in the Privacy Policy and linked to from the ToS. Beyond this, they need to have the assurance that both the gathering and the sharing of any information relating to their accounts over and above that which is available within the bounds of SL cannot take place without their explicit consent.

“Privacy is extremely important for anyone putting themselves out there, expressing themselves, or expressing a side of themselves through an avatar. People don’t want other people to connect the dots from their avatar to their real life person – or even, for that matter, to an alt. One of the ethical obligations we have is to protect people’s privacy.”

– Rod Humble to Dusan Writer, 12th Feb, 2011.

In an age where people’s right to privacy is increasingly being looked upon disparagingly – often by those who will go to great lengths to protect their own privacy – Rod Humble’s comments to Dusan Writer have considerable resonance among the Second Life community. It’s really about time that Linden Lab gave some indication they are taking this position to heart – not just with regards to integration with Facebook or whatever – but in giving us the fundamental assurance that our privacy when in-world is being duly safeguarded.

Further Reading

To market, to market; Extending SL Marketplace’s relevance

Posted on by Inara Pey

Metaverse Exchange (MVX) is, it would appear, dead. The site has been down for around three months now – more than enough time for any outstanding fees, etc., to have been paid – assuming there was sufficient money in the coffer to cover costs.

It’s a shame; Metaverse Exchange was one of the better, smarter-looking alternatives to the SL Marketplace (SLM), and offered its services to grids other than Second Life. However, in its wake, dare I say, it leaves something of an opportunity for Linden Lab.

It is fair to say the Lab has a very odd attitude towards OpenSim Grids. On the one hand, the Lab will openly mention OpenSim, discuss ideas and so on, but on the other – most notably in the forums – stomps soundly on any mention by users of any specific OpenSim Grid; almost as if by doing so, they can hide the existence of such places.

But OS Grids cannot be wilfully ignored. They are gaining popularity among consumer users and content creators alike. Indeed, many of the latter have found that, sadly, creations they’ve made turning up on other Grids – Grids they aren’t involved in, forcing them to engage in DMCA take-downs; a depressing action to have to take. Even Kitely, which has been widely lauded through the likes of Twitter, allegedly has misappropriated content within it.

Several people have commented on the Kitely situation, from several different angles. Of them all, Botgirl Questi hits what is perhaps the most common sense tone. Rather than trying to hunt down and stop illegal content pirates on a case-by-case basis, we should, she suggests, seek to set-up “transworld marketplaces” that would enable goods to be readily sold across different grids.

It’s a grand idea – but not easy to accomplish, as MVX demonstrates. Not only does it require the ability to manage multiple virtual currencies with a workable exchange rate; it also requires a decent volume of traffic from the various Grids that join the system.  More particularly, it requires the trust of those using it.

Step forward Linden Lab.

While it still has problems, SLM is the most professional-looking of the web-based marketplaces available to virtual worlds plus the majority of merchants active across other grids are already well-established within Second Life. Therefore, a logical progression might be to extend SLM’s reach into other Grids.

Obviously, doing so would not be easy. There would need to be support for multiple currencies, magic boxes (or whatever replaces them) would have to support multiple Grids or come in various flavours, the product pages themselves would need to support currencies and offer a quick and easy means for additional currencies to be added / displayed. Similarly, merchants would need to select which currencies they wish to have displayed, based on the Grids where they have a presence.

This latter point might be something of a sticky wicket in some respects: it means that Linden Lab could be said to be promoting competition. However, if LL were to move in this direction, the benefits to the company and merchants alike would probably outweigh the downside. Just three such benefits could be:

  • Providing additional commission-earning opportunities to Linden Lab which – given the way the company have been pushing SLM, must be somewhat viable and worth extending
  • Offering a further marketing channel for Linden Lab; as other Grid environments mature, the chances are the number of users they have who are not also engaged with SL will grow – and marketing through the SLM pages could encourage them to come try out SL
  • Giving SL merchants an opportunity to extend their reach into other markets, an important boost in the face of the flat line situation many are experiencing in terms of SL in-world sales.

