You express yourself so well, Chris. Such a pleasure to read your work. I don't know what the answer is, but you said it: businesses now more than ever want know WIFM today!
Tim O'Reilly
· 1 year ago
Frankly, Dennis, this post demonstrates a shocking ignorance of what Web 2.0 is really all about. It's the move to the internet as platform, and the rise of applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them. Social media is a tiny part of that.
And you're kidding yourself if you think that hasn't affected business, or delivered tangible ROI. The companies that have learned how to leverage networks are outperforming.
You mention SAP. Guess what: they understand that harnessing users is good for their business. At O'Reilly, our InPractice division is working with them to actually turn their documentation into an open source, crowdsourced project. They are doing fascinating experiments at SAP Labs with how to integrate virtual worlds into property management. They have built a great internal social network for employees that has already affected their HR practices.
Your comments remind me of people who were saying "the PC is just a toy" at the same time as it was taking over the world of the enterprise, from the bottom up.
Yes, businesses want to know what's in it for them. But that starts with understanding what matters. The network as platform (Web 2.0) does matter. Any particular application may fail, but the trend lines are pretty darn clear. Figuring out the networked enterprise is critical.
Tim O'Reilly
· 1 year ago
I should add that your complaint that the content is not "new" also misses the point. It's the very enterprises you so value that are coming to this material for the first time. Just because it's not new to you doesn't mean it isn't new to others. Technology takes time to diffuse.
Lizz Harmon
· 1 year ago
I realized this is Dennis' guest column, and Dennis, you too I believe have brought up a good point. I enjoy both your and Chris' writing.
Andrew Hedges
· 1 year ago
The term "Web 2.0" has been used and abused, it's true. What Tim says above is absolutely right, though. The companies that "get it" (or who hired the right people, who get it) are reaping the reward. The fact is, everyone knows there is power in leveraging the web-as-platform, but it's not trivial to do so there are a lot of me-too, failed attempts in the real world. That doesn't detract from the technology strategy, it just dilutes the term.
Graham Stewart
· 1 year ago
I'm sorry, #Tim, but I don't see the 'shocking ignorance' in what Dennis is saying. And he is certainly consistent: I remember him laying into a post of mine months ago and telling me to avoid using the term 'social media'.
For all the potential business benefits of web 2.0, I think it's fair to say that many companies - especially in the UK - have not only failed to adopt the tools, but also remain unaware of their existence. And part of this ignorance must come down to the terminology used to try to get it through the door. Dennis is right that 'social media' is not an inspiring term: it sounds limp and slightly infectious. SAP may have embraced the spirit but they certainly aren't calling it SAP Social Media. I wonder why.
Andy Piper
· 1 year ago
I've never been to a Web 2.0 Expo before, and I have to say that I've been to a few talks here this week and listened to the starts, and thought "hmm, why are we going over this old ground?" - but there are a few perspectives to remember. Firstly, as Tim suggests, some (many) enterprises are coming to this for the first time. Secondly, I'm *in* this space so I've been following it all. Finally, I think there *are* interesting new directions being mentioned this week, even if some of it appears to be "boilerplate / context / what is Web 2.0" stuff - it has been useful.
Aden Davies
· 1 year ago
In the organisation that I work it is certainly new technology and I believe it will revolutionise the way we work. The initial limited pilots we have run have been successful and I personally have benefited from them. Big organisations as a rule are slow to move and while all this 2.0 business is big news across a relatively small, vocal and intelligent section of the web to transfer it outside of this world and into the mindset of the non-geeks/early-adopters will take time.
Tim O'Reilly
· 1 year ago
Graham -
I hear you. I remember when Clay Shirky held a "social software summit" four or five years ago. I told him I didn't think that the term would ever catch on. But now I think I was wrong. And I think Dennis is wrong too. "Social media" is a good description of an important new trend.
The "shocking ignorance" I was referring to was the idea that the benefits of Web 2.0 adoption are marginal. That's a straw man: creating a VERY limited definition of web 2.0, arguing against it, and then using that to damn the entire meme.
Words are always only pointers. Let's remember what they point to, and not get hung up on which term gets used.
David Cruickshank
· 1 year ago
It's happening but its going to take a while.
As a general rule, the larger the business, the slower it will adopt new technologies (unless its business is technology).
One just has to look at smaller, more agile businesses for indicators and our experience is that small businesses are quick to adopt new web technologies (social media, or otherwise) that can demonstrably a) increase sales and c) reduce costs.
The era of Web 2.0 continues to yield solutions that help businesses to improve their bottom line. IT just takes time.
W. David Stephenson
· 1 year ago
I'm pushing another aspect of Web 2.0 that I believe will fundamentally transform business and government, a combination of automated releases of structured data in formats such as RSS and KML, plus data visualization tools so non-statisticians can interpret, use the data. For 1st time, all workers, not just execs., will have REAL-TIME access to info they need to do their job, and public access to this info can go a long way to rebuild public confidence through complete transparency (&, as a bonus, can even substantively involve public in policy debate!). Learn more!
John Lewis
· 1 year ago
Naturally, communication is an important part of what "social media" is it about; and whether the communication is between individuals or within communities depends on its purpose. Some of the points made here relate to those which communication professionals tell us, such as: all communication takes place within a conversation; all meaning is situated in context; messages can only be communicated fully over channels which are richer enough (bandwidth and opportunity for feedback). ... and so on.
But, there is another aspect: the value that people put on the meaning obtained through whatever communication is taking place.
In discussions such as these, if there is lack of clarity of the context in which the value of technologies and applications are being compared, then the messages are somewhat meaningless and much of the discussion is "at cross purposes".
In the technology adoption lifecycle: visionaries, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards all have different criteria for attributing value. This is well described by Geoffrey Moore in "Crossing the Chasm", mentioned in the quote about Twitter.
Which group(s) are being discussed here? This needs to take into account that identifying a company may not be sufficiently precise because, within corporations, different divisions (especially research) may fall into different groups.
Visionaries are using Twitter without caring whether it has any commercial value, but their experience generates testimonials which are valuable to early adopters in selecting things to evaluate, and so on down the line.
On the other hand, the early majority are reaping benefits from Web2.0 applications (which benefit from increased user participation), including well known services such as Amazon (stores, rather than AWS yet) and less well known services such as the amazing Motley Fool Stock Advisor.
So, it seems to me that, much of the above is at "cross purposes" unless it is clear which group is under discussion.
Philip Buxton
· 1 year ago
When the dotcom I'd left a traditional magazine publisher for went bust in 2001, I had a host of emails from my former colleagues along the lines of 'I told you so'. I quickly pointed out they didn't have email when I left.
As Mr O'Reilly says, while we battle over what to call various parts of the 'web 2.0' revolution and whether or not they are failing, it goes on. This blog, this comment and the fact I was directed here by Tim's tweet should be evidence enough of that.
Robert Worstell
· 1 year ago
Yea, but social media is such FUN - at least for some of us "who simply don't get it" early adopters...
Espen
· 1 year ago
Platform competition is always tough. This discussion reminds me of Gandhi's chain of events: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you. Then you win."
Judging from the reaction of many of the people I speak to, we are moving from phase 2 to 3 about now....
Dan Smith
· 1 year ago
"Collaboration is a topic that some of us have been noodling for more than 10 years yet major obstacles remain. You can add all the social software you want but getting more than a small number to actively participate and use is a devil’s own job." Collaboration form social capital. It is not necessary that even a majority "actively participate" for the enterprise to benefit. An exception to the claim is email reduction. That has an immediate benefit with a demonstrable ROI. There is hope: Only eleven years ago I arrived at a company where my request for email was met with, "Engineers don't need email; they will abuse it." We shamed IT into giving us email without divisional approval. BTW, I always need more de-identified data on social media use inside organizations. Aloha, Dan
Graham Stewart
· 1 year ago
Tim -
I do agree about the potential benefits - and the realization of those benefits in some businesses already - and I also agree that words are pointers.
However, words assume connotations based on past experience, prejudice, or just plain ignorance and I think 'social media' is a victim of some or all of these. And until there is a term that aptly defines - and explains - the wider implications that can overcome these connotations, I think it is the potential beneficiaries of the tools and technologies we are discussing that will be 'hung up' on the terminology.
Julie Roads
· 1 year ago
This is the biggest downer of a post I've ever read. And I don't agree. Web 2.0 or social media or whatever you want to call it are alive, well and growing. You scoff at Groundswell, but did you read it? Are there not so many incredible examples of it working?
