The Business Web 2.0
As CEO of business-based social networking site WeCanDo.BIZ, read my take on the role Web 2.0 technologies can play helping businesses to grow.
Wednesday 10 September 2008, 2:01 PM
Is the word "social" stigmatising Web 2.0?
I've thought about it and the social web isn't social at all.
I have just had an interesting conversation with Matthew Brazil, MD of 6Consulting and an expert in social media monitoring, about some changes we've made to the WeCanDo.BIZ website this week. The changes were made necessary by a small number of users on our system incorrectly using (perhaps by choice) a feature we have that allows our members to "tweet" their most urgent business need, which we then send to matched businesses who may be able to help. We've now added a filter which means that the Biz Needs do not go out live, but are approved by our staff first before broadcast. Having read some let's say "inappropriate" Biz Needs coming through recently Matthew understood our motivation for doing it, but asked what people would think of us trying to police social media.
We had a long chat about this and my conclusion was that the use of the term "social" when applied to most Web 2.0 resources is incorrect. Not only is it suggesting the services provided are done so for the greater good, but it's also implying that many of the services are the stuff of community staple and should be as free as green spaces and fresh air. This is preventing more carefully management of such services that could easily be shown to provide value enough that people would pay.
Now I see Web 2.0 from the business angle, let me be clear. But even if you look at social networks and social media aimed at all and sundry, such as Facebook, MySpace and Twitter, there are commercial organisations behind these who are not providing those services out of altruism, but for a commercial gain (although most are yet to recognise how). With reputations to maintain, terms of use and legal responsibilities, are these places actually ever the place for free expression that everyone thinks?
This becomes truer still when you look at how other commercial organisations use such facilities to help promote their brand. Although they are buying into the community spirit, no one wants their brand ripped to pieces or associated with the sorts of comments you can see attached to YouTube videos or Facebook fan pages. It can only be a matter of time before the providers of such services start to take notice when those providing their revenue ask for the community to get cleaner. I can understand such a request entirely, but also recognise that if you police a gated community, entry to which is governed by acceptance of terms, then in the real world you would struggle to convince anyone of the "social" prinicples behind such a place.
Social also, I believe, suggests to the users that they almost have a right to what they are using -- and this makes it difficult to "monetize", as our American cousins call it. Social responsibility, social housing and social business are all about providing to a community and not expecting much, if anything, back. Are social networks or social media different? Well, it makes it difficult to ask people to pay to be members for a start. And also, perhaps, to sell to them while they are enjoying your "social services".
"Social" places the wrong expectation on people as to how they should conduct themselves, because the reality is such services are provided by commercial organisations and are not gifts to enable you to enjoy an unregulated internet. You accept a set of terms when you sign up and if the party whose service you are using isn't policing you now, then they will be once they'be built their legal department, that will have things like regulation and reputation to worry about.
"Social" also makes it hard to take what you are doing and truly commercialise it, because the implication through the word is that it shouldn't have a cost attached.
We refer to WeCanDo.BIZ as a business network, because it better summarise the target market for our "social network". But also business people are used to paying for services they value. If we took money from our members to enable them to connect with new customers, we stay a network but I can't argue that we are then not very "social".
How long will it be before other Web 2.0 companies feel the pinch from investors and are forced to find a label that more accurately reflects their longer term intention too?
Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
I have just had an interesting conversation with Matthew Brazil, MD of 6Consulting and an expert in social media monitoring, about some changes we've made to the WeCanDo.BIZ website this week. The changes were made necessary by a small number of users on our system incorrectly using (perhaps by choice) a feature we have that allows our members to "tweet" their most urgent business need, which we then send to matched businesses who may be able to help. We've now added a filter which means that the Biz Needs do not go out live, but are approved by our staff first before broadcast. Having read some let's say "inappropriate" Biz Needs coming through recently Matthew understood our motivation for doing it, but asked what people would think of us trying to police social media.
We had a long chat about this and my conclusion was that the use of the term "social" when applied to most Web 2.0 resources is incorrect. Not only is it suggesting the services provided are done so for the greater good, but it's also implying that many of the services are the stuff of community staple and should be as free as green spaces and fresh air. This is preventing more carefully management of such services that could easily be shown to provide value enough that people would pay.
Now I see Web 2.0 from the business angle, let me be clear. But even if you look at social networks and social media aimed at all and sundry, such as Facebook, MySpace and Twitter, there are commercial organisations behind these who are not providing those services out of altruism, but for a commercial gain (although most are yet to recognise how). With reputations to maintain, terms of use and legal responsibilities, are these places actually ever the place for free expression that everyone thinks?
This becomes truer still when you look at how other commercial organisations use such facilities to help promote their brand. Although they are buying into the community spirit, no one wants their brand ripped to pieces or associated with the sorts of comments you can see attached to YouTube videos or Facebook fan pages. It can only be a matter of time before the providers of such services start to take notice when those providing their revenue ask for the community to get cleaner. I can understand such a request entirely, but also recognise that if you police a gated community, entry to which is governed by acceptance of terms, then in the real world you would struggle to convince anyone of the "social" prinicples behind such a place.
Social also, I believe, suggests to the users that they almost have a right to what they are using -- and this makes it difficult to "monetize", as our American cousins call it. Social responsibility, social housing and social business are all about providing to a community and not expecting much, if anything, back. Are social networks or social media different? Well, it makes it difficult to ask people to pay to be members for a start. And also, perhaps, to sell to them while they are enjoying your "social services".
"Social" places the wrong expectation on people as to how they should conduct themselves, because the reality is such services are provided by commercial organisations and are not gifts to enable you to enjoy an unregulated internet. You accept a set of terms when you sign up and if the party whose service you are using isn't policing you now, then they will be once they'be built their legal department, that will have things like regulation and reputation to worry about.
"Social" also makes it hard to take what you are doing and truly commercialise it, because the implication through the word is that it shouldn't have a cost attached.
We refer to WeCanDo.BIZ as a business network, because it better summarise the target market for our "social network". But also business people are used to paying for services they value. If we took money from our members to enable them to connect with new customers, we stay a network but I can't argue that we are then not very "social".
How long will it be before other Web 2.0 companies feel the pinch from investors and are forced to find a label that more accurately reflects their longer term intention too?
Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
Previous
