Perspective: Fast Times at Web 2.0 High

Ask a handful of people what the national deficit is, or if they watched the most recent presidential candidate debate, and chances are you'll get a slew of guesses and nos. Ask the same group how many friends they have on Facebook, or if they've seen the Justin Timberlake SNL video on YouTube, and most will probably respond with a confident and enthusiastic "of course!"

Web 2.0 has permeated millions of homes, schools and businesses. Political candidates use blogs and video just as much as The Daily Show to reach younger audiences, while consumers rely on social-networking sites for human interaction and content aggregators for news. Wikipedia has noted more than five million entries, and in 2006, YouTube served up over 100 million video clips per day.

The question is not if Web 2.0 is here to stay, but rather who is actually driving the content. Web 2.0 is all about empowering all people, so the hope would be that these tools are the voice of the people, an accurate reflection of what is popular, or factual. A peek behind the curtain, however, might not reveal what you think; the Wizard of Oz is not the common man. Those currently in control are a very small, and very vocal, subset of the online population.

Those currently in control are a very small, and very vocal, subset of the online population.

Popularity contests are not new to us--as a democratic society, our political infrastructure relies on and embraces the popular vote; regular people are skyrocketed into stardom thanks to contests in entertainment mediums. The numbers are indeed startling: 124 million, or 64 percent of U.S. residents voted in the 2004 election, whereas more than 66 million people voted in the 2006 American Idol finale. Now imagine the results if only a small percentage of the population voted, or contributed. The winners might not reflect what the general public wants, but rather what this small subset prefers.

A recent Hitwise study indicates that as few as 4 percent of Internet users actually contribute to sites like YouTube and Flickr, and more than 55 percent are men. To draw a parallel to our high school days, this would be akin to having only the football team and cheerleaders vote for the homecoming king and queen (although perhaps more fitting for our industry, the chess team?)

But vote they do, because the Internet in crowd is taking people back to high school, where the "cool kids" drown out the silent majority. The science genius or the shy artist could have incredible things to contribute, things in which the general public might very well be eager to learn, but the fact is, they are either unable to be heard, or don't even want to get in the game. I think I speak for many when I say that I don't want all of my news, information and entertainment filtered through my high school football team.

With Web 2.0 spreading like wildfire, and the Internet in-crowd getting louder and louder, is the Internet destined to forever exclude? I don't think so, but right now most of the Web 2.0 sites and services really only resonate with the like-minded peers of those producing the content, and are not as relevant to those not entrenched in the Web 2.0 world. The shy type, brilliant poet and lesser known blogger stand little chance of being heard.

Industry influencers are scrutinizing how this plays out from a business perspective. The vocal minority possesses a strong influence and is encouraging hundreds of thousands of disciples and me-too companies into their social-networking bubble. Pundits and analysts speculate that we may be headed for another circa 2000-inspired bust, which we all remember a bit too well. Is this clique strong enough, vocally and financially, to continue?

Only time will tell. This differs from "Bubble 1.0" because despite the massive volume of fledgling companies, most of them today have innovative technologies, and current funding requires more than just a good idea. Bubble 1.0 saw companies based around concepts that spent millions of dollars on advertising (Pets.com puppet, anyone?), but that didn't always have the idea or the technology to solidify and sustain the company.

My larger concern is from a social perspective. Web 2.0 has incredible potential in empowering and connecting people online, but many of the implementation approaches are fundamentally flawed. To be the mainstream trend (that it deserves to be), it must evolve from the currently small group of people who are creating and filtering our content to a position where the "everyman" is embraced. A new majority will emerge--contributing more and giving this world a more accurate, complete view of the silent majority.

Until then, the concept of "popular" is just another Facebook in the crowd.

Biography
Doyon Kim is the founder and chief executive officer of Spotplex.

More Perspectives

[Codonology]

same view shared by a codonologist

All I need to say, at this moment of time when Codonology is still being developed, that only time will tell.
Good future!
Hua Fang, MD

[QuetzalcoatlUSA]

painless memories

my public, former high school just created a Facebook-like web site for students and alumni. A friend let me log on as her so I could check it out. When I returned to my class year, everyone was already starting to associate themselves with the same cliques they ran with 15 years ago. The whole thing utterly disturbed me.

[hollowmyth]

You assume Web 2.0 is real

Web 2.0 is a ridiculous name put on a ridiculous "movement" by O'Reilly publishing corporation to sell conference tickets. There are no version numbers on the Web. It is continually evolving. And, if you're worried about nerds, artists and poets not having a voice, you're not visiting the same forums and sites I am. The Web is all about choice and free (or nearly so) access to publishing and information. I assume most of the people you talk about aren't visiting faceboook, myspace and youtube because they suck (in their opinion), not because they feel they can't be heard. There are other communities outside of the so-called Web 2.0 crowd and I'm sure there will be more when this whole silly business is laid to rest.

What does this mean financially? Will there be a bursting bubble? Yes, but it won't be as bad as the first. Like you say, there aren't as many companies putting everything into it this time and some of the business models are good. Unfortunately, however, for many companies the web has come to mean: "we need a social-networking site, too!" Not because there's a real need, but just because all the cool kids are doing it. And that will be the ultimate demise of "Web 2.0"...in my humble opinion, that is.

[jordan.willms]

I disagree

I disagree with your statements that web 2.0 is:

1) fundamentally flawed, and
2) somehow doesn't allow the quieter people to 'speak'

First of all, this next generation of the web has made it affordable, and easier, for artists, musicians, emo-kids, my friend's mom, or anyone else for that matter to get on the internet and express themselves, collaborate, and form niche networks that never could have existed before. If anything holds true about your 'high school' analogy, it would be that the internet is dominated, and driven by, cliques. It is true that only a fraction of the internet's users post flickr pictures -- but is that even relevant? (They could if they wanted to - unlike nerds in high school, who couldn't get on the football team even if they wanted to)

Social news sites in particular (like SpotPlex and Digg) are what is fundamentally flawed about web 2.0. Here you really have the 20% voting population (or the browsing population in SpotPlex's case) controlling the content that is displayed on your websites. This is inherently a popularity contest. At least StumbleUpon has tried to build discovery and niche exploration into their tool.

So please, don't take your arguments that are applicable to social news and extrapolate them across the entire web 2.0 movement. That is so high school of you :)

J
http://www.sumolabs.com

[Michael Mace]

How many voters, really?

>>more than 66 million people voted in the 2006 American Idol finale. Now imagine the results if only a small percentage of the population voted

Um, actually I think there were 66 million votes, not 66 million voters. Considering how many American Idol fans vote multiple times, the results of the show actually were controlled by a small percentage of the population.

I agree with you that the Web 2.0 crowd is a bit of an echo chamber, but they don't control which web apps and sites win. Average users decide that by their choice of places to click on and tools to use.

You've got a relatively small group of people who produce most of the content and tools, and a much larger audience that chooses the winners. That's not much different from the way traditional media has always worked, with the exception that the web lowers the barrier to entry for info creators.

[srkview]

Web2 High

Certainly web 2 has changed the way - we used to express ourselves but still struggling to understand revenue model for Web 2 companies and getting more worried day-by-day, if another dot com bust is round the corner!