I've got to say, Dennis, if it isn't working for you, best to you doing something 'new', but don't shit on everyone else's parade. Excuse my French.
chrisbrogan
· 1 year ago
Wow, my first ever comment from Tim O'Reilly and it's because I gave Dennis the mic. Figures! : )
For the record, my interpretation of what I thought Dennis might be getting at was different, and I'm not speaking for him by any stretch. I wonder if he wasn't perhaps crapping on the companies who haven't yet really delivered. What I read was an attendee's perspective that the exhibitors and sponsors weren't exactly breaking ground on the vision set out by Tim years back.
If so, I understand the sentiment at least. I, too, want companies to dig in and enterprise-enable some of the same dreams.
Not surprisingly, I've got the old "Distributing the Future" podcast with Daniel Steinberg in my head, doing the Gibson quote as part of the intro every week.
There's still hope, and there are signs of people implementing. It's just, as always, slower than we want.
Paul Johnston
· 1 year ago
Most people involved with corporate systems have no idea about the web world. I watched a corporate recently try to "bring in" forums, wikis and blogs into some core teams. It was hilarious! Some of the people within corporate culture think that forums are the next big thing.
Oh, and web 2.0? I am beginning to prefer calling it WOA or Web Oriented Architecture instead of Web 2.0. At least WOA doesn't date and make everyone yawn. It's not so dated, and creates a passing reference to SOA, which *is* big news.
Jeb Dickerson
· 1 year ago
One must also consider the definition of 'success' in terms of the application of social media strategies. For a HUGE corporate entity to effectively integrate socmed in a way that has a tangible affect on their bottom line/good will/etc, it could be more of a challenge.
But what about a guy like me, or you, or you over there? What about all the individuals or small groups of people who have an idea, a passion, something they want to champion? For them, for us, having 500 followers, for example, on Twitter to whom we can spread our cause is enormous success. Through social media we have the ability to connect with hundreds, if not thousands of people. And while that might be a mere drop in the bucket to the 'Fortune 500s' of the world, it could very well be enough to allow a guy like me to support his family doing something I love.
Call it what you will...I call that success...Jeb
Paul Greenberg
· 1 year ago
Last month I keynoted the CRM Association's national conference. My speech focused on "What the Hell is CRM 2.0?". I asked the audience of a bit over 200 a pair of questions - first one was, "how many of you are considering social media (sorry Dennis :-)), or social networking/community programs or projects. About 85% raised their hands. I asked this CRM audience a second question - how many of you are considering traditional CRM programs or projects - about 20% raised their hands. This was the CRM Association!
I think that we're not seeing the forest for the trees here. Web 2.0 has value in that it revolutionized peer to peer communications - not just made the internet the platform. Whether or not some people see Twitter as valuable, or blogging as important or communities as critical isn't really the point. The value is in their availability to use when needed. Their availability is because of the cultural transformation that's changed even who trusts who, much less how communications are now working. The Edelman Trust Barometer in 2003 had 23% choose "someone like me" as the most trusted source they had. Industry experts ruled. The Edelman Trust Barometer in 2008 had 57% choose "someone like me" as the most trusted source. That's who now rules. The reason that you hear from businesses, "the customer controls the conversation" so much, is because the customer does. This is because of the impact of the Web 2.0 technology, for sure, but also because the culture shifted dramatically in the last few years to peer-to-peer trust - because they could reach those peers so much more easily.
However, Web 2.0 per se isn't the best answer for business per se. Web 2.0 doesn't involve business rules and workflows and transaction at all - and despite my personal dislike for operational detail, its necessary. Coincidentally, if you want to see what I call CRM 2.0 in action which is the melding of the social customer tools with the business operational tools at a technological level, take a look at the product that the Enterprise Irregular that Dennis mentions - Bob Warfield's company produces called "Helpstream." Its a great paradigm. By the way, in the interests of full disclosure, I'm also an Enterprise Irregular and I have NO proprietary or any other interest in Helpstream other than that I like it a lot as a CRM related tool.
Dennis, I think you underestimate Web 2.0's impact on especially what is now what I call the social customer - which are the vocal ones. Tim, I think you give it too much credit for what it is as a standalone. For its real value to business it needs to integrate with the tools of business operations while as a strategic capability, it needs to foster customer engagement - meaning their involvement in a transparent business environment with companies they like. Culturally, the framework is there, but the rate of adoption isn't there yet. Give that time. The technology is already available.
But Web 2.0 by itself doesn't have the same value to business it has to the customer - partly because business people have this weird propensity to forget they are customers themselves. But the customers now trust others like them more than the businesses - and the most savvy are using the tools to make the connection. Shoot, check out Dennis's awesome blogs and you'll see what I mean.
Good example of social tool in a corporate environment? ESME - the SAP tool that Dennis refers to.
One last thing - the problem isn't with the term social media, its with the way that it gets used by PR and Marcom to spin press releases. Marketing is what needs to change - not the terminology.
itsinsider
· 1 year ago
Dennis, what's old is griping about slow adoption. Tim and Bob are correct, the phenomenon transcends social media, although social media has irrevocably changed how we learn and share. For instance, I saw this post too from Tim's tweet. I had a quick conversations with colleagues on Yammer (in Norway, Boston, and Toronto), read a few blogs, saw that Scoble was in Austin on Twitter, jumped into the EI group and wound up back here because I was still unnerved by your post.
We are on the frontlines of this phenomenon daily. In every client situation, although the majority may reject my proselytizing, one or two get it. I start seeing them on Twitter; they friend me on Facebook. They start considering ways they can leverage the social web and deliver network effects benefits inside and outside the organization. Many of those plans are currently in the ROI/business case phase.
Tapscott told us last week, "Wikinomics" was THE best-selling business book for Amazon last year. Millions of 1.0 eyeballs are taking in a new way to think about the enterprise, just from this one effort. Add CNN utilizing Twitter for the US Election, the NYTimes and other old-line big media transforming to engage 2-way conversation with readers, and countless other business model reinventions-- pretty soon your argument starts to lose shape.
The good news is when Enterprise finally locks into 2.0, you will have been identified at the vanguard of establishing its relevance. Despite your negativity.
Chris Neil
· 1 year ago
The one thing I love about this space is the fact that there are so many thinkers. Greek philosphers had a challenge to get their ideas out. Imagine if Aristotle had a blog?! It was a tweet from Chris about a scrap in the comments that got me here.
A quote in the post above from Bob Warfield grabbed my attention, "We’re barely getting started understanding what it all means." Doesn't that sum up the barrier to Web 2.0 adoption? Inside the enterprise or not, if the users can't get their head around the value then your adoption wont happen. Throwing web 2.0 or social media concepts at the enterprise wall and seeing what sticks is hardly a convincing methodology for board room support.
Users need to understand how it makes their life easier or better and businesses want to see a clear line to improve the bottom line.
Roy Scribner
· 1 year ago
Dennis - an excellent perspective and one that I've been sharing with socmed (love that term) elites this past week. My argument is and was that if socmed has done such a fantastic job in connecting us with our customers, how come GoogleYahooFacebook are making unilateral product upgrades that their customers don't like?
The truth is it's not a new era, and if Coke were to launch New Coke today, they'd do it exactly like they did it in 1985 - much to their customer's chagrin.
Phil Baumann
· 1 year ago
I hope this post ends up on the FP of Digg, if only for the pleasant irony.
I am with Dennis on this and with Chris' take on what Dennis is trying to convey.
"Until we as an industry recognize that and apply smart thinking to the immediate problems of doing business, then the well meaning ideology of social anything just ain’t going to cut it."
How can anyone argue against that?
I don't think Dennis is trashing SM, per se. Dennis in fact is hitting on a cornerstone of the 'social media' problem: just how and why should enterprises incorporate the tools and strategies of SM?
'Experts' in social media need to have a clear understanding of how enterprises work, what the specific collaborative needs are, and how SM (or whatever we call it) fits into their overall strategies. I agree with Dennis that the success is thus far questionable.
There's an enormous and growing technological gap across the business community. It's depressing in fact. Dennis is correct in pointing out the lack of awareness. If enough people aren't aware, then just how 'alive' is Web 2.0? It's a legitimate and refreshing question!
Tim offers remarkable arguments, none of which I can' refute. I don't think Dennis is wrong, though, in pointing out the awareness gap and its implications. (Forget about the gap in the healthcare industry! That gap is almost criminal...I digress.)
