Think pulling the plug on a relatively small and slightly aged social virtual world is easy? That's what Disney apparently thought, when it announced plans to shutter its free Virtual Magic Kingdom service. Even though the VMK userbase is small (just over one thousand were online when I checked this morning, and now almost 4000 are online at 7:30 in the evening, eastern time) they are extremely dedicated, and are taking news of the closure quite badly, according to the Wall Street Journal and other sources. There have been petitions, angry blog posts, and even a tiny real-world demonstration outside of Disney HQ.
I am not surprised. People don't just love social networks and virtual worlds, they come to depend on them, and the threat of losing access is extremely hard for some to bear. Second Life's adult residents griping over grid outages is nothing new, but even kids-oriented worlds can draw die-hard fans who have trouble letting go of these environments, as I found out when I blogged about Webkinz World's technical difficulties in December and January. The responses in the comments and email was remarkable -- parents and their kids lamented the aparent loss of avatars, virtual furniture, and social connections. A few even talked about joining a class-action lawsuit or starting boycotts.
I doubt Disney's Virtual Magic Kingdom will get a reprieve, but the VMK experience is a lesson for Disney as it expands its virtual worlds strategy with Club Penguin and other projects. The moral of the story: When trying to build up a successful virtual world, consider some of the inevitable challenges associated with breaking it down.
Ian Lamont is the author of The Social Enterprise blog on TheStandard.com. Comment below, or email Ian at ian@thestandard.com.
Comments
It's good to see that there is at least some press being given to the demise of Disney's VMK, although it's clearly not going to change things at this point.
If I were to quibble about anything in the WSJ article, it would be the characterization/perception that only the truly obsessive fans are upset (and vocal) about the closing of VMK. But I suppose "obsessive" is in the eye of the beholder. To protest too loudly would be to prove the point... and I'd guess that my writing this comment is enough to make me suspect.
In fact, I'm the father of two girls (10 and 13) who have thoroughly enjoyed VMK for three good years. And I've admittedly enjoyed it quite a bit myself, since I felt I should try it before telling them about it, and then stayed for the fun. My primary disappointment (beyond the closing itself) is the lack of a credible reason for its closing. To be more credible, Disney might have just said that they decided to move away from the free model and felt that VMK would not support the pay-to-play model. Unfortunately, the claim that VMK was strictly an element of the Disneyland 50th anniversary celebration just rings false, when that tie-in was never referenced in any of the promotional materials surrounding its launch or thereafter.
In any case, at the end of it all, we're grateful for the fun we've had.
If VMK was intended as a promotion for the 50th Celebration of Disney parks, then why didn't Disney close VMK at the end of that celebration in December 2005. If money was an issue, Disney could have introduced / switched over to a pay to play model (like their other online games).
Obviously, Disney know this game is popular, which is why VMK has lasted until now. However, I think Disney underestimated the game. Players see VMK as a community - a place to hang out with friends, a place where people don't judge based on looks, a place to escape from the harsh realities of the real world. VMK has long since been 'just a game!'
If VMK members still see value in this online community what's stopping some eager entrepreneur from offering some sum of money to Disney to take it over? Surely the Magic Kingdom would rather get something for a property they invested time and money in rather than just shutting it down and taking the loss? If trademarks and other Disney intellectual property were a concern, they could work out a licensing agreement, or change the name to something none-Disneyesque that could please both the company and the community members.
I see this as one more example of how social networks are mimmicking the real world of business: there are the behemoths like Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, some mid-sized communities, then a whole lot of small communities that are the functional equivalent of small businesses, with very loyal and active user/customers. Although they may never grow to the size of the big guys, these communities can be profitable small businesses that will make somebody or some small company a decent living.
Post new comment