The group that recruited me in this network marketing venture focused primarily on stay-at-home moms and dads. Their training focused on how to reach that market. In fact, their group name has "Mom" in it.
I don't have kids; therefore, marketing under that group name would make me feel uncomfortable. So, I decided to split off and focus on people who want to work online from anywhere.
Of course, I needed a catchy tag and Pajama Ventures™ was born.
"Dress for success! Wear pajamas!" :)
And the first activities I had to focus on was starting a website (www.pajamaventures.com), getting a team site up as well for people who join me, and a home base inside Second Life, since that's where I'd primarily market.
I also figured my team would need a "business suit" that fits in with our name, so I created pajamas. In nine plaid patterns. With the Pajama Ventures logo on the pockets.
Then it occurred to me that this is a marketing tool. So, why limit it to the team? Why not let everybody in the virtual world wear them and let people get familiar with our logo. Maybe they'll want to learn about us and what we do. So, I set out vendors inworld and put them on sale in XStreet for 1L each. The package includes a notecard inviting the buyers to get to know the Pajama Ventures team by requesting a one-on-one presentation.
I had two buyers in the first five minutes after I put it up on XStreet. 33 buyers in the first 24 hours. And it's still going.
Yes, I paid 899L (approximately US$3.40) for being featured in the front page of the marketplace for seven days. No, I won't make it back on 1L sales. :D And I don't expect to make it back; it's a marketing expense.
Logo merchandise has been created and sold both inworld and in the real world. I made these logo pajamas so that people would love to wear them in public without feeling like walking billboards. The design is conservative and discreet, and the quality is... well, you can judge for yourself.
Get your own copy here. Then fill out and send back the notecard, okay?
Transparency
In this blog, my tone is more professional, more serious. I have several other blogs, including personal ones, where I filter myself less. In fact, I used to have a Twitter feed in this blog and I removed it later because my tone in Twitter is different from my tone in this blog. I thought that my tweets about everyday things and travel didn't go along with the professionalism that I was trying to establish here.
Well, that's changing now.
I will still have some serious articles where it's appropriate to be serious, but this blog won't be uptight anymore, because it doesn't make sense.
In the past month, I've been reading a lot about network marketing in its diverse forms. There's something they call "attraction marketing". They say that you have to look like a leader for people to be attracted to you. Well, there are two problems there.
One, if you're pretending to be a leader ("fake it til you make it"), you already lost a very important ingredient in leadership -- integrity.
Two, it's a chicken-and-egg problem. They imply that, if you're not a leader, no one will follow you. But, if no one is following you, how can you call yourself a leader?
I think there's a better approach to attraction marketing.
People relate to others who are like them. We're not gonna be like everybody in the world, but there's always a common ground. If you're able to read this blog, you have a home, you have teeth, you have skin, you have hair, you have parents, you have friends, you think about finances, you care about your health, you have dreams.... Well, whadya know, so do I!
Okay, okay, I'm oversimplifying, but it's that common ground that attracts us to people.
In this new marketing venture, the company sells household and personal care products. Stuff we use everyday. Since we're also customers of those products, we use them everyday. So why not talk about everyday things, things that we have in common with a lot of people out there?
So, I'm putting back the Twitter feed. You'll see tweets about what I ate for lunch or how I removed a laundry stain in the same page where I post a serious blog about marketing in SL. But that's who I am. And the more of me I expose out there, the more likely people would find something in common with me.
Doesn't that make more sense than pretending to be a leader?
Well, that's changing now.
I will still have some serious articles where it's appropriate to be serious, but this blog won't be uptight anymore, because it doesn't make sense.
In the past month, I've been reading a lot about network marketing in its diverse forms. There's something they call "attraction marketing". They say that you have to look like a leader for people to be attracted to you. Well, there are two problems there.
One, if you're pretending to be a leader ("fake it til you make it"), you already lost a very important ingredient in leadership -- integrity.
Two, it's a chicken-and-egg problem. They imply that, if you're not a leader, no one will follow you. But, if no one is following you, how can you call yourself a leader?
