Some thoughts on Second Life

Last week, I commented on people’s impatience to hear something from Rod Humble, LL’s new CEO. In doing so, I followed a lead set by Tateru Nino in outlining why Mr. Humble is facing such an uphill struggle, even if he does listen to the platform’s own user base.

Since then, I’ve been cogitating a bit (aka sitting up very late at night, logged-in to Second Life and doing next-to-nothing as I’m simultaneously nursing a poorly cat at the same time). Inevitably, my thoughts turned to what is going “wrong” with Second Life / Linden Lab – or more correctly, why things are failing.

As I’ve also said before, there seems to be a perception that Linden Lab are somehow both malicious and – in their communications at least – mendacious. Certainly, when one looks at the damage caused by ill-considered acts such as the changes to Adult Content & Policy when a fair simpler solution was readily available (create a G-rated continent), or when one looks at the way in which economic reports are currently being re-jigged to the point of becoming almost meaningless, one can be somewhat forgiven for thinking along both these lines.

I don’t actually ascribe to either viewpoint. Rather, I take the view that the board of Linden Lab are – for people heading-up an allegedly “visionary” and “forward-thinking” company – frankly remarkably backward in their thinking.

I don’t say this as an insult; I seemly mean that they have fallen into the trap common to many start-ups: they don’t actually understand their own success, and so they spend far, far too much time looking at the data – the peaks in user numbers and the like – and then try to extrapolate future trends which become the basis for their next set of strategies.

Or to put it another way, they try to reverse-engineer the future.

And it doesn’t work. Never has, never will. Why? Because the focus is too narrow and tends to ignore one important factor: the existing user base.

Take just one of the peaks Second Life has enjoyed over the years: the rise in increase in concurrency throughout 2008 that saw daily numbers topping the 80K user mark, with the Grid groaning under the strain.  When looking back at those figures (which have been at best flat after a long period of decline), one suspects that those at the top of LL started wishing along entirely the wrong lines, their thinking going something like this:

We need more users. If we have more users, then they’d invest in land and the land owners would be happy; they’d but more simulators from us and drive up our revenues. More people mean more consumers of content, which means growth in the economy, grater revenues, more success and….more users! So how do we get those users through the door? Obviously we need to simplify the sign-up so they get in-world quicker. If we’re getting them in-world quicker, we need to give them a simplified interface…

And thus is born the overhaul of the “First Hour Experience” under Mark Kingdon which, after it failed, became “Fast, Fun and Easy” under Philip Rosedale (with a similar lack of success), and will, if we’re very unlucky, become some other sound bite in the near future.

Yet, if you look at it, nothing LL identified as a “barrier” to growing the user base actually stopped people signing up throughout the 2007/08 “boom period” in the first place! Some may have found it annoying – sure. But it didn’t stop them.

The fact is, “Fast, Fun and Easy” is not a strategy – it is a strap line, nothing else.

It’s been said a thousand times before in a thousand different ways, but the key to Linden Lab’s success is its existing user base. Rather than looking back at the past peaks of concurrency or the number of Big Businesses that popped their heads into SL (however briefly), and looking at the means to attract and retain them once more, Linden Lab should really be focused on one thing, and one thing only: providing a better experience for its existing user base.

Now, to be fair, Linden Lab has done this to a degree: the platform is a lot more stable overall that it was just two years ago. Yes, we’re seeing hiccups along the way – the “resolved” teleport / sim freeze issue seems to have made something of a return – but on the whole, things are better. The RC server release cycle recently introduced has helped in this regard. We’re also seeing server loads reduced through the transferral of things like Profiles to a web-based system; Linden Lab are also embracing much-needed technology improvements such as Mesh (with caveats I’ll come to) and more standardised scripting languages. Its here that overhauling the Viewer is valid: if it enables users to take advantage of new tools and functions and enhance their experience – go for it! Just don’t dumb it down for the sake of dumbing it down in the *hope* of attracting mythical “new users”.