Beyond this – and while it would not totally eliminate content ripping – developing a “transworld” SL Marketplace could well help reduce the incidences of content illegally ending up on other Grid environments, as Botgirl suggests.

MVX managed to develop an environment that could span a number of Grids: Second Life, InWorldz and (dare I mention it) Legend City. It’s clearly not wise to try to support all OS Grids that come along; some won’t survive (again, as demonstrated by Legend City). As such, caution needs to be practiced in any engagement with them; but again, this should not prevent so cross-platform development from occurring.

At the end of the day, the one real weakness that doomed MVX was most likely that of publicity and reach, the former impacting the latter and thus keeping the use of the platform pretty much in the realm of happenstance – merchants would use it if they happened to stumble across it; consumers would learn about it as they jumped over to other grids as a result of hearing their favourite merchants were investing time and effort elsewhere. This isn’t an issue for SLM, which has an establishing branding behind it.

Beyond this is the fact that OS Grids are maturing and stabilising. Over time, they will become something of more keenly felt competition where Linden Lab is concerned – and people will jump back and forth in search of new opportunities – consumers and content creators alike. As such, someone is going to come up with a viable replacement for MVX that can reach out into these emerging digital markets and capture them.

So why shouldn’t LL look at the opportunities that may be had and claim the high ground first?

Tell me a story: marketing Second Life

Posted on by Inara Pey

Grace McDunnough pointed me (via Twitter) at an interesting little tidbit of thought by Jonathan Baskin about the possible end of “silly social media”.

Before anyone gets too excited, it’s not a piece proposing the end of thing like Facebook; rather it is an examination of various efforts to use social media as a tool for marketing – and why, like-as-not, they fail.

Elsewhere, Tateru Nino offers up a post that starts to examine the new user experience. Leaving aside the fact she’s now gazumped me on two topics I’ve been wanting to blog about; Tateru makes a very valid argument that indirectly ties into the article Grace pointed me to. That observation is this:

“Linden Lab is rubbish at telling its story.”

Rather than constructing any form of consistent marketing strategy, LL seems to jump from idea to idea, randomly seeking something that will somehow, magically work and bring in new users. Along the way, they give the impression they don’t understand either their own product or those that use it.

The SL Facebook page is symptomatic of this – and a clear example of Baskin’s critique on blindly trying to leverage social media spaces as advertising mediums. Slapping supposedly feel-good items on a Facebook page and getting people to “like” it isn’t going to generate a noticeable upswing of new users entering SL; nor is boasting the “like” count – not when it largely comprises people already using SL. This is not to say I think having a presence on Facebook is “wrong” or not worthwhile. Rather, I find using Facebook in this way is akin to preaching to the converted rather than marketing to potential new users.

“A tale in everything” – William Wordsworth

In Business, Collaboration and Creative Growth I suggested there needs to be a renewal of collaboration between Lab and user community; that such collaboration could be used in diverse ways – including PR and marketing. This can be done through the use of a technique called narrative marketing – and it can be used to significantly improve the manner in which LL could leverage a presence on Facebook (and elsewhere).

Simply put, narrative marketing is using stories to promote and market a product – stories drawn from customer experiences, from situations, which can be drawn together into a narrative that engages the audience and draws them into the product; they reach into the heart of human interest and experience. Narrative marketing recognises that marketing is a two-way street, and that engagement with the consumer can be more effective than simply preaching to them or bombarding them with images and text or sending them hither and thither. It resonates with the audience because stories:

  • Are more memorable, evocative and interesting: they engage the audience
  • Generate identification and empathy
  • Are perceived as more unique and personal, thus generating greater acceptance and a sense of believability
  • Are more viral – we all tell and repeat stories.

The power of narrative marketing is that it is open to developing themes and ideas that can be easily repeated across a marketing strategy incorporating diverse mediums, almost like stringing a necklace. When placed within a common context, many different stories can be gathered and then strung together in any order, like the beads on a necklace, to create a range of experiences that attract several audiences while maintaining the same underpinning message.

