“

1

How Web 2.0 is Changing the World of MarketingInformation Systems Term Paper

TEAM: David Lance Shields, Sylvia Victor, Go Isobe, Kim Jun hyung, Ian Wakeford

Table of Contents

Why Care about Web 2.0?..............................................................................................................3

How Companies Can Use Social Networking for Marketing....................................................................3

How organizations utilize Web 2.0 to create new business models.............................................................5

How Social Media Can Be Used Within a Corporate Environment............................................................6

How Companies Currently Use Social Media......................................................................................7

Issues about the internal usage of social media....................................................................7

Folksonomy within a company...............................................................................................8

A successful & unsuccessful company in implementing web 2.0..............................................................8

Web 2.0 Today and in the Future....................................................................................................12

Blogging is dead - microblogging is born!............................................................................13

Mobile 2.0 as the Future of Web 2.0.....................................................................................14

A Managerial Perspective on Web 2.0.............................................................................................15

Technographic Profiling........................................................................................................16

What to Expect in Web 3.0?.................................................................................................17

Final Comments on Web 2.0.................................................................................................17

Citations...............................................................................................................................19

Appendix..............................................................................................................................21

2

Why Care about Web 2.0?

In 1999, four years before Web 2.0 was officially defined by O’Reilly, the groundbreaking

marketing book The Cluetrain Manifesto (Levine, Locke, Searls & Weinberger) sprang up out of

Internet culture to challenge conventional, corporate marketers starting with the still fresh words:

“We are not seats or eyeballs or end-users or consumers. We are human beings – and our reach

extends your grasp. Deal with it.” Probably even more prescient to what would come in social media

and social networks were the writers’ very simple words “Markets are conversations”. In this way

companies are only now realizing that for themselves to participate in this new market driven by a

new user driven web, they will have to join in the conversation - learning to listen, to talk, to

collaborate and become one with their customers who are the true owners of their brands. Either that

or corporations face isolation, irrelevancy and obsolescence. Web 2.0 and specifically the social web

means whole new ways companies need to learn to behave and relinquish control. This paper covers

the many key aspects of this transformation.

How Companies Can Use Social Networking for Marketing

Considering the importance of marketing on enhancing company competitiveness and its

increasing dependency on social networking, the utilization methods of social network in each

company and the benefits that can be gotten through them have to be analyzed. The inter-relationship

can be found in two layers; internal and external of companies. First, some companies have already

created internal channels of communication such as a closed community or a wiki. By setting up

these kinds of networks, they can have a better social network, overcoming internal barriers of

3

company bureaucracy for creative and efficient decision making. For example, electronics retailer

Best Buy‘s “Blue Shirt Nation” has strengthened internal networks and allowed communication of

frank opinions voluntarily, improved employee engagement and increased buy-in for company

programs.

Another key benefit is an increasing number of companies introducing web 2.0 systems that

contribute idea exchange to gather customer insight on what kinds of advertising and practices they

prefer. Listening to the voices of customers speeds up the company decision making a have great

impact on company competitiveness. For instance, Intels’s Intelpedia is making efforts in this area

and they emphasize the importance of real time information and prompt execution of optimal

decisions in a timely manner.

While web 2.0 applications have proven important for innovation, companies are also making

efforts in utilizing social networks for their external marketing. Firstly, some companies have set up

their own website for targeted market segments. For example, P&G has introduced a website for

teenagers who are reluctant to appear on TV commercials. On the website, the teenage consumers

made their own community consulting with and recommending to each other. Web communities

built around brands and lifestyles increase users’ sense of group identification and this results in

increased brand awareness, loyalty to products and finally improved customer satisfaction.

Additionally, many companies today even share their R&D process with their customer network. For

example, the online T-shirt company, threadless.com, allows members to post their designs and

based on other members’ rankings, the company mass produces and sells the consumer-generated

designs, giving the designer a cut of the profits. Design exposure does not only help identify market

needs and customer preferences in a timely manner but also contributes to reduced R&D cost and

higher inventory turn over for cost reduction, enhancing competitiveness. Overall, external effects

4

using social networking in marketing enhances customer satisfaction, brings a sense of community,

increases brand awareness and improves company competitiveness.

