11 July 2007

again, where are the case studies?

Social Computing Magazine has another "top ten" list from yet another expert in social media with ideas to help companies "listen to customers and respond to needs."

Our expert's top ten "Web 2.0 technologies" include the following: "interaction," "personalization," "user communities," and "social networking."

That's right - four of the top ten "web 2.0 technologies" listed in an article published in Social Computing Magazine are not actually web 2.0 technologies. They're just web 2.0 buzzwords.

These concepts were not suddenly invented with the miracle of modern communications technology that has changed everything utterly and forever and this week is called Facebook or Twitter. (Or maybe that was last week, and this week it's Pownce, which may well be amazing but sounds a little too much like a brand of cat food for most of my clients to take seriously.)

These concepts were once called "grassroots organizing." And people did it well before we even had an internet. They still do.

Some of the technology tools out there help some companies do some of these things with some customers, but you need a STRATEGY and meaningful TACTICS that are consistent with that STRATEGY and METRICS to know you've done it.

I don't see any of that in this article. Other items on the top ten list include RSS, Blogging, Search Engine Optimization, Tagging, Wikis, and Podcasts.

Seriously. Is this really how we demonstrate our expertise in this field? By saying the word, "wiki?"

And how many case studies or examples of someone who uses a wiki or ANY of the "top ten" 2.0 technologies (of which 40 percent are not actually technologies) successfully are included in the article?


In fact, the only real substantive details shared in the article demonstrate how one of these "top ten" tools would be a BAD idea.

I'll readily apologize if someone from SCM or the company cited in the article can point to more detail that I missed. Since the article isn't bylined, maybe it's just a brief that glosses over the substance of this company's publication. But to be honest, a hastily-crafted laundry list helps noone. Something this important should go into considerably more detail.

No comments: