100608 Social Research Foundation Metanomics Transcript
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

100608 Social Research Foundation Metanomics Transcript

on

  • 707 views

Metanomics is a weekly Web-based show on the serious uses of virtual worlds. This transcript is from a past show.

Metanomics is a weekly Web-based show on the serious uses of virtual worlds. This transcript is from a past show.

For this and other videos, visit us at http://metanomics.net.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
707
Views on SlideShare
707
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

100608 Social Research Foundation Metanomics Transcript 100608 Social Research Foundation Metanomics Transcript Document Transcript

  • METANOMICS: SOCIAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION OCTOBER 6, 2008 ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: Good afternoon, and welcome to the fiftieth episode of Metanomics. We celebrate this occasion by unveiling the results of a fascinating survey conducted by Social Research Foundation detailing the interests and plans of over 1,200 Second Life residents, and we’ll be discussing those with Social Research Foundation’s director, Andy Mallon, and ThinkBalm’s Erica Driver. Before we get into that, I’ll be putting Joshua Fairfield On The Spot, to talk about issues surrounding policies protecting kids from sex and violence in computer games in Virtual Worlds. As always, thanks to our sponsors: InterSection Unlimited, Kelly Services, Language Lab, Learning Tree International and, of course, Cornell University’s Johnson Graduate School of Management. As you can see, we’re filming the show right here in a replica of Sage Hall, home of Cornell’s Johnson School. But most of you are watching from one of our event partners: Colonia Nova Amphitheater, Meta Partners Conference Area, Rockliffe University, New Media Consortium Educational Community Sims, JenzZa Misfit’s historic Muse Isle, which I should mention hosted a dozen or so Lindens today, looking at JenzZa’s rendezvous animator. And also we have our newest event partner, Orange Island. So welcome to all of you at all of those locations. You can all chat with one another and with people who are on the web, using InterSection Unlimited’s ChatBridge system to transmit local chat to and from the event partner Sims, the Metanomics Sim here where we are filming and the metanomics.net website. So this technology can bring you in touch with people around Second Life and on the web, wherever you are. And I guess I should mention the Lindens
  • were very intrigued when they heard about this product, so congrats to InterSection Unlimited and the good press you just got with the Lindens. So anyway, everyone speak up and let us know what you’re thinking. Today we are going to start our show with our On The Spot segment and put law professor Joshua Fairfield On The Spot. Professor Fairfield organized a conference at Washington and Lee University’s School of Law. The conference was called Protecting Virtual Playgrounds. It took place last Friday, and Josh is here to talk with us about it. So first of all, Josh, welcome back to Metanomics. JOSHUA FAIRFIELD: Thanks very much for having me, Rob. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: Well, it’s always a pleasure. For those who don’t remember, Josh was on Metanomics. He was one of our very first guests, talking about the limited role that contractual arrangements can play in governing Virtual World behavior. And now we’re really looking at that. One of the touchiest issues in Virtual Worlds and more generally online behavior and computer game behavior which is how it is affecting our kids and what content they can see and engage with. So, Josh, you told me that you were about as happy with who was at your conference as you were about what was discussed. So can you tell us a bit about the speakers and the audience and what you were aiming for? JOSHUA FAIRFIELD: Well, sure. First of all, the incredibly important Robert Bloomfield from the Cornell Johnson School of Management was there.
  • ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: I did a lot of listening. JOSHUA FAIRFIELD: A lot of listening and also a lot of excellent work on educational opportunities in industry models in Second Life. But also there were representatives from groups that I think don’t talk enough. So Yale University. Research scientist Dorothy Singer, who’s an expert on the meaning of play and the importance of play in the development of a child, was there. John Zuur Platten, who’s an industry insider, a video game producer, was there. We had a real range of people from industry producers to the academic psychologists who are really working on the effects of violent video games on kids. I think that range of opinion and the fact that those people were in the same room together generated as much excitement and energy as the topics themselves. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: I thought we might start by talking about one of the more memorable stories that--I think it was Brad Bushman who mentioned this--the story of Devon Moore. He’s a young man who played countless hours of the uber-violent Grand Theft Auto game, when he was underage. And he stole a car when he was 18. When he was in the police station, he stole a gun, and a guy who had never handled a gun in his life, as I understand it, shot three officers in the head, single head shots for each, and took off. And he was later quoted as saying, “Life is like a video game. Everybody has to die sometime.” So blaming Grand Theft Auto didn’t help Mr. Moore avoid a death penalty verdict. But survivors of the game, I understand, are suing Wal-Mart for selling the game to a minor. So let me start, Josh, by asking you: What is the legal environment right now for regulating
  • violent games and maybe games with sexual content? Where are we now, and what do you see on the horizon? JOSHUA FAIRFIELD: Well, where we are now is your standard regulatory tug. On the one hand, the ESRB and rating agencies would like to simply put ratings on the games, that state what’s inside them, and let parents make their own decisions. And then, on the other hand, there have been hearings in front of Congress that have said more or less we’re seriously thinking about regulating, especially the sale of games, even if Congress isn’t going to regulate the content of games outright, which, for reasons we’ll discuss later, I think they probably can’t. They certainly are interested in regulating the sale of games. And what’s interesting about those two regulatory approaches of where we are and where we’re going is that neither one of them really addresses the real issue, which is: What happens when kids get their hands on material they’re not supposed to have? What happens when they get into spaces they’re not supposed to be in or get access to violent material that they’re not supposed to see? At that point, it becomes a lot more complicated. And you mentioned the Devon story, and that’s a real tragic story, and it tends to divide the community between people who say, “This is a reason to really regulate,” and people who say, “Well, gee, lots of people play violent video games all the time, and they don’t go off and shoot anybody.” But I was encouraged at the conference. There was a lot more agreement than I thought on some of these very, very hard questions. Two points on which people agreed: First, I think people agreed that context is really important. We heard people say that, yes, even though they believed that violent video games cause an increase in aggression for children, the rest of the family history of the child is incredibly important. And
