You Can Do Anything vs. It's Just Too Hard!

Sitting here behind my desk at the Templar Institute for Advanced Capitalist Studies, I began musing today over the two prevailing schools of thought surrounding Second Life policy, development and planning. I will illustrate these schools for your consideration and solicit opinions of each school's viability as a guiding direction for SL's future.

You Can Achieve Anything You Want

Those who subscribe to this mode of thinking assert that Second Life and its many riches are open to all, equally, regardless of background or interest. The thinking goes that with enough work and dedication, any resident can realize his dreams, be they simple ones of making SL pay for itself or grander ideas of paying some monthly bills or even making SL-related work your full-time job. A hall full of doors awaits the ring of keys that is your creativity, ingenuity, sense of adventure and dedication to task. Achievement is not easy, nor is it impossible. It is simply an option for those who wish to work for it. Comrades and strategic partners await you on this journey, but few from this school expect to be handed anything for free.

Those in this school achieve what they want through their hard work, and often resent attempts at undermining that work by restructuring Second Life to provide less mechanism for reward. Also resented are attempts to "give away the farm" to remove the barriers to entry that exist with any given business.

The selfish and shortsighted among this camp fear and loathe any new Second Life features that may make their current business models obsolete. Others realize that nothing is certain in business and embrace the often disruptive nature of a continually upgraded platform.

You Need Help to Achieve Anything

or

It's Just Too Hard!

Those in the needy school believe that any sort of barrier to entry within business just isn't acceptable. Initial investment is scoffed at and the assumption is made that Linden Lab's primary direction should be the nurturing of every last individual who might want to try to sell something in Second Life. Business models that would never be profitable on their own should be propped up by Linden subsidies and grants (the resulting effects on the economy are rarely addressed by this camp). There seems to be a general impression that the average individual is inadequate to rise to the challenges resident in the undertaking of a business venture.

Interestingly, those who seem to fall into this camp also often find themselves arguing against moves that would strengthen SL's economic stance and future robustness. These individuals believe not only that starting a business should free of investment and free of risk, but also that currency should be handed out freely to those most "in need" of it.


I won't pretend to be free of bias between these two groups; I think it's plainly obvious that I fall into the first. However, I think the difference between these modes of thinking is accurately laid out above. I would posit that the first is the superior guide for Second Life's future, assuming we don't cripple Second Life in favor of coddling deeply-entrenched business interests that are unable to cope with a disruptive landscape.

Enabran, I think you're almost talking about Douglas McGregor's Theories of Motivation:





So basically you have "Theory X" people who try to take the 'shortest, easiest path and want to engage in no work or take no responsibility', and the "Theory Y" people, who are naturally motivated to create, persevere, and see their goals through (accomplishment is its own reward.)

You can read more about it here and here and here ...

But it's a very valid observation, one that has been made a lot in the world of business, and probably a distinguishing characteristic between those who do 'succeed' and those who do not.

Fascinating, Michi! I have heard of the Theory Y and Theory X people before, but I did not think to connect that to this current discussion.

I suppose, then, that Theory X people who naturally avoid ambition and assume everyone else does too will attempt to argue in favor of a business landscape that is kind to the un-ambitious?

Very interesting! Much is explained with this connection.

******
executive summary: 1. business is not necessarily the primary motivator for players of SL; 2. SL is, at least in large part, entertainment and competes for entertainment dollars; 3. Rewarding the casual player increases SL's market presence by increasing account retention; and 4. Sl is a bad business platform since it uses artificial money and fictional names without recourse to the rule of law.

***********

This is based on the assumption that everyone who plays SL does so for reasons of economic advancement. The possibility that some do not see SL as a business platform is ignored.

While I recognize that SL is a primary source of income for a few players, and is a hobby that pays for itself for many more. How ever I would venture to say that for most people, it is entertainment, and competes for entertainment dollars.


The danger of assuming that everyone who comes here wants to do so to make money is that you alienate the casual userbase.

The casual users are the ones who are going to make or break SL as an open ended platform. If you want real money to come to SL, with real economies, then its got have something that draws people to it, that would make them choosing using SL over using the internet.

