13 posts tagged “internet”

Tomorrow marks the 1 year anniversary of the publication of one of my most popular posts to date: "Using Social Media to Sell Products to Kids...Interesting but Potentially Dangerous."  In that post, I talk at length about how toy manufacturer Ganz is using the internet and social networking principles to market and promote its very popular Webkinz toys to 6-11 year old children.  I expressed concern that the FTC and Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) aren't enough to protect kids:

Companies are marketing to children, soliciting information from them on-line, and asking them to read legal agreements, which are beyond their level of comprehension.  It is difficult for parents to watch out for their kids in situations like this.  If a kid thinks it is okay to input their information onto, say, the Webkinz’s site without parental permission, what is to say that same child won’t think it is just as okay to give that information to a stranger via another website?  Nothing, unless their parents are involved.

In response to that article, I've gotten dozens of emails and a handful of comments from parents, internet professionals, teachers, and others, all of whom agreed with the concerns I raised.  I was also pinged by a nationally syndicated TV morning show who was thinking of doing a story on the topic.  And despite all of this 'concern', in February of last year, The Toy Industry Association awarded Webkinz the "Specialty Toy of the Year 2007," and Webkinz and Lil'Kinz (another Ganz toy) are still hugely popular (and now collectible).  In fact, as recently as January 8, 2008, a retired Webkinz "Cheeky Dog" sold on eBay for $735!

Today, I received a "comment" on my original post from a divorced dad of four who expressed concern that his ex-wife is using Webkinz to "babysit" their eight year old.  "Hank," who works with computers and the internet for a living, defines his eight year old as a "Webkinz Addict."  His son has lost interest in "normal" kid activities (Boy Scouts, Little League, etc.) in favor of playing entirely with his 55 Webkinz toys, a trend which is "encouraged" by his mother:

This past Christmas, [my ex-wife] "promoted" that all should buy a specific Webkin to assure no duplicates! In gross dollars, the child received over $700 worth of Webkins, less than $40 worth of other toys and less than $50 worth of clothing!

How does Hank know how much his eight year old's other presents cost?  It sounds like Hank was the only family member that bought his son something besides Webkinz for Christmas.  I encourage you to read Hank's comment in its entirety. It's both frightening and sad.  It also re-emphasizes the importance of good parenting and the need for every parent to understand the potential dangers of the internet and toys that encourage their young kids to use it.

Hank's comment also re-emphasized my believe that the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) doesn't do enough to protect young kids whose parents don't know how to protect them from the internet.  It's easy enough to point the finger at parents to say that they're at fault for exposing their kids to the net, but it's also not entirely fair.  Most parents don't understand the dangers of the internet as well as they should, and the landscape is constantly evolving, which makes it hard for them to 'keep up'.  Most parents think that the 'danger' is in their kids stumbling across porn or sexual predators on-line, but internet marketing should be a concern as well, especially since children under 13 are extremely vulnerable to suggestion. 

The Webkinz website describes the toys as:

lovable plush pets that each come with a unique Secret Code. With it, you enter Webkinz World where you care for your virtual pet, answer trivia, earn KinzCash, and play the best kids games on the net!

Parents must see the Webkinz marketing copy and think they're getting their kids a great educational toy.  And yet, after listening to the explanatory 'tour' on the Webkinz site, I can't help but think that that the Webkinz proposition encourages an unhealthy level of consumerism and the kind of compulsive behavior exhibited in gambling and/or shopping addiction. 

Kids are encouraged to make "Kinz Cash" by playing games in an 'arcade' and entering 'contests'. They can use this cash to 'decorate' their Webkinz's virtual room. If they don't take care of their Webkinz by going back to the site ton a daily basis, the "health" of the Webkinz will deteriorate. Kids are encouraged to 'chat' with their real-life friends' Webkinz on the forum and to buy more Webkinz so that they can have more fun on the site ("Collect them all!" says the tour).  Given what a time suck the Webkinz site appears to be, I can't imagine any parent having enough hours in a day to supervise their child 100% of the time on the site and still have the child complete all of the tasks/ things that there are to do on Webkinz.  More likely, parents are, as Hank describes it, using Webkinz's website as a babysitter, while they do other things around the house, assuming that the site is an 'educational' tool and perfectly harmless to their child's well being.

Looking at the list of symptoms for "Pathological Gambling" as defined by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in conjunction with listening to the 'sales pitch' on the Webkinz site, I can't help but think that would be easy for a child to develop a Webkinz addiction like the one Hank described.  The APA says that having 5 or more of the following symptoms constitutes having a gambling problem:

• Preoccupation with gambling-related thoughts, plans or activities;
• Needing to gamble with increased sums to produce the desired excitement;
• Restlessness or irritability when attempting to cut down or stop gambling;
• Gambling to escape from problems or relieve an undesired mood such as helplessness, guilt, anxiety or depression;
• After losing money gambling, often returning to try to win it back (chasing losses);
• Lying to conceal gambling activities or consequences;
• Committing illegal acts to finance gambling;
• Jeopardizing or losing a significant relationship, job, educational or career opportunity because of gambling;
• Relying on a “bailout” (money from others to relieve a desperate gambling-related financial situation);
• Having made repeated unsuccessful attempts to control, cut back or stop gambling.

