I worked in the book business back in the late 80s, early 90s. At that time, people were talking about how electronic books were going to take over and make paper books obsolete. At the time, I disagreed. So far they have been wrong. An electronic book will never replace the real thing. There's something about holding it and smelling it and going to bookstores that can never be replicated in an electronic format or virtual space.

The same holds true about virtual offices and worlds. "Virtuality" may compliment an enterprise, but I also believe it will never replace it. If it ever does, I think the human race is in trouble.

Michael, your post in addition to several others on the topic motivated me to put together a post exploring the subjects you expressed and several other common objections/concerns in depth.

I noted this writeup in the post. It can be found here:
http://citadel-of-light.com/2008/07/19/virtual-worlds-exploring-common-objections/

Wow! I recall an argument I had with my mom when she insisted CDs would not replace albums, and now mp3s are replacing CDs. I have not bought a CD in years.

I recall a time when there was that belief that people would not want a PC in their home.

I recall a time when people would NEVER pay for merchandise or shop online.There were all the creepy privacy issues not to mention the security issues. I recall a friend telling me the Internet would never go anywhere because it was a jumbled cluttered mess and it took too long to find the information you needed. Or when websites were for B2C, but NEVER B2B

People are used to change, especially technological change. Just because we will have (and we WILL have) an avatar as a representative of ourselves as we conduct business online, does not mean we will turn into some bizarre creepy people living our lives in a virtual world. Heck - I am having a type of conversation with you, a person I do not know, via a blog. Recall not long ago at all only creepy people blogged. Weirdos who were wasting their time having online conversations with strangers.

Twitter - oh that was a waste of time that would go no where.

My point, be very careful of what you THINK will never happen, because that is the best way to not serve your clients, your agency, or yourself very well.

Don't make the mistake of equating the broader concept of Virtual Worlds with Second Life. Second Life is just one world among many, and its wide-open community model isn't the only way to build and run a virtual world. Many companies are experiencing success and even profits with virtual worlds.

It's a little bizarre to say that Virtual Worlds will "never catch on" when they are already attracting tens of millions of visitors each month. If that's not catching on, what is?

Consider World of Warcraft with over 10 million subscribers (paying $15 a month each in the US). Or Webkinz, which attracted nearly 11 million users last month. Consider the whole burgeoning kids' virtual world space, like Club Penguin, Build-a-Bearville, BarbieGirls and literally dozens of kids' virtual worlds that have been launched. There's also MTV's thriving virtual world properties targeted at the teen and young adult set.

(disclosure: I consult on the development of Build-a-Bearville)

Not all Virtual Worlds are lawless, x-rated havens, like Second Life. And even Second Life has private sanctuaries where businesses and educational institutions are holding meetings, conducting training and generally doing business. There are many virtual worlds and many business models for virtual worlds. Not all will "catch on," but many already have.

John, You're absolutely correct. Companies are using Second Life for training and virtual global meetings. Ragan recently did a story profiling one company that does this. IBM and Sun Microsystems also use Second Life for training and meetings. In fact, I talked to the chief employee communicator at Sun earlier this year about Second Life and she was convinced it was effective.

However, when the economy sours communicators often grow anxious wondering, Will management recognize my value to the company? At Sun, I'm sure CEO Jonathan Schwartz finds great value in Second Life. At most companies I imagine executives think the guy or girl playing virtual video games--as they likely see it--is the first to go.

You seem to be assuming that setting up virtual storefronts is the only way to use something like Second Life for business. But haven't a lot of companies tried different approaches, such as creating exhibit and demo space, meeting spaces, and so on?

Thank you for posting this! It's a great analysis of the virtual world dilemma.

Just wanted to clarify as my last comment was written in a bit of a rush and I think came off as a bit overly aggressive/combative as a result. That wasn't my intent.

Michael a valuable concern. My response comes in two forms. The first is that humans in general are fundamentally social creatures. The very existence of this technology is a tribute to our desire to reach out and engage socially. A part of that interaction though, does rely upon physical presence. The feeling of exchanged energy and tactile interaction.

That said however, there is a common - though shifting - belief that virtual interactions are not "real" exchanges. Though now retired, when I did a lot of online gaming one of the biggest frustrations I had came in the form of the misbehavior which was occurring. Abuse, theft, harassment, etc. were all justified because it wasn't deemed a real interaction.

The reality is that it's very different. Very real exchanges are possible. Far beyond what you might associate with a phone based interaction. With the addition of VoIP back-ends, streaming web video, emotive settings, etc. the technology driving the avatars and as a result representing the users has catapulted into a very rich conversational platform.

These relationships are/can be far more "real" than those stemming from a phone conversation, e-mail, or all other forms of communication. Your fear is that this technology will hinder social interaction. I'd argue that it's effect has the potential to be the exact opposite. Enabling real, legitimate interaction regardless of geographic obstacles, biases etc.

There will always be instances of escapism. Fundamentally our species always has members which take things to an unhealthy extreme. So far, the rule of thumb when dealing with virtual worlds is to perceive and accept these exceptions as the standard.

From personal experience, the vast majority of the theories i learned in my College Mass Com courses were reviewing concepts I had already learned and understood - from watching them occur and experiencing them in virtual environments.

Additionally, when you look at tools like facebook etc. their addictiveness is tied to the way in which they increase our ability to socialize. Through facebook I can now keep and develop active relationships with hundreds of associates, which I would otherwise, either not have the time, or energy to develop. I still spend time with those friends I can in the flesh, but my relationships with those who moved away after College or I met while backpacking in Europe don't have to be sacrificed any more.

