What Twitter can learn from Second Life
In a previous post I talked about how the Twitter = the new Second Life comparison was unfounded. Actually it’s unfounded in every way but one.
Second Life suffered from a long negative hype cycle and the same could happen to Twitter, a theme I went into in some detail on in Brand Republic.
Second Life’s downward spiral
In the first half of 2007, the virtual world Second Life had 600 media mentions in the UK alone. Then suddenly things changed.
Advertisers realised that their expensively built islands had a pretty bad ROI. The less salubrious sides of the virtual world were talked up. And the numbers came under increasing scrutiny, in particular the 85% churn.
These things were part true, part exaggeration
The worst possible interpretation of the numbers was taken. I’d say the marketing backlash was a case of sour grapes when really as agencies we’re to blame if what we do falls flat. And while the virtual sex angle exists, it can be blown out of proportion.
Detail versus sentiment
The arguments against the anti-Second Life momentum were based on detail. However the arguments for were based on sentiment – which wins out just about every time. It just seemed time to put Second Life back in its virtual box.
Fast forward to Twitter, and the Nielsen stats showing a 60% drop-off rate are being taken as gospel, with coverage far and wide – for example in the States, the UK and Australia. Never mind that as one industry journalist has pointed out, the methodology used could be suspect. It has a ring of truth about it, and if we’re honest it’s what some people want to hear.
So where did Second Life go wrong?
There are various factors. One – a steep learning curve – isn’t as much of an issue here. Twitter is also infinitely more accessible as it doesn’t require a high spec PC.
However in a post in January 2008 I dissected Second Life’s poor performance from a marketing point of view.
I wondered whether the owners of Second Life, Linden Lab, weren’t being honest about it’s real purpose and attraction. There was too much of a, ‘hey look there’s Bono!’ type reliance on celebrity endorsement rather than a sell based on the notion that virtual worlds can be places where you can become the “awesome you” – the you, you’ve always wanted to be.
Would that have positioned virtual worlds as places for social misfits? Well, I’d argue it suffers from this stigma anyway, and besides, isn’t the whole entertainment industry built on the premise of escapism from the drudgery of daily life?
Now it’s 2009, and look – here comes Oprah! She uses Twitter! But the problem with celebrities is they don’t really have an incentive to stick around, and right on cue the first “Oprah bored of Twitter” pieces have started appearing (not true actually.)
So if Twitter ever does get around to proactive marketing, the celebrity route might not be a good one to go down. Celebrities generate coverage and they do bring followers, but they won’t build your brand long-term. Instead, zero in on what the core benefits of the service is.
In Twitter’s case a combination of conversation, discovery and information. And those are benefits few people could take issue with.
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
Hi Tiphereth, thanks for the comment.
Like you I was involved in Second Life projects in 2007 and we owned an island for a while.
So it was fascinating to see it from the inside…and also to see what a wasted opportunity it was as whatever way you look at it, SL woefully underperformed compared to its potential.
The celebrity route is obviously good for short term awareness raising, but in terms of long term brand building it adds little – especially if the celebrity in question has no real interest in the brand.
Instead long term brand building has to be built on top of the existing community, including looking at the reasons why they participate.
Columbia University had an interesting study all about the dangers of zeroing in on individual ‘influencers’ in the hope they make things happen:
http://bit.ly/d5FDj
I have to agree with you on all counts, as I lived through the Second Life rise and fall myself. I was involved in testing out Second Life in a corporate setting as a social networking/training tool at the beginning of 2007 and then watched the ensuing media frenzy as it was touted as the next big brand advocacy platform. Even more ironically, I signed up for a Twitter account back then to find out about SL events, as many SL organisers were using Twitter to disseminate event info. Fast forward 2 years and its almost the same hype, now compounded with celebrities. The main difference of course is that Twitter’s flexibility and openess is its key benefit, it can literally be most things to most people. Whilst the hype continues to draw the masses, the vast majority of early adopters will continue to use it in the same ways they always did. And ultimately, brands jumping on Twitter will face baptism by fire unless they are willing to adopt transparency and authenticity as a modus operandi, and also to be aware their brand becomes “co-owned” by the masses who engage. I’m happy to see some brands demonstrate the right bravery and attitude, and ultimately will lead to more success for them in the new world of marketing.