For those that follow my blog, you may remember a post I wrote last winter where I explored the world of children’s television commercials, just before and after the last holiday season. At the time my focus was mostly on the world of technology toys, and how toy companies promote their wares to children through television. Over eight consecutive weekends, I had watched about 100 hours of children’s television across seven stations, which loosely added up to over 3,000 commercials viewed. That many commercials edited end-to-end would fill an entire day of watching nothing but commercials.

A couple of months ago I was reviewing the data I had collected, deciding if I might undertake a similar effort again this year (I’m looking for sponsors), when I realized I was sitting on a ton of stats related to virtual worlds and kids. After pulling my head out of the world of toys, and instead focusing on social and virtual worlds for kids, I realized that many virtual worlds were advertised for the first time ever on television during the latter part of 2008.

In the months leading up to last year’s Christmas holiday, at least nine virtual worlds were advertised in the US to older kids and younger tweens. These destinations included Bella Sara by Hidden City Games, Build-A-Bearville by Build-A-Bear Workshop, Mattel’s UB Funkeys, Cartoon Network’s Fusion Fall, Irwin Toy’s Me2 Universe, Disney’s Pixie Hollow, Hasbro’s MyEpets and LittlestPetShop, and Wizard 101 by KingsIsle Entertainment. Most companies offered commercial spots in 15 and 30 second lengths to promote their online virtual worlds. All commercials were placed on channels that aired children’s programming with the heaviest rotation appearing on weekends.

The company that had the most commercials in rotation was for Cartoon Network’s virtual world Fusion Fall. Cartoon Network ran an AMAZING number of spots in 10, 15, 30 and 45 second lengths to promote Fusion Fall, but all of Fusion Fall’s advertising was on a single channel, that being Cartoon Network. The shorter spots were placed strategically as bumpers around all show entry end exit points. I can’t cite the exact number, but the amount of Fusion Fall impressions per hour was impressive and more than any other competing site.

The Pixie Hollow and Wizard 101 virtual world commercials were the next heaviest in rotation after Fusion Fall, but for these worlds, they were advertised across multiple channels. Next in line was Build-A-Bearville, Bella Sara, and Funkeys. Each virtual world destination experienced an increase in unique visits to their virtual world but none more than Fusion Fall and Wizard 101 in the November to December 2008 time period. Both of these desitinations experienced an increase in web traffic 3 to 5 times more than before those on air campaigns began. All virtual worlds lost traffic to their sites after the holiday season as advertisement campaigns wound down, all except for Disney’s Pixie Hollow. However, gains remained for seven out of nine of the virtual worlds advertised when measured over a two month period, though only three out of the nine had experienced any significant gains. Out of the collection of these nine virtual worlds, seven companies offered a tangible product that was sold as part of their virtual world service.

Over the summer months, I’ve had the opportunity to check in on a few children’s channels to see what’s being advertised. A new crop of virtual world commercials are running on air this summer. One big surprise to me was MapleStory which is a virtual world that started outside the US. It makes sense to try to reach out to kids during these months to grow an audience base. I’ve been thinking that this might be a better and cheaper way to gain visibility as opposed to winning kids over during the winter holiday season.

Outside of children’s television, I’ve also been keeping a close watch on a number of virtual worlds for kids. Every now and then I’m surprised by how some site just explodes. Moshi Monsters has had my interest most of this summer. This is a UK virtual world for kids that has yet to take off here in the states, but has been doing great at home. I’ve wondered why it has been so successful in the last two months. Only recently did I came across an interview with Michael Smith, CEO for Moshi Monsters on YouTube. (Thanks Joi Podgorny for the tip!) In this interview Michael discusses the growth in visitors and subscribers to his site as a direct response to advertising on TV.

If you’re interested in learning more about the data I have, shoot me an email. One thing is certain though, we should all be prepared to see many more commercials of virtual world advertised to kids in the months, and years, ahead. What used to be a vital part of toy promotion is now expanding to the virtual world as well.

[The following is an article I wrote for Playthings Magazine which appears in the May 2009 issue.]

When toy companies talk about new toy products, there’s often a lot of discussion around a toy’s play patterns. What is it about the toy that resonates with a child? What play patterns will the toy tap into? Will the play pattern extend across age and gender differences?

Sometimes answering play pattern questions like these are pretty straight forward, other times their answers are not as clear cut. Potentially even more complicated is describing the play pattern around a toy product tied to a virtual world or online experience. What kind of play pattern are we talking about now? How does the play experience through an avatar in an online world differ from that of a child playing with a physical toy in the real world?

These are hard questions to answer, but they are ones I’m betting more and more people will be asking in the world of youth marketing.

The 2008 American International Toy Fair was a big year for virtual world toy products. Unlike years before, 2008 saw many virtual world product announcements, a first for the show. Some of the biggest announcements came from the likes of Disney and Techno Source with Pixie Hallow and Clickables, iToys with the Me2 Universe, Ty with Beanie Babies 2.0 and TyGirls, and 10Vox with Tracksters and KooKeys. Each of these companies offered a virtual play experience through the purchase of a tangible toy product—the business model of preference being one in which the consumer buys a tangible product that grants access to an online world.

Fast forward to 2009. It seems almost every few days we learn of a new virtual world for kids. While a number of virtual worlds were announced on the show floor during the 2009 Toy Fair, even more were announced outside of the walls of the Javits Center. What was surprising was the number of new product announcements, not just updates to old products launched a year or two prior. Take note for the future: February could very well become the product announcement month of choice in the virtual world space. Such announcements started in 2008 and today appear to be picking up steam.

As you can imagine, any announcement attached to a toy industry event will include some tangible toy product as part of the virtual world offering. Most often plush toys are the vehicle of choice for promoting virtual worlds to kids, but changes are underway within the toy-related niche of the virtual world space. Just about anything these days can include a password key on a piece of paper to allow access to an online destination. Also added to the mix are new solutions that include USB thumb drives that plug into your computer and become the keys to playing in these online destinations.

When I look back on the last two years of tangible toy/virtual world product announcements, I notice two trends, in particular, related to the software portion of the announcement:

1. At the time when a company first makes a virtual world announcement, the virtual world is generally far from completion. If the virtual world has been in development for a long time and is in the process of a sizable public beta effort (meaning many actual consumers are testing the virtual world to flush out problems and improve the quality and stability of the product), this is a good thing. A sizable public testing effort should be the norm with all such products, but sadly it is not. As a result, first-year launches can be challenging for both the companies that make the products as well as the children who use them, typically resulting in poor reviews out of the gate.
   
