The Word on the Street

Seattle Post Intelligencer asked people on the street about this Web 2.0 stuff. And err… there’s not a lot of recog­ni­tion. Drat. As we’ve dis­cussed before, though, these people may well know about YouTube, MySpace, etc. The ter­min­o­logy will be the last thing that people worry about.

The question of the day: What is your defin­i­tion of Web 2.0?

“Web 2.0? Web 2.0? I have heard that before. I think I have heard that some­where. I think it costs money. I am not inter­ested if it costs.“
–a 59-​​year-​​old building inspector from Shoreline.

“As far as I under­stand, it is for hos­pitals and uni­ver­sities. It is not for the public use.“
–a 35-​​year-​​old inform­a­tion tech­no­logy con­sultant from Magnolia.

“An ideal­ized version of the Web.“
–a 56-​​year-​​old com­mu­nic­a­tions spe­cialist from Vashon Island.

“I’ve heard the name kicked around, I just don’t know what it means.“
–a 35-​​year-​​old bike mes­senger from Queen Anne.

“The next gen­er­a­tion of Web tech­no­lo­gies, whatever that means. I think it is more inter­active.“
–a 25-​​year-​​old business devel­op­ment manager from Queen Anne.

“I have no idea. A new gen­er­a­tion of the Web?“
–40-​​year-​​old public health researcher from Bothell.

Update: decided to remove the names, though the PI prints them. Felt uncom­fort­ably like a wall of shame or something.

Share this post:

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Possibly related:

11 comments to The Word on the Street

  • Hi Ian,

    This comes as no surprise really; why would the average non-​​tech/​media punter have heard of it, unless they are a hobbyist media/​tech/​biz geek? Still, it’s always good to get impres­sions proved or disproved.

    But it probably goes a bit further… On the phone the other week to a friend of mine, refer­ring to the Chinwag Jobs site I dropped the phrase “and other Web 2.0 features”. I was totally gobsmacked when this person said “what’s that?”, this person who is also a senior marketer in a national charity and who also has respons­ib­ility over the charity’s several websites (one of which incor­por­ates blogs) and their stra­tegic development.

    There’s likely thou­sands more folks like this. Which some might say is more worrying for the users of their services perhaps, many of whom happily use Web 2.0 services in their other online pursuits.

    I’d concur: many mar­keters still have a s***load of catching up to do. But the fact that this one had already intro­duced blogs into the mix while being ignorant of “Web 2.0″ shows that the more social aspects (par­ti­cip­taive media and com­munity) of the larger W2.0 shift have been main­streamed without being set in any larger frame of ref­er­ence or context…

    …like most things in life really :)

  • Agree with you. And to be honest, con­sumers don’t really needs to know any of the theory stuff to enjoy the fruits of this change.

    Bit embarassing for the IT Consultant on the list, though…

  • Indeed. I duti­fully set said marketer on the right path which they are pro­gressing along now.

  • Hehe. So that’s how I’ll be able to sell the book. I’ll just set you on them! ;)

  • Read them again! Some are sur­pris­ingly accurate. Given what I know now, my answer would be almost identical to our friend from Bothell. “I have no idea — a new gen­er­a­tion of the web?”

    “ideal­ized version of the web” — spot on.

    “next gen­er­a­tion of web tech­no­lo­gies” — absolutely.

    These answers are way better than I’d expect (yes with the obvious exclu­sion of our friend the IT consultant).

  • I see what you’re saying, Dave, but aren’t they also similar to the answers you’d give if I asked you to define “Cars 2.0″?

  • Good thought gen­er­ating obser­va­tion. Thanks for posting.

    I wonder if this a bit of wanting mass market recog­ni­tion for a notion being gen­er­ated in a nar­row­cast form of media?

    First visit to your site — thanks for adding to the con­ver­sa­tion around Web 2.0!

  • Thanks for coming, Michael. And the con­sensus seems to be that you are correct.

    As much as we warble about com­mu­nic­a­tion models and so-​​forth, that doesn’t matter a dicky­bird to the man on the clapham omnibus.

    My own interest here is nakedly com­mer­cial. I am writing a book which was going to be called ‘Web 2.0′ (I suspect I am locked in to that now, from what I have come to under­stand about the book market). So I suppose my ideal answer would have been “No, but it sounds really inter­esting. Can you recom­mend any books on the subject?”

    But I guess that isn’t going to happen. ;)

  • At least they aren’t responding with, “Oh, are there 2 inter­webs now then?” LOL

  • Web 2.Ouch: How’d All These People Get in my Room?

    I look forward to the book. Great responses. Taking the names down shows us a real glimpse into who you are (con­sid­erate) which is part of the transper­ancy which may attract us to blogging and sharing. For some (all?), the transper­ancy is a bit uncom­fort­able, yes?

    We’re all living in a glass web.

  • I think private indi­viduals deserve as much respect as you can muster. Transparency is an inter­esting, tricky subject when it comes to actual, real people and probably has accept­able limits. The same does not go for cor­por­a­tions, of course!

    (thank you for your kind comments, btw)

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>