As a someone who believes in the power of Web 2.0 technologies, I nevertheless get concerned when I hear companies start asking to “add Web 2.0” to their intra or internet sites. The first question I usually ask is “why?” It’s amazing how many companies want to press on ahead with Web 2.0 initiatives without really thinking deeply about that simple question. My concern is that a lack of clear-cut direction will lead to a lack of confidence in the technologies, when, honestly, the technologies have next-to-no chance without direction.
For example, the answer, “we want to connect with young people” gets thrown around quite a bit when an organization is asked why it wants to create a social network. I usually figure that if an organization is having trouble “connecting with young people” its web site is probably not the primary issue. For instance, I’m unaware of social networks available on Apple’s or Nike’s websites, but those brands have no trouble connecting with a younger demographic. Those companies have strong products that attract young people. Their marketing just helps get the word out.
Conversely, would any amount of marketing cause young people to get interested in retirement communities? Adding a social network to the marketing site might be very useful for the residents and interested parties, but no amount of marketing can make up for a product that doesn’t match the target demographic. So, it’s unfair to blame the Web 2.0 tools for an unsuccessful project (especially for not enticing “young people”) if they are applied in the wrong context.
All of this leads to the point. The right tool must be applied to the right job. I like to think about this by using the metaphor of a tool box. In the Web 2.0 Toolbox are blogs, forums, mashups, profiles (social networking), rss and atom, ria, search, social tagging and bookmarking, and wikis. I, of course, expect the toolbox to grow and evolve over time.
It may be obvious, but two things must happen to create a successful Web 2.0 initiative. The job (business problem) must be identified and the tool(s) selected.
To mix metaphors (as I often do), it’s important to note that viewing these components as individual parts of a larger set allows organizations to dip their toe into the Web 2.0 pool. There’s no need to get a running start and do a giant cannonball. As with building or extending any web property, it’s best to start small and get the emerging solution in front of stakeholders (and ideally users) early and often, allowing for changes of scope and direction as understanding increases.
I’m glad to see that others in the industry are starting to discuss how to match practical reality with the promise of Web 2.0. Billy Cripe at Oracle did some nice work laying out the case for why many Web 2.0 projects fail, what allows them to succeed, and where they have succeeded (parts one, two, and three can be found here, here, and here, respectively).