   
2. After a product has officially launched, it tends to be improved and expanded upon as sales grow or as web traffic proves what is working and what is not within the virtual world. These sorts of improvements are generally seen with products that have been in the marketplace for at least two years.

As it relates to the overall offering of both the physical and virtual parts of the product, I have these additional observations related to the buying and selling of these items that can lead to consumer success:

• How “giftable” is the product? For example, one of the things I love about Webkinz is that the current line of plush toys makes for a great gift idea. They are priced right and are easy to give. Also, the cost to get online is attached to the purchase of the tangible item. This removes the burden from a child of figuring out how they may have to pay for the online experience.
  
  
• Related to cost, are there any hidden fees to gain access to the online world? Sometimes the purchase of the tangible product will not allow full access online. Some virtual worlds can be tiered or gated in a way that premium content is restricted until a credit card is used. A number of different financial models exist related the sale of such products. Be sure to ask if the purchase of the tangible good is the only fee involved or if other fees are part of the online experience.
  
  
• What kind of tangible toy selection is possible? Are there only a small number of items at one specific cost or are many SKUs available across a variety of price points? A variety of products and pricing options can be of benefit to sales.
  
  
• Is there more to the virtual world than just game play? Few of the latest virtual world announcements offer an experience beyond games. Two products to watch that offer something more include Jacabee’s The Jacabee Code, which promotes a unique approach to learning history and Tales 4 Tomorrow, a destination that is all about animal conservation (with plush toys from Fiesta).
  
  
• How deep is the online experience? How many activities and how much content is available? What is the mix of games to creativity tools? Newer sites may not have as much depth as sites that have been on the market for some time.
  
  
• Who does the product appeal to, boys or girls? Historically, very few of these virtual world offerings have had an appeal to boys 9 years old and older. However, this too is changing. New destinations with a greater appeal to boys include products like the car-centric Tracksters, Revnjenz (Revnjenz) and KizMoto (KizToys); and the dinosaur-themed Webosaurs (Reel FX) and Xtractaurs (Mattel).
  
  
• What about younger users? While it may be surprising to find even younger users interested in similar online destinations, many of the social and communication tools available to older users are just not of interest to younger users. Age-appropriate products for young users have been in short supply. However, Ganz recently announced a younger version of Webkinz called Webkinz Jr., and since 2007, Gigapals has offered an eponymously-named site with related toys for the same audience: ages 3 to 6. When thinking up products for younger children, consider the amount of reading and audio instruction provided within these worlds. This demographic may be computer savvy enough to get to your site, but they may still be challenged by the inclusion of too much text once they arrive there.
  
  
• If the online world allows its users the ability to communicate with one another, is the method of communication “canned chat,” “filtered chat” or “open chat”? In addition, what kind of monitoring is provided to prevent inappropriate conversation or cyber bullying?

It’s hard to easily describe the appeal of online worlds for kids. An answer may be found with the sense of independence or a feeling of being in complete control over the digital universe. There might also be an aspirational component to these worlds, as well, that is hard for an adult to fully understand. Part of this new play experience may be an extension of pretend play we’re all so familiar with, related to kids and toys in the real world. One thing is certain, virtual worlds are an expanding part of a child’s play options, however you choose to define the play pattern. And because new virtual worlds are being announced more frequently, chances are there’s one that’s a perfect fit for any girl or boy, or maybe even the child at heart.

Three years ago I bought my then seven year old daughter her first Webkinz. She has always enjoyed pretend play offline with the tangible toy and equally enjoys the virtual play online. Both methods of play are done either with friends or alone. These days she plays in the online Webkinz universe a few times a week. She plays games, collects in-world currency called KinzCash, and builds out her Webkinz living space in the virtual world. I asked her recently if she would show me around the online world she had built for her stuffed animal friends. What I saw looked like a sizable, and very detailed build out effort she calls home for her pets. I imagine the size of this virtual home reflects her years of play online and asked her how many Webkinz she owns today. She wasn’t sure, so I suggested we find all of her Webkinz, scattered about her room and around the house, and count them. How many Webkinz plushies did we find? 26 Webkinz in all! I knew she had a good number of them around the house, but was surprised by just how many.

Young fans of Webkinz have many pets in their collection. Sometimes many more than you think possible! Above is a photo of most of the Webkinz in my daughter’s collection. (Click image to see larger photo.)

She received her first Webkinz as a gift from me while I was doing research about the ever expanding online world for kids. After this flagship friend was received, a small number of birthday parties resulted in a few more as gifts from friends. A couple were even earned for successfully completing challenging at-home clean up requests. However, a majority of the Webkinz in her collection were purchased by my daughter, through diligent savings of her small weekly allowance.

If you have young children in your home between the ages of 6 to 10, chances are you’ve already heard the Webkinz buzz. While there are many tangible pets to choose from, and too many features online to count with many more being added regularly, let me pull back the curtain of this online destination to show just one small part of this universe. One central online activity includes the ability to build out a virtual home for your newly acquired animals. The more pets your child acquires, the bigger this virtual home becomes.

Illustrated translations of tangible Webkinz toys in the virtual world.

As many parents will probably already know, every Webkinz plush comes with a card that includes a secret code to gain entry into the Webkinz site. One of the very first activities you child will participate in online is decorate a place for your new pet to live. Your child will receive one “starter” room to decorate. Additional rooms can be added by either a.) saving up KinzCash by playing online games/activities to purchase additional rooms, or b.) through buying additional Webkinz in the real world. My daughter pointed out that you only get an additional room for the first ten Webkinz you buy. After that, no more free rooms. The rest can only be purchased online with KinzCash.

This map, stitched together from multiple screen captures taken within the Webkinz World, shows all of the rooms that have been purchased and designed within my daughter’s collection of Webinz online. She started with just one room and built out this large living space for all of her pets. Clicking on any one of the squares from this map within the Webkinz World will bring you into an orthographic view of the individual room itself. Note the different sizes and themes to each room. (Click image to see larger photo.)