How organizations utilize Web 2.0 to create new business models

Twitter, a leading microblogging company offers users the opportunity to answer the ever

so pertinent question of “What are you doing now?” within 140 characters. With approximately three

million users signed on, the company aims to ‘grow first and monetize later’ and hence has not

drawn any revenue even from ads. However there is speculation that Twitter is planning a revenue

stream for 2009, three years after its inception. What Twitter is trying to do is clearly not a bad thing

but will it work? Should web 2.0 startups actually begin with a transparent business model up front?

Would that have more integrity both to the venture capitalists and the users? If you built to make

money, would they come?

On the other hand, Yammer, a new and much smaller (60,000 users) copycat, aimed at

corporate customers and asks a slightly different question, “What are you working on?” In 2008

winning the prestigious TechCrunch prize of US$50k, Yammer has been dubbed ‘Twitter with a

business model” because it “spreads virally like a consumer service, but earns revenue like a

business service” (Cain Miller, 2008). Yammer facilitates communications regarding events and

other questions between co-workers without clogging up emails. Questions to consider now are

whether Twitter draw revenues from companies that datamine conversations about their brands.

Furthermore, how would loyal users react to a fun utility being converted into a money making

scheme? Could corporate intentions put users off from stating their genuine opinions on products and

services – or could incentive schemes be conducive to false appraisals?

5

To answer these questions, our group conducted a survey (Appendix 1) and received 34

responses. The most frequently browsed sites appear to be Google (100%), YouTube.com (83%),

Facebook (83%) and Wikipedia.com (80%). When asked which websites were going out of fashion,

a third chose MySpace and AOL and 23% chose Yahoo. Most of those surveyed (90%) use the web

to perform searches or to read the news and of particular interest to this project, 63% use the web to

participate in social networking sites.

In response to the question “Do you think companies should participate on social sites like

Facebook?” two-thirds of responses indicated that the pursuit could either be good or bad, depending

on the company’s style of interaction. Pertinent comments include “There seems to be a sensitivity to

corporate involvement in aspects of the web that are seen as communicative exchanges/free

expression. I think corporations have to be careful when they step into these areas of the web or face

a backlash that could be quite damaging” and “there is no point in them taking part unless they

understand HOW to communicate in an online forum in a way that isn't repellent.” Companies

looking at capitalizing on consumers’ opinions on their brands should take comments such as these

into account.

How Social Media Can Be Used Within a Corporate Environment

Social media are widely used also within a corporate environment. For example, some

companies share knowledge scattered over the company by utilizing social networking applications.

Other companies operate in-house blog sites and encourage employees to discuss ideas about

products and services.

6

How Companies Currently Use Social Media

Social media applications such as Microsoft SharePoint allow user employees to view, post

their messages to, and share documents and even videos via intranet portal sites. Sometimes users

have an authority to launch their own sites within the corporate intranet for special purposes. For

example, an HR manager may launch a blog site where employees can discuss the advantages and

disadvantages of a new compensation program. It is also possible to develop a Wikipedia-like, user-

generated glossary with these applications.

As we discussed in a previous section, Best Buy is one with proactive in-house social media

users. Two years ago, the firm launched a discussion site called Blue Shirt Nation which “allows

employees to share and discuss their ideas and experiences (Cook, 2008).” Now, over 20,000

employees are registered as the users of the site.

Issues about the internal usage of social media

Some companies are yet reluctant to use social media for

internal communications. These companies are worried that social

media might weaken the companies’ control of employees’ unfavorable

communications. However, one of the key success factors of Web 2.0

companies such as Amazon.com and YouTube.com is that they have

been “trusting users as co-developers” (O’Reilly, 2005). Moreover,

Cook mentions, “Best Buy has discovered that unfiltered information

from colleagues can be more effective than memos from HR.”

According to Cook, a contest of creating 401(k) promotion videos run through Blue Shirt Nation,

7

Pros

Leverage employees’

knowledge and ideas

Quickly share information

Reduce workload,

improve productivity

Cons

Weak communication

control

Confidentiality concern

Blogging during work

hours

which was uncontrolled by the firm, increased the employees’ 401(k) enrollment by 30%. Of course,

using social media may involve several disadvantages. The table on the right gives some pros and

cons in using social media within a company. Companies should cautiously consider the pros and

cons in utilizing social medial before deciding whether they will use them or not.

