Wednesday afternoon and evening it was all about i-Merge’s web 2.0 seminar. I was there and had a lot of fun. Wait, web 2.0 and fun?? Yeah, well sort of. Of course there was some fuzz about hyped niche words and brands like Flickr, del.icio.us and Technorati (three things I hate about the web 2.0) but there were some good topics too. I learned something about the background of this ‘new web’, about how it was possible for a web 2.0 to exist, and a lot more.
The most interesting part was the flashback to the year 2000 and the burst of the bubble, causing the web 1.0 (if you’d like to call it that way) to dramatically change its way of dealing with content and users. It became clear that a lot of ‘one way blah-blah’ wasn’t enough anymore to raise investor money and keep consumers/users busy. Something definitely had to change. A closer look to companies that survived the burst revealed that most of those companies were using user-generated input to create a platform or community. And indeed, web 2.0 as we know it today is all about platforms. Survivers from back then (Amazon etc) are now leading players, maintaining a large piece of the cake in their market.
Creating a dynamical eco-system or platform for users is a key to have 2.0 characteristics, and to quote from Tim O’Reilly through Tom De Bruyne’s presentation: Those companies who survived the dotcom burst knew how to build an environment in which users could participate, although the nature of that participation isn’t always clear – I totally agree.
Web 2.0 is The Net as a platform. Interesting approach for brands here is: what are the challenges and opportunities for brands and organisations and -even more important- how can brands themselves become platforms? If you can make people contribute to your content, (preferably for free) you’re set for a luxurious ride in a digital wonderland.
As a brand or organization, you should define which one of these 8 configurations are the most suitable to participate in and adopt. Of course, inter-platform operations are even more 2.0 than you could possibly imagine, but let’s just start by saying ‘pick one’:
1. Networked Applications, with focus on data and users as value
2. Platforms of networked experts, with focus on data and platforms as value
3. Networks of collaboration, with focus on data and platforms as value
4. Networks of mobilisation, with focus on users and users as value
5. Networks of informants, with focus on data and users/platforms as value
6. Networks of collective intelligence, with focus on data and platforms as value
7. Social Networking platforms, with focus on networking and users as value
8. Exchange platforms, with focus on data and users as value
Why should you, as a brand or organization, become a platform? Because you have a role to play in supporting your users with environments for participation which are supporting those users in the things they’re doing. Platforms are a great way for powerful interactive marketing campaigns: you can make people do things together, help them to ‘belong’. By doing so, you can strengthen existing member networks and create social interaction, which can return unique marketing opportunities.
The unfortunate examples put aside of Technorati -forever struggling with scaling issues and spam- and del.icio.us – a social bookmarking tool I stopped using back in August because of its time-eating back and forth clicking before you could continue reading/surfing- there still are a lot of applications that actually do something useful for me. I’ll get to that in another post.
So that concludes Tom De Bruyne’s contribution to my general knowledge.
You can download his presentation in audio (Dutch) , or stay on track with the i-Wisdom weblog. Direct link to the powerpoint : [here] – 5.20 mb – (it’s in English)
The other guy that came to talk on the seminar was Jacques Bughin from McKinsey & Company. At first I was a bit dazzled by the tremendous amount of data he projected on-screen. My second thought was a feeling of regret for not having brought a recorder, after it became clear the presentation wasn’t going to be available to look into after the seminar. How un-2.0 !
I had the impression Mister Bughin knew waaaaaay more than he wanted to share with us, wich of course is good for him, but not for us. For real, this guy had some great insights, but every time he touched a topic that really interested me he threw around some numbers and research statistics that weren’t shown. Obviously, company policy and strategical protection is needed in a branch like this but it would’ve been nice to see some understandable stats.
His presentation was really long, theoretically. He jumped back and forth between sheets that were stuffed with figures and charts that looked really impressive, but every time I started to read them they were gone by the time I was somewhere in the middle, thus totally making sure I didn’t understand anything of it.
