Rapstar

This is an interesting way to end the blogging for the semester. I remember one of the first blogs about digital vs analog and how I side with analog aspects of daily life. Of course I use the computer on a daily basis as well for design, communication, and entertainment - games a rarely a part of my world. I do undertand how inportant the gaming industry is to digital design and how massive the gaming community has grown over the last ten years. I think it's amazing that you can sit down and play some one else across an ocean in soccer or a first player game and talk smack back and forth via a headset. My old boss was addicted to multi player games and I always knew when he was up all night playing games if he'd come in looking a bit more pale then normal.

The future of games will continue to evolve with richer media content, more immersive environments, and of course high quality audio. A few other people have mentioned in their blogs that gaming will follow the lead of social media networks and I believe that to be true. I have designed a few trade show exhibits for the gaming industry and always really enjoy their passion about the brand. (Ubisoft, DefJam Interactive, 4mm). The most recent project I worked on was for a game called Rapstar. it's basically a kareoke game to hip hop. Players video tape their performance and upload the video to a YouTube like community for other players to comment and rate. This type of concept will continue making gaming more competive and cross over into reality.

http://www.defjamrapstar.com/

[sorry this blog is late]

Here We Go Again...

You know, I've read a lot of nonsense over the years by people making sweeping generalizations about one "generation" or the other, but this guy really takes the cake. Most of his assumptions are so off the mark, I don't really know where to start. Suffice to say that most of his characterizations of Boomers could be made about most "generations" who have reached similar stages of life, and probably will be said about "gamers" as well when they start getting within spitting distance of their AARP cards. Given that I'm posting so late(which, as a Boomer, though albeit one young enough to have played childhood Pong, is out of character, given that I'm supposedly obsessed with pleasing my superiors at all costs), I won't even attempt to go through this stuff. Suffice it to say that I think a lot of this is bull biscuits, written by a guy who's obviously angling to snag some high-paying corporate consulting gigs by scaring the guys in upper management.

I'm not much for games myself, video or otherwise. I never got off on plunking quarters into Pac Man or Donkey Kong and video arcades made my head ache. My kids like 'em, though. We got a Game Cube when my oldest was 8 or 9 and he did indeed promptly disappear into the basement, where he stayed for the next 5 years. Maybe he gained all sorts of valuable skills that will be of great use to him in the brave new world and a shiny new consciousness that I will never begin to understand. But he sure didn't get much fresh air or sunshine and whatever problems he learned to solve aren't ones he'll face when he actually has to live his life. Sure, he had friends over sometimes, but I really don't think racing Mario's cart provides the same or better quality of experience as going to the park and playing ball. He's not the only one, of course--I noticed early on in my parenting career that kids don't play outside anymore, not the kind of unsupervised, unstructured play that was universal not so long ago. True, Boomers only had 3 TV channels, but they spent way more time actually interacting with the real world and each other, and they expected very little from adults. Perseverance and resilience aren't qualities that are developed only by making it from one level to another in the self-contained environment of a video game. Maybe gamers are so antsy not because they're so eager for challenges but because they're in situations they can't get out of just by swiveling a joystick.

That all being said, I don't deny that people coming up are very different in some ways than older people--they always are. I thing the author vastly overstates those differences(many of his characterizations of gamers--their supposed impatience with hierarchy, their inability to learn in "traditional" settings--I read 15 years ago regarding "Generation X" and were made about the Boomers before that), but no doubt, there are, for better or worse, some there. I don't know about the corporate world, but I doubt anywhere else is facing anything like the knowledge gap he fears. Everything I've read, especially since the economic Ragnarock, suggests that the Boomers are going to be on the job for quite awhile.

As for the future of gaming, I'm not really qualified to say, but my guess is that games will just become more immersive, until people never have to stop playing them for any reason at all. Only old people will take walks or go to the beach and their great grandkids will write articles about how limiting must be to have to feel like you have to be in touch with reality every once in awhile. In any case, my kid doesn't play video games nearly as much as he used to. He's got friends he plays music with and he spends a lot of time doing after school activities he didn't do before. He seems much happier than he did when he spent every waking moment holed up in front of the screen. But then, I'm speaking from the other side of the Great Divide.

Video games as a learning tool

A while ago I saw this commercial on TV. Here is the description: "Get up. Get smart. Get going! With the Fisher-Price Smart Cycle, kids pedal, steer and control the on-screen action! Smart Cycle is a stationary bike, a preschool learning center and an arcade game system all rolled into one! Smart Cycle plugs right into your TV, ready for discoveries, games and active play. Bring the arcade experience home, with multiple levels of play for different ages and stages. Kids can pedal through Alphabet Valley to learn numbers or charge up Math Mountain to learn numbers. Smart Cycle also lets kids race against the clock or with another player." This game is appropriate for kids ages 3-7.

I thought to myself, wow, they're starting them off young! The first video game I had was Super Nintendo given to me by my sister's boyfriend. I played Street Fighter a few times and then lost interest. I must have been around 12 years old. I'm not huge into video games. I did get a Wii last year though and play it occasionally. I have mixed feelings when it comes to video games and kids. I don't like the idea of having a kid sitting in front of the tv for hours playing video games. On the other hand I recognize the learning development some video games can provide. I agree with the author of the article that games can teach a person how to adapt. They help to develop cognition and problem solving skills.

It looks like video games will be more integrated in our daily lives. With cell phones now acting as mobile games with internet connection it seems even more possible. I just hope that as new technology is being released and the way we learn and work becomes more computer based we will not forget to balance our lives with a few ours outside. Perhaps even gather some friends and go play a game of kickball or something.

Slightly off my topic. I found this to be funny. Maybe you will too.
Ultra-Realistic Modern Warfare

The future of social gaming.

I think the the future of gaming will mostly revolve around social gaming. What makes these games so popular amongst players and producers is that players don't become tired with the after they have beaten the game. Social games have exponentially more complexity than a coder could ever write since there are X number of players shaping and controlling the game. Social games also provide many opportunities for monetization, weather it be upgrades or level packs, or a virtual currency like in second life.

I also see an increase in the amount of resources being devoted to mobile gaming. Mobile gaming has already shown to be a mojor force since the opening of Apple's App Store. Mobile gaming is also a perfect vehicle for social games because it is on a portable device with constant internet access and allow the user to easily access the game whenever they have a free moment. Since many social games require constant checking in to monitor the players status in the game world this allows the user to do so more while on the go.