Folksonomy within a company

It is expected that companies will continue to expand the utilization of social media within

the organization. One of the social media technologies that have great potential within a corporate

environment is folksonomy. Folksonomy is a Web 2.0 taxonomy technique that involves users in the

categorization process. Users add one tag or more to web contents. Then other users can efficiently

reach the sites they are looking for by searching these tags. A great advantage of folksonomy is

attributed to multiple tags. Millen et al (2006) indicates, “Multiple tags allow bookmarks to belong

to more than one category, avoiding limitations of the hierarchically organized folders found in most

web browsers.” Folksonomy has great advantages in managing companies’ large amounts of

information.

A successful & unsuccessful company in implementing web 2.0

A number of traditional firms have been held up as examples of successful implementers of

web 2.0 ideals. Firms such as Honda Motor, Procter and Gamble, Best Buy and Hyatt (Cook S.,

2008) have been evolving to incorporate user contributions to meet a range of objectives. I would

like to look at the ways Procter and Gamble have been tapping user contributions and compare to

8

some less successful attempts by Wall-Mart Corporation.

Top management at Procter and Gamble (P&G) has taken a very public position on the new

systems at their company and their videos can be found on the YouTube video sharing website. It is

not just what they say but the means they have chosen to communicate that is consistent with Web

2.0 thinking.

In the video “Innovation at P&G”(Michaels, P. Lafley A, 2008), A.G. Lafley, the Chairman

and CEO of P&G says his company has changed its definition of innovation. It is not just product

and technology anymore. The end consumer is central. As soon as a new idea is created, consumers

are engaged and together they co-create and co-design the new product. All leaders attend

innovation meetings. Innovative strategy is integrated with business strategy. Lafley has even written

a book on the new business model called “The Game Changer”.

Co-development is the new buzzword. In the old system, customers would be given finished

prototypes and asked for feedback. In the new model, a rough prototype is used at an earlier stage.

“We have fond that the more finished a prototype is, the less feedback people will give you. When

you give prospective users something half-finished, they think you don’t know the answer. They

know you need their help- and really open up.” Says Vice-President for Design Claudia Kotchka

(Huston, L 2006).

Patrick Arlequeeuw the Vice President of P&G in a short clip “P&G Shares Web 2.0

Initiatives, Experiences”(Arlequeeuw P, 2008) discusses the launch of Innovate Net and explains

how the company has changed its reward system to recognize teams and collaborative work rather

than individual discoveries. The company’s previously secretive R&D culture, where each

researcher tries to protect what he/she knows in order to get his/her name on the next big product,

has been revolutionized. In addition, rather than purely internal development, the company now has

the goal of 50% external partners.

9

In an effort to develop B2B 2.0, also set up supply portals. October this year P&G hosted a

Supplier Summit in Cincinnati. “Our suppliers are critical partners in helping us bring innovation to

life, manage our costs and improve productivity” said Keith Harrison, P&G’s Global Product Supply

Officer (Procter and Gamble Company, 2008). “We want to honor and recognize our suppliers for

superior performance, service and partnership to our business.” “In return for our suppliers’

collaboration and contributions, we what them to also understand that P&G is equally committed to

their success” said Rick Hughes, Vice President of Global Purchases. The P&G R&D portal is called

P&G Connect and Develop. On this site you can “Submit your Innovation”, “Browse P&G Needs”,

Learn how to become a Supplier” or simply “Share your thoughts”.

Jim Stengel, P&G’s Global Marketing Officer lectures his managers to “Seek to understand

rather than control - to eliminate barriers between us (P&G) and consumers. That business is

personal and by making it personal we will grow the bottom line. We need to increase our

relationship mindset” （ Stengel, J. 2007/04/30. In a short video interview, “Groundswell Profile:

Procter and Gamble” from Harvard Business Publishing (Bernoff, 2008). Josh Bernoff discusses

BeingGirl.com, a highly successful web 2.0 project. In order to make a better connection with the

teenage girl market, P&G set up a website where girls could talk about things that concern them and

in real 2.0 style, get advice from each other on concerns such as friends and health or consult with a

professional psychologist. The corporate business content is “subtle” but this site has proved “four

times more effective than traditional advertising” at promoting P&G products.