That said technology improvements are only a part of the equation. Second Life is a social platform (I’ll not say “social network” because of the Facebook connotations people seem to get uptight about) – and yet the social tools it provides for us to engage with one another are chronically weak – not just in-world, as anyone trying to manage their Group will tell you – but in trying to reach a wider audience. Again, while many are anti-Facebook (myself included), there are times when tools that connect Second Life to other social environments are useful.

This is where LL should take a more holistic view to things, rather than repeatedly trying to fit them into discrete boxes. The technical and the social need to be considered together. But, over the last few years they haven’t. Sure, LL has acknowledged the social aspects of SL, but when it comes down to it, they’ve been trying to meet these needs by actively pushing users away from SL and towards the likes of Facebook  - witness the Valentine’s Day Hunt last year and the equally insidious “advertising opportunity” for people to promote SL.

This approach – whether initiated by the Board or solely by Mark Kingdon  - was a mistake. What should have happened was that LL should have worked to provide such tools within the framework of Second Life and give the users with the choice of whether or not to use them.

User choice should always be about that: choice. But that doesn’t mean that LL shouldn’t seek to provide links to other social environments for those that wish to use them, so long as it is done in a manner that the user choice isn’t compromised or in such a way that it comes at the expense of our in-world experience, or is foisted on us as a fait accompli. Again, this is where the move to web-based Profiles has something of a “fail” mark against it: while there is nothing wrong with providing options to have our Profiles shared with the likes of Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn – it should be done in such a way that we have the choice as to whether or not the buttons to link to such external networks appear on our Profiles.

Other social aspects are being handled in-world: we’re shortly to get an improve Group Chat function. But again, it’s been tackled as a purely technical exercise, not part of a wider understanding of what we might want or need to make SL an effective social tool for us to more easily reach people in-world and, if we wish, elsewhere.

This lack of any holistic view or understanding of the complexities of Second Life can be illustrated further if we examine the forthcoming arrival of Mesh imports.  When talking about it last year, Jack Linden and Philip Rosedale came out with comments that still stun me whenever I read them. When asked about the potential impact on in-world content creation, Jack’s reply was that it would change “very little” in regards to in-world content creation because the number of content creators is “very small”. Philip Rosedale, in a separate interview, stated his belief that the majority of “new users” will (quote), “never rez a prim”.

Leaving aside Rosedale’s statement amply demonstrates LL’s overwhelming obsession with the “new user” demographic, both of these statements were, and are, alarming because they most clearly demonstrate the overall lack of understanding those at the top of Linden have when it comes to what makes Second Life vibrant and engaging.

To paraphrase a former US President or two, it’s about the content, stupid. The reason many people involved in Second Life in the first place was not because the sign up process was simple, or that the Viewer was easy to use or that the “first hour” experience was particularly gratifying. The reason they got involved in Second Life is because they could a) meet people and b) they can create. Whether they did so for commercial reasons or simply for the sheer pleasure of being able to doodle, play and have that warm inner glow of being able to say, “Wow! *I* did that!” is utterly irrelevant.

There was a time when those at Battery Street understood this; sadly, that understanding seems to have died a death. All that is left is that one narrow focus “new users”. One can almost hear the mantra at Battery Street: Mesh is good, as Mesh will bring in users… wash, rinse, repeat…

Well…yes, Mesh will bring in some new users. But it won’t, in and of itself, retain them or lead to sustained growth for the platform because, fundamentally, it doesn’t really significantly add to what people can do in-world.

Again, within a more holistic framework – providing the means by which we can more effectively use these shiny new things and tell our friends in-world and out world about them – LL would do so much to both improve the user (new or established) experience and empower / encourage users themselves to become LL’s best means of promoting Second Life, potentially up to the point of it going viral in a positive sense.

