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.

Irwin Toy creates the ME2, a handheld product that collects “motion points” in the real world and converts those points into online currency.

Every year when I attend the New York Toy Fair I may see a few thousand toys in the course of four days. I was recently speaking with another toy reviewer who said, “Did you ever notice that even though you see thousands of new toys, you will only remember maybe five of the best products?” This observation has served me well. What stands out in a Toy Fair attendee’s memory after seeing so many products will usually go on to be the breakthrough later in the year. I believe the ME2 by Irwin Toy will be one of those breakthrough products, not just in the toy space, but also in the virtual worlds and social networking space as well.

Let me start with some background information. The ME2 is a handheld device that has a small 8-bit color screen that measures about 2 by 1.5 inches. Each ME2 comes with one onboard game. The ME2 can also be docked to your computer via a USB port. When the ME2 is connected to your computer, access to an online 3D virtual world is granted. The website which is being developed will be www.me2universe.com, but currently this part of the product offering is not available to the public. (More information about the ME2 will become available at this link within the next few weeks.) Additional games can be loaded onto the ME2 after connecting to and exploring the online ME2 world.

Once you create and customize your own avatar, you can begin to explore this fully immersive 3D world. Within this world there are many different “islands” to explore, but you can’t visit another island until you successfully complete challenges that are on each island. To complete a challenge, you may need to purchase “in world” items to help solve puzzles. And here’s the amazing part of this entire product offering; To purchase items in this virtual word, you don’t use a credit card or real dollars. Your own activity level in the physical world earns points and therefore purchasing power online.

While the ME2 is a handheld gaming device, it also acts as a pedometer, a tool used to measure the distance or energy people exerted when they go for a walk or a jog. When the ME2 is attached to a child’s belt or is in his pocket, the device collects “action points”. When the ME2 is later connected to a computer, these points are then uploaded to an online account, and then become the currency used to purchase items in the online world. Do you need to buy a boat to cross a virtual river in the online world to solve a challenge but don’t have enough points to buy it? Well, go outside and walk around the block to gain more points. Do you need to purchase a virtual flashlight to see inside a cave but don’t have the currency? Take a ride on your bike across town in the real world, collect points on your ME2, and you’ll have enough credits online to purchase that item! The ME2 is a brilliant solution for online engagement as well as promoting physical activity in the offline world.

In addition to the release of the product, there will be a social networking component. Members will be able to communicate with other avatars in an open chat manner. Communication will be filtered as well as monitored in real time by people looking to ensure that text exchanges between members are appropriate and safe.

The target audience of this product is primarily 8 – 12 year olds, but looks like it could extend nicely out to 6 – 14. The ME2 should be available for purchase in August 2008 and is anticipated to cost between $34.99 and $39.99. This is a one-time purchase and there is no monthly subscription fee to gain access to the online world. This online access model makes it easy to give the ME2 as a gift when compared to sites that require a monthly subscription fee. I also noticed that this product may have a very strong boy appeal, which is something not commonly found in online destinations for children in the 8 – 12 age range.

The ME2 stands above the many other virtual world and social networking “me too” offerings available to kids. Irwin Toy has carefully picked the right combination of online and offline components to make this the innovative product to watch in the months ahead. What a great job for all involved at Irwin Toy. Thank you for sharing your announcement with me!

To see a videotaped demo of ME2 from Toy Fair, click the window below.

I’ve just made it back from the 2008 New York Toy Fair. In the last five years I’ve been attending the show, this was definitely one of the best. One of the big reasons I attend is to see how technology is being applied to toys, both for fun and for learning. Year after year the Youth Electronics supercategory, a description within the toy industry to measure tech toy sales, grows by leaps and bounds. This year’s use of technology in toys was, for the most part, outstanding. Every year a number of themes present themselves at the show. Here’s are the themes I’ve seen at this years event:

• Social Networking, Virtual Worlds, and Web Connected Devices – I counted at least twelve new or relaunched social networking / virtual world destinations for children. Some had an offline product like a stuffed toy complete with a code to unlock an online destination. Others had a device that would connect to your computer via the USB port.
  