I think that being a digital digital designer for the gaming generation will certainly have it's challenges. Gamers will be used to feature rich, fully immersive environments with many layers of depth and interaction. So the gamers will expect either an interface that reflects the level of complexity that they are used to in the gaming world or the exact opposite. Simple, clutter free, easy to find information. I think that there has already been signs of this effect in browsers (Yahoo to Google) and in social networking sites (MySpace to Facebook). So, the challenge for designers will be to disseminate which treatment should be used where. The importance of being a good designer is as important as ever as interface will be getting more and more complicated or simpler and cleaner, they still need to stand out and be engaging and usable.

Gaming: Why Do You Hurt Me

After reading the article that was assigned I feel that I can only agree to a certain point. Yes the baby-boomers will leave in huge numbers and they'll be taking their knowledge with them. But I agree with Andrew in that taking advice from someone that is a few generations past me doesn't seem like the best idea. If I talk to a baby-boomer about the video game market they'll laugh at you or still feel like it's the early Atari or ColecoVision days. They don't understand how it's developed and gamers have to constantly be up to date. This is also the case with any recent electronic device where this generation needs to multi-task while using these devices. Gamers are people that know how to adapt and can change depending on certain situations.

Companies should try and keep some old dogs to help the new ones but they also have to make sure they evolve with the times. These companies have to hire early gamers to make sure there company can constantly be up to date because that's what gamers enjoy. The gaming generation find it better if they can always be on top and always have something to look at it. They are able to fluctuate with every situation in the gaming world. Apply this to the real world and maybe there won't be too much trouble.

Moving on to the other topic that's been brought up, where is gaming going? I'm a big gamer and I understand the ideas behind both the Wii and Project Natal. There is a need to push the evenelope and let people experience gaming in a different way. The companies want to be able to push new hardware but also allow people to actually "feel" the world they created. But I have always felt that the Wii was a step backwards. Nintendo has made their money by letting both younger and older crowds into gaming. But they've also let a huge fluctuation of little kids games and party games into the market. This has always made me believe that gaming has lost it's niche and now everyone can join in. I guess my rant is just trying to say that the club has let too many people in and soon the big 3 (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) will try to make the bucks from "non-gamers" and let the old gamers hold on to the precious past.

Aparently im a 2.0

Reading this article was a pretty interesting experience being that I knew I was going to fit into whatever stereotypes were addressed and I wanted to see how we are perceived. Much of my life has revolved around gaming. I got into computer games at a real young age, playing wolfenstein3d and other primitive games on one of our early Macintoshs. I later got into multi-player online games, and even more so competitively. I joined a group of people who went from game to game, playing in online tournaments from counter-strike, medal of honor, call of duty, battlefield 1942 and rainbow six. The interesting thing about all this though was the people I played with.

Most of the people in my group were much older then me, most with families and jobs. People were looking for a way to relax, and because of that the group was structured and built in a way to avoid the dreaded "online argument" and away from drama. Unfortunately this environment only lasted so long. I eventually got into playing World of Warcraft, which destroyed any hope left of peoples mentality and maturity. People fought over the most mundane things, I often almost felt more stupid after reading the arguments i saw in chat.

i'm sort of ranting in a way, but there is a point to me talking about this. The article addresses that there is this need for a rapid and efficient way to transfer knowledge from the baby boomer generation to the gamer generation. What I have gained from my own experiences was much more then I could have ever asked for. The people I played with in my early years were part of the baby-boomers, and from various backgrounds. Engineers, designers, stay-at-home parents, and even a rocket scientist. I learned a great deal of having interests in multiple fields, multiple subjects and even pulled out some management, leadership and strategy as crazy as it may seem.

Video games have definitely influenced recent generations and had a negative impact on the mentality of people. With the rise in online games, people find that because they are in a virtual world being represented by an avatar that they can be someone different then in real life. Unfortunately this is starting to bleed out of just the gaming world and into society which can create a big threat for the future workplace.

Gaming in the Future

Gaming has gone from the simple brick breaker to the Wii. Gamers are now "in" the game, controlling every move and personalization has taken gaming to the next level. Before starting to play a Wii game you can take 15 minutes and create a personality on the game that goes into eye color detail. The next step in the gaming world is the social networking, bringing the social networks to the gaming console.

Also the next step is to completely make the controller disappear. Virtual gaming and virtual reality is coming very fast and coming very soon. Of course the graphics will be impeccable too but the real concern is to bring in just about anybody to play games. The image below basically shows that you don't even need hands to be "in" a game. By standing on a board for the Wii it can mirror your movements in a snowboarding game it will only be a matter of time before you just need to tell the video game if you want to move and it will respond.

http://img.engadget.com/common/images/3060000000047552.JPG?0.9395737554886026

Baby-Boomers and Gamey-Boomer

I think the author of the chapter we read is largely accurate in his descriptions of the baby-boomers vs. the gamer generation. He is, perhaps, a little too black and white from time to time, but I think he does a good job in characterizing the differences in lifestyle and learning. Where I disagree is his contention that baby-boomers have collected some kind of golden wisdom that they will have to pass on to our generation. Yes, boomers have spent much more time and focused energy on learning their specific tasks, mostly because the social structure in which they grew up demanded it. They have indeed acquired knowledge, but I think it is just false that somehow that knowledge is inaccessible to the next generation; if anything it is more accessible than ever.

I also think the author contradicts himself in thinking that the wisdom of the baby-boomers is really that valuable. Especially in light of the recent economic collapse, I am very wary to take the advise of anyone over 65, especially in matters of business management, economics, marketing, etc (or what it means to play video games). The old models, even if people may have spent their whole lives learning them, are always not relevant anymore, and the notion that anyone should spend so much time on one task is looking increasingly wasteful and unproductive.

One of the things we have learned from gaming is the ability to change mental models instantly, or even to juggle multiple models at once. We are much smarter at making the things work that will work, and we are much less afraid of abandoning something that clearly isn't working at all.
The gamer lifestyle, as the author points out, is a non-linear, multitasking, problem-solving way of life. We have been programmed by games, software applications, electronic devices, and the internet to expect the information we need as soon as we need it, and we are usually able to get it. If we have a problem to solve we can google it, read a hundred different possible answers and forum discussions on the topic, and a have a relatively well informed decision. Is it better than a lifetime of experience? Probably not, but that matters less and less in a world whose pace is increasing exponentially.