At the end of the day, Second Life has succeeded because of its users – and not in spite of us, as one sometimes feels is how some at Linden Lab seem to think.

It grew because  - for a time at least – the company was focused on ensuring that those who came could participate and have fun. Over the years, Linden Lab has – in the manner of many start-ups – drifted away from the nucleus of what made them a success in the first place. And that nucleus was never the Viewer or the signing-up process or the “first hour experience”. These were, are and remain, means to an end.

While it would be impossible to listen to each and every one of our views on things, this is no reason for LL to go entirely the other way and utterly ignore what we say, even when we are united and what we have to say makes sense.

Nor is it justification for the company to cut itself off from the platform. Being ready and willing to spend more time in-world – to travel, to see, to participate and engage with us – would go a long way to helping the company define a better, more rounded strategy for the future. It might even finally break their approach to “growing” Second Life that has, for the last three least in particular, repeatedly failed to achieve any significant success or growth.

Rodvik’s tough future

So, according to Bob Kumin, or BK Linden as LL’s CFO / COO is known “in-world” (I use the latter term lightly, as I believe he’s actually been in-world um, once since his arrival at LL, and even then had very little to say), Rod Humble – potentially to be called Rodvik Linden, according to some – arrived at Battery Street yesterday. This has prompted some (going on the in-world traffic I was privy to yesterday) to start demanding “where is he?” and “Typical…no announcement from him”, etc.

Well…hang on! Give the poor sod a chance.

There has been lots of “free” advice handed out to Mr. Humble since the announcement of his appointment last month. When you push aside all the (inevitable) bitching about this and that, there is to be sure, a lot of sage advice contained within the responses to the announcement.

Similarly, Profoky Neva started a nice little thread in the blogs, urging three-word recommendations for Rodvik to consider. Sadly, I cannot link to the same any more, as it has, in the mysterious ways of the official forums, been deleted for some reason. Again, while there was much hoo-ing and ha-ing among the posts there, there were many replies that had more than a ring of validity about them.

But – and here’s the rub – the fact that both the comments posted to the announcement and Prokofy’s own thread did contain so much in the way of contradicting viewpoints (“Ditch Viewer 2!” vs. “Viewer 2 is great!”; “Forget Mesh!” vs. “SL needs Mesh!”; “Stop making SL inaccessible to older computers!” vs. “SL needs to keep up with technology!” and so on) that, even without the vitriol, one can see the problem Rod(vik) faces even if he merely glances at the replies.

…listening to the users isn’t actually always the best thing…

We’ve all – myself included – repeatedly called for LL to “listen” to its user base (well, I’ll actually redefine that slightly – I’ve been calling for LL to engage and communicate with us – both of which, dare I say, are somewhat more involved (on both sides!), than simply “listening”). But, what exactly does this mean, and how should LL go about it?

As Tateru Nino points out so well, users themselves have such widely varied views on things, that seeking broad-ranging input from them can – whether we like it or not – lead to as much confusion, angst and anger from said users when the outcome is announced, as simply not seeking input in the first place.

Take, for example, two of the most common cries in the responses to Rod Humble’s appointment as CEO. On the one hand people are loudly shouting for the “trashing” of Viewer 2; on the other, people are praising it. Similarly, and more vociferously, we have people loudly proclaiming that Mesh “isn’t needed”, and other citing very valid reasons why it is.

How do you reconcile such entrenched, widely differing views without pissing off at least 50% of your audience?

Of course these two examples are extremes, and to be fair, a large proportion of the “anti” lobby in both comes down to a simple unwillingness to change on the part of those voicing the objections. For example, many of those denouncing Viewer 2 do so on the basis of “having tried it for 10 minutes” before giving up – yet I wonder, when they first joined SL, how long it took them to get to grips with Viewer 1.x? Longer than 10 minutes, I’ll warrant; so why the impatience now?