By supplying a unique cocktail of arcade games, necessary dependency on the site (your Webkinz will suffer if you don't take care of it daily by visiting the website), and ways to earn and spend cash, I wonder if the Webkinz site and product philosophy have the potential to encourage a child (like Hank's son) to rack up 5 or more of the above symptoms (or variations of them).  I don't have the same concern for 13 year old + focused social sites like Facebook and MySpace because:

• A user's online experience doesn't deteriorate if s/he doesn't check into the site on a daily basis.
• Users aren't required to earn money in a fake currency to purchase things on the site (though apps like AceBucks give users the option of earning/spending fake currency).
• The point of these sites isn't to play games (though users can do that). It's to stay in touch with friends.
• These sites are "free" and supported by advertising, which I'd hope 13+ year olds have at least some cognitive ability to filter.

(Though, there are other potential hazards for 13-18 year olds on some social networking sites.)

Thinking about WebKinz reminds me of the Joe Camel debate of the early 90s*  Just because something looks like it should be for kids, doesn't mean that it's good for kids.  In the constantly evolving world of social media and online marketing, it's tough for the average parent to tell the difference.  There's a fine line between teaching kids about the internet in a safe way, coddling them/ being over-protective, and exposing them to things online that could be harmful.  I'd love to hear what a child psychologist with a strong knowledge of web 2.0 thinks about Webkinz.

*According to Wikipedia: "Joe Camel was a controversial cartoon camel that primarily appeared in advertisements for Camel, but also appeared on "Camel Cash" and a number of origami Pop-up print ads. Joe Camel came under scrutiny as some considered use of the character to be advertising directed at children."

At the end of November, I published a Dear Abby-esque post on Plaxo Pulse.  In it, my friend, Paul emailed me to get my opinion on Plaxo Pulse, and I didn't have many (okay, ANY) positive things to say about it.  So, it was with great amusement that I read Michael Arrington's post on TechCrunch this morning - Plaxo Flubs It. 

I'm all for companies that creative to solve challenges, but not when they infringe on the privacy of others or the terms of use that other companies put in place to protect their users/customers.  I'm continually amazed by how many people and companies (especially in the world of web 2.0) are willing to cast ethics and good sense to the side to benefit themselves in the short term. 

Wouldn't it be great if instead of letting rogue product managers run wild finding ways to benefit their customers to the detriment of innocent bystanders, more web 2.0 execs started standing up for what the internet should be about - making the world a better place?!  As those first Google employees used to say,"Don't be evil."

A new survey conducted by Zogby International on behalf of the United States Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee was just published, in advance of the annual State of the Net policy conference, which is due to take place on January 31st in Washington, DC. 1,200 adults were surveyed between 1/24/07 and 1/26/07, and the results are both interesting and incredibly relevant to social media.

The survey highlights changing attitudes among 18-24 year olds in comparison to their older counterparts.  For starters, the survey shows that 18-24 year olds have very different perceptions of privacy than their older counterparts.  While 91% of the survey participants felt that expectations of privacy have changed with the introduction and usage of new technologies and the Internet, 18-24 year olds do not seem as concerned with traditional “privacy” concerns:

• Only 35.6% of 18-24 year-olds feel that it is a violation of privacy for someone else to post a picture of them in a swimsuit on-line.  This is in sharp contrast to the views of the 25+ year-old crowd, 65.5% of whom felt this was a violation of privacy.
• Similarly, 19.6% of 18-24 year-olds consider their dating profile to be an invasion of their privacy versus to 54.6% of all other respondents.

The majority of 18-24 year olds felt that children should wait “much longer to use all aspects of the Internet, including email and social networking.  More than 75% of respondents felt that children should be at least 13 years old until they are allowed to have an email address.  And, of this 75%, 40.7% of them believe that children should be at least 16 or wait until adulthood to get an email address.  65.6% of survey respondents felt that access to social networking sites should be restricted until children reach the age of 16.  More interesting still, 18-24 year olds felt more strongly about this than their older counterparts.

Commenting on the survey, Tim Lordan, executive director of the Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee said:

Whether health care, e-commerce or social networking, privacy is at the forefront of every major policy debate…  This survey raises questions that could significantly impact our policymaking on privacy in years to come, assuming the MySpace generation maintains their privacy views as they age."

I find the viewpoints of the 18-24 year olds surveyed particularly interesting- especially their conservative thoughts about when children should be allowed to access the Internet.  I suspect (though can’t prove) that the conservative attitudes on this topic are the result of intense exposure to the Internet, email, and social networking sites from a young age.  18-24 year-olds are probably more aware of the dangers of the Internet than most older adults.  