When Dennis asks if Web 2.0 was ever alive, it's not a bashing of the project. It's an implied proclamation of its potential.
Lee Kent
· 1 year ago
Hi Chris; I just want to comment on your points related to collaboration. Earlier this month i was asked to speak to the International Council of Shopping Centers research group about 'Communities of Practice'. I introduced them to Social Networking and some social networking tools of the trade that would help them build 'Communities of Practice'. This is a group that needs and wants to collaborate mostly due to the vast amounts of data that they analyze and interpret in order to make good 'Trade Are' predictions. These people were in awe of what they could do with these tools and as a result, i had the biggest run on my site that i have vet had. They are ready to embrace it. eager to collaborate and meet others who share their thoughts. It is still a learning curve as they are not real sure how to build an effective Group. Not the kind you see on LinkedIn that turn into self serving ads or job recruitment. Groups that are facilitated and have agendas with meaning but are still virtual and non-intrusive. That is where i hope to be able to help them. So yes, collaboration IS a business need and social media with it's tools are an answer. Thanks for bringing it up!!! Lee
todd lucier
· 1 year ago
What we're witnessing with the perceived slow adoption of Web 2.0 is what I can only refer to as the digital divide. On the Web 2.0 side of the divide is among other things: democratic empowerment, rich collaborative conversation, a sense of community, and social justice.
Traditionally, the digital divide has referred to the lack of bandwidth. Those without high speed access are half as profitable as those with broadband! I put Web 2.0 applications and the knowledge (more importantly the wisdom) and/or training in how to use them as serious limiting factors to wealth creation and up for consideration as a divider between rich & impoverished, democratic & autocratic, socially responsible & irresponsible to stakeholders.
While some communities are still in the world of have-nots (there are many rural communities out there believe it or not who still cannot access or participate in blogs like this one) due to bandwidth issues, many will remain on the wrong side of the digital divide until training opens their eyes to the possibilities or they are forced to go there.. What forces will move them there? The same forces that shaped the new recording industry. Wealth will follow democracy.
When businesses realize that there are serious economic consequences to not moving onto the Web 2.0 side of the digital divide they will come. Until then, the first movers will still be putting their stakes in the ground and staking out the best terrain and building their reputations in this space.
Remember: There are many businesses who stayed away from building websites in the early days, and their domain name of choice, position in search engine results, and business opportunities online were compromised for years. The same will happen here in 2.0.
Democracy will rule the day.
It's a slow evolution, but human nature makes Web 2.0 the natural evolution of this space. Unfortunately, we'll soon see that those without bandwidth, training or access to these tools of democracy will be left behind in a state of poverty.
Christopher Drinkut
· 1 year ago
I applaud your efforts at stirring up the base, and I do hope that the expo in Berlin surprises you in a positive way.
I think we DO deserve something more (at least in addition to Groudswell), but that's why we are here reading Chris Brogan - or today Dennis Howlett. As for the mainstream, I did read recently that social media is being searched more than sex. So, maybe its just buzz, but maybe its on its way.
I think that it is fair to point out that Web 2.0, and all of the relative elements within it are only temporary. The moniker will no longer serve us and will be thoughtlessly wiped away like the dead skin cells on our arms that we never even see. That said, for now, its what we are working in. It is in essence the foundation of what our lives with technology will eventually look back upon and remember. (The way we now look back at the room-sized computers.)
To answer your question of, "So where’s the value in all this soc.media stuff? Show me how customer service has radically improved as a result of applying web 2.0/social media services?"here is a site in the top area to the right you'll see a link to "live help", I believe that answers your question - to some degree. Additionally, if you have ever had the indignity of being forced to telephone a big corporation to be routed from menu to menu, "for # press four, now for # press 7"; or if you have had to talk into a phone as a voice machine (hopefully) identifies that you want tech. support, and not your account, then you should understand the benefit of email answers/live help/ and at least one truly valuable potential of IM.
But in respect to the practical and intellectual curiosity that lead you to ask the things that you did, there is lots to come.
I think in large you argue from a top-down paradigm, and fine if you do. Arguably that is -for now- where a lot of the money and power are. But it is worth noting that social thought, not economic desire will likely begin to drive the world's influentials in what they're doing. Think that's a stretch, stick with me as we watch (a.) a new, more idealistic, more diverse generation of leadership arrive (b.) that is more globally minded, environmentally conscious and (c.) more technologically savvy (word is, they love twitter).
Ubiquitous connectivity may not have the deep pockets clapping for joy over social media today, but those who are devoting energy to creating meaningful connections and communities will have the advantage. And they should the respect that they show people earns them the right to be leadership. *Please note, in a bottom-up world Enterprise is sort of the enemy, it may be time for them to put in a little social time. -- BTW, thank you (both) for creating this little corner of the web, for us to commune. Best, Christopher Drinkut chrisdrinkut@gmail.com http://greenbeem.blogspot.com/ http://twitter.com/home
Meredith Gould
· 1 year ago
I come at all of this as a sociologist and from that perspective, I believe these new media will play a major role in constructing and reconstructing social reality in ways we have yet to imagine.
I caution observers against dismissing the "fun" factor of using Twitter as irrelevant.
Will have more to say/write about this at some point. Lots to think through...quickly!
Steve Boese
· 1 year ago
I teach a Grad course in Human Resources Technology and I spend a fair but of time on the application of 'Web 2.0' technologies to help address organizational problems with collaboration, global teams, and knowledge sharing.
I also spend time on Payroll outsourcing, ERP systems, and software delivery models.
In almost every student course evaluation I get comments about how great it was to learn about Wikis and Twitter and using Facebook for sourcing candidates.
I never get any comments about how valuable it was to learn about the top 3 ERP vendors.
For my students, the excitement, interest and potential adoption of these tools gets them really enthusiastic, and I think over time this will lead to more widespread adoption.
Craig
· 1 year ago
It's tough and he sounds a little bitter. Yes terms are used way too much, that's what we do though, we kill terms. But the fact is it does have benefits, maybe small, potentially large if used right.
The benefits are definitely under there, but I couldn't agree more that we need a translator between Web 2.0 and corporations. Companies have not turned the corner in seeing how collaboration can lead to dollar signs and therefore will continue to rely on the practices that are "tried and true" even if they aren't turning around great results.
Collaboration and engagement are terms we are hearing over and over and over again in the social media realm, but how are we bring them into brand conversations.
Great guest post Dennis and thanks for sharing Chris!
Devin C. Holloway
· 1 year ago
Dennis, many thanks for the thought provoking and well written post.
As much as I enjoyed reading your post, I must take issue with your comment that -
"It wants breakthrough impact not marginal improvement. Until we as an industry recognize that and apply smart thinking to the immediate problems of doing business, then the well meaning ideology of social anything just ain’t going to cut it."
Any innovator (and hence, organization that innovates) is well aware of the fact that major breakthroughs are great, but interative improvement yields fantastic results, and is a good strategy in general.
To help demonstrate this view take a look at a post c/o the Marketing & Strategy Innovation Blog that illustrates many applicable examples - http://zz.gd/04d9a1
Dennis McDonald
· 1 year ago
I agree with Dennis that "collaboration" is an important topic -- when did he figure that one out? -- but having witnessed a number of technology adoptions over the years I believe a lot of the "resistance" we see to Web 2.0 stuff has to do with understanding and ease of use, not to actual resistance or logical cost benefit assessments.
He is right to put social media into the overall context of web impacts on daily life and business. And even if the term "social media" makes his skin crawl, one of the main reasons social media are growing in popularity is because -- surprise -- they are social. They enable people to work and communicate in a more social, person to person fashion.
In a society where traditional organizations, processes, and systems are built around depersonalization and repeatability, social enablement of even basic business processes can be a significant step. But it takes time. And this has all been said before.
Bob Warfield
· 1 year ago
Great post and comment thread!
Clearly this one excites a lot of passion, and it's passion that I share.
It's tough being at the beginning of things, but that's where we are. Yes, there are many who have demonstrated real ROI from Web 2.0, but it is not well understood how to go about doing so or how to make sure your project succeeds.
The issues are conflated by a variety of factors. There is huge gulf between those who "get it" and have "experienced it" versus those who "get it" but have so far only "talked about it" and those who just don't "get it" at all. Some of this has to do with early adoption, some has to do with demographics (Susan Scrupski's post that inspired me really shows how Gen-Y view Social Media as a basic part of their lives), and some has to do with the applications themselves which may or may not be constructed and deployed to produce obvious or immediate ROI.
