After reading and pondering open thread from Read, Write, Web in my online travels today, about the future of Web 2.0, I had an moment of clarity on my way to the train. And while I was scribbling down notes on the Blue Line I got kinda fired up. By the time I got home, I was on a roll and quasi-ranted all of my thoughts about social media to my roommate, Andie. Below is the unabridged version of my answer to: What is the future of web 2.0?
Perhaps is due to my current "work-suggested" (but now personally-addicted-to) book choice, "A Whole New Mind" by Daniel Pink the chapters on meaning and value really stuck with me. When faced with the fortune-teller like question of: What is the future of web 2.0, the answer became quite clear. The future of Web 2.0 belongs to those who can bring meaning to it's users.
What makes sites succeed? What makes them plateau? What makes them fail? Anyone can write the code to create a new platform, anyone can create a third-party application that inhances a current platform and anyone can create the next trend that is only popular for 6 months. It is the meaning social media platforms provides to their users that ensures a longevity in an ADD, next-big-thing world. Meaning = Loyalty
My brief thoughts on the evolution of Social Media - MySpace left the gate as the first platform to connect with people in a "flat world." You could connect with anyone and everyone. But honestly who wants to be friends with everyone, virtual or real? Being a voyer to everyone, even to the girl from 5th grade I never really talked to then nor care that much about now, didn't have any value to me. When I joined Facebook, it was open only to college students and provided a new way to connect with classmates, meet new people on campus and be active in student activities. But now that my parents can comment on my Saturday night drinking choices (My dad saying: I didn't raised my daughter to drink Miller Lite) FB is slowly loosing it's relevance. And finally when I joined Twitter a couple years ago, it was viewed as another place to update your status and became a hyper-voyer tool to find out where I was eating dinner. It has since evolved into a forum for anyone to gather as many followers as they can without actually providing any real opportunity for two way conversation, claim they're an expert but providing no original content or sign up because Oprah told them to. Seriously, where's the conversation? How many @replies does Oprah (the real person, not her PR team) have time for?
All of these major platforms have lost their meaning for me because once again, I am just a number in the masses. The AdAge article about Aston hitting 1Mil followers was perfect: A few people preaching to the many. Most times I feel like I am talking in a room full of people - who are screaming for attention. When my voice is lost and I no longer feel like it's valued, I'm out.
Web 2.0's original success was based on the theory of a 2-way conversation. People are preached to everyday in ways that don't necessarily always provide a platform to respond - the government, the media, the education system, the marketing world, etc. But social media is suppose to be just that. Social. Mom-centric communities are successful because Moms visit them. I don't have children so they aren't relevant to me. But to those moms who login 3 or 4 times a day and comment 2 times they're on the site, it's meaningful. Think frequency and not penetration.
Web 2.0 has only just begun but will evolve from large dinosaur-ish platforms for everyone into communities that are relevant to a few. The ones who will succeed in the future are those that embrace the niches and realized that it was never about quantity but always been about quality.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment