Futuristic Play by @Andrew_Chen

Analysis on viral marketing, freemium, and online ads

Or, jump to essay topics:
Viral marketing
Engagement and design
Freemium and ad monetization
Metrics and targeting
Media and games

New here? Try these links:

  1. Featured Essays
    50+ essays on viral marketing, gaming, and ads
  2. About this blog
    Bio, contact me, and more
  3. Never miss a new essay
    Receive updates by email or RSS feed or Twitter

Virtual items design: Build it yourself or use UGC?

Comments

Eric Ries recently wrote a great blog called Three decisions to make on virtual goods, detailing the major issues IMVU had to deal with during its growth:

  • User-generated content (UGC) or first-party content?
  • Subscription or a la carte payments?
  • Merchandising or gameplay?

The first question is particularly interesting, and Charles Hudson (formerly of Gaia, now at Serious Business) exchanged a couple emails with me on the topic.

He gave me permission to share his email below – note that this convo happened in December of 2007, so it’s a bit dated, but I think it’s still quite applicable:

from    Charles Edward Hudson
to    Andrew Chen
date    Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 9:55 AM
subject    Re: question on virtual goods

The question you bring up is a big one and it’s really hard for me to be succinct (but I’ll try). There are a ton of advantages and disadvantages to each approach. I’ll tell you my thoughts (others at Gaia might feel differently) on why the user-generated model is riskier but potentially a bigger opportunity if you can reach scale. Below are my quick thoughts on the 3 biggest drawbacks to a UGC/DIY model as a starting point:

-You need to have users actually create stuff to make the UGC model work (DIY vs DIFM) – If you decide to go in the “do-it-yourself” model from day one (as opposed to “do-it-for-me”), you’re making a really big bet about the type of users you’ll attract. You’re going to need power users and creators who build lots of stuff to make your world or community feel vibrant. Instead of being constrained by your own ability to generate assets, you’re constrained by the creative cycles of your user base. I’m of the opinion that it’s actually better to assume the DIFM use case first and then slowly offer users DIY activities once you’ve figured out what it is that they want to customize or do within your environment.

-You need to provide users with the tools to actually create and manage those assets if you go the UGC/DIY route – You have to make a meaningful investment in tools (or at least expose the tools and systems you have) very early on if you want users to create stuff for you. And the type of tools you expose will dictate who builds. If you make really simple tools, you’ll get wide participation. Expert tools will likely narrow who produces content for you. I’d rather work on building a really great end-user experience than building great tools, but that’s just me.

-You have a lot less control over the world and economy when you don’t control the process of creation – To your point, it’s really hard to manage an economy or any system if you can’t control the inputs. It’s not so much about monopoly pricing as it is about being able to manage the economy – price controls, inflation, etc. You also don’t have to deal with all of the property rights issues and user-to-user copyright issues that emerge when you allow users to create and then resell their own goods.

I think the real challenge for someone like Second Life is finding enough people to create the world to the point where non-creators can simply join and have a great experience. I think that’s why they’re having a hard time growing. If you look at their community, they have a fairly small but really dedicated group of people. Those people are bearing a pretty serious creative burden to get the world and the experience to the point where it’s useful to and usable by a wider variety of people.

At the end of the day, I’m of the mind that the best way to become a platform is to build a great application. If you’re successful, other people will want to build on top of you and you’ll become a platform whether you want to (a la Facebook) or not (a la MySpace). Setting out to be a platform from day one (and that’s what I think Linden and others have done) is just a much harder road. But it you make it work, you avoid all of the retrofit problems that happen when applications need to rework themselves to be platforms.

So to summarize, according to Charles you face a number of issues:

  • You need more creative users in your world, to author the UGC
  • (Related to above, you need to lower the bar for participation in creation)
  • You need to build an ecosystem of tools to help the authors
  • You need to accept that it’s harder to manage the economy – pricing, inflation, etc.

Anyway, I found these points quite insightful – they should be useful for anyone looking to chose between first party and UGC virtual items.

Written by Andrew Chen

October 21st, 2008 at 8:00 am

Posted in Uncategorized

  • spanky
    Hmmm, Charles makes some good points. I, too, am not sure where to start w/ my response... There's actually a step between DIY and UGC that hasn't been mentioned - and that is: Derive-DIY to get to UGC. IMVU provides tools for the casual developer to derive from a DIY asset, and simply re-skin it. For example, a developer can take a really cool 3D room, and just change the texture map to make an entirely new room. In terms of skills, basic photoshop is the only requirement. When it's sold in the catalog, there's a rev-share, if you will, between the original developer and the one who derives. So with a few really good DIY assets, you can have lots of UGC in no time.

    Also, Charles is right - managing UGC is challenging. With UGC you also have less control of the size of the assets which impact overall performance. And if you allow your UGC to be derived, then you run the risk that derivation chains can be broken, if a developer at the top of the chain makes drastic changes to the asset.
  • Andrew, good post. I have a couple other thoughts from what we have observed at Viximo.

    In the use case of expressive and behavioral (gifts) goods the need for some form of UGC is very high. As you know virtual goods are largely about self expression, personalization, customization. Which means that the more personal and unique an item is to a person, the more social value it has, which increases the users willingness to buy.

    But there is a key fact here. Virtual goods are just that....virtual. Which means there are no limitations to what an item can be, and thus what a user wants. Thats why we see some of the most random virtual items being the most successful.

    An example....there might be a virtual gift that is a Cucumber. I bet that has no social meaning to you and plenty of other people, and therefore has no value to you. But I have an inside joke about a Cucumber with my friend Bret Terrill. So to Bret and I, that cucumber has a lot more social value, and our willingness to buy and send to each other is much higher then yours.

    Combine my two previous points together, and it causes a couple problems:

    1. Providing a large enough inventory to fill your users aggregate virtual demand by using an in house content team is near impossible. Content is expensive and time consuming.

    2. No one person, or group of people will be able to predict what will be successful and what won't.

    A marketplace that includes thousands of creators that are properly motivated is required to solve these problems. IMVU has done a good job at this, but as Eric Reis said their exact model has come with a bag of headaches. Obviously I'm biased, but I think a solution that is between IMVU's model, and no UGC is going to be the answer.
  • I think that IMVU is making a great job for user generated contents.....but there is a big issue related to the re-selling of credits....
    IMVU developers can't convert their credits in $ on IMVU official banks, so they try with un-official resellers....some of them steal money to developers......and they suffer from big lost.....

    I think that the solution could be the introduction of a real cash economy inside IMVU company for supporting the great job of developers and revenue them with real money....
  • jav
    hello
blog comments powered by Disqus