RL advertising in MMORPGs

It's interesting that when we talk about RL advertising, we often leap to extreme examples like Pepsi and Ford. Products and services which connect in meaningful ways with our Second Life experience seem a far better fit for in-world advertising. I would not find it offensive at all to see a Poser ad near a telehub. On the other hand, an ad for Progressive Car Insurance would be jarring about out of place.

The good news is that Anheuser-Busch is probably not chomping at the bit to place Bud Lite ads at our telehubs.

However, it might be neat if they created a virtual Busch Gardens or Sea World based on the Stagecoach Island model.

Anyone remember the billboard wars during Beta?

The flip side of your point is that a resident only has so much to lose and is more likely to be aware of the real possibilities. There's nothing stopping an SL resident - including fear of affecting RW sales revenues - from doing all the things a company might do in SL... and much more. It's that power that makes the internet such a powerful leveling force. Of course large companies can throw more money at something, but that doesn't mean their solution is better or more effective. Taken at it's worst, the solution of an SL resident might be much more "creative" and hence more intrusive. For example, an SL resident might be less hesitant to employ the services of a grid bomber or hacker. I don't know of any RW companies who would risk being associated with that kind of activity.

If there's anything I've noticed, it's that RW companies and their advertising agencies still mostly think of virtual world ads as doppelgangers to RW mediums. It's what they know. The latest article over on Media Life on "connecting" with gamers is an interview with someone who laughs when asked if they're a gamer (the answer is, of course, "No". These are the professionals out there now directing these efforts and handing out advice.

Given these things, who's more likely to cause real grief to SL: the hungry, go-for-broke resident (with multiple CC's, logins, and proxies) or the protective, publically-traded RW company?


Of course. But concern for preserving that income stream will control their behavior. They need to ensure they have an "audience".

If putting advertising content on user PC's threatens their brand more than it helps and costs them money, they won't do it. It's that simple. Good example actually is Sony's complete blunder on DRM. I've already seen people openly claiming they'll never buy another Sony product. They've damaged their brand in ways that I suspect hurts them far more than their DRM protected their product. And now I have little doubt there are other companies out there sitting in board rooms today wondering if the risk to their brand is worth taking such action. And that's what it always boils down to: risk vs reward. It's also at the heart of my comment above. An SL resident likely has far more motive to push offending limits.


Two things here. First is that what makes SL "great" to some people is different than what makes it great to others. Even within SL. And for some people I've no doubt that what makes "Second Life great" is the ability to start a business, learn the mechanics, and try all sorts of crazy advertising stuff. We already have that and I've little doubt there will be more. So personally, I'm not comfortable being the judge of whether or not someone's idea of "great" is proper. Let's remember, advertising is what pays for the things "Don't Be Evil" Google is doing now which everyone is talking about (e.g. free wireless in SF), and has paid for free television programming for decades. Advertising is not eViL.

The second point as to why a company should care is simple, they only care if it's an "effective market". And that gets to something I always raise with people wanting to fight the "man" by downloading pirated stuff: vote with your wallet AND your attention. If people are angry at Sony, the worst thing the market can do isn't pirate their movies and music; it's ignore them. We need to take our money AND our attention and direct it elsewhere. This applies to any company that wants to make SL an "effective market". If they get a reaction - any reaction - then that's good (it's like those calls you get that say "If you want to be taken off our list, please press 9"; and of course pressing any number is an indication they got what they wanted: our attention). Consumers need to remember that the power is theirs. They just have to muster some restraint and self-discipline to harness it.

I guarantee that if a company came into SL and pissed off all the residents, resulting in a surge of private island sales so that residents could escape that influence, they'd view that as a failure. And not just an SL failure, but as one that extends into the RW.




See my point on the Media Life article.


No. But then someone needs to explain to me how a company ruining my experience in SL profits from me in RL.

They may do a risk assessment, "ruin" SL for some residents, and determine after-the-fact that their activity benefitted them. So what? I learned long ago that life isn't always fair. And again, who determines what is and isn't appropriate? Who determines what is or is not "great" about SL? We already have RL brands in SL. We've had "artists" and "designers" make all sorts of claims about respecting(!) the work and appropriating it for the benefit(!) of SL residents. We've had residents come out and say things along the lines of "Well, I can't afford it in RL so I'm happy that I can at least own it in SL". Who is going to draw the line at what is and is not appropriate? Personally, I'd rather the power be left to the consumer instead of handed off to some dictatorial policymaker.

