Much hype is placed around the subject of Web 2.0. While the technological difference between Web 2.0 and 1.0 is almost negligible, it is the changes in the way software developers and previously defined 'end-users' use the web which is notable. Web 2.0 emphasises the facilitation of creativity, information sharing, and collaboration among users. The main difference in Web 2.0 and 1.0 is in the role of the consumer. Where as in Web 1.0 they did exactly that, consumed, Web 2.0 allows the network to be the platform on which users 'add value' (Bruns, 2008). But is that all Web 2.0 is?

“Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform” (O’Reilly in Bruns, 2008).

The definition of Web 2.0 is often interchangeable within a marketing context. This may defy the purist ideals of Web 2.0 where people are not merely consumers of a producer’s content; but are rather a ‘produser’, a consumer also involved in the production of content (Bruns, 2008) that is not subject to any ‘deceptive’ marketing ploys prepared in the creation of content. O’Reilly’s definition refers to a business revolution by the move to the internet as a platform. The internet’s original structure by purpose opposes the very concept of a business model, with ‘free’ not only being a reference to the internet’s theoretical notion as a platform without barriers, but also in that the information available on the medium is accessible to people without a monetary cost involved (save the establishment of an internet connection). In a developed society however, business models are difficult to escape from and generally impose their structure as a means of organisation and further development.

So with Web 2.0 heralding a ‘produser’ (Bruns, 2008) driven business revolution, does advertising, a subject often criticized and rejected by consumers, still fit into such a context? The answer, why of course. While there are numerous examples, I will discuss Google’s AdSense. Many Web 2.0 start-ups that make web applications and services available to the public for free, first engage within the realm of social software and networks. While this is an effective distribution channel, it does not necessarily generate large or consistent revenue. While advertising supported content delivery represents an established media business model, Google’s AdSense adapts to a Web 2.0 format and basically copies and pastes HTML which turns up ads on the website.

However, there are emerging problems with Google’s tool. In its strict formula that matches specific advertisements to website text content, AdSense does not take into account the idea that a certain type of person can be targeted with an ad that may pertain to the person themselves and not just the text of a page. The mindset of the website owners may now be conditioned to see advertisements exactly targeted to the text of a page to such an extent, that if the advertisement becomes user targeted they could think something has gone horribly wrong. This would make it difficult for other forms of advertising such as branding to catch on within the network. On such an opportunistic platform as Web 2.0, it may be seen that Google’s AdSense has limited Google’s scope to expand on this great system.

If treated without reason and market understanding, Web 2.0 may indeed lose some of its revolutionary business aspects and unique sensibilities.

Until then, a*ms

(note: this post is under construction but all my main elements are here)

Web 2.0 encompasses new concepts that facilitate creativity, information sharing, and collaboration among users. The term does not refer to any update of technical specifications, but rather to changes in the way software developers and previously defined 'end-users' use the web. This is different from Web 1.0 in that 1.0 stemmed from an industrial age of content being administered from producers to end consumers.

The main difference is in the role of the consumer. Where as in Web 1.0 they did exactly that, consumed, Web 2.0 allows the network to be the platform on which users 'add value' (O'Reilly, 2004).

a*ms

Today I developed a philosophy; Facebook is my friend. While that may not be as deep as you anticipated, let me tell you that Facebook provides my with an exuberant amount of opportunities that run as deep as the proverbial rabbit hole. It not only lets me be myself, but also adds to who I am in real life and often reveals parts of my identity I did not know were there.

What got me thinking about this was Axel Bruns’ (2008) statement that, “A potential benefit arising out of Virtual Cultures is the emergence of new forms of personal and physical identity”. While this comment was made in reference to people like me online, I began to wonder if it could to some degree also refer to much more, including brands on the internet. In assessing whether this may be so, I find it pertinent to ask the question: Can brands be active in a virtual culture which generates a new form of individual and physical identity, elevating them to a level above brands only present in the natural world?

