We call the Internet a place. We go to sites. Marketing people talk about destinations.

But that’s rubbish. The Internet is with me, and increasingly with most people, all of the time. It follows us as we go to other places. Increasingly, it helps us to navigate those places. You have probably seen it already, but if you haven’t, check this video of the tube-finder iPhone app.

This is the way we’re going. Digital isn’t something you can only do at your screen any more. It’s in your pocket, at your fingertips. You don’t go online any more – you simply shift between different-shaped terminals. We are already android. And your experience of digital isn’t something you do sat at a computer any more. It’s on your billboards, in your pub, driving your telly and your travel. It’s all around you all the time. Augmented reality. It’s projected in 64-bit colour at your retina (oops – no, sorry — that’s next year). It’s not about screens, either, it’s fountains and traffic lights and fridges. We don’t live our lives online or offline, but inline. (That’s an expression I stole from Timo Veikkola, strategist at The Future Laboratory who spoke for us last year).

Virtual Reality used to require a massive pair of goggles and gloves; now it is in your pocket.

So where am I going? The language of places and spaces, and sites and destinations, is outdated. Maybe it always was – a hand-me-down from broadcast TV and media that required physical outlets — like newspapers — that we took on board because we didn’t have any other words.

Stowe Boyd talks about us living in a state of flow instead. I get the idea, but am not quite comfortable with it. There’s something there (like ‘river of news’) that suggests being sat under a shower all day. And I also have uneasy feelings around the idea of ‘going with the flow’, which is all too true of a lot of online activity. (Green Twitter badges for Iran? eh?) This is something we work with not absorb.

We’re screaming for better metaphors about our on inline lives. Maybe we shouldn’t be searching for them. Maybe this is just too new and the next stage of evolution – we’ll work out the metaphors in retrospect.

Forgive me a quick plug. But. This is what the i-Design Conference is about on September 24.

On with the doom and gloom, though, and one presentation that I really enjoyed came from Marco van Veen, a manager at the Innovation & Collaboration Center at Heineken on why they said ‘no’ to Second Life.

Heineken obviously does a lot of advertising and sponsorship and isn’t remotely afraid to try out new forms such as product placement in films like Casino Royale. They could very easily imagine a Heineken bar or vending machines in SL, as could all of us — heck, why not a Heineken lake? — and obviously developers and marketing agencies kept coming to them with metaverse ideas. Initially, they had a lot of enthusiasm for the possibilities.

As they started to think through the business value of the project, though, several adverse factors dawned on them…

• They wouldn’t be the first beer brand to enter the world. The press and publicity that was showered on companies like Toyota, IBM and Starwoods when they debuted in SL wouldn’t be likely to be repeated for the third or fourth beer brand to enter.
• They found research from Market Truths (March 07 — costs $100 or L$12,500) which said that if brands fail to position themselves correctly in SL, they can expect a backlash from residents. This led the company to conduct its own research among residents. It turned out that almost half thought that the Heineken brand would not be a good fit within Second Life. Only 19% said they thought it would. Don’t ask me why that was the case — as I understand it, there was something of a backlash against all commercial brands in the world earlier this year and it may just be part of that.
• It didn’t sit very easily with the company’s CSR policy. Heineken wants to be seen as promoting the socially responsible use of alcohol. Clearly, if they made Heineken bottles and kegs available in SL, it would be reasonably likely that residents would play-act drinking to excess. What else is there to do with a keg of virtual beer? (or errm… real beer).
• Hand-in-hand with this came worries about the age of SL residents. It’s company policy at Heineken not to sponsor events where the proportion of adults is lower than 70%. Linden Labs’ own figures suggest that this is comfortably so, but the company had an alternative report created by ComScore that suggested that only 68% of SL residents are 21 or over. This made them fear that Linden’s figures were unreliable. Again, this wouldn’t sit well with their responsible drinking policy.
• Joined with this was some anxiety about litigation. It seemed a reasonable supposition that there are ambulance-chasing US lawyers sitting in SL and waiting for a beer brand to give some of their product to a minor. Such a suit could well seem newsworthy to a technophobe press keen to sniff out any suggestion of child abuse online.

Yes, I am an SL naysayer, but that’s not the only reason I found this a refreshing presentation. There’s such wide-eyed bollocks talked about virtual worlds that Heineken seem like geniuses for sensibly and thoroughly assessing the opportunity and turning it down on this occasion. As van Veen said, however, this is a very new medium, and the company has far from closed the door on a virtual existence.

Update: I’ve written two posts so far on VWF at our NMK site. One on the basics you ought to know and one on business models and possibilities. Also, this post is being discussed by listeners to the FIR podcast here.

So how do you do it and why would you do such a thing?

What are the main things companies should consider before getting involved?

If you are not authentic and do not offer anything to the community, you are likely to be ignored, at best. But those firms who commit to a long-term presence in Second Life have an opportunity to interact with their community in new and innovative ways.

We recommend that people join, learn and really feel things out before jumping in.

Is advergaming all about brand? How can advertisers measure response?

It is all about the brand at this point. Second Life provides a way for brands to reach out and connect with their audience in new and different ways.

Regardless of how you choose to measure this interaction, it would ultimately be qualitative over quantitative.

Is there a danger that users could be put off if Second Life becomes too commercial?

We equate more residents and companies coming in-world with a richer experience for everyone. Of course, this will require balancing the concerns of early adopters and other niche demographics, with that of the population as a whole.

Ultimately, the more people that choose to come in-world, the more opportunities it will create for all residents. We think residents recognise this and will accommodate an increasing variety of presences in-world. At present there is such a wealth of activity that participation in any commercial aspect is completely voluntary.

Personally, I’m not entirely sold on Second Life, though I am fascinated by the discussion. If I want to play computer games, then I’ll play a computer game. With 1.2mn members, a massive 35% of whom signed up in the last month, it’s nowhere near the size of World of Warcraft (8mn) or even Guild Wars (2mn). However, the lack of elves, dwarven warhammers and the like means that it’s more socially acceptable for grown-up marketing professionals to express an interest. I’d argue that this makes the level of coverage a little artificial compared to its real-life impact.

As with most social media engagement, as Catherine says, the metrics of ROI are pretty messy. It “provides a way for brands to reach out and connect with their audience in new and different ways” that can only be measured qualitatively. The trouble is that most businesses can’t do everything. How will they be able to measure the advantages of a SL presence against other forms of activity? Also, having a building or an island in SL kind of requires one or more people to be there. Empty shops don’t, to me, suggest a company that’s “engaged”. So that’s three FTEs if you want a full-time presence… for results that you won’t be able to quantify for ages. Good luck getting that past the grumpy FD.

* I know the headline has nothing to do with the story. Sorry. But I wanted to use it anyway.