I think there's a better approach to attraction marketing.
People relate to others who are like them. We're not gonna be like everybody in the world, but there's always a common ground. If you're able to read this blog, you have a home, you have teeth, you have skin, you have hair, you have parents, you have friends, you think about finances, you care about your health, you have dreams.... Well, whadya know, so do I!
Okay, okay, I'm oversimplifying, but it's that common ground that attracts us to people.
In this new marketing venture, the company sells household and personal care products. Stuff we use everyday. Since we're also customers of those products, we use them everyday. So why not talk about everyday things, things that we have in common with a lot of people out there?
So, I'm putting back the Twitter feed. You'll see tweets about what I ate for lunch or how I removed a laundry stain in the same page where I post a serious blog about marketing in SL. But that's who I am. And the more of me I expose out there, the more likely people would find something in common with me.
Doesn't that make more sense than pretending to be a leader?
What have I gotten myself into?
In the early 1980's, I purchased a set -- two large suitcases, to be exact -- of Princess House Crystal products. It was the demo kit for a multi-level marketing business. I was 18 years old, with no work experience, no car, and hardly the muscles to lug those things around. I probably made one presentation on a party with my mom's friends. And that was it. Well, I still have those two suitcases of crystalware somewhere in my pile of boxes in my living room.
Two days ago, on June 30th, I did it again. I signed up for what's now called "network marketing". Actually, it started earlier in the month when I was browsing sites for employment and, out of curiosity, found this ad about working at home. I went to the website and filled out the form. I was just curious.
The company that the Marketing Executive (that's what they're called) represented seemed like a good company. Before our online conference call, I did bare-minimum research on the company, like searching for complaints on Google (didn't find any on the first page) and going to the Better Business Bureau site (they're accredited), so I figured they're legit.
Well, you had to be a Preferred Customer to be a Marketing Executive and I found it hard to commit to purchasing a certain amount every month. Well, the quota is actually in product points and the $/point ratios are different with each product. Since I live alone, it is more difficult for me to justify making those purchases per month because I don't use as much products as a family of four would. So I told the Marketing Executive that I'd do some comparisons with store brands that I use and I'd contact her again later.
I procrastinated, of course. I had too many other things going on that were more time-sensitive. Then, she sent an email to her contacts that the enrollment fees were only $1 (instead of $29) only until the end of June. I still set it aside.
Meanwhile, the thought of working for someone else again gave me the chills, but I figured I had to keep going with the job search. Then, while searching for jobs in another site, I found another ad. Again, I responded. The marketer for this one sent me a link to a video that talks about the company and the business opportunity. Halfway through the video, I did research on the company and, sure enough, I found a lot of complaints on Google about them. Of course, there were also people defending the company, but their responses didn't seem convincing enough. So I replied back to her, thanked her, and told her I wasn't interested. However, along with that video of the company, she also sent me a link to a 3rd party site with a video about network marketing.
I've never heard network marketing explained that way before.
Now, it all made sense. In a legitimate network marketing business, everybody actually wins, including the end customer.
So, I did a couple of quick product comparisons and called up the Marketing Executive from the first company to sign up. To be honest, the comparisons were not that conclusive. I buy the cheapest brands, which may not be of equal quality as the products of this company, so it's kinda like comparing apples with oranges. Well, I guess I'll have to find out when I get the products in the mail.
Anyway, long story short, I signed up, put in my first order (which was required on the same day to get the $1 enrollment fee), and started reading up about the company and the products (because now I have access to the restricted area of the website). I went to bed at 5am.
Today (technically, yesterday), I went back to that 3rd party site (www.mlm-thewholetruth.com) to see what else I could learn about network marketing in general. I found other useful sites, including a charming story and a writeup on what attraction marketing is. I had to give up my email address, but it was worth it; I learned some things from those.
Of course, I also found a get-rich-quick scheme in one of the places I found and wasted a couple of hours on their videos and webpages that were mostly fluff and had little information.
