It's not a duck

[Warning: Individuals sensitive or allergic to criticism should avoid direct contact with this post or apply a topical cream prior to exposure. Thank you]

Have you heard about Second Life. You know, it's that MMOG that has no real goal other than creating a virtual life. Ok good. Have you heard about marketing in Second Life (SL)? Maybe? Well it's all the rage, Lego (story, via Clickable Culture) and American Apparel (story) have jumped on board. And check this out: Harvard (their paper here) & SL recently held a conference on "marketing in SL" in SL (that's not a stutter). In expected Harvard style, a lot of thinkers got together and they talked about how real-life companies should reach their audiences in SL.

Some people think SL is the next big medium of engagement between consumer and marketer. They think SL represents the future of virtual spaces. They say: to prepare for the future, you have to think about how to reach people in these spaces. Finally, they believe that SL, with its virtual-ness (and accompanying nose-thumbing towards the laws of physics and constraints of real life resources) will allow for marketers to interact with consumers in a way never before possible. They believe SL will show us how marketing will be done in the future.

I call BS.

Second Life is a facade. You know... like a building in a movie set. You open the front door and there's nothing behind it. That's right, these are not the droids you're looking for. That is, it is not the jacked in world of the Matrix. It is not the future as written by Gibson or Williams. It is not the virtual universe that everyone is waiting for. SL is an MMOPRG: a massively multiplayer online public relations game.

SL is being talked about because it hints at the Matrix-y things of the future. I am not doubting that the "game" itself has intrinsic value. However, everyone involved also benefits from the ancillary value of feeling like they are on the cutting edge of something. It is this other value that I think is being overplayed. SL is no more closer to a virtual life than WoW or any of the other MMO games out there, probably even less so.

The main argument is that because SL has no story, no "gameplay", it more closely represents a virtual world. But that's not true, it does have a story and its story is that it has no story. This non-story is what players consume and what made them sign up. Unfortunately, it is this very thing that makes it the wrong droid.

Let's compare SL to WoW. WoW players have immersion to something greater and a sense of belonging. There is a collective consciousness within WoW that brings everyone together. In contrast, what is the nucleus of the SL community if it has no story, no purpose and no vision? I don't think it has one, hence, it is a facade. SL players are more like tourists and vagrants compared to WoW players. In all those great visions of a virtual future, our real selves are lost to something greater. Without this greater thing, SL is a glorified chat room.

So let's face it, SL is a waste of time for marketers. When the real virtual world comes (and it will), the experiences in SL will provide little value (probably as valuable as logos on Pogs). I'm sure many marketers know this but until they stop looking good posing with the facade, they don't care. For example, did American Apparel really open up a store in SL so they can market to the 300,000 registered users of SL? I doubt it, 300,000 nerds that never get out is a waste of time for a clothing company. What it is is good PR and that's all that really matters to everyone involved.

That's why I call BS. BS to SL, the marketers, the press and all the talking heads. Y'all can pretend all you want but you're not fooling me.

[Update: Follow the trackbacks for dissenting opinions and interestingly, American Apparel's comment in Managing the Gray. Ok, I'll ruin it for you, they did the whole thing for fun. Damn, I hate being the cynical bastard. Excuse me while I go out and kick some puppies.]