Nexeus Fatale

Gartner reports that 90% of corporate virtual world projects fail within 18 months.  While there are several unknowns concerning the data gathered from the report, I am considering that Gartner’s report does not include projects that were closed but deemed successes, or is not intended as a permanent fixture in the virtual world space as failures.  Gartner discusses many reasons why virtual world projects fail (such as a performing a project for a ‘cool’ factor or a competitor has previously done so) and uses examples of successful virtual worlds (Habbo Hotel, Club Penguin and BarbieGirls.) This is an indication that there are challenges when performing a project inside virtual worlds such as Second Life or There.com and suggest that these platforms are not conduits for successful virtual world projects. I diagree.  I do agree with the message, corporations need to better understand the platform before hopping in to virtual worlds and expecting great sucess, but I fear that its steering people to an unsuccessful route.  There are many reasons why corporate virtual world projects have a large failure rate deals specifically with the approach not the platform or the technology.

A successful virtual world project contain many bench marks for success: resident participation, engaging content, specific goals, traffic, and reliable partners who are able to understand and navigate the virtual world landscape.  Many projects fail when they stick to generic content, expecting that people are going to return because they have arrived or created a social lounge.  The problem, especially in Second Life, is that the content, environment, and the social aspects are flashes in the pan if they are not evolving.  Stagnant builds, a lack of social events and activities, and crowded or laggy environments lead to undesirable results.  Some corporate locales in Second Life are hard to navigate, their social areas are not near the points of entry, events occur without any real end goal, and the audience is not specifically targeted.  Other projects have a large amount of created content for it’s brand, but do not take advantage of it.  In order to be successful, builds must be updated every so often, even if the updates are minor, there must be regularly scheduled social events, either gatherings, movie watching, live musicians or DJ parties, and you must stream line your build.  Even if you have a great looking build or weekly events no one will attend if they cannot see it.

Gartner suggests many successful virtual world projects are brand specific, what Gartner does not discuss is the time, lead development and the possibility that brand specific virtual worlds do not have the same infrastructure that an already existing world contains.  It is a lot easier, cost effective and a potential for more reach on an already existing system rather than building your own virtual world.  The reasoning is two fold, first you are going to engage users with a system that they already understand.  A new interface, controls, and workings do not have to be learned from scratch.  The second is that virtual worlds are primarily social, many people are not going to leave one virtual world for another unless they know someone in that new world.  Not very many people have multiple virtual world accounts.  The best way to make your project successful in virtual world spaces is to engage an existing platform.  As that platform grows, you also have the potential to grow with it.

Most projects fail because of their lack of understanding and engagement with other people in the virtual world space.  Much like the web, your content must be compelling, engaging, and entertaining.  My attention span must be held and if it is not, I leave but I will not recommend my friends to visit.  Although many corporations understand the use of the web for their content, they do not grasp the complete spectrum of the Internet. Turn a website into a three dimensional world and these same people are further lost.  What corporations need to consider are is using the talents of the experts, existing content, and incorporating it into their project.  A marketing build would benefit from existing, user generated games or content, for example, incorporating the 7Seas Fishing Game.

The same goes for advertising, a lesson I’m learning myself.  There are many media outlets in Second Life, many magazines, and places where you can promote your build to a specific crowd.  Talk to those media outlets, discuss advertising with others.  One great way to promote yourself is sponsor a live musician or a DJ’s show or the club and locale they frequent.  Not only will you have an artist promoting and discussing your topic, you will also have their listeners as well.

Gartner’s report seems to be more balanced than previous reports concerning virtual worlds.  While it talks to corporations and their virtual world projects it does not take into Second Life residents who have successful builds, businesses, brands, and projects.  Most of them follow a very similar approach, as outlined above.  While I have my faults, I do I agree with its conclusion that corporations should, initially:

… experiment with virtual world projects on a small, internal scale initially and pace their development to enhance the chances of success and minimise costs.

I would also like to state that scale in the virtual world varies on the end result.  If the result is purely for marketing and brand recognition collaborating with clothing designers for unique brand specific clothing, and sponsoring events would cost a lot less than having to develop a virtual world or deal with large development costs.  As the scale grows, that formula must remain intact; many corporations leave, shutter their doors, and do not leave anything to be remembered by.  If they return, they are returning completely from scratch and more than likely, will have to start from the beginning.