The Internet became accessible to the masses and deeply incorporated into formal education about 15 or 16 years ago, making the adults who are now in the 18-24 age bracket the first group of adults who may not be able to remember a time without computers or the Internet.  In the last 5 years that on-line social networking has become popular, adults that are now 18-24 years old were in the prime of their “internet education”.  By this, I mean that most of them were either in high school or college when the Internet became a ubiquitous social networking tool.  As a result, most of them had more free time than the average older adult to experiment on-line, doing things that their parents/ teachers/ guardians had no idea about.  The Internet and social networking were made an integral part of the fabric of youth culture for the first time, and like all other aspects of youth culture, adults weren’t nearly as familiar about what was going on as the kids who were experiencing it first hand.   Like most adults looking back on their childhood, I’m guessing that the now 18-24 year olds have begun to identify the youthful indiscretions/ mistakes they made on-line and can equally appreciate the opportunities and dangers of the internet more than average older adults, who haven’t experienced the Internet in the same way as those in the younger age groups.

The 18-24 year old viewpoints about age-limits for the Internet exposed in the Zogby survey combined with Tim Lordan’s comment make me wonder what will happen with the regulation of the Internet over time.  Will the US Government eventually impose an “age limit” on obtaining certain privileges on the Internet?  Will they introduce on-line identification program, in an attempt to “protect” children?  Neither of these options seems viable, given the “open” and multi-national nature of the Internet.  

In my post on January 18, I talked about the need for parents to protect their children from the dangers of the internet, while at the same time promoting personal accountability and responsibility.  I continue to believe that it is important for parents to make decisions about how their kids use the Internet. I also believe that worldwide governments or an international agency comprised of industry experts and child welfare advocates should provide guidelines to parents (not unlike is done for television or movie ratings).  However, I believe that if the government tries to regulate the Internet too closely, it will turn into a bureaucratic nightmare.  In my opinion, it is impossible for anyone, besides parents to “police” the Internet for children.  Others can only help the cause. To do this, security education and features should be made freely and easily available to parents from the moment they buy a new computer or download a new browser.

I was trying to come up with ideas for how security features could be made more easily available to parents.  The US government could help with this, mandating that all OEMs offer a specific level of security features with the sale of each computer.  They could also ensure that anytime a new browser is downloaded that owners have the option of installing the same level of security features.  So, when parents buy a computer or download a new browser, they are prompted to assign a password to each of their children and set up certain privileges/ levels of privacy - i.e.:

• Kevin – Age 8 – Password= DogCat22. Only able to access X,Y, Z website, and parental notification and activity logging is on. No email access allowed.
• Jenny- Age 13- Password= Hocus24Pocus. Able to access any website that is considered “safe” by the installed kid-safe screening software, but parental notification and activity logging is on.  Email access allowed to/from the following addresses: X, Y, Z (or to/from anyone at A,B,C domain – e.g. a child’s school) or between X-Y time on Z date when parent will be with child helping research.
  
• Peter – Age 16 - Password= 276BasketballFootball. Able to access any website, but parental notification is on.  Open email access to all addresses but parental notification will notify parents of who child is emailing. Not allowed to download a new browser.
• Amy – Age 18 – Password= Seven8Six.  Open access. No parental screening. Not allowed to download a new browser.
  

I'm sure the ACLU would disagree, but with a system like this, kids would actually have to talk to their parents about what they’re up to on-line and vice versa.  Similarly, parents would have the ultimate control on what their kids are allowed to do on-line and the ability to change these settings as/when appropriate (and preferably via their mobile phone from the road or their PC from work).  I'd much prefer to see a system like this than an overly legislated set of laws, that like the driving/drinking/smoking ages seem arbitrary and discourage personal responsibility.

I’ve talked a lot in this blog about how companies are using social media to capture new customers and engage existing customers.  Today, Advertising Age wrote a fascinating article on the success of Canadian toy manufacturer, Ganz, who has used social media and the Internet to spark massive sales of its Webkinz stuffed animals.  I’ve got mixed feelings about Webkinz marketing model and success. On the one hand, I admire the Ganz creativity. On the other hand, I question whether Webkinz takes marketing to children one step too far.  Before I explain this paradox in more detail, here’s some background…

Webkinz, which launched last year, are proving exceptionally popular among American children aged 6-11.  The success of Webkinz is so impressive that Advertising Age refers to them as “Beanie Babies on steroids”.  By November 2005, Ganz had sold one million Webkinz, without doing any formal advertising.  Ganz reports that this number was pushed “significantly higher” during the holiday season.  Instead of advertising, Ganz made Webkinz successful  by engaging a strong network of sales reps and retailers as well as innovative PR and social media strategies.  Bloggers and YouTubers started talking about Webkinz en-masse, which attracted the attention of the media and resulted in publicity on "Good Morning America," "Regis & Kelly" and "Rachael Ray."  Social media combined with the power of traditional press accelerated the sales of Webkinz.