Wal-Mart, although known for its IT-driven supply chain, has not had as much success with

its efforts at upgrading to Web 2.0 (Framingham, 2007).

10

A popular bog site arose following the story of a couple on a cross America adventure. The

premise was that they met by chance and decided to have a road trip, staying only in Wall-Mart

parking lots and talking about the interesting people the meet there. It gradually because clear that

they only had good things to say about Wal-Mart people and finally was exposed that the site was

indirectly funded by Wal-Mart itself. This sneaky sponsorship and corporate directed content created

such a negative reaction from the blogging community that the blog was cancelled. Michael Barbaro

of the New York Times summed the situation up, “The lesson seemed clear: create an authentic blog

or don’t create a blog at all.”(Barbaro, 2008)

In a similar case, 2006 Wal-Mart contracted with a social networking company, Bazaarvoice

to create a MySpace style social networking site for teenage customers called “The Hub”. The site

was shut down after a short 10 weeks after being exposed for using “fake kids” to endorse products

and for having limited functionality. (Barbaro, 2008)

Delahaye Paine, CEO of a Web measurement consulting company, said “the retail giant is

using Web 2.0 the wrong way: to push its own ideas out, rather than let consumers express

themselves and bring new ideas to it.”(Nash, 2008)

More recently, Wal-Mart has done some things right. In a new attempt at entering the

blogosphere, they have created a new blog called Check Out (checkoutblog.com) where employees

and others are permitted to speak in there real voices and freely comment on Wal-Mart’s products.

This is a “risky move” that could anger suppliers but Wal-Mart seems to have accepted that in order

to gain valuable feedback (Barbaro, 2008).

Another success has been a 2007 online service called Site to Store. Using this site,

consumers can arrange for goods from any Wal-Mart to be shipped free of cost to their nearest Wal-

Mart. During the four-month rollout, more than 500,000 units were shipped using this service (Nash,

11

2008).

In conclusion, transforming your company to Enterprise 2.0 can involve engineering

a full revolution in how your company thinks about and interacts with suppliers, customers,

employees, and consumers. By taking a risk and utilizing the interactivity of Web 2.0

companies can achieve greater innovation, efficiency, and agility in the marketplace.

Web 2.0 Today and in the Future

Today web 2.0 is still primarily a PC experience made up of a variety of social media sites

that are like walled off cities. Some have begun talking with each other allowing feeds and widgets

of one site to be plugged into the pages of other sites. For example, starting October 2008,

LinkedIn.com now allows users to register for “partner” service content feeds to appear in the user’s

profile page including: Wordpress blog posts, Amazon.com reading lists, Google Doc presentations

and file sharing from Box.com. Why would they do this? As 80% of US recruiters already check

candidate’s activity on blogs and SNSes, LinkedIn.com has made the decision that job seekers are

more than their resume but the sum total of their activity online. However, while Web 2.0 has

attempted to allow data to be independent from the presentation platform, it still is mainly the tech

minded user who has taken full advantage of this portability of content as figures show that only that

only 8% of consumers in the US.

User-generated content (UGC) is probably what most people identify Web 2.0 with. Today

there is such a proliferation of niche UGC sites (prime examples: Dogster.com and Catster.com), that

it is almost impossible to find some topic that doesn’t satisfy a hobby (pets), political position

(Obama) or lifestage (teens). Ever since blogs gained in popularity, amateur opinions are often seen

as more compelling than those of experts and corporations. What this tells us is people want to read

12

the ideas and opinions of someone like themselves.

By looking at the proliferation of feeds, tags and UGC that allow users to more easily control

the web the way they like it, we can see the technology is already in place to create a dynamic and

user-driven experience. All that is waiting is a diffusion of this technology for the numbers of users

to increase which is already happening.

Blogging is dead - microblogging is born!

