Web 2.0 marketing. Some food for thought. And your OPINIONS are highly encouraged...

Take a look at the top 10 websites in the US and tell me if you see any web 2.0 stuff there....

-Yahoo
-Google
-MySpace
-Microsoft
-eBay
-YouTube
-Facebook
-Wikipedia
-Craigslist

They are all places where people can share ideas, discussions, binary files, form communities of like minded individuals...

Hey wait a sec...

Back in the early 90's when there was only roughly 25-30 million people using the Internet (compared to the 600 million today), we didn't have to worry about spammers as much. There were business groups on the USENET where we networked, shared files (binary newsgroups), and forums for discussion on just about any topic you could imagine. That's where I first, virtually met, Paul Myers. He used to be one of the moderators of one of the business discussion forums I subscribed to.

Well, the point is, by the marketers definition of Web 2.0, I think the Usenet would fit the description too. Does that sound about right to you?

Me, I think over the years the Internet has evolved into becoming more interactive simply because now a lot of people can have a voice without being a programmer, and the programming languages have progressed and developed over time. But I'm not ready to slap a new moniker on it just so I can market to people who don't know didley squat about the web and sell them the same old goods and services re-branded as Web 2.0.

Jim Rapoza, eWeek writes:

"When I first looked at these supposedly new and radically updated products and services, none of their improvements struck me as being all that major. And, in the past, when products went through much more radical changes, no one saw a need to rename or reposition whole product categories—for example, back in the 1990s, when classic enterprise systems became Internet- and Web-capable.

But then I realized I was thinking like a technologist and an IT guy and not like a marketing and sales guru. Sure, an IT guy looks at these products and thinks, What's the big deal? You added some common-sense capabilities, and now you act like it's this whole new thing?

But these savvy Enterprise 2.0 companies aren't pitching their products to IT professionals. Smart and capable IT people tend to be a little boring when it comes to enterprise systems. They are more than happy to stick with an older but solid system rather than move to some newer system for fairly minor new capabilities (especially for capabilities that often easily can be added through third-party and free open-source products).

Instead, the Enterprise 2.0 pitch is directed at businesspeople, who often are not very technology-savvy but are increasingly controlling the IT spending at their companies."

You can read the full article here:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2089495,00.asp

If you don't mind me being blunt, "Web 2.0" is the new buzz word, old and tired marketers are re-branding themselves to -- trying to make themselves look like they are on the cutting edge of technology with the same "must have" products and services they peddled the last few years.

Best Regards,
Steve MacLellan

Can you give me an example of a couple of marketers branding themselves with the web 2.0 thing?

Jim

Hi Jim,

I'm sure you can understand. I'm not going to start labeling any company or individual on a forum. If you know how to use Google, I'm sure you can find them on your own.

Regards,
Steve MacLellan

Originally Posted by Steve MacLellan

I'm sure you can find them on your own.

No, Steve, I can't.

I can't find one marketer who is "re-branding themselves to Web 2.0"

That seems to be the impression that you and Pete have here and I can't figure out what it is based on.

I could be wrong. I'm not saying that I'm not.

Just looking for an example or two since you guys seem to know.

Jim

Originally Posted by Pete Egeler

I've been to a couple of hard-nosed marketing forums in the past few weeks were this has been kicked around, and kicked to death.

Hey Pete,

What forums would these be? I'm interested in checking out the discussions.

Jim

On it's way soon...

Regards,
Steve MacLellan

Hi Jim,

I can't find one marketer who is "re-branding themselves to Web 2.0"

That seems to be the impression that you and Pete have here and I can't figure out what it is based on.

I could be wrong. I'm not saying that I'm not.

Just looking for an example or two since you guys seem to know.

I would appreciate it if you don't mention the name of the person I emailed you about on this forum. Hopefully you will understand what I'm talking about.

Regards,
Steve MacLellan

Thanks for the email and the explanation, Steve, but I still don't get it.

I looked at the person's article you directed me to and I also looked at his website and blog.

There was no mention of web 2.0 anywhere on his website and one blog post that talked a little bit about it but nothing that came anywhere close to what I would call "rebranding" himself.

I know you build websites, and from what I see and hear, you're really good. But from looking at your own website, I see that you build the sort of sites where web 2.0 doesn't really come into play. It has no real purpose there.

I'm guessing that when you are focused on that sort of thing every day, that web 2.0 talk is nothing more than a distraction because it doesn't fit in with what you are doing.

Also, we very likely have totally different opinions on what web 2.0 really is because I thought your example of USNET groups was way off - not even close to what I see web 2.0 as.

Back then, before Al Gore created the internet, we didn't have anywhere near the technology to pull off some of the stuff we are seeing today and while most all of it was probably thought of, as Pete put it, "natural progression", it was also impossible with the technology at that time and cost prohibitive.

Today, the technology is cheap and available to most anyone to pull it off.

There's no question in my mind that web 2.0 is for real for those of us using it but I can see where it can be meaningless to those who don't.

Jim

Thanks for the email and the explanation, Steve, but I still don't get it.

LOL, I guess you don't get it then.

This conversation has moved into the working week, and I've got work to do...

Best Regards,
Steve MacLellan

Originally Posted by Steve MacLellan

LOL, I guess you don't get it then.

Actually, Steve, I do get it, bit I'm not sure you do.

What I didn’t get was your claim of marketers “rebranding” themselves to web 2.0 - It's just not happening as far as I can see.

I haven’t been able to find an example of this and the one you emailed me with certainly didn’t fit.

What I do get is that I’m having a “Rich Internet Application” built at the moment that is all about web 2.0.

The big difference between this and the type of stuff you build is that this one is all about the user experience.

Users will be uploading audio and video and images as well as having the ability to record by phone and record by webcam and have their media instantly available to share on the site and do a lot of other things with.

This is where the web 2.0 concepts and technologies play a big part.

The example you gave me about this marketer having no knowledge of some simple concepts back in 2003 made no sense to me. That was 4 years ago!

I didn’t even hear the term “web 2.0” until a couple of months ago but that has been enough time to study and totally understand it.

I can’t understand where you think it’s not for real.

It has nothing to do with the way people market things which seems to be what you are focused on here.

It’s about building webapps that work and that users are wanting.

Jim