Real Life Disappointment with Second Life — the Sequel

My previous blog documented my disappointment with Second Life’s public relations. Here is an update on the situation. The day after my blog appeared, I received both a voice mail and an email from the lady at Lewis PR (her name should have been Kristin, not Christen as I had thought at the last writing). According to her email, she had attempted to send the requested information to me via two emails. But I assume both emails were lost in transition, because they were not in my inbox or junk folder. When I called back to Lewis PR, someone did pick up the phone this time. When I said my name, he was apparently aware of who I am. He sounded courteous and helpful on the phone. Since the information that was sent to me was already something I knew and not quite what I had hoped for, he even told me that they would consider putting the information together internally, as it would be eventually useful for the company itself as well.

Overall, I am glad that the situation was resolved successfully. I had heard about the power of customer complaints on the Internet. In fact, a fellow blogger and PR specialist Michelle Rogerson had documented such a situation with PBWiki. But it is not until I have experienced it personally that I truly feel and believe in the power. So what are the lessons learned from this whole event?

  1. As Rogerson’s blog pointed out, a company should actively monitor the blogsphere (and I would add the websphere in general) for customer opinions. They are very valuable market research information that has been enabled by today’s participatory Internet.
  2. Ignoring negative feedback carries grave consequences. But dealt with properly, negative feedback can turn around and become a blessing to a business. This is analogous to service recovery in the services research literature. No one is expected to do everything right 100% of the time. If recovered properly, a service failure may actually lead to higher customer satisfaction.
  3. Email as a communication channel can be unreliable sometimes. Therefore, for important customer/public requests, companies should follow up through other channels of communication (online or offline). This would help avoid ill-will and negative word-of-mouth from happening in the first place.

Real Life Disappointment with Second Life

A recent real-life encounter with Second Life turned out to be a big disappointment. For an academic research project, my co-author and I were looking for a list of real-life brands that have a presence in SL. The natural point of contact seemed to be SL’s press inquiries: Lewis PR. Being a geek, I tried email first. More than a week (or a year by Internet standard) went by, and no response. So I digressed to the more traditional way of telephone. Luckily, I reached a lady named Christen from Lewis PR. After explaining the situation to her, she said she would send me something related to what we were looking for. I was reaching the point of happiness and almost convinced myself that telephone is the tool to use when you really want to get things done. But not so fast! A few days later, I still did not receive anything from Christen. I called again, afraid that she might have written down the wrong email address. I only got her voicemail and left her a message with my email address and multiple phone numbers. After another few days, it’s still dead silence from the other end. Repeated calls to the contact number resulted in nothing but her voicemail (this is the curse of Caller ID technology).

It makes me wonder: is an academic project too ivory-towerish to deserve proper attention from SL or Linden Lab (the company behind SL) or Lewis PR? I did mention to the lady that the project will eventually turn into a journal publication. Is that not worth the same efforts as compared to, say, a prominent article in New York Times? I teach Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC). One of the main principles of IMC is that no matter whom a firm is communicating with, whether it is customers, internal employees, or the general public, the firm should always keep a consistent brand image. The fun and cutting-edge image of SL in my mind certainly does not match up with the disappointment and ill-will I felt during the recent encounter.

Ironically, the following quote from the SL marketing team was featured prominently on Lewis PR’s front page:

“It really does feel like our marketing team has four more members — I sometimes almost forgot that the LEWIS team isn’t actually part of the Linden Lab.” — Catherine smith, director of marketing and brand strategy, Linden Lab

Maybe that is the reason why we did not hear anything from Lewis PR. They are spending too much time functioning as Linden Lab internal employees and not giving enough attention to real-life external audiences…PUBLIC relations. Alas!

Netscape’s Failure and Google’s Success

A little while ago, I wrote a two-part post on Microsoft’s irrational obsession with Google. Over the weekend, I watched a Science Channel program that detailed the background of Netscape and how it lost its battle against Microsoft. It was very interesting to observe the same kind of obsession and vengeance that Microsoft showed in that battle as it does today toward Google. That made me think: why was Microsoft able to defeat Netscape but not Google? Although Google does have plenty of Ph.D.’s as employees, it seems implausible that Microsoft simply doesn’t have employees smart enough to catch up.

There may be many reasons to explain this historical difference. For example, one may argue that Microsoft was distracted by its anti-trust case when Google was quietly gaining its strength. In my mind, however, one crucial reason was the fundamental difference between Google’s business model and that of Netscape.

As a traditional software business, Netscape relied on making money off its software. Therefore, when Microsoft offered its Internet Explorer for free, it immediately crushed Netscape’s fundamental business model. Google, on the other hand, offered its service to the average consumer for free and instead drew its revenue from businesses/advertisers. By doing so, it defeated the advantage Microsoft had: the deeper pocket. No longer can Microsoft use its free bundling and distribution power against Google. As its service is accessible over the Internet at no cost, Google was able to start on the same footing as Microsoft, and the deeper pocket Microsoft had could not help the company in this case.

The lesson learned from this is that, when businesses face a formidable rival, too often it’s easy to focus on what the competitor has that one does not have. But as Google’s luck shows, the best way to take down a larger rival is by rendering whatever advantages the larger rival has useless. Of course, this is built on the assumption that the company can still find sources of competitive advantage in an alternative area. What essentially happened in Google’s case was that they changed the rule of the game, and by doing so, it diminished Microsoft’s market power.

Posted in Uncategorized