Nevertheless, there are companies, like my own Helpstream, that are measuring immediate ROI and that are working through the problems of more mainstream adoption.
I love it when people focus on one thing and miss the point entirely. That of course could be my 'bad' but hey - we're all entitled to opinions. I love it even more when I see people failing to do the one thing that is absolutely necessary on this kind of post: research the individual.
@Tim: did you know I am an SAP Mentor? There's only about 70 of us in a community of 1.4 million. Did you also know I've been following that company since 1996 or that I am part of a team that has demonstrated collaboration technology based around technology that falls into the W2.0/E2.0 framework in front of some 5K SAP developers in the last month?
I am delighted to hear they are open/crowd sourcing documentation. Let's hope the benefits flow through to buyers of their technology.
I'll now continue over at Irregular Enterprise.
IndyChristian
· 1 year ago
Great conversation -- thanks Chris for letting a guest give a fairly unpopular pov here. But at the end of the day...
* notice we're at a social-media guru's site. * politically, candidate2.0 is beating candidate1.0. * Microsoft, and even Yahoo stocks have run their course. Go do a time-progression on their stock value from 1995 thru 2003 and see what it tells you. * Moreoever, even Google has now flourished and leveled off... and someone is/will eat their lunch 2 (.o?)
Institutions need innovating. And (the best) innovations need institutionalizing.
Jay Deragon
· 1 year ago
Interesting thread going on here. The original post reflects a "silo" approach to all this "social stuff". I for one have watched all the marketing and PR gurus talk about all this "social stuff" and understand why they want to use it to reach customers/prospects. However, from the business perspective everything a business does revolves around communications. As Kevin Keely has said, communications is the economy. As Doc Searls has said, markets are conversations, as we watch the current political race, communications is everything and influences everyone.
Now from a systemic perspective, social technology cuts across every business process, accelerates it, reduces the cost, increases the awareness, improves collaboration etc etc and all can be measured and quanitifed. Yet for most business the most important numbers are the unknowable and unmeasured.
As Jeremiah Owyang said upon reflecting from his trip to Japan, Social Media is about culture. The reason businesses can't grasp the value of social media to all operaing processes, not just marketing, is because their culture is in the way. Just ask the employees.....
There is a problem with the current gurus talking and following each other. The market continues to view all this as marketing rather than business improvement opportunities.
I've written a lot about the "systemic impact" of social media on businesses but apparently no one is listening. Oh well, the life of a blogger.....
I'd highly recommend it as a point of reference about the systemic uses of social media for business purposes.
John Eich
· 1 year ago
I see a missing point in this so far ... "web 2.0" in its larger context and the social media subset are disruptive technologies; therefore, to loosely paraphrase Einstein, the perceptions that created the old paradigm are resistant to perceiving the new one. There is an inherent response to reject a radically new way of 'getting things done'.
Handing canoeists (business leaders) a kayak paddle (web 2.0) can be frustrating and incomprehensible to them, who might see the double-sided paddle as 'a solution in search of a problem'. But this judgment on the merit of the tool isn't necessarily the final one. Time will tell.
Eventually, the business/organizational world will be led by those comfortable with kayaks, and web 2.0 will be a clear choice. In the meantime, I take Dennis' post that it's up to those of us who can visualize a larger goal (how can I move through water better) to more effectively portray our vision to the narrower-focused folks (how can you help me canoe better?). Because until The Revolution comes, we can easily just sound like a bunch of non-pragmatic idealists.
And on this point, I completely agree with Dennis - there's a lot of "it's gonna be grand" and "all my friends use it, so you must be wrong" talk out there. We need to communicate the value in old-media language better, or there won't be traction.
Amanda Chapel
· 1 year ago
"It comes down to a simple truth: content without context and process is meaningless."
Yep... but that's not the whole story. Meaning is a consequence of the hierarchical language of value. Sadly, in the name of egalitarian nonsense and faux democratic idealism... value is exactly what this Web2 movement works to flatten and consequently annihilate.
Sure, some Open Source guys living in their parents' basement might argue against that point. BUT, the fact is, and what the haters like Dennis fails to see, they're happy so they must be right.
It’s their future I’m worried about. Ya gotta know when business credit dries up and the economy turns cash-n-carry, a lotta this “experimentation” and Second-Coming-new-paradigm-act-today-or-be-left-behind-you-don’t-get-it stuff is gonna go away, no?
Stephanie
· 1 year ago
There are people far more articulate than I commenting here, but I wanted to argue a point.
Dennis implores "Show me how customer service has radically improved as a result of applying web 2.0/social media services?"
I think a solid example (that yes, has been lauded many times already) of increased customer service by applying social media services is that of Comcast via their Twitter account, www.twitter.com/comcastcares. Comcast had nowhere to go but up, in terms of ratings for customer service, and Frank Eliason took that task to town. Even if he's only helping the people who know, understand and use Twitter - is he not still reaching Comcast customers, and responding to each one? Using Twitter hasn't changed Comcast's stability as a service provider, but it has upped the ante for providing responsive customer service.
To that point, Dennis, I say there is your example of customer service improving directly through social media services.
acme
· 1 year ago
"Sadly, in the name of egalitarian nonsense and faux democratic idealism… value is exactly what this Web2 movement works to flatten and consequently annihilate."
Yikes Amanda, a left wing conspiracy? Even if you disagree with where the world is going, I hope you keep trying to understand it better.
acme
· 1 year ago
This discussion reminds me of the process of pure research. We know we can produce something meaningful in the end, if we only test this or that hypothesis. No one knows exactly what will result, or what it should be called, but most of us still believe it will be meaningful. The mainstream press and other media will have difficultly describing our concepts and events; some will add their own spin, sometimes valid, but usually not.
Part of the problem is, until "it" or part of it becomes mainstream enough, we might not even be giving it the right name. Hence, an amorphous, ambiguous name like "Web 2.0".
"What's in a name? Web 2.0 is Web 2.0, whether it be called..." isn't good enough. A successful meme usually has a name that's more instantly meaningful, and catchy... at least if that name is to live on outside of the community that invented it.
This is what sounds kind of funny to me about the discussion here. Since the fitness of one meme or another depends a lot on how reproducible and prolific it is, its future depends a lot on which publishers define it, describe it, and how widely they publish it. So while Tim has an interesting point wrt how we shouldn't rain on Web 2.0 parades, let's remember that Tim is also in some of the parades, near the front.
By the way... tell everyone... Twitter sent me. I suspect that a much larger fraction of the technically-naive masses will understand what "twitter" is before they understand what Web 2.0 is. "Web 2.0" is just an inside code name. Marketing is only now inventing the consumer product names that will stick. And no matter what various products and product names end up sticking around, most of use will still be able to look back and say "See, I told you so".
Rob
· 1 year ago
Here is a reason, or maybe a how to tweet. Start searching for people in your local area. Twitter has an advance search that can help you with this. Join them, tweet, and you will be amazed. I made a tweet just today about a cheap gas station from my cell phone. Turned out there was a follow just a block away, and filled up there when he heard how low the price was. Tweet, tweet, tweet.
Morriss Partee
· 1 year ago
In terms of terminology, I'd like to point out that kids today aren't growing up with the term "social media" or "web 2.0" to talk about these tools and this new web-enabled environment. For college-aged kids and younger, this environment that WE call social media or web 2.0, simply "IS". Please understand that they take being able to hop on the web, being able to instantly communicate with all of their friends via cell phone, SMS, twitter, FB, MySpace, share opinions with friends through sites like Yelp, TravelAdvisor and so on, for granted.
It doesn't matter what we call it, the fact is that it is always-on, on-demand, ubiquitous, and that the younger folks take it for granted that they can tap into whenever they need or want to, free and easily, and on their terms. Companies that are facilitating this will continue to prosper, because business success is the result of helping/serving people. Of course we have to create revenue that sustains the business. That's the tricky part that web 2.0 doesn't solve on its own. But there are new ways of doing business out there, and we need to dive into this world and understand it so that we can figure it out. You can't figure it out from the sidelines.
I also agree that this is the natural and logical evolution of the web, people, and communications. I liken it to where TV was in 1946. I'm not sure that the TV biz had a revenue model or could foresee 98% penetration in households, but I feel like that is where we are with this new-fangled World 2.0/social media/networking/blogotwittersphere contraption thingy.
