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

Picture by adarshr Some rights reserved.

The Irish blogosphere¹ has been abuzz for the last couple of days with the latest example of how potentially powerful bloggers have become in Ireland, how careful – and informed – companies have to be to avoid running into serious PR trouble and how they should really learn to react in a positive way when they get into trouble.

It all pretty much kicked off with this post by Michele Neylon about the response he got from Monster when he complained about being spammed by them. Things got worse when some character called “Pedro” started slinging muck about on the comments to the post only to be found out as coming in from a Monster.com IP address. Not as bizarrely funny as the whole Sky Handling Partners incident but on the same track.

Things get more fun as Tom Raftery blogs about it and then gets threatened with legal action unless he finds a patsy. Damien Mulley joins in and then submits the story to Digg. Now the whole thing is going to be hitting the press tomorrow apparently².

Unfortunately this appears to be a case of someone with a poor understanding of technology, or at least how to use it. In my experience sales and marketing staff and recruiters³ are usually the least technically savvy people I’ve ever come across in the tech industry. It seems that when you put these two together and have a marketing person in a recruitment firm you end up with a recipe for disaster.

The sad fact is that this person is bearing the brunt of it personally. Hell hath no fury like a bunch of angry bloggers and if at least some of those bloggers happen to be professional journalists you are heading for some seriously bad PR. Having said that it looks like this individual brought all upon himself by first assuming that he could use IT@Cork’s membership list⁴ to mass-mail people and then trying to cover up with bluster and threats.

First rule when you’re in a hole is to stop digging. Attempting to “recall” the email won’t work – you’re just trying to pull a Homer⁵ – and threatening legal action is a bit like poking a wasps nest with a stick⁶.

In future, try a mea culpa and apologise. You’ll find it’ll defuse the situation very quickly.

– Fintan

Picture by dokmarius Some rights reserved.

Olvier Ansaldi beat me to the punch¹ on a small piece that appeared in this morning’s edition of the free Dublin newspaper Metro²:

Four in every five blogs on popular websites contain potentially offensive content, such as pornography, new research claims. Computer software firm ScanSafe, which commissioned the report [...]

You know, I’m really getting fed up of hearing about the latest impeding threat to our health/morality/gadget when it comes from someone who is trying to sell a solution to the threat to our health/morality/gadget especially when it’s based on research that they commissioned. A similar thing happened a few weeks ago in connection with a virus for the iPod. I mean, are people that stupid that they’d actually not realise that they’re being hoodwinked?³

I’m also fed up with the rag press who are more interested in selling sensationalism and their own agenda than selling facts. Mind you, this is nothing new. I’ve been reading Niall Ferguson’s excellent book on World War One, “The Pity of War” which has a section on the media’s behaviour in the build-up to 1914 and during the war itself. Lord Northcliffe, the Rupert Murdoch of his day, went so far as to declare in 1918 that:

I do not propose to use my newspapers and personal influence to support a new Government … unless I know definitely and in writing, and can consciously approve, the personal constitution of the Government.

Fox News how are ya?

One of the truly great things about the current wave in the tech industry⁴ is, as Darren Barefoot said at BarCamp yesterday, that the consumers are becoming the producers. Whether it’s editorial (blogs), radio (podcasts) or TV (videocasts), the tools that are available are lowering the barriers to entry to all sorts of media. Sure this is raising the noise part of the SNR but it also means that anyone with a message other than Buy My Product/Politician/Policy can also be heard.

Viva La Revolucion!

Oh and apparently 4 out of 5 blogs have offensive content so here’s some pron⁵:

Picture by Jagvar

Fwoahr!

– Fintan

BarCamp Dublin took place yesterday. It was my first BarCamp but certainly won’t be my last. It was a lot of fun and there was a great turnout. The venue in the Digital Exchange building, part of the Digital Hub in Dublin, was a good one but there were persistent internet connectivity problems throughout the day. The upside of that though was that there didn’t seem to be too many people spending all their time on Twitter¹ :-).

I had thought about writing an overview of each of the sessions I went to but there was just so much good stuff talked about that this post would have been far too long. Suffice to say that among the highlights was Conor Halpin’s talk about pricing models for SaaS, illustrated by his use of a straightjacket. He recommended a mixed model of subscription and per-usage charges. Darren Barefoot from Capulet had a session on social media marketing with some great tips on how to increase the audience for blogs and how to use bloggers for marketing products. Eoghan McCabe’s talk on web usability generated a great deal of audience discussion, surprisingly around a specific case: the way online banking sites ask for a customer’s PIN. Later Paul Campbell (pictured left), a member of the Ruby Ireland user group and along with Eoghan part of the new Patchwork team, gave a typically enthusiastic introduction to Rails, pulling off his first ever presentation really well.

After lunch there was a panel discussion on some general Web 2.0 issues with Tom Raftery, Sean O’Sullivan from Rococosoft who had earlier talked about Voice 2.0, Darren Barefoot and tech journalist Karlin Lillington. Among the questions the panel covered were how to make money from web 2.0 (advertising and a premium rate model like Flickr) and getting more readers for your blog (quality is more important than frequency; sincerity and originality is vital). There was also an interesting discussion on the recent death threats made to Kathy Sierra and the subsequent O’Reilly code of conduct kerfuffle. Darren Barefoot made an interesting observation about how the barrier of entry to fame has been lowered. The long tail effect is probably coming into play – it’s possible to become famous among a smaller niche group. Notoriety in any form tends to bring undesirable attention and that’s something that bloggers need to be aware of.

The final session I went to was a bit rushed unfortunately because previous sessions had overrun. There were also very few people at it which was a pity because Krishna De had some interesting things to say about using blogging to build buzz about your business. I look forward to being able to hear her speak again under better circumstances.