Controller-free Gaming

Project Natal from Xbox is the preview of the games of the future. Project Natal is the code name for a "controller-free gaming and entertainment experience" by Microsoft for the Xbox 360 video game platform. Based on an add-on peripheral for the Xbox 360 console, Project Natal enables users to control and interact with the Xbox 360 without the need to touch a game controller through a natural user interface using gestures, spoken commands or presented objects and images.
The small, black device "Natal” will allow for an astoundingly wide range of actions by utilizing a group of sensors (the box itself sits beneath your TV), and the accessory will be capable of juggling multiple users during a single session. The demo Microsoft showed off included a skateboarding game and a family playing a racing game (the dad was changing a tire, the daughter driving).



http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live/projectnatal/

The Future of Gaming

I totally agree with Liz. I also believe that video gaming next steps will be to become more realistic. Which they are now in the process of doing. After that, might be 3-D interaction or some sort of mind control. When I say mind control, I mean playing the game without the action of using a control (hands free). Simply using the power of your mind, would be pretty cool.

After that, I have now idea what would top the ideas listed above. Maybe the art of gaming would die out, due to the lack of advancing. Or people in the future will find another way to entertain themselves. All are good questions that are hard to answer.

Gamers of the Future

I think that gaming will be even more interactive. The wii was a step in that direction, but I believe it can go farther. They will enhance the user experience and make it very realistic. I recently saw an episode of House that started out in a video game. Everything was animated and it wasn't until a little while into the episode that you realized that these three different voices were humans playing a game. They had headsets on that let them see the game without any other distractions. They were standing on platforms that gave them the ability to physically control their movements in the game. And instead of controllers they had fake guns that acted as the traditional controller....although it wasn't performing the traditional controls. This is where video games are going. I'm not exactly sure how it will manifest itself, but it will change. They will become more interactive.

Ten More Years for Gaming

Video games have been around for 30 years and counting, and it's hard to believe how far we've gotten in that time. Every single stride in gaming history I feel is impressive and says good things about the future. The above image shows the in-game character design of Nintendo giants Mario, Link, and Donkey Kong. As you can see, there have been DRASTIC improvements since then, and will continue to be in the future. But what does the future contain?

For almost all of these 30 years of gaming, games have focused on gameplay and graphics. Granted, graphics can get a lot better and character movement can get a lot smoother, but aside from graphics, the gaming industry is starting to re-define the controller. As seen through the Nintendo Wii, a controller does not strictly have to be a device with buttons to simply press, then a response will happen within the game. The Nintendo in particular are taking gaming to the "next level" by making them more "natural", or analog. And that simple word, analog, is where I feel gaming is going in the future.

The Nintendo Wii has the appeal of old and young alike, more so than its main competitors, the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. This is because of its intrinsic ability to be simple. Nintendo has always been about this, and hit the nail on the head with the Wii. Many Wii games are assisted with the help of the Wii remote's ability to detect movement in three dimensions. For example, instead of pressing a button to shoot in a game, with the Wii one would point the remote at the screen and pull the trigger. A much more human way to pretend to kill people.

In the future, gaming will continue to thrive on analog experiences to the point of virtual reality. I feel that in ten years, console gaming will be completely redefined. I do not think that the controller will go away, as there is a certain appeal to it, but video will games thrive to be real. Augmented reality already uses tactics to interact with the real world very closely. I feel that there will be a bridge between this and virtual reality. To sum it up, in ten years gaming graphics will be "real life", the controller will be an option, getting involved will be a more analog idea than ever before, and long-awaited dream of virtual reality may be a reality.

Link for this week's Blog Entry

In case it is not documented in the syllabus, below is the article to read for this week's blog posting:

http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/42/07879865/0787986542.pdf

Virtual Reality

The third dimension has by this point become a very familiar part of our everyday lives wether its video games like Call of Duty (which came out today and is freakin awesome!) or more social virtual worlds like second life, the generations of the digital age have been fully saturated by it. As far as my interest in virtual reality, I've always been fascinated with 3D Modeling and the effects it can produce. This is kind of a side to the whole the topic of Virtual reality but I've been doing a lot of reading over the last couple months on three dimensional scanners and the imagery they can produce.

In particular their is a youtube video that totally blew me away at: ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=854ZTvs8UoU )

In it a technician goes over the workings of "ThingLab's" Mephisto 3D scanner its basically a point and shoot 3d scanner / camera. After looking at something like this it really opened my eyes as to what virtual reality will be in the future. Imagine being able to explore fully scanned environments done in that kind of detail and precision, it would be absolutely as close as a person could get to experiencing a virtual world that exactly matches real life. The possibilities really are endless and if this kind of technology is a glimpse of things to come it should be pretty amazing.

Virtual Reality

Virtual reality has always been an extremely interesting subject to me, and I have been fascinated by the concept in general. Early ideas of virtual reality lead me to ideas of living out dreams in a much clearer fashion then we do in actual dreams. Early examples (relevant to me) were such platforms as virtual boy and red zone, game systems that really only simulated VR by putting you as close to the images as possible.

I've realized that there is really sort of 2 kinds of virtual reality. The first is the traditional sense that we are being "physically" immersed in the environment. But the second is something that has developed over the past few years of a virtual network and representation of people, avatars. Popular in games like Second Life and the ridiculous giant World of Warcraft, people have extended their personal qualities into a digital realm, effectively living their lives in a digital world, a virtual world. The unfortunate downfall to this is when you interact in a digital world is the buffer between people can make people animalistic.

As VR progresses and as I've aged, the social and scientific advantages of VR have become much more apparent to me. The medical community could greately benefit from a virtual environment, able to explore the body or molecular level and gain insight that would be otherwise impossible. There are also huge military applications, though i would not agree with most of them, VR could make combat and reconnaissance much safer for those carrying it out.

Virtual Cocoon

I've always been intrigued by the idea of virtual reality. A good amount of science fiction movies in the past five or so years have alluded to its uses. One movie that sticks out is "Minority Report". In one of the scenes Tom Cruise enters in to what appears to be a Virtual Reality Arcade lined with several, futuristic looking, pod like, booths. The users appears to be able to access all types of simulations and can live out anything imaginable. Pretty cool, unfortunately, to my knowledge and research we have yet to discover technology that simulates and stimulates all the senses. I came across one article that claims to add sight, smell, taste and touch to the experience :

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090304091227.htm

"..the 'Virtual Cocoon' will consist of a headset incorporating specially developed electronics and computing capabilities. It could help unlock the full potential benefits of Real Virtuality in fields such as education, business and environmental protection..."

Online games such as second life, etc will continue to thrive in my opinion. I agree with the article from CNN that social networking sites will continue to evolve into more of a Virtual Experience. It seems like a logical progression to me. I'm not sold on the idea of making virtual money. Maybe it's a way to create status within the online community. I can see it continuing, especially if it's a motivational factor for people to spend more time online trying to rake in the dough.