You know, I have an MBA. If they would have allowed me to stay longer than the two years of the MBA program, I would have taken the time to take more Marketing classes. But, as it were, marketing was not one of my emphases. I'm learning marketing the hard way.
This post was reposted from another blog that I was going to start just for this business, but I decided to pull it back here, since I'll be using SL as a platform for this venture.
Two days ago, on June 30th, I did it again. I signed up for what's now called "network marketing". Actually, it started earlier in the month when I was browsing sites for employment and, out of curiosity, found this ad about working at home. I went to the website and filled out the form. I was just curious.
The company that the Marketing Executive (that's what they're called) represented seemed like a good company. Before our online conference call, I did bare-minimum research on the company, like searching for complaints on Google (didn't find any on the first page) and going to the Better Business Bureau site (they're accredited), so I figured they're legit.
Well, you had to be a Preferred Customer to be a Marketing Executive and I found it hard to commit to purchasing a certain amount every month. Well, the quota is actually in product points and the $/point ratios are different with each product. Since I live alone, it is more difficult for me to justify making those purchases per month because I don't use as much products as a family of four would. So I told the Marketing Executive that I'd do some comparisons with store brands that I use and I'd contact her again later.
I procrastinated, of course. I had too many other things going on that were more time-sensitive. Then, she sent an email to her contacts that the enrollment fees were only $1 (instead of $29) only until the end of June. I still set it aside.
Meanwhile, the thought of working for someone else again gave me the chills, but I figured I had to keep going with the job search. Then, while searching for jobs in another site, I found another ad. Again, I responded. The marketer for this one sent me a link to a video that talks about the company and the business opportunity. Halfway through the video, I did research on the company and, sure enough, I found a lot of complaints on Google about them. Of course, there were also people defending the company, but their responses didn't seem convincing enough. So I replied back to her, thanked her, and told her I wasn't interested. However, along with that video of the company, she also sent me a link to a 3rd party site with a video about network marketing.
I've never heard network marketing explained that way before.
Now, it all made sense. In a legitimate network marketing business, everybody actually wins, including the end customer.
So, I did a couple of quick product comparisons and called up the Marketing Executive from the first company to sign up. To be honest, the comparisons were not that conclusive. I buy the cheapest brands, which may not be of equal quality as the products of this company, so it's kinda like comparing apples with oranges. Well, I guess I'll have to find out when I get the products in the mail.
Anyway, long story short, I signed up, put in my first order (which was required on the same day to get the $1 enrollment fee), and started reading up about the company and the products (because now I have access to the restricted area of the website). I went to bed at 5am.
Today (technically, yesterday), I went back to that 3rd party site (www.mlm-thewholetruth.com) to see what else I could learn about network marketing in general. I found other useful sites, including a charming story and a writeup on what attraction marketing is. I had to give up my email address, but it was worth it; I learned some things from those.
Of course, I also found a get-rich-quick scheme in one of the places I found and wasted a couple of hours on their videos and webpages that were mostly fluff and had little information.
You know, I have an MBA. If they would have allowed me to stay longer than the two years of the MBA program, I would have taken the time to take more Marketing classes. But, as it were, marketing was not one of my emphases. I'm learning marketing the hard way.
This post was reposted from another blog that I was going to start just for this business, but I decided to pull it back here, since I'll be using SL as a platform for this venture.
Posterity in SL
I have seen a few art contests where the organizers take a Copy/Transfer texture of an artist's work and do with it as they please. Some artists don't think twice about it. Most of the time, artists assume that the texture would only be used for the competition and nothing else.
But contest organizers usually have sales in mind. They want to sell the pictures and make a commission out of it. And that's fine. In fact, the artist might even be happy about it.
Now, even in that situation, the problem comes in attribution of the work if the contest organizer applies that texture on a prim. What happens is that the prim would show the contest organizer as the creator of the object and, if the object is simply something that displays a texture, the entire work becomes attributed to the creator of the prim, which, in this case, is the contest organizer.
