I'm enjoying reading Ian Delaney's write-up of the Virtual Worlds Form which took place two weeks ago in London. I'm openly a virtual worlds fan (and used to PR Second Life in a former real life) and Ian's healthy dose of cynicism is worth a read. He's covered Heineken's presentation on why not to go into Second Life.
If you're trying to set out a case for why a brand should engage in some kind of social media activity, you need to fully understand the case against. Only by being able to fully explore why someone would say no a campaign, are you going to able to confidently hold down a discussion on the topic. Nice post Ian.
Thank you, Drew. Neville Hobson raised the interesting point in the comments that, in actual fact, you *can* buy a Heineken in SL, just not an "official" one. He suggests that Heineken failing to control the appearance of their brand through their absence is putting them more at risk than the factors raised in the presentation.
Posted by: Ian Delaney | November 06, 2007 at 10:44 AM
On the basis that some wags are selling 'unofficial' Heineken cans in SL, surely there must be some legal standpoint for blocking it.
What I'm really interested in is whether Heineken's anti-involvement stance catalysed the creation of 'unofficial' cans or whether it was simply a coincidence.
I guess in either case it demonstrates the danger of not monitoring channels of communication.
Posted by: PRotagonist | November 06, 2007 at 08:10 PM
Cheers both. Something I think the brand police are quite leniant about from my experiences on SL. Those that know, that is. So many will be oblivious.
Posted by: Drew B | November 06, 2007 at 09:57 PM