  
• Robots and Animatronic Devices – Many more robots this year. Mattel/Fisher-Price and Hasbro had some of the biggest announcements with robotic life-like dolls and animals. Also many more robot making kits were on display.
  
  
• Motion-based Products – The Nintendo Wii has definitely had its influence on the toy industry. New motion-based devices for children were on display. However, a number of these tech toy products can only detect motion on an XY plane.
  
  
• Green Products – A surprising number of companies were eager to tell you just how environmentally friendly their products were. From the materials used in their toys to the clever solutions discovered to power toys without batteries to the biodegradable packaging the product ships in. I was overwhelmed by the number of companies that were trying to do the right thing for the environment.
  
  
• High School Musical – The licensing groups at Disney must be working overtime. Many booths had products using the High School Musical brand to promote their new crop of toys.
  
  
• Dinosaurs – Last year I blogged that it would be the year of the guitar. This year it was noted that many dinosaur products will be coming out later this year. Some simply model kits, some stuffed toys, many robotic.

In the coming days I’ll be posting more information on a few of the products I think will become tech toy sensations later this year. Stay tuned!

Based on the buzz and advertising build up before this year’s NY Toy Fair, I’ve been predicting that the digital toy company Techno Source had a unique technology announcement to make. Just a few days before the show started, signs were pointing to a collaboration between Techno Source and Disney. Both were planning to deliver a big announcement on February 18 at Toy Fair. I made it to the press event and the news definitely raises the bar for the future of successful social networking sites and virtual worlds.

As the news outlets have been reporting since Disney’s acquisition of Club Penguin, Disney is very interested in growing its online virtual world properties. in the last seven months we’ve seen a number of virtual world announcements from Disney. Disney and Techno Source jointly announced their work together to create the latest in virtual world experiences called Pixie Hallow and a physical extension to that world called Clickables. While you can create your own custom fairies today, the Pixie Hallow site will launch later this year.

Pixie Hallow is a virtual world where girls ages 8 – 12 can create their own fairy avatar and explore, better yet “fly”, through the magical fairy world. The world will also include many games and communication tools to interact with other fairies through a number of safe filtered, monitored and canned communication methods. As you can imagine, PixieHallow is beautiful, lush, and visually captivating world. However, the biggest surprise in this world is how Disney developed the art in this world. In true Disney fashion, this virtual world was developed using a multiplane camera technique often used in Disney animated features. This visual technique is also sometimes referred to as a parallax process which is often used to animate and bring alive background art. What’s so unique about this? It’s a striking visual technique that gives the illusion of depth in the virtual word that I have yet to see anywhere else online. It’s a 2D enhancement that ads a level of realism to the product. Each plane of the background moves at its own unique speed. Items in the foreground more at a faster speed than items in the background. If you’ve ever worked in Flash you know that Flash tends to choke on large moving animations. Flash generally doesn’t play nice when it comes to pushing multiple layers of full screen motion either, let alone a single layer of full screen art. Whatever Disney discovered to pull off the effect, I applaud their engineering and animation teams for their success. Job well done!

So Pixie Hallow is the Disney side of this announcement. Techno Source brings a complimentary and compelling experience to the party in the form of a technology called Clickables. Clickables in its simplest form, are like tiny little digital buttons that can be attached to any item; jewelry, notebooks, clothing, whatever. Each button contains a tiny piece of data inside. An initial use for these buttons is to create charms for bracelets. A bracelet can have many different dangling charms but also has a main touch pad location on the bracelet where charm information from a friend can be transferred and captured. Once the tiny bits of information are captured, the bracelet can be “docked” and that information will be uploaded to your virtual fairly account. When this is done, information about your friend is added to your account. The uploaded information also unlocks different online trinkets and game experiences as well.

The beauty of Clickables is that this social experience is not purely a virtual one. Clickables technology, combined with the Pixie Hallow virtual world, encourages real world interaction and real world engagement. Once you’ve physically met someone, clicked bracelets upload that shared, real world event to your Pixie Hallow account. No longer do you have to worry about connecting with people online that you’ve never met.

I’m seeing many unique possibilities for Clickables beyond the Pixie Hallow experience. Similar uses of the technologies could make attending real world exciting long after the event is over. Be prepared to see more announcements related to this new way of connecting with people in the physical world and then sharing more meaningful relationships online.

