You can't read, view or listen to any news media channel (Web mostly of course because mainstream old news media pretty much discounts Web 2.0 and vice versa...just like viewers ignore Katie Couric ... but I digress) without seeing articles/blogs relating to social networking, VC "overheated fundings", communities of millions run by kids at Starbucks, and "how many people follow me on Twitter when I say I am going to bathroom." Seriously, this happens.
Which got me to thinking...is Web 2.0 useful or a waste of time? As usual in life, the answer is somewhere in between. A couple points to consider:
1. Social networks are still relatively new. The "excess inflection point" hasn't been reached yet.
2. The phoenomenan will probably mirror the bubble companies in the late 90s...look for 2-3 "Amazon's" to grow, excess bubble and valuations to the moon, then a 95% valuations/stock price crash and no new venture fundings. Then, the companies with brand and a business model will re-emerge and make billions (look at the Amazon 10 year stock chart, it's amazing).
3. The key is that social communities haven't REALLY figured out how to make money. Period. Great article in Boston Globe the other day (checking on my Red Sox who got swept by Devil Rays...but I digress) on this topic. Conferences like the So Cal Digital Tech Forum are starting to form to talk business; not just "techie" hype.
4. Most people over 30 with family and jobs and kids and sick parents and (on and on and on) will NEVER have the time to spend on social communities en mass; they will find 1-2 they like and stick to it. I wonder if there is an inverse correlation between "having a life" and number of hours on social networks... but I digress.
In summary, we all should "plug in" but the business impact of social networking is still in its infancy. In the coming months/year it will - and should - be monitored by the business community.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
At the last Web 2.0 expo, I asked the the following question over and over to such companies: "What's your revenue model?" In every case the response was something like: "We are not worried about that right now, our main concern is creating traffic."
It's good to see that more events are forming to tackle this important issue.
1. Social networks are not new. The human brain evolved as big as it is primarily to keep track of our complex social networks. Social networking is older than the modern human species.
4. No time but they spend 20-30 hours a week watching TV? You should read "Here Comes Everybody" to see why your assumption is off.
They could have a very significant effect on politics, as I describe in my essay The Coming Digital Presidency: http://mathoda.com/archives/189
I offer that your comment about people on multiple social networks having virtually no life outside of the cyber realm is NOT a digression at all but an observation shared by many others.
Web 2.0 fosters lots of communications between web users but this does not necessarily translate to improved anything except use of bandwidth.
The complete absence of viable revenue models explains why 2.0 is now being seen as a 'let's wait and see what develops' rather than the next 'must have' item.
That doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon.
Social networking is older than the modern human species.
Post a Comment