Comments on: Web 2.0…am I missing something? http://www.eye9design.com/blog/2007/web-design/web-20am-i-missing-something/ EYE ON DESIGN BLOG Sun, 10 May 2009 16:20:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Brian Rants http://www.eye9design.com/blog/2007/web-design/web-20am-i-missing-something/comment-page-1/#comment-61 Brian Rants Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:48:34 +0000 http://eye9design.com/blog/2007/web-development-e-commerce/web-20am-i-missing-something/#comment-61 Check out http://www.scribd.com/doc/247520/PHP-Leads-Web2-0 . The beginning of this white paper entitled "PHP Leads Web 2.0" by Andi Gutmans of Zend Technologies, Inc. has a great definition of what Web 2.0 is. Check out http://www.scribd.com/doc/247520/PHP-Leads-Web2-0 . The beginning of this white paper entitled “PHP Leads Web 2.0″ by Andi Gutmans of Zend Technologies, Inc. has a great definition of what Web 2.0 is.

]]> By: Brian Rants http://www.eye9design.com/blog/2007/web-design/web-20am-i-missing-something/comment-page-1/#comment-52 Brian Rants Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:41:31 +0000 http://eye9design.com/blog/2007/web-development-e-commerce/web-20am-i-missing-something/#comment-52 "2.0 is about facilitating their conversation with your web site." Well put Dru. Your comments about the shift in mindset are right on. Less "top down" and more "conversational." Sometimes people focus on the technological aspects of 2.0. If anything the technologies are secondary. The real shift is to engage your visitors in a conversation. Thanks! “2.0 is about facilitating their conversation with your web site.”

Well put Dru. Your comments about the shift in mindset are right on. Less “top down” and more “conversational.”

Sometimes people focus on the technological aspects of 2.0. If anything the technologies are secondary. The real shift is to engage your visitors in a conversation.

Thanks!

]]> By: Dru Shockley http://www.eye9design.com/blog/2007/web-design/web-20am-i-missing-something/comment-page-1/#comment-51 Dru Shockley Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:46:11 +0000 http://eye9design.com/blog/2007/web-development-e-commerce/web-20am-i-missing-something/#comment-51 Hi Brian. Thanks for the insights. I'd like to add one thing. While it's true there is a shift with "2.0" from mere publication to participation, the 2.0 thing is more pointedly a reflection of cultural shifts. Some call it Post-Modern as opposed to Modern. We see it vocationally. Whereas our parents stuck with a corporate job for 30+ years, that is not the post-modern mindset. This could be interpreted to be distressing to those establishing a "brand". But actually there is great hope for smaller business. Brands are very expensive to build -- requiring a lot of awareness marketing over a long, long period of time. Small business can't afford to compete at that level anyway. Here's where I see "2.0" offering hope. More than anything, 2.0 is not brand-centric. We naturally tend to build websites that are all about us, the easiest thing for us to talk about -- with great energy. Post-moderns don't get it. What they do get is when you engage them with the conversation they are already having, going to them rather then requiring they come to you and speak your language and be able to embrace all of your excitement for your reasons. 2.0 is about facilitating their conversation with your web site. That's why 2.0 is participating in the blogosphere. That is why 2.0 is creating YouTube video in their language. That is why 2.0 invites comments and even control of content so that the market is not only adapted to but the market owns the cause. Gen X, Gen Y, Millenials, all these catchy terms for the overpassing generations, embrace cause before brand. Those dependent on business from these generations must consider 2.0 innovations to reap a full harvest from the web, not just to stay on top of the trends. Brian, again, thanks, and keep up the awesome work! I mean these comments only to add to your insights, not to counter them in any way. Hi Brian. Thanks for the insights. I’d like to add one thing.

While it’s true there is a shift with “2.0″ from mere publication to participation, the 2.0 thing is more pointedly a reflection of cultural shifts. Some call it Post-Modern as opposed to Modern. We see it vocationally. Whereas our parents stuck with a corporate job for 30+ years, that is not the post-modern mindset. This could be interpreted to be distressing to those establishing a “brand”. But actually there is great hope for smaller business. Brands are very expensive to build — requiring a lot of awareness marketing over a long, long period of time. Small business can’t afford to compete at that level anyway.

Here’s where I see “2.0″ offering hope. More than anything, 2.0 is not brand-centric. We naturally tend to build websites that are all about us, the easiest thing for us to talk about — with great energy. Post-moderns don’t get it. What they do get is when you engage them with the conversation they are already having, going to them rather then requiring they come to you and speak your language and be able to embrace all of your excitement for your reasons. 2.0 is about facilitating their conversation with your web site. That’s why 2.0 is participating in the blogosphere. That is why 2.0 is creating YouTube video in their language. That is why 2.0 invites comments and even control of content so that the market is not only adapted to but the market owns the cause.

Gen X, Gen Y, Millenials, all these catchy terms for the overpassing generations, embrace cause before brand. Those dependent on business from these generations must consider 2.0 innovations to reap a full harvest from the web, not just to stay on top of the trends.

Brian, again, thanks, and keep up the awesome work! I mean these comments only to add to your insights, not to counter them in any way.

]]>