Every year about this time in a beautiful and artistic section of Lambertville, New Jersey, I attend a unique technology conference called Dust or Magic. This inspiring and often eclectic event brings together experts from the fields of research, education, software, toys, and gaming with one common goal in mind- to share ideas and experiences towards the successful design of interactive products for children. This year’s keynote speaker that kicked off the three day event was Lane Merrifield who, until recently, was the CEO and Founder of the successful children’s social networking website Club Penguin. With the recent acquisition of Club Penguin by Disney, Lane moves into his new role as the EVP of the Walt Disney Internet Group, the interactive arm of Disney responsible for children’s online content.

After Lane delivered his presentation to a packed room, I had the opportunity to ask him about his experiences in creating and developing the Club Penguin service.

Scott Traylor: When you were a teen you lived in southern California and worked for Disney. What do you remember about working at Disney?

Lane Merrifield: What I remember most is being in the park and being with the entertainment in the park. It really was a premiere experience. I had great managers and I really felt privileged to have started in Disneyland. A lot of our customer service is modeled after the park. We are very liberal with customer requests. The same way if you spill your drink in a theme park and you go up to someone with your empty cup, whether you drank it or spilled it, the concession stand will give you a brand new cup and fill it back up. They’re going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and this kind of premium service left a strong impression on me. It’s good business to have that level of quality, and seeing it play out from behind the scenes as an employee of Disney; seeing that it was genuine, that it was more than just a show was a pretty fascinating experience.

ST: How did your experience of working at Disney shape how you built Club Penguin?

LM: Those experiences have shaped Club Penguin throughout, from the way we built our world to be an imaginary exclusive place, free from outside influence, to the level of customer service which was modeled exactly after Disney. In fact, a lot of Disney executives who come through our offices and hear our story comment on how much of our thinking is already in step with Disney. We’re told we already “get it” and we know what Disney is looking for.

ST: What other influences have helped shape Club Penguin?

LM: Really bad customer service from tech companies. It’s so frustrating navigating through a maze of phone calls and emails, and crossing your fingers that you’ll get a reply, even if it’s an automated one. It’s one area we keep very close tabs on. If a parent or a child writes to us, it’s our goal to get back to them the same day. Customer service is an area that has me knocking my head against the wall. How is it that so many good service companies have it figured out? I can go into a Starbucks and get great customer service. I can go into Disneyland and get great customer service. Why is it that the technology sector is so bad at this? I know that customer service is labor intensive and expensive. For us, if we can build a scalable model that includes good customer service, it’s worth it. Club Penguin was our own baby. It was our own thing. We had to make the customer service part of our business work. Disney has not even thought twice about whether we should shave cost in this area, not at all. They’ve said “You guys keep doing what you’re doing and keep it working.” Steve Wadsworth, the President of the Disney Internet Group, has been very good in noting how we’ve done this differently. I think Disney has done a good job compared to most other companies, and with its help we’re learning how we can do it even better.

ST: That;s quite a responsibility.

LM: It’s heavy for sure. It’s what keeps me up at night.

ST: What have you come to learn about children through Club Penguin?

LM: This is going to sound cliché, but among the lessons I’ve learned is that we tend to underestimate kids and their creative potential. There’s so much role playing involved in Club Penguin. There’s so much imagination at play. For the Halloween party in Club Penguin, for example, we developed a movie theater that played “Night of the Living Sled.” It was all about an electrical storm that lights up this sled that then goes chasing after penguins. It was just a 10-second Flash short because we were playing around with shorts at the time. Around the movie theater we purposely put in a concession stand, a popcorn machine; all sorts of stuff, totally unmanned, with no agenda. We just let the kids use it and role play with it. It’s no different than when I was a kid and had a toy cooking set or a toy tool set, and I would pretend to fix everything. That’s the kind of play we try and build into Club Penguin but you have to look beneath the surface to see it.

ST: What has surprised you about your audience?

LM: A lot. One big thing that has surprised me is how forgiving our audience is when there’s a brief period of down time or a technical glitch. The more honest we are with our users, the more forgiving and patient they are with us, and it’s been a great reciprocal relationship. We also don’t take advantage of that good will and think we have more time to fix the problem. Part of that reciprocal relationship is knowing our users trust us and that makes us try even harder.