Also really cool: Click Pic : Immersive Cocoon

Save your money for the Real world

Until this class, I had never even heard of Second Life or the kind of virtual realities that people live and play in. In my opinion I think it is a waste of time and money. Honestly I just don't understand why adults would want to use them. I do however understand that it would be popular among young kids and teens. I found the article "Life beyond Second Life" very amusing and interesting. One part especially was this: "Kaneva, which launched a beta version of its virtual world earlier this year, gives members a free virtual apartment equipped with a TV set they can watch videos on. Frasca said users can then buy credits (the company has no special currency like Second Life or There.com) in order to purchase more virtual goods."(1) OK, so first of all, why would a person sit at their computer and watch a fake TV in a fake apartment? Why not watch a real TV show in their actual apartment? And then secondly pay money to buy more virtual things to put in their virtual apartment? I really don't believe that these virtual realities are going to be able to hold their own financially within the entertainment segment. The economy is tight and people are going to be much less willing to spend money in a fake world. All this to say that even though I think the idea of a virtual reality for entertainment purposes is dumb, I think that these virtual realities could be very beneficial for professional purposes within businesses. According to another article I read "Second Life creates virtual world for businesses", "More than 1,400 businesses, schools, government agencies and other organizations around the world reportedly use Second Life for meetings, training and other work gatherings that typically involve employees traveling."(2) Companies are able to save money by using these virtual platforms to communicate. That is a good thing. Helping businesses save money instead of spending it is a popular idea, one that has the potential to grow within Second Life.

(1) http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/14/news/companies/virtualworlds/index.htm

(2) http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iBAvqVdJcnvgOug8rNeH3L8YUjKw

Virutal World: Will It Fail Again?

When you ask someone about virtual reality in the modern world they'll most likely laugh at you. They are laughing at you because they believe that the technology of today will never create a real breathing world. There is a need, especially in the gaming world, to recreate reality as best as they can. They want to be able to push the player into their world and create something that is fully believable but that's in the video game world. Do we really need something like second life to take up are time. Personally I rather get stuff done in the real world or at least be entertained by watching something that is beyond reality. As humans we have to always take the next step to make our lives better. People feel that their lives might be better in this new virtual world and rather create an entire new persona.

All of this stems from the promise of living in a world that you could do anything in. Funny thing is this sort of was created when the Virtual Boy came out. This video game system was created to allow people to "live" in their games. To be able to fully interact with characters in a game wasn't exactly created with this system and eventually it failed. But still people have always been interested in being able to react in certain situations where there are no consequences.

Still I believe that virtual reality is just a fantasy with today's technology and even 10 years from now. I personally want the world that I'm living in to be my highest priority while the "virtual" world should be separate. I love to play video games and that is a part of my life but it belongs in a separate reality. People should be able to take on their problems in the real world and increase their personality through experiences.

Another Life?

I'm going to put this out there - I don't buy the hype. It's not that I don't understand how these virtual reality worlds work, and I assume that the more businesses are exposed to them and the more time they exist, the more monetization there will be through them. But just the overall concept itself, I just can't get behind it.

Who has so much free time in their reality life that they can build a whole virtual life as well? It seems to me that the article exposed a real truth, in that the general population in these virtual reality worlds are techsters, and of specific note: generally a younger generation. Like disposable income, the younger age group also seems to have disposable time.

Similar to the boom of products and advertising aimed at younger and younger target markets, due to an increase in their disposable income, I can see the virtual realm become targeted directly at the younger age group. And it makes sense that monetization, in much the same way that it currently exists, be expanded. It'll be interesting to see what kinds of products bridge the gap between the virtual and the real world and fit the target audience. My first thought: Digital music and video.

I Have Enough Trouble In My First Life, Why Do I Need a Second?

I've been hearing and reading stories about Second Life and all the money people were making there for several years now, but I didn't have much experience with it personally till earlier this semester, when I had to open a Second Life account for another class. My first reaction was surprise at how cheesy the whole thing looked--I don't know what I expected, but it all had a flat and tinny quality, as if everything was made of cut-up electronic paper. Chatting with strangers has never really been my thing, even in my original life, so I wasn't that interested in striking up conversations. I spent a lot of time finding stuff to put on my avatar--since I didn't have any money, it all had to be free. Luckily, there is a lot of free stuff in Second Life, but like real life, a lot of it is odds and ends and even if your avatar ends up looking unique, it looks kind of sad, too.

Since my initial experience, I've run into a few people who have Second Life businesses, mostly selling things for people to put in their houses. Although I think it's kind of interesting that you can make money in a virtual world, it doesn't seem to me to be a whole lot easier than making money in the real world. You still have to come up with a good or service that people want to buy, and it's going to take a certain investment of time and energy to learn the social and technical aspects of the world you're dealing with to get to the point where you can use that knowledge to your advantage. In that sense, there's really nothing "virtual" about Second Life at all--it's just an extension of the larger Internet. What's the difference between opening a SL "gallery" and posting samples of your work on a more conventional social networking site? I'm not sure, except that it's presented in a slightly different context.

As they're currently configured, it's hard for me to see virtual chatrooms like Second Life appealing to more than a niche audience, namely people who it gratifying to spend a lot of time making doll-like representations of themselves, which they can trot around computer landscapes. Obviously, there are a lot of people out there who at least try it, but I've got to wonder how many of those who register for Second Life actually end up spending significant time on it. For the experience to really catch on, it seems to me like it will have to become more immersive. If people feel like they're actually IN a virtual environment, instead of just moving an avatar around one, they will find it far more compelling. That's the way I feel anyhow, but given there are thousands of Chinese employed full-time manufacturing Second Life tchotchkes, I'm probably wrong.

Virtual Worlds

Virtual Worlds have already become a major part of our society and its becoming a larger part of everyday life. Its common now to start social networking sites, how facebook took over myspace and twitter is moving in to take control. It seems that computers have a larger part in the American Dream, with the white picket fence with the dog and two kids you have to have a Macbook Pro in your living room. I personally feel as if social networking will be the future job interviews, future phone calls, how to stay in touch with people, and maybe even working from home. Its a fear of many, but there's so much technology in virtual worlds its as if when you upgrade a system its already out of date. Virtual Worlds is a part of our world now and I believe that it will eventually out date most common ways of interaction.

Virtual Communities

In the article "Life beyond Second Life" from June of 2007 seemed to be at high point of virtual world in the news. While they have remained very popular I have been hearing less about them than I was two years ago. A lot of this seems to be due to better regulation and rules in the communities that own them. However, according to an article in the Gaurdian this summer, membership in virtual worlds have grown 39% in the second quarter of this year to around 597 million. While experts assume that only a fraction of these member are active at any given time the number are still staggering.

