Making Virtual Worlds: Linden Lab and Second Life

5. PRECARIOUS AUTHORITY

The distinction I have highlighted between those who contrive a system and those invited to be creative within it marks a number of business efforts in the context of Internet connectivity and the rise of “user-generated content.” In 2007 in Second Life, Coca-Cola announced a contest to design an “online ‘virtual thirst’ Coke machine,” a competition aimed primarily at Second Life users and created through the work of two Second Life-located virtual world-marketing companies : Millions of Us and Crayon. As the press release began: Imagine a vending machine that dispenses entertainment, adventure , or happiness; a device that satisfies curiosities and fulfills virtual wishes. Coca-Cola is calling on the public to envision and design just such a futuristic appliance. More specifically, The Coca-Cola Company is inviting the virtual community that resides online at Second Life® —or anyone, for that matter, with a view of “the Coke experience of the future”—to submit their most inventive ideas for the next generation of Coke machines. 5_PRECARIOUS AUTHORITY Michael Donnelly, Coca-Cola’s then director of global interactive marketing , is quoted in the release, saying, “There are few restrictions, except that the more inspired and original the idea, the better. This competition is a chance for anyone with a vivid imagination to design an experience that embodies the in-world Coke Side of Life in a way that enhances their lives and the lives of others within Second Life.” (As of this writing, a large amount of information about the contest and its winner is available at www.virtualthirst.com.) The winning entry (The “Lucky Puzzle Bottle” concept) was by Second Life user Anne Marie Mathis (aka Emerie in Second Life) and involved the placing of three large Coke bottles, in pieces, at different locations in Second Life. Each puzzle, when solved, put in place a Coke-themed installation: a snow-globe, complete with penguins, a “bubble ride” inside the large Coke bottle, and a snowball vending machine . The avatar that first reassembled and completed these puzzles was awarded one of three prizes: a Coke-branded scooter, a small polar bear (one of Coca-Cola’s long-time motifs) worn on the shoulder, or a Coke-branded guitar. Each of these was then freely copyable and transferable for the winner. Given the concerns that many existing corporations have about the use of their trademarks and other properties in online communities, this effort by Coca-Cola was hailed as a successful integration of user creativity and a company’s marketing, in much the same way as some machinima is sponsored by companies like Blizzard, makers of World of Warcraft. It was furthermore an attempt to reconcile the meaning of a brand associated in part with a particular physical experience (thirst, then “refreshment”) with virtual world experiences that, while also involving the body, have little if anything analogous to thirst. At a panel titled “Building Businesses in Virtual Worlds,” at a conference on virtual worlds in Singapore, State of Play V (August 19–22, 2007), the virtual thirst campaign was held up as one example of how companies might achieve “sustainable branding,” in the words of one of the panelists. The puzzle facing companies in the era of online networking—and the rising expectations of users to be able to create and distribute widely cultural products such as machinima—is how to 1 2 6 _ C H A P T E R F I V E P R E C A R I O U S A U T H O R I T Y _ 1 2 7 maintain control over their brands while tapping into the creativity this users’ work represents. Another example, one that further clarifies some of the implications for the emerging divide between makers and creators (as well as illustrating how these are concerns that are not limited to virtual worlds), is the online code-writing contest located at topcoder.com. TopCoder hosts contests (weekly, with a larger one biannually) to code solutions to complex problems. In a manner quite similar to Coca-Cola’s efforts, TopCoder owns the code submitted to them in the competitions, paying out a one-time cash award, although “rated” members can join a development team to receive some royalties for commercial uses. In both of these examples we see a number of elements familiar from my account of Linden Lab. Primarily we...