Defining Web2.0 continues to be a struggle for me as it represents so many different things.
A common explanation to how the Web has changed with 2.0, is that the Web is now about user-generated content.
There’s a camp that says that’s good, power to the masses…and others will dismiss it as just a bunch of garbage. Andrew Keen will even go as far as telling you it’s destroying our society.
So when using the “user generated” definition in the enterprise, you could either hit the jackpot and have everyone on board with your initiatives…or they could sway the other direction with your execs telling you they don’t want the brand to be associated with rubbish and to please stop playing around and do some “real work.”
So here’s where I stand and if you ask me why these things matter at all, this is what you’d get from me. BTW, this is a super basic top-level post, if you need more in-depth material, I’d recommend Jeremiah’s blog as a resource.
On User-Generated
First of all, user-generated content is nothing new. Users generated content even during Web1.0. How is Web2.0’s blog really different from the family web newsletters of Web1.0? It’s the little button on the bottom of the page that enables the reader to comment and talk back and ultimately connect.
Web2.0 came with tools to make it easier to do, yes. But more importantly, Web2.0 tools are social. And by social, I mean collaborative. They enable connections so that those connections can collaborate.
Which is probably one of the most critical elements of Web2.0: the collaboration of connections. If you’re thinking about implementing Web2.0 strategies, you have to first be willing to be willing to connect. You have to be willing to engage and collaborate. You can’t say you’re gonna go Web2.0 and talk at your connections and not want anything to do with feedback. You’re just missing the point otherwise.
How is user-generated content/feedback beneficial to the enterprise? It can be a source of information, and please, let’s look beyond sales leads. What sorts of information can organizations gain?
A survey can tell you whether you’ve met your client’s expectations, but a comment can tell you more about what those expectations are. A survey can give you a customer satisfaction rate, but a comment can tell you whether that client will vouch for you.
What does your client want to see from you? Crowdsourcing is a great way to get useful information to develop new products and services or improve what you already have. Dell employs this strategy quite well with Idea Storm (which, by the way, is a by-product of Dell Hell).
What about all the junk? Yes, you’ll get garbage. Not all information will be useful. It’s like asking a question in a stadium full of people and everyone answers all at once. One of them will say something so good it might change your life, but the majority is just noise. Do you shut it off and miss the one life-changing info? No. You come up with ways to sort through the noise. Some Web2.0 technologies and services are designed to do just that.
The tools, I didn’t name them
The benefits are there, but why aren’t corporations participating more? My guess is that 1) it’s a lot to digest and learning is taking a while; or 2) with names like YouTube, Facebook, Flickr, Bebo, Spock…the names don’t necessarily scream out “corporate,” and some are just known for other things like drunken fraternity party pics.
You can explain the utility, you can explain the benefits, but perception is a powerful thing. This is a reason why LinkedIn will always have a place, if not remain king, of the professional networking space, even though Facebook is, by far, more useful and more powerful as a tool. Plaxo’s Pulse is a promising tool as well, because Plaxo has already branded itself as a business utility. It’s got the utilities of Facebook but with a more business feel to it.
But Facebook still has the users…so I’m not leaving Facebook anytime soon.
timeXchange is another promising utility with the proper branding. It’s collaborative and it’s social but not in a “I ate a BBQ sandwich for lunch” kinda way. It has a specific purpose – to keep and report time – and accomplishes that by means of connections. (See my definition of social again here).
timeXchange, by the way, really belongs under another Web2.0 description: web-based applications and software as a service or SaaS (which can be as complex as you make it, but I promised a basic post, so a basic post it is).
To be continued.