The narrative approach can be linked directly with traditional means of brand development (strategy, identification and management), drawing them together into a narrative that focuses on communications and activities. It allows a company to say, “This is me”, with strategy, values and positioning defined by the narrative and channelled as stories that trigger memories, associations, experiences and expectations in the potential customer / user that cause them to say, “I like you. Tell me / show me more!”

“Storytelling is the most powerful way to put ideas into the world today” – Robert McAfee Brown

Second Life is a story-rich environment which can be woven into a broad tapestry of narrative and ideas that can reach many audiences, simultaneously.  Narrative marketing provides the means by which tools like Facebook might be used more effectively and potentially generate the kind of response Linden Lab is seeking far more effectively than a count of “likes”.

Consider what is more effective:

  • A page full of likes and a list of past events with a vague link to an even vaguer sign-up webpage (the current FB-to-SL.com situation), or
  • A series of stories, drawn from the rich diversity of the SL user community, that illustrate how Second Life is being actively used by role players, gamers, students, teachers, companies, entertainers, etc., the narrative naturally drawing the reader into a strong linking page on the SL website that further encourages them to sign-up and experience things for themselves.

Obviously, quantifying the narrative isn’t easy; let’s be clear on that. It requires a whole new approach to both the platform and the wider market. In this regard, Dusan Writer hit the nail squarely on the head when he stated at the top of his recent interview with Tom Boellstorff:

“During my recent interview with Rod Humble, the new CEO of Linden Lab, I had one major piece of advice: reach out to Tom and spend some time with him (and while you’re at it, hire an ethnographer to work at the Lab!).”

Hire an ethnographer to work at the Lab! Perhaps one of the most insightful suggestions ever given to the management at Battery Street. Hire a “corporate anthropologist” who can plumb the depths of diverse SL communities and activities, drawing out genuine stories which can be drawn into a narrative theme to market Second Life and persuade people to discard any preconceived notions of what SL might be about and come and see what it is about.

Part of the power of Second Life lies in its ability to be “anything you want it to be”; but unless this is quantified in some way, captured in a manner that people outside of Second Life can identify with, then it’s going to remain a nebulous concept. Rather than generating curiosity, it tends to result in a feeling of, “Yeah, so?” Quantify the fact people can be “anything they want to be” in terms of stories from SL itself, and you transform “Yeah, so?” into “Yeah! I want some of that!”

This isn’t actually rocket science; the fact is most people engaged in SL have been drawn into it through stories from others: friends and colleagues who have been a part of SL, or glossy pieces of journalism that have glamorised SL as the place to be. Stories, personal tales of what excites and engages, resonates far more strongly than a wall of miscellaneous photos or out-of-context videos; so why not use them?

“The answer is always in the entire story, not a piece of it” – Jim Harrison

Right now, the process of trying to attract new users, bring them to the SL website and get them to sign up is a series of mismatched steps that can lead to frustration long before the user sets foot in-world. Worse, some of the steps are either misleading in their presentation or – boring.

Tateru Nino, in her article, observes:

“Crafting an effective new-user experience for Second Life starts long before the user logs in for the first time. The Second Life viewer user-interface is not the most important part of a new user’s story.”

Simply put, there is no flow between, say, the Second Life Facebook page and the Second Life website sign-up process. There are no themes or threads that naturally lead from one to the other. The SL sign-up process is devoid of any charm: What is Second Life is at best meaningless as it doesn’t actually fulfil its title. Of the two videos supplied, one is misleading – much of what is shown doesn’t happen in SL, period; while the other (the Welcome Island walk-through) is boring; combined. Neither tells a desirable story; neither encourages someone to click on JOIN NOW.

Developing a narrative flow that runs seamlessly from Facebook to a restructured “What is” page that clearly and succinctly informs and which in turn integrates with the sign-up process could achieve so much more. The stories are the means by which people become intrigued by the potential of SL has to offer; leading people to want to know more, allowing them to be further hooked into wanting to sign-up, enticed by what they learn in What is Second Life. Everything becomes integrated, focused on the single purpose of translating interest into in-world footfalls.