Csven, excellent post! I second all your thoughts, very well put.

I guess I'm thinking of the presense of corporate sponsorship in conjunction with activities and events rather than billboards and shops dotting the landscape or on an isolated island. Great places are created but there is no way to financially maintain them. Difficulties faced by entertainers and event hosts include changes to the event payment criteria, the amount of dwell received relative to monthly tier, and the overwhelming expectation that one should be paid rather than to pay to be entertained.

It shouldn't surprise if this sector of sl warms up to the idea of including promotional activities into their venues in exchange for financial support. Such endeavors would likely provide top builders with proper reimbursement for their services as well.

Could a place like the popular Spittonie Island still be around if it was known as Brand X's Spittonie Island? I think of the utility company which bought a major concert venue in my rl area. You don't sit there all night listening to the music and thinking about the wonders of electricity. Yet, like the auto company which owns a major sports arena and which sponsors the International Jazz Festival, association with a fun activity is a benefit worth paying for.

I'm still taking issue with this part of this thread.

This is a fairly simple problem.

Advertising itself is not evil. Nor are the people that seek to use it. After all, they just want to get paid, yes?



What I'm referring to here is known as the "Affiliate Problem." A company rep would never try this sort of thing, but how about an affiliate of an affiliate of an affiliate?

Think of it as a tree. At the trunk is the actual product revenue stream. Branching outward, the marketing companies. Branch again, the individual campaign affiliates. And the leaves, the final affiliates that try these nasty campaigns. With each branch, control and understanding of the original point is marginally lost.

Affiliate networks are essentially what bring us adware and spyware, with real world companies paying for it unaware. And I could see them fueling that sort of "creativity" in Second Life as well. There was a good presentation on this somewhere, but I lost the link.



Essentially, bringing in a company is not a bad thing at face value. Bring the affiliates that go with the company coming to market, now we have a problem. It's like dropping a big whale carcass into the world. Sooner or later, the sharks come to feast.



I would go more in-depth on your points, Csven, but from taking a formal marketing class at the university level, I'll leave them with this brief statement:

The points you have raised assume the companies involved have the forethought to care about product in question or even the service they are using. With the affiliate problem, marketing becomes a slippery slope where no one can make heads or tails of what's effective anymore.

Google solves this problem by keeping the advertising at the first party level. Hence, they are still accountable for the content, and have even cracked down on third parties using their software illegitimately. That's an example of efficiency.

But Massive and affiliate networks would not be, and I fear the Lindens would not have the forethought to see this before it's "too late."

I understand the issue. However, the revenue stream starts with the major player. And while it might be more difficult in meatspace for a parent corporation to monitor the goings on with their product in some corner of the globe, the net has no such obstacles. Affiliates will increasingly be subject to the all-seeing eye of their corporate benefactor. Their performance will be tracked in ways never before imagined (built into the very systems they use to deliver their message), and they'll be held accountable. Does anyone really doubt that companies will want this level of control? And get it?

A whole lot of companies basically don't know what they're doing right now. But that's to be expected. There are people at high levels in many companies who still don't "get" the internet, will never register with a social networking app, and will likely never understand or bother to understand virtual worlds. Those companies will either adapt (by dumping these people) or fade away (by keeping them). The beauty of the net - and part of the strength of Anderson's "Long Tail" argument - is that the need for intermediaries erodes. Thus in the future, I believe we'll see fewer branches on the tree and greater efficiency in shaping brands. The feedback loop is growing tighter.



Under the conditions I mention above, the assumption gains validity.

Amen, reverend.

Here's to hoping that's the case before it gets here.

To be honest, I don't think it will.

So we have two issues really: (patiently) dealing with this stuff in the meantime, then dealing with the high-level idiots who deliberately do this stuff afterward.

It's not always going to be pleasant. The question for each of us is whether individual expectation is better or worse than how things progress.

I expect to see some things I don't like. But if I wanted a closed utopia I'd not be in SL. Sometimes good things come from bad experiences. And in the end I think there will be a balance with which I can live. More important to me personally is that I'm really curious to see what happens; more interested in the journey than the destination. I have a feeling a fair number of people in SL are similarly intrigued.