Thus I adovcate rewarding people for showing up, by giveing them a stipend. I advocate that people who invest tier in SL should get a stipend increase that is in some fashion proportional to their tier. And I advocate that people who create content that draws and keeps users in SL, should be rewarded in a way that goes beyond those who merely make stuff to sell. SL is a chatroom and paperdolls. If we wish to continue along the course of advanced paperdolls that make some money for a few people, then we don't need to worry about the retention rate for new players. If we want SL to be a comprehensive online service, or even the metaverse, then we best figure out how to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

In the long term the busniess model that will become obsolete in SL, as it grows, is that of the dominant indvidual producing content. As soon as SL gets big enough to be noticed, the big boys will figure out it is a place to advertise and they will come in. Some people with talent may be bought out and absorbed, but mostly they will be steam rollered, and it won't be enought to download some else's skin off the web and resell it.

For these reasons I advocate abolishing the linden all together as weall as abolishing the restricted last names. Make the USD the currency of LL, and make everyone subject to civil suit for misconduct and breach of contract in SL, they way they are on the internet, and viola, you will have a business platform-oh wait we already have an internet. Why exactly do we need SL to do business?

I don't care to much about power or money. As long as I can live a happy and healthy life, I don't care what I have. This is coming from a guy who is best friends with his dog though... >.>; I think my greatest motivation is a promise. I don't make many, but when I do I work my hardest to keep them, not just for a good reputation, but also because it's just a nice thing to do. I don't believe anything is too hard, but I do believe that under curtain circumstances that curtain things are impossible to do at that period in time, but you don't "HAVE" to do everything that you want to and sometimes I don't think curtain expections are even nessisary. I don't know where this puts me, but alot of people who meet me in real life seem to like me even though I can be alittle absent minded at times. Making people happy is one of my own dreams though. And just to be honest, I didn't completely read the whole first post, so I don't exactly know if this is a good response. I don't even know the half of capitalism. I do know that my personality leaves me very vulnerable to failer and attack, but I can probably accept that if it doesn't kill me.

The only point of my post was to address the thoughts and motivations of those discussing SL as a business and policy implications for SL businesses. Those who don't care or don't think about business don't really matter within this discussion because it's not about them.

As for why we need SL for business, why do we need real world sex shops or comic book stores? Why do we need to eat anything but bread, anyway? Variety and creativity. SL serves yet another creative variation on human interaction.

If SL were designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, then it would not appeal to anything but.

Who would make the content in such a case, Jake?

Well of coarse bussiness is what keeps things alive. I work and buy stuff I need. I'm simply stating here that alot of things I find unnessisary to have. I like SL because its fun, but it's just another material possesion if you ask me. I should move to a far away country or something. I know that alot of things can also be devestating to the world as a whole. I don't know when I'll muster up the guts, but one day I aim to eliminate anything about myself that I feel is destructive, which means giving up alot of strong hopes and dreams I have. I'd love the fix all the problems in the world today, but that is one of the hardest and ultimate things to fix, so you can see I've already set my hopes way too high. I don't thing bussiness is all that bad though. In any case, those are just my opinions, so sorry if anything I said here didn't really contribute to the topic.

Enabran (and Michi), WOW! Some of the best posts I have read in a while!

This also reminds me of a segment done by ABC's John Stossel. He basically put out an ad looking for people who generally considered themselves "LUCKY" and those who consider themselves "UNLUCKY." He interviewd them all and it seemed they mostly felt that their luck was the result of forces that acted upon them from the outside world.

He then give these people a series of tests.

One test was a puzzle where you needed to remove a little ring from a bunch of other shapes. It turns out the puzzle was a trick, the ring could NOT be removed. For the most part the people who considered themselves "unlucky" made a token effort then gave up. The people who considered themselvs "lucky" relentlessly tinkered with the puzzle until John had to pry it out of their hands.

The next was a timed test asking them to look through a newspaper and count how many photos appeared. However this doctored newspaper has a relatively large ad printed on the third page that said "There are 45 photos in this newspaper, you can stop counting now." The "unlucky" ones mostly failed to notice this ad and continued to the end of the paper while the "lucky" ones spotted it instantly and performed with shorter times.

You get the general idea. The point of this is that certain modes of thinking tend to be self perpetuating at the deepest level. When I started Second Life I could very well have looked at Neph who enjoyed a tremendous amount of exposure at the time and concluded "It's just too hard" for ME to be successful. I'm certain that line of thinking would have ensured my failure.

