In the last post I knocked down the Twitter = the new Second Life comparison that has been doing the rounds.  

In summary, I pointed out that the churn rate was nowhere near SL’s, that the numbers game was only part of the picture, and that Twitter’s entry barriers were lower making it much easier just to come and go.

Now here’s how Twitter IS like Second Life:  

Just like Second Life was, it’s in danger of being at the start of a negative hype cycle, that plays into the hands of people who have been waiting for it to fail.

Case in point, Nielsen’s 60% churn rate that was reported far and wide was accepted as gospel.   And there is almost certainly some truth in it.  From the people I know, the drop off rate might not be 60%, but I would say half stick with it and half don’t.

One industry journalist however questioned the methodology, saying that if Nielsen looked at Twitter website hits then the figures would be flawed as a lot of people use third party applications like ‘Tweet Deck.’

Too late. Twitter = a load of hype had already gone far and wide 

Here we have an article on Australian marketing website Mumbrella on how a lot of Australian newspapers had covered the story.  Here we have the Business Week blog in the States talking about the Twitter bubble.  

And here we have the Daily Mail, talking about how the “website sensation” is losing more than half its users every month.

What’s the bet that 99% of people will remember the ‘Twitter isn’t all that’ coverage in the mainstream press, and not the ifs and buts made in the trade press and on blogs such as this one.

Twitter needs to watch out that this isn’t the start of the bandwagon moving the other way.

A look back to 2007

In the first six months of 2007, according to a survey we did for a client, Second Life had 600+ media mentions in the UK alone.   Come the summer though and things suddenly turned.

A lot of marketers realised that their brand efforts in the virtual world were abject failures.   The less salubrious side of the world started to get a wider airing.  And just like Twitter, the numbers started to be picked apart.

As with a lot of these things, the criticisms were a mixture of truth and exaggeration.    

For example, the ‘Second Life is a virtual knocking shop’ claim was blown out of proportion.   On the numbers, Second Life did grossly under-perform, but in a lot of cases the worst possible interpretation was pulled out to fit a conclusion that had been decided on in advance.

And on the Second Life is a marketing failure argument, I personally found a lot of that fairly disingenuous, as surely it’s our fault as agencies if the consumer doesn’t like what we’ve come up with?

No matter, the general consensus seemed to be that Second Life had had its day, and it was time to put it back into its virtual box.   

The dissenting voices were ignored especially since a lot of the counter arguments were based on detail that tends to get lost beneath the “OK GUYS, IT’S OFFICIALLY OVER” headline.

Twitter won’t go the way of Second Life

Twitter is not going to go the way of Second Life, for starters because the user base is different.   

If Twitter stays stable at 20 million worldwide users (which it has at the moment), it is still something that brands should at the very least keep track of.   

That’s because Twitter’s user base is skewed towards people who often also write blogs, are active on other social networks, and in some cases are actually journalists.   Twitter often only gives you a snap-shot of what they talk about elsewhere.

As a result, even a handful of committed users have the ability to make your life difficult….or to become your advocates.

Too much emphasis on celebrities?

There is however another Second Life echo – the reliance on celebrity users to drive traffic.  

It makes sense, right?  In the case of Second Life, it was, check out Suzanne Vega giving a concert.  Hey, here’s Bono!

The problem is celebrities are often here today, gone tomorrow.   And according to research by Columbia University, it’s questionable how far a strategy that relies in individual influencers actually gets you. 

At the time, I wondered whether Second Life owners Linden Lab might have got much further had they been honest about what I imagine is the core appeal for a lot of people – that it’s an escape from the drudgery of the real world that gives you the chance to be whoever you want to be – what I’ve seen as being described as “the awesome you.”

In the same way, Oprah has been good for coverage, but there’s already back-chat about whether she’s lost interest (she hasn’t).   

As a result, once Twitter does get around to doing proactive marketing, it might be an idea to avoid the Second Life reliance on celebs and instead look at the core benefits Twitter delivers.   

Something Sydney digital strategist Mark Pollard summed up in a recent presentation – it’s down to conversation + information.  Two benefits that it’s difficult to argue against.

Second Life image – Torley