Afterwards it was down to the Lord Edward in Christchurch for a few free pints courtesy of Diageo. Overall the event was excellently organised, well supported by the various sponsors and attended by a group of interesting, passionate individuals. Hopefully next time internet connectivity will be sorted out.

– Fintan

As I mentioned in an earlier posting, the iPod box is an example of Apple’s ability to produce really nice stuff. The difference in style between Microsoft and Apple seems to be pretty fundamental (see this comparison between the presentation style of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs for example). Now someone has produced a video showing how and why Microsoft might redesign the iPod box.  Even Scoble¹ has admitted that honesty hurts.

– Fintan [listening to Gorillaz]

I managed to blag myself into a market research focus group last night¹ and it was kind of interesting. I’m not sure if I can say who it was for. I signed something at the end and while they didn’t say that it was an NDA, it could very well have been. Anyway, the crux of it was that it was for a provider of services, let’s call them company X, and they were trying to get a feel for some new pricing strategies.

Now, I will be honest that my primary motivation for being there was down to footnote 1 below and I was definitely the odd-one out. I work for a small company, one that wouldn’t be a high-value customer of company X. Other people in the focus group would probably qualify as medium to high value customers and were directly involved in the relationship between their own companies and X.

Company X were testing our reaction to new pricing strategies that they presumably hope will win them some new business but, and I think this was more important, help them retain their existing customers. The problem I had was that most of the strategies they were suggesting would only be useful to high-value users of their services. There was nothing to attract, or certainly retain, the little guy like us. In fact the strategies were basically useless to us and we wouldn’t have benefitted from them at all. As for the big guys in the focus group, most of them were big enough to have negotiating power with their account managers and some were already getting the kind of discounts that the pricing plans offered. As a little guy we don’t have that kind of negotiating power.

So I think X was missing something fundamental here. Looking after your customer is key to keeping them but if you’re focusing on customer retention then you have to give people a reason to stay with you not just when they’re a big, high value customer but also when they’re a little guy like us.

Take airline miles as a concrete example. People who fly regularly and are clocking up a lot of miles will tend to stick with the same airline. It makes sense. They have to fly with someone but at least this way they get something extra out of it other than DVT. For people who fly infrequently, air miles make no sense especially given that they have a habit of expiring after a few years. So if you only fly a couple of times a year you’re going to pick the airline with the cheapest fares. Who cares if the service is a bit crappy, you only have to put up with it for a couple of hours a year.

While the comparison doesn’t strictly hold true for company X, there is the risk that if they are basing their retention plan on loyalty points system or something similar, they have to recognise that they’re excluding customers who don’t use their services that often. Their customers, in turn, won’t feel much brand loyalty and will be more likely to move to competitors.
So, the moral of the story is that if you want true brand loyalty then companies should make a better effort to include the little guy. Besides you never know, one day they may become one of the big guys and they won’t forget being looked after.

– Fintan [listening to David Kitt]

In a post to my other blog yesterday I talked about how I thought there might be a sneaky iPod Nano recall going on. It got me thinking about the power of the Apple brand and in particular the iPod.

The problems that people have been having with iPods are well documented and anecdotally a large number seem to be going back for repair¹. It might just be down to the sheer volume that they sell² which results in a greater number of duds but there are some obvious general problems with them (e.g. battery reliability). So why do people persist on buying iPods when everyone knows about or has experienced problems with one? I know one guy who got so frustrated with his U2 iPod constantly wiping itself that he smashed it up. He then went out and bought a new one. Admittedly the first one was a freebie from a record company but why didn’t he buy a different player given his extreme frustration?

I think there are two things going on here.

First off is Apple itself and its brand. I’m not talking about the zealotry of extreme Mac fanatics (although I will some other time) but just the general brand image that Apple has. Apple is cool. They make nice, pretty things. Hell, even the box and packaging the Nano comes in is so nice you feel like you shouldn’t throw it out. Having the iTunes store tied to the player has undoubtedly helped but there is a definite cachet associated with all Apple products that’s hard to get away from. Everyone wants an iPod and it’s becoming synonymous with digital music players.

I think there’s something else going on though and that is that Apple’s competitors have yet to come up with a viable and attractive alternative. The iRiver and other competing products just don’t seem to have it on the design side and there’s also the issue of OS support with some only really working on Windows machines.

Clearly with their history in portable audio Sony should have owned this space and it’s not hard to see that they really missed the boat. Their early players used a proprietary format (ATRAC) that no-one wanted and consequently they didn’t sell. Even quite recently a friend of mine, someone who definitely doesn’t buy based on image, returned his newly bought Sony player back to the store because despite liking the form factor³ he found that it was converting MP3s to the Sony format on the fly. The result was that copying music over to the player took an age, even over USB2. He bought an iPod instead.

I think that Sony do have one possible comeback though: the PSP. I don’t own one myself. My days of being an innovator or early adopter disappeared with the m&m⁴ and now I’m more of a late majority or laggard⁵. Anyone I know who owns a PSP loves it. It’s versatile, plays games, movies and has a browser. It also plays MP3s and it’s memory is expandable. It also has that shiny black cool design and in terms of cachet it comes close to the iPod. The one problem I’ve heard mentioned is that you can’t lock the buttons to stop them from doing stuff while it’s in a coat pocket. It’s not perfect but it does at least begin to fit the bill for a complete portable entertainment device.

While I love my iPod Nano (and since having it replaced I’m now on my second one) I really don’t think that Apple are going to have it their own way forever. Someone, someday soon is going to come up with a device that will kill the iPod. Who knows, it’ll probably also be made by Apple and come in a really cool box.

– Fintan [listening to David Kitt]