But what is changing now is that with the introduction of microblogging web and mobile

site Twitter.com, people are interested in what their friends are doing at the moment a shift in

communication style is occurring. As Wired magazine writer Paul Boutin writes: “Bloggers today

are expected to write clever, insightful, witty prose to compete with Huffington and The New York

Times. Twitter’s character limit puts everyone back on equal footing. It lets amateurs quit agonizing

over their writing and cut to the chase.” What Twitter and microblogging has done is changed the

paradigm from blogging where people were playing the part of “authors” to microbloggers where

they have become simply “communicators”. This has allowed users to post more regularly without

the need to write something clever or comprehensive on their blogs.

More importantly, people are able to keep track what their friends are up to like never before. In

some ways, there is simply too much UGC content on blogs and social networks to keep up with and

Twitter is a new outlet to deal with this. The well-known web 2.0 guru the Robert Scoble or the

“Scobleizer” recently summed it up: “We have too much great

content. What does it mean for bloggers themselves? Getting noticed

is tougher. Which is why I am seeing more growth lately in Twitter.

People want to be heard and what’s the most likely way that you’ll get

heard? Join Twitter, where thousands of people are hanging out all

13

day long? Or write a blog where you aren’t sure anyone even sees it? I see the answer, even though

Twitter is causing its own commodification to happen.”

Mobile 2.0 as the Future of Web 2.0

Web 2.0 is no longer considered a purely PC experience. Mobile phones will increasingly play

a bigger part as consumers use mobile applications to find their way, chat with their friends via

microblogs, shop with the phone’s digital wallet (“Felica” in Japan) and keep track of their RSS

feeds. Google has taken notice and created its own mobile phone operating system called Android

that takes advantage of the various Google applications popular on the PC such as Google Maps,

Google Calendar, Google video etc. In web 2.0 fashion, Google made the decision to allow the

Linux-based Android OS to be open source and

encourages outside programmers to improve the OS,

adding new application. The portability of information

as well as functionality between the PC and phone will

only increase in the future to make web 2.0 a ubiquitous

part of people’s lives.

Japan is clearly the leader in the use of mobile technology and is already years ahead both in the

complexity of the functionality and the number of users. In a recent presentation given at the

American Chamber of Commerce by VP of Technology of Softbank, Ted Matsumoto, he described

the future of the increasingly popular Japanese mobile career as focusing on being a content provider

of all kinds rather than a communications provider, describing efforts already under way to bringing

the best of the PC internet onto mobile phones which their acquisition of Yahoo.co.jp clearly shows.

Interesting, in the not so distant future, Matsumoto described mobiles having the ability to combine

14

Google Android and new mobile applications

GPS and past shopping experiences of both yourself and your friends to recommend shops and

restaurants to you on the fly as you are out roaming the city. What he called the “social graph” or the

sum total of all your friends’ communications and activities online will be used to help make

recommendations on what consumers might like to buy or experience no matter where they may be.

The popular Japanese mobile phone navigation system Navitime already combined GPS with

user-generated restaurant, shop and events information letting Japanese consumers to quickly check

what is hot in the area they find themselves in at that moment. Navitime has partnered with various

user-generated review sites such as restaurant review site Tabelog.jp to bring people’s opinions about

various services right into in the map search environment to keep up with the trend of mobile phones

becoming the link to a wealth of information whenever and wherever you like it. Navitime has also

made the smart choice to have easy portability of map searches so that users can see a history of their

maps both on their phone and on Navitime’s website.

A Managerial Perspective on Web 2.0

From a managerial perspective, if companies do not embrace this technology,

their websites will be viewed as static brochureware which is already

happening. According to traffic ranking site Alexa.com the top 10 US sites

(shown on the right) all are providers of popular UGC and have web 2.0

functions in their sites. Even worse, by not taking part in the conversations of

web 2.0, these companies are quickly losing relevancy to customers as well as

missing key insights about what their customers really want. In the blue table

we can see the key

objectives companies

15

Top 10 US Sites1. Google　 2. Yahoo! 3. Myspace 4. YouTube 5. Facebook 6. WindowsLive 7. MSN 8. Wikipedia 9. EBay 10. AOLSource: Alexa.com

can choose from when engaging the social web which are normally done in chronological order

starting with listening and end up with embracing. Looking at all the executive blogs on today tells

us something. Blogs and corporate sponsored social media are losing the trustworthiness, the

genuine human touch as corporations have adapted this tool to send their messages. In other words

blogs and company branded Facebook groups are becoming just another mass communications tool.