Webkinz word of mouth success via social media is in great part to do with its web-savvy product strategy.  Each Webkinz stuffed animal comes with a printed tag, with a secret code and the address of what Advertising Age refers to a “safe” social-media enabled website for kids.  Once registered, kids can dress and feed their avatar Webkinz by earning “KinzCash” by playing games and winning quizzes.  Kids can also engage their avatars with other Webkinz avatars by inviting them to be friends and sending messages from a pre-selected list of options (Advertising Age uses the example “You are” and “very nice”.).  So, in effect, the Webkinz site becomes a mini MySpace for very young kids, without the threat of sexual predators. Imagine the success of Cabbage Patch Kids in the 1980s, and add to the “adoption process” the power of the internet and talking cartoons, and it’s not hard to see why kids can’t get enough of Webkinz.

The concerning part of Webkinz and similar products is the way that they engage with and solicit information from children.  When a child goes to the Webkinz site s/he is greeted by vivid cartoon images and written instructions.  When the child clicks on the text “My First Adoption,” a cartoon named “Ms. Birdy” appears welcoming the child to the “Adoption Center.” Ms. Birdy asks the child to read and complete the end user license agreement (EULA).  Webkinz’s EULA is a typical legal masterpiece.  It contains text that is well beyond the reading comprehension level of a 6-11 years old, and yet, without suggesting that the child ask for parental assistance, “Ms. Birdy” asks the child to read and agree to the terms contained within the EULA.  Included in the terms is a paragraph, which says that any feedback provided to Danz on the site will become the intellectual property of Danz. I understand why Danz has this clause in the EULA, but I don’t feel that it is appropriate to expect that a child can read or understand a legal document intended for adults. I take issue with any website that expects a minor-aged child to click through and agree to a legal agreement without parental involvement – especially one that claims ownership of any intellectual property that the child submits in the form of feedback for the site.

After the child clicks “I agree” to the EULA (which they couldn’t possibly understand), Ms. Birdy speaks, telling the child that if s/he is under 9 years old, her/his parents should help her/him with registration.  The site then asks the child to submit personal information into the website: first name, date of birth, country of residence, and state. Although, it is not considered personally identifiable, this information does not appear to be transmitted securely, which is concerning to anyone illegally watching a family’s internet activity or a child predator stalking kids at the local library.

The child is then asked to create a username and password and submit the secret code on the tag of their Webkinz animal.  This code allows the child to play in “Webkinz World” for one year from the “date of adoption,” with the option to renew after that year for a fee.  All of this, is, of course, explained in the EULA, which is too complex for a child to understand. 

While I am excited to see social media being used as an effective marketing tool, and I am pleased that DANZ complies with the Children’s Online Privacy Act (COPA), the Webkinz registration issues I mentioned highlight a larger issue of concern.  Companies are marketing to children, soliciting information from them on-line, and asking them to read legal agreements, which are beyond their level of comprehension.  It is difficult for parents to watch out for their kids in situations like this.  If a kid thinks it is okay to input their information onto, say, the Webkinz’s site without parental permission, what is to say that same child won’t think it is just as okay to give that information to a stranger via another website?  Nothing, unless their parents are involved.
 
One of the things that should be of growing concern to social media enthusiasts and child advocates alike is that there is currently no safe way to identify whether someone is a minor on-line.  Having a “second life” full of social media and networking on-line is becoming more and more common. In so many ways, anonymity is an accepted part of the Internet. This may hurt kids.  By this I mean, in real life, a child can’t go into a 7/11 to purchase porn, cigarettes, or booze, without showing appropriate age identification.  However, on-line, there is no such thing as an age identification. The Internet is largely anonymous.  As a result, there is no way to protect kids from seeing or interacting with inappropriate material, as there is in the non-anonymous “first life” – unless that material costs money and requires a credit card to purchase. A scary thought.

Thanks to technology and the Internet, the world is becoming increasingly transparent and accessible.  Social media is playing an important role in this transformation.  So far, most people seem to be responding to the power of social media favorably, and they’re using the power of social media for good.  However, there is a risk that the pendulum could shift in the other direction over time.  Below are the "5 Deadly Sins" of social media - pitfalls that proponents of social media should watch out for and proactively advocate against:

