Understanding Web 2.0 with greater clarity
I much appreciated Peter Merholz' post today commenting on a previous post of mine because I finally understood the concept of what the words 'web 2.0'denote. As a newbie to the blogosphere, my understanding of the newest technologies and the changes taking place online are very much derived from reading what others write and thereby trying to correlate the information to my own (limited) frame of reference.
The key point that Peter makes is,
The key point that Peter makes is,
A blog or a podcast does not Web 2.0 make. Web 2.0 is fundamentally about relinquishing control, putting creative power in the hands of your users, and developing systems that benefit from such communal use. Such concepts are anathema to the thought, philosophy, and practice of "elite design agencies."This is powerful stuff - the italics are mine - and I can see where and how a concept such as this would be extremely useful - for example, in the creation of products and services that empower the users to create and build their own experience. "Designers as enablers" versus "designers as formgivers" - something I'd touched upon earlier after reading Bruce Nussbaum's post on the products released at CES. However, I had not made that correlation to the words "web 2.o" and what they stood for, since my only exposure to the concept had been through the various posts on the blogosphere regarding social networking technologies, and the attendent services and organizations around them. I can understand my earlier confusion, since Peter goes on to say,
This doesn't make sense to me, because there's hardly a business on earth for whom their online strategy isn't a key component. Because, and this is the thing a lot of people still don't get, "Web 2.0" isn't about the web. The web is where it most obviously plays out, but web 2.0 is about relinquishing control, embracing openness and transparency, demonstrating actual authenticity, and empowering your customers to create, and leveraging that creativity to make better experiences for everyone. As the LEGO Mindstorms article in Wired discussed, this isn't simply about web sites -- it's about introducing new paradigms to improve businesses' chance of success.In the context of his explanation I see the possibilities inherent in the concept of relinquishing control, embracing openness and transparency, demonstrating actual authencity and empowering your customers - these are the traits that have been upheld as fundamental to the blogosphere and that I have been reading about. And I very much appreciate the clarity of what "web 2.0" really implies - that it does indeed lie way beyond the web. However, for this simple yet powerful concept to truly catch on in the mainstream - especially for those of us who are not wholly experienced in the technological advances taking place so rapidly - I believe that it then needs a new name - If the web 2.0 isn't about the web, then perhaps it would help if it weren't referred to as the "web 2.0" ?
posted by niti bhan at 10:33 PM
14 Comments:
To me, the conversation just got a notch more complex when Core introduced their Design 2.0 series of panel discussions. Design 2.0 flows so easily off the tongue/keyboard, but I'm not sure I know what it means. It sort of builds on the thrust if not the details of Web 2.0. I think "2.0" is a linguistic meme that sometimes doesn't work if you look too close.
It was a year ago or more than someone referred to Portigal 2.0 when I outlined some of my thinking for evolving my consulting business. I have to say I was charmed by the term, but, well, yeah.
Niti,
There are two recent books that will help you get to the bottom of Web 2.0.
Markets are conversations is a very powerful theme started with The ClueTrain Manifesto:
http://www.cluetrain.com/
Robert Scoble et al have written Naked Converstations which is blog-centric but, again is part of the underlyin shfift away from what I call "asymetry" (traditional branding, traditional design, traditional marketing/communication) to a more symmetric relationship with customers and the public in general:
http://redcouch.typepad.com
We need the design community onboard with all this stuff. The geeks have unleashed the technology, now we need right brainers to do their thing. Very exciting stuff!
Regards,
Doug Turner
Cluetrain is a great pointer. I read the book a couple of years ago (having missed the supposed buzz when it actually came out) - it's an easy read since it's incredibly repetitive and you can sort of skim right along.
The philosophy, tone, and attitude are most important to me in that book, more than any actual specific proposals they make.
Your point about re-labeling is a good one, Niti. But I have to laugh at peterme's attempts to frame the conversation, as his analysis and suggestions continue to consistently ignore the reality of what is actually happening and what designers are actually doing, instead focusing on his personal pet soundbytes such as "designing for the sandbox" and "relinquishing control".
Indeed, many of the so-called "elite design agencies" are actually very well schooled in the participatory co-creation model that comes from "relinquishing control, embracing openness and transparency, demonstrating actual authenticity, and empowering your customers to create, and leveraging that creativity to make better experiences for everyone," and integrate those approaches into the work we are doing. He sets up a strawman wherein he seems to think the goal of wanting to ultimately have some degree of control over user environments as a component to providing superior experiences is anathema to co-creation with customers and integrating these so-called Web 2.0 approaches.
And he's just wrong, ignoring the reality of what many of us are actually doing and making assumptions based on what seems to be a very narrow agenda of trying to further his specific platform, contrasted against a so-called "elite" approach that does not exist, at least in the places he claims.