  • we heard industry executives say, “Gee, yeah, good parenting is going to be incredibly important and context as well.” So there was broad agreement on a few basic things, even though there were some stories that obviously are going to drive the community apart. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: You mentioned Dorothy Singer from Yale, who was one of the first speakers at the conference. So she’s written no end of books on the psychology of play. I thought she did a really nice job of setting up the discussion with this great Picasso painting of a child taking his very first steps, with his mother right behind him, holding his hands up. And Dorothy used this piece of art to illustrate the notion of agency, of self-directed willful activity that underlies so much of the play in learning that goes on. But she also emphasized the concerned assistance that the mother was showing and that kids need agency. They need to learn to exercise their agency within their boundaries that are set by parents and the community. And I think that really set the tone for a lot of the discussion especially--and I think this was something Brad Bushman emphasized--the use of play to rehearse essential life skills. And I think that is one of the concerns that you could have about this Devon Moore Grand Theft Auto case. Here’s a guy who never held a gun in his life, but had lots of practice with head shots in Grand Theft Auto. Before I let you jump back into the legal things, I did want to talk a little bit about some of the psychological evidence that was presented by Brad Bushman. He was an expert witness in the case against Wal-Mart over Grand Theft Auto. There were two studies that I thought were particularly interesting. In one of them, he had Dutch kids play against one another in a game, and, when one beat the other, they had the opportunity to make the loser listen to a blast of white noise through their headphones. It was a loud and unpleasant thing that he
  • played for us in the conference, and I could blow really hard into my mike, but I don’t know that my audience would appreciate that. But that would give you a sense of what it was like. And so the researchers manipulated whether the game the kids played was violent or not and measured how loud the winner would play the white noise as punishment and also how much the winner identified with the protagonist that they played in the game. Bushman called it wishful identification. And what they found is that the more the kids identified with their character in the violent game, the more they would crank up the white noise. We have a graphic of this, the Brad Bushman slide with the Dutch kids playing. Hopefully SLCN can put that up there. The effect actually went the other way with nonviolent games, where identifying with a character actually restrained the kids from punishing their opponent so much. Brad emphasized that the noise levels here were pretty serious. The average noise level chosen by those who identified strongly with a violent character were actually above the 100- or 105-decibel range, which is enough to cause some permanent hearing damage. I should mention you can’t do this study in the U.S. This was done in the Netherlands, where they do not have internal review boards that would probably stand in the way of a study like this in the U.S. And then Brad talked about another study with similar results, where the researches manipulated how large and immersive the visual display was for the game, and, again, they found a very similar result, that kids who played the violent games, with larger and more immersive displays, were more aggressive in punishing their opponents than the ones with
  • the smaller and less immersive displays. AUDIENCE: What games did they play? ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: You know, I actually don’t know what games those are. I think that they were designed specifically for the research study, but I admit I don’t know. When I put all of this together, I see that the same things the game makers are pursuing to make their games better, characters that kids can really identify with, and gripping immersive experiences are also the ones that seem to create more of a link between playing a violent game and seeing Real World aggressive behavior. Now turning back to the legal side, Josh, I guess I’m wondering do you see these advances in game technology themselves forcing a more aggressive regulatory policy? JOSHUA FAIRFIELD: Well, one thing about advances in gaming technology is that games are becoming advanced, and they’re taking a serious portion of the entertainment budget of the United States. And so just by the success of the technology, that’s going to drive regulation. Right? It’s not an immediate function of technological advance; it’s more a function of where the entertainment dollars are going, and that means the trial lawyers and Congress people are going to get interested in the technology. But moving to your more direct question--will what makes games good also drive our concern about the impact they have on children--it may well be that the better a play is, the more we feel sad or depressed or elated, the better. If we win a football game, it may well
  • be that we’re going to be pumped up for quite some time as we walk outside. I don’t dispute Brad’s findings in that respect. But I do wonder, you know, we don’t generally think that the amping up from playing a football game, for example, lasts all that long, nor do we think it has permanent negative effects. And the same thing with plays. We do kind of wonder, “Gee, is this going to make me sad for the rest of my life or depressed for the rest of my life if I watch Macbeth?” We need to study that. We need to know a whole lot more about whether or not these effects persist or whether or not they’re just simply a result of being immersed in creative media, just like plays, or in a game just like football. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: It’s true. In the discussion at the conference, there were two issues that people were raising, and one was that issue of how long these effects would last. In fact, it turned out most of these studies were allowing only something on the order of 20 minutes or less than an hour, in any event, between playing the game and then testing for Real World aggressive behavior. And the other, which was a question I asked is that apparently they haven’t done studies to see whether the effects are greater on kids than they are on adults. And that, to me-- JOSHUA FAIRFIELD: That’s right. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: I think there are some legal implications of that, but also psychologists are using experiments typically to identify causal explanations for what’s happening. And I think one of the causal explanations people keep putting forward is that kids are learning. Kids use play to learn. Kids are malleable. To the extent that’s true, you would expect to see bigger effects among kids than among adults.