I've also never been one to worry about "mainstream" adoption. People and businesses will discover their own uses and needs for these tools when THEY are ready for them. I think our job is to educate, and let people and organizations decide for themselves if they see a value or purpose for them. Instead of wringing our hands about it, proponents, educators, and consultants should be thinking about better ways to convey or demonstrate what is going on to people who aren't there yet. The key word being "yet."
Pam
· 1 year ago
Thanks, Dennis, for stimulating all the talk. It's all about customers, about what they're doing and what they need. Nothing else matters, no matter how many so-called "revolutions" arise or whiz-bang technologies that emerge.
Many of the so-called Web 2.0 technologies are being used primarily by people with time on their hands or an interest in technology. Others are being adopted by many more people. The point: Use the technologies that your customers are using.
Know your customer, and everything else follows.
Jared O'Toole
· 1 year ago
I agree to the point that all this social media/networking hasn't been used to great extent in business. Many companies still don't know what a blog is let alone twitter.
However I don't see this as all just fading away. This technology (blogging, social media) is all relatively new. Companies always react slower then just about everything else in the world. Over time though they will find ways to harness this information and improve their brands. They will connect with customers via all these outlets. There is a ton of opportunity its just slow to diffuse into corporations.
acme
· 1 year ago
After re-reading my comment and comments that followed it, I want to shorten and paraphrase it.
I see a new angle to this discussion that I think is important. I think what we're discussing is very analogous to "research", in the scientific sense. We know how important scientific research is because how it eventually leads to development, design, and production. The mantra "Know your customer, and everything follows" is absolutely true and essential... except for the parties driving a the research/discovery stage!
On the one hand, sure, "Web 2.0" is already being deployed, with various results. On the other hand, the important components and theories that Web 2.0 is presumably comprised of are still under development. Also, various, potential uses for the internet are still in the research/discoverystage.
If what I'm saying sounds ambiguous/amorphous/undefined, it's because what we're talking about also sounds so.
So my point of view is that we're still in the less definable research/discovery stage, and will remain so for a while just because there is no "mainstream" to define what it's all about, yet. It's HAPPENING, and it's very significant... we just can't easily define yet with a single label... and I'm not even sure we need to define it so explicitly, yet.
Gary Koelling
· 1 year ago
My experience leads me to believe that E2.0 will take a very long time to reach the mainstream status of say, email. One of the basic tenets of W2.0, the supposed precursor to E2.0, is that the tools are nearly free - cheap social tools that enable greater social interaction. When the barrier is that low, social happens. People start communicating, then collaborating, then co-creating all outside the purview of the traditional power structure. And often all it takes is one success using this process and then look out - it’s a jailbreak. When this happens inside the enterprise the alarms go off. Free don’t fly inside the enterprise. Big-time consultants ring the FUD bells and executives get scared. It’s a lock down. We need to get our arms around this. We need to get on the same page. We need to integrate our efforts. We need to be compliant. We need to be secure. Most of the executives who ask me how to implement social technology inside their enterprise are shit-the-bed terrified. Why? Social upends the org structure and threatens to blow up their business model. Threatens to unseat them. Threatens to divest them. Who could blame them for being scared? Most of them just want to coast comfortably out of their offices into retirement. They want to check a box. It just takes to much creativity to figure out how to exchange trust for power and still make money. It takes too much effort to learn how to be social. And besides, you can’t run a company that way and still be considered a ‘growth’ company. Until someone can show them how they use social technology to encourage collaboration to create and capture value without upsetting the apple cart, they aren’t budging. And from the looks of most what’s being shoveled at them under the increasingly meaningless banner of social media, it’s going to be awhile.
Communities, although inherently made up of the mutitudes, need individualistic leadership. I think that's what the Nielsen research actually shows.
As a result, it makes the adoption of social media by enterprises pretty challenging. Who will the leaders be? And if they aren't the leaders of the corporation, will revolution follow?
John Lewis
· 1 year ago
The reframing by amce is interesting. However, everyone and every activity has a "customer"! The visionaries who play with new things for fun with little or no commercial interest are, if they are relevant to this discussion, not doing so idly. They are seeking the future for themselves and for others. Their "customer" is the early adopter who needs a steer on what is new that has a chance of working, so that he can explore its commercial value. "His" customer is the early majority who are more risk averse, yet wishes to be using whatever is newly proven to be beneficial. It seems likely that the research/discovery process need not be as random as acme suggests. The view of people like Dean Hering is that the innovation process can be made manageable in the same way as the sales process was, and the quality process before that.
fred wilson
· 1 year ago
i think my twitter quote says most everything that I feel about this post. it's true that many "web 2.0" services have yet to go mainstream. but if i thought they never would, i would not have invested in twitter or any other of the services we've invested in.
that's not to say i think they all will go mainstream, venture capital is not about hitting every pitch, but i think enough of them will that we'll make good money investing in this sector.
It takes time, good management, and evolving business strategies and revenue models to make these ideas turn into real businesses.
Stephane Lee
· 1 year ago
Dear Dennis,
Participation on our platforms is tremendous, from kids to grandmas. Don't be fooled by marketing/PR, most companies don't know yet how to master social media.
We're working every single minute of every day to help them get the ROI out of it and prove you wrong.
And we will.
Andy Fox
· 1 year ago
Dennis is spot-on here. I think for awhile there was this idea that web 2.0 companies were more valuable, and of course, more creative and forward thinking than any other company.
Now that some time has passed we're looking at all these companies for what they are, and for what they aren't.
I was writing about how Facebook couldn't ever be well-monetized more than a year ago, when everyone else was giddy over it's financial future.
It's difficult when the thought leaders in the tech world act like teenage girls over every product du jour.
Pam
· 1 year ago
I understand what you mean by your last statement, but the remark is an insult to teenage girls.
W. David Stephenson
· 1 year ago
Startling (to me) example of how at least some smart companies are getting it. Yesterday, with Congress considering the Big 3 bailout, I posted a snarky Tweet about the Ford F150 and its low MPG rating. Within a minute or so there was a very temperate, informative response from Scott Monty, Ford's director of social media which, in 140 characters, corrected me & set record straight about changes Ford has made. In the past, I might have spread my complaint by word-of-mouth among my social circle for ages with Ford never even being aware of it. Instead, I got corrected, & in fact posted my own mea culpa tweet admitting I was incorrect. Pretty good microcosm of the benefits to companies of embracing Web 2.0
unternehmensberatung russland
· 10 months ago
Very nice article. Thanks.
How To Weld
· 5 months ago
As a general rule, the larger the business, the slower it will adopt new technologies (unless its business is technology).
One just has to look at smaller, more agile businesses for indicators and our experience is that small businesses are quick to adopt new web technologies (social media, or otherwise) that can demonstrably a) increase sales and c) reduce costs.
vb2010
· 3 weeks ago
Web 2.0 now playing a great role in internet marketing, I know many internet users use them to push their websites higher in search engine results Single Divan Bed grain grinder mill
All Comments
And you're kidding yourself if you think that hasn't affected business, or delivered tangible ROI. The companies that have learned how to leverage networks are outperforming.
You mention SAP. Guess what: they understand that harnessing users is good for their business. At O'Reilly, our InPractice division is working with them to actually turn their documentation into an open source, crowdsourced project. They are doing fascinating experiments at SAP Labs with how to integrate virtual worlds into property management. They have built a great internal social network for employees that has already affected their HR practices.
Your comments remind me of people who were saying "the PC is just a toy" at the same time as it was taking over the world of the enterprise, from the bottom up.
Yes, businesses want to know what's in it for them. But that starts with understanding what matters. The network as platform (Web 2.0) does matter. Any particular application may fail, but the trend lines are pretty darn clear. Figuring out the networked enterprise is critical.
For all the potential business benefits of web 2.0, I think it's fair to say that many companies - especially in the UK - have not only failed to adopt the tools, but also remain unaware of their existence. And part of this ignorance must come down to the terminology used to try to get it through the door. Dennis is right that 'social media' is not an inspiring term: it sounds limp and slightly infectious. SAP may have embraced the spirit but they certainly aren't calling it SAP Social Media. I wonder why.
I hear you. I remember when Clay Shirky held a "social software summit" four or five years ago. I told him I didn't think that the term would ever catch on. But now I think I was wrong. And I think Dennis is wrong too. "Social media" is a good description of an important new trend.