• Market saturation: There is a proliferation of social networking sites available – lots of sites are competing for users time.  Marketers are creating new social networking sites in record numbers to promote their products, and the number of traditional social networking sites (MySpace, YouTube, Bebo, Gather, WAYN, CyWorld, etc.) are also growing.  Users often use different for the same purpose but to meet different people.  If the market becomes overly fragmented, it may become less useful and more burdensome to user.  I hope that a natural market consolidation will happen eventually, but in the meantime, the industry runs the risk of users “burning out” from having to juggle too many different websites, on-line “friends”, different profile inputting tools, and passwords.
• Exploitation of social media at the expense of others: Social media makes it easier than ever to share information on-line.  While, the power of information sharing is good, it can also be dangerous in the wrong hands, enabling: fraud, misrepresentation of identity, identity theft, sexual exploitation, and unethical sharing of corporate or government secrets.  I just read an interesting article on the security risk that social media presents to corporations.  The same is true for governments and individuals.  The “Star Wars Kid”  and Paris Hilton were two of the first people to learn a thing or two about that.
• Eradication of privacy: This one is closely linked to the bullet point above on exploitation, but I felt it deserved its own section because it goes beyond exploitation because what is considered private to one person, isn’t necessarily considered private to another.  The Washingtonienne case is a good example of this.  Another example is that anyone can get an aerial photograph of your house at Google Maps or go to Zillow to find out what your house is worth.  Add location based social media services and mobile phones into the mix, and tracking people's location becomes easy via services like Helio's Buddy Beacon and Dodgeball.  While these are great services and they offer opt-in privacy, it's scary to think what could happen if either service were hacked.  Alternatively, imagine the damage that would result if someone's location information got into the wrong hands or was commandeered by a "friend" turned stalker. 
  
• Opportunistic litigation: Lawsuits like those filed earlier this week against News Corp. pose a strong threat to the health of social media.  If cases like these succeed, the rulings will send a dangerous message to the public: “You’re not responsible for your own safety or the safety of your children.  Someone else is.”  Unjustified lawsuits also stifle technical innovation and have the potential to strangle social media with excessive amounts of red tape.
• Opaque Marketing: Marketers are becoming more sophisticated about the ways that they use social media to their advantage.  It is already difficult to avoid pop-ups and other advertisements on-line.  And, with some social media sites, it difficult to tell what is advertising versus what is genuine, unbiased opinion.  Take, for example, bloggers who get paid by companies to evangelize products (I don’t, but a lot do).  Advertising on social media sites isn’t nearly as transparent as it should be, and social media runs the risk of being tarnished by overzealous marketers.

1/22/07 UPDATE: Thanks everyone for your insightful comments.  I just read a great article by Mark Zielinski, a UK-based security engineer.  The article talks about the threat that social media poses to corporate security.  In the article, Mark talks about how employees use their work computers to check their social networking pages and that this poses a threat to corporate networks.  Unsurprisingly, employees checking social media sites rather than doing work probably, has an impact on productivity - even more so than personal email. With these two points in mind, I'd like to add "Bringing Down the Corporation" as the 6th deadly sin of Social Media.

Today, the Associated Press reported, that four families filed separate lawsuits against News Corp (MySpace), claiming that their 14 and 15 year old daughters were sexually assaulted by pedophiles they met on-line.  The families, located in New York, Texas, Pennsylvania and South Carolina, are seeking millions of dollars damages, claiming that MySpace didn’t initiate strong enough security measures to protect their children from solicitation from adults. Jason A. Itkin, a lawyer with Arnold & Itkin, one of the law firms representing one of the suits said:

"In our view, MySpace waited entirely too long to attempt to institute meaningful security measures that effectively increase the safety of their underage users… Hopefully these lawsuits can spur MySpace into action and prevent this from happening to another child somewhere.”

These lawsuits aren’t the first of their kind.  In June 2005, a mother in Texas sued MySpace and News Corp for $30,000,000 in damages, claiming that her 14-year old daughter was sexually assaulted by a 19 year old man, who it is alleged, lied to the girl by claiming he was a senior in high school and luring her into a false sense of trust.

In response to the lawsuits filed today, Hemanshu Nigam, MySpace's chief security officer, issued a statement saying:

MySpace serves as an industry leader on Internet safety and we take proactive measures to protect our members… We provide users with a range of tools to enable a safer online experience.

Nigam went on to discuss the responsibility of users and their parents to “engage in open family dialogue” about on-line safety, transferring valuable off-line lessons to on-line interactions.  The most recent step in the right direction came when MySpace announced that it would introduce parental notification.  (I'll be interested to see how that works.)

While it is a sad reality that creepy people (including sexual predators) exist and that pedophiles use social networking sites to target children, I agree with Nigam.  Social networking websites must take security seriously.  However, it is right to blame social networking sites for the criminal activity of their members.  Doing so devalues the importance of parental responsibility, stifles technical innovation within social media, and perpetuates what is already an overly litigious culture in America.  

Criminals are to blame for their own criminal behavior.  Parents have the responsibility to educate themselves and their children about the dangers that exist on-line and talk about how to avoid them.  The tough part is that because technology and “what’s cool to kids” changes quickly, it is difficult for the average parent to keep up to speed.  

Organizations like Perverted Justice are doing their part to seek out on-line predators.  I wonder whether the world would benefit from a new, multi-national public-private partnership, whose aim is to educate parents and kids about the dangers that exist on-line (how to avoid them, how to report suspicious or unlawful behavior, etc.).  Regionally, members of this partnership could focus on developing legislation that protects kids.  I’d like to believe that this idea could work, but I’m realistic enough to know that it would be an uphill battle, likely fraught with bureaucracy and red tape.  