ST: Do you see differences in how Club Penguin members from different parts of the world use Club Penguin?

LM: Yes. Obviously if there are language barriers, there are certain elements of the game that these users are not participating in. It’s something we’re trying to learn a lot about right now, especially as we’re looking to dive into some of these markets. Because we don’t ask our users what country they’re from it’s hard to get a fine degree of detail on non-English users. People are always asking us about our metrics, but because we have such a strict privacy policy, there’s a lot that we can’t track.

ST: Speaking of metrics, are there things about your web metrics which appear in the press that drive you crazy?

LM: To be honest we’re quite indifferent to it all. I don’t like it when reports are so off the mark, but because we’re not playing the same game that many other sites play for advertising reasons, we’re just as well to let them report whatever they want to report.

ST: Good point. Because Club Penguin is not ad driven, it doesn’t really impact your business in the same way as it would other online services.

LM: Exactly. I would just as soon not play the numbers game. We don’t need to play the numbers game. Even in our office, we don’t talk numbers. We don’t want the focus to be on bumping this number up or bringing this number down.

ST: If you were to do so, you’d be driving for the wrong measurement.

LM: Totally. It’s about how can we make the site more fun. How can we make it more safe. There’s an expression we often use around the office, “If it doesn’t matter to an eight year old, it doesn’t matter.” That helps us simplify a lot.

ST: Tell me about the Puffle.

LM: We wanted penguins to have a pet and we wanted kids to have something to take care of within the Club Penguin world. We wanted this pet to be an imaginary creature with unique characteristics and personalities. We also wanted it to be simple enough for a kid to draw.

When Puffles were first “discovered” in the Club Penguin world, they were an unknown thing. We had the Club Penguin scientists who captured a few to study them to see if they were safe. There was a whole storyline, about an eight or nine week arc, that ended in a need to name these creatures. So we pooled together the kids’ top five suggestions. We actually had about a thousand or so kids recommend the name “Puffle”, so they all got coins for choosing the winning name, and we had a big announcement. The original Puffle drawing came from our first employee we brought on as our lead animator, and he’s still our lead animator today.

ST: Did you notice a difference in Club Penguin after the introduction of the Puffle?

LM: Not really. The idea of a Puffle had always been in our design documents and we always planned on having it there, so there wasn’t really a marked change. To us it just opened up another method of play

ST: As an outsider and a developer of children’s technology, I look at the Puffle and it’s clear to me that it has a charm and uniqueness all its own, in addition to and separate from penguins. Because of this, I’ve wondered if the Puffle acts as a driver to extend the play experience in ways that might not appear without it.

LM: We haven’t measured that sort of thing. We do receive a lot of feedback from kids. Some kids say they love their Puffles but don’t want to keep feeding them anymore. So they decide to let them go and be free, and that’s okay. If a user decides they don’t want to feed their Puffle anymore, the Puffle never dies. It just runs away. It’s a decision that’s totally up to the child. It’s just another way of letting the user decide how they wish to play.

ST: If you had the opportunity to go back in time and change one thing about Club Penguin, what would it be?

LM: We would have built out more of the site;s infrastructure earlier on. I’m not sure we could have done this because it would have brought up our costs. We really had to watch our costs and pinch our pennies. We still do. We pride ourselves on being fairly good at that. Looking back, I think product development was slow because so many of our resources went into managing the volume of traffic we received. We just didn’t think we would receive that much traffic. We never thought our service would be this big, and not only did we believe this, we bet on it by not building out the infrastructure. When I think about it, I feel bad that our guys couldn’t focus on new features and new elements and new ways of playing. Our timetable for when we would get to these things was stretched out a lot longer than when we had planned. Even now we’re just finishing off the next iteration of our infrastructure. We’re actually building a brand new back end – a brand new engine – and it’s almost complete. We;re overbuilding it so we can just be done with it all and move forward and just dream about what we want to do next.

ST: When you were building Club Penguin, was there anything that you used to do that you don’t do now?