The most interesting part was his speculative talk about the future of mobile content, from which I have understood broadband (meaning Telenet, the only cable/internet supplier) was on a breaking point to become really big in Belgium if they played their cards right.
Mobile data (video) apparently isn’t going to be played in the field of teens and youngsters, it’s going to be a battle for the segment of the 9 to 12 year olds. Research has shown (to McKinsey, because no data was shown to us) that this segment of the market holds the key to a guaranteed offset, mostly because of the peer-pressure and the me-wantee syndrome.
That lead to a question I wasn’t able to ask anymore, because time equals cash and mister Bughin really had to go. If the future of your product lays in the hands of kids, and you expect them to have the latest technology to be able to download your ‘mobisodes’ (episodes of tv shows for especially for mobiles) then 1. aren’t you overlooking the parents who need to pay for this gadgetry and 2. aren’t you assuming these kids have some sort of credit card/income to then purchase this content you’re talking about?
Considering the price of a ringtone nowadays, I can only imagine other mobile content will only be available in a higher pricing segment, which means that either those kids would spend all their pocket money to downloads (becoming anti-social human beings, cocooning under the sheets to enjoy the fresh content) or that those kids would go ask mom and dad every day to pony up some amount of euros and make the downloads happen. It’s not true every kid has an unlimited calling credit, and that kid isn’t able to maintain a ‘limited’ use of the phone and its possibilities, so therefor, a switch in behavior needs to be accomplished too. Let’s not forget you’re speculating on the most irrational users of the market here. Isn’t that a bit immoral?
I believe you’re right when you say mobile content could be the next big thing. I also think it’s quite possible there’s a huge market for it, although I haven’t met anyone yet who’s actually keen on watching tv on his mobile, let alone paying again for content he can access at home and experience on a bigger screen, seated in his favorite chair. What is it you know that we don’t that makes you so sure kids can be marketed in such a way to overcome the issues I just mentioned? Please tell me. I’d really like to know.
Another topic mister Bughin touched was the acquisition of Skype by eBay. I also have some questions here. You assume the value of Skype is in the social network between the users, saying the real value for eBay is the fact Skype users often talk to each other about bidding on a product, playing into the eBay market by cross-bidding friends and contacts. I don’t know any people that do that, but then again, the largest market for Skype isn’t Belgium, it’s the Netherlands. You assume the Dutch people will change services from marktplaats.nl to eBay just because of the common freeware/software they use to talk to each other? Marktplaats.nl is BIG in the Netherlands. Drawing consumers away from it seems a bit too difficult if you only use Skype as a link between those users. Again: what is it you know that we don’t? What’s the real reason your speculation goes to a valuation of the users to €40 ( $47.38) per user instead of the €2.5 eBay paid per user? Big questionmark for me. I don’t know what makes you so sure about that.
I do agree with you VoIP is a really big thing. I agree it might replace phone calls in the future, as for now it’s still free and bypasses the need to apply for a fixed phone number, the way it’s needed to connect through DSL. Indeed, customers that only use their mobile phone and don’t have DSL but cable could really save serious money if they were to use VoIP services in combination with their internet-over-cable. Then again, it must hurt for Telenet that they could’ve bought Skype years ago when it was still a start-up. Except people at Telenet were blind at that time to not realize VoIP would become so big and interesting. If they missed the train back then, what guarantees you that they won’t miss the train this time? Which VoIP application will be used to fit in your theory? Or is Telenet going to become an affiliated client of eBay/Skype? They’ll have to pay a lot of money to stay in the game, unless you know of a startup they’re planning to buy for little cash and that they will implement to then become as big as you predict.
Thanks for your presentation. You left me with a lot of questions, which in some sadistic way makes it even more interesting for me to stay even more focused on this market. I used to follow it remotely before your talk. Now I care and want to know. Any future shows planned? I’ll gladly come to listen, this time I’ll be prepared. :)
Thank you i-Merge for putting this together and getting Mr. Bughin to come talk to us. I liked it a lot. – Pictures? Very 2.0 on Flickr and right here ! (© Pietel)