Before we get too excited about Web 2.0 and social media, here’s a little reality check that may get us bloggers thinking about the importance of our blogs or at least about whether businesses should embrace Web 2.0.
At the end of the day, the smart business relies on cost analysis and results effectiveness of everything it does. This just in from “The Pew Internet & American Life Project” of people’s “evolving relationships to cyberspace.” Pew found that 73 percent of U.S. adults own a cell phone, 68 percent have a desktop computer, 30 percent possess a laptop, and 73 percent connect to the Internet.
Only 8 percent of U.S. adults are “deep users” of Web 2.0 features, using them to express themselves publicly. (Web 2.0 users are defined as people who take advantage of technology “to express themselves online and participate in the commons of cyberspace,” including maintaining a personal Web site, blogging, vlogging, remixing media or sharing new-media creations.)
This is the time for me to ask: Is there anyone reading this? Joking aside, that makes for a pretty small audience. Here is a summary of the data revealed by the survey:
- 8% of Americans are deep users of the participatory Web and mobile applications
- Another 23% are heavy, pragmatic tech adopters …. they use gadgets to keep up with social networks or be productive at work
- 10% rely on mobile devices for voice, texting, or entertainment
- 10% use information gadgets, but find it a hassle
- 49% of Americans only occasionally use modern gadgetry and many others bristle at electronic connectivity
What does this tell us marketers, consultants and business people, if anything? Is web 2.0 a marketing and sales tool worth adding to the mix? Do we make too much of Web 2.0 tools?
Tags: Lewis_Green, Marketing, Pew_Internet_&_American_Life_Project, Sales, social_media, survey, tools, trends, Web_2.0
I take little from this study. Blanket statistics aren’t particularly relevant – how many “deep users” of TV were there 36 months after it was introduced? It took off only once there was compelling content AND the penetration to make it scale efficiently. If you build it …
The live web will be similar, so the message to bloggers, designers and developers is not “slow down” but “speed up”.
go go go …
I agree with David. The medium and tools are too compelling not to grow over time. And the early adopters and shapers will have the natural advantage.
As already stated, a new age and era that is destined to grow is worth investing in.
). This is an important distinction to make. It may be markedly higher with a younger audience.
With that, you first say 8% of adults, you then say 8% of americans (unless i’m missing something and only an adult is classified as an american
Also, it’s important to remember that web 2.0 is only a category in the set of tools a marketer should be using & experimenting with, no?
The effectiveness of Web 2.0 relies, in some measure, on identifying the influencers you mentioned in your previous column. If you’re only reaching a small percentage of the “casual” and “deep” users, but are reaching them in such a way that they become your brand ambassadors, the small numbers don’t bother me.
If, instead, we rely on our old models of interruption marketing in our utilization of these tools, we’re in for a long period of hurt.
Great insights. Thank you David, Steve, Nathan and Cam. I still wonder, however, if businesses should be investing at this time. Budgets need to be directed where they do the most good. I can hear a CEO at XYZ Company agreeing with each of you, and then telling his marketing department to watch Web 2.0 closely but don’t engage until the audience for our products and services is more actively participating.
Lewis – In that case, I suspect the CEO doesn’t have a real plan to provide anything of actual value to the customers. In those instances I would likely recommend that, absent any such plan, the tools of Web 2.0 really aren’t for them.
Ideally, I could help them develop a plan and secure the commitment to carry it out, but I also understand that we’ll never be able to get everyone to overcome their fears.
Lewis,
Good post. I think your article indicates quite clearly that while important, Web 2.0 is but one set of tools, as Nathan aptly said, for marketers to employ to reach their audiences. It would be a mistake to put all of one’s eggs in one basket at any time; much less, if new technologies have not proven their reach yet.
Cam and Ted,
Excellent comments. I once worked with a CEO who was fond of saying, “We never want to be among the first to do anything.”
His point is well taken. Let the audience develop, listen to what it is saying, and then consider the tools to reach them. I’m not saying I agree or disagree, but it does represent a point of view in the business world.
Thanks for the post, Lewis.
I agree with Cam that the numbers matter less than who the actual people are. A tiny fraction of the population make movies, for example, but that doesn’t mean that Steven Spielberg has no impact on the culture.
I also agree with you, Lewis, that, when making recommendations to clients, we need to take into account whether or not these new tools fit their business objectives, etc. A direct mail piece may be a more appropriate next step for a company than setting up shop in Second Life.
Finally, Web 2.0 (whatever that is exactly) is undeniably important for marketers and seems to be having an ever growing impact on how they think about their role, communicate with one another, and, increasingly, do their jobs.
My 2 cents…
I think the definition of Web 2.0 used in this post is very limiting. Web 2.0 isn’t just blogs, MySpace, and YouTube. Web 2.0 is the running of full-fledged applications over the Internet and through your browser, thanks to development tools such as Flex and Ajax. Blogs are just one of the elements of Web 2.0.
Matt,
You did a great job covering several different aspects. Thank you. I now have much more to consider.
8% is a rather large number when you are talking about “sneezers”, or those that spread a virus. Consider that group as the leading edge of any trend. You don’t have to be engaged in Web 2.0 to be affected by it. Those 8% are the ones that in many ways decide what the other 92% will see. Those 8% are exactly who you should be targeting in SMO. Wait it out at your own peril.
I think with the adoption of any new communication technology, we should be asking at least the following questions:
1) Does this tool, improve or augment an existing business process?
2) What are the benefits for Us (management, employees), Partners, Prospects, and Clients?
3) Are these benefits clearly stated or simply implied?
4) What is the total perceived pain of adoption?
just a few questions to ask among others.
The point is, it is not necessarily the the people who “express themselves online and participate in the commons of cyberspace,” that most marketers are after. It is their friends and family and e-buddies that count the most.
So the 8% gets a lot more robust when you consider this in the equation. And it becomes even more important when sites like Youtube enable millions to see it. It is the lookers on we want to influence.
Come to think about it, this is not too different then TV or radio.. It is just that average Joe’s are creating the media not trained professionals. I don’t see a hugh number of people making videos and blog sites, but I do see lots of people looking at the videos and reading the blogs.
Lewis,
Good post. McKinsey & Co. conducted a global survey on “How businesses are using Web 2.0″ and published it this past March.
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_abstract_visitor.aspx?ar=1913&l2=16&l3=16&srid=27&gp=0
It’s well worth reading. To paraphrase, and corroborate what you’ve said: executives at leading companies are showing widespread but careful interest in this trend. Nor do they think every aspect of Web 2.0 is necessarily a good fit for their companies. I urge Daily Fix readers to take a few minutes to sign up at McKinsey’s site so they can read this very useful article.
I think one the biggest advantages of Web 2.0 is its incredible cost-to-benefit ratio.
The cost is tiny. The benefit is HUGE.
In theory, this should be something that managers are drooling over.
Good stuff,Lew. A few things:
1) Doesn’t it depend upon whom a marketer is targeting? What if we’re targeting those “deep users”?
2) I’m interested to see the difference between “deep users” and readers or just “users”. If I missed that above, forgive.
3) You’re spot-on to say we need to practice programs that net results. But we also need to experiment (read: innovate). My argument to co’s? It’s just so darn cost-effective to experiment with Web 2.0
4) And here’s another REALLY important point — Web 2.0 decreases both risk and costs. How? Through customer feedback. Web 2.0 tech should never only be looked at as promotional, but as an ongoing customer feedback loop for both existing and planned offerings. If we miss out on it being a feedback mechanism then we miss the Web 2.0 boat (and purpose).
All that said (or typed), we do need to be realistic in adoption rates and user rates. I think it will take time but I’m cognizant of needing to look at these numbers in taking an objective view on what we advise and include in our plans.
Lew – thanks for covering this. Reality checks are important.
Lewis,
I could also see a CEO saying that. And he may be correct in doing so. As has been stated, taking the dive into something ‘web 2.0′ should be a natural progression of a company. In some cases, having a MySpace profile isn’t the best choice (for what could be a number of reasons). I would think it would be better for the best choice to be made as a means of natural progression, but do current consumers award more for those companies that are willing to take greater leaps?
If the CEO is of an ecommerce company, maybe their first step would be including ratings and reviews for their products and focusing on encouraging users to do both (a natural progression). Once that has been grown, moving into more direct communication.
The thing about web 2.0 and its fostering (or idea) of communities, I think, is that really a company should take each progression one step at a time. It’s not like an advertisement where you just send it out. It takes constant, active involvement.
I can’t even begin to respond to all your thoughts nor should I. You have added so much to this conversation. I’ll just thank all you smart folks for making this post so much more than a few facts.
I do want to agree with those of you who pointed out that using any tool is more about the target audience than the tool. I agree whole heartedly, and no business can take a position regarding Web 2.0 without first understanding who its audience is, how it gets its information, and what its needs and wants are.
Finally, I assumed that readers here understood that Web 2.0 and blogging are not synonomous. I apologize if the tag Web 2.0 is new or unclear to some. If it is, a quick search will define it for you. Here is what Wikipedia says: Web 2.0, a phrase coined by O’Reilly Media in 2004,[1] refers to a perceived second-generation of Web based communities and hosted services – such as social networking sites, wikis and folksonomies – that facilitate collaboration and sharing between users. O’Reilly Media titled a series of conferences around the phrase, and it has since become widely adopted.
Stop the average internet user and ask them the following questions:
1 – How do you start a blog?
2 – What steps are required to create a podcast?
3 – What do you need to create and upload a video to YouTube?
I think we sometimes forget that many of these ‘Web 2.0′ toys simply aren’t accessible to the mainstream yet. I think podcasting, for example, holds enormous potential as a communication tool. But right now, it’s easier to leave a comment on Doc Searls’ blog, than it is to set up and get a podcast running.
