I pulled this from a blog about a church on the web.
You’re at a meeting with a colleague, or drinks with friends, or at one of those conferences where there’s lots of whiteboards and headsets. Your colleague, client or friend is nervous. They know that they’re behind. They need reassurance. They are willing to buy a drink for anyone that can help. Free drinks are at stake.
Another friend, or colleague, or maybe a competitor steps up to calm them down. Your frenemy says, “What you need to do is think a little more Web 2.0.” Or words to that effect.
When you hear the term Web 2.0 you have one mission. Nip it in the bud. At best, Web 2.0 will steer the conversation in the wrong direction. At worst, Web 2.0 will take your friend down the wrong path as they think about what they need to do. Worse yet, you’ll watch as that person who just dropped a smoke bomb walks away with that free drink that should be yours!
Web 2.0 Needs to die
Web 2.0.
We love acronyms in the computer world, probably because they act both as handy mnemonic devices for decluttering our overinformed brains and have the feeling of insider jargon (thus making the person who uses the term an arbiter of geekcred). Some of those acronyms mean something. 3G (aka 3rd Generation) refers directly to the International Mobile Telecommunications-2000 (IMT-2000) standard. The standard covers development of mobile communication technology for GSM EDGE, UMTS, CDMA2000, DECT and WiMAX protocols. It’s all about wireless communication, video, and all sorts of neat things. 3G was defined in 1999, and represents a true milestone in the development of cellular data networks as defined by a respected, collective entity in the celluar industry.
Web 2.0, though, is not an acronym. It’s also not a milestone. It’s a term that was coined in 1999 by Darcy DiNucci in her piece, “Fragmented Future.” Web 2.0 was this kind of urconcept, a way of talking about the vagaries of browser development coupled with the natural evolution of what people on the ground were doing as they morphed sites from static web pages into dynamic web applications of varying complexity. It’s the kind of term that hits those geekcred jargon points and gets people in the know to nod along.
Web 2.0 comes back in 2003-2004, with O’Reilly Seminars and articles talking about certain Web technologies with vague standards applied. Not exactly what Darcy DiNucci was talking about.
Now, in 2010, it’s come to mean some vagueness about blogs, joining the conversation, having a clean design with white space, etc.. Ask anyone who works in Information Technologies (Designer, Project Manager, Producer, whatever your title) what Web 2.0 means and chances are you will either get:
- different vague answers that sound specific
- the truth
And the truth is, Web 2.0 doesn’t mean anything. Until there’s an industry wide definition, milestones, and some actual technical reality behind the term, it’s just smoke and mirrors. When a term means everything to everyone and nothing to no one, then it’s a smokescreen and a conversation killer.
So when you hear, “Web 2.0,” challenge it! Ask the person saying it to define what they mean. If Web 2.0 flew from someone’s mouth before something meaningful was asked or answered, then it’s time to change the course of the conversation to something meaningful…
- Who is your audience?
- What do they want to do?
- What does your brand represent to them?
- How do you want to come across to these people?
These are the important questions and they all have answers. If your partner, agency, or helpful friends can’t answer them or can only say vague things like, “You need to be more Web 2.0,” then that’s the real problem.
And at that point, you should set a meeting to talk it over the very next day, first thing in the morning.
Then stop the shop talk, have a drink, and relax. And get everyone to take the pledge, “I vow to avoid using Web 2.0 in Twenty-Ten.”