“My major allegiance has been to storytelling, not to history” – Russell Banks

Narrative techniques can be utilised in other areas as well. Gathering stories from both staff and customers can give a clearer understanding of any disconnect in specific customer-facing functions in a company, such as customer services.  The use of stories from customers and staff alike removes the inevitable bias and preconceptions inherent in more traditional tools such as surveys, which tend to suffer from interpretations that find what is being looked for, rather than identifying where the issues lay.

The development of narrative requires engagement between an organisation and its users. As such it can clarify where and why communications are going wrong. Want to know why Second Life users are negatively concerned about how Linden Lab goes about implementing changes to the platform? Listen to their stories, and use those stories to build a process of engagement to ensure future changes are properly communicated alongside a means be which feedback can be given and demonstrate it is being heard and addressed. Help them through future implementation dips by letting them illustrate in their own words why it happened before.

Randal Ringer headlines 2011 as the start of the decade of narrative marketing. Second Life is ideally suited for a narrative marketing campaign that encompasses Linden Lab and the positive experiences that have grown out of direct user participation in the platform. Narrative marketing can naturally lead to better and more responsive engagement and collaboration with the user base as a whole; beyond this, it can provide pointers to how Linden Lab itself can better structure itself to deliver the services and support that the users can understand and appreciate.

Further Reading

Business, Collaboration and Creative Growth

Posted on by Inara Pey

“In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed”

The above quote, often – and possibly wrongly – attributed to Charles Darwin, serves as a worthy bookend to this piece.

Collaboration is a term frequently used in business to denote innovative strategies, projects, products and tools. It is stamped on marketing media and blurb as a hallmark of success. Collaboration indicates a company can create dialogues that can be leveraged into tangible benefits that generate growth for all concerned.

Over the years, Linden Lab has struggled to find a broader home – a workable market – for Second Life. In this they have been hampered by a number of issues, perhaps the biggest of which is the dichotomy of how to actually see Second Life.

On the one hand, it is a digital nirvana-in-the-making that will massively impact and transform the human condition; on the other, it is a commercial exercise. The former view is at the heart of Philip Rosedale’s perception of Second Life, as this comment from July 2010, demonstrates:

“Second Life and virtual worlds are going to profoundly affect the human experience, profoundly, and in a positive way. That is the mission of the company to make that happen and it’s my personal inspiration and dream to see that happen.”

In other words, it doesn’t matter whether or not Second Life makes money. But Linden Lab is founded upon venture capital – and so there is an emphasis on its ability to perform well enough not only to survive and return the initial investment, but demonstrate it can grow beyond it, attracting more capital along the way.

The SL Adventure was just Beginning

Rosedale’s view is firmly planted in the early days of Second Life. Back then the potential of the platform was untapped and no-one really knew what they had on their hands. Users were giving form and substance to the vision, bringing it into a fledgling reality; LL could afford to step back and encourage and tweak without overtly interfering.

During those formative years there were good communications between the Lab and users; policies would be announced, Town Hall meetings would be called; issues put into the public domain, feedback would be accepted and ruminated and acted upon. People had the feeling of participation; that the Lab and the community were on the same side. Where policy intruded – as with the 2003 Tax Revolt, the users made it clear it was the policy that was the issue, rather than making it personal, and issues were generally resolved with a degree of compromise on both sides.

The Undiscovered Platform

In November 2005, CNNMoney ran a piece on money-making in virtual worlds. This was followed a week later by an article by Paul Sloan, focusing on Anshe Chung, whom he referred as a Virtual Rockefeller.  It became the story that wouldn’t go away, rolling on for a full year.

Suddenly Second Life was the darling of business hype – without either big business orLinden Lab really understanding why. Businesses leapt onto the Second Life bandwagon without having any real idea why; they all just wanted to tap into this strange and hip new market.

