Again, with the bubble talk …
Comments(0) So many apples, so many oranges.
The Atlantic Monthly recently published yet another article about “The Web 2.0 Bubble”. Although, I agree with the author’s main points, I still think Michael Hirschorn just doesn’t “get it” and this article is yet another reason to hate the “Web 2.0″ moniker.
Is this an argument that MySpace and YouTube won’t take over the world? That they can’t force people to use their products, to not go off on their own like any entrepreneur hungry for attention or dollars in this country would? Hasn’t that scenario happened often enough now in our history to not warrant another article in The Atlantic about the death of any trend, from hula-hoops to pet rocks? I guess his argument is that competition is fiercer now, and that the web is frictionless. I can agree with that. But, the thing that nags at me is that the author almost defines Web 2.0 as the success of MySpace, YouTube, and the other large social nets. Perhaps, he is just being lazy and is going along with the way the media defines normally sees Web 2.0: as a manageable threat. I am not surprised.
I agree with him that large sites are subject to the fickleness of their audience. Many company growth curves flatten out over time, just more quickly online. It’s hyper-capitalism, but it largely applies to social networks that haven’t become full-fledged “go-to” markets capable of attracting an audience, like many moths to a flame. Social networks are information markets at their core. I think there is room for many different types of information markets.
And the author is also right in thinking that usability is not everything. Good social usability is just a set of product features. In and of themselves, “sociability” features will not generate much revenue for long. Any new or failed social upstart can tell you that. Unless patented, these features can be easily duplicated and become absorbed by the greater industry. Welcome, again, to capitalism
Despite this, much of the old guard will continue to fail at understanding innovation and the truly web aware (those that can’t be bought) will continue to chip away at their base. Does the author feel that this is the end of social innovation online? He shouldn’t, because social innovation IS Web 2.0. Online social innovations (voting, sharing, clipping, self-publishing, attention streaming?) will never cease, at least not for a long while as the internet works its way into every facet of our lives. I am pretty sure social innovations are as complex as the human mind and the comprehensiveness of the input and display mechanism (Aren’t we still in keyboard mode?). Time and time again, “Web 2.0″ thinking has allowed companies to quickly fill the usability gap left wide open by the industry at large. Social innovation is merely the baseline to which today’s entrepreneur must adapt.
To his point, this “frictionlessness” of web oriented products is a dream for consumers, but hell for a company that needs to drastically reorganize themselves to keep up. There is no “lock-in” for the user. In fact, no “lock-in” is a subtle splinter of the web 2.0 usability platform plank. Do you think people will have reservations about going to to the more open Google after their horrible experience of trying to get out from under their Hotmail account? Nope, but that lesson may need to be repeated, again, and again.
But, there’s more.
Who is the MySpace audience, anyway? MySpace has become an economy in its own right, similar to Ebay where the suppliers can always find the sellers. Ebay now just needs to always understand what their users need and give it to them so the bulk of them won’t go somewhere else. A similar argument could be made for Craigslist. These companies are powerful social communities, information markets with buyers and sellers that are not going away anytime soon. Although their usability features might be easily duplicated, the size of their underlying economy can not.
MySpace has been rewarded by the network effect of increasing buyers and sellers. Where the kids are, the b(r)ands are. Where the b(r)ands are, the kids are. Murdoch just keeps their plate full with all the things each side of the arrangement needs to keep the relationship moving along. If that means hosting videos, so be it.
Where does it end? Over time, can the socialnets remain edgy enough to keep the cool kids? Maybe, but I think it is more important for social network owners to understand that a product merely needs to take a genuine interest in their audience of consumers to have a future. There is room for as many social networks as the number of behaviors unique to individual interest groups. Corporate owners, especially, should welcome new innovations through which to hone their social skills.
Is this article the death knell of “Web 2.0″? God, I hope so.