Another surprising fact is that most of this growth came from children. Worlds that target children 5-10 or 10-15 have populations in the tens to hundreds of millions. Worlds targeted to older groups (15-25) have smaller numbers but that thought is that as the youngest users get older they will expect virtual world like online communities and static, text and image based services like Facebook and Myspace won't cut it.

Not only is membership still growing but the companies are profitable. Unlike communites like Twitter or Facebook, the business models of worlds like Second Life or World of Warcraft are based on a mix of payments and subscriptions. Second Life now also offers and enterprise version that allows employees avatars to meet in virtual office spaces. With travel budgets shrinking some companies are embracing this method. Some enterprise users even claim that because the environment can be so engaging it can lead to the creation of more ideas.

So based on all of this do I think that virtual worlds will still be around in 5 or 10 years? Yes, I do. I think that they will continue to change. A lot of the novelty has worn off and I think they they will need to be more accessible to average users than Second Life or other are now to become mainstream. I'm curious to see if the business application really catches on. I think it probably works well for some industries but I can't quite imagine some professions creating an avatar and logging on for a meeting. It will be interesting to see what the 5-15 year-olds of today will grow with and expect from a social network.

Profiting from Virtual Worlds

The sale of virtual goods has risen from $265 million in 2008 to $621 in 2009. By 2013 projected growth estimated at $2.5 billion. That's just in the United States. Second Life currently has the largest market, with approximately $144 million dollars changing hands between users so far for 2009. But those numbers are deceiving, only 219 of the approximately 68,000 users earned profits over $5000 (1). So 0.3% of Second Life users are actually making some money from what presumably is a lot more time spent in their virtual world than would be required to make that same money in the real world. However there are a handful of people making a million plus a year from Second Life (1). But again, that's perhaps a half dozen people among 68,000 users. If you're looking to make it big in virtual worlds, perhaps you should keep looking.

I'm of the belief that virtual worlds are a niche idea, they'll always have value to an esoteric audience but the real money will come with the rise of augmented reality, a fusion of virtual reality and real-reality untethered from a computer screen. More on that in my presentation.

1. The future of virtual goods, from Hypergrid Business

Retrieved November 8, 2009, from Hypergrid Business website:

http://www.hypergridbusiness.com/2009/09/the-future-of-virtual-goods/

Second Life

Second Life is a world of almost 2 million people where your three dimensional character can meet and chat with other people characters. Second Life has an internal currency, the Linden dollar (L$). L$ can be used to buy, sell, rent or trade land or goods and services with other users. Every person in Second Life gets a stipends or weekly salary of a few hundred Linden dollars . according to the Second Life Web site any resident can make money in second life through different ways, Linden dollars can be converted into US dollars at around 260 to 1.That means that 1 Linden dollar is worth about a half cent in real money. In addition to the stipends, you can work for someone or start your own business to earn Linden dollars or you can buy them at online currency exchanges with real dollars. This feature of Linden dollars and US dollars being interchangeable makes it possible to turn your virtual income into real income.
Thousands of residents in second life are making part or all of their real life income from their Second Life Businesses “Artists visit virtual Second Life for real-world cash”.
I think Second Life is not finished yet, and i believe that it is a preview of the Internet of the future.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/04/07/second.life.singer/

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/gadgets_and_gaming/virtual_worlds/article2747259.ece

Simulating Civil Engineering Projects In Virtual Worlds

Last year I saw a demonstration of a particularly interesting use for Second Life. Such-and-such an engineering company (the person giving the demonstration was obliged not to divulge the company) was employing Second Life to create a 3D replica of a gas station fuel pumping system. Those who were invited could visit the station and walk around a full scale replica, examine the floor layout, signage, etc etc. They could also, if they toggled it, see through the "pavement" the under-workings of the station, and see various revealing views of the piping and fuel delivery system. The company could then show this to potential clients, essentially allowing them to explore the physical space and the specifications of the project without it having been built... I can definitely see how that would be appealing to a gas company.

I think it will be these kinds of educational engineering and architectural projects will have the most long term use value in the online virtual world. The gratuitous uses will always be there, but most of them are passing fads, even if that fad passes through 20 million people.

Simulating Civil Engineering Projects In Virtual Worlds

View more presentations from Pam Broviak.

Surrogates anyone?

After reading Nick's blog, I did agree that the article was outdated. I realized that the user activity for Second Life sites are now in the tens of millions. Most of my friends, that are unemployed, spend most of their time on these sites. They are able to pretend to work and shop without the effects of real-life negativity. Other just enjoy doing and being something different.

Where do I see this virtual world ending up?
In my mind, I think the movie, Surrogates. This movie hits it on the nail. I believe the virtual world will run out of new ways to draw new users. Of course, they will try 3-D interaction, but when that gets old, Surrogates will be next. Surrogates will have the new appeal users are looking for. Users will have to ability to interact from the comfort of their own homes and pick how they would like their Surrogate to look. The twist will be interacting in real-life, not virtual. I know this might be crazy, but I don't think we are far off.

Surrogates movie trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwTJ7mCcFoY

Virtual Worlds

The whole idea of a virtual world does not appeal to me one bit. I try to avoid them and a result don't know much about them. I would rather have real life experiences and interact with people in real life. Nevertheless, I did some reading to educate myself on this topic and some of what I read simply shocked me.

There are approximately 350 virtual worlds. One hundred ninety-three (193) of them cater to teens or younger. It is predicted that this market will decrease in the upcoming year. So far 63 virtual-world related companies declined by 58 percent from 2007 to 2008, shrinking from $1.4 billion to $594 million.* These predictions were based on the sluggish economy. However, I found a conflicting report by consultancy kzero.co.uk that found the membership of virtual worlds grew by 39% in the second quarter of 2009 to an estimated 579 million. However, not all of those members were active.

There are a few ways of making money when it comes to virtual worlds. Once you have acquired assets in your virtual worlds you can sell them on ebay. Apparently it's not hard to make middle income.

I predict that virtual worlds will continue to grow. They sure are not showing any signs of stopping.