Certainly, the artist initially gets recognition because a placard with their name is displayed alongside the work during the exhibition. But after the work is sold, there is usually no record of the artist's name with the work. Long after the piece has been sold, would the purchaser even remember the artist's name? And inside SL, most people know to look at the creator of the object. So, people would normally assume that the creator of the object is also the artist. And, again in this case, that's wrong. So, nobody would know that the texture creator (the artist) is in fact *not* the object creator (the contest organizer). The contest organizer gets a reputation for being a great artist because of work that other people did.
Not all artists in SL are equal. Some have been in SL for a long time. Some are new to SL and were pulled in by the promise of exposure and sales inside SL. There may even be a few who don't even come into SL; they sell their work through agents, usually museum owners.
It's not even a matter of trust because a creator is required to give Copy/Transfer permissions to someone who would sell their product for them. It's not even fraud, because the artist willingly gives those permissions. It's a matter of preserving the integrity of the information about the art, specifically the attribution to the right person.
Every newbie knows how to slap a texture on a prim. There is no reason why contest organizers have to do this for artists. Every newbie knows how to set permissions on a prim. Since the artists are trusting the contest organizer with Copy/Transfer permissions, they can give modify permissions on the object too, so the object can be resized.
A warning, however: Even if you apply your textures on your own prims, don't let that give you a sense of security.
There are three ways to apply textures on a surface:
(1) By using the Edit tools to select the texture from your inventory and applying it to the prim.
(2) By dragging the texture(s) from your inventory to the prim's inventory (i.e.: the Contents tab of the Edit tool) and using a script to apply it to the surface(s).
(3) By using a script with the asset ID of the texture.
#1 is the most common way of applying textures. #2 is commonly used in objects that switch textures, like slideshow devices, but makes it easy to grab the textures from a modifiable object and apply them elsewhere depending on the texture permissions. #3 *can* be used a) legitimately, to protect your own textures by not putting them inside the object, or b) illegitimately, to apply "stolen" textures on the surfaces. For database performance, SL is designed so that the same texture with the same asset ID is saved only once in the database. And obtaining the asset ID of a texture is too easy inside SL.
Artist beware.
But contest organizers usually have sales in mind. They want to sell the pictures and make a commission out of it. And that's fine. In fact, the artist might even be happy about it.
Now, even in that situation, the problem comes in attribution of the work if the contest organizer applies that texture on a prim. What happens is that the prim would show the contest organizer as the creator of the object and, if the object is simply something that displays a texture, the entire work becomes attributed to the creator of the prim, which, in this case, is the contest organizer.
Certainly, the artist initially gets recognition because a placard with their name is displayed alongside the work during the exhibition. But after the work is sold, there is usually no record of the artist's name with the work. Long after the piece has been sold, would the purchaser even remember the artist's name? And inside SL, most people know to look at the creator of the object. So, people would normally assume that the creator of the object is also the artist. And, again in this case, that's wrong. So, nobody would know that the texture creator (the artist) is in fact *not* the object creator (the contest organizer). The contest organizer gets a reputation for being a great artist because of work that other people did.
Not all artists in SL are equal. Some have been in SL for a long time. Some are new to SL and were pulled in by the promise of exposure and sales inside SL. There may even be a few who don't even come into SL; they sell their work through agents, usually museum owners.
It's not even a matter of trust because a creator is required to give Copy/Transfer permissions to someone who would sell their product for them. It's not even fraud, because the artist willingly gives those permissions. It's a matter of preserving the integrity of the information about the art, specifically the attribution to the right person.
Every newbie knows how to slap a texture on a prim. There is no reason why contest organizers have to do this for artists. Every newbie knows how to set permissions on a prim. Since the artists are trusting the contest organizer with Copy/Transfer permissions, they can give modify permissions on the object too, so the object can be resized.
A warning, however: Even if you apply your textures on your own prims, don't let that give you a sense of security.
There are three ways to apply textures on a surface:
(1) By using the Edit tools to select the texture from your inventory and applying it to the prim.
