The Word on the Street

Seattle Post Intelligencer asked people on the street about this Web 2.0 stuff. And err… there’s not a lot of recognition. Drat. As we’ve discussed before, though, these people may well know about YouTube, MySpace, etc. The terminology will be the last thing that people worry about.

The question of the day: What is your definition of Web 2.0?

“Web 2.0? Web 2.0? I have heard that before. I think I have heard that somewhere. I think it costs money. I am not interested if it costs.”
–a 59-year-old building inspector from Shoreline.

“As far as I understand, it is for hospitals and universities. It is not for the public use.”
–a 35-year-old information technology consultant from Magnolia.

“An idealized version of the Web.”
–a 56-year-old communications specialist from Vashon Island.

“I’ve heard the name kicked around, I just don’t know what it means.”
–a 35-year-old bike messenger from Queen Anne.

“The next generation of Web technologies, whatever that means. I think it is more interactive.”
–a 25-year-old business development manager from Queen Anne.

“I have no idea. A new generation of the Web?”
–40-year-old public health researcher from Bothell.

Update: decided to remove the names, though the PI prints them. Felt uncomfortably like a wall of shame or something.

← The Horror of Partial Fee…
Googling Me, Googling You. Ah-ha →

09 November 2006
Tags:


11 Comments

Deirdre

09/Nov/2006

Hi Ian,

This comes as no surprise really; why would the average non-tech/media punter have heard of it, unless they are a hobbyist media/tech/biz geek? Still, it’s always good to get impressions proved or disproved.

But it probably goes a bit further… On the phone the other week to a friend of mine, referring to the Chinwag Jobs site I dropped the phrase “and other Web 2.0 features”. I was totally gobsmacked when this person said “what’s that?”, this person who is also a senior marketer in a national charity and who also has responsibility over the charity’s several websites (one of which incorporates blogs) and their strategic development.

There’s likely thousands more folks like this. Which some might say is more worrying for the users of their services perhaps, many of whom happily use Web 2.0 services in their other online pursuits.

I’d concur: many marketers still have a s***load of catching up to do. But the fact that this one had already introduced blogs into the mix while being ignorant of “Web 2.0″ shows that the more social aspects (participtaive media and community) of the larger W2.0 shift have been mainstreamed without being set in any larger frame of reference or context…

…like most things in life really :)

Ian Delaney

09/Nov/2006

Agree with you. And to be honest, consumers don’t really needs to know any of the theory stuff to enjoy the fruits of this change.

Bit embarassing for the IT Consultant on the list, though…

Deirdre

09/Nov/2006

Indeed. I dutifully set said marketer on the right path which they are progressing along now.

Ian Delaney

09/Nov/2006

Hehe. So that’s how I’ll be able to sell the book. I’ll just set you on them! ;)

David Cruickshank

09/Nov/2006

Read them again! Some are surprisingly accurate. Given what I know now, my answer would be almost identical to our friend from Bothell. “I have no idea - a new generation of the web?”

“idealized version of the web” - spot on.

“next generation of web technologies” - absolutely.

These answers are way better than I’d expect (yes with the obvious exclusion of our friend the IT consultant).

Ian Delaney

09/Nov/2006

I see what you’re saying, Dave, but aren’t they also similar to the answers you’d give if I asked you to define “Cars 2.0″?

Michael Wagner

10/Nov/2006

Good thought generating observation. Thanks for posting.

I wonder if this a bit of wanting mass market recognition for a notion being generated in a narrowcast form of media?

First visit to your site - thanks for adding to the conversation around Web 2.0!

Ian Delaney

10/Nov/2006

Thanks for coming, Michael. And the consensus seems to be that you are correct.

As much as we warble about communication models and so-forth, that doesn’t matter a dickybird to the man on the clapham omnibus.

My own interest here is nakedly commercial. I am writing a book which was going to be called ‘Web 2.0′ (I suspect I am locked in to that now, from what I have come to understand about the book market). So I suppose my ideal answer would have been “No, but it sounds really interesting. Can you recommend any books on the subject?”

But I guess that isn’t going to happen. ;)

David Cruickshank

10/Nov/2006

At least they aren’t responding with, “Oh, are there 2 interwebs now then?” LOL

Mike Sansone

11/Nov/2006

Web 2.Ouch: How’d All These People Get in my Room?

I look forward to the book. Great responses. Taking the names down shows us a real glimpse into who you are (considerate) which is part of the transperancy which may attract us to blogging and sharing. For some (all?), the transperancy is a bit uncomfortable, yes?

We’re all living in a glass web.

Ian Delaney

11/Nov/2006

I think private individuals deserve as much respect as you can muster. Transparency is an interesting, tricky subject when it comes to actual, real people and probably has acceptable limits. The same does not go for corporations, of course!

(thank you for your kind comments, btw)


Leave a Comment