“
How Web 2.0 is Changing the World of Marketing
Information Systems Term Paper
TEAM: David Lance Shields, Sylvia Victor, Go Isobe, Kim Jun hyung, Ian Wakeford
1

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.............................................................9
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.....................................................................................................16
Technographic Profiling...........................................................................................................................17
What to Expect in Web 3.0?.....................................................................................................................17
Final Comments on Web 2.0....................................................................................................................18
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
3

kinds of networks, they can have a better social network, overcoming internal barriers of 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 using social networking in marketing
4

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
5

intentions put users off from stating their genuine opinions on products and services – or could
incentive schemes be conducive to false appraisals?
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
6

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.
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.
Pros
 Leverage employees’
Issues about the internal usage of social media knowledge and ideas
 Quickly share
information
Some companies are yet reluctant to use social media for  Reduce workload,
improve productivity
Cons
 Weak communication 7
control
 Confidentiality concern
 Blogging during work
hours

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, 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.
8

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 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 Kotch (Huston, L 2006).
ka
9

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.
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
10

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).
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
11

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,
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
12

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 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
13

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 bl gs.
o
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 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
14

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
Google Android and new mobile applications
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 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
15

maps both on their phone and on Navitime’s website.
A Managerial Perspective on Web 2.0
Top 10 US Sites
From a managerial perspective, if companies do not embrace this technology,
1. Google
2. Yahoo!
3. Myspace their websites will be viewed as static brochureware which is already happening.
4. YouTube
5. Facebook
6. WindowsLive According to traffic ranking site Alexa.com the top 10 US sites (shown on the
7. MSN
8. Wikipedia right) all are providers of popular UGC and have web 2.0 functions in their sites.
9. EBay
10. AOL
Source: Alexa.com 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 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.
16

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.
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.
17

 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.
18

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=fa
cebook.
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/pri ter/3DBB8E6CADBA8.html.
n
Gardiner, B. (2007). Facebook Users Hijack Wal-Mart’s Roommate Style Page. Retrieved from
http://bog.wired.com/business/2007/08/facebook-users-.html.
19

Huston, L., Sakkab, N. (2006). P&G’s New Innovation Model, HBS Working Knowledge. Retrieved
from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/5258.html.
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-technol gy-2008.html.
o
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
20

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?
21

22

Which of these do you think is going out of fashion?
23

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.”
24

 “Facebook is ahead of MySpace in development of new types of ads, but losing money as the investment to
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.”
25

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 presenta tion. Interactivity through JavaScript.
 Being able to interact with other people, and enjoy interacting with creative people.
26

 “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.
27

 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…
28

 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
29