*Source: http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/01/23/virtual-worlds-getting-dose-reality

Virtual Worlds in Social Networking

It didn't take long to realize that the article you gave is already "outdated". Online virtual worlds are expanding at an exponential rate. Some of the top virtual worlds from 2007 were clubpenguin.com and zwinky.com, with 4.0 million and 3.6 million respective users in the MONTH of May. (1) Farmville alone has over 11 million users in a single DAY, making it a record-setting virtual world. (2) Farmville's release date was June 19th, 2009, and it has been growing approximately 1 million new players in a single week ( and I am proud to say that I am not one of them). The secret to Farmville's success it, without a doubt, is using Facebook as their platform. Games with the same idea as Farmville, i.e. Bejeweled Blitz and Mafia Wars, are solid proof that virtual worlds in social networking are definitely the hot thing of the now. These games even have the capabilities to create a sort of competitive friend list consisting of any Facebook friend that also participates and competes within the same virtual world.

As successful as this virtual world is, and as much as i understand why it makes sense, I still believe it has gone too far. It did not take much at all to find a Farmville cheater site. This is probably one of the more ridiculous websites I have seen lately. Topfarmvillefarmer.com is the complete guide to building the best farm in the Farmville community! Complete with autobots to crop for you, and the top selling Farmville guide book, pwn your friends. Seriously though, that's ridiculous, paying money for books and guides for a game comparable to Zuma. But, I suppose if it makes you happy, and the small group of 15 responsible for Farmville make money in the long run, then it's a win-win.

I realize that could have been a more informational post, but I decided to have some fun with it. Seeing as my entire family (including mom) plays Farmville, I am not too fond of it. Social Networking is where virtual worlds are now; it is all the rage. It only took Farmville two months to get 11 million users, so it is hard to tell where virtual worlds will be anywhere in the future. They can come and go so rapidly. I feel like, no matter what happens, virtual worlds will be where the people are. They have found an online niche within Facebook. Then again, I only touched on virtual worlds within social networking, which is one of many facets of virtual worlds.

(1) http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/14/news/companies/virtualworlds/index.htm

(2) http://www.virtualworldsnews.com/2009/08/zynga-exec-spills-beans-on-farmville-success.html

Penny Arcade

I didn't manage to get a post up yesterday; I had one but the dog ate it. Hopefully, late is better than never.

Since I'm interested in web comics, I decided to take a look at the medium's biggest success story, Penny Arcade(http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/). Penny Arcade is a combination online strip, which updates Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and blog. It's created by Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins. Both the strip and blog are exclusively concerned with games, online and video, which it reviews and comments on. I couldn't find exact income figures, but I've heard from numerous sources that the Penny Arcade operation generates an income in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. It's become a major force in the gaming industry itself and sponsors a convention called Penny Arcade Expo, a week-long event held annually in Washington State. Apparently, it's doubled in size every year since it began in 2004(1).

Penny Arcade began in 1998, making it a true webcomic pioneer. In the beginning, it made it's money almost exclusively from advertising. Now, according to its creators, it has more than two million page views a day. It still makes a great deal of income from ads(for which it can obviously charge a premium), but the site also has a store which sells numerous book collections, tshirts and other products. There are also several Penny Arcade video games, posters, action figures, all sorts of stuff, as well as the Expo. It's clear that, at this point, Penny Arcade has morphed into a business empire in which the webcomic on which it was based plays only a part.

The success of Penny Arcade is due in large part to a fortunate convergence of wide interest in the area they address(digital games) and the disproportionate willingness of the people who share that interest to use the Internet(especially early on). There are other web comics whose creators have been able to earn livable incomes, but none, as far as I know, have come even close to matching the success of Penny Arcade. Nonetheless, I think Penny Arcade's model is one that can work in a number of similar enterprises and its success says a lot about the potential of web businesses to well by addressing relatively small and well-defined niches.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_Arcade_Expo

Sermo

The way that Sermo has approached their revenue model is in direct reaction to the community they're serving: doctors. To reach doctors, and to make doctors feel as though they're in a safe community, you have to take out advertising as a source of revenue. They're inundated with advertising and marketing from pharmaceutical companies. In their private community, no ads allowed.

So, how to make money? Sermo leverages the quality of its members to bring in revenue. The insights of physicians are valuable to a wide variety of interested parties. Companies can pay a subscription fee to be connected with members of the Sermo community in a way that does not break the secure and private environment of the community. Companies can purchase what Sermo CEO Daniel Palestrant calls "heat maps" of information. Certain ideas, or topics, which are discussed by a mass of Sermo members, are produced for corporate consumption. Additionally, members can participate in surveys and focus groups (with monetary rewards), of which their anonymous answers and feedback are provided to the sponsoring company.

The "win" here by Sermo is monetizing the quality of the social community. It's not how many hits or impressions or behavioral targeting, here. For Sermo, it's about giving physicians an opportunity to communicate with other doctors in a secure, private community, and monetizing the demand of the ideas produced in such a place.

Twitter

Twitters business model is currently a point of extreme interest in the online community right now. Alot of thought has gone into how to take this open platform tool and make a profit off it. BusinessInsider.com actually just held a contest to see who could come up with the best revenue model for the company. To date they have raised almost 55 million in venture capital which will be used to cope with the new "active users which have increased 900% in a year even more if the thousands of api's are taken into account". Amazing considering the company only employees a team of 29 people.

Currently twitter is in the process of creating a series of websites that collect tweets about certain topics or by a selected group of people. The advertising revenues from this sites such as ExecTweets (a tweet site for executives) and March Tweetness (a website that collects posts about the up coming March Maddness) has started to next the company its first real revenue since it began. Overall twitter already has taken its seat in society and its just a matter of time until it becomes its own corporate giant.

(www.businessinsider.com/.../11-twitter -business-plans-for-your-review - )

Pandora

Pandora internet radio makes most of their money from advertising. All of their advertising revenue is from banner ads on their website and mobile interface. They do not have audio ads, although they are considering subtle, NPR like audio ads in between songs like 'The next half hour is brought to you by . . ." according to an August 2008 article in the Washington Post. I assume Pandora also makes some money on referrals from sales of digital tracks from iTunes and Amazon.com but I couldn't find any numbers one this. Like many internet start-ups, Pandora was supported by venture capitalist investors. Its revenue was supposed to exceed its cost for the first time in 2009. This was before the announcement of royalty fee hikes.

Last year Pandora almost had to close down after a federal panel ordered the doubling of the per song royalty fee it, and other internet radio stations were already paying. Royalty fees that Pandora has to pay to record companies accounted for about 70% of its projected revenue of $25 million in 2008. Traditional radio pays no fee and satellite radio pays a fee that is lower than internet radio providers. "The Copyright Royalty Board last year decided that the fee to play a music recording on Web radio should step up from 8/100 of a cent per song per listener in 2006 to 19/100 of a cent per song per listener in 2010. Multiplied by the millions of songs and thousands of listeners Pandora serves, that means the company will have to pay about $17 million this year, Westergren said," according to the Washington Post article.