Rooms can be decorated with a wide selection of items for purchase through the WShop, the online equivalent of a home furnishings store. There are plenty of items available to spark a child’s decorative imagination. Chairs, beds, games, TVs, wall paper, you name it. Also, some of the items you can acquire are considered “exclusive” and are only made available from “adopting” your 10th, 15th, 20th (etc.) pet. (Translation of adopting — the purchase of additional Webkinz in the real world.)

The front step to the WShop which displays all the different categories of home furnishings you can buy within the Webkinz World. Selecting a category will bring you deeper into the store, showing the store visitor pictures of the item they may wish to place within one of their pet’s rooms. (Click for larger individual images.)

There are three different room sizes and a small number of different themed rooms. For example, you can purchase themed rooms that reflect a certain holiday, like Halloween, or if your pet lives underwater you can purchase a water room. Your pet moves around the room by clicking on an invisible tile matrix that covers the floor of the room. Large rooms are made up of a 10 x 10 grid. There are also medium sized rooms, 7 x 7, and small rooms, 5 x 5. This grid system also helps with the positioning of items purchased from the WShop within the room.

There are three main room sizes available in Webkinz World and a variety of different themes as well. If one of your Webkinz is a fish, chances are you will want a water room. Ask your child what happens when a non-water animal enters a water room. (Click for larger individual images.)

I’m fascinated with the technical logistics of this room making activity within Webkinz. There are a number of individual parts that need to work perfectly together, and need to scale just right with every new addition to your child’s collection. If your child is a Webkinz fan, ask them how many pets they own. Ask your child’s friends as well. You may be surprised at the answer! I’m amazed at the number of Webkinz my daughter’s friends own. Just this week we met a new friend that had over 20 Webkinz in her collection. One boy in the neighborhood who she sometimes plays with boasts owning 46 Webkinz! What sorts of stories about Webkinz do you hear from your children? What do they like best about Webkinz? How many pets do they own? Thanks for reading and for sharing your comments below!

Club Penguin celebrates its third anniversary! To mark the event, Disney and Club Penguin held a big anniversary party this past Friday in the heart of New York City. Excited fans and their parents could be found waddling around the festivities inside the midtown Manhattan Toys R Us and also across the street in the middle of Times Square.

Montage photo of Times Square event. (Click image to see larger photo.)

There were many things to do and see, as well as announcements to hear. The outdoor celebrations included personalities from Radio Disney and the Disney Channel. Entertainment included guest star appearances, many dance numbers on stage, and even a visit from Club Penguin co-founder, Lane Merrifield who thanked everyone for making Club Penguin such a huge success. The event was simulcast online through the Club Penguin website and also projected on the ABC Jumbotron! Nearby, a custom decorated tent, doubling as an igloo, looked like it jumped right off the webpages of the Club Penguin website. Tasty treats were on hand for all

A look inside the igloo. (Click image to see larger photo.)

the little ones and an amazing 3rd anniversary cake was made in honor of the celebration!

Across the street, inside the Toys R Us store, many additional surprises awaited which includeda number of new Club Penguin books (I think I saw four different books), plush penguins (I’m going to guess about 12

Online and offline anniversary cake. (Click image to see larger photo.)

different characters), and many new Club Penguin toys. Computers were set up for kids to try their hand at Club Penguin for the first time and additional tables were nearby so visitors could play the latest games now available including a Club Penguin branded Mancala and a card game called Fast Flippers. Users could even test out the soon to be released Club Penguin Nintendo DS title called Elite Penguin Force. The official Club Penguin blog also announced a series of Club Penguin trading cards that will be available sometime this coming November.

So, what’s noteworthy here? Well, aside from the party, a number of things. After watching the Club Penguin business for more than a couple of years, I am impressed with how Disney has proceeded after the acquisition of Club Penguin. I had a fear that the sweetness and innocence of the Club Penguin site would be lost through this acquisition and would soon become a site cluttered with advertisements. I am thrilled to report that the Club Penguin site is even better today than it was before the Disney acquisition. The only visible change is a separate webpage with information on where Club Penguin toys can be purchased. This is, however, located outside the Club Penguin world.

Also, the folks at Disney and Club Penguin have spent a lot of time trying to determine how best to grow this virtual world beyond the sizable user base they already have. First, you can see the Club Penguin website has just become international, with the inclusion of Portuguese as a language option in addition to English. Not an easy undertaking considering the live monitors needed to watch the site’s activity very closely. I’m betting you’re going to see more languages added here soon. Second, instead of the typical revenue approach offered through monthly subscriptions often used with other virtual worlds for kids, Club Penguin is extending revenue support through physical product that include numerous ties back to the website. The new products announced at the anniversary celebration include special physical “coins” attached to the plush penguin dolls and codes woven into games and books that unlock unique Club Penguin rewards. For example, within the Club Penguin world, an activity can ask for the special word found on page 46 paragraph 2 word 14 of one of the new books, and once this word is entered into the activity, prizes await. Also, it’s been stated that coins collected in the new Nintendo DS game can be transferred into a child’s online account too. Pretty cool! Now the cynic in me might say this is too much consumerism, but I have to acknowledge the amazing commitment to quality and careful thought put into these new products. A child does not have to be a paid subscriber of the site in order to take advantage of these rewards.

The solitary subscription model and in-world advertising approach to grow a children’s virtual world is looking like an outdated thing of the past. Club Penguin and Disney are positioned to capitalize on it’s consumer product strength to grow Club Penguin numbers like no other virtual world offering for kids can. Waddle on Club Penguin! Waddle on!

Video of the Club Penguin anniversary event in NYC’s Time Square.

[The following is an article I wrote for the October 2008 issue of Playthings Magazine. For those unfamiliar with Playthings, it is the oldest (over 105 years in circulation!) and most widely respected professional toy magazine in all of North America. Playthings reports on the business of play as well as trends that not only impact the toy industry but also children across the globe.]

Social networking, social media, virtual worlds; the Web 2.0 world is on fire, and sites that touch on some part of social media are rapidly growing. Sites that allow individuals to come together, form online communities, and share thoughts and different media types in a virtual way are feeding this ever-changing way to engage with others online.

Plain and simple, people are social creatures. It’s wired into our being. The concept of social networking is not new. It’s been part of our DNA since the dawn of time. Some researchers think that our desire as humans to socialize is an instinct that plays a part in our survival. Only recently has the term “social” been applied to interacting online, allowing individuals to become virtually engaged with others who share common interests across the street or around the globe. And social network destinations are not just for adults and business people, they’re of great interest to kids. Many adults may first have become aware of social networking sites through high profile business acquisitions with noteworthy online companies like MySpace or Club Penguin. Kids, on the other hand, often learn about child-friendly equivalents by word of mouth, from friends at school or the playground.