  • JOSHUA FAIRFIELD: But I think there’s another side to this research, which is: What happens if we show that, as a matter of social policy, violent video games amp adults up? I mean I understand that everyone wants to sort of kick out when it comes to kids because we have a sense that adults ought to be free to do what they want. But, if the effects are the same for adults, then the social policy questions don’t go away. And on the other hand, even if children are amped up from playing these games, there’s a serious question of whether or not the parent should be permitted the right to let their child engage in this, at least some portion of the time. Right? You may not want your child playing football all the time, but once every couple of weeks or on a fairly stratified schedule seems to be just fine. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: Gives a whole new meaning to being a hockey mom, huh? JOSHUA FAIRFIELD: Right. Exactly. Given that fighting is sort of part of the game, and every team has a brawler. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: I wanted to ask you, Josh, about your own rather novel legal theory on self-regulation. As I understand it, the key impediment to more restrictive regulation of violent games is that it would be an abridgement of free speech. And you argued that, by providing an effective private solution-- self-regulation like the ESRB standards for example--game developers could make it much harder for public regulation to actually be Constitutional. So can you walk us through that argument? JOSHUA FAIRFIELD: Well, first of all, let’s just start with a couple of practical foundational
  • concepts before we get to the Constitutional stuff. First of all, I don’t think people like to regulate industries in the United States, unless there is a real demonstrated danger. We like to kind of get on with making money. So that’s one thing that I think really sort of pulls people up sort when they think about regulation. Generally speaking, regulation isn’t the answer to absolutely everything. On the other hand, as we’ve seen this week, right, calls for regulation come when we see a serious public downside. That’s why we’re hearing calls for regulation of Wall Street right now. So that’s one pushback. The other pushback is that industries have always known that, if they try to take care of the problem themselves, then that prior inclination to not regulate unless we need to is going to have greater sway. So all industries try to self-regulate first. And that’s not a Constitutional argument; that’s just simply a smart way to handle yourself when you’re considering the prospect of regulation. But then there is this further issue, and that is that, just like movies, just like plays, video games are speech. They are expression. They tell stories. They are the modern electronic narratives. And, because of that, Congress is limited with respect to what it can do in terms of targeting the speech itself. Now it can obviously limit how and when we can access the material, but it can’t just simply turn it off, eliminate it entirely, say, “Thou shalt not put X thing into a video game,” any more than they can say, “Thou shalt not put X thing into a play or into a movie.” So the critical question then is: What’s the legal standard restricting Congress when it turns to regulating video games? I’m not going to bore the audience, but let me just say this. If
  • there were three strikes for Congress in trying to regulate video games, they’d have been out a long time ago. They have tried again and again and again, with all of these different statutes, to regulate speech online, and all the different ones have been held unconstitutional because they’re overbroad and because they restrict too much speech. We finally got one this past year that passed Constitutional muster, but very narrow exception. Generally speaking, Congress’s track record in regulating speech online has been pretty miserable. So given that background, what’s the constraint? What are the courts getting bent out of shape about? The basic one is that Congress can’t regulate speech heavily if there’s a less restrictive alternative available, if there’s some way for them to get the result they want without regulating quite so much speech. And, in a lot of the porn cases, the argument was that filtering, voluntary use of filtering, would be more effective--and a Congressional Commission found this--would be more effective in blocking minors’ access to porn than a quite scary law that said anytime anyone communicates off-color material to a child, they could go to jail. As we’ll see, by the way, that threat remains right now. Cybersex is not a safe activity under our current legal regime. So the current fight then is whether or not private solutions, like filtering or like filtering for Virtual Worlds, ignore lists, that sort of thing that let us filter other people out of our existence, whether those kinds of private self-help solutions must be promoted by Congress first, whether they have to try that first before they say, “You know what? You just can’t say certain kinds of things because of the risk that a child might overhear.”
  • ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: I am looking at the backchat while you’re talking about this and seeing a lot of very interesting comments. Not surprisingly, it looks like a pretty pro-game, pro-free speech audience, given that most of them are actually in Second Life at the moment. Not too surprising. JOSHUA FAIRFIELD: Sure. Right. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: One person is saying, “You should have made the whole show about this topic,” and I agree. There’s clearly so much to talk about, and I think we’re going to run out of time. Actually, let’s just see. I guess the one thing that I did want to ask you about as a last question is: I guess the distinction between video games and Virtual Worlds is that, in Virtual Worlds, some of the content is coming from other residents. When we talk about kids seeing violent activity, it’s not necessarily something intended by the maker of the Virtual World; it’s something that someone else is doing. Similarly with sex. Do you see a big change in both the practicality and the philosophy of legal policies protecting kids in Virtual Worlds compared to games? JOSHUA FAIRFIELD: Yeah. I think that the big fighting question is, for video games, right, you can say, “Gee, you can’t put violence in the video game. You can’t put sex in the video game because a kid might look at it.” And, if that’s Constitutional, well, then that’s Constitutional. I doubt that it is as a blanket prohibition. But, for Virtual Worlds, the real problem is that targeting gaming companies and telling them to keep certain things, especially sex, out of Virtual Worlds just doesn’t work. Right? Because people can just come into the Virtual World, and the problem: a lot of the content is other people. And this is
  • true of even Virtual Worlds that are incredibly restrained in terms of what you can say and do. Right? One slide by one of the presenters showed people lining up to say swear words in a very chat-restricted server in Club Penguin. So if that content’s going to seep in as a result of the actions of other users, then targeting the game companies and saying, “Listen, you can’t have that in your game,” is just not going to be a viable alternative. And I think that there’s a real tension between the law and between practice right now. For example, you mentioned that, gee, the chance that a predator might get into a Virtual World and might then dirty-chat to a child, well, that’s true. And just like getting on the phone and sending a dirty phone message to a child will get you in trouble with the law, I think right now it’s a very nebulous area as to whether or not sending dirty text to someone who might or might not be a child would get you in trouble under the strict letter of the law. But, policemen on the ground seem to be following a quite different regime. Right? They’re following the usual “to catch a predator” model where they’re going to set up a Real World meet and bust the person when they show up, trying to make a Real World connection with someone that the predator thinks is a Real World child. So there’s a huge disconnect between the law as written and then our Constitutional standards and then the law is enforced. None of those three things seem to match up right now. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: Well, it sounds like it’s going to be an interesting decade ahead of us, and I’m not just talking about the fact that the Dow is down 700 or so today, but looking at how policymakers are going to protect children in the Metaverse. So I’m sure we’ll have you back on to talk about this. So there are topics we didn’t get to. I think, over the coming year, we will have various people, who I met at your conference, come on to Metanomics
  • and give their perspectives. So thanks a lot for joining us again here today. JOSHUA FAIRFIELD: Thanks very much for having me, Robert. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: I look forward to talking with you again. So thanks to Josh Fairfield of Washington and Lee University’s School of Law. Okay. Let’s go on and meet our guests for the main event. Andy Mallon is the director of Social Research Foundation, which has conducted a pretty comprehensive survey of Second Life residents. This survey has important implications for enterprises in Second Life. And Erica Driver, of ThinkBalm, is here to give us an enterprise perspective. So thank you, Andy and Erica, for joining me on Metanomics today. ANDY MALLON: My pleasure. Thank you for inviting us. ERICA DRIVER: Nice to be here. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: Let me start with you, Andy, to just talk about your organization. What is the mission of Social Research Foundation, and how did you get into this? ANDY MALLON: Well, to make a long story short, first, thank you for inviting me here today. I think it’s a fascinating forum. My background really is about 30 years in business magazine publishing. I helped mainly trade associations, like in the credit union field, the owners of the Practical Account Magazine, National Association of Credit Management. I
  • helped them with their magazines, with business development. Then when I retired in 2003, to make a long story short again, Business Week hired me totally out of the blue as a consultant on an education technology project. I was fascinated on what was being done in that area. I could tell you a lot about banking software and accounting software, but not educational. And that eventually led me to discovering Second Life. I felt like immediately I got what the potential was here. But what I did not see was how companies could properly do the research necessary in advance before doing something in this medium, such as knowing who you’re interacting with, putting together a panel of demographic attributes that match what you’re looking for. And so I got my board at the Foundation to agree to fund putting together this First Opinions Panel, and that’s how it all came to be. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: Okay. And so for this particular study that you did, you went out and you asked a bunch of people to provide questions. I guess I added a few in and so did Erica, and I’m sure you had a number of others. These things are not easy to do, from your end, and I didn’t have to pay a penny. So I’m wondering if you can talk a little about your motivation for conducting this survey. ANDY MALLON: Well, I don’t run the panel for profit. It’s a nonprofit organization. We do work, for example, for graduate students. We don’t even charge them or maybe just enough to cover at least some of the cost. A Fortune 500? Okay, they can help to pay the freight for the rest. What we felt was that, in the past year, Second Life has gotten kind of a bad rap, which is, I think, in a lot of the industry, there’s the boom and the bust cycle, where it was first considered the darling of the media. And I wanted to take a good hard look at really what should companies really know about Second Life that is outside the typical hype. Who
  • is in there, in terms of the people that have stayed in Second Life, the residents? What are they doing there? Which is the question I always get from corporate clients and prospects. And what are they doing personally? And what are they doing professionally? And finally, what are their plans for 2009? How does that compare to their involvement with Second Life in 2008? And so we decided to self-fund this study and really start digging for those answers. We’re happy to go further if some company wants to go further with us and fund something deeper. But at least take a serious look at who’s in there now and clear up a lot of this misconception that it’s just a game or just for sex or just for things that would be of little use to companies and also for them to get the idea that Fortune 500 larger companies can use Second Life for more than just the collaboration of their own staff. They certainly can interact with the Second Life population. If they need a select group of targeted demographics, we can probably provide them with that and rather quickly because they’re members of our panel now. We’ve got about 11,000 members and hundreds and hundreds of them easily could come together in a panel for most any job requirement they need. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: So I see a question that just came in from Austen Scanlan: How statistically verifiable are your stats? And I guess this is one of the things that I get concerned about with panel studies. You have 11,000 people, but, of course, these are 11,000 people who have agreed not simply to respond to a particular survey, but that they’re saying, “Yeah, I’m here to respond to a number of surveys. Let me know.” It’s more of a self-selected sample we usually see-- ANDY MALLON: It’s a fair question. It’s a fair question.
  • ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: How do you approach that? ANDY MALLON: Well, our first thought when we started this was to try to create a representative sample, but we ran into two interesting situations. The first is: Representative of what? Representative of people who have joined Second Life? We know that many don’t stay after the first hour or two. So then the question is: Is it people that stayed at least for a week or two or people that come and stay in Second Life, let’s say, an average of an hour a day or an hour a week? So what you make it representative to? How would you want to define that? And I found that that could lead us down a very long rabbit hole, not that it’s not significant from the standpoint of statistical analysis, but this gets to the other part of my point, which is that not a single corporate client was asking us that question. They would come with specific demographics and say, “Can you get me people that match the following demographics? And we need this by a certain deadline.” And that’s what we began to focus on after that. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: Okay. Great. Before we get into the meaty parts of the results, I did spend some time looking at who responded. I mean I guess this is a self-selected sample within a self-selected sample and that it was the first thousand, 1,200 or so people who responded out of the 11,000. ANDY MALLON: Right. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: But these people actually look a fair bit like what Linden Lab has published overall. And so just to summarize real quickly some of these things, the sample is
  • pretty much 50-50 male and female. The average age is in the mid-30s. Income looks like it’s roughly above the median for the U.S. somewhere. Median looks like it’s slightly above 50,000. And that’s not surprising since they all have computers that can run Second Life. The sample is maybe a little younger, I should say, relative to the Linden Lab sample, but not by much. So it looks to me like, while it may be a self-selected sample, it’s not a really strange one. So let me just talk about what I did with the data, and I think Bjorlyn Loon will, hopefully, paste in the link. Our discussion today is going to follow the post that I put on metanomics.net this morning, and we’ll more or less walk through that. And the very first thing that we’re going to look at is a graphic on why people are using Second Life, what the reasons are that they’re there. So one of the things we see is, people rated things as one, two and three; one being the most important reason that they’re in Second Life. And fun and creativity, the desire to socialize, those got lots of ones. And then there were smaller numbers usually in the 300 or so for running a Second Life business. A couple hundred for networking. A couple hundred for research. And more like, I guess lower than that, in the high one hundreds for bringing a Real Life business into Second Life. So it does seem like it’s a pretty big cross-section of why people are here. The first result running with that, that I wanted to talk about was how interested Second Life residents are and the residents of your panel in interacting with Real Life brands in Second Life. And what I thought, I’m just going to give my own opinion on this one because I’ve been on the record a couple times saying one reason that branding plays don’t seem to work all that well in Second Life and often result in bad press, my view has been Second Life, the experience that people are looking for in Second Life is often antithetical to
  • engaging with Real Life brand. People are coming into a Virtual World to create their own reality and to do things that are disconnected. Immersionists, in particular, they get very upset when someone breaks their sense of immersion into another World. So I was surprised to see relatively high percentages of your sample willing to express an interest in engaging with the brand. Now the natural critique here, well, these are people who have specifically said that they want to--of these 11,000, right-- ANDY MALLON: Right. Right. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: --they all say, “I want to engage with brands.” And so we could just be seeing bias there. But I went a little further with the data because often when we have a self-selection bias or really any other type of experimental design flaw, which self-selection basically is, we can address that, in part, by looking for cross-sectional variation. Everyone in your sample is self-selected into it, but we can make a distinction between what I’m calling personal and professional users. So I took that last slide that we looked at, that indicated the reasons people are in Second Life, and I said anyone who gave top ranking to running a Second Life business or networking with professionals or conducting research or bringing a Real Life business into Second Life, if they put any one of those as a one, I called them a professional user. And we had 458 of those in the sample. So more than a third. And the rest, 800 personal users. And so, if you look at that, actually the professionals are more likely to say they’re very interested in connecting with the brand than somewhat interested. About 210 are very
  • interested. Two hundred are somewhat. About 50 are not interested. And then if you look at the ones--there’s a lot less interest among the personal users, where, out of a much larger number, only a little over 200 are very interested, 450 are somewhat interested, and 130 are just not interested. So I guess I feel like there’s a little vindication, from my view, that the people who are coming into Second Life really as end users, as opposed to professionals, don’t seem that interested in engaging with brands. ANDY MALLON: I would just make one comment there. The question is: Interact with the brand how? If the brand has come in and not done anything or simply the resident has not had an experience with a brand in Second Life, then they might say, “I’m somewhat or maybe not that interested.” That’s the whole point I’m trying to make with this survey, which is, the brands should first do research with their target attributes in Second Life, to figure out how to promote that brand or use that brand within the virtual environment. If they can figure out the right way to do that, then that should begin to generate a lot more interest. But the residents haven’t seen that yet where the brands in the past built what we call ghost towns, and so the residents, while they express interest, then naturally those on our panel would be the most likely to be interested in brands. The fact is the brands themselves have not held up their end of the bargain mainly because the people from the brands, who came into Second Life, were usually not mainstream marketing departments, but were sort of at the forefront of the avant-garde groups that are sort of testing digital worlds or testing different media, but don’t necessarily understand that media yet. So I think this question is a good starting point for the discussion, but by no means is it the final picture of the role of brands and those [who have little?/AUDIO GLITCH] interest in brands.
  • ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: Yeah. Okay. And you do have some data which I did not put on the website. I sort of ran out of time, but there was some information on how people wanted to interact with the brands. It seems like people are really quite interested in participating, well, as they were promised, I guess, when they joined the panel, interested in focus groups and things like that. I was interested that they also would like to engage in product development with companies, which I think is good news for the enterprise users in Second Life because there is a lot of prototyping and things like that going on. ANDY MALLON: Yes. Yes. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: So let’s see. Let’s move on a little and talk about projections of the future. So you asked a question of how people anticipate their Second Life use, well, how it did change over the last year and how they anticipate it changing. So over the last year, the personal users, there were a number, well over a third saying that they used Second Life less as the year went on, with many fewer personal users saying that they’re going to use it more. And we saw the flip on the professionals. The professional users, many more of them are saying that they did use Second Life in increasing time over the course of the year. And we have a graphic also that I’m hoping now SLCN can put up on what it is that they are doing more and what it is that they are doing less. I would just like to point out that none of the numbers here have to add up in particular to anything because a lot of people they’re not planning on doing something more or less because they didn’t do it, and they don’t plan on doing it in the future. So you can see that the numbers of more and less vary a lot.
  • Erica, as an enterprise user, I think you have some thoughts on how to interpret this data on what professionals are doing more and less. You care to weigh in on this? ERICA DRIVER: Sure. So let me introduce myself briefly, to give people some perspective on my comments. My name is Erica Driver, and I’m a principal with ThinkBalm. I’m an independent IT industry analyst, and I focus exclusively on the area of enterprise use of immersive technologies. And so I actually contributed some of the questions about enterprise or professional usage of Second Life to this survey. I’m very interested in this data. So if you look at the survey question about what people are doing more this year versus last year, one of the line items--one of the answer options was professional activities, which includes training. And so interestingly, about 16 percent of the survey respondents said that this year they’re doing more professional activities in Second Life this year compared to last year, but then again there’s another 19 percent that said they’re doing less of this. So I’m not sure about the statistical relevance there, given the possible margin of error. But it evens out a little bit there. I’ll pause and take a breath and turn it back to you, Rob, if you want to comment on other elements of that survey question before we go into the enterprise stuff in more detail. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: Well, no. Let’s actually jump into that. I guess one thing that I would like to say is that when we look forward when we ask users what they’re thinking they’re going to do over the coming year, the results are actually stronger than they were before in the sense--well, first of all, I should say everyone, both personal and professional users, are expecting to use Second Life more over the coming year than over the past year.