(2) By dragging the texture(s) from your inventory to the prim's inventory (i.e.: the Contents tab of the Edit tool) and using a script to apply it to the surface(s).
(3) By using a script with the asset ID of the texture.
#1 is the most common way of applying textures. #2 is commonly used in objects that switch textures, like slideshow devices, but makes it easy to grab the textures from a modifiable object and apply them elsewhere depending on the texture permissions. #3 *can* be used a) legitimately, to protect your own textures by not putting them inside the object, or b) illegitimately, to apply "stolen" textures on the surfaces. For database performance, SL is designed so that the same texture with the same asset ID is saved only once in the database. And obtaining the asset ID of a texture is too easy inside SL.
Artist beware.
Large corporations building trust
I spoke about trust in virtual worlds, but I spoke primarily about trust between individuals. When a large corporation like Microsoft comes into Second Life, the same approach is necessary.
I remember a time when the name Microsoft brought up such passionately negative emotion in people, that employees were advised for their own safety to refrain from wearing Microsoft-branded merchandise in public. It was also during that time that employees were asked to participate in forums because customers tend to like individual employees, even though they hated the company as a whole.
In technology conferences and expositions, people meet Microsoft employees and feel better about the company based on one-on-one conversations with those individuals. Customers can ask questions directly and get a live response. Customers and company representatives have a real conversation, an exchange of information. As a result, the customers feel cared for and listened to, the employees get an unfiltered view of what the customers want, and the company builds goodwill.
There are ways for customers to reach employees online -- blogs and forums, for instance. But blogs tend to be one-sided broadcasts. Comments to blogs and tagging rarely develop into conversations. When they do, they tend to be short strings of exchanges, where each side simply takes their turn on the podium. Responses are edited and polished. Forums are more interactive, but, again, responses are edited and polished. And the asynchronicity makes the "conversation" disjointed.
Virtual worlds offer something closer to a spontaneous face-to-face meeting but with the cost-effectiveness and the convenience of online conversations. In a virtual world, it becomes warmer, more personal, more intimate.
And warmer, more personal, and more intimate are the right conditions for trust to develop in any interaction.
I remember a time when the name Microsoft brought up such passionately negative emotion in people, that employees were advised for their own safety to refrain from wearing Microsoft-branded merchandise in public. It was also during that time that employees were asked to participate in forums because customers tend to like individual employees, even though they hated the company as a whole.
In technology conferences and expositions, people meet Microsoft employees and feel better about the company based on one-on-one conversations with those individuals. Customers can ask questions directly and get a live response. Customers and company representatives have a real conversation, an exchange of information. As a result, the customers feel cared for and listened to, the employees get an unfiltered view of what the customers want, and the company builds goodwill.
There are ways for customers to reach employees online -- blogs and forums, for instance. But blogs tend to be one-sided broadcasts. Comments to blogs and tagging rarely develop into conversations. When they do, they tend to be short strings of exchanges, where each side simply takes their turn on the podium. Responses are edited and polished. Forums are more interactive, but, again, responses are edited and polished. And the asynchronicity makes the "conversation" disjointed.
Virtual worlds offer something closer to a spontaneous face-to-face meeting but with the cost-effectiveness and the convenience of online conversations. In a virtual world, it becomes warmer, more personal, more intimate.
And warmer, more personal, and more intimate are the right conditions for trust to develop in any interaction.
Trust in virtual worlds
It is amazing how we trust people online with so little to base that trust on. Trust is built even though we've never met each other in real life, even though we don't know much about the other person's background, even though we don't know what the other person looks like or sounds like, and, in most cases, even though we don't know the other person's real identity.
Trust is based on our interactions with the other person. It is based on our intuitions. It is based on our assumptions about the other person.
There is nothing more unfounded than the trust we give a stranger. Yet, somehow, we offer that trust. It's a trust in humanity itself. It is a trust that they are as trustworthy as we are. And most people prove themselves worthy of that trust.