LM: Not much. My focus is so much on our core, our values, and our philosophy. That stuff hasn’t changed a whole lot.

ST: What do you think about claims in the press that Club Penguin was an overnight success?

LM: If it doesn’t matter to an eight year old, it doesn’t matter. I think the media is sometimes too focused on ego and on making celebrities. I understand all that. I get it. I just don’t spend much time thinking about it. We love to focus on the creative and focus on what we do and how people respond to what we make. As for the media, what it says is really its prerogative, and if some people say we’re an overnight success, well that’s okay. If others understand the longer effort that went into it, that’s okay too. I would rather focus my time on creating new ways of play and making the Club Penguin world deeper, richer, more fun and more safe rather than spending my time correcting stories in the press. Since day one our focus has been on service and our job is to serve the kids. For example, my job as a dad is to serve my kids in every way I can. Providing for them, nurturing them, loving them and taking care of them. That’s my role as a dad. It’s not about winning the Hero Dad of the Year award or anything like that. Club Penguin in a way is a similar opportunity to serve. And focusing on whether someone calls you a “One Hit Wonder” or an overnight success is just not worth the time. Hey, I hope someday we create something that will surpass Club Penguin, but if we don’t, that’s okay because I know Club Penguin served its purpose in my kids’ life and a lot of other kids lives. If that’s all I do, then I did what I set out to do and I can’t be disappointed in that.

ST: Lane, thank you for your time. I wish you and your colleagues back in Kelowna all the best and many future successes.

LM: Thanks Scott. I wish you and your team the best as well in making great things for kids.

For the history of Club Penguin visit the blog post “Just the Facts Ma’am – The History of Club Penguin”

For an overview of children’s social networking destinations, visit “A Survey of Kids’ Social Networking Sites”

As I was preparing my presentation for the Dust or Magic conference mentioned in my previous post, I couldn’t help but notice how much new activity there is in the kids’ social networking world. As the researcher Peter Grunwald shared with me last month, social networking as a concept has always been available on the Internet. Even so, it seems to have some newer meaning in the context of an activity kids express interest in. Last year at this time, I was only familiar with maybe four sites for kids. Fast forward a year, and I am amazed at how many more companies are playing in this space, some of which have been around for years but are only now gaining visibility. Not all of these sites are of equal quality and, right or wrong in their approach, each has a different set of assumptions about how to engage children. Below is a list of the social networking websites I am aware of today. It is not a complete list. My definition of social networking sites is a little broad, but there’s no denying the growth in this space.

By graphing these sites by the year in which they launched, one begins to see the growth trend of social networking websites for kids.



Since March of this year, my company, 360KID, has received a number of requests to build new social networking websites. More calls started coming in after the Club Penguin acquisition by Disney. Some people who call are driven by one thing- to create a Club Penguin-like website that’s better than Club Penguin. While Club Penguin has many great things going on within its service, there are certainly other avenues within the social networking world to explore. After comparing different sites currently available for kids, I see many unique opportunities to take advantage of, especially ones that touch on different areas of learning. Below is a matrix showing different content segments and age groups that are covered (or not) within the social networking world.

The blue shading indicates age groups that are less motivated by social features but are interested in community-based activities. Companies listed in italics offer activities that are much more community than socially driven.

While reviewing all of these sites and speaking with many different people interested in building social networking sites for kids, I have put together a short list of do’s and don’ts that put the interests of the child first and will ultimately create more successes with your intended audience:

• Don’t design by committee – Keep the integrity and the strength of your design strong by defining with small teams. Have anywhere from one to three strong visionaries of equal voice define the broad strokes of your product.
• Be open ended in your design – If you can avoid it, don’t force children to play in a specific way. Think how you can allow for multiple ways for children to interact and play within your environment.
• Think emotional connection – Offer activities or avatar characteristics that will create a sense of empathy with your user.
• Design for a very specific audience – Pick a specific age range, like 3 to 5 or 7 to 9. Then learn as much as you can about that audience, like its developmental strengths, play patterns, interests. Don’t design a product with the intent of appealing to a large age range, like 3 to 300. Designing for a broad audience tends to have the outcome of appealing to no single group.
• Competing against a community vs. competing against yourself – I’m asked a lot about my thoughts related to leader boards, which are areas of gaming sites in which the top score places high on a list of other members of a community. While I understand the motivation of leader boards for certain audience segments as a motivator, a game mechanic like a leader board, can also turn away other audience types. There are some instances where leader boards can be used effectively, like in classroom vs. classroom competitions, but generally, I am opposed to using such features, especially when a desired outcome is informal learning.
• Text – I am continually surprised as to how often a web product designed for very young children doesn’t take into consideration that their audience may consist of prereaders or emerging readers. Be thoughtful with your use of text and instructions. Consider visual, iconic, or audio instructions as opposed to text with younger audience members.