  • And there are some, of course, who are doing it less, but the mores outrank the less by something like around three to one overall. But it’s 4.4 to one among the professionals and 2.6 to one under the personals. So it does seem like the professional users are pretty bullish in here. I guess, first of all, before we get into specifics, what’s your thought on why that might be, that the professionals are particularly enthusiastic about what they’re going to be doing over the coming year? ERICA DRIVER: Well, that one’s hard for me to answer the way you put it because I didn’t cut the data in the way that you did, which is professional users versus personal users. So if it would be okay with you, maybe I’ll answer a slightly sort of different question? ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: Oh, sure. Sure. ERICA DRIVER: So when we look at this data and we ask how people plan to spend their time in the coming year, there were about 16 percent of the survey respondents, 198 people, said they currently do use Second Life for business purposes related to their primary job. So then once you look at those and start picking that apart a little bit, to your point, more than half of them, almost more than a third of them, about 37 percent said that next year--oops I’m looking at the data a little bit strangely here. So about more than half of the time they spend in Second Life is currently related to their work. There’s still another huge portion, 41 percent said that they’re spending up to a quarter of the time on work activities. Another 22 percent are spending up to a half. So a significant portion of people’s time. Would this be maybe a good time to dig into what they’re doing, what kinds of work-related activities they’re--
  • ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: Yeah, let’s go to that. SLCN can pop up the primary job activities. I don’t actually remember the title of the slide they have, but go ahead and talk about that, and I’m sure they’ll get that up. ERICA DRIVER: I think this is one of the most interesting findings in the study. We asked the question, or I should say “we.” How erroneous of me. The survey asked the question about what kinds of work-related activities are you doing in Second Life, and some of the responses were not terribly surprising. Teaching and learning was the top of the line. Fifty-eight percent of respondents said they’re doing that in Second Life. Another 43 percent said that they’re collaborating with others to get work done. Forty-one percent are holding or attending scheduled meetings. So those are sort of the core of common kinds of activities that you see people doing in immersive environments like this. I’m surprised looking at this data is that 35 percent of those 198 people who use Second Life for work, they’re using it to visualize information in 3D, 35 percent. And I find this fascinating because now we’re really starting to get at what is special about immersive 3D. It’s the ability to use this technology to do things you just can’t do either in the physical world or in 2D. So if we’re trying to communicate some complex concepts or some complex data sets and look for implications there, it’s very hard for us to talk about that and to look at pages of numbers and flat graphics. But, if we can create a visualization, we can walk around it together, look at it. You might see that there’s a chip taken out of a pie chart or a bar graph on the back side that I can’t see from the front. So I can wander around the back and look at it with you. This is a fantastic use of what’s new about 3D. So it was encouraging to see that
  • more than a third of the respondents are using it for that. And another point I want to make quickly is that a small sample, but 12 percent are actually using Second Life to manage Real World systems. Much higher than I would have thought. I’m aware of a couple of fantastic examples: IBM’s been doing stuff like this. Implenia in Switzerland. Some fantastic experiments to-- ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: If we can just explore those for a minute. Now on the IBM one, are you talking about where they’re looking at their servers? ERICA DRIVER: Yeah. The 3D virtual data center. Exactly. They’ve built a middle-ware layer to actually be able to manage and operate the physical data centers from within an immersive environment. And it’s demonstrated within Second Life. I believe their production environment uses OpenSim, but that’s IBM’s story. And then Implenia, what they’ve done is they’ve integrated in a similar way the facilities, the building management systems. Implenia builds sky-rises and football stadiums and large, large structures. So they’ve integrated an immersive environment, in particular Second Life and also OpenSim, with those facilities management systems. And so, for me to read that 12 percent of the respondents here are doing something like that tells me there’s a lot of fantastic examples out there I haven’t yet heard of and would be delighted to learn more about. While the numbers are small, they’re very encouraging about people beginning to use 3D and immersive technology to do the things we can’t do otherwise. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: So one of the things that I’m wondering when I look through this list is, I don’t see the word “prototyping.” Do you think that some of the 3D visualization
  • respondents what they’re really doing is making things in 3D so they can see what they’re like, more cheaply before they start making them in the Real World? ERICA DRIVER: That’s a good question. And it’s kind of a fine line. If I think about concept visualization versus product prototyping or prototyping anything, it’s kind of a fine line. I just wrote an article on the ThinkBalm website about what some of the faculty have done out in Ohio at universities there. They’ve built not really a prototype, but more a conceptual experience in 3D, to allow the decision makers to experience what a motion tracking studio would look and feel like, to help determine if they wanted to make an investment in that. So it’s not really prototyping; it’s more like concept visualization, which someone could interpret into this question visualizing information in 3D or collaborating with others, so it could have gotten “munged” up in here, to your point. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: Let me ask--this is I guess going outside the data because it’s a question about Worlds other than Second Life. Everything you’re saying would also apply to other Worlds, and I’m wondering what your take is on how bullish and active we can expect enterprises to be over the coming year, outside Second Life, but in Virtual Worlds. ERICA DRIVER: When I think about where enterprise as a general category is with adoption of immersive technologies, I think of us as being in the seedling stage, very, very early on and with just experimentation, and that’s it. We’re not seeing any companies with enterprise rollouts across tens of thousands of people, but we will. You look at leaders like IBM and Sun Microsystems and BP and others that have been experimenting and are committed to this technology, they’re going to lead the way in, hold up the light for others.