But just what are the current growth trends? What is the makeup of existing social networking sites today and how—and better yet, why—are kids interested in them? Where are the new opportunities yet to be explored by future businesses? How can a traditional toy business better integrate these new virtual play patterns into existing physical products?

Worlds worth watching

One way to begin chipping away at these questions is to take a look at the wealth of social network products available on the market today. There are literally dozens of sites that people young and old use.

In fact, once a list of social networking sites is identified, a clear demographic split can be seen, and two distinct user groups emerge. One group includes children ages 12 and under; the other includes teens between the ages of 13 and 18.

What is this age group distinction about? In part, the separation has to do with privacy laws that protect young children online. Another factor is that each group comes to these products with a different set of social interests. There are also differences in communication style across the age groups as well as access to and understanding of different technology types.

Before building our list of sites, it’s important to identify the critical social networking features these destinations have in common. The criteria used for this article includes features that allow its user base to communicate with one another in a real time or a delayed manner using open chat, filtered chat, or canned chat —the three main methods of communicating online through such sites. The ability to communicate with other members in these sites is usually, though not always, accomplished through interacting in a virtual world. First, let’s take a look at a list of destinations that appeal to children age 12 and under.

Next, a similar list can be created for popular social networking services that appeal to users between the ages of 13 and 18. The method of communication in these sites for older users tends to be more open-ended and less likely to be monitored or filtered when compared to sites for their younger counterparts.

When the above two sets of data are mapped out over time and placed on top of each other, adding up the number of new social network products launched within each year for both age groups, some interesting trends present themselves.

[NOTE: This line chart above showing the two sets of historical data layered on top of one another did not make it into the magazine article. I am adding it here to the blog post only. -ST]

It’s impossible to ignore the recent growth in new social networking products launched each year that target children ages 12 and under. In 2007 alone there were at least 13 such products announced for this demographic. And 2008 is shaping up to be a banner year for new announcements. During this year’s Toy Fair, I counted 12 new social networking and virtual world announcements, products that have, for the most part, yet to go live. What’s surprising is that over the same time frame, social networking products that appeal to teens have remained somewhat steady in new business starts and consistent year over year. Yet, both demographics are experiencing significant activity in new membership growth and Web traffic month after month. So why is it that the younger demographic is experiencing a greater surge in business startups? Let’s explore a few theories that may answer this question.

Not all social networking products that are appealing to teens are developed specifically for teens. These destinations are often developed to appeal to audiences over the age of 18, but have found success with users between the ages of 13 and 18. Conversely, almost all sites for kids ages 12 and under are intentionally developed for these younger audiences.

It’s possible that older users of social networking products are more loyal to a specific social networking site, whereas the younger demographic is more transient in its social networking choices, preferring to use multiple sites over time instead of staying with just one.

The younger demographic may have greater turnover in users and shorter life cycles (churn) with social networking products that target them than their older counterparts. In the children’s magazine space, for example, it’s not uncommon to hear that an audience base and related subscriptions changes every 18 months. The same could be true for an online world created for younger audiences.

Many younger social networking services are tied to consumer products like plush toys or are affiliated with on-air television programming, whereas services targeted at older users are usually not. While an older demographic has more expendable income than the younger, it may also be a harder group to sell a specific consumer product to in a social networking manner based on ever changing consumer tastes.

Social network destinations that appeal to our older group may see significant growth in add-on services like widgets and other related micro businesses and technologies, whereas the younger social networking destinations do not have the ability to tie in other, similar business extensions.

While both age groups use avatars to represent themselves in an online world, the younger services rely more heavily on avatar use than services for older users. Representing oneself with an avatar online may have greater appeal with younger users.

Services targeting older users take advantage of additional forms of social engagement, like media exchange (photos, music and video). These are offered in addition to engagement through written communication. Few destinations for younger audiences offer the same opportunity to share different media types.

Social networking services for older users do not need to mask a user’s identity, though identities can be hidden, changed and altered at will. Younger services hide all possibility of making oneself identifiable online. The need to protect the identity of young users is a clear distinction that separates the two groups.

Revenue models differ as well. The services for older users rely heavily on ad-driven models. Some younger services also rely on “in world” advertisement but can also take advantage of tangible product sales and/or monthly subscription models.

A number of toy companies have taken steps into the online social networking world for kids, resulting in varying degrees of success. Some companies simply offer an online destination alone while others offer a tangible product (like a plush toy) together with a virtual product, each touching on a different play pattern or desire. Webkinz World and Club Penguin are often cited as exemplary successes in the kids’ space. Others, less so.

Almost, but not quite right

An offering like Mattel’s Barbie Girls is a high profile example of a site that hit kids’ engagement levels correctly but fell short with the related MP3 product that tied into it. It was a case of a strong online solution with a weak tangible product. Ty’s Beanie Babies 2.0 has the opposite problem. Ty’s plush toys are loved by many a child but its online offering falls short in ongoing engagement after its initial use.

It’s easier to correct an online shortcoming by continuing to evaluate, test, build and expand such sites than it is to correct a problem with a tangible consumer product once it’s in the marketplace, but getting both virtual and physical products correct from the first day of launch is vitally important. In the early days of Club Penguin, before the official launch of the site in October 2005, an earlier iteration of Club Penguin called Penguin Chat existed for a couple of years. It was extremely limited compared to other social networking products offered today. But the creators of Club Penguin continued to build and add to this first step with additional features and games. The same is very much true for Ganz’s Webkinz World. Both sites’ initial offerings were smaller than they are today, built largely on a shoestring budget, sweat equity and love, but both offered an acceptable level of quality content, quality experience and user engagement with kids right from the start.

Looking towards 2009, we will continue to see even more ways to engage in virtual worlds, resulting in unique and specialized methods of socializing and participating in communities online. Some technology products for holiday 2008 will connect to the Web via USB ports. Additional connectivity through cell phones or other mobile technologies could provide ongoing social opportunities when access to a computer is not available. Stay tuned for more innovation and opportunity in this ever-changing, ever-expanding online world for children, teens and adults alike.