I think we are still mainly dealing with early adopters for Web 2.0, because these are the people that are willing to take the time to figure out how to use this stuff. As the learning curve gets flatter, the adoption rate will rise.
Great discussion as always. I guess I would like to take a slightly different tack on this.
Where your argument loses me Lewis is in the assumption that we blog with laser beam focus on one and only one goal — to make direct sales. I would argue that there are many reasons why a company, marketer or agency should blog.
Using myself as an example:
I blog because I need to “get” this stuff before I can advise clients on it.
I blog because its a very low cost way to let prospects sample my agency’s thinking.
I blog to make our web presence more dynamic and fresh.
I blog to improve my finadability on search engines.
I blog because it opens up opportunities to speak, write other places, etc.
I blog to position myself as a thought leader.
I blog to connect with other smart marketers who may be referral sources or potential partners for the agency.
I blog to demonstrate our value of engaging in conversation, listening etc.
And I could go on and on.
As several of you have said — its one of the tools. It’s not the only tool. But, I will also say, I think it is one of our sharpest tools. I don’t wait for people to stumble upon my blog. I use the other tools to point them there. Then, I try hard to provide value. If I do, they will stay. And a percentage of those who stay will eventually buy.
It’s not a quick fix but we know better than to think that’s what marketing is all about.
And when it does become mainstream — because we know it will, I will look like one of the sage grandfathers of the medium because I was here in one of the early waves.
Works for me.
Drew
Drew,
I agree with all your points. But the post really isn’t about those of us who blog. Instead I ask about those businesses who do not blog and how they might or should look at data such as this.
Most business success is measured in sales, and if we are to spread the use of Web 2.0 tools, we need to pay attention to the data but also to reasons why businesses don’t blog so that we can address them.
As a marketer, I have added Web 2.0 to my toolkit. That means I believe in them. So when I recommend them to a client, I need also to provide the pros and cons, including numbers based on research.
Great points Drew. Thank you for sharing.
Lewis,
I know you weren’t talking to or about us. But my point was…we need to help companies push past the idea that there is only one reason to blog — direct sales.
There are many internal and customer-centric reasons to blog too. I think as marketing consultants and early adopters of the medium, it’s our responsibility to broaden the thinking behind “should we blog” to look beyond the one trick pony of direct sales.
So while the numbers are interesting and have some bearing, they sure don’t paint the whole picture.
Drew
And now for the “yes, butt” to the dearth of early tv adopters.
BIG Consequential Difference. (All other influences aside.)
TV is a passive medium designed to let people know what they are supposed to think while consuming mass quantities of highly marketed goods from a prone position. (And who wouldn’t want to join THAT group?!(No initiation rites.))
2.0 Social Conversational VBlog-o-podisizing twitterscheme is a participant required, high-verbal, watch-out-or-they’ll-throw-eggs-atcha active sport.
Barring real wars, intersteller visitations, or tsunami (its a self pluralizer and great fun to work into a sentence!) we’re a 49%+ universe of agressive passives, not to mention 73 or 74 million boomers who wouldn’t ever touch one if it weren’t for the email from the grandkids, and who know for sure that computers are really secretly designed to take over the planet and eliminate all non-silicon based life forms.
Or is that just me?
Everything here seems to be focusing on what the business gains by having a blog, but the real secret to success is in understanding what the consumer gains by reading a blog. And that’s much more primal. Of course, there are myriad benefits, both primary and secondary, overt and subliminal. But I believe some of the main benefits a consumer gets from reading a blog include the desire humans seem to have for being a voyeur – we love to get a peek inside; the desire to connect in a society and particularly in this medium that seems to be driving us into isolation and anonymity; and a real desire for more information without the burden of being “sold to”.
In agreement with the first few comments, I feel that a few statistics really don’t tell you much. Furthermore, that small percentage of users can actually have major impacts on a site. The more people who “blog” about your site, product, info, whatever, the more popular your site becomes and, therefore, your ranking in search engines increases. Now, I am assuming that a much larger percentage of people/americans/adults “Google” to find their desired products. It is here that they will see your web address, click on it, and learn about your business and what it offers. So I think Web 2.0, indirectly, offers valuable marketing tools.
“Is web 2.0 a marketing and sales tool worth adding to the mix? Do we make too much of Web 2.0 tools?”
We’re on the cusp of being able to do amazing things for our customers right now… all using these new, free 2.0 tools that we’ve never had before.
Do we make too much of them? No, because many of us aren’t learning how to use them to our advantage.
Is it worth adding into the sales mix? A BIG yes. The problem is not in the results you WILL deliver, the problem is figuring how to use them exactly, then simply doing it.
Don’t underestimate the power of these new tools. The ones who don’t use them now will be the ones playing catch up a year from now.
I believe this one applies “Unless each man prodiuses more than he receives, increases his output, there will be less for him than all the others”, doesn’t it?