Links & News, 26.11.06

I haven’t done this in a while, since I prefer proper Blogposts to link lists, but here is a bullet point list of articles about „web 3.0“:

  • Robert Scoble writes about Bill Gates and the fact that Bill Gates thinks we’re again in some sort of bubble. Also providing his own view why he thinks that this is not necessarily true.
  • Dan Farber from ZDNet also thinks that Web 3.0 is bubbling up. And it will be the Semantic Web.
  • The NY Times Article announces Web 3.0 and is seemingly widely discussed. If anything, there is one interesting point:
  • In its current state, the Web is often described as being in the Lego phase, with all of its different parts capable of connecting to one another. Those who envision the next phase, Web 3.0, see it as an era when machines will start to do seemingly intelligent things.

  • Ross Mayfield says there is no „Web 3.0“ and calls it a Marketing Desaster.

It is about the semantic web, which is fine, generally speaking. But I just think there is too much future-hype in this. Web 2.0 hasn’t even happened for the average Joe-on-the-Web. It’s entertainning to think about how „Web 3.0“ will look like, but let’s still focus on Web 2.0 for now, ok?

Jason Calacanis‘ story of the trends of advertising 2.0

Jason Calacanis writes about the „real story“ of Advertising 2.0:

The real story of Web 2.0 has little to do with the bells and whistles and everything to do with the stunning growth of online advertising.

He provides a graph with online ad spent per year since 1997 and puts a straight line from ’97 until today, which is, of course, a steep, straight line. (I hope he doesn’t analyse his real money investments the same way!)

He also doesn’t think that the spike over the past year is another bubble, but instead says that the curve is just getting steeper in future, for the following reasons:

a) there are more advertisers online today.
b) it’s getting easier to spend money online
c) Google Adsense/Adwords (a huge part of part B above)
d) Yahoo, MSN, AOL, and Google reaching scale, which in turn allows major advertisers to reach comparable audience sizes to TV
e) audiences shifting from TV, radio, and magazines to the Internet.

All of these seem plausible. Of course one might say: „we thought the same back then in 2000, just for different reasons“, but Jason also shows a second graph with a line ca. 15% less steep, which still is impressive. He suggests to believe the long-term hype and I agree.

Growth rates are probably going to be huge for while. Not necessarily because the medium is more attactive than others (though I think it is at least for some purposes), but purely because there still is a long way to go, until the medium is an everyday medium like the other media – both for the broad audience and for marketers.

(via)

WOMMA Releases Blog Ethics Guidelines

Logic+Emotion points me to the WOMMA Releases Blog Ethics Guidelines:

This document is a public draft of guidelines for marketers to follow when doing outreach within the blogosphere. It is neither a „how to blog“ nor a „what to blog“ document. Rather, its intent is to give clarity and guidance to marketers who are working and corresponding with bloggers, and to ensure that their efforts adhere to the standards set by the WOMMA Ethics Code.
1. I will always be truthful and will never knowingly relay false information. I will never ask someone else to deceive bloggers for me.
2. I will fully disclose who I am and who I work for (my identity and affiliations) from the very first encounter when communicating with bloggers or commenting on blogs.
3. I will never take action contrary to the boundaries set by bloggers. I will respect all community guidelines regarding posting messages and comments.
4. I will never ask bloggers to lie for me.
5. I will use extreme care when communicating with minors or blogs intended to be read by minors.
6. I will not manipulate advertising or affiliate programs to impact blogger income.
7. I will not use automated systems for posting comments or distributing information.
8. I understand that compensating bloggers may give the appearance of a conflict of interest, and I will therefore fully disclose any and all compensation or incentives.
9. I understand that if I send bloggers products for review, they are not obligated to comment on them. Bloggers can return products at their own discretion.
10. If bloggers write about products I send them, I will proactively ask them to disclose the products’ source.

Good to have this summary, even though this really should be common sense, since it means: act honestly and transparently. A basic prerequisite when dealing with people. (In theory.)

A web2.0 brand map of your digital identity.

Again, german blogger Robert Basic pointed me to something interesting: the digital identity map by Frédéric Cavazza.

A „map“ with all the web2.0 names you could possibly sign up with nowadays. (Did we need to sign up for bloody everything during web1.0, too, or is signing up just a 2.0 phenomenon?)

Unfortunately, I still don’t read french perfectly, even after a year in Paris, but for those who do, check out the theoretical derivation of this map.

For everyone else, just check out the map, it’s self-explanatory enough as it is:

DIGITAL UTOPIA / A new breed of technologists envisions a democratic world improved by the Internet

In an article with the headline „DIGITAL UTOPIA A new breed of technologists envisions a democratic world improved by the Internet“ Dan Fost writes about the Hippie-esque dream of the social web:

Dubbed Digital Utopians by some, and Web 2.0 innovators by others, this latest wave of tech gurus champion community over commerce, sharing ideas over sharing profits. By using Web sites that stress group thinking and sharing, these Internet idealists want to topple the power silos of Hollywood, Washington, Wall Street and even Silicon Valley. And like countless populists throughout history, they hope to disperse power and control, an idea that delights many and horrifies others.

All very idealistic, and considering the following quote, Web2.0 seems to simply follow on an ageless debate:

The core of the Web 2.0 movement resurrects an age-old debate about governance and democracy, one that was argued by political philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Alexis de Tocqueville: Are the benefits of democracy — taking advantage of what Web 2.0 proponents call the wisdom of the crowds — worth risking the dark side of mob rule?

Tim O’Reilly, who coined the term, doesn’t quite see it that way:

Yet while people, perhaps reacting to the greed that fueled the IPOs of the dot-com years, saw in Web 2.0 a chance to create a new collectivism, O’Reilly said, „I don’t see it that way at all.“

Web 2.0, he says, is about business.

He says many tech movements start out with similar idealism, only to give way to capitalism. For instance, O’Reilly says, Napster introduced file sharing, but now iTunes has people comfortable with paying for music online.


Interesting article
, and an inspiring (yet rather useless) discussion.