Naturally, unbounded trust opens the door to deception. There will be a small minority who would take advantage of that trust and use it to benefit themselves to the detriment of the other person. That is true in real life as well, but virtual worlds - and the internet, in general, - make it easier for scammers.
However, developing trust is crucial in business relationships in real life and is just as critical in virtual worlds, if not more so. But how does one develop trusting relationships with other people in a virtual world? Networking. Interacting. Conversing. Sharing experiences. Creating experiences. It's how we develop our intuition about people. It's how we get a feel for their trustworthiness.
Just like in real life. But more cautiously.
Trust is based on our interactions with the other person. It is based on our intuitions. It is based on our assumptions about the other person.
There is nothing more unfounded than the trust we give a stranger. Yet, somehow, we offer that trust. It's a trust in humanity itself. It is a trust that they are as trustworthy as we are. And most people prove themselves worthy of that trust.
Naturally, unbounded trust opens the door to deception. There will be a small minority who would take advantage of that trust and use it to benefit themselves to the detriment of the other person. That is true in real life as well, but virtual worlds - and the internet, in general, - make it easier for scammers.
However, developing trust is crucial in business relationships in real life and is just as critical in virtual worlds, if not more so. But how does one develop trusting relationships with other people in a virtual world? Networking. Interacting. Conversing. Sharing experiences. Creating experiences. It's how we develop our intuition about people. It's how we get a feel for their trustworthiness.
Just like in real life. But more cautiously.
Do you speak English?
One of the great things about Second Life is the opportunity to chat with people around the world from different backgrounds. Since Linden Lab is based in the US, the default language in SL has been English, although there is a large number of sims that are primarily Italian or French or German or another language.
Most people, however, tend to speak English when conversing with people who don't speak their own language. Or they use the Babbler, which is a popular (but primitive) inworld translator using web-based dictionaries.
However, it is all too easy to assume that you're getting your point across just because you're both speaking English. Idioms, metaphors, and cultural references make our language more descriptive and help us communicate better. But when the other party does not understand the idioms, metaphors, and cultural references, the message becomes blurred instead.
Before the holidays, Poid Mahovlich was telling me about her Christmas jumper and how it was making her feel itchy. In the US, a "jumper" is an overall, typically a loose denim pair of pants with a bib-like top in front and two straps to go around the back. Apparently, a jumper is a thick knitted top with sleeves that you pull over your head, what US people call a "sweater."
When I advertised my 3D Tic-Tac-Toe, Absolut Paine (also from the UK) asked me if tic-tac-toe was the same as the game Noughts-And-Crosses. And after doing some research, I found out that it was.
The techniques we learn in communication classes -- clarifying what the other person meant, avoiding assumptions, giving the other person the benefit of a doubt -- are even more important in online communications. It takes longer, yes, but a misunderstanding that's corrected early saves time and effort in the long run.
Most people, however, tend to speak English when conversing with people who don't speak their own language. Or they use the Babbler, which is a popular (but primitive) inworld translator using web-based dictionaries.
However, it is all too easy to assume that you're getting your point across just because you're both speaking English. Idioms, metaphors, and cultural references make our language more descriptive and help us communicate better. But when the other party does not understand the idioms, metaphors, and cultural references, the message becomes blurred instead.
Before the holidays, Poid Mahovlich was telling me about her Christmas jumper and how it was making her feel itchy. In the US, a "jumper" is an overall, typically a loose denim pair of pants with a bib-like top in front and two straps to go around the back. Apparently, a jumper is a thick knitted top with sleeves that you pull over your head, what US people call a "sweater."
When I advertised my 3D Tic-Tac-Toe, Absolut Paine (also from the UK) asked me if tic-tac-toe was the same as the game Noughts-And-Crosses. And after doing some research, I found out that it was.
The techniques we learn in communication classes -- clarifying what the other person meant, avoiding assumptions, giving the other person the benefit of a doubt -- are even more important in online communications. It takes longer, yes, but a misunderstanding that's corrected early saves time and effort in the long run.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