So, can a brand be active in a virtual culture? Of course. Firstly, the most outstanding example of a brand being active in a virtual culture is in online brand communities. A normal brand community is a community formed on the basis of attachment to a product or brand. Online, these often develop out of a marketer's use of transmedia planning, when trying to create hype about a brand or product (Oke, 2006). It is the process of constructing a ‘Collective Intelligence’ (Jenkins, 2006) usually over a viral marketing campaign that is described by Jason Oke of major advertising agency Leo Burnett to be like, “I've seen the advertising, you've been to an event, she's tried the product, he's had a good experience, and we all compare notes” (Oke, 2006). With the infusion of the internet into daily life, it has never been simpler for people to relate experiences and compare notes with anyone anywhere in the world.

What is so important about these virtual networks, however, is their ability to allow brands to transcend mere communities and create a more meaningful resonance with the consumer. It is this group collective which is fostering brand loyalty into a new era, but also creating apparent brand obsession. This obsession has had such an effect, that Kevin Roberts, Worldwide CEO of distinguished advertising agency Saatchi & Saatchi, has produced an online portal for his idea of 'lovemarks', brands that inspire loyalty beyond reason. On this website, active and new members of brand communities can do everything from discuss brands they love to nominating brands they believe deserve to be a ‘lovemark’. It is this idea that when online, brand communities allow the brand to become so much more that it may take on a new existence. An if not different, enhanced identity in the Virtual Culture which passes through to the natural world.

But it is not only through sought interaction with brand communities that brands exist in a Virtual Culture. User generated content is a phenomenon gaining increasing acknowledgment and academic study. There are websites and networks such as YouTube or Zooppa, dedicated to users generating their own content. What is significant to note here is how user generated content is being used by companies to create advertising for their products or brands. Take the Sony example, where the person who created their ad was in fact Tyson Ibele, a 19 year old from Minneapolis. This Participatory Culture places brands on an interaction level closer to consumers than those in the natural world. In turn a new form of brand identity is formed.

Whether these notions of online brand communities and user generated content are elevating brands to a level above others in the natural world may be assessed simply. Online, there is more opportunity for consumers to interact and develop personal brand meaning which gives these brands a new identity in the natural world. When a brand is present in a Virtual Culture, the parent company may tap into the numerous consequent benefits, but do they have control over them? Another question for another time (but for now I recommend you look at Melindamarie’s post on ‘Advertising and Produsage’).

Until then,
a*ms

Reference List (including links)

Bruns, A. (2008). KCB201 Online Communities: Week 6 Podcast. Retrieved April 17, 2008, from http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab =courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1

Yakob, F. (2006). Transmedia Planning. Retrieved April 17, 2008, from http://farisyakob.typepad.com/blog/2006/10/transmedia_plan.html

Oke, J. (2006). Transmedia planning & brand communities. Retrieved April 17, 2008, from http://lbtoronto.typepad.com/lbto/- 2006/10/transmedia_plan.html

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: When new and old media collide. New York: New York University.

Wilson, R. (2005). The Six Simple Principles of Viral Marketing. Retrieved April 17, 2008, from http://www.wilsonweb.com/wmt5/viral-principles.htm

Saatchi & Saatchi. (2008). Lovemarks.com. Retrieved May 17, 2008, from
http://www.lovemarks.com/

Youtube.com. (2008). Retrieved May 17, 2008, from http://www.youtube.com/

Zooppa.com. (2008). Retrieved May 17, 2008, from http://www.zooppa.com/

Bosman, J. (2006). User-generated content starts to take hold in advertising. Retrieved May 17, 2008, from http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/11/business/ads.php

Welcome everyone to my Blog. Just a brief test post here.

...It is now lunch time and my stomach wants food.

Tip of the day: Keep dettol hand sanitiser on you at all times. Especially if using public transport. I'm talking to you 'sneezing-old-man-who-so-nicely-chose-sat-next-to-me'.

a*ms