1. SHOULD EVERY BRAND JUMP INTO WEB 2.0?
By Werner Iucksch
Web 2.0 is decentralising the internet, since everyone is getting access to
platforms to generate, mix and distribute content at very low costs. Phenomena
such as the Wikipedia, Flickr, Facebook, Digg, YouTube, Second Life and others
only succeed because of the intervention of thousands o people every day.
Everyday its possible to read something about the value that the interaction
between companies/brands and people can create, but the examples given
usually are either of companies/brands that were born on the web, thinking 2.0,
or “Nike +”. Other examples created by brick and mortar companies usually
come in form of “consumer created ads” – such as “crashthesuperbowl.com” –
podcasts with user interaction, forums sponsored by the company and other
initiatives that make sure the final decisions of most things are in the hands of
the advertisers.
This “defensive interaction management”, made me think whether every brand
should even want to be collaborative. After all, is Web 2.0 for everyone?
Collaboration can be heaven or hell. I imagine what was going on Lego managers’
minds when the first hacks for their robotic series “Lego Mindstorms” appeared.
They failed to realize that people wanted to collaborate with the company,
expand the experience of other users by adding codes to the software, and
threatened to sue the “toy hacking pioneers”. Soon after, however, threats were
dropped. The company perceived that what the hackers were doing was actually
4. would have gained an outstanding amount of credibility and possibly
business among content generating users.
To decide which way to go, companies must first understand and accept the
rules that consumers are adhering to. Brand managers and directors should keep
both eyes in what their consumers are doing with their products, some might be
having exceptional ideas and posting them in some small, obscure forums. Many
maybe adopting new values and beginning to demand new attitudes from brands
they buy. Knowing how to evaluate these changes and ideas may be the
difference between highly effective initiatives and completely irrelevancy of the
brand. Acknowledging the possibility of change and experimenting with it will be
key to long term survival of a number of brands, as well as their parent
companies. It’s difficult, but interesting.
* ‐ Dijk, J. v. (2006, pg.33). Network Society. Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage.