WTF 2.0

24Oct07

WTF 2.0 (beta)I’ve never been particularly comfortable with the Web 2.0 label that seems to get applied to everything these days. It’s probably one of the most overused and misapplied marketing labels I’ve ever come across in my experience in the software industry. At least during the dot-com boom you knew what people were talking about – using the web to sell stuff to people1.

What is the accepted definition of Web 2.0 anyway2? In a very real sense it’s a term that was coined by Tim O’Reilly to sell convention space. As he said in this article recently:

Web 2.0 started out as the name of a conference! And that name had a very specific purpose: to signify that the web was roaring back after the dot com bust! The 2.0 bit wasn’t about the technology, but about the resurgence of interest in the web.

And yet people insist on talking about being “Web 2.0″ and having “Web 2.0″ elements whether it’s some kind of social networking3 thingy, using a bit of AJAX for a more interactive browser experience or just having a fancy reflective logo and a nice colour scheme. I’m reminded of an old boss of mine who, back in the very early ‘90s, wanted to know if our product was “client-server”. He couldn’t define what he meant by that but it was obvious that he wanted to go out to customers and impress them with the fact that we supported the latest industry buzzwords4. The same is true with Web 2.0. People have heard of it so they feel that have be doing it… whatever “it” is.

The worst part about all of this is that the “2.0″ part of Web 2.0 is now being applied to other things like publishing, charity and something called Lunch 2.0 which I guess is some kind of networking thing5. Hell even movies are getting in on the act with Die Hard 4.06 aping the theme. Does that mean there’s going to be a Die Hard 4.1? What’s that? The directors cut?7

Yesterday I saw one that really took the biscuit:  Firestorm 2.0

Now I know that this is referring to a collection of “social networking” sites where “user generated content” is being used to track the fires currently devastating parts of California but really! Stop 2.0! Enough Already 2.0!

There’s a lot of really cool stuff going on right now, some of which has changed the way we’ll use the web forever but the more I see this kind of thing the more I definitely think we’re in a bubble. It may be different to the dot-com one but it’s a bubble nonetheless and that is bringing the marketing bandwagon jumpers out of the woodwork. It gets worse when some people are now trying to define Web 3.0, sometimes in terms of their own product much to people’s dismay.

We may very well need a label to describe the period were going through in terms of the changes in how the Internet in general and the web in particular are being used. The name “Web 2.0″ may fill that role but can we stop using a non-specific inexact term in a very specific way?

– Fintan 1.0

1 – Even if no-one would ever want to buy online what you were selling.
2 – Is there one?!
3 – Another entry in the buzzword bingo lexicon if you ask me.
4 – Mind you this was the same guy who left a copy of a magazine on my desk because it had a “really great” article about Object COBOL. He never managed to switch us from C/C++ to that thank God.
5 – Apparently it’s “The lunch as a conversation.”. Oh dear.
6 – Released as “Live Free or Die Hard” in the States.
7 – Mind you, I guess we’d be on Blade Runner 2.1 at this stage if that were the case.


Filed under: Business, Marketing, Web2.0   |  7 Comments

7 Responses to “WTF 2.0”  

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address
  1. 1 Pete Brand on October 24, 2007 said:

    Great post! We’ve found ourselves looking to add 2.0 to the name to capitalize on the awareness. Most companies out there don’t seem to have a clue what web 2.0 means, but they hear it enough and figure it must be hot and something they need to be a part of. You know marketers … always looking to capitalize on the latest and greatest!

    Reply
  2. 2 fintanp on October 24, 2007 said:

    Hi Pete,

    Thanks for the comment. My real fear is that as with the fall-out in the wake of the dot com crash, companies that are closely associated with “Web 2.0″ will suffer badly from negative sentiment if it does go badly sour. Even if you didn’t suffer, if you branded yourself with 2.0 you’d just have to re-brand yourself again to get rid of it :-)

    Cheers,

    Fintan

    Reply
  3. 3 Tony Byrne on October 24, 2007 said:

    Hi Fintan,

    “It’s probably one of the most overused and misapplied marketing labels I’ve ever come across in my experience in the software industry.”

    Not sure about that. What about SOA (Service-Oriented Architecture)? :-)

    Regards,

    Tony.

    Reply
  4. 4 terry chay on October 24, 2007 said:

    I think the problem is you’re taking yourself too seriously.

    The site you used to generate your graphic, Lunch 2.0 (which I do), Web 3.0 (a joke by Calcanis), etc. are all Web 2.0 backlash. Not too hard to determine.

    It’s not like those of us who’ve been doing this Web 2.0/Ajax/whatever since 2000 (or earlier in the case of some of my peers) don’t realize what’s going on and haven’t thought the exact same thing as you. In fact, Marc Andreessen has a famous writeup about this when he started up his blog.

    Take care,

    terry

    Reply
  5. 5 fintanp on October 24, 2007 said:

    Hi Terry,

    Thanks for the comment.

    First of all I don’t take myself too seriously at all. I’m well aware that the site I used to generate the graphic is a Web 2.0 backlash and, in fairness I realise that a lot of the use of “2.0″ around these days is intended to be satirical. In fact I have some posts lined up which ape that theme.

    Some of its use definitely isn’t satirical though. The point I was making – and it comes from personal experience – is that far too many people are using Web 2.0 as a label to describe something specific (“we are the web 2.0 design company”, “I’m doing a web 2.0 site”, “we need to be Web 2.0!”) when it was never intended as such.

    I didn’t take Jason Calacanis’s comment as a joke – nor the many commentators who had a go at him over it. He may have had his tongue in one cheek but from my reading he was trying to find a definition for Web 3.0. Are we to always have to move in version numbers or can’t we just let the use of the web evolve as it so obviously has done? You make a very good point yourself in saying that a lot of what people are calling “Web 2.0″ has been around since before the term was coined.

    Incidentally, with regards to Lunch 2.0 (and Curry 2.0 which has happened at least once here in Dublin) I happen to think that a lot of the networking/unconference stuff going on these days is really great, I’m a fan of it and a participant. However I’m not a fan of mumbo jumbo like “lunch as a conversation”. Personally I think that’s taking things too seriously but perhaps that was meant as a joke too. :-)

    Cheers,

    Fintan

    Reply
  6. 6 terry chay on October 31, 2007 said:

    Fintan,

    Calacanis was trying to game Techmeme I believe. I didn’t follow it myself so I can’t be sure.

    Here is the old pmarca post:

    http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/06/why_theres_no_s.html

    Take care. :-)

    Reply
  7. 7 fintanp on November 3, 2007 said:

    Hi Tony

    Thanks for the comment. WordPress seemed to think you were spam. I however value your contribution :-)

    Yeah, SOA is another label that is probably a bit nebulous and overused, kind of like Business Intelligence (BI) which can mean a lot of different things depending on the context.

    Cheers,

    Fintan

    Reply

Leave a Reply