Web
2.0: Hype or Imperative?
by Tim Smith, PhD, April 2006
<back |
| next>
With every boom in the business cycle, strategists popularize new
paradigms and associated terminology. Currently, as we emerge from
the bust of the early zero’s and prepare for the potentially
blossoming boom to appear in the latter part of the first decade of
the twenty-first century, strategists are quick to proffer the new
“new paradigm” under the guise of Web 2.0. What is Web
2.0? Is Web 2.0 just hype or does it contain a grain of exploitable
insight? To be clear, Web 2.0 does not herald a new technology.
There have been subtle shifts in the underlying infrastructure,
and broadband has finally reached grandmothers, but neither of these
fully captures the importance of social developments which affect
every business.
To reveal the meaning behind Web
2.0, we examine a mosaic of subtle shifts in business prospects
driven by grassroots activities. Collectively, these shifts reveal
the rise of niche, community-centric behavior at the expense of
broadly established, institutional offerings. Four developments
reveal the pattern and justify the new, new term: Web 2.0.
Digitalized Business Models Destroyed Unexpectedly
Encyclopeadia Britannica’s business model of selling 30 or
so hefty volumes of neatly bound text to new parents who are concerned
with their child’s requisite intellectual development was
destroyed in the first phase of the information revolution. Aware
of the impending implosion of their business model that was reliant
upon tangible goods, Encyclopeadia Britannica adapted to the new
technology and began selling their content digitally, either through
subscriptions or other arrangements.
Unfortunately, even this digitalized business model came under
duress with the development of Wikipedia. Wikipedia, a user generated,
free, online encyclopedia, is developed through the freely contributed
wisdom of thousands of independent volunteers. A recent report in
Nature magazine alleged that the error rate in Wikipedia was slightly
higher, but roughly on par, with Encyclopeadia Britannica. Although
Encyclopeadia Britannica has fired a retort demonstrating how their
offering is superior in breadth, depth, and accuracy, and Wikipedia’s
founder himself has acknowledged weakness in some areas, the damage
has been done. People perceive the free Wikipedia as a somewhat
acceptable substitute for the pricy Encyclopeadia Britannica.
In this battle between institutionally accredited content generators
and grassroots volunteers accountable only to the community to which
they freely contribute, we see that the grassroots teams have been
able to displace much, but not all, of the value of the institutionally
accredited authorities.
Some Disintermediation of Infomediaries Didn’t
Materialize
Shortly after the development of the web as a communication tool,
individuals predictably began to transact business through this
medium. Between the creation of “online shopping carts”
and the development of “online reverse auctions”, many
feared and alternatively rejoiced at what appeared to be the end-days
for the lowly salesperson.
Yet, the role of the salesperson hasn’t withered away. In
fact, it is arguable that their value has increased since the digitalization
of information. The corporate salesperson still reigns pre-eminent
as match-maker within the realm of high-value business transactions.
And, despite the development of online real-estate listings, real
estate agents have not seen their business destroyed. Why has the
disintermediation of these infomediaries failed to materialize?
To be clear here, many salesclerks have been displaced by the web,
but an order taker is not a salesperson. In fact, the displacement
of salesclerks without the displacement of salespeople points to
an area where the role of salesperson continues to create differentiated
value within our economic society. Salesclerks have long provided
value through communicating and capturing product/service descriptions,
prices, and transaction details. Each of these communication functions
is easily replaced by digital representations and has therefore
been migrating towards the web. However, salespeople do not simply
communicate and capture facts.
Importantly, salespeople guide individuals through complex decision
making processes. When it comes to making high-value decisions,
a majority of people and companies still value insights from knowledgeable
experts, even if that insight comes from a salesperson with potential
biases. They value the insights of salespeople because their insights
are perceived to clarify the importance of competing decision making
criteria. The one-on-one personal hand-holding required for guiding
decision making has yet to be replaced through technology.
Old-line Media Fails to Aggregate Audiences
Across all established media channels, outlets are loosing their
audiences. Neither Friends nor Seinfeld achieved the same participation
rate as M.A.S.H. did in the 70’s. Likewise, newspaper circulation
has been declining despite rising populations, resulting in the
sell-off of Knight-Ridder assets. , Increasingly, people are foregoing
the pleasures of mainline media.
Many professors have begun their Marketing 101 course with the
question of “What is the purpose of NBC existence?”
