Regarding cognitive dissonance and SL

Something to think about:

When people get something for free, they expect it to suck. If they get paid to do it, they expect to suck even more.

If people pay a lot for something, they expect it to be good. If it isn't good, it doesn't matter. They will often defend it to the death, no matter how inferior it is. (See Apple Computer users, pre-OSX/Intel/Other things that make it not suck)

Stipends increase the perception that the SL platform isn't good enough to stand on its own, they have to pay people to play it.

I'm not advocating any particular position for future policy in this post. I do applaud the removal of basic account stipends though, for the reasons above. Just some food for thought.

(icky stream of consciousness response. I've tried to organize my thoughts better but I'm out of mental-glue today it seems.)

Managing expectations is certainly a tricky game.

Some people will reject a business based their promotional practices instead merit and value, but I think the majority would love to be bribed to play games.

What kind of demographic is likely to conclude that "SL must suck if they have to bribe players"?

Is it worth LL's time to find better ways to market to that demographic?

Would finding better ways to market to that demographic bring in loyal paying customers who can, in their own way, contribute to the long term success of SecondLife?

Personally, I don't mind businesses using discounts, coupons, loyalty cards or whatever else as customer incentives. I rarely USE them myself because I choose the business that get my patronage based on the merit of their products, services and convenience and personally prefer to leave the 'bribe' factor out of my decision making.

In a curious way... this perspective of "bribing players sucks" is related to the "buying game money = cheating" perception. One of the 'games' of SecondLife is to play for sustainability and/or profit. Both buying game money and accepting stipends could be viewed negatively by competitors in that arena.

But for consumers and tourists who are playing a different game, it's a matter of bargin hunting, best value and getting the most for the least. Being bribed is a bonus, not a drawback.

I like your observation... but I think anyone that condemns SL because of stipends is probably too busy being an elitist snob, and unlikely to have the interest to get involved, create or in anyway really contribute to our community.

Jopsy,

It's important to note that these are rarely consious thoughts. Cognitive dissonance is an unconsious phenomenon.

I don't think many out there actually think "wow they have to pay people to play, this must suck"... but rather their expectations are lower for it.

In economic terms (since we are in the economics forum!) this is called prestige pricing. Prestiege pricing is closely tied to cognitive dissonance, only concentrating on the part before the sale rather than after.

I think that for more experienced users, the version number plays a role in their underlying feeling about the worthiness of a product.

Because SL is in version 1.10, I think that some people feel that it should be at a certain level of maturity. However, more experienced users will realize that this is EXTREMELY early in a product's lifecycle, and be very happy with their experience thus far.

Version 1 of Windows sucked too....but I love my XP

Hmm.. there's also the lack of a fancy shrink-wrapped box product and the expectation adjustment that goes with 'just downloading something for free'.

I have to admit, I was rather skepticalat first, so much so that I dawdled around several times after hearing about SecondLife before I eventually tried it out. (Honestly, it took a friend actually demoing SL to convince me it was worth trying.)

It would be interesting to see if a shrink-wrap version would work out... but that would also paint it up more like a game and less like a platform.

And that would be a bad thing because......?

Lewis

Actually, they are not paying you. In the TOS it clearly states that L$ have no value.

It isn't real money, you cannot buy anything with it that is useful in the real world. If I go to a 3rd world country and buy things with their currency, I still have the things even if the country changes governments and they don't recognize the old currency. If LL should go under, I have nothing. Because nothing I've bought with L$ is useful outside of SL.

This was before Bussines week I guess

Dont let them fool you (or dont fool yourself), they now advert with making money in SL.

Andre: Hi, I'm Andre... I'm French.
Pete: Hi Andre, I'm Pete. Curious... You look English to me.
Andre: I hear that sometimes. I'm not though.
Pete: It really would be better if you said you were English.
Andre: But I'm not. I may speak English... but I'm NOT English.
Pete: And that would be a bad thing because... ?
Andre: Because I'm NOT! Are you suggesting my parents lied to me?
Pete: Well... maybe.
Andre: Merde! (fisticuffs and cursing ensues, then law enforcement, insurance claims, legal battles... )

Sorry. I got carried away.

That would be a bad thing because? Who said it would be bad?
The people that MARKET secondlife are promoting the 'platform' angle... not the 'game' angle.

A shrink wrapped game box is so unlikely to happen as to be futile to even consider it seriously, which is why my tone was rather dismissive when I mentioned it.