Indeed, if he took the time to actually talk with and check out the work of great designers like Luke Wroblewski he'd be much better able to provide an informed and valid opinion about what is actually happening.
Dirk,
Actually, I would be grateful if you could provide me with a list of companies who are doing what you describe. I come from the software world of open source, etc. where information flows relatively freely as compared to the world of design. I have had zero luck identifying companies that articulate a strategy that incorporates Web 2.0 user behaviors as well as understands the shift of markets as conversations. Thanks so much.
My email address is:
douglass dot turner at gmail dot com.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Doug
The 2.0 meme continues
http://blog.vanderbeeken.com/2006/02/advertising_20.html
Steve,
Your link is a nice brief consolidation of the theme. I think the single word I would like designers to get comfortable with is "conversation". I beleive that is the fundamental mind shift.
So, the idea is not for designers to give up control but rather (metaphorically to some extent) pull back the curtains and engage with the public, potential customers, haters, fans, etc. Keep in mind, the current status quo places the public at a tremendous deficit with respect to the products and services they are force fed everyday. This is the information asymetry mentioned in Steve's linked report.
I have no doubt whatsover that simply redressing this historical imbalance will create significant authentic brand loyalty "for free". No need to spin. Or buy superbowl ads. Or hire branding gurus.
Speak clearly and authentically. Listen actively. Be responsive.
Yes, invent, be cool, think different and be sexy. But always, always be mindful and deferental to your public.
Everything old is new again, no?
Cheers,
Doug
Doug - won't some categories of product always need to be buying superbowl ads? Commodities?
iPods are not potatoes.
For vast swaths of products Web 2.0 will be a blessing. Especially commodities!
With Web 2.0 I think I could take Phil selling winguts in Peoria and get him devoted customers for life. In fact I'm beginning to think it is exactly the antidote for "The China Price" paranoia. He could charge double the China price and his customers wouldn't budge.
Because ole Phil does a weely podcast on the joys of winging nuts. Because every Christmas he invites customers to a recording studio to record "Ode to Joy of Wingnuts".
When companies connect authentically with their public the game changes. Boom! If you suck, come clean. Your public will love you for your candor (could be an American thing, though).
iPods are a star aligning, once in a lifetime event. We are talking infinite brand extension here. Virtually unrepeatable. Why? Because it is a hermetically sealed end to end experience. No other competitor can do that. NOBODY EVER WILL. That is why all competitors will fail to match it's "it-ness".
In my view Superbowl ads are an American thing and don't really translate globally. They are a brand catwalk event that completely baffles me. I find them a bit embarrasing in their navel gazing cluelessness.
-Doug
I can't have a deep brand relationship with everything. Some of it just has to be stuff that I buy and use and wear and eat and wipe with.
I can care about something, but there's a limited attention resource that be parsed out. There's a limited emotional investment.
I don't believe that everything can be made more important and more meaningful.
I will acknowledge for example the Japanese have used design and other triggers to make everything just a bit more special. At least for me, I see it that way, I don't know what the attenuation is within their culture, though.
I can't believe too many people care about the podcast of a weed-wacker, but those that do, probably don't care about the brand story of their drain clogger as well.
Some products will rise to the top of the meaning curve for everyone, some will rise to the top for some, but maybe some won't be cared about by anyone, ever?
Douglass,
Observing and understanding the environment also goes a long way towards comprehending the users and the information they work with. I've noticed a pattern in your responses that imply there is a component of assumptions that those of us on the web *not* talking about empowerment et al *don't* know about it. One does it, knowing it, but one doesn't have to display it.
As for Naked Conversations, if you have a copy, do take a moment to look at the acknowledgements list.
http://redcouch.typepad.com/weblog/2005/08/acknowledgement.html
and if you click through the hyperlinked word "traits" in the post above you'll note that it is, indeed, a link to the Cluetrain Manifesto
Niti,
Please don't misinterpret my comments as a slight. Far from it. I am well aware of the rich tradition in user-centric focus within the design community. I have great respect for that community. Note: during my years at Apple Computer I worked with many of the HIG (Human Interaction Group) team who have been very influential in the field of human computer interaction.
Regards,
Doug
Then you would also be aware of the work the Institute of Design, IIT, Chicago does in the are of user centered design? Don Norman is on their board of trustees.
Steve Portigal is a specialist in this area.
I did not interpret your comments as a slight so much as a lack of awareness of what exactly the various members of the design industry were doing, as well as the changes taking place, both online and offline in the global design industry. If you are not already aware, Core77 has a list of archived articles which give an overview of some of these shifts taking place.
It seems like the old Clue Train is coming past the station again these days (I just missed it the last time round too). Of course I often like to check in with the Glue Train (www.gluetrain.com) just to stay rooted.
If its important to remember that markets are conversations, its even more important to remember to not take ourselves too seriously. Good stuff in both of them.
Post a Comment
<< Home