Something else people should remember is that the two mindsets Enabran describes are very difficult to erase as are the benefits/liabilities associated with them. While people in the "it's too hard" camp advocate changes to facillitate their own success, they should not expect too much even if they get those changes. Even when heavy handed efforts to level the playing field are imposed (even at the expense of the economy) the "You can do it" crowd typically manages to find other ways to success, while the "it's too hard" crowd STILL tend not to thrive even when the way is made easy for them.

Forgot about the third reason: enlightenment and innovation.

A lot of us are here because we see this as an opportunity to advance society by removing the artificial and uneccesary overhead of physics from the creation and distribution of goods and services.

We're also here because we see this a way to enlighten and educate ourselves and one another within a global context, no longer constrained by our geographical position but just by our imagination and our desire.

Of course, you may laugh at that, but then you'd be missing out on a huge sub-culture of SL that currently is in very high gear.

Ther eis huge money in appealing to the lowest common denominator, look at cable TV, or the overwhelming majority of holloywood movies. Look at car companies. Look at Isaac Mizrahi designing for target. Hell look at the entire internet.

People will still make a sell things, the economies of scale dictate it. For SL to become some sort of universal economic platform, or the metaverse, then you need to brign people to it. Solitaire is the undisputed king of computer games-more people play it than any other.

But from this basic influx of people, you build your markets. A Businness man should see a million people as a land of opportunity, but sometimes you have to sacrifice short term value for long term market presence. Ultimately of you put a million users online, and can keep them coming back, then the professionals will generate content.

SL is hugely under utilized as a platform and the current market model ensures that a few craftsman maintian a healthy income.

Sigh.

SL is more than just $$s and Tringo.

That's just the bootstrap.

I agree blaze. I think some of the profoundest inroads into expanding the potential fo SL will be made in education.

Eh, champ, so I guess you're not making any money from all that innovation, is that right?



Heh, Stossel. Some of the most fascinating newsmagazine-type stuff I've seen on TV had Stossel involved somewhere. He also did this great show on Hong Kong and other markets, examining how lack of government intervention was so helpful to business success.

As for your example, Aimee, I find the ring puzzle in particular to be fascinating. I think that the inability to acknowledge the impossible is so critical to personal and business success. The diligence involved in creating success is the most essential part. Intriguingly illustrated by Stossel's example there.

Hehehe... one of my fave books!

Now, I like reading theories like this. I can't quite say what others are apt to do, generally—that's not a forte of mine. I, however, can say, what I'm going to be doing.

Simple thing, I see too much OR instead of AND. People who say "I can't do this thing, therefore I cannot do ANYTHING". Which is unfortunate. Like, I know there are things in SL which I really wasn't cut out for... I've already given them a spin, so now I'm extra-focusing on what I know I'm good at. Other things I am continuing to develop. It's good to be aware of both your limitations and potential.

Weird thing in the midst of all of this is I'm quite a spectator—altho a participant at the same time. I just do not relate to some of these concepts... they have never been a part of my world. I don't think I'm the only one, but what has been established is that earlier in my life, I was more prone to giving up hope than I am now. Some of that was because I felt a void that has been filled by Second Life.

I'm a fan of "drunken master" business owners in here, those who make hard work look so easy (even to me) and stagger their way through staggering sales. And of course, are nice people.

Yes! This is such good advice. When I came to SL, I assumed I'd never know wtf was going on with scripting. At this point I am far from a master scripter, but I know so much more about it than I ever expected was possible for me.

And just as you say that, Francis Chung TPs me.

But Aimee I would submit that you would be in exactly the same position today if the stipend and dwell payments were doubled. Hardwork and talent always shine.

Ultimately those who seek opportunity will find it. They don't need to be coddled by the system, but the people who come a play casually who spend 10-20 buckes a month on linden, so they don't need a job, they are the ones who need to be coddled.

Incidently coddling this people, will like may the content creators more money. Take a look at what things cost in Project Entropia!

Of course it is hugely dependent on what the ultimate purpose of SL is? A viable 3-d alternative to the internet, or a small scale niche marketing platform? I don't know the answers to a lot of these questions, and I am not sure even LL does.

Aimee and other folks with similar wild potential would, of course, still be successful. They would also have prices that are double what they currently are. Which would leave us with people saying "Well, we need to quadruple dwell and stipends."