It was an aberration. While it was true that with an enterprising bent and a desire to succeed, a person could make money from within the virtual environment, the opportunities for large organisations to do so were far more limited – if they existed at all.

By late 2007, the initial love affair was all but over. And while all the publicity had generated a significant upswing in user sign-ups, it’s very probable that those sitting in the Boardroom viewed the 2006/7 period as something of a missed opportunity. What exactly had gone wrong? Why hadn’t Second Life proven to be something that big business could recognise as a value proposition? What was missing, where did SL lack relevance? How could it become relevant once more?

Second Life 2: The Search for a Market

Out of this came what can only be described as a determination to refocus Second Life as a tool fit for business. To achieve this, the mystic vision that surrounded Second Life needed to be dispersed and replaced by something far more tangible and appealing that would cause big business not only to show an interest, but actively pursue the platform.

So 2008 started as the “year of change”:

  • Philip Rosedale’s March announcement that he was stepping down as CEO
  • The announcement that same month of the new Trademark Policy
  • The appointment of Mark Kingdon, a seasoned marketing executive, as the new CEO in April.

Kingdon’s arrival started the drive to make Second Life a “killer app” for big business; a drive which saw:

  • A redefinition of the platform as a service
  • The start of a drive to radically reinvent the Viewer
  • Engagement with the likes of RiversRunRed to develop “immersive workspaces”
  • The development of what would become known as the “out of the box” Second Life Enterprise (SLE) “tool” and Second Life Workspaces.

In moving this way, LL ignored a wealth of history that demonstrated that the best way for a young start-up to grow is to work from within rather than try to reinvent itself. Worse, it completely overlooked the fact that the company’s own working ethos, perhaps more than anything else, made it fundamentally incapable of achieving the desired goal.

Mark Kingdon departed Linden Lab in June 2010, the final admission that the Great Experiment had failed. While there was something of a minor rise in user sign-ups, over all, little changed in that period – other than the steady erosion of user confidence in the Lab itself, as I documented in Change in Second Life.

The Voyage Home

Today LL is in almost precisely the same position as it was two years ago: trying to bridge the gap  between early adoption and mainstream use. Even so, rather than accepting the conventional wisdom that the gap is best crossed by leveraging niche areas in the current user base, LL’s eyes have resolutely remained turn outwards, constantly looking for the Next Big Thing to which they can pin their hopes.

And it needs to stop.

The fact is that, far from being predominantly maladjusted individuals, as Mitch Kapor unfortunately inferred in his 2008 SL5B address, the SL user community is highly representative of the audience Linden Lab are seeking. It is made up of gamers, designers, builders, actors, musicians, digital filmmakers, role-players, artists, pundits, educators – the list goes on. What better way then, to actively promote the platform to the world at large than to tap into the wellspring of talent already using it?

That this hasn’t happened speaks volumes about a failure of vision within a company founded upon a vision. Fortunately, it is something that can be rectified. And it starts with LL re-establishing the trust that once existed between themselves and the user community. It needs to return to constructive, two-way communication and demonstrate it can:

  • Embrace the fact that while it may be a harsh critic, the user community is a loyal spouse, ready to defend, support and promote the platform
  • Accept that the community might just understand the nuances of the platform, and the hurdles that lay between LL and a wider market share at least as well as LL themselves
  • Help to better promote events within Second Life to the world at large through, for example, access to the LL PR team for those events that demonstrate they can reach beyond the current user base into new audiences
  • Work with the community to develop tools the community can use to pro-actively promote activities and events both in-world and out world
  • Provide the means by which the community can provides gateways from other media into Second Life so they can draw audiences in-world
  • Help to give the community the ability to effectively crowd source and create buzz

In short, Linden Lab needs to start collaborating with the user community once more and thinking more holistically about their product. Doing so isn’t going to solve all of SL’s woes (would it were that easy); but it will represent a major step in the right direction.

Regardless of whether or not Darwin actually wrote the quote at the top of this article, the truth of the observation it contains is clear: collaboration lends to success and growth.

