Web 2.0 Ain’t All That and A Bag of Chips
(NOTE TO SELF: This is a terrible headline for SEO purposes, but I don’t care) I cannot tell you how tired I am about hearing “Web 2.0 this” and “Web 2.0 that.” I don’t want to get into a diatribe on this post about what Web 2.0 is … you can read it directly from one of the guys who originally coined the term, Tim O’Reilly. The point I do want to make is that Web 2.0 is just the latest buzzword to come along that technology providers, publishers, marketers, and event producers use to make themselves sound like they are on the cutting edge.
- Publishers tout their latest web video program as Web 2.0.
- Industry pundits refer to discussion forums as “social networking” and declare it to be Web 2.0
- And of course, any marketer with any kind of application that has any new kind of feature is proudly promoted as leading the Web 2.0 revolution.
Baloney…
It’s not that there isn’t validity to the fact that there are new technologies and approaches that continually evolve on the Internet. It’s just that all of these are evolutions of the same themes, not brand new revelations.
- Discussion forums / social networks have been around since at LEAST the 80s. I remember dialing up my 9600 baud modem to participate on a bulletin board where other teens were sharing tips on how to crack video games on 8.5″ floppy disks. (Of course my high school computer teacher had no idea that we were doing this.) Commercially, I remember launching a discussion forum on Windows NT Magazine’s web site back in 1995. The only thing that’s changed is that the software and internet connections have improved.
- Wikipedia is touted as the new, Web 2.0 version of the encyclopedia. The web itself was originally designed to be the ultimate “wikipedia” … the ability for, at the time, researchers and scientists to post their information for other researchers and scientists. The web itself is the ultimate Wiki! But the founders of Wikipedia did find a way to make this kind of collaboration a bit easier and thus have found a great home.
- Online video is not new. In the early 90s IÂ worked for a multimedia firm where we were delivering Apple Quicktime video in “postage stamp” size 160×120, 8 bit / mono / 11Khz audio and squeezing it across a dial-up modem connection.
I could go on, but I hope you get my point. There wasn’t a point in 2005-2006 where somebody released a new version of the Internet. The technologies have always been there, but have been constantly improving over time. It’s just that suddenly a lot of people are just now starting to get what the Internet is all about … connecting people, building communities of like-minded individuals, and harnessing their collective knowledge and power!
Have blogs replaced content management systems? No. Have Google and pay-per-click replaced traditional ad models? No. Have editors and authoritative content lost their relevance? No. But they have changed the landscape and added new tools to what publishers have always had. Today’s publishers must not only continue to produce authoritative content, but also enable the readers and advertisers they have always served (or should have always been serving) to participate with them.
If anything, I guess that’s what Web 2.0 is really about for publishers. It’s an attitude change from us giving speeches to a captive audience to us hosting a big party where editors, readers, advertisers, and even our competitors are all invited to come in and participate. Of course, that’s what good business has been about forever … listening to your customers (readers and advertisers) and giving them a voice. To those publishers that have always done these things, Web 2.0 is really no big deal. It’s what they’ve been doing since before the web even existed.
8 Responses to “ “Web 2.0 Ain’t All That and A Bag of Chips”
Leave a Reply
About Me
Follow / Connect
I couldn’t agree more. I can’t recall seeing a term/idea/concept used so much by so many without them even having an understanding of what it is or should be. At a minimum it would be nice if most were using close to the same definition of “itâ€.
One of my favorite quotes on this topic, and of course it’s negative otherwise how would it have stood out:
Taken from
http://publishing2.com/2007/04/15/cumulative-advantage-explains-web-20-myspace-the-a-list-techcrunch-digg-and-so-much-more/
All of a sudden it’s crystal clear what Web 2.0 really is – the
greatest platform ever for harnessing randomly imitative social
behavior. Before Web 2.0, achieving utterly arbitrary results took
time and effort. Now, with platforms like Digg, we can get nowhere in
a fraction of the time it used to take.