Last week I attended a conference called the Sandbox Summit in New York City. The Summit was a day long event with many noteworthy speakers who are software and content creators, child development experts, and reviewers of technology toys for children. The event’s main theme? The power of play and its ability to help facilitate learning.

Opening

During the opening keynote, speaker Andy Berndt, managing director of Google’s Creative Lab, described how almost everyone can remember a favorite toy when they were young (link to audio of presentation.) Andy shared his favorite play activity, that being a creative experience which involved the process of inventing new bicycles. When he was a child, what he did was take apart many different bicycles, and because bicycle parts for the most part are standardized in terms of their bolt sizes and screws used to make them, he was able to recombine different bicycle parts into unique, unusual, and exciting combinations. One could say that Andy’s open ended experimentation with bicycle parts was on par with play experiences found in Legos, K’Nex, Lincoln Logs, Erector Sets, and the like. What is it about Andy’s creative experience that can lead to insights on how best to help facilitate a love of learning? Read on.

The Importance of Play and its Relationship to Learning

The next speaker who I thought did a fantastic job of providing an overview on the importance of play and the learning opportunities that come from play was Nancy Schulman, the director of the 92nd Street Y Nursery School in New York City (link to audio of presentation.) Nancy shared with the audience that one of the best things about her job for the last 18 years was the wonderful opportunity to watch young children play. With that experience she has learned a great deal about the benefits of play not just for preschoolers, but for all ages.

Nancy expressed that educators, psychologists, and even the American Academy of Pediatrics have great concerns today about the quality of children’s play, how children play, and the quantity of time children play. Parents on the other hand express a lot of concern around wanting their children prepared for success at a very early age. Through her work, Nancy speaks with many parents. One of the greatest anxieties she hears from parents is that they want to be sure their child has every advantage, making sure that before they’re five years old they’ve mastered a second language, mastered every sport they might possibly play, and excel at playing a musical instrument as well. While child professionals are encouraging more open ended play in a child’s life, sadly most parents aren’t paying much attention to these recommendations.

When Nancy was asked “What types of skills do kids learn through play? And why is that meaningful in terms of a child’s lifelong appreciation for learning or confidence in their ability to learn?” she responded first with a quote from child development expert David Elkind of Tufts University:

“Play is not a luxury, but rather a crucial dynamic of healthy, physical, intellectual, social, and emotional development at all ages.”

Nancy then discussed each of these developmental benefits and how child initiated play can lay the foundation for learning:

• Social – “Through play, children learn to interact with others. Play prepares children for morale reasoning. They figure out how to resolve a problem with a friend independently.”
  
  
• Intellectual – “They learn to recognize and solve problems. Children get that feeling of mastery that only comes from when they’re challenged but not frustrated at the same time. In academic areas, play is linked to creativity, imagination, and problem solving skills and it lays the groundwork for successful learning experiences in reading, writing, math, and science. If you think about what children do when they play, it’s very language rich. They are interacting with words and language all the time and learning communication skills.”
  
  
• Physical – “In terms of physical development, they can develop through play fine motor skills, gross motor skills, overall strength and integration of their muscles, their brains, and their nerves. It sets apart a start in their lives for healthy living and fitness, which of course, can counter obesity as well.”
  
  
• Emotional – “Play is Joyful. It is probably one of the greatest underpinnings for later adult happiness. It can’t be underestimated how much happiness and joy have in terms of learning as well.”

Survey of Kids Opinions about Play

The next speaker who offered some additional insight into what kids think about their favorite play objects was Peter Shafer, Vice President of Harris Interactive (link to audio of presentation.) Peter shared with the audience a recent online survey conducted in collaboration with the Sandbox Summit of 1,353 US children ages 8 to 18.

There was a wealth of data to digest in this presentation that spoke to tween and teen toy preferences as well as video games and digital toy products. In general I found this data interesting in that it backs up many gut assumptions about what different age groups prefer in their toy playing experiences.

One observation, it appears the definition of a “toy” was intentionally left undefined in this survey. Did survey respondents think a toy was a traditional toy, a technology toy, or maybe even a video game? Parts of the survey appeared to suggest what the differentiation of a toy was while other questions were not as clear.

Here are a few pieces of data I found interesting to pull out of the Harris Interactive Sandbox Summit survey press release:

“How much do you agree or disagree with the following?”
Summary of Strongly/Somewhat Agree

I call your attention to a couple of specific items from the survey (colored in light blue.) For the 8 to 12 age group the most popular response for a toy product was that it should be “entertaining” whereas with the 13 to 18 year old group there is a great appeal in products that “make me think”.

Best Practices for Developing Playful Products

After the Harris Interactive presentation, Carly Shuler, a Cooney Fellow from Sesame Workshop’s Joan Ganz Cooney Center and educational technologist Carla Engelbrecht Fisher delivered a presentation called “Fun Follows Function: Ten Tips for Developing Quality Toys”. Below I briefly outline each tip, but you can download an audio recording or download a PDF copy of the PowerPoint presentation here.

1. Bridge the gap between industry and academia – This first tip strongly suggests the benefit of bringing together multidisciplinary teams (child development experts, content experts, pedagogy experts, etc.) This first tip is one my company follows frequently. There’s a great paper by Brian Winn and Carrie Heeter, both from Michigan State University, about the important balance needed (and often the necessary heated debate) that comes from working collaboratively with multidisciplinary teams. A copy of this paper can be downloaded here.)
   
   
2. Incorporate research and testing in your product development and discovery process – Any amount of testing, large or small, will have a beneficial impact on your product’s development. From informal focus and user testing groups to serious product research efforts there’s a research approach that can fit your budget.
   
   
3. Track what users do in your product – There’s lots to be learned from watching how your target audience interacts with your product either informally or through data collection. Spend time analyzing what you find.
   
   
4. Read some research – Become familiar with the basics of developmental psychology for the specific age group your developing for. Doing this will help avoid reinventing the wheel. A handout was shared at the conference with many great places to jump start your research reading list. A copy of this reading list can be downloaded here.
   
   
5. Become an observer – Watch kids at play in the real world or even on YouTube (a cool suggestion offered by Carla). Watch how kids interact with products, visit playgrounds, schools, toy stores. Note what’s on the shelf and where it’s located. Also be aware of what’s on sale, it may provide a tip for what’s not selling.
   