Is this race to develop social networking sites for kids a boom or a bubble? If you asked me a couple of months ago, I would have said a bust is on the horizon in this space. But the more I think about it, the more I’m seeing a new play pattern emerging which kids will really enjoy when developed correctly. That doesn’t mean that everyone will succeed. There will be many failures and few successes, but I believe the future successes will keep this sector of interactive products for children growing strong for many years to come.

These are a few thoughts I shared in my recent presentation at the Dust or Magic conference. To see the full presentation I delivered, you can view a video of my presentation below.

I’ve been looking for a resource that offers up the history of Club Penguin, the successful children’s social networking business recently acquired by Disney. I’ve also been interested in finding data which follows Club Penguin’s web growth since its launch. Having found only a snapshot in time posted here and a sprinkling of data displayed there, I decided pull together my own resource assembled from hundreds of web pages I’ve visited on the topic.

Company History

First, I’ll offer a chronological history of how Club Penguin came to be. Then I’ll present recorded web metrics of the Club Penguin site. Onto the history…

Another noteworthy item not often mentioned in articles about Club Penguin is the spirit of giving started by the founders which supports child-focused charitable work in developing countries:

“Lane Merrifield, Dave Krysko and Lance Priebe each stand to receive about $115 million for the two-year-old self-funded virtual world. 10 percent of CP’s net profits already go to charity, primarily through a foundation started by the three. Merrifield confirmed that 10 percent of the amount each makes from the sale will go to the foundationmore than $30 million from the cash payout. ‘It’s something we’ve done all along. We never wanted it to be seen as a marketing gimmick. … It’s part of our DNA.’ “

Club Penguin’s Web Metrics

Next, onto the web data. In almost all of the articles reviewed, either Nielsen//NetRatings or comScore Media Metrix is cited for their web metrics. Other sources include Hitwise, Compete, Alexa, but how these companies offer up their data tend to be less understandable to the general public or draw upon a sample base that is too small.

It’s definitely frustrating to compare Neilsen//Netratings and comScore web measurement data sets. Why isn’t one company’s numbers equal to another? One company may be better at capturing data from the online home user than the online work user. Another may be better at capturing all of North America instead of just the US market. In almost all the articles I’ve reviewed, it is unclear if these web metrics represent just the US or all of North America unless specifically stated, though I have a hunch that comScore does a better job at capturing all of North America in their data.

Below I compare monthly unique user data provided by Neilsen//NetRatings and comScore Media Metrix on the Club Penguin website over time. Each number below provides a link to the web page where I found the data:

The company Hitwise is sparsely referenced in articles about CP, but the company provides helpful data about how much market share a company captures online over time compared to other sites. Here are two charts: Club Penguin’s market share data represented alone through June 2007, and comparison data against Runescape, Webkinz, Neopets, Gaia, Stardoll, and Habbo through April 2007.

And finally, below is comparison data from Compete. Compete.com is rarely referenced in articles I’ve read. This chart is interesting to look at for trending analysis only. Compete is not often used as a critical analysis tool of websites because of how it gathers its information from a small sample size. Here I compare Club Penguin against Webkinz and Neopets.





Lessons Learned

So, what do I take away from this research effort? The two year “overnight success” as stated in the press makes for great headlines, but the reality is that a lot more effort went into the development and success of Club Penguin than is acknowledged. As the tallented vaudeville comedian Eddie Cantor famously said, “It takes twenty years to make an overnight success.” This quote seems very fitting here. I wish the folks at Club Penguin continued success. May the next segment of your adventure be as exciting as the first.