"amy goes to oz": Web 2.0: AdSense and Sensibility

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.