   
6. Break the traditional model of one child per screen – Think outside tradition single player models. Think multiple players, or better yet, how can you actively encourage inter-generational participation! Think outside the keyboard box, consider alternative input devices (dance pads, guitars, balance boards.) Consider how you could combine virtual and physical worlds in new ways (like the success Webkins achieved with dual play patterns online and offline.)
   
   
7. Leverage consumer market trends for learning – Consider user generated content, online video, or casual game approaches. Be aware of these every changing trends and you just might find one that will greatly elevate the success of your product.
   
   
8. Go beyond the “3 R’s” – Think 21st Century Skills: Creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, communication. For more on 21st Century Learning Skills, download this presentation from the May, 2008 Joan Ganz Cooney Center’s first annual symposium.
   
   
9. Become familiar with various game mechanics – There are many different game mechanics that could increase interest and engagement in your product. Some old mechanics can be made new again with the newest technologies.
   
   
10. Tap into your own childhood – Everyone has childhood experiences that can help shape your product for the better. Tap into your own experiences as well as those around you.

Note about Virtual Worlds

Kids and virtual worlds was touched on a few times throughout the day but I thought the following statement was worth calling out in its own section. Peter Shafer of Harris Interactive indicated that we will see explosive growth in the area of virtual worlds specifically for kids. The numbers cited were that there are about 80 virtual world destinations for kids today and by the end of 2010 there will be more than 150 virtual worlds to choose from. For a current list of virtual worlds available, I have the following link to share.

Takeaway

So what’s the key take away for developers, innovators and creators of playful learning products for kids, whether traditional or technological? Here’s the secret sauce that was repeated over an over again through words and through examples:

• Make the play experience as open ended as possible. Think about opportunities for vast exploration, not a limited path of play. Include opportunities to fail as well as ones to succeed. Let each child develop their own unique path to play, one that is customizable enough that it appeals to a single user and flexible enough that multiple users can find their own unique approach.
• Bring together a variety of child experts.
• Become familiar with research.
• Watch your audience, get familiar with your audience, test with your audience.
• Try something new! Break the habit of relying on the same old technology and user input solutions.
• Think 21st Century Skills

Nancy Schulman also offered this sage advice:

“If your child can’t play with a toy in at least three different ways, leave it behind.”

And one last thought for making the next greatest learning toy, digital or otherwise… Think bicycle parts.

Referenced Products and Videos

Here’s a list of digital products and online YouTube videos that were referenced throughout the Summit.

The New York Times recently ran a short article called Preferring the Web Over Watching TV which cited a few stats regarding TV and web habits of 10 to 14 year olds. The article was based on a study conducted by DoubleClick Performics. In the article it stated:

• 83% of children ages 10 to 14 spent an hour or more a day using the Internet
• 68% of children ages 10 to 14 spent an hour or more a day watching television
• 72% of the children online have at least one social networking profile on a site like MySpace
• 60% of this online group said they never or rarely read blogs (Don’t latch onto this stat. Read more below.)

I thought these stats were great to find, but I wanted more. Much more. So I started searching online for any additional information about this DoubleClick Performics report. While I didn’t find the full report, I did find this gem of a release many weeks earlier called New Data Shows the Tween Scene is Online written by Stuart Larkins, VP of Search Operations at DoubleClick Performics. The article was posted on a site called Chief Marketer. This report appears to have been written from data gathered in an online survey of more than 1,000 tweens in the 10 to 14 age group. In this post the following additional stats could be found:

• Almost 50% of this group go online more than three times a day with each visit lasting at least a half an hour.
• 29% of children ages 10 to 14 spent an hour or more a day listening to radio
• 10% of children ages 10 to 14 spent an hour or more a day reading newspapers
• 5% of children ages 10 to 14 spent an hour or more a day reading magazines

As it relates to social networking for this demographic, the article states:

• 54% have a profile on MySpace
• 35% have a profile on Facebook
• 45% have a profile on some other social networking site
• 64% visit social networking sites at least once per day
• 34% spend four or more hours a week on social networking sites

In terms of this demographic reading blogs:

• 8% frequently read blogs
• 31% occasionally read blogs
• 40% rarely read blogs
• 20% never read blogs

What I find interesting about these stats in terms of this demographic having a MySpace or Facebook account is that both online services state in their Terms of Use (Myspace, Facebook) that users must be at least 13 years of age or older to use the site. Since the publicly available information from this report is not broken out by individual age, you have to wonder:

a.) What percentage of kids ages 10 to 12 report using MySpace and Facebook?

b.) Should we assume that the majority of these social networking statistics only apply to 13 and 14 year olds?

c.) Could it be possible that kids in the 10 to 14 demographic are over reporting their actual use of these sites because it’s a “cool” thing to say you have a profile on MySpace and Facebook?

Jennifer Kotler, AVP of Domestic Research at Sesame Workshop, presented a similar report a couple of months ago at the Joan Ganz Cooney Symposium and the Kid Power Xchange conference, but with a focus on 6 to 9 year olds. I’ll share more on her findings in a future post.

How is it that some members of online social networks have so many connections? Connections that number in the high hundreds, and sometimes even thousands? Do these users really know that many people?

A couple of years ago I was working on a presentation about inspiring technologies and their ability to influence future product development across a number of markets. One aspect of my presentation touched on social networks and their ability to bring people together that otherwise may not have the opportunity to interact with like minded people in the physical world. While preparing for this part of my presentation, I wondered “How is it that some people have so many social network connections?” While it’s not necessarily the norm, I noticed a small minority of users from services like LinkedIn and Facebook had hundreds, if not thousands, of connections. These people couldn’t be that gregarious, could they?

In my search for an answer, I stumbled upon a theory called Dunbar’s Number. Robin Dunbar, a British anthropologist, explored and published his thoughts on social groups, largely as a result of studying primate societies in the wild. Through his observations with primates, he developed a theory related to “social grooming”. Social grooming could be considered the meaningful, if not necessary, connections that exist between members of the chimpanzee tribes he was studying. Dunbar’s theory attempts to determine a primate’s maximum social size based on the dimensions of the animal’s neocortex (the size of its brain). Once he defined this theory, he applied it to a number of different animal species and other forms of evolved species, including people. The result? 148.

This number, 148 (or really 147.8) is the number Dunbar determined to be the maximum number of meaningful connections any person could have in their own personal social group. In social theory circles, this number is rounded up to be 150 meaningful connections.