The "shocking ignorance" I was referring to was the idea that the benefits of Web 2.0 adoption are marginal. That's a straw man: creating a VERY limited definition of web 2.0, arguing against it, and then using that to damn the entire meme.
Words are always only pointers. Let's remember what they point to, and not get hung up on which term gets used.
As a general rule, the larger the business, the slower it will adopt new technologies (unless its business is technology).
One just has to look at smaller, more agile businesses for indicators and our experience is that small businesses are quick to adopt new web technologies (social media, or otherwise) that can demonstrably a) increase sales and c) reduce costs.
The era of Web 2.0 continues to yield solutions that help businesses to improve their bottom line. IT just takes time.
can go a long way to rebuild public confidence through complete transparency (&, as a bonus, can even substantively involve public in policy debate!). Learn more!
But, there is another aspect: the value that people put on the meaning obtained through whatever communication is taking place.
In discussions such as these, if there is lack of clarity of the context in which the value of technologies and applications are being compared, then the messages are somewhat meaningless and much of the discussion is "at cross purposes".
In the technology adoption lifecycle: visionaries, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards all have different criteria for attributing value. This is well described by Geoffrey Moore in "Crossing the Chasm", mentioned in the quote about Twitter.
Which group(s) are being discussed here? This needs to take into account that identifying a company may not be sufficiently precise because, within corporations, different divisions (especially research) may fall into different groups.
Visionaries are using Twitter without caring whether it has any commercial value, but their experience generates testimonials which are valuable to early adopters in selecting things to evaluate, and so on down the line.
On the other hand, the early majority are reaping benefits from Web2.0 applications (which benefit from increased user participation), including well known services such as Amazon (stores, rather than AWS yet) and less well known services such as the amazing Motley Fool Stock Advisor.
So, it seems to me that, much of the above is at "cross purposes" unless it is clear which group is under discussion.
As Mr O'Reilly says, while we battle over what to call various parts of the 'web 2.0' revolution and whether or not they are failing, it goes on. This blog, this comment and the fact I was directed here by Tim's tweet should be evidence enough of that.
Judging from the reaction of many of the people I speak to, we are moving from phase 2 to 3 about now....
Collaboration form social capital. It is not necessary that even a majority "actively participate" for the enterprise to benefit.
An exception to the claim is email reduction. That has an immediate benefit with a demonstrable ROI. There is hope: Only eleven years ago I arrived at a company where my request for email was met with, "Engineers don't need email; they will abuse it." We shamed IT into giving us email without divisional approval.
BTW, I always need more de-identified data on social media use inside organizations.
Aloha,
Dan
I do agree about the potential benefits - and the realization of those benefits in some businesses already - and I also agree that words are pointers.
However, words assume connotations based on past experience, prejudice, or just plain ignorance and I think 'social media' is a victim of some or all of these. And until there is a term that aptly defines - and explains - the wider implications that can overcome these connotations, I think it is the potential beneficiaries of the tools and technologies we are discussing that will be 'hung up' on the terminology.
I've got to say, Dennis, if it isn't working for you, best to you doing something 'new', but don't shit on everyone else's parade. Excuse my French.
For the record, my interpretation of what I thought Dennis might be getting at was different, and I'm not speaking for him by any stretch. I wonder if he wasn't perhaps crapping on the companies who haven't yet really delivered. What I read was an attendee's perspective that the exhibitors and sponsors weren't exactly breaking ground on the vision set out by Tim years back.
If so, I understand the sentiment at least. I, too, want companies to dig in and enterprise-enable some of the same dreams.
Not surprisingly, I've got the old "Distributing the Future" podcast with Daniel Steinberg in my head, doing the Gibson quote as part of the intro every week.
There's still hope, and there are signs of people implementing. It's just, as always, slower than we want.
Oh, and web 2.0? I am beginning to prefer calling it WOA or Web Oriented Architecture instead of Web 2.0. At least WOA doesn't date and make everyone yawn. It's not so dated, and creates a passing reference to SOA, which *is* big news.
But what about a guy like me, or you, or you over there? What about all the individuals or small groups of people who have an idea, a passion, something they want to champion? For them, for us, having 500 followers, for example, on Twitter to whom we can spread our cause is enormous success. Through social media we have the ability to connect with hundreds, if not thousands of people. And while that might be a mere drop in the bucket to the 'Fortune 500s' of the world, it could very well be enough to allow a guy like me to support his family doing something I love.
Call it what you will...I call that success...Jeb
I think that we're not seeing the forest for the trees here. Web 2.0 has value in that it revolutionized peer to peer communications - not just made the internet the platform. Whether or not some people see Twitter as valuable, or blogging as important or communities as critical isn't really the point. The value is in their availability to use when needed. Their availability is because of the cultural transformation that's changed even who trusts who, much less how communications are now working. The Edelman Trust Barometer in 2003 had 23% choose "someone like me" as the most trusted source they had. Industry experts ruled. The Edelman Trust Barometer in 2008 had 57% choose "someone like me" as the most trusted source. That's who now rules. The reason that you hear from businesses, "the customer controls the conversation" so much, is because the customer does. This is because of the impact of the Web 2.0 technology, for sure, but also because the culture shifted dramatically in the last few years to peer-to-peer trust - because they could reach those peers so much more easily.
However, Web 2.0 per se isn't the best answer for business per se. Web 2.0 doesn't involve business rules and workflows and transaction at all - and despite my personal dislike for operational detail, its necessary. Coincidentally, if you want to see what I call CRM 2.0 in action which is the melding of the social customer tools with the business operational tools at a technological level, take a look at the product that the Enterprise Irregular that Dennis mentions - Bob Warfield's company produces called "Helpstream." Its a great paradigm. By the way, in the interests of full disclosure, I'm also an Enterprise Irregular and I have NO proprietary or any other interest in Helpstream other than that I like it a lot as a CRM related tool.
Dennis, I think you underestimate Web 2.0's impact on especially what is now what I call the social customer - which are the vocal ones. Tim, I think you give it too much credit for what it is as a standalone. For its real value to business it needs to integrate with the tools of business operations while as a strategic capability, it needs to foster customer engagement - meaning their involvement in a transparent business environment with companies they like. Culturally, the framework is there, but the rate of adoption isn't there yet. Give that time. The technology is already available.
But Web 2.0 by itself doesn't have the same value to business it has to the customer - partly because business people have this weird propensity to forget they are customers themselves. But the customers now trust others like them more than the businesses - and the most savvy are using the tools to make the connection. Shoot, check out Dennis's awesome blogs and you'll see what I mean.
Good example of social tool in a corporate environment? ESME - the SAP tool that Dennis refers to.
One last thing - the problem isn't with the term social media, its with the way that it gets used by PR and Marcom to spin press releases. Marketing is what needs to change - not the terminology.
We are on the frontlines of this phenomenon daily. In every client situation, although the majority may reject my proselytizing, one or two get it. I start seeing them on Twitter; they friend me on Facebook. They start considering ways they can leverage the social web and deliver network effects benefits inside and outside the organization. Many of those plans are currently in the ROI/business case phase.
Tapscott told us last week, "Wikinomics" was THE best-selling business book for Amazon last year. Millions of 1.0 eyeballs are taking in a new way to think about the enterprise, just from this one effort. Add CNN utilizing Twitter for the US Election, the NYTimes and other old-line big media transforming to engage 2-way conversation with readers, and countless other business model reinventions-- pretty soon your argument starts to lose shape.
The good news is when Enterprise finally locks into 2.0, you will have been identified at the vanguard of establishing its relevance. Despite your negativity.
A quote in the post above from Bob Warfield grabbed my attention, "We’re barely getting started understanding what it all means." Doesn't that sum up the barrier to Web 2.0 adoption? Inside the enterprise or not, if the users can't get their head around the value then your adoption wont happen. Throwing web 2.0 or social media concepts at the enterprise wall and seeing what sticks is hardly a convincing methodology for board room support.
Users need to understand how it makes their life easier or better and businesses want to see a clear line to improve the bottom line.
The truth is it's not a new era, and if Coke were to launch New Coke today, they'd do it exactly like they did it in 1985 - much to their customer's chagrin.
I am with Dennis on this and with Chris' take on what Dennis is trying to convey.
"Until we as an industry recognize that and apply smart thinking to the immediate problems of doing business, then the well meaning ideology of social anything just ain’t going to cut it."
How can anyone argue against that?