One big challenge for companies going forward is to find ways to stay out of the way of users,

refrain from controlling the conversation and attract users with fresh new opportunities for them

express themselves.

Technographic Profiling

Another strategy recently been introduced to business by Forrester Research is technographic

profiling. The argument is clearly been made that depending on the demographics of your customers

(example: female, 25-34, American), that target user has different behavior in web 2.0. As shown in

the profiling tool, 25-34 year old US women are more likely to be “Spectators” (68%) which means

they read blogs, read reviews and watch videos rather create them themselves. Therefore the best

strategy for a company looking to communicate via Web 2.0 would be to provide media and

applications that create the greatest opportunity for viewing other’s UGC. Clearly, web 2.0 is

following the lead of contemporary marketing using segmentation, profiling and targeting to focus

their efforts.

16

Forrester ResearchTechnographics Profiling Tool: http://www.forrester.com/Groundswell/profile_tool.html

What to Expect in Web 3.0?

Many of the changes in Web 3.0 are not changes at all but mainly popularization and viral spread of

current technology and trends. Here are five key points to expect to grow and increase in the future:

Ubiquitous connectivity: Technological Connectivity means broadband adoption, mobile

Internet access and mobile devices.

Network computing: Software-as-a-service business models, Web services interoperability,

distributed computing and cloud computing;

Open technologies: Openness and sharing of IT will bring open APIs and protocols, open data

formats, open-source software platforms and open data (e.g. Creative Commons).

Open identity: Closed networks like Facebook will be replaced by the adoption of OpenID,

open reputation, roaming portable identity and personal data.

Distributed databases: Semantic Web will help grow the “World Wide Database”

Final Comments on Web 2.0

As explained throughout this paper, the implications of web 2.0 and 3.0 to corporations and

managers are enormous. Not since the time of the adoption of mass marketing and mass media has

there been such a shift in the way companies and their customers interact. While adoption to this

open structure may be slow, it is up to innovators in each company to test the waters of social web

applications to bring companies up to speed. As we have seen this can be done both internally and

externally. In addition, new business models like Yammer and open R&D collaboration such as P&G

will make companies more competitive and innovative. However, with this new web 2.0 model,

comes the need to look at our customers in a different way (technographic profiling), to better

understand their behavior on the web and provide the right fit to begin to have effective

conversations with the market.

17

Citations

Cain Miller, C. (2008).“Popularity or Income? Two Sites Fight It

Out”http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/technology/start-ups/21twitter.html?

ex=1382328000&en=0ebcc6e9d5b339b6&ei=5124&partner=facebook&exprod=facebook.

Cook, S. (2008). The Contribution Revolution: Letting Volunteers Build Your Business. Harvard

Business Review; 86: 60-69.

Millen, D.R., Feinberg, J., Kerr, B. (2006). Dogear: Social bookmarking in the enterprise. Retrieved

November 3, 2008 from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1124772.1124792.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation

of Software. Retrieved November 3, 2008 from

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

Arlequeenw, P. (March 7, 2008). P&G Share Web 2.0 Initiatives, Experience -IDC's European IT

Forum (Video File). Video posted to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A60fzmJdSPg.

Barbaro, M. (2008). Wal-Mart Tastemakers Write Unfiltered Blog. New York Retrieved from

http://www.nytimjes.com/2008/03/03/business/03walmart.html.

Bernoff, J. (2008). Groundswell Profile: Procter and Gamble HBP(Video File). Video posted to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WOUbi8l_nI.

Framingham, T. ( 2007). How Wal-Mart Lost its Technology Edge. Retrieved from

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/printer/3DBB8E6CADBA8.html.

Gardiner, B. (2007). Facebook Users Hijack Wal-Mart’s Roommate Style Page. Retrieved from 　http://bog.wired.com/business/2007/08/facebook-users-.html.

