"Web 2.0 is Fucked"

[gonzo]

The controversial, anti-Web 2.0, figure of Andrew Keen spoke at the Next Web in Amsterdam and outlined some of the themes that he is developing for his next book. Keen is most famous for deriding the ‘cult of the amateur’, as he calls it, or rather the explosion of social media which arose with the new platforms to emerge alongside what became known as Web 2.0.

In a long speech - without notes - he talked about a new age of individualism. With the end of the industrial revolution, “we”, essentially are now “the product”.

He said we are entering a “revolutionary age in which traditional, industrial media is being swept away by individuals.” That sounds familiar to his previous pronouncements.

But his speech hit a crescendo when he practically shouted across the conference hall that “Web 2.0 is fucked! Web 2.0 doesn’t work - it doesn’t generate revenue.” Afterwards, he repeated the charge in the video above.

Keen believes traditional media dies with Web 2.0 and although technology enables self expression, is “not a viable media economy.” In fact he claimed even “TechCrunch, the leading Web 2.0 cheerleaders have come to the conclusion that YouTube [for instance] does not work”, does not create profit. We may have to check that…

But, ironically perhaps for some observers, Keen is now a fully-fledged fan of Twitter.

In fact he called Twitter the “nail in the coffin of Web 2.0″. He said it’s “the future of individual media in the age of the individual… a future when individuals become brands. People with skills are able to sell their skills on the network. I call this real time social media.”

But this is also “intimidating and scary” to him. It is “Darwin and Marx at the same time.” He thinks Twitter is “Feudal” in that those with large numbers of followers behave like barons of old, picking those they favour at random…

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/16/interview-with-andrew-keen-at-the-next-web-2009-web-20-is-fcked/?awesm=tcrn.ch_Bo&utm_medium=awesm-twitter&utm_content=techcrunch-autopost&utm_campaign=techcrunch&utm_source=direct-awesm

[miz_wright]

Too! Many! Thoughts!

[griffin8r]

It's a good read, and they're pretty much spot on.

Much the same way as MP3.com failed back in the late 90's, YouTube, Myspace, and Twitter are all doomed to fail once the advertisers realize they're not getting anything out of all those impressions they're paying for. When you create a platform that nothing more than a great big narcissistic orgy, no one is looking at anything but the content they created and trying to get other people to come look at it too. It's all about "me" - the users barely give a shit about other peoples' pages, never mind the advertising.

If you don't have a physical product for sale, and you're not selling porn, you've got to really get out of the box to make any money on Web 2.0...

[tony404]

People have short memories. During the boom the net was going to be free and ads would pay for it all. It failed back then and it will fail now. Basic business principles dont change.

[miz_wright]

People have short memories. During the boom the net was going to be free and ads would pay for it all. It failed back then and it will fail now. Basic business principles dont change.

I was in finance during the Dot Com Bust - the past two years in this industry have really surprised me with how quickly that iteration's failure has been forgotten.

[griffin8r]

People have short memories. During the boom the net was going to be free and ads would pay for it all. It failed back then and it will fail now. Basic business principles dont change.

I remember it well. I got a free computer and free internet access from one of those surf-for-your-supper jobbers (I think it was freepc.com), and ran three get-paid-to-surf programs over top of it, all run on a fake-surfer app while I slept. Made about $450/mo while that party lasted.

[Hell Puppy]

The fundamental problem here is people keep trying to apply "media" concepts to the web. You keep hearing terms like "publisher", "advertiser", "subscriber", etc.

And most of the business model visions are in turn done with the same thought pattern as TV, magazines, newspapers, etc.

The web is a totally different animal....if you keep trying to treat it as "media" only, you're doomed to repeat the same failures over and over.

I'm not saying advertising driven content production is a totally dead model, but there are some realistic limits in what can be sustained, and they do not support some of the valuations we continue to see on things like Digg. If nothing else, consider how quickly become "ad blind". When you surf do you even see a 460x80 banner now? They're there, but my brain doesn't register them, it has learned that's an ad zone and bypasses it to go right to what it is really looking for. Interstitials and such are just more obnoxious...you still cant force me to read it, all you do is piss me off while my brain is rapidly searching for the "close" link.

I have thoughts on where all this goes, but see my earlier threads about giving away secrets, and I've been submerged working on this one for about 12-18 months.

[RawAlex]

HP, at the end of the day, if you build a website that gives away something (say news) to sell something else (whatever is being advertised, offered, whatever) then you are still ad supported.

Just getting rid of the ad spaces doesn't change the model, except perhaps that you go from product promotion to product placement.

it isn't any different from Perez Hilton (rumored to be) taking payoffs from certain minor / unimportant celebs to keep their names in the news. The content becomes the ad, but in the end it is still ad supported and subject to failure when the ads dry up.

The only non-ad supported websites out there are places like Amazon, because people actually go there to buy something.