Citizens of the world have identified a problem that is crying out for a strong, targeted, and evolving solution. While I don’t propose to know what the answer is, suing MySpace isn't it.

If you have ideas, post a commment. If you aren't a VOX user and want to tell me what you think, email me: socialmediablog@gmail.com.

There is a great article in the January 15 issue of BusinessWeek on Web 2.0 and Social Media in China: "China: Falling Hard for Web 2.0".  Check it out!

With all my talk in earlier blogs about the benefit of companies employing a social media strategy, I thought that it would be a good idea to review a product that enables companies to build their own social media empire.  Yesterday, I had the opportunity to see a demo of a great new product from Social Platform LLC: Social Platform Enterprise 1.2.  Just released last week, this product does what it says on the tin- it is a highly extensible, modular platform which allows enterprises to build a customized social media infrastructure – complete with integration into key social media sites like Blogger, Live Journal, WordPress, and soon, YouTube and Flickr.  The platform effectively allows companies to develop a social networking hub for their constituents.

Social Platform Enterprise is highly customizable and integrates well into existing systems.  Social Platform and their clients work together to tailor a solution to meet business goals – i.e.: identifying features, branding, integration points, etc.  With the current release of Social Platform Enterprise 1.2, the average implementation usually takes between 30-60 days and costs about $15,000 for a basic site. Clients typically pay about $1,500 month for hosting and services.  The resulting product is a unique, scalable, hosted, managed social media solution, which allows an organization’s constituency to interact with each other and the organization in a more meaningful way.  The code and presentation layer are separate, so clients can make edits, using almost any HTML editor.  In the future, President and CEO Eric Schlissel tells me that they’re planning to release an “Express” version of the platform in Q1 2007, which will be an out-of-the box solution for customers who are looking for a less customized solution that is easy to set up without consulting expertise.

One of the biggest selling features of this platform is the openness and its ability to integrate well with existing systems and popular social media sites.  The plug-in architecture and open API, combined with the fact that modular software updates are included in the cost of the product, mean that that the platform is scalable and can grow with an organization’s needs.  Plus, Google Analytics is incorporated so that clients can measure what levels of traction their social media efforts are producing.
 

There are several other key advantages of Social Platform Enterprise 1.2 including:

• The ability to integrate community, ratings, and rewards: create member profiles and member groups and conduct polls of specific groups of constituents. Offer rewards to members for their participation in forums or their evangelism on other websites.  The ability to allow for member rankings.
• The ability for members to communicate and collaborate. Clients have the option of integrating content management systems, wikis, member-to-member messaging, and target communication channels (which allow client to speak to members with a specific profile. E.g. a certain number of reward points)
• Security features are built in, and clients can decide which level of security they want for their social media sites. There are automatic security updates, a secure admin area, and the possibility for secure sign on for users.  Plus, because the resulting sites are hosted and managed by Social Platform, there is a private hardware and a private network

In the next rev of the product, Schlissel expects several improvements including:

• Payment Options for All System Features
• Ecommerce, Auctions, Classifieds
• Expansion of Web Services
• Integration of Third-Party Software
• VOIP, IM
• Widgets

To see the results of Social Platform in action, check out one of their first clients: Omotion.  If you’ve got any comments on Social Platform, please post a comment on this blog. The demo looks good, and I’m eager to hear feedback from others who have interacted with Social Platform generated social media sites.

*Note: I don't get paid to endorse products. I just review new social media products as I see them, when the opportunity arises.

• Are you looking for a thrill and hoping to strike it filthy stinking rich? 
  
• Are you a risk taker with disposable income and time on your hands?
• Want to own a huge house in a great location?
• Want to make friends on-line?

If you’ve answered “YES” to all of these questions, forget about buying lottery tickets or founding a start-up, why not invest in real estate…VIRTUAL REAL ESTATE?*.  Never before has property in California and New York been so affordable.  Since launching on September 26, Weblo.com has managed to flog the entire (virtual) state of California on its site for $53,000 USD.  New York State sold for $18,433 and the Canadian province of Ontario sold for $16,900. Weblo is a virtual world – the first one to virtually duplicate the real world of properties, cities, states, and Internet domains – on-line.  According to Weblo:

The virtual mayor of Washington D.C. sold his city for a 300 percent profit. The virtual Empire State Building, originally purchased for one dollar, recently sold for $250. Members flip virtual properties for profit just like in the real world.

Weblo is a one of several emerging web-based social networking sites that revolves around a “Metaverse”.  In his 1992 sci-fi novel Snow Crash, Neal Stephenson coined the term “Metaverse” to refer to the virtual reality-based Internet world, which might evolve in the future.

