The future is still - um - in the future

A Newsday reporter called me yesterday to talk about Second Life and, no, she isn't working the "Second Life sucks, Second Life is over" angle.  In fact, her piece -- which will run in this Sunday's newspaper -- aims to introduce her readers to virtual worlds for the first time.  For the average Newsday reader, Second Life isn't over -- in fact, it hasn't even happened yet.  And here we are -- the geek elite, sitting smack in the middle of the echo chamber -- ready to dismiss it as last year's passing fad.

The day before, fellow crayonista Aaron Greenberger and I were in a status meeting for a client that will be launching a major new media property during Advertising Week, discussing progress on the now-obligatory MySpace brand profile.  An executive from one of the other agencies remarked that MySpace is "so 2006."  While on one level this is probably true, I suspect that millions of MySpace afficionados are blissfully unaware that they are hopelessly retro.

I too take pride in being tapped into the next new thing, but hope that I'm grounded enough to recognize that I am not the typical consumer -- and in most cases I am not my client's target audience.  I think we'd all be well advised to remember that long after the insiders have grown bored with one new media craze or another, someone's mom (or co-worker or neighbor or cousin or even kid) is discovering it for the first time.  And at the end of the day, those are the people that most brands are looking to engage through new channels.

Whenever we are tempted to relegate a trend to the rubbish bin of the recently-relevant-but-relevant-no-more, we should note the words of William Gibson: "The future is already here -- it's just not evenly distributed."