chrisbrogan.com - Latest Comments in Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

lacoste polo shirt — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 12:05:41 -0000

Well this article that I’ve been waited for so long. I need this article to complete my assignment in the college, and it has same topic with your article.

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

vb2010 — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 04:58:48 -0000

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

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

How To Weld — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:04:24 -0000

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.

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

unternehmensberatung russland — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:38:37 -0000

Very nice article. Thanks.

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

W. David Stephenson — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:42:03 -0000

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

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

Pam — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:55:39 -0000

I understand what you mean by your last statement, but the remark is an insult to teenage girls.

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

Andy Fox — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:30:48 -0000

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.

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

Stephane Lee — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 01:18:12 -0000

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.

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

fred wilson — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:46:01 -0000

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.

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

John Lewis — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:02:41 -0000

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.

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

Lindsay Willott — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 06:26:26 -0000

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?

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

Lawrence Liu (Telligent) — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:14:13 -0000

Interesting discussion. Here's my perspective on "Connecting the Dots for Social Computing, Social Media, Community" - http://communityzenmaster.c...

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

Gary Koelling — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:17:59 -0000

whoops

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

Gary Koelling — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:16:06 -0000

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.

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

acme — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:07:01 -0000

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.

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

Jared O'Toole — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:12:09 -0000

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.

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

Pam — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:12:53 -0000

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.

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

Morriss Partee — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:51:56 -0000

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."

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

Rob — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 01:15:06 -0000

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.

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

acme — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:01:44 -0000

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".

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

acme — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:00:50 -0000

"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.

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

Stephanie — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:22:03 -0000

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.

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

Amanda Chapel — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:38:49 -0000

"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?

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

John Eich — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:08:12 -0000

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.

Re: Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

JDeragon — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:01:00 -0000

One other thing. If this audience hasn't read Michael Cayley new book, Social Capital Value Add here http://socialcapitalvaluead...

I'd highly recommend it as a point of reference about the systemic uses of social media for business purposes.