[EmporerEJ]

I was in finance during the Dot Com Bust - the past two years in this industry have really surprised me with how quickly that iteration's failure has been forgotten.

So, it's YOU we have to thank for that bubble?
BAD LIZ.......Naughty, naughty.

:1spank:

[Hell Puppy]

HP, at the end of the day, if you build a website that gives away something (say news) to sell something else (whatever is being advertised, offered, whatever) then you are still ad supported.

Just getting rid of the ad spaces doesn't change the model, except perhaps that you go from product promotion to product placement.

it isn't any different from Perez Hilton (rumored to be) taking payoffs from certain minor / unimportant celebs to keep their names in the news. The content becomes the ad, but in the end it is still ad supported and subject to failure when the ads dry up.

The only non-ad supported websites out there are places like Amazon, because people actually go there to buy something.

Case and point.

Everyone gets sucked right into that way of thinking.

[tony404]

HP, at the end of the day, if you build a website that gives away something (say news) to sell something else (whatever is being advertised, offered, whatever) then you are still ad supported.

Just getting rid of the ad spaces doesn't change the model, except perhaps that you go from product promotion to product placement.

it isn't any different from Perez Hilton (rumored to be) taking payoffs from certain minor / unimportant celebs to keep their names in the news. The content becomes the ad, but in the end it is still ad supported and subject to failure when the ads dry up.

The only non-ad supported websites out there are places like Amazon, because people actually go there to buy something.

Actually that's going to be changing soon. I read an article that the news sites are going to be starting a pay subscription model. Ads doing work and I think there are so many ads on line people become blind to them. I dont think they are getting the result the ad buyers want especially when you add ad blocker plugins.

[RawAlex]

Actually that's going to be changing soon. I read an article that the news sites are going to be starting a pay subscription model. Ads doing work and I think there are so many ads on line people become blind to them. I dont think they are getting the result the ad buyers want especially when you add ad blocker plugins.

The pay subscription model for news is pretty much a "fail" from the word go. Even the very best news organizations that have tried it have backed away from it pretty quickly. The internet is awash with news, so there is no reason to pay for news. Unless CNN, Drudge, and Foxnews suddenly start charging, there is little chance that anyone else would do it and retain a huge audience, unless they are massively niche.

People only pay for what they cannot get for free. If everyone else gives it away for free, there is no reason to pay.

@HP: I have looked all over, and I have not found a third route to go down. Even the most advanced sites out there still end up either as paid shills or as free sites with paid advertisers. The internet aggregates eyeballs, and that is the value.

Where does the money come from? It comes from your own pocket, advertisers, or users. There is effectively no ISP premium content market (although there may be some market for selling PPV events to ISPs to distribute to their local users). But still, that gets back to one of three sources of income. Is there a fourth source of income I am not seeing?

[softball]

Actually that's going to be changing soon. I read an article that the news sites are going to be starting a pay subscription model. Ads doing work and I think there are so many ads on line people become blind to them. I dont think they are getting the result the ad buyers want especially when you add ad blocker plugins.

Just as tivo is killing broadcast tv, pop up blockers will kill internet advertising. When someone produces a flash blocker, it could be all she wrote.
I think its quite obvious that there is way too much stuff that just does not generate revenue and will crash or morph into a revenue generator. But eyeballs on ads just doesnt work that well. As I have always said, content is king and I stand by that. The advertising has to be embedded in the content. Ultimately, advertising must become the content to pay the freight. The Superbowl ads are a primitive kick at that can followed by viral you tube type stuff, but that is still too pedestrian.
There is a whole new post Rove generation of spin doctors about to hit the scene and change the status quo.

[griffin8r]

The pay subscription model for news is pretty much a "fail" from the word go. Even the very best news organizations that have tried it have backed away from it pretty quickly. The internet is awash with news, so there is no reason to pay for news. Unless CNN, Drudge, and Foxnews suddenly start charging, there is little chance that anyone else would do it and retain a huge audience, unless they are massively niche.

Wall Street Journal succeeds on a subscription model. They let you read basic headlines for free, but any in-depth content requires that you subscribe.

I don't know if you would define them as "massively niche" - but they are a major news outlet.

[griffin8r]

The advertising has to be embedded in the content. Ultimately, advertising must become the content to pay the freight.

And this is the angle I'm chasing on our site. It'll be interesting to see if we can get enough traffic to the site on a consistent basis to get the advertisers interested enough to pull the trigger, but I've no doubt the model we're building is, at the very least, a much more forward-thinking approach to advertising vs. content.

[sarettah]

And this is the angle I'm chasing on our site. It'll be interesting to see if we can get enough traffic to the site on a consistent basis to get the advertisers interested enough to pull the trigger, but I've no doubt the model we're building is, at the very least, a much more forward-thinking approach to advertising vs. content.

Isn't this really what free sites and tgps in porn try to do? The site or page is all designed to push traffic to a sponsor and the content is basically one big ad for the sponsor.