However, at least we can agree on what Web 2.0 really is:
· Pastel colors
· Big fonts
· Rounded corners
Great point, TJ. It is true that a lot of the great Web 2.0 applications out there are really just a very efficient way to generate a lot of junk. But there are also some good results coming out of the movement. Publishers and editors are much more keen now to engage their readers. The key is to really think about what your readers want and need and not just to throw something out there in the hope that it might be a home run.
Rounded corners … definitely. I am SO Web 1.0 on my blog and forum. LOL!
I’ll give the column 2 cheers, though I think one of the things that you have to remember is that we are one of the first generations to (barely) get what the Web is — while the generation behind us REALLY gets what the Web is: a communications tool — and there’s only so much communication that can go by the “we write” you read model.
If more and more people are thinking about the audience and letting the audience shape information as to how they want it its all a good thing.
Two things I’d add.
1. I don’t see video in any way as Web 2.0. It is just a variant of the “we write, you read” model, but with higher bandwidth. YouTube, or user sharing of video, now that can be called somewhat collaborative. But just video? nah.
2. One of the earliest Web applications is very Web 2.0. It is solely about connecting the individual to the most relelvant source of information, regardless of where that information is. Of course, I’m just speaking about good old “search.”
I know what you’re saying, Frank, but if you read Tim O’Reilly’s definition of Web 2.0 … and he coined the term after all … it’s much more than social collaboration. It’s a complete change in all aspects of the web. Some examples he uses:
DoubleClick –> Google AdSense
Akamai –> BitTorrent
Britannica Online –> Wikipedia
personal websites –> blogging
domain name speculation –> search engine optimization
page views –> cost per click
publishing –> participation
content management systems –> wikis
directories (taxonomy) –> tagging (“folksonomy”)
stickiness –> syndication
I don’t necessarily agree with all of these and you can see that the bulk of them are social-related. But that’s what I mean that Web 2.0 is really just a hype term.
Now that I’m nearing 60, I’m anxiously waiting for Web 3.0–a humanistic but automated set of tools to filter out the dross and point towards the highest quality content. As for content, I often feel like the techies are eating their own tail. I can find hundreds of blogs on blogging or IT or software, but I have yet to find, for instance, an authoritative site on 17th century industrial technology–or rather, one that doesn’t regurgitate the tourist drivel from mueum sites linking back and forth ad infinitum. But no depth unless it’s IT. Seth Godin may be on to something: maybe the next big thing is longer content, not shorter.
I think the real meaning of web 2.0 is that small time ‘chumps’ can launch web sites that compete with trade publishers to put out niche news and they do so without the infrastructure costs and private equity investors that need to earn their double digit returns.
This guy launched a web 2.0 site to provide mortgage bankers news:
http://www.mortgagenews2.com/
He is essentially competing with my old employer-
http://www.nationalmortgagenews.com
Now, he has some problems- like framing content from other publishers on his site, his lack of original content, lack of distribution & marketing capacity.
But, he has a much better taxonomy than what National Mortgage News has- he has little apparent costs. Distribution will be a problem, but, with a little SEO, he might do well for himself.
Well put! This is a great read – not only your post, but the comments as well. These tools are just now, (for some reason) on the forefront of the Web 2.0 push. Why they are now being classified as “Web 2.0″ is beyond me. I think it was looked down on in the past as – “This will never work in business, it’s just for kids and people who have nothing else to do”?
They should have just coined Web 2.0 as a new awakening globally to what has really been going on in one form or another on many sites for some time.
Forums have been around and producing revenue since 1987. I launched one of the first commercially successful forums for McGraw-Hill’s Byte Magazine in 1987. We grew to a level of 20,000 paid subscribers at $19.95 per month.
Web 2.0 is a new spin on old concepts. It is still struggling to figure out how to implement successful publishing business models.