Huston, L., Sakkab, N. (2006). P&G’s New Innovation Model, HBS Working Knowledge. Retrieved

from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/5258.html.　

18

Michaels, P. (Interviewer), Lafley,A (Interviewee). (2008 ). Innovation at P&G, (Video File). Video

posted to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvIUSxXrffc.

Nash, K. (2008). Wal-Mart tries Web 2.0 technology to lure customers. Retrieved from http://mis-

asia.com/cio_focus/technology/wal-mart-tries-web-2.0-technology-2008.html.

Procter and Gamble Company (2008) P&G Recognizes Top Performing Suppliers, PR Newswire,

Retrieved from http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ZACCT=109&STO.html.

Stengel, J. (2007). Global Marketing Officer-P&G (Video File). Video posted to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvlxxW16fmM.

Locke, C., Searls, D., Weinberger, D. (1999). The Cluetrain Manifesto, http://www.cluetrain.com/.

Li, C., Bernoff, J., (2008). Groundswell, Harvard Business Press.

Matsumoto, T. (2008). The Strategy & Success of Softbank Mobile and the Future of Mobile

Communications, Presentation at the ACCJ.

Boutin, P. (2008). Twitter, Flickr, Facebook Make Blogs Look So 2004,

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/theweb/magazine/16-11/st_essay

Scoble, R. (2007). Content Commodities

http://scobleizer.com/2007/10/08/content-commodities/

Forrester Research (2008). Social Technographics Profile

http://www.forrester.com/Groundswell/profile_tool.html

19

Appendix

Internet Usage Survey:

In attempt to confirm industry data found in secondary research, we surveyed 34 people, half of

which were students in our MBA class. Below are the results of the survey:

Which of these do you use regularly?

20

Which of these do you think is going out of fashion?

21

Do you think companies should participate on social sites like Facebook?

Explain your answer to the last question:

“There seems to be a sensitivity to corporate involvement in aspects of the web that are seen as communicative

exchanges/free expression. I think corporations have to be careful when they step into these areas of the web or

face a backlash that could be quite damaging.”

“There is no point in them taking part unless they understand HOW to communicate in an online forum in a

way that isn't repellent.”

“When companies get more involved, it will get polluted with even more clutter and time wasting crap that

uses some lame little temptation to then get some tidbit of personal demographic info.”

“If it fits their brand and marketing strategy sure. The most interesting would be to have employees writing or

setting up their own (basically unfiltered) web presences. That would open companies up to a whole host of

influences (good & bad) that currently they are trying to suppress. Companies are open systems.”

“Facebook is ahead of MySpace in development of new types of ads, but losing money as the investment to

22

support the increased traffic is so high right now- face book is exploding, whereas MySpace is making short

term ad money and losing users to Facebook as people get sick of ads. I put my money on the Facebook model

of development.”

23

Question: What do you think web 2.0 means?

“No idea.”

“Sharing.”

“It means people having conversations.”

“It is just a way to explain things on the web. Nothing new. “

“The effect of mass telecommunication on technology. “

“Web 2.0 indicates the web as a platform for interactive networked applications”

“The web as a platform. Software as a service. Social media. The customer adds value to the

corporation.”

“A platform that allows users to interact with a web environment in a personalized manner.”

“Internet based interactive technologies that facilitate the sharing of information, learning,

etc...“

“Internet sites where information/content is updated and reviewed by users. Wikipedia,

flicker…”

User influenced content presentation. Interactivity through JavaScript.

Being able to interact with other people, and enjoy interacting with creative people.

24

“It means more interactive internet. Not a passive one way information flow but more

content driven by users/visitors of web sites, not just providers of web sites.”

“Mmmmh... convergence of web technology components that have existed for some time,

enabling online increased creativity, collaboration and ease of use- widgets, rating systems,

open source apps, personalization, filters, recommendations, tagging. Web 2.0 is the social

effects of technology- rather than tech per say. It’s increased momentum of the effects of

bundled services- multiplied by the power of the user’s network.”

Question: “What do you think web will be like in the future?”

