Fluent Simplicity

I found the following thread on linkedin earlier… How many share my skepticism of Web 2.0? It starts off strong:

I’m afraid I’m more than just skeptical of “Web 2.0″… I’m actively derisive of the concept. It just oozes “marketecture” nonsense. What problem does it solve? Whenever someone attempts to describe it succinctly, it evaporates into vagueness.

and ends with:

Fight The Stupid!

I can’t help but think this person is way off base. While “2.0″ is an ill defined and over-used term, the trend it makes an attempt to describe is far from “Stupid.” I’ve written extensively on twitter and blogging as powerful tools to connect with customers. Dell, Best Buy, Zappo are just a few companies that have leveraged “groundswell” to benefit operations and shareholders.

Of the many responses, the following from a CTO summarized the question quite well.

I read this same question, just a bit reworded, in the following cases:

I’m skeptical with client-server architecture, we already have a mainframe.
I’m skeptical about web-services, we already have client-server architecture.
I’m skeptical about distribute processing, we already have a Cray.
I’m skeptical about PCs, we already have pocket calculators.

Corporate execs will see this as an opportunity to establish policies limiting “participation” on “bulletin boards and chat rooms.” I see it as an opportunity to help create an environment for debate and learning. So “2.0″ sucks as a label. Get over it and read “Groundswell.” Savvy executives will use this example to help to have a useful discussion about the future of the Web and business. If business managers simply circle the wagons and say “Nope, 2.0 doesn’t mean anything to our customers” (which I actually hear recently), the game is over. The only question is when.