I think the NY Times did an article a ways back on Club Penguin and Webkinz as being the starter drug that would get kids hooked on virtual worlds. I'm not sure that's going to happen. I can't speak for Club Penguin, but I have three children with Webkinz accounts. The fun there is that they're NOT a virtual representation of yourself. They are cute little things you play with virtually. They don't have to do the same things you do (take vitamins, do homework, clean your room), and they can do things you can't do (build your own room, decorate it any way you want, eat GAK, play casino games). In adult virtual worlds, avatars are supposed to actually BE you, only virually. All of this starts to get existential/metaphysica. The point is, some of us will like avatars representing us and some of us won't. As for me, I'm with the won'ts. I have a hard time believing that virtual is better than reality. Case in point: I met four of my dearest friends and daily confidents online. (Hi, C, E, K, and S!!) But the highlight - the very BEST part - of our friendship was meeting them in person. It's like the old adage goes: No thank you to Second Life; I'm perfectly happy with my first.

Michael, I could not agree with you more. I think this is a sound and reasoned piece and I share your concerns. Clearly future technology should not be written off, but not recognizing some of the potential serious dangers and drawbacks of living significant portions of ones life in a virtual world is foolhardy. One positive takeaway I get from attending countless events on the power of social media, at which Second Life and other virtual worlds are often discussed, is that these worlds are usually talked of as being at the bottom of the social media scale. Don't believe the hype.

Alex and Bekki, You both bring up important topics.

Bekki, What you said about virtual worlds and kids is true--and scary. My girlfriend's 8-year-old niece was more concerned last weekend with finding an internet connection to check on her penguin than enjoying the lovely weather. Will they adopt it as adults? Well, I was an avid GI Joe fan as a kid. Today I don't play with them, nor did I join the military. (Although I am looking forward to the upcoming GI Joe movie.) I also played tons of Nintendo, like the boxing game Mike Tyson's Punch Out; today I neither play video games nor box.

Alex, Thanks for the thoughtful response! You're spot on with the pornography thing; VHS was pioneered by pornographers as was the Web. Although there are probably examples of pornographer's whims that went awry; we simply haven't heard of them.

For me it doesn't come down to technology or even, necessarily, the people using it, but insead this continued withdraw from face-to-face communication and contact. I appreciate that people find spouses and lovers online, but it's a slippery slope I think. Where will the virtual relationship stop?

What I'm suggesting is will couples have sex in Second Life? Will family dinners become Second Life experiences because we're all so busy.

Alex, this is what scares me.

I took some post-graduate classes at the University of Chicago where, like you mention, "intelligent, forward-thinking people" also thought the world of Second Life.

And, like you, I too think Second Life is a complete crock.

But! Here's where I think it will get interesting: Club Penguin is an online virtual world/game targeted at 6 - 14 year olds owned by The Walt Disney Company. According to Wikipedia, by late 2007, it was claimed that Club Penguin had over 12 million user accounts. Those kids (inevitably) will grow up. Will they go for Second Life? I don't think so (personally I think Second Life will be a wasteland by then). But I do think something similar will be created for this demographic as they get older.

So I'm going to go ahead and nay-say Second Life with you, but I think it's a bit premature to dismiss virtual worlds completely.

You've obviously done some research, but lack a fundamental understanding of the technology. Your bias, is visible and on par with that held by a large portion of the general media-fed populace. I can't go in depth here, but I encourage you to review my thesis and added writings on Virtual Worlds on my blog which is linked above.

Your perception of virtual worlds like SecondLife is that of Dungeons and Dragons brought to life, lawless, immoral, socially detached and anonymous environments. To understand the potential of these "games" you need to step outside the conventional thought box.

These games (World of Warcraft, SecondLife, Everquest 2, etc.) are not populated by overweight, socially neglected teens. Rather, the average age for an online gamer is in their late twenties and early thirties. They are not even, when used correctly socially inhibiting. 1 in 8 people in serious romantic relationships today met online. Compare a Match.com profile "match", to the opportunity to interact in real time in a variety of settings and co-operative environments?

With respect to SecondLife specifically. SecondLife had value in it began the move from game to something more. Beyond that it's a heap of garbage. The quality of the interface is archaic by game standards, the SecondLife world is as you noted an ugly assemblage of mostly worthless sex shops, and the interactive elements facilitating communication are extremely poor.

Before you spend too much time writing future technology off because it has a large pornographic presence, consider the internet. Recall that up until a few years ago, even whitehouse.com was a pornsite.

Before you focus on perpetuating the delusion that child molesters and perverts are born when they log onto the computer, recall that those individuals are the same individuals you interact with on a daily basis at the Library, Shopping Mall and Gas Station. The web doesn't change who they are. It can, however, in some cases enable them. Just remember that the same arguments you're making now, are the same arguments that were made against the WWW, e-mail and other similar systems.

If you want insights into the potential of these virtual worlds look no further than StarTrek's Holodeck, StarWars' holo communications, Resident Evil's holographic boardroom and hundreds of other examples. These "games" are built on a backbone that re-skinned and slightly re-tooled can deliver an immersive, world that is spatially based. As a communication I assume you relate to things and people spatially.

Glad you decided to bring up the topic. It needs as much attention as we can give it.