• by Seana Mulcahy , March 3, 2008

So you know I write about social media. There's been quite the vibe for it out there. However, the nebulous term "virtual worlds" bothers me. It is too universal. Most likely, when I say the term, you associate it with Second Life http://www.secondlife.com--right? I do, too. Have you ever been on Second Life? I stopped by to check it out and thought it was creepy.

OK--I get how the Net has always offered anonymity. It can also be a medium for escapism. Maybe I'm old, but I don't want to pretend to be someone I'm not, let alone create a creepy three-dimensional version of myself. Caveat: Yes, for those of you who IM or have seen blogs and emails, I have an icon sometimes associated with me. It's two-dimensional, and to me, more like an icon, cartoon or caricature of me. It's not escapism; it's fun.

So, back to 3D worlds. I just get an uneasy feeling about them. In a way, it is somewhat lifelike. I used to get a kick out of the computer game "The Simms" way back when. It was a game. Have games evolved to social worlds now? When "Simms" first came out, there were many gaming sites that launched and were quite successful. Audiences were loyal. On the sites, players (or members) were able to associate icons to their screen name. This was so beyond picking the car while playing Monopoly. However, I wasn't a gamer.

I did find the value of advertising on such sites. Back then, I launched a large automobile campaign with a car relaunch, a beverage, and a fast-food company. All benefited from the audience of gamers. Co-branding opportunities were pretty much nonexistent, so we created them. Our clients were cool and progressive, so they weren't splitting hairs about measurement and concrete definitions. It was hype; it was reality. It was the way the Web was moving.

So I try to scratch below the surface of trying to figure out the offline lifestyle of these Second Life users. I hope I don't offend you if you are one of them. Seems like a lot of time needs to be invested in keeping up with it. How could you be in this business and fit that all in?

Certainly, if you are reading this, you are most likely not the primary target audience. This will impact you, though: There are swarms of unauthorized uses of brand images all over these sites. Yes, it is true. If you don't believe me, log on (although I am not trying to contribute to the site's traffic). See for yourself. As a protector of brands, it makes me cringe. How can something so wildly popular with more than 11 million members allow this?

Simply put, people create their avatars and interact with other avatars they meet. They create their "world" and control how they "live" in it. In fact, there are even opportunities for members to set up businesses on the site. Real businesses with currency exchanges that turn into real U.S. dollars.

In the March hard-copy issue of Inside Counsel magazine, page 22, it lists even harsher realities. For instance, some entrepreneurs who make money in Second Life were making money by creating and selling unauthorized copies of Herman Miller furniture. The copies were shoddy at best, and Herman Miller didn't want to be associated with them.

It's like an online trip to Canal Street in New York's Chinatown. "Walk" around, and you can buy fake Rolexes, Gucci bags and iPods. It goes a step further--you can even buy a knockoff Ferrari.

More than 100 major brands are already legitimately marketed on Second Life. If you want to advertise your brand there, knock yourself out.

However, for those of us who don't, do we get the shaft by the site's acceptance of a user's brand -- without our authorization? The reality is, it depends on the sites right now. There are no legal prescriptions. In fact, there is a law that justifies innocent infringement of a trademark, logo, etc. Can't anyone say they were innocent and had no idea? Well, perhaps these sites could take some social responsibility and let users know the real deal. But then again, why would they want to?