Further Reading

Change in Second Life

Posted on by Inara Pey

Hamlet posted a provocative piece yesterday, broadly stating that the reason that Second Life’s survival is threatened because we, the user base, are resistant to change – so much so, that we actively prevent Linden Lab from implementing the changes that could very well save Second Life.

I’ve already responded to the piece once highlighting the fact that it is far more rooted in Hamlet’s own perceptions of precisely what form SL’s future should take (closer FB integration), than on any objective review of Second Life, Linden Lab and the user base as a whole. But in doing so, I didn’t really touch on his core assertion that it is the user community who threaten SL with oblivion because we’re unwilling to accept that Things Must Change.

Before I delve too deep, let me say from the outset that, in terms of facing up to change, Hamlet is right; we are all resistant to change. Any change that is forced upon us and moves us outside our comfort zones of relationships, environment, knowledge, culture and so on, is going to generate resistance; it’s human nature, no matter what the environment; home, corporate or digital.

But resistance to change isn’t the issue. It’s how that resistance is managed.

The Corporate Angle

A frequent issue that occurs within the sphere of corporate change is that of the “implementation dip”. This is literally a dip in performance and confidence when any innovation or change is encountered that requires the acquisition of new skills and new understandings.

People experiencing the implementation dip are actually experiencing two kinds of problem that are interwoven: the social-psychological fear of change (being taken out of their comfort zone), and the lack of technical understanding or skills to either make the change work, or to work within the requirements predicated by the change. As a result, they resist.

For change to succeed, the leadership must understand and be sensitive to the implementation dip. Those championing change need to be able to switch between various leadership roles: they must be clear on the reasons for change, the goals that will be achieved and so on – and must present them concisely and openly (authoritative leadership). At the same time they need to listen and understand concerns, doubts and fears as they are fed back to them (democratic leadership) and seek to build good relationships within the workforce, even with those resistant to the idea the changes being proposed (affiliative leadership).

Embracing any resistance to change is crucial if the change is to succeed; by forging relationships with those resistant to change, good leaders can gain a clearer, deeper understanding of the potential impact the changes they are championing are liable to have. Thus, they can work not so much to define a structure – something that is actually quite secondary to successful change implementation – but a rather a culture wherein people may not fully agree with the changes, but they can appreciate the reasons why they are necessary. Further, they can themselves become stakeholders in the process of change who can further guide and inform both sides of the equation – management and workforce – to ensure that the programme is implemented successfully and that needs and concerns are properly addressed.

Say whut?

So what, precisely, does all this have to do with Second Life, Linden Lab and the user community?

This. There are strong parallels between Second Life and the corporate environment when it comes to change. Linden Lab are the management; they ultimately hold sway over the future direction of the platform. And while I’ve always loathed the term resident when referring to Second Life users, the fact of the matter is, we are more than “just” users; we have an “investment” in Second Life in much the same way as an employee has an investment in the company they work for. This “investment” comes in many forms: creatively, emotionally, culturally – and in many instances, financially. We put hundreds of hours a month into the platform, we give it form and substance. We are very much the engine of Second Life, in much the same way as the workforce is the engine of a corporate entity. As such, we are potential stakeholders when it comes to the matter of changes to the Second Life environment.

It’s a unique symbiosis. No other fully viable, commercially-strong virtual environment has such an symbiosis between platform owner and platform user – not yet, at least. Yet it is one that has been increasingly overlooked by Linden Lab itself; this in particularly true of the period between early 2008 and mid-2009,  marked as it was by three core changes driven by Linden Lab that did much to undermine the unique company / user community symbiosis. These changes were:

  • the Trademark Policy change
  • the OpenSpace  simulator policy switch
  • the Adult Policy changes and Zindra.