[gonzo]

Isn't this really what free sites and tgps in porn try to do? The site or page is all designed to push traffic to a sponsor and the content is basically one big ad for the sponsor.

I didnt want to rain on anyones parade.

[sarettah]

I didnt want to rain on anyones parade.

I just thought I was probably stupid or something :blink:

[softball]

Isn't this really what free sites and tgps in porn try to do? The site or page is all designed to push traffic to a sponsor and the content is basically one big ad for the sponsor.
I think you missed my point. The content on the tgp or "free" site is only the lure. It is conventional wisdom. In its current old school form, what I am talking about is product placement. The closest example to what I am thinking is "Minority Report" with Tom Cruise. The film was basically a vehicle for advertising and we all paid to be pitched. I thought the movie sucked, but on a marketing level was way ahead of its time.

Spielberg consciously decided to use familiar brands, to make the motion picture seem more realistic and, not coincidentally, to give these companies some coveted (and no doubt high-priced) product placement -- a method of marketing growing in currency given the ascendancy of commercial-skipping technology like TiVO and ReplayTV.
"The fact that there are so many advertisements in this movie speaks to the fact that advertisers are looking for new ways to reach audiences in light of the technology that's been developed like TiVO and ReplayTV," said Jeff Boortz, the creative director and creative lead on the "Minority Report" ads, who is now founder and president of Concrete Pictures. "Advertisers will figure it out."
Most of the advertising portrayed in the flick is that of the outdoor variety. Although characters interact with computer-like digital displays -- even manipulating them with fancy interface devices that fit on the hands like gloves -- there's not much marketing going on within the bounds of computer screens. In the "Minority Report" universe, interactive advertising has made its way into the real world.
How interactive is it? Imagine getting splashed by an animated digital billboard advertising Aquafina. Or having an ad in the subway say, "[Your name here], you look like you could use a Guinness," just as you're coming home after a bad day at work. At one point in the movie the Tom Cruise character, on the run, is confronted by an American Express ad that says, "It looks like you need an escape, and Blue can take you there."

[RawAlex]

Isn't this really what free sites and tgps in porn try to do? The site or page is all designed to push traffic to a sponsor and the content is basically one big ad for the sponsor.

I think the only difference really is that griff is trying to build a product that advertisers would come looking for, as opposed to whapping up a site with 101 ads on it and hoping to make some cash.

A TGP or free site is essentially a direct ad for the paysite / destination site. A magazine or TV show is different, basically trading interesting information / entertainment for eyeball time, then reselling that eyeball time to advertisers. CSI doesn't sell body bags and luminol. It draws in 10 million pairs of eyeballs every week (still attached to living and breathing people) and selling the access to them. There is no direct sell from the show to the public.

They are also doing the same things that have been done since the time of Adam12 and Hawaii 50, they sell the rights for cars and certain locations on their shows to the highest bidders, so you will see the staff always shifting to new cars each season, but each time they are "that year's brand". This is very old hat, the reason why the Hawaii 50 guys always drove fords (mostly Mercurys, actually)

[softball]

I think the only difference really is that griff is trying to build a product that advertisers would come looking for, as opposed to whapping up a site with 101 ads on it and hoping to make some cash.

A TGP or free site is essentially a direct ad for the paysite / destination site. A magazine or TV show is different, basically trading interesting information / entertainment for eyeball time, then reselling that eyeball time to advertisers. CSI doesn't sell body bags and luminol. It draws in 10 million pairs of eyeballs every week (still attached to living and breathing people) and selling the access to them. There is no direct sell from the show to the public.

They are also doing the same things that have been done since the time of Adam12 and Hawaii 50, they sell the rights for cars and certain locations on their shows to the highest bidders, so you will see the staff always shifting to new cars each season, but each time they are "that year's brand". This is very old hat, the reason why the Hawaii 50 guys always drove fords (mostly Mercurys, actually)
Not bad Alex, but you are a bit stale dated. Everyone in Dragnet drove a Ford....long before 5-0. This is not new. Bond saved Aston Martin. You were close with the body bags, though. Brand the body bags and you might be on to something.
We need some new ideas here, not recycled wisdom.

[griffin8r]

Isn't this really what free sites and tgps in porn try to do? The site or page is all designed to push traffic to a sponsor and the content is basically one big ad for the sponsor.

This isn't at all what we're trying to do. We're still focused on delivery quality content that isn't necessarily tied to sponsors.

Hell, no point in trying to explain it without visual aids. I'll just drop a line when we actually get the wheels moving forward, so you can see the whole thing in action.

[gonzo]

This isn't at all what we're trying to do. We're still focused on delivery quality content that isn't necessarily tied to sponsors.

Hell, no point in trying to explain it without visual aids. I'll just drop a line when we actually get the wheels moving forward, so you can see the whole thing in action.
Keep us posted.