Web 2.0- Was It Ever Alive?

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

Craig
http://www.budgetpulse.com

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!

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!

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.

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.

More on my blog:

http://smoothspan.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/was-web-20-ever-alive/

Great thread etc.

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.

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.

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…..

One other thing. If this audience hasn’t read Michael Cayley new book, Social Capital Value Add here http://socialcapitalvalueadd.com/about-scva/

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

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.

“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?

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, http://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.

“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.

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”.

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.

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.”