Each of these changes were handled almost entirely coercively: what the Lab says, the users will do. Period. Scant regard was given to the implementation dip. Consultative sessions, if held (and some were in the case of the latter two changes) were anything but. They were presided over either by the people who were given the task of implementing the changes specified more-or-less “as is”, or by employees who – with the greatest of respect – had little or no influence in matters. In the case of the former, there was an in-built inability to accept there being any issues with the plans they had developed; in the case of the latter, consultation was reduced to platitudes and promises to “get back” to people, a phrase that became synonymous with, “I’ve asked and the answer is ‘no'”.

Collectively, these three events, more than anything else in SL’s tumultuous history, lead to the creation of the gulf that now exists between the user community and Linden Lab. As Botgirl Questi notes in her own review of the Trademark Policy change in particular, these evens marked a shift in emphasis in how Linden Lab viewed Second Life.

Up until the Trademark Policy change, the Lab had encouraged the user community to think in terms of Second Life as being a creative partnership between users and Lab, with a shared responsibility for growing the platform. This paradigm shifted with the release of the Trademark Policy; it sent out a message that the Lab now looked upon Second Life in an entirely proprietary manner, that is was their product to do with as they saw fit. It was a message reinforced through the handling of both the OpenSpace / Homestead sims situation and the Adult Changes.

It was also an attitude underscored by Board member Mitch Kapor’s keynote presentation at SL5B in 2008, in which he suggested that while great things had been achieved in the first five years of Second Life’s history, the “pioneer phase” was drawing to a close and it was time for the early adopters (the user community) to stand aside and make way for the “pragmatists” (aka “big business”).

As a result of all of these events the wider perception of Linden Lab became one of a company that resented its users, and would in fact be happy to see them go elsewhere. It is highly doubtful that this is what was actually intended. Neither the Board nor the management of Linden Lab are malicious; out of contact, yes; but not malicious.

But in business, as the cliché goes, perception is everything.

By taking a coercive approach to the changes in particularly, Linden Lab demonstrated poor strategic thinking. While coercive management might be useful for certain, limited situations, it is one of the two most negative forms of recognised leadership techniques an individual or organisation could adopt. As a result, the bond of trust between the user community and Linden Lab was severely damaged – and has remained damaged ever since.

Who To Listen To?

Of course, no company can ever succeed in implementing change if it has to listen to and address the concerns of each and every employee. Similarly, LL can hardly be expected to listen to each and every user when it comes to matters of improving or changing Second Life.  In fact there are times when listening to the users simply isn’t that good an idea.

There are also times when we don’t do ourselves any favours because – in fairness – we exhibit the same faults as Linden Lab; we look upon Second Life as our property and as such, we can be prone to rants rather than constructive dialogue. We become outraged to the point where the context of our concerns is overwhelmed by the aggressiveness we use when facing Linden Lab.

But that said, neither of the above is reason for the Lab to entirely stop listening.

Major changes to Second Life, be they technology or policy related impact both Linden Lab and the users. And whether either side like it or not, as far as sustaining Second Life as a viable entity, both are still joined at the hip. So where change is liable to impact a sector of the user community – no matter how “small” that sector may be perceived to be – the onus is on Linden Lab to adopt a more authoritative / diplomatic approach to handling the change, and demonstrate more engagement and moderation when facing the inevitable implementation dip. They have absolutely nothing to lose in doing so – and quite possibly everything to gain.

Closing the Circle

In his article, Hamlet makes the assertion that “Second Life’s community resists and fears changing Second Life, even to save it from its current trajectory, which inevitably ends in oblivion.”

This isn’t true. The issue is not about the user community resisting change, it is about how Linden Lab communicate change to the community; how they engage with the community through the entire end-to-end process of implementing change.

The bond of trust is strained; some might say broken. The fault for this does not lie within the user community itself. Despite all that has happened, the community remains committed to the platform. One might even say that far from being an encumbrance to growth and development as Mitch Kapor suggested in 2008 and Hamlet would have us believe now, the user community is potentially the greatest asset Linden Lab has.

But until the matter of trust is addressed, until the Lab show a willingness to change their own approach to the matter of change and how change is to be communicated and implemented, their ability to leverage that asset  and build upon its goodwill and experience will remain detrimentally hamstrung, and all of us will lose as a result.