I don't think Dennis is trashing SM, per se. Dennis in fact is hitting on a cornerstone of the 'social media' problem: just how and why should enterprises incorporate the tools and strategies of SM?
'Experts' in social media need to have a clear understanding of how enterprises work, what the specific collaborative needs are, and how SM (or whatever we call it) fits into their overall strategies. I agree with Dennis that the success is thus far questionable.
There's an enormous and growing technological gap across the business community. It's depressing in fact. Dennis is correct in pointing out the lack of awareness. If enough people aren't aware, then just how 'alive' is Web 2.0? It's a legitimate and refreshing question!
Tim offers remarkable arguments, none of which I can' refute. I don't think Dennis is wrong, though, in pointing out the awareness gap and its implications. (Forget about the gap in the healthcare industry! That gap is almost criminal...I digress.)
When Dennis asks if Web 2.0 was ever alive, it's not a bashing of the project. It's an implied proclamation of its potential.
I just want to comment on your points related to collaboration. Earlier this month i was asked to speak to the International Council of Shopping Centers research group about 'Communities of Practice'. I introduced them to Social Networking and some social networking tools of the trade that would help them build 'Communities of Practice'. This is a group that needs and wants to collaborate mostly due to the vast amounts of data that they analyze and interpret in order to make good 'Trade Are' predictions. These people were in awe of what they could do with these tools and as a result, i had the biggest run on my site that i have vet had. They are ready to embrace it. eager to collaborate and meet others who share their thoughts. It is still a learning curve as they are not real sure how to build an effective Group. Not the kind you see on LinkedIn that turn into self serving ads or job recruitment. Groups that are facilitated and have agendas with meaning but are still virtual and non-intrusive. That is where i hope to be able to help them. So yes, collaboration IS a business need and social media with it's tools are an answer. Thanks for bringing it up!!!
Lee
Traditionally, the digital divide has referred to the lack of bandwidth. Those without high speed access are half as profitable as those with broadband! I put Web 2.0 applications and the knowledge (more importantly the wisdom) and/or training in how to use them as serious limiting factors to wealth creation and up for consideration as a divider between rich & impoverished, democratic & autocratic, socially responsible & irresponsible to stakeholders.
While some communities are still in the world of have-nots (there are many rural communities out there believe it or not who still cannot access or participate in blogs like this one) due to bandwidth issues, many will remain on the wrong side of the digital divide until training opens their eyes to the possibilities or they are forced to go there..
What forces will move them there? The same forces that shaped the new recording industry. Wealth will follow democracy.
When businesses realize that there are serious economic consequences to not moving onto the Web 2.0 side of the digital divide they will come. Until then, the first movers will still be putting their stakes in the ground and staking out the best terrain and building their reputations in this space.
Remember: There are many businesses who stayed away from building websites in the early days, and their domain name of choice, position in search engine results, and business opportunities online were compromised for years. The same will happen here in 2.0.
Democracy will rule the day.
It's a slow evolution, but human nature makes Web 2.0 the natural evolution of this space. Unfortunately, we'll soon see that those without bandwidth, training or access to these tools of democracy will be left behind in a state of poverty.
I think we DO deserve something more (at least in addition to Groudswell), but that's why we are here reading Chris Brogan - or today Dennis Howlett. As for the mainstream, I did read recently that social media is being searched more than sex. So, maybe its just buzz, but maybe its on its way.
I think that it is fair to point out that Web 2.0, and all of the relative elements within it are only temporary. The moniker will no longer serve us and will be thoughtlessly wiped away like the dead skin cells on our arms that we never even see. That said, for now, its what we are working in. It is in essence the foundation of what our lives with technology will eventually look back upon and remember. (The way we now look back at the room-sized computers.)
To answer your question of, "So where’s the value in all this soc.media stuff? Show me how customer service has radically improved as a result of applying web 2.0/social media services?" here is a site in the top area to the right you'll see a link to "live help", I believe that answers your question - to some degree. Additionally, if you have ever had the indignity of being forced to telephone a big corporation to be routed from menu to menu, "for # press four, now for # press 7"; or if you have had to talk into a phone as a voice machine (hopefully) identifies that you want tech. support, and not your account, then you should understand the benefit of email answers/live help/ and at least one truly valuable potential of IM.
But in respect to the practical and intellectual curiosity that lead you to ask the things that you did, there is lots to come.
I think in large you argue from a top-down paradigm, and fine if you do. Arguably that is -for now- where a lot of the money and power are. But it is worth noting that social thought, not economic desire will likely begin to drive the world's influentials in what they're doing. Think that's a stretch, stick with me as we watch (a.) a new, more idealistic, more diverse generation of leadership arrive (b.) that is more globally minded, environmentally conscious and (c.) more technologically savvy (word is, they love twitter).
Ubiquitous connectivity may not have the deep pockets clapping for joy over social media today, but those who are devoting energy to creating meaningful connections and communities will have the advantage. And they should the respect that they show people earns them the right to be leadership. *Please note, in a bottom-up world Enterprise is sort of the enemy, it may be time for them to put in a little social time.
--
BTW, thank you (both) for creating this little corner of the web, for us to commune.
Best,
Christopher Drinkut
chrisdrinkut@gmail.com
http://greenbeem.blogspot.com/
http://twitter.com/home
I caution observers against dismissing the "fun" factor of using Twitter as irrelevant.
Will have more to say/write about this at some point. Lots to think through...quickly!
I also spend time on Payroll outsourcing, ERP systems, and software delivery models.
In almost every student course evaluation I get comments about how great it was to learn about Wikis and Twitter and using Facebook for sourcing candidates.
I never get any comments about how valuable it was to learn about the top 3 ERP vendors.
For my students, the excitement, interest and potential adoption of these tools gets them really enthusiastic, and I think over time this will lead to more widespread adoption.
Craig
www.budgetpulse.com
Collaboration and engagement are terms we are hearing over and over and over again in the social media realm, but how are we bring them into brand conversations.
Great guest post Dennis and thanks for sharing Chris!
As much as I enjoyed reading your post, I must take issue with your comment that -
"It wants breakthrough impact not marginal improvement. Until we as an industry recognize that and apply smart thinking to the immediate problems of doing business, then the well meaning ideology of social anything just ain’t going to cut it."
Any innovator (and hence, organization that innovates) is well aware of the fact that major breakthroughs are great, but interative improvement yields fantastic results, and is a good strategy in general.
To help demonstrate this view take a look at a post c/o the Marketing & Strategy Innovation Blog that illustrates many applicable examples - http://zz.gd/04d9a1
He is right to put social media into the overall context of web impacts on daily life and business. And even if the term "social media" makes his skin crawl, one of the main reasons social media are growing in popularity is because -- surprise -- they are social. They enable people to work and communicate in a more social, person to person fashion.
In a society where traditional organizations, processes, and systems are built around depersonalization and repeatability, social enablement of even basic business processes can be a significant step. But it takes time. And this has all been said before.
Clearly this one excites a lot of passion, and it's passion that I share.
It's tough being at the beginning of things, but that's where we are. Yes, there are many who have demonstrated real ROI from Web 2.0, but it is not well understood how to go about doing so or how to make sure your project succeeds.
The issues are conflated by a variety of factors. There is huge gulf between those who "get it" and have "experienced it" versus those who "get it" but have so far only "talked about it" and those who just don't "get it" at all. Some of this has to do with early adoption, some has to do with demographics (Susan Scrupski's post that inspired me really shows how Gen-Y view Social Media as a basic part of their lives), and some has to do with the applications themselves which may or may not be constructed and deployed to produce obvious or immediate ROI.
Nevertheless, there are companies, like my own Helpstream, that are measuring immediate ROI and that are working through the problems of more mainstream adoption.
More on my blog:
http://smoothspan.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/was-...
I love it when people focus on one thing and miss the point entirely. That of course could be my 'bad' but hey - we're all entitled to opinions. I love it even more when I see people failing to do the one thing that is absolutely necessary on this kind of post: research the individual.
@Tim: did you know I am an SAP Mentor? There's only about 70 of us in a community of 1.4 million. Did you also know I've been following that company since 1996 or that I am part of a team that has demonstrated collaboration technology based around technology that falls into the W2.0/E2.0 framework in front of some 5K SAP developers in the last month?
I am delighted to hear they are open/crowd sourcing documentation. Let's hope the benefits flow through to buyers of their technology.
I'll now continue over at Irregular Enterprise.
* notice we're at a social-media guru's site.