Fortunately for Pandora, a new royalty resolution was met this year at a rate Pandora thinks it can continue to function with. According to a blog post on July 07, 2009 by Pandora's founder Tim Westergren, after nearly two years of lobbying a new rate was set with the help of groups from the artist and label side as well at the internet radio side. While this new rate was lower, Pandora still had to make some changes. They limited their free subscribers to 40 hours of listening each month. After 40 hours was reached they would be able to listen for the rest of the month for $.99. Pandora says these heavy listeners only account for about 10% of their subscribers.

Craigslist

So i decided to look into Craigslist's business model this week and get an understanding as to who they target and how they have been making $80 million+ and a worth of $5 billion (and these numbers are from 2008).

From what I've found, Craigslist started out as a free service in '95 allowing users to to post jobs availabilities and real estate in the San Fransisco, CA area for over 5 years without expanding. In June 2000, it then expanded to Boston, MA. and only 2 months later to Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Portland, San Diego, Seattle and Washington DC. Craigslist has continued to expand to all 50 states and over 50 countries, with over 450 sites total. It is currently ranked 9th visited site in the US and 31st in the world.

Although posting began free, it has evolved into a service that is still free but does have a fee for specific areas. This information is taken directly from Craigslist.com.

All craigslist postings are free, except for:

1. Job posts in the San Francisco Bay Area

• The fee for posting a job in the SF Bay Area is $75. This fee pays for one job in one category.
  (One job posted in two different categories would cost $150.)

2. Job posts in Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Orange County, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, Seattle, South Florida, and Washington DC

• The fee for posting a job in these cities is $25. This fee pays for one job in one category.
  (One job posted in two different categories would cost $50.)

3. Brokered apartment rental listings in New York

• The fee for posting a brokered apartment rental in New York City is $10.

4. Posts in adult services and therapeutic services on craigslist sites in the United States.

• The fee for posting ads in these categories is $10. Live approved ads can be re-posted for $5.

With just these relatively low fees they have been making their revenue of $80 million.

The interesting thing about Craigslist though is that it hasn't evolved in it's interface and user experience. Because it has no competition, it seems those at craigslist feel little need to update or innovate their platform. Gary Wolf at Wired Magazine stated this in his "Why CraigsList is such a mess." article in August:

"On this site, contrary to every principle of usability and common sense, you can't easily browse pictures of the apartments for rent. Customer support? Visit the help desk if you enjoy being insulted. How much market share does this housing site have? In many cities, a huge percentage. It isn't worth trying to compare its traffic to competitors', because at this scale there are no competitors."

It will be interesting to see if Craigslist will remain a popular source for nearly 1/3 of all adults in the United States. It seems it will be difficult for any competition to arise with the popularity of Craigslist, and the very nature of how much it charges. Why go to another site when the one your on is already free? I think it's going to rely on a competitor to reinvent, or perhaps merely a face lift, of how users interact with the site.

Skype: Communication is Key

I decided to check Skype's business model because the digital world today is mainly focusing on applications and software that can be used on cellular device. This is obviously mainly seen on the iPhone or android phones that have suddenly exploded on every service provider. An analyst even held by Ebay basically stated Skype's plan in a paragraph;

"Skype is expected to more than double its revenue to over $1.0 billion in 2011. With more than 400 million registered users currently, Skype’s metrics continue to accelerate as the company further establishes leadership in free and paid Internet-based voice and video communications, with growth opportunities in core consumer, mobile, businesses and platform. Skype’s leadership position has strengthened over the past year, driven by a new management team and the launch of many innovative products." (1)

The money that they make comes from the actual free networks that are set-up. The free aspects of skype are: Skype-to-Skype calling, video calling, chat/im, file transfer. These free features entice people to extend their service into other features that you need to pay for. Now I know that most people won't pay for unlimited calling with Skype because it's more then their providers. But money is also made through advertisments and licensing with other online companies.

These are the four methods that Skype is using to increase their consumer market:

• continue driving new users (by building “communities” or leveraging social networks)
• better promote its paid products (make it obvious, upon registration, where paid products can be found – not buried three levels deep in the “My Account” tab)
• increase revenue per paying user (encourage adoption of revenue services based on calling patterns; continued focus )
• monetize free users via advertising (but be smart about it, do it tastefully and carefully all the while protecting the core business) (1)

So word of mouth is what fuels Skype and keeps on introducing new members to the network. With portable software growing with each new smart phone, Skype seems to be darn secure in the near future.

(1) : http://voiceontheweb.biz/2009/03/skype-business-model-revealed-at-ebay-analyst-event/

Skimlinks

I originally started out researching Mashable which is the self proclaimed world's largest blog focused exclusively on Web 2.0 and Social Media news. It was difficult to discover exactly how they make money besides the obvious banners around the perimeter of the content. I decided to search a broader topic rather then focus on a specific site and I discovered Skimlinks. Skimlinks is an affil­i­ate mar­ket­ing ser­vice aimed at pub­lish­ers that want to make money from their shop­ping rec­om­men­da­tions. So what is traditional affiliated marketing? Basically it is getting paid a commission for driving traffic to a retail site through blogged content or links. The CEO and founder of skimlinks explains in the video posted below exactly the services they provide to authors and the video gives some good insights on how people go about making money through blogs and or networks.

What is interesting to me is that there are services now that actually target people trying to make money from blogs and other types of sites. I think the video below explains the process pretty well.

Skimlinks: Revenue through recommendations from JD Lasica on Vimeo.

Can you Digg it?

"Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web."
Digg allows the community to select the most interesting things on the web and make them known. Everything from videos to news gets submitted. The most popular items get displayed on the front page of the website. Ever see an icon of a man with a shovel at the end of a blog? That's Digg. Digg is 32 on the top 50 websites list ranked by unique visitors. They were fully funded to be profitable.

The business model for Digg is simple. Just like many other web based companies, Digg makes money through selling advertisements. According to Jay Adelson, Digg's CEO, Digg gets 10-20 times the price for an ad compared to a social network. "Folks like LATimes, NYTime and WSJ come to us with those questions [the question being how to prevent the valuable newspapers from disappearing], and we work with them to drive traffic to those websites. We send them 80 million visits a month to the websites. We are helping them to understand how to leverage all these social technologies to better monetize these users." Jay Adelson said during an interview.