Further Reading

Hamlet – out of touch?

Posted on by Inara Pey

Ann OToole tweeted a link to Hamlet Au’s latest article over on New World Notes. Now, I’ve always viewed a lot of Hamlet’s writing with a critical eye, I’ll admit. While there have been times I’ve agreed with him – there have been equal times when I’ve found his views overly biased and, well, wanting.

In the case of his latest post, I have to say I find him not so much wanting, as flat-out wrong.

It is Hamlet’s contention that the real reason that Second Life is flatlining in terms of growth is down to no other reason than – wait for it – we the users ourselves.  We are apparently so frightened by the concept of change, that we are in effect preventing Linden Lab from making the kind of changes that are needed to “save” the platform; that the Lab is somehow paralysed because any attempt at change is instantly met by a howling outcry that rules against ideas being implemented.

As evidence of this, Hamlet cites two of his recent posts – one of which was a contentious push of his own Facebook agenda.  Leaving aside his attempted change-of-focus of that article when he refers to it in his latest piece, Hamlet fails to appreciate that the perceived “backlash” against his post was not so much because it demonstrated a reluctance among users to accept and embrace change, but rather against his position that the only way for Second Life to survive is to get a lot closer to Facebook.

Arguably, the reverse is actually the case. While many might not agree with him at times, John Dvorak makes a reasonably good case for Second Life keeping away from Facebook.

In repeatedly calling for “closer ties” to Facebook, Hamlet seems unable to grasp something: Second Life IS already a social medium. It’s also something, in fairness, that is lost on some at Linden Lab.

Where else can one experience such a rich and diverse world of entertainment, interaction and culture in such a free-form, immersive manner? Facebook? Not likely. Second Life encourages more than yet another point-and-click, “do as we say” approach to digital interaction. It inspires creativity; it encourages a deeper social interaction – of actually making friends rather than simply forming a small, closed circle of (generally) family and close friends. It gives wings to the imagination for those who wish to soar – prims and (soon) Mesh give rise to magnificent and engrossing worlds and environments that go far beyond the two-dimensional point-and-click ethos of Facebook.

Almost a year ago, Philip Rosedale spoke about “breaking down the walls” around the Second Life garden. It was an impassioned address. While there may have been various nuances to his speech, I really don’t think he was talking about replacing one set of walls for another. And make no mistake, by comparison with the richness the depth that can be found in Second Life, Facebook is a constrained, restrictive world of glass walls. This is not to say it is without value for those who use it – far from it. But when compared to Second Life, it cannot come across as anything less than shallow by comparison.

Certainly, there are areas where links between Second Life and Facebook should be explored and accepted: while it is unlikely that Second Life is going to have a mass appeal with Facebook users, it is nevertheless true that some Facebook users could very well find Second Life attractive. As such, there is benefit in leveraging Facebook as a means of advertising Second Life and reaching out to a wider audience. But again, this is way different to (as has unfortunately been the case) – trying to drive Second Life users into the waiting arms of Facebook.

Leaving the Facebook issue aside, it is hard to see where Hamlet can definitively state the existing user base is stagnating Second Life. Yes, there are at times very vocal minorities. Yes, people do at time dig their heels in at changes. However, I’ve yet to see either of these actually stop Linden Lab for the most part from implementing changes. Outcry didn’t stop the OpenSpace farrago, the Adult Policy Changes debacle and the like. And in many instances, changes are actively being cried out for – like Mesh.

There are many issues with Second Life, sure. There is much to be sorted out, technically and in terms of policy and direction. But to suggest that the problems associated with moving SL forward start and end with the current user base is to shoot very, very wide of the mark.

Whether Hamlet likes it or not, the established user base is actually passionate about the platform. We care about it and its future. It’s why many of us are here after years of highs and lows that have seen us at times battered and cajoled. Fact is, we probably have a clearer idea of what could make Second Life swing than any single individual caught by his own bias and – dare I say – feeling a little hurt at the reaction to his repeated flogging of the Facebook pony.