* politically, candidate2.0 is beating candidate1.0.
* Microsoft, and even Yahoo stocks have run their course. Go do a time-progression on their stock value from 1995 thru 2003 and see what it tells you.
* Moreoever, even Google has now flourished and leveled off... and someone is/will eat their lunch 2 (.o?)
Institutions need innovating. And (the best) innovations need institutionalizing.
Now from a systemic perspective, social technology cuts across every business process, accelerates it, reduces the cost, increases the awareness, improves collaboration etc etc and all can be measured and quanitifed. Yet for most business the most important numbers are the unknowable and unmeasured.
As Jeremiah Owyang said upon reflecting from his trip to Japan, Social Media is about culture. The reason businesses can't grasp the value of social media to all operaing processes, not just marketing, is because their culture is in the way. Just ask the employees.....
There is a problem with the current gurus talking and following each other. The market continues to view all this as marketing rather than business improvement opportunities.
I've written a lot about the "systemic impact" of social media on businesses but apparently no one is listening. Oh well, the life of a blogger.....
I'd highly recommend it as a point of reference about the systemic uses of social media for business purposes.
Handing canoeists (business leaders) a kayak paddle (web 2.0) can be frustrating and incomprehensible to them, who might see the double-sided paddle as 'a solution in search of a problem'. But this judgment on the merit of the tool isn't necessarily the final one. Time will tell.
Eventually, the business/organizational world will be led by those comfortable with kayaks, and web 2.0 will be a clear choice. In the meantime, I take Dennis' post that it's up to those of us who can visualize a larger goal (how can I move through water better) to more effectively portray our vision to the narrower-focused folks (how can you help me canoe better?). Because until The Revolution comes, we can easily just sound like a bunch of non-pragmatic idealists.
And on this point, I completely agree with Dennis - there's a lot of "it's gonna be grand" and "all my friends use it, so you must be wrong" talk out there. We need to communicate the value in old-media language better, or there won't be traction.
Yep... but that's not the whole story. Meaning is a consequence of the hierarchical language of value. Sadly, in the name of egalitarian nonsense and faux democratic idealism... value is exactly what this Web2 movement works to flatten and consequently annihilate.
Sure, some Open Source guys living in their parents' basement might argue against that point. BUT, the fact is, and what the haters like Dennis fails to see, they're happy so they must be right.
It’s their future I’m worried about. Ya gotta know when business credit dries up and the economy turns cash-n-carry, a lotta this “experimentation” and Second-Coming-new-paradigm-act-today-or-be-left-behind-you-don’t-get-it stuff is gonna go away, no?
Dennis implores "Show me how customer service has radically improved as a result of applying web 2.0/social media services?"
I think a solid example (that yes, has been lauded many times already) of increased customer service by applying social media services is that of Comcast via their Twitter account, www.twitter.com/comcastcares. Comcast had nowhere to go but up, in terms of ratings for customer service, and Frank Eliason took that task to town. Even if he's only helping the people who know, understand and use Twitter - is he not still reaching Comcast customers, and responding to each one? Using Twitter hasn't changed Comcast's stability as a service provider, but it has upped the ante for providing responsive customer service.
To that point, Dennis, I say there is your example of customer service improving directly through social media services.
Yikes Amanda, a left wing conspiracy? Even if you disagree with where the world is going, I hope you keep trying to understand it better.
Part of the problem is, until "it" or part of it becomes mainstream enough, we might not even be giving it the right name. Hence, an amorphous, ambiguous name like "Web 2.0".
"What's in a name? Web 2.0 is Web 2.0, whether it be called..." isn't good enough. A successful meme usually has a name that's more instantly meaningful, and catchy... at least if that name is to live on outside of the community that invented it.
This is what sounds kind of funny to me about the discussion here. Since the fitness of one meme or another depends a lot on how reproducible and prolific it is, its future depends a lot on which publishers define it, describe it, and how widely they publish it. So while Tim has an interesting point wrt how we shouldn't rain on Web 2.0 parades, let's remember that Tim is also in some of the parades, near the front.
By the way... tell everyone... Twitter sent me. I suspect that a much larger fraction of the technically-naive masses will understand what "twitter" is before they understand what Web 2.0 is. "Web 2.0" is just an inside code name. Marketing is only now inventing the consumer product names that will stick. And no matter what various products and product names end up sticking around, most of use will still be able to look back and say "See, I told you so".
It doesn't matter what we call it, the fact is that it is always-on, on-demand, ubiquitous, and that the younger folks take it for granted that they can tap into whenever they need or want to, free and easily, and on their terms. Companies that are facilitating this will continue to prosper, because business success is the result of helping/serving people. Of course we have to create revenue that sustains the business. That's the tricky part that web 2.0 doesn't solve on its own. But there are new ways of doing business out there, and we need to dive into this world and understand it so that we can figure it out. You can't figure it out from the sidelines.
I also agree that this is the natural and logical evolution of the web, people, and communications. I liken it to where TV was in 1946. I'm not sure that the TV biz had a revenue model or could foresee 98% penetration in households, but I feel like that is where we are with this new-fangled World 2.0/social media/networking/blogotwittersphere contraption thingy.
I've also never been one to worry about "mainstream" adoption. People and businesses will discover their own uses and needs for these tools when THEY are ready for them. I think our job is to educate, and let people and organizations decide for themselves if they see a value or purpose for them. Instead of wringing our hands about it, proponents, educators, and consultants should be thinking about better ways to convey or demonstrate what is going on to people who aren't there yet. The key word being "yet."
Many of the so-called Web 2.0 technologies are being used primarily by people with time on their hands or an interest in technology. Others are being adopted by many more people. The point: Use the technologies that your customers are using.
Know your customer, and everything else follows.
However I don't see this as all just fading away. This technology (blogging, social media) is all relatively new. Companies always react slower then just about everything else in the world. Over time though they will find ways to harness this information and improve their brands. They will connect with customers via all these outlets. There is a ton of opportunity its just slow to diffuse into corporations.
I see a new angle to this discussion that I think is important. I think what we're discussing is very analogous to "research", in the scientific sense. We know how important scientific research is because how it eventually leads to development, design, and production. The mantra "Know your customer, and everything follows" is absolutely true and essential... except for the parties driving a the research/discovery stage!
On the one hand, sure, "Web 2.0" is already being deployed, with various results. On the other hand, the important components and theories that Web 2.0 is presumably comprised of are still under development. Also, various, potential uses for the internet are still in the research/discoverystage.
If what I'm saying sounds ambiguous/amorphous/undefined, it's because what we're talking about also sounds so.
So my point of view is that we're still in the less definable research/discovery stage, and will remain so for a while just because there is no "mainstream" to define what it's all about, yet. It's HAPPENING, and it's very significant... we just can't easily define yet with a single label... and I'm not even sure we need to define it so explicitly, yet.
As a result, it makes the adoption of social media by enterprises pretty challenging. Who will the leaders be? And if they aren't the leaders of the corporation, will revolution follow?
The visionaries who play with new things for fun with little or no commercial interest are, if they are relevant to this discussion, not doing so idly. They are seeking the future for themselves and for others. Their "customer" is the early adopter who needs a steer on what is new that has a chance of working, so that he can explore its commercial value. "His" customer is the early majority who are more risk averse, yet wishes to be using whatever is newly proven to be beneficial.
It seems likely that the research/discovery process need not be as random as acme suggests. The view of people like Dean Hering is that the innovation process can be made manageable in the same way as the sales process was, and the quality process before that.
that's not to say i think they all will go mainstream, venture capital is not about hitting every pitch, but i think enough of them will that we'll make good money investing in this sector.
It takes time, good management, and evolving business strategies and revenue models to make these ideas turn into real businesses.
Participation on our platforms is tremendous, from kids to grandmas.
Don't be fooled by marketing/PR, most companies don't know yet how to master social media.
We're working every single minute of every day to help them get the ROI out of it and prove you wrong.
And we will.
Now that some time has passed we're looking at all these companies for what they are, and for what they aren't.
I was writing about how Facebook couldn't ever be well-monetized more than a year ago, when everyone else was giddy over it's financial future.
It's difficult when the thought leaders in the tech world act like teenage girls over every product du jour.
One just has to look at smaller, more agile businesses for indicators and our experience is that small businesses are quick to adopt new web technologies (social media, or otherwise) that can demonstrably a) increase sales and c) reduce costs.
Single Divan Bed
grain grinder mill