Weblo is unique because it is the first on-line virtual world/ “metaverse” that virtualizes “real cities in the real world.”  However, Weblo is by no means the first or biggest “virtual world” out there.  From what I can tell, that accolade goes to Second Life from Linden Lab of San Francisco.

Second Life launched three years ago and has quickly become one of the most interesting social experiments on-line. The virtual “World” of Second Life is currently “inhabited” by 1,855,135 members - Avatars, who are imagined and controlled by real people from all over the world.  Unlike Weblo, the “World” (metaverse) of Second Life does not mimic property and countries in the real world – the topography is wholly imagined and developed by its inhabitants.  

There is a “Marketplace,” which uses its own currency (Linden Dollars) to buy and sell virtual products and real estate inside the Second Life metaverse.  Second Life’s “inhabitants” interact with each other within this metaverse – just as real people interact in the real world.  Members create “virtual” products (3-D digital representations of real-life products or imaginary inventions), which they buy and sell inside the metaverse.  Linden Lab sells (and rents) virtual real estate to its inhabitants, which those inhabitants can then buy and sell themselves.  Second Life is free to join, but members pay $9.95 US a month to own land, and they pay a Land Use Fee proportional to the amount of land they own.

The Second Life Marketplace is thriving, and Linden Lab and the avatars aren’t the only ones benefiting financially… The real people controlling the avatars are trading in Linden Dollars for real ones – lots of them. According to Linden Labs, the Second Life “Marketplace” generates “millions of US dollars in monthly transactions.” Linden Dollars are being exchanged for US Dollars on several on-line currency exchanges (including LindenX) in record numbers.  In the last 24 hours alone, the equivalent of over $655,000 US Dollars has been spent inside the metaverse of Second Life, and the LindenX traded nearly $107,000 US Dollars.

Last week, Ailin Graef, the real-life person behind Second Life Avatar, Anshe Chung, announced that over the last two years, she has amassed the equivalent of $1 million US dollars of assets within Second Life’s metaverse, largely by buying and selling real estate.  Graef and her husband, Guni Graef, live between China and Germany and own their own real-life business focused on the “metaverse” (on-line virtual worlds), which includes perpetuating Anshe Chung’s real estate assets within Second Life.

Graef isn’t the only one making substantial money through Second Life.  The Times Online reports that real-life software developer, Gareth Lancaster, 33, from Derbyshire, England, makes a second income of between $20,000 and $30,000 US Dollars a year by selling virtual roller skates and vending machines in Second Life.  Over the last two years, Lancaster, operating as his Second Life avatar, “Moopf Murray,” has sold 60,000 pairs of virtual skates (for $60 each) to other avatars in Second Life.

Second Life has managed to grow virally very quickly– initially by appealing to highly technical users and expanding its user base to non-technical people from there.  Users don’t need to be technical to participate in Second Life. Linden Labs offers users tools that make building an avatar and participating in Second Life possible for anyone who knows how to use a computer.  Second Life gives its users an opportunity to be creative/build things, work with technology, play a game (of sorts), make money, and more – all from their computer. 

Second Life is one of the greatest success stories in social media to date. With a growing subscription base of over 1.5 million users (nearly 700,000 of which have logged in within the last 60 days) and a thriving economy that is worth real world money, Second Life is attracting lots of attention – from marketers, press, and prospective users.  It is a virtuous circle that looks set to continue.  Second Life is much like a more elaborate version of top selling video game Sim City (which has sold millions of copies over the years), except that it is much more interactive and entirely built by its inhabitants and evolves in relevancy to the real world over time. 

Marketers are seeing this potential.  This phenomenon is well documented.  Earlier this year, in the Harvard Business Review, Senior Editor, Paul Hemp wrote about the benefit of marketing real products to Avatars.  Hemp believes that metaverses like Second Life are fertile marketing ground because, "marketers [in Second Life] have the opportunity to interact with engaged minds.”  Plenty of real life companies agree.  In June 206, American Apparel was the first store to open up a store inside Second Life.  In September 2006, Starwood Hotels opened up a preview version of their forthcoming real-life hotels in Second Life. was the first real life company to open a hotel in Second Life.  Reuters has assigned a reporter to Second Life whose avatar reports on the goings on inside the metaverse of Second Life.  The list of companies that are involved in Second Life is impressive and growing.

Despite all of the press, plenty of members of the public haven’t heard of Second Life.  Of those people who have heard of Second Life, plenty of them don’t “get it” or understand why it is a compelling marketing tool.  Case in point, when I told some of my friends, family, and former colleagues who read this blog that I’d be writing about the successes and future potential of Second Life, I was met with blank stares and looks of confusion.  For those who don’t understand it, Second Life can seem more than a little bit bizarre, and it’s easy to see why.  As 35-year-old Second Life member, Mitch Joel writes in his blog:

As I get more involved in Second Life, I am starting to realize how psychotic I must sound when I talk about it in real life (or First Life).

