"Angry avatars have taken virtual action."

That's right: the title is a quote. Although i wish i could take credit for such a cleverly devised statement, this time the cynicism is not my own.

As reported in American Libraries Direct (the digital monthly version of the not-so-digital monthly for-library publication), the Latimes has recently reported on the backsliding of "real world" commerce in Second Life in their article, "Virtual marketers have second thoughts about Second Life" (i apologize but viewing the essay requires registration by Latimes.com. But don't worry, you can always make up bogus demographics and give them a fake email addy).

Of particular note in this essay, "Ludlow (University of Toronto philosophy professor Peter Ludlow that is) isn't impressed. He said most firms were more interested in the publicity they received from their ties with Second Life than in the digital world itself. "It was a way to brand themselves as being leading-edge," he said." i have a real problem with this: namely, it isn't commerce--it's advertising. This reminds one clandestinely of bumper stickers of companies sponsoring a motorcyclist in some obscure off-road competition. For a bona fide Virtual Reality, which purports to having 8,000,000 members (of which one can expect to find only 30,000 unique users during peak hours), this sort of "commerce" is offensive.

It's like businesses have stopped taking Second Life seriously. In terms of Library 2.0, there's no doubt that Second Life posses a definite "emerging technology linking patrons and library service" (my words), but for businesses, that just doesn't cut it. Given the fact that "one of the most frequently purchased items in Second Life is genitalia." (qtd. in LA Times), and users often participate in furryism and hit on strangers at the same time, it comes as no surprise that traditional companies are having difficulty reaching an interested consumer base. What can Dell, Best Buy, American Apparel or Sun Microsystems to such a, shall we say, niche demographic?

Even Nissan's innovative "automotive amusement park" can really only go so far. Visitors are not buying cars. Such fiendish marketing results in less than profitable returns. For libraries, Second Life seems to be a viable alternative for hipsters and wannabes such as myself, but for corporations, who no doubt spend the equivalent of a computer programmer's salary or more on their Second Life coordinator, it would be more than difficult to see a return on their investment.

But... what i think is worse than a waste investment, is an investor who doesn't learn from his/her mistakes. IBM who has had a strong Second Life presence, is now moving to the greener pastures of There and Entropia Universe...

Excuse me, but... how is that different from the failed experiment of Second Life? Do they actually think the demographic is more receptive on those servers? Oh please. If you've seen one non-RPG-MMORPG you've seen them all. Besides which, there are FAR more users to be found on actual RPGs such as Worlds of Warcraft, Everquest, URU or the like. When many users on the same server can't even speak the same language (other than pigeon English), doesn't that... put a whole new spin on the term "International Conglomerate"? Of course i have no idea if Sony would allow outside commerce on their servers, it seems like those companies who invested so much time and effort on Second Life, if they're not willing to change their strategy, should at least consider opening themselves up to a far larger consumer base than can be found on There or Entropia Universe. When people forgo their actual wedding to have a ceremony on WoW... wouldn't said people want a company that could take care of all the trimmings?