After students flounder with propositions of: creating entertainment,
reporting the news, educating society, or reinforcing social norms;
someone eventually relieves the stress and reminds them that NBC
exists to aggregate audiences to be sold to advertisers. As old-line
media fails to accomplish this basic task, their importance and
value decreases.
Meanwhile, online media companies are in the nascent stages of
developing viable business models. Online advertising expenditures
in 2005 are expected to have grown by 25% over 2004, and media buyers
are increasingly having difficulty purchasing high-traffic space.
While all this bodes well for the internet startups, it drives home
the need to rethink advertising expenditures.
Online Community Is Real
Over the past few years, blogging, podcasting, videocasting, and
other online-media creations by independent voices have increasingly
demonstrated their power to shape perceptions. Much of this power
arises from two sources. First, search engines improvements make
it easier for individuals to uncover content that is relevant to
their inquiries. And second, the expanding fragmentation of mass
markets into multiple niches increases the importance of individual
community hosts that enable niche communities to aggregate and communicate.
Lately, many bloggers, podcasters, and videocasters have been searching
for explanations that legitimize their contributions; however, much
of their angst can be explained as the usual tension between upstart
community hosts versus established entities. Both online and offline,
community hosts enjoys the ability to contribute their voice to
the public debate, gain respect from their peers, and develop their
own knowledge, skill, and understanding in the process. Like other
markets, community hosts compete in a tournament market wherein
Stars capture a majority of the financial and social rewards while
the rest contribute according to their hopes and dreams or their
ability to reap non-financial rewards that provide personal satisfaction
in excess of the time and financial costs. In many ways, bloggers,
podcasters, and videocasters are the latest embodiments of artists
and intellectuals.
These new community hosts present new challenges for sales and
marketing executives. Not only are they able to aggregate niche
audiences, they are also able to shape audiences perceptions. Because
these new community hosts are not yet bound by the institutions
of academic accreditation nor market forces, there is little left
to reign in their exhortations outside of their desire to maintain
audiences and develop a positive reputation.
As Emil Zola and Charles Dickens would quickly agree, mobs get
things terribly wrong with disastrous consequences. Not that academics
and institutions are infallible, but their track record is slightly
better than that of populists and mobs.
In light of recent bloggers and podcasters expressing damaging
and sometimes misinformed or poorly considered critiques of well-branded
products and companies, marketers have been forced to expand public
relations beyond established media and industry analysts to include
the new set of online community hosts.
The Bottom Line
Combined, this mosaic of developments builds the case to rethink
the paradigms of the last business cycle boom. The paradigm that
proclaimed every business must digitize or die was both insufficient
and incorrect. Likewise, the web does not disintermediate all infomediaries.
However, the web is increasingly displacing the old-line media.
And, it is doing it through the contributions of millions of volunteers
seeking to participate in new communities, ones where they feel
more at home, ones which represent or inform their viewpoints. In
the process, some of these volunteers are developing into hosts,
while others remain as part-time contributors.
In short, Web 2.0 is more than pure hype. Rather, Web 2.0 heralds
a needed change in thinking. For the marketer, Web 2.0 implies that
media buys must be re-geared to incorporate the internet alongside
old-line media and that internet advertising must move beyond the
pure “call-to-action” toward the realm of building awareness,
managing perceptions, and creating or preserving brand value. For
the salesperson, Web 2.0 highlights an increased importance in developing
skills at personally managing perceptions and guiding prospects
and customers through complex decision making processes. And for
all of us, Web 2.0 means a new route to developing a sense of community.
Bowling may no longer define us, but Web 2.0 just may define the
next business cycle.
_______
References
R1. Sarah Ellison, “In a War of Words, Famed Encyclopedia
Defends Its
Turf”, Wall
Street Journal, March 24, 2006, pA1.
R2. “Bricks Online”, The Economist, 11 March
2006, p. 60.
R3. Joe Hagen, “Circulation Continues to Decline at Most Major
Newspapers”, Wall
Street Journal, November 8, 2006, pB7.
R4. Joseph T. Hallinan, “Hey Buddy, Wanna Buy a Newspaper?
How About
a Dozen?”, Wall
Street Journal, March 14, 2006, pB1.
R5. Brian Steinberg, “Digital-Marketing Firm's Chief Sees
Convergence of
TV, Internet”,
Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2006, pB5B.
_______
Author
Tim Smith, PhD, Editor in Chief of The Wiglaf Journal and Adjunct
Professor of Marketing at DePaul University.
<back |
| next>
|