Sure, hell, let's start handing out L$5,000 stipends. Then the average cost of products will increase by a factor of 100 as well. Oh well, let's sell dresses at L$30,000 each!

edit:

"But, Enabran, Enabran! Then the L$5,000 won't be enough! They'll need more than that."

Y'don't say.

Enabran pretty much said what I would have said, Jake.

While I DO think the "give em more money" solution would hurt the economy, It wouldn't hurt the "can do" crowd. If the economic conditions became poor, we could find alternative means of success, trading services for RL money or bartering services.

Or, for the dry, technical version:

Saying "just hand out more money!" badly misunderstands what money actually is. Money is a way of dividing the total value of an economy; each dollar (or whatever) is a tiny slice of the "pie". Handing out more money doesn't make anyone richer or poorer; it simply makes each slice smaller. (Of course, as the overall size of the "pie" grows, printing money to keep pace so the relative value of each slice is roughly constant isn't at all undesirable.)

The virtual-ness or game-ness of any economy isn't relevant; it's as true in Everquest as it does in the real world. The only thing that changes is what is valued itself.

there is a difference between mizrahi designing for the masses, and the masses designing for Target (edit: to sell back to the masses... if that wasn't clear)

In the RL, people know that if they want to sell something, they either need to have a boatload of talent, or be prepared to do a boatload of work (either will work, but neither are guaranteed success).

providing more entertainment for the masses won't come from making business artificially easy (talk about a sinking ship!), but rather having talented people create better entertainment (for money or for fun, I don't care)!

You can have a great time in SL and ignore enab's post completely. You can create wonderful things in SL and ignore enab's post completely.

However, if you want to go into business in SL, then you should pay attention. The dynamics of business are what they are, in RL or in SL. You can change various elements such as distribution mechanisms or cost-of-goods, but the fundamental principles of how a business produces and interacts with customers, competitors, partners, and biz/regulatory/technical environment, all still apply.

As aimee pointed out, it's about mindset. It is hard being an entrepreneur, although much harder in RL than SL (so far... i agree with Jake that it will get harder). It is not for everyone. If playing-entrepreneur is the only "fun" thing SL offers, it will die, because most people simply don't want to deal with the full package. Thankfully, I think SL already has more to offer than this, although it needs to offer more.

yes, the can-do people tend to overcome

but LL is smart in realizing that they need to try to create as stable an economic platform as they can.

Economic instability, including things like runaway inflation, tend to kill all commerce and put a big damper on innovation. Entrepreneurship is hard enough as it is, without adding these extra burdens on top.

Of course if everyone leaves SL because it is perceived to be too hard, then no one stays around and noone buys the content that is created due to market saturation. Creators need new people.

And taking my hypothesis to a ridiculous extreme does not really do me a good service. At some fashion inflation is a sign of a healthy economy. We need some inflation as it is a relfection of growth. The question I have is how much inflation is healthy and where does it cross the line. If the value of the linden is going to float agaisnt the dollar then we have to look at real economic indicators and make a study of it. LL could always fixe the exchange rate and then we would be done.

Unlike in RL, users can quit if they get bored, get scared away, or get disillusioned. But that does not change the fact that we want them here. We need these people. What I often see from the content creators side tends to marginalize the tringo players, and ultimately marginalize the consumers. SL cometes for disposable income and is thus a consumer economy, not a creator one.

So even if want SL to be our happy little playground wher ea few people make a lot of money off of each other, growth benefits us.

But if we want SL to be the metaverse, to be a viable 3 type web browser, then we have to longer and deeper. The SL economy will, I think, hit a major turning point when RL corporations decide that product placement in SL is a way to advertise. After the IP shit hits the fan, a lot of people will be bowled under when Abercrombie and Fitch hires one or two people to make clothing and stores to place its product.

I know Aimee has the skills to compete or sell out. But a lot of people are not creating original content, and are making significant cash doing it. They will be in trouble.

I am not really intending to subvert the thread from its original assertion that ther eare two kinds of people in Sl (although I think the generalization puts SL in a bit more limited perspective). I am just pointing out that there is a growth dynamic present which is seldom dealt with by the crowd with the puritan work ethic. lol

Remember I always put myself in the lazy crowd, Because I lack talent and skill and ambition.

I agree about econmic stability and runaway inflation. the problem is that we don't know what the relationship between a stipend increase and inflation is. Its never a direct quid pro quo. double the stipend does not necssarily equate to double the cost.