But leaving aside the extreme position of these views, it does demonstrate the tightrope Humble has to walk, just where the users are concerned – and as Tateru amply demonstrates in her column with a simple little exercise.

Of course, there are “obvious” things that need to be done: stability, performance in general, smoothing out sim boundary crossings, etc., – but these are “easy” as we all see and feel them. What about the more complex? How does LL make SL more attractive, immersive, engaging, exciting – fun – for the “lay” user?

The answers here are far more difficult: ask ten people and get 10 different replies. Add to this the fact that Rod Humble isn’t just “answerable” to the users – he is in his post at the leisure of a Board that at times seems both remote from the realities of Second Life and somewhat hostile towards the user base. As such, he is responsible for heeding their collective will and turning their whims into realities – making any potential balancing act on his part, that much harder (the needs of the few (the Board) will always outweigh the needs of the many, if I might be permitted to paraphrase a certain Vulcan).

All this being the case, I’m not surprised that he hasn’t suddenly bounced into the official blogs announcing this, that and the other. Anyone with any common sense, whether they have been looking around in-world or not, whether they’ve been hopping in and out of the Battery Street offices over the last few weeks or not, whether they’ve been involved at all with the inner machinations of LL or not even from arm’s length – is going to need time to get into the office, settle down and take a studied look at what is going on and how things really work.

If nothing else, the legacy of Mark Kingdon would encourage anyone entering the role to do so with some caution. After all, he was trumpeted in by the likes of Philip Rosedale, who went on to talk about him in glowing terms – sharing the same pod, being of the same mind, etc., etc.,  - and look how that finished up (and don’t go blaming Kingdon purely for the way things went).

Given all of the above, I’m actually not that surprised nothing has been heard of from Mr. Humble as yet (and that’s taking it for granted that he did arrive OK yesterday as the new CEO); he’s going to need time to get properly to grips with things before (one would hope) he starts making massive pronouncements on just about anything.

But, that said, it would be nice just to get a quick “hello!” from him, coupled with a short statement confirming he’s “here” and perhaps asking for our understanding while he does get settled at his desk and takes time to settle in.

How do *you* define stability?

In my last piece, I questioned who, exactly, is minding the store. While my question was primarily aimed at SL Marketplace, which continues to acquire JIRAs and unanswered pleas for help, it also applied more widely to the grid in general.

Recently, LL introduced a slew of ideas in order to “enhance” our SL pleasure and promise “greater” stability. All of these initiatives were launched under Philip Rosedale’s brief “return” as the CEO. Outside of Snowstorm, which is enjoying moderate success, few seem to have actually worked.

The new policy of small fixes rolled out weekly? Nope. Not from where I’m standing at least. Rather the reverse. Now, as well as putting up with the weekly irritation of Second Life’s weekend performance gradually degrading between Friday and Sunday, I’m now finding my Tuesdays and Wednesdays routinely buggered up by rolling restarts for Magum, le Tigre, Blue Cheese, White Knuckles – or whatever the heck the latest codename for a “fix” is called – to the point where no matter where I am or what I’m doing, I’m experiencing inventory errors, failed teleports and other issues.

Similarly, even the big roll-outs continue to irritate, with teleports continuing to fail some 24 hours after the “all clear” has been given. We’re also again hearing about things like the Mono freeze-up still being “fixed”. Excuse me, wasn’t this sorted out a few months ago, among some fanfare, and wasn’t there a posting about it having been sorted?

So why is it, in the last week or so, many people are reporting the sim they are on routinely freezing up again when someone teleports in? Has a new “fix” now broken something again? Wasn’t the new strategy supposed to stop this?

Mark Kingdon was guilty of several faults during his tenure at LL as CEO – but once thing he did stand watch over was a drive to improve performance and stability.

So what on Earth is going on now?

SL VI: The Search for a CEO

After about four months as interim CEO, working closely with Bob Komin, the management team, and the board, we’ve decided we are ready to start the search for a new CEO. I’ll be leaving day-to-day management of the company and continuing in my role on the board, including helping in the search to find a great CEO. I will also be continuing my work with my new company, LoveMachine. Bob will lead Linden Lab while we conduct the search. It’s been an intense few months of transition, and we all feel like we are in a better place now, with a clearer sense of direction and more focus, and are ready to bring someone new into the mix as a leader.

So sez Philip Rosedale today. I find this news interesting on two levels. Firstly, as Ciaran and others point out, it’s not surprising. Philip made it clear his return was an interim thing following the departure (voluntarily or otherwise) of one Mark “Target” Kingdon. Nor is it a surprise that Philip is “returning” to LoveMachine – the latter has been his first love for a goodly while, and one in some respects cannot fault him for wanting to “get back” to it.

And yet…the timing of the move is a little odd. In the general scheme of things, “interim” CEOs are brought in / step in to oversee a transitional period in a company – and it is very odd to see one depart when the transition is less than 50% done – and with a new CEO yet to be found, leave alone recruited, then it is more than fair to say the job is less than 50% done.

Indeed, it is also fair to say that the departure of an interim CEO during a transitional process can usually be taken as an indication that the CEO and the Board have had a difference of opinion and have reached an impasse of some form. Now, I’ve never been entirely sure that Philip’s original “departure” from the day-to-day running of Linden Research was as rosy as was portrayed at the time, coming as it did  at the time when other Board members were becoming ever more belligerent towards the user base as a whole (vis-a-vis Kapor’s “step aside” speech at SL5B). And while you can accuse Philip of many things, he’s never lost his respect for the SL user community as a whole; as such, his attitude could be said to be in sharp contrast of that of other board members at the time – and this contrast might have encouraged his “departure” from the CEO role. Could it be that the very same contrast has come up again, forcing his “premature” departure from the interim role?

Or could the reason be a lot simpler to explain: that he has in fact already “found” the next CEO of Linden Lab in the form of Bob Komin – but the Board have yet to accept / appreciate this?

Lets face it, Bob Komin has been effectively running the company alongside Rosedale since the latter “returned” so dramatically. It was Komin (apparently) that spearheaded the staff cuts and the realignment of much of LL’s satellite business (SLE, etc.).  He’s be brought out of the relative shadows for in-world meetings, and his name has been extensively linked with things like the “back to basics” campaign as much as Rosedale has hitched his own name to that particular wagon.

Now Komin is moving from a position of co-pilot alongside Rosedale to actually piloting the company on a day-to-day basis. Given this, I can’t help but wonder if he is not being given a chance (by Rosedale himself) to demonstrate to the Board that not only does he have the wherewithal to make the hard choices and drive through extensive cuts – he can also lead the company as a whole, managerially as well as fiscally.

Let’s face it; bringing-in a CEO from outside is fraught with risk – as the Kingdon Years demonstrate. Second Life – let alone the quirky nature of Linden Lab – is not the easiest thing for one to get one’s business head around; so bringing anyone in from outside is a massive gamble. This is where I differ in view to Ciaran and others: the risks in bringing-in someone from outside, to me, are far greater than the risks inherent in having someone like Komin take the helm “from within”, so to speak, full-time.

Right now, LL doesn’t need more upheaval. It needs a period of steady, considered management progress and stability. This is more likely to come from within, where the egos involved have already gone through the arc of putting down a stamp of authority on matters, than it is by bringing in a “big gun” (assuming one can even be found and hired) from outside who is going to put their need to exercise their own stamp and brand of leadership on things ahead of what actually needs to be done.

For that reason, I’m hoping that Philip’s oddly timed departure from the CEO seat is at least in part because they have a CEO-in-waiting in the form of Komin; that this move is, in fact, a canny means of allowing Komin to demonstrate this is fact to the Board, and the “search” will result in a further announcement in, say, a month, that he has been appointed to the role full-time.