There is a unique difference in how Digg will use advertisements to make money. Instead of just posting ads on their site they will inject them into the stream and have the community vote on them. Advertisers will then pay according to the popularity of the ad. If an ad is popular it will cost less. The unpopular ads will cost more pricing them out of the system. At the time, Digg would focus more on non-banner ad sales, including custom sponsorships.

YouTube

Ever since I joined YouTube a few years ago I have always wondered how they make their money. So I decided to look into the matter. As I had guessed, they do rely on advertising for their income. This amazes me though, that such a big company can survive on advertising. As was already stated, YouTube also gains profit from deals with content companies. But even so, the money they bring in is insignificant compared to the costs of running a site like YouTube. "According to Multichannel News, Credit Suisse analysts project that YouTube bandwidth costs, content licensing agreements, hardware needs and other expenses will reach over $700 million in 2009" (1) That is well over 3/4 of their total opperating expenses. Analysts agree that "the issue for YouTube going forward is to increase the percentage of its videos that can be monetized (likely through more deals with content companies) and to drive more advertiser demand through standardization of ad formats and improved ad effectiveness" (1) YouTube still has some work to do before they can be really successful.

(1) http://www.impactlab.com/2009/04/21/does-youtube-make-money/

I found the above table very interesting as to how much time users spend on certain sites.

Souq.com

Souq.com One of the biggest shopping websites in the Middle East region, it’s almost like any sell & buy websites, but Souq.com has its own rules ( “Souq” is often used to designate the market in any Arab or Muslim city )
Souq.com launched a test site in 2005 and later it officially launched in the UAE in 2006. Souq.com works in a similar way to many of the leading auction platforms, but with the addition of essential localized services that address the Arab internet user and online shopping behavior. Souq.com offers its users both an auction platform as well a fixed-price selling format. Also, Souq.com has integrated mobile services (GSM) that provide users updates on all aspects of their auction transactions.
Souq.com is a member of the Maktoob group of companies Arab online community. Souq.com start making money in the early 2007 by adding fees for using the website and especially in the Cars and automobiles section, according to the new Terms and Conditions of the website Membership on the Site is free. Souq.Com does not charge any fee for browsing, 
bidding and buying on the Site. Souq.Com charges Transaction Fees to all sellers 
when their item is successfully sold on the Site and Special Listing Fees are 
charged to Sellers who use the Special Listing Feature for listing their items. The fees is about 5-7 % from the sold items price, and some Additional Fees applies when sellers decides to enhance their listing (increasing the visibility of their items Bold, Categories ... ).

YouTube

YouTube's purpose is to act as an online video distributor. Allowing users to view, review and share videos with anyone in the world. It's given a platform to the DIY filmmaker to reach massive audiences. With some of it's auteurs actually turning their broadcasts into a successful business. Such has been the case for Michael Buckley, who was able to quit his full time job to do a three day a week video about celebrity gossip called "What the Buck?". Revenue from his program is generated from his participation in the YouTube partner program. Partner videos have advertisements in the video like a commercial and on the same page as the video. Revenue from the ads is shared with the video creator and YouTube.(1)

It's not just the little guy that YouTube is seeing profits from. Another revenue strem comes from YouTube's deal with MGM to distribute less sought after content and DVD release promotions.(2) Most recently YouTube made a similar deal with Time Warner for content from Cartoon Network and CNN.(3)

It's not clear whether this is a profitable business model. YouTube is a property of Google, and even though Google is a publicly traded company it does not disclose numbers for it's individual holdings. Almost three years ago YouTube was bought by Google for $1.65 billion. According to an analyst for Credit Suisse, YouTube will lose $470 million this year alone. (4)

It seems unlikely that we'll all continue to suffer through the overpriced, painfully limited and obsolete technology that cable uses to deliver it's content to us. Sites like YouTube and Hulu are onto something much better, the question is will they be able to turn it into a profitable business or will someone who does it better come along and eat their lunch.

1.) YouTube Videos Pull In Real Money, from The New York Times

Retrieved November 1, 2009, from The New York Times website:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/business/media/11youtube.html

2.) YouTube goes to the movies, from CNN

Retrieved November 1, 2009, from CNN website:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/06/technology/youtubemgm.fortune/index.htm

3.) YouTube's Working Overtime, from Slate, The Big Money

Retrieved November 1, 2009, from Slate, The Big Money:

http://www.thebigmoney.com/blogs/feeling-lucky/2009/08/20/youtubes-working-overtime

4.) Does YouTube actually make any money?

Retrieved November 1, 2009, from The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/apr/07/youtube-video-losses

Seesmic

Seesmic was created in June of 2007. The company's mission is to provide everyone with an innovative way to communicate and connect online through video conversation. Developed by French entrepreneur Loic Le Meur, who relocated from French to San Franciso, runs this company with 13 other employees.

Seesmic is a social software application site offering Seesmic Desktop, an Adobe Air application that integrates multiple Twitter accounts and your Facebook account and Facebook pages. Recently, Seesmic received a 12 million dollar investment. There goal is to make the company the gateway to all social services, no matter what platform one is on at any moment.

Another Facebook Post

"Facebook's mission is to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected. Millions of people use Facebook everyday to keep up with friends, upload an unlimited number of photos, share links and videos, and learn more about the people they meet."

This is the mission statement of Alexa's #2 most visited website, Facebook. Their goal: to connect people, and make money while doing it. Facebook, however, has not made money until very recently. Their game plan has seemingly been to grow to a gargantuan website, and then gain enough ground and popularity that their ad space is worth thousands. The problem with Facebook: people are too "busy looking at their friends that they don't even look at the ad space". The solution, which Facebook instilled within the past year, is individualized advertisements. Facebook's interactive ad agency lead, David Blum, states that, "It's about saying, 'We are going to take this information because you've acknowledged that you have an interest in X, Y and Z.'" (1) With this new model of advertisement, Facebook is slowly but surely making money.

Facebook prides itself on being an independent company (not like a Youtube, owned by Google), which made it very hard at first to make money. Advertising is their key, but there are other revenue-producing tactics. First off, ANYONE can advertise on Facebook, whether it be Windows or your friend wanting to promote his group. Birthday gifts and virtual property are little one dollar gimmicks that, for some odd reason, people actually spend money on. "The fact that Facebook is now making money independently means not only is it less reliant on benevolent cash, but also that it can continue to slay rivals, including Twitter, which isn’t making money yet, or MySpace, which is increasingly irrelevant." (2) Facebook should be here to stay.

(1) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118783296519606151.html?mod=e-commerce_primary_hs#articleTabs%3Darticle

(2) http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2009/09/16/facebook-making-money-at-last/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/sep/16/facebook-money