Wednesday, November 23, 2005
The New, New Web
I was in a brainstorming meeting with a client, where we’ve been given an amazing opportunity: to completely blow up and re-create from scratch, a massive, highly-trafficked, news and content oriented Web site. Halfway through our definition of new features and functionality, I suddenly realized the true meaning of the word “inertia”.
See, progress always comes in the face of massive amounts of pushback. Sometimes, that pushback is almost implicit. We don’t tend to realize what we don’t know, so we try to find comfort in imagining the change of something familiar, in order to create something new. Usually, this works fine, but what’s one to do when the original that one imagines from is so flawed, that some of its fundamental paradigms must be questioned? Ah, therein lies the rub of true innovation...to admit that we’ve been sorely wrong.
If you read that last pargraph and are still scratching your head, let me explain.
The Web was originally created as a stateless method of exchanging information using a standard client. It was designed primarily for the text-based hyperlinking of files and details within a scientific community. As it became a vehicle of more general communication and information sharing in the general masses, we tried to force-fit several new features into a limited design concept. We added the ability to use images and color. We wanted prettier layouts than was originally designed, so we added the concept of laying out content in tables. We needed the browser to remember what it had been doing, we we created a way to remember sessions using “cookies.”
But then, we realized that the nature of the Web required that interactivity be not just designed by the content provider, but also by the user. So, we added personalization, and the limited ability of the user to enhance his or her own experience. People started self-expressing using personal home pages, and the volume of information that ensued required the advent of robust search engines.
The Web had evolved, and it had become clear that the fuzzy outline of a new paradigm that was visible in some locations needed to be clearly defined. We needed to document the characterstics of exciting new applications that were making their way into mainstream media. Thus began the official definition of Web 2.0, a term that came out of a closed-door brainstorming session between O’Reilly and MediaLive International.
Web 2.0 is what’s called a meme—a unit of cultural information that represents a basic idea that can be transferred from one individual to another, and subjected to mutation, crossover, and adaptation. There’s also a lot of backlash about the term being more of a marketing buzzword. But in the end, if it allows to collate and make sense of a certain systemic change in the way business needs to be conducted and human-centered applications need to be built, then marketing buzzword or not, I see a lot of value in the usage of the term.
While there still is a lot of discussion around what Web 2.0 really is, what can really hit home, is to show by a few examples, the evolution of Web 1.0 to Web 2.0.
A prime example is photo sharing. In Web 1.0, sites like Kodak Gallery provided the basic ability to organize and share photos. In Web 2.0, applications like Flickr creates a true collaborative environment for public and private photo galleries.
Another example could be reference encyclopedias. In Web 1.0, researcher-driven resources like Brittanica Online allowed for the anywhere-anytime searchable access to volumes of data previously only accessible through massively heavy books. In Web 2.0, Wikipedia is a globally accessible, volunteer-written-and-reviewed collection of articles that forms an encyclopedia that almost anyone can contribute to.
And those aren’t all. Evite.com has given way to Upcoming.org. Personal Web pages have been abandoned for blogs. Editorial “directories” have made way for “folksonomy”, or tagging. On the visual side, the use of CSS and standards-compliant browsers have created the ability to design beautiful and managable Web sites where information display can be controlled by the user. Play around here, and see how easy it is to manipulate screens to fit exactly what you want. Corporate entities such as AT&T and MSN have also jumped on that same Web 2.0 bandwagon.
Such a list can go on forever, as discovered by the O’Reilly brainstorming session. An in-depth technical discussion of Web 2.0 principles is beyond the scope of this blog, and there are people far more qualified than I who can teach and inform about its nature. What I’m interested in summarizing, however, is the marketing impact of this shift to the Web as a platform for user-controlled information.
As marketers, we’re trained to push information to the right people in the right place, at the right time. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars in analytics that are supposed to help us narrow down prospect lists by attitudes, propensities, and desires. We spend millions on TV commercials and full-page ads with murky measures like “reach” and “frequency.” We’re pan-handlers of information whether we like it or not, and while it worked well in the past, there are just too many voices in the atmosphere for our impact to be the same as it once was.
But now, with the Web as a platform, we have the ability to supplement our marketing programs with high-impact tactics that use the participatory and “pull” nature of the Internet. Search engine marketing is the single largest driver of eCommerce economics today. Over 60% of Top 100 eCommerce traffic comes from paid search placements around specific keywords and phrases. With RSS, we can syndicate our content and advertising proposition to locations that our target customers are more likely to be. Mobile techology allows for instant customer gratification of news and information. The Cluetrain Manifesto was right. Markets are conversations. The new Web allows us, as marketers, to get right in there with all those loud, gossiping folk, and amidst the rapid exchange of popcorn and soda, find a way to sell a bunch of stuff.
Which brings me back to inertia. Corporate entities that have previously relegated the development of their Web platforms and applications to IT departments will do well to re-consider that notion. The responsibility for Web strategy should be brought into the marketing department, preferably as a core component of the overall marketing mix. If techies are the only ones singing praises of the new Web, its possible that you’ve been ignoring that particular water-cooler suggestion. Don’t. Listen carefully, because it is, in fact, the voice of the future.