Virtual Worlds News relays word (Link) of some research conducted by Proximity Worldwide that’s worth discussing. Specifically, there are two parts reported by VWN that I want to mention (and because Proximity’s site is both slow to load and an interactive mess when it does, I’ll stick with what VWN was kind enough to relay); and then there’s a third somewhat separate response to their conclusions on which I wish to focus.

Identity Convergence

The first issue has to do with the multiple online persona that users create and how marketers should approach them.

The company defines virtual worlds loosely, including both platforms like MySpace and Second Life, but most importantly, they say, companies aren’t adapting. “People are more and more comfortable having multiple, fragmented versions of themselves, yet brands aren’t doing anything different,” said Proximity CEO Mat Mildenhall.

Some of you will recall an earlier post here specifically discussing this issue (reLink). From that entry:

The reason I believe Kintz’s approach doesn’t make sense anymore is because events like Second Life’s security breach (reLink) remind people of the common connection joining those supposedly-separate identities. Netizens are beginning to see both “persona convergence” and media convergence happening all around them. How is it that a corporate vice president is pushing the idea that companies need to market to different identities of the same person when everything is now converging? While he’s chasing fragments of Johnny, the real Johnny is assembling them into an increasingly cohesive online identity.
…
it’s becoming increasingly common for people to use the same identity in multiple channels.

In addition to that post, there are others that touch on the issue of identity convergence and potential problems with non-immersive research of the kind Proximity apparently conducted for this report (e.g. reLink 1, reLink 2, reLink 3). So while people might be “more and more comfortable”, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’ll maintain or increase their number of different online identities.

I expect that as online activities become increasingly relevant to real lives, social networking systems (like Xfire, XBox Live, Sony’s Playstation Home, Valve’s recently announced system, aso) and systems like OpenID will continue to dissolve boundaries between different online spaces and encourage identity convergence. There may be a short term upward trend now as increasing numbers of users spread out across the plethora of social applications and new users continue to join the online community, but I don’t believe this is a longterm trend; just the opposite.

Marketing to Peers

Moving on to the second point, while I may not put much stock in the future problems Proximity suggests in their report regarding multiple-personality avatars, I did find some of the conclusions worthwhile.

Proximity Worldwide not only found the answers but identified seven steps guaranteed to ensure failure for brands online:

1. Playing “LogoCop” with your brand
2. Being dull, boring or useless
3. Behaving exactly as you do offline
4. Hiding the truth
5. Believing there is a difference between human needs online and offline
6. Confusing “peer to peer” with “targeting”
7. Assuming you have a right to be there

Generally I agree, but the problem with #1 is that companies don’t really have much of a choice. If a virtual brand is benefiting from the use of their trademark and an association with their product, they are required to play LogoCop or potentially suffer from trademark dilution. The big issue I see facing them is deciding at what point to intervene. As a point of reference, there’s currently a discussion on the Second Life Herald regarding trademark infringement (Link) in Second Life (always an ongoing issue, it seems) that might be of interest.

Though mostly obvious I think, the rest of these I like; #6 in particular, as it reminds me of something I posted earlier:

After reading that piece a few times I realized that what I found both curious and offensive was the kind of action imperiled marketers were instructed to take: “harness” and “monitor”. – reLink

The Missed Opportunity

Lastly, I wanted to call out this part:

Yet this posed a problem as well: the vast majority believe people would choose different brands to suit their different online identities.

The research found that brands often to fail to connect with people online because they do not understand how differently people behave. How do you communicate with the highflying lawyer who writes a blog in the name of an Irish bog monster? Or the sixteen year old playing at being thirtysomething Carrie Bradshaw on Bebo? Or the Assassin Elf in World of Warcraft?

Of course people choose different brands to suit different identities. Does American Apparel provide BDSM gear? Does Toyota make a flying car with rocket launchers? Does Adidas make bog monster boots? Do any well-known brands make products for an “Assassin Elf” in any game?

Not that I’m aware.

That’s the reason I suggested Nissan make virtual versions of their concept cars (reLink) and push their brand in related but fantastical areas (which starts to fit with the things rapid-manufacturing and advances in computing technology will soon allow some product manufacturers). Unfortunately they’re all too busy trying to shove their real products into virtual spaces to attract eyeballs.

Why doesn’t Adidas make virtual bog monster boots? As far as I’m concerned, that’s unexplored territory. Right now the limits seem to be virtual kicks that make a player’s avatar run a little faster or jump a little higher. That’s really not much more than coding in virtual reality what companies so often claim or imply in their real world marketing materials. In other words, it’s not much of a stretch.

So why not stretch the brand? Who knows, what a company learns about the real desires of a bog monster wannabe running through a virtual swamp might help them to recognize a product opportunity in the real world. And that is where I think brands really miss the boat.