 
Trying to explain the benefits getting a “Second Life” to people who already have a full “First Life”, will be one of Linden Lab’s greatest challenges.  In an interview published yesterday,  journalist Stephen Hutcheon asked Ailin Graef something a lot of people are wondering:

Why [do] otherwise intelligent people would spend real money on virtual assets, none of which could ever be seen as necessities and all of which can only ever be used inside the Second Life community?” 

Graef’s response was priceless:

This question is closely related to another question: Why do otherwise intelligent people spend real money on so many things in the real world that are not necessities? I mean, what do we really need to survive and to stay healthy? How much of our spending, even in real life, is driven by the desire for individualisation, self-expression, entertainment or communication?

I’ll be the first to admit that I haven’t spent time Second Life or purchased virtual real estate (there or anywhere else). It’s not that I’m opposed to trying it.  At the risk of sounding geeky, I find the possibilities of Second Life fascinating.  The trouble is that I have my hands full with a very busy “First Life” of my own – a large percentage of which is already spent on-line emailing, blogging, researching, and social networking.  At this point in my life, it’s tough enough to make time for a First Life being myself – never mind paying for a “second life” acting as a fictitional avatar.

*Note on the first paragraph– I’m not being serious.  If you’re looking for an investment strategy, talk to a licensed investment advisor (I’m not one). 

An interesting new report from Hitwise says that one in twenty web visits is now to the top social media websites.  In a recently published report entitled, "S-Commerce: Beyond MySpace and YouTube.  A new approach for brands to participate in social networking," Boston based on-line market research firm, Compete Inc., says:

• More than two–thirds of on-line consumers visited a social networking site in June 2006;
  
• Social networks have grown 109% since January 2004 and are on pace to eclipse web titans Google and Yahoo
  
• On-line socialites spend a remarkable amount of time on social networking sites. Site usage, measured by pages viewed per member, has increased 414% since January 2004, nearly four–times faster than member growth.
• The average on-line socialite is 37 years old, just five years younger than the average adult Internet user. 
• Annual discretionary income for on-line socialites is nearly $8,000, 20% higher than consumers who have not used a social networking site, and they spend nearly 25% of their disposable income on on-line purchases (versus 17% for non–socialites).  
• Social networkers are early adopters; more than 40% of online socialites are the first among their colleagues to purchase new products or services, double the rate of non–socialites. They are also influential within their peer set; 37% of online socialites are regularly consulted by colleagues for their opinions on a topic, whereas only 15% of non–socialites claim this influence.

These findings are enough to get even the most skeptical and conventional marketers salivating.   The opportunity for marketers to engage not only with early adoptors but those with high disposible income and the ability to influence others is too great to miss. 

For any of you that have read Malcom Gladwell's book: 

Compete's profile of the average social networker is awefully similar to what Gladwell describes as a "Maven".  For those of you who haven't read the book, "Maven" is the term Gladwell uses to describe members of the public who create the "Tipping Point" for great ideas and inspire trends to take route amongst the public.  Marketers strive to appeal to mavens because they are the catlysts to the success of products and ideas. They are well connected and talk about what they know, what they love, and what they detest, and their friends, family, and colleagues consider mavens "experts" and usually request and take their advice. In his book, Gladwell says that if you can reach out and appeal to the mavens of the world, your product has a much higher chance to succeed.

Compete's study argues a similar point. I has coins the phrase "s-commerce" (short for "social commerce") to describe the way that marketers use social networking sites to to their advantage.  According to Compete, s-commerce presents marketers with an opportunity to:

• "Research consumers, while they research you and your rivals
• Create a channel connect consumers and your brand
• Engage consumers in a conversation: listen, learn, and leverage."
  

The study claims that the most successful players in s-commerce are utilizing one or more of the following strategies:

• "Branded Microsites
• Customer Forums
• Customer Ratings & Reviews"

This Compete study highlights the importance of going beyond on-line advertising on social networking sites and engaging with your consituents/potential customers. 

In a Q&A published on Marketingshift yesterday, Jason Zajac, formerly of Palm, and now General Manager, Social Media at Yahoo highlights the same thing.  He talks about how Yahoo and its partners are successfully using social media competitions and advertising to engage with enthusiasts to generate enthusiasm for products.  It's well worth a read.

People don't like feeling like they're being sold to. The beauty of social networking from a marketers perspective is that it offers the opportunity to "sell" to "mavens" by engaging, rather than annoying them with ads.  The most successful exploitation of social media to the marketers' advantage will be the subtle opportunities to integrate with potential customers without making those prospective customers feel unfairly incroached upon.

As an aside: Yhoo just launched its new service, Mixd, which looks like it could be a winner - especially for Gen-Y-ers.   It allows users to mass text message their friends - organizing last-minute meet-ups, sharing pictures and videos from their mobile, and sharing memories of particular events on specific websites for those events. With the initial success of advertising on Flickr, it will be interesting to see whether Mixd becomes an avenue for Yahoo to generate revenue on more viral marketing - espcially for venues, events, etc.