Web 2.0: Another name for web-savvy

A clever university lecturer and marketer named Bill Proud (of Australia's Queensland University of Technology) sparked a discussion recently about Web 2.0; it got me thinking about how diverse (or divergent) people's assumptions or expectations of the web can be. It also made me notice that many people, including marketers, may be needing a clearer perspective on what the key features of the internet are, and even more-so on what Web 2.0 is about. So on the latter point, here goes:

Web 2.0 is a title coined in 2004 by people at O'Reilly Media, an IT publisher and media outlet. Web 2.0 attempts to give name to elements of the internet that are fundamentally intertwined with the process of sharing information online and utilising the web as an interactive platform for their function. Common exemplars are Wikipedia, Google, Flickr, MySpace -- and blogs generally. These are sites that provide services or content that are web-based, web-specific, and that are at the deepest levels reactive to and/or functionally dependent upon their users.

For example, Flickr, an online photographic image service, provides a networked environment where people store, use and share images, merging aspects of web searching with practical utilities of stand-alone software. Flickr is perpetually upgrading and evolving their service based on user requests and user activity at their site. Flickr manages and develops their website and services, but the community of users who populate Flickr with millions of images are by far the most important aspect of Flickr. No users sharing photos; no Flickr. No bloggers; no blogs. No contributing writers; no Wikipedia. You get the idea.

Some well-established online businesses exhibit elements of Web 2.0 thinking, and Amazon is a popular example. Where many online retailers would never dream of giving control of any part of their websites to the visitors to the sites, Amazon has embraced their audience. Users can rate products, post reviews and comments about products, and users' online behaviour (their purchases, searches, and viewed products) directly influence what they will see at Amazon in the future.

In contrast, take the example of a user-installed desktop software application product like Word. It is sold at a (high) cost and new versions are released every couple of years. Updating is done at cost to the user. As far as the internet is concerned, well Word is advertised online. It can be used to write web content. And it has a few limited functionalities that use the internet for one-way collection of information. What a user does with Word does not benefit other Word users, and does not have a turn-around influence on what Word does for the user (except maybe years later when a new feature is added in response to millions of requests or complaints). The user of Word is important only as a paying customer of a retail product. No Word users; Word still exists (but probably with a lot more old-school advertising). Word is a powerful and well-evolved tool that almost everyone uses. Word is very un-Web 2.0.

Web 2.0 has been criticised a fair bit in the IT community for being just a re-naming of long-existing trends and technology, and I agree with this generally. Web 2.0 has been promoted somewhat incoherently, and countless writers are now using the term to appear 'current' while not understanding what it means at all; this extends to the not-uncommon situation where authors seem to think Web 2.0 is an altogether new form of technology or programming (that they don't quite understand) and going on to write about its supposed significance in our futures, further obscuring the intent of the Web 2.0 moniker. That said, I think Web 2.0 is sometimes useful when we want to be clear that we are talking about web content or services that embody the openness and democratic possibilities of the internet, as opposed to post-only or broadcast-style utilisation of the web. (Edit: I should note that O'Reilly's vision of Web 2.0 is so vast, and the community’s usage of the title so diverse, that I can't confidently view my interpretation as adequate. If you would like to read at great depth, try here)

During the discussion Bill Proud led in his September lecture at QUT, I was surprised that some people who spoke on the topic were very concerned that individuals could post information online without being held to standards of accountability. Didn't we get past that when the web first came into use? Around 1996 many people were commenting about the web "you mean anyone can post material, and no-one controls it?" Surprisingly, the explosion of MySpace (and other sites that simplify individuals' contribution to the web) seems to re-ignite this reaction in people who have not really embraced or perceived the potentials of the web.

Skeptics and would-be web-censors, be calm: Time has proven that a free internet functions pretty well, for the most part, with the democracy of the mouse making control both unnecessary and antithetical to the integrity and accountability of the internet.

Web 2.0 very strongly embraces that ethos: one key, underlying theme is the genuine release of control to the broader community, not just in the internet generally but also within our own websites.

Marketers may have noticed that Web 2.0 is spawning dialogue in Marketing circles online, and that some people now talk about Marketing 2.0. The Director of Marketing at Sun Microsystems (a huge IT company) has an interesting blog. Marketing 2.0 also embraces Web 2.0 practices like democratic outcomes and 2-way online exchange.

People who write about Marketing 2.0 often discuss the many web sites where people post, read and rate one-another's comments, typically being comments or reviews about commercial products. Some marketers and manufacturers wrestle for control and domination of online content; alternatively they can figure out how to leverage community input and involvement to an advantage.

Many companies and marketers accept that the internet is a new vehicle for marketing communications, but ultimately view it as another broadcast or published medium. The insightful see so much more, and their companies are dominating the financial tables, the internet, and the near-future of marketing practice.