  • And when I think about what’s happening here, I give it a five-year timeframe before this is mainstream. And that probably sounds very aggressive when you think about other evolutions like the web. I have three reasons for why it is aggressive. The convergence of technology, whether it’s bandwidth, software, graphics cards, make it possible for anyone, well, not everyone, but many people to have access to this technology, who couldn’t have before. So this is technology convergence. The next biggest reason is because of social networking. Because, unlike five years ago, people who have expertise and knowledge and passion about immersive technology can find each other and put their heads together, can solve problems together, can answer questions and point each other in directions. So I’m talking about Twitter and blogs and social networks. There’s just the possibility for people to push this forward that we just didn’t have before. So five years, mainstream. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: Okay. Well, from your mouth to God’s ears, as my mother would say. ANDY MALLON: Let me just add also, Robert. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: Oh, sure. Yeah. ANDY MALLON: This survey that we did included a Virtual Worlds market share study. There wasn’t room for that in your presentation today. Hopefully, by the end of this week, we will have all the charts done for about 50 questions that the survey contained, and those will
  • be available at our website, socialresearchfoundation.org, at no charge. Again, we making all these results freely available. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: Great! I guess I want to say thanks to you personally and to Social Research Foundation for doing this pro bono, doing the work for free, letting people ask questions for free and then publishing the answers also for free because I think it’s a huge benefit to the community of those professional users and people who are using this for their primary occupation. ANDY MALLON: Thank you. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: I know we’ve already gotten a bunch of hits on our website, as people are looking into this. I’d like to end by focusing on a couple questions, or I guess one question in particular that I contributed to the survey, which is the state of the employment market. Well, I guess there are two questions. I think we’ll have time to do them quickly. The first is: Who’s getting paid, and how are they getting paid? What is the form of their wages? And so what I did, this question basically asks: Are you getting paid by your employer in Lindens for work you’re doing in Second Life? Are you getting paid in tips, which, of course, are going to be in Lindens? Are you getting paid in Real World currency? Or are you getting nothing at all? And so I think the first thing to talk about is, among the personal users, 96 percent of them aren’t getting paid for anything. Among the professional users, still you only have 21 percent of the people getting any sort of payment for what they’re doing. And how are they getting
  • paid? Well, it tends to be Lindens most commonly, and that’s about double the number that are getting tips. But eight percent of the professional users so this is over a third of the 21 are getting paid in real currency. And I guess I see Perplexity Peccable is asking: What if you’re just told to do Second Life stuff as part of a regular salaried job? That’s a good question, and I’m guessing that’s primarily the people who are getting currency. I think a lot of them are probably saying, “Oh, I get paid in dollars.” And some of them maybe are saying they don’t get paid anything. But I’ve talked about this before. I think that there are a lot of people who are doing it in the interests of the enterprise that they’re working for, but it’s not something they’re actually being asked to do. They are seeing an opportunity and being intrapreneurs. So I think a lot of those people are also saying they’re not getting any. The last question on the survey is on the state of the employment market and what we find here, you know, I asked Andy to ask the panel whether it’s getting harder to find good workers or easier and whether it’s harder to find good paid work or easier in Second life. We’ve heard a lot about the employment markets within Second Life, and a lot of hand-wringing about the health of the in-world economy. It’s interesting that the most common response after “I don’t know” was for people to say “both,” that it’s harder to find good workers and that it’s harder to find good paid work. So my take on this is that it’s not simply a supply and demand issue. If everyone were out there looking for work and there weren’t enough jobs, then we’d have the employers saying, “Well, it’s easy to hire people,” and the workers saying, “I can’t find anything.” Or you could have it go the other way where the employees are in the easy seat. The fact that workers can’t find good work and
  • employers can’t find good workers both simultaneously suggests to me, as an accountant, that really what we’ve got here is a bit of an auditing problem. I think that the difficulty for employers is finding people who are really qualified and dedicated and to distinguish them from the people who are really just in Second Life for a lark and maybe think picking up some kind of job would make their time in-world a little more entertaining, help them meet people and so on. And I think these are all true, but it makes it difficult for the employers to distinguish the serious job applicants from the ones who maybe aren’t going to be as qualified and, more importantly, as reliable and dedicated as they need for Real World enterprise, even though the business and the work is taking place in Second Life. So my take, just to give a plug to one of our sponsors, Kelly Services, if you think about what companies like Kelly do, they basically provide an auditing service, not just doing a little of the searching, but also providing that determination of credentials, abilities, dedication, reliability and so on. And so I actually think there’s quite an opportunity for employment firms, like Kelly, in Second Life, as soon as the economy gets bigger. So let’s see. I see we are basically out of time so what I’m going to do right now is just thank everyone for being on the panel. Thank you, Andy, not only for providing the data and all, but for coming to join us and talk about Social Research Foundation. ANDY MALLON: Thank you very much for inviting me. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: And, Erica, thanks to you for providing your insights onto the enterprise segment of the survey.
  • ERICA DRIVER: My pleasure. Thank you for having me. ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: Thanks also to Josh Fairfield for talking with us about some policy issues. And check our website. I’ll have a post on there this afternoon talking about the issue of child sexual abuse in Virtual Worlds that we did not get a chance to discuss during the show. And let’s see. The last thing I want to say is, we have a very interesting show next week. We are going to have a representative of SL Exchange, which is changing its name to Xstreet, and we are going to talk about their name change as a result of Linden Lab’s policy regarding trademarks. But we’re also going to talk about monetization, buying and selling and supporting buying and selling in Virtual Worlds. Along with a representative of SL Exchange, we are going to have a representative of fatfoogoo, which is a company founded by people who have done a lot of monetization and micro-transaction support for mobile carriers. This is a company devoted to doing something similar in games. A representative from fatfoogoo will be Stevie Case, who some of you gamers may know as a championship gamer from years back, then a designer of computer games and now vice president of sales and business affairs for fatfoogoo. So I hope to see you all here next week. Bye bye. Document: cor1035.doc Transcribed by: http://www.hiredhand.com Seocond Life Avatar: Transcriptionist Writer