(Before moving forward with my post, I’d like to point out that while Dunbar suggest that social group sizes of people could be correlated to a person’s brain size, many other researchers who study social group theories of humans do not. My article is simply an exploration of the concept, not an endorsement. Also, due to the logarithmic nature of this theory, coupled with a 95% accuracy calculation, this maximum number could be as low as 110 or as high as 210, depending on the fudge factor you’re willing to allow Dunbar’s formula.)

Can this number somehow help explain why some people have so many connections through social networking tools online? Well, not entirely, but I do see many individuals interested in online social networking who become familiar with this theory, reference it often.

Let me share with you my experience growing my own social network. My social networking product of choice for business is LinkedIn. I became a member over four years ago, not entirely understanding what social networking was all about or how it could possibly mean anything to me. Once I started dabbling with the service, reaching out to others and asking them to join my “network”, the number of users connected to me slowly started to grow. I distinctly remember how hard it was to grow a network in the early days of using the service. After a year of dabbling I reached about 50 connections. It was around that time that I slowly started to see things differently. I was just beginning to understand how to harness the power of social networks and its benefits, to understand the math involved in networked connections for finding other people who may have similar personal or business interests to my own. For each connection I added, I was able to reach exponentially more people beyond that single connection, all through the miracle of technology.

After some time and effort of regular use the big day came. I reached 150 connections. “Wow!” I said to myself, thinking I had finally reaching the upper number of my own personal village as defined by Dunbar. I sat back, and felt some kind of anthropological bliss having reached the outer limits of my social group size. But then, a strange thing started to happen. My network continued to grow, not entirely through own my efforts. I soon reached 160 connections, 170, 180, 190, 200. Fast forward many months and my network is just about to break 300 connections, twice the size of what Dunbar’s theory hypothesized. (Even with the math fluctuation, I still exceeded 210 connections.) What happened?? Was something wrong with the size of my neocortex? What would Dunbar say about the number of my connections?

I started to see social groups on a number of different levels. Could it be that Dunbar’s number is really a general formula to apply to a single social plane that, while developed based on one species, does not carry to another? Could it also be that Dunbar’s theory was all about self preservation, whereas the way most people engage in social circles is all about self selection? Anyone who has many different interests may very well engage in a variety of self-selected social planes.

While I don’t have a definitive answer to share here regarding multi-plane social spheres, this exploration started me on a path to question the strength of any connection between two individuals. When reviewing the strength of a connection between myself and any any other person in my network, I becomes clear immediately that the connection strength between myself and any other person I connect to varies greatly. I wondered if this connection strength could be charted out in some way, and if doing so would tell me something about Dunbar’s Number. I wondered if I could find an answer by crossing Dunbar’s theory with that of the Bell Curve. Having remembered that my grades in college were sometimes charted out on a Bell Curve, could the same be done with all of my self selected connections?

I began by looking up the definition of a Bell Curve, and among the answers I found one stated: “Many biological, psychological and social phenomena occur in the population in the distribution we call the bell curve.” Hmmm, those “social phenomena” words sure jumped out at me.

To get started with my experiment, I theorized and then defined different levels of “connected strength” any person could have with another. I defined these varying connections in the following way:

Group I – Family members and/or very close friends

Group II – Good friends

Group III – People you knew or are acquainted with

Group IV – People you knew but not that well

Group V – People you did not know at all

If I applied this labeling to the fictitious virtual village I lived in within LinkedIn at Dunbar’s social group size of 150, the numbers for each category above would be 3, 21, 102, 21, 3 according to the Bell Curve spread. This village in the real world would loosely translate into the following:

• I had a mother, father and one very close friend or sibling in this village.
• I had 21 friends, possibly relatives, that I knew well.
• There were 102 additional people in my village, performing various necessary roles and services (teacher, baker, doctor, farmer, etc.)
• I knew 21 people that were part of my village but I didn’t really know them very well because I didn’t interact with them as often
• There were 3 complete strangers I didn’t recognize or know at all.

But in my LinkedIn world I didn’t have 150 connections; I have about 300. Would the connections in my own online network break out as nicely into these same mathematical groupings, at least in terms of a percentage? I downloaded a list of everyone I was connected with through LinkedIn. I then rated the strength of my connection based on the above categories, and lo and behold, the groupings and percentages were pretty close, not exact, but close!

I’m thinking that Dunbar’s upper limit of 150 meaningful connections does not hold true with how individuals engage online (or for that matter even offline) with self-selected social groups. But maybe there’s something here about the varying strength of connections within one’s own social community, at least in terms of these connective strength percentages.

I have many more thoughts on this and other related social group observations, including what it means if your percentages don’t nicely fit within the above described number. I’ve also been thinking about how this information could be used to explain children building their own social groups, but that will have to wait for another day. Thanks for reading.

[The following is an article I wrote for the May 2008 issue of Children's Technology Review. For those unfamiliar with this monthly magazine, it's a great information resource to all the latest software, gaming, and technology products being released for children.]

Last month, I was presenting at a conference for education publishers when someone raised his hand and asked “What’s a Webkinz?” Hmmmm, I thought. Doesn’t everyone know about Webkinz World? Shouldn’t everyone know about this site and others like it without the excuse “I don’t have kids.” The next day, somebody asked me, “What’s an avatar?” I was starting to understand that there were still plenty of publishers firmly stuck in yesterday’s Web 1.0 world. But don’t worry. We’ll fix the problem the way we developers always do – with a Patch.

The Web 2.0.1 Patch is designed to help you become more thoughtful when creating interactive experiences for children (and it works well for school or library websites, as well). Installing this Patch in your brain is a quick and painless process as long as you have a USB 2.01 port just behind your left ear. Or, you can follow these three steps.

STEP 1 – Create an account for yourself in a virtual world like Club Penguin, Pirate’s Online, Nicktropolis, Second Life or any of the many virtual worlds that are popping up all over.
Once you have an account, test it out and play with it. Keep in mind – like many other Web 2.0 products available you may not see the benefits immediately, but you will see incremental improvements every time you come back to visit one of these virtual worlds.

STEP 2 – Upload digital photos to Flickr or a video to YouTube.
Don’t forget to include some tags that describe what you’re uploading so for others can easily find it. Once you have posted something, control your excitement, pat yourself on the back, and email friends and family with a link to your newly posted UGC (User Generated Content)!

