1. One of the first things Donnelly said at the launch was that they weren't interested in bringing people to a location. They had a showcase of ideas, if people wanted to see them, but that visitors really wasn't the point.

That caught my interest right off. Donnelly's running a non-traditional campaign for non-traditional goals, and it seems the criticism basically focuses on:

a) It's a pretty poor excuse for an attempt at a traditional campaign.
and
b) It's not achieving traditional goals.

On that basis, I think Donnelly could count the criticism alone as something of a small win.

Posted at 8:06AM on Aug 28th 2007 by Tateru Nino

2. There was no failure here. Just a big bowl of everyone's individual expectations. If Coke pays $X amount and feels they got their money's worth, then it was successful to them. If SLers feel the contest was a dud, then it probably was. But why does anyone suddenly expect a newb company to come into SL and succeed immediately? Money doesn't buy a bypass around SLs learning curve.

Posted at 10:13AM on Aug 28th 2007 by Doubledown Tandino

3. Well said, though a bit of cash probably doesn't exactly hurt.

Commitment, interest, and innovation seem to be key items. Sorely lacking in most corporate efforts.

Posted at 11:06AM on Aug 28th 2007 by Tateru Nino

4. Tony could be entirely correct regarding the *externals* of the competition. But so what? Unless he has insider information, who is he to say that his measure of "success" aligns with Coca-Cola's program goals? It's conceivable to me that their goals may have nothing to do with the things he or anyone else outside the company can measure.

If Coca-Cola is experimenting - willing to "fail early, fail often" - then I say good for them. It's what people like me... and I thought Tony... were saying companies *needed* to do at this early stage of virtual world development; precisely because a "bust" might yield invaluable insights and help companies develop innovative solutions for this new medium.

Personally, I don't know if Coca-Cola succeeded based on their *own* standards, and I don't care if they succeed based on *any* standards. I only care about some of the bigger issues on which they may have some impact - the trademark issue, general guidelines for competitions, aso.

Worrying about the success or failure of one company's first effort into SL seems like not only a waste of time, but a tacit agreement that the myopic position taken by Forbes and BusinessWeek and the other business magazines, who too often seem to be evaluating success or failure based on old school metrics, is a proper position for the rest of us to take at this stage. I didn't agree with them then, and I don't agree now.

Posted at 11:23AM on Aug 28th 2007 by csven

5. Speaking as a rather outspoken critic of people who come to SL and try the same old tactics, then are surprised SL advertising doesn't work like advertising in a paper, on the internet etc. I applauded Coke at the beginning, and I continue to follow their efforts now.

I think, at the end of the day, Coke are the people that judge the success, complete or partial, or failure, of their campaign. What confuses me is why Tony Walsh decides to attack on some other front, and why he thinks his metrics are so valid when it appears he doesn't have much of an idea about the campaign is organised. That's why I wonder if he's got an axe to grind?

Actually I'd say that quite a lot of the SLers regarded at least the launch event as a success. A big company was doing something new, and avoiding the mistakes that Wired, Nissan, American Apparel etc. had made. That, of course, doesn't guarantee long term success - it could simply open a different set of mistakes up - but it showed thought and the ability to learn.

That needs to be added to Tateru's mix - commitment, interest, innovation, able to adapt - you don't necessarily expect to see the giants of the corporate world do this, but it would appear IBM and Coke are both doing it in different ways, and making a success of it. Those who come in and know best are finding we're an awkward pitch, but if IBM and Coke can do it, they're giving us the rest of the corporate world at least two models that can be successful - surely worth a mention?

Posted at 1:28PM on Aug 28th 2007 by Eloise Pasteur

6. It's all about return on investment. Return is measured in many different ways. You can measure their return in one way and say the failed. You can measure it another way and say they succeeded. The only one who can say for sure is Coke itself. Did they get the return they expected?

Posted at 5:11PM on Aug 28th 2007 by Jaymin Carthage

7. No such thing as bad publicity, especially if you are a brand name (remember Pepsi pulling out of sponsoring Michael Jackson's tour - what a coup for their marketing department). Brand names need you to keep talking about them to keep the brand imafge alive, and people are still talking about Coca-Cola in SL. A bottle-popping success for their marketing department.
Mercia

Posted at 5:53PM on Aug 28th 2007 by Mercia McMahon

8. I'd have to say that I think their advertising plan was a failure in SL. Sure, a lot of people have Coke vendor everywhere... but those were there long before Coke came to SL. People no longer see them as advertising point anymore... just more of a classic vendor art.

Whatever Coke was trying to do in SL... has been a failure for being "mainstream" in both worlds.

Hell, they can just stop advertising and Coke will continue to go on and on and on.

Coke is already part of a traditional soda and they are only making a bigger fool of themselves into more advertising plan on SL.

Posted at 6:09PM on Aug 28th 2007 by Nacon