Faster and easy to access, easy to find exactly what I am after

Everyone will change to net books and use web services. Open source will triumph.

More rich media, more integration of various sites.

Eventually it will move into a 3D perhaps holographic format, also there will probably be a

drive to further personalize an internet users’ experience.

More personalized. Easier to search.

Pff.. dunno

More interactive with video/sound. everyday usage increasing. i.e. you can check the food in

your refrig on your cell phone

More items will be bought online.

Eventual regulation while still being a force for unmitigated information exchange and

learning.

More social networking, photo and video sharing, secure banking, web2.0

Going mobile. Smaller displays and smaller keyboards if any will be a challenge

I see a lot more use of photos and graphics. For example: I think we may see optical

recognition and search where we can load a photo or image into the search bar and the search

engine will pull up similar images.

It depends on how smart we are and how we can help the players think from a user

perspective and a development perspective about revenue streams. and development means

individual, societal and global.

We need to shift our mindset about how we work and why we are here. It is not a separate

issue from how our global society develops. Development cannot just centre around the

consumption of products. These types of approaches and ideas are is not sustainable in a

business sense- and are directly opposed to the logic of the Internet–  people do not like to be

told what to do.

25

I often see great ideas watered down with this way of thinking. It’s outdated. It’s an

advertising approach. We need to think bigger. We need to focus on bigger visions than

shopping and be smart about how to be transparent and create something worth paying for. In

this sense, the 2 questions are in complete contradiction. The first used a recommendation

system for ease of use. The second tries to create an incentive to get people to advertise

products in private networks. It’s nothing more than pyramid sales and will not sustain

interest. The idea in itself is not sustainable, but can be an add on as part of something larger

and more meaningful. Context is everything here.

In this sense, I am forced to answer number 5 to the question below as this is where it is all

heading: there will only be a few players competing for our digital worlds and they should be

smart and work together, not create duplicate worlds. Vodafone, Google, Apple and Nokia are

at the start line.

The question below–It needs a higher and more creative idea to warrant a yes. Even the

concept of site is going to be eradiated as we move more into maps, location based services

for here, me, now. Every point of integration needs a higher creative and more meaningful

experience. Entry points will indeed be my friends, where I am, and micro management of

my identity. Well I can rant on for hours.

An increasing number of items will bear codes, like bar codes, that may be scanned by

ubiquitous portable devices such as smart phones, resulting in information or services

becoming available to the user. An increasing number of everyday appliances, tools, vehicles,

and systems will connect to the internet.  Software will increasingly shift online.

Not really something I think about…perhaps greater access to information will help people

get more involved in government and their countries law making process.

Access will primarily be through mobile devices.

People will use Web more often through different devices.

I want it will become easier to use by better anticipating me as HUMAN BEING rather than

simply a CONSUMER.

I’m not sure if it will change the future any more than it already has. What would be great is

to have teleporters with the web, so that you don’t have to wait after making a purchase.

This is quite a question, I think you should ask a computer scientist for a more elaborated

answer.

For me the issue of accessibility to the web at any moment (from your mobile) is most

important and will have great impact in our lifestyle, although this is a lateral process to the

web itself…

26

Traffic shaping, proprietary networks, draconic political measures to stem “piracy” and as a

bonus a lot of free enterprise and ideological competition. As a result of this: Encryption,

anonymization, digital terrorism.

I think the internet is not yet full exploited in developing countries like India. If the

influential companies like Google can work with the governments in developing a plan to

expand the internet, I expect that there will be a new paradigm of doing business in future.

I think it will become more hinged with social networking sites. Over the time I’ve used

Facebook, I’ve found it to be getting more smoothly merged with the non-Facebook world. I

suspect this will continue. It’s convenient now, but still too partitioned, probably for

security/privacy reasons. But, it is not becoming more possible for me to show stuff I post on

Facebook to non-FB people, which of course is good for FB because it draws more people in

to FB.

I would think that you will access the web anytime anywhere.

Everyone depends on the Internet.

Various kind of interface options will be available such as cell phone, a portable gaming

machine, etc.

I think it will become more interconnected…like Facebook for example where people can see

that their friends are fans of certain things…very interactive and fun

27