STEP 3 – Create a personal profile on Facebook, LinkedIn, or any another similar social networking site.
If you don’t know one that’s right for you, ask a smart computer friend what she uses (chances are she will have already installed the 2.0.1 Patch and will be familiar with the requirements). If your techy friend is not available, casually ask someone under the age of 20 what sites they use. Don’t tell them that you are setting up a new account. If you do, he or she might give you that “Web 1.0 look” and then slowly back away.

Here are just a few of the benefits you’ll be able to enjoy from downloading and installing this Patch:

• You will start from, and work from, a central plan.
  If you’re designing a site or service with social features, there will be no more “winging it” or making it up as you go along. Thinking through the design of your new web idea, writing it down, and sharing it with all of your team members are more important now than ever before.
  

• You’ll test your work with your target audience.
  The Patch works best when testing is considered at the very beginning of your product’s definition on paper and throughout the development process. Some of you might explain “We never had to test our products during the Web 1.0 days!” Yes, in many ways the Web 1.0 days were a simpler time, and a time we will all look back on with nostalgia. However, the hustle and bustle of today’s fast-paced Web 2.0 world demands ongoing testing.
  

• After you install the 2.0.1 Patch, you’ll have zero tolerance for UI (user interface) mistakes.
  If buttons or other interactive controls don’t function as they are supposed to, your product will be in violation of the User’s Agreement. It is important to think through the entire user experience fully before launching an interactive product. This requirement can’t be overstated. You can’t blame it on Flash, Microsoft or some browser error. That’s the 1.0 baby talk of the past.
  

• If you are a Web 2.0 savvy developer, keep in mind that it is possible your audience is not acknowledging that he or she is a Web 1.0 user.
  Education outreach and friendly intervention is an important component of the Web 2.0 vision. Take the time to gently explain how their actions are hurting others around them. Also explain the benefits of the Web 2.0 universe. (Note: This should be apparent in the development documentation you will have recently created for your plan). To keep your Web 2.0 chops fresh, try out the latest ground breaking technologies, like the iPod Touch interface, for example. You may not know how to find it at first, but be diligent.

These steps can avoid wasting countless hours and dollars, and they can prevent you from having to install the 2.1.1 Patch and a 2.1 Update. In the end, keeping your Patches up-to-date can result in better products and happier users.

On May 9th, the first ever Joan Ganz Cooney Center Symposium was kicked off at the McGraw-Hill offices located in New York City. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center is the newest addition to the Sesame Workshop enterprise. Its mission is to offer guidance, research and insight into how children can learn through emerging media. The symposium itself was an amazing event. A stellar list of speakers and influential attendees from diverse areas of education, broadcast, gaming and the toy world came together to discuss the future of learning and technology for children in the 21st century. This jam-packed event included presentations from over 34 different industry insiders. Over 150 invited guests filled the room. Included on the guest list was Congressman George Miller (D-CA) who is the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee.

All of the presentations offered many important perspectives and voices that are shaping the learning and technology conversation today. A number of speakers served up new research and valuable insights to chew on long after the event concluded. While there was significant take-away from all of the speakers, I would like to call out two specific presentations. These include the presentations of Connie Yowell of the MacArthur Foundation and Jennifer Kotler of Sesame Workshop.

First and foremost, Connie Yowell’s presentation on new learning paradigms was simply amazing, passionately delivered, and has given many folks the most food for thought about the future of new media and learning. Connie expressed the importance of seeking out the right questions to ask at the beginning of our journey, stating that in order for us to realize the opportunity in front of us, we must be ready for a significant paradigm shift in the existing learning conversation. I heard many attendees echo the importance of Connie’s words at the conclusion of the event. In the matrix below, I have included an audio recording of Connie’s presentation. A transcription of her comments can also be found in my next blog article.

During this part of the symposium, both Ellen Wartella (of UC Riverside) and Connie Yowell’s words were offered in succession and both speakers expressed a great need for more research and a significant rethinking of our current approach to education and learning. Their comments were vital ones to be heard by policy makers, and while Representative George Miller attended the event for most of the day, sadly he left just before Ellen and Connie took the stage.

The next presentation I’d like to call attention to was that delivered by Jennifer Kotler. Jennifer presented two reports, but one in particular has an important story to be told. This report gathered information from interviews conducted with children ages 6 to 9. It asked them about their favorite games and websites. Included within this report was a very clever validity check that, when its findings were presented, calls into question any other self-reported findings from other organizations asking similar questions about kids and online preferences.

In the study, kids were asked about their technology preferences. Included within the interview question sets were six non-existent website and game names. That’s right, online products that were completely fictitious and do not exist. What this report revealed was that 56% of those surveyed claimed to have played these non-existent games and websites. How could this be?

What the research suggests is that kids may be more likely to exaggerate their actual use of technology because of the apparent “cool factor” and/or the aspirational aspect of these technologies. How does this cool/aspirational factor play out within the data? Here are just a couple of examples: When kids were asked if they have ever visited a MySpace page, the “clean” data suggests that only 19% of those surveyed have visited the popular online destination whereas the non-valid data states the number is 54%. When asked about posting video on YouTube, the numbers are 7% (valid data) vs 42% (non-valid data).

These findings suggest that similar studies conducted by other organizations would benefit greatly by the inclusion of a validity test in their research. If not, the numbers reported could be significantly skewed from what they should be. Now that we’re all armed with this information, go back and look at all the claims regarding other popular children’s destinations, like Club Penguin, Webkinz, and the like. Hmmmmm.

I would also like to call out presentations made by Bernie Trilling of Oracle Education Foundation about 21st Century Learning Skills, Allison Druin for her work with the International Children’s Digital Library project, Krista Marks of Kerpoof, James Paul Gee and his report on Getting Over the Slump, and Jim Styer of Common Sense Media for his report on how parents and educators view the educational potential of new media.

The matrix below offers audio recordings, papers, and related websites collected from the event. Friends and colleagues who know me well will tell you that I’m rarely without a camera or recording device at such events. I believe it’s important to capture and share such information with everyone so that industries can move forward together. The list below includes audio recordings from most of the speakers. However, my apologies go out to the last 8 or so speakers, mostly from Warren Buckleitner’s Dust or Magic panel, for by the end of the day my recording device lost power.

All of the audio clips can be downloaded as a single zipped file here.