Tis the season for everyone to make predictions and whilst a well thought out predictions list can make for an interesting read, some are just beyond bizarre.
UK based research firm Scivisum has predicted that Web 2.0 will die in 2008, as “cautious companies pull their advertising from user-generated content web sites, worried about the effect on their brand of appearing alongside questionable content.”
Scivisum also suggests that “consumers and companies will continue to adopt a nomadic attitude towards web 2.0 websites, flocking to the ‘next big thing’ until the market becomes so saturated that consumers will actually be turned off.”
I can see some validity in predictions of market saturation, although every year seems to attract similar predictions and the market continues to grow. Will there be fads in 2008? likely. However the notion that advertisers will abandon sites with user generated content is fanciful to say the least. Ultimately advertisers will continue to flock to sites people are visiting, and as long as there are visitors on those sites there will be advertising.
See some of the more recent reports on online advertising growing (including Web 2.0 and social networking sites) here and here.
(via PCW)
Companies are advertising less because they’re not making a profit, so no point of advertising which is really funding a lot of websites just like how the real estate market funded blogs through ad sense?
A close friend of mine visiting from HK approached a few VCs down in Menlo earlier this year and found that 9 of out 10 VCs they visited were not investing in Web 2.0 companies. VCs told them they were not investing in the hype of social networking plans, sites with fancy AJAX or RUBY technologies that are nothing more than repackaged Web 1.0 companies still with out a clear biz plan. I guess this explains why there are so few startup stories that make it on TC and why all I hear and read about are articles about Facebook, FB apps, Twitter, digg, and online music sites???
yes lack of advertising will kill web 2.0 … Not lack of advertising networks! HA
Everett
most of those on your list are startups so it’s a bit of a self defeating argument: Twitter for example is a startup, as was Facebook and a slew of FB apps makers (which I’d note I’ve not written about in months). Digg: startup Music 2.0 sites: usually startups etc etc…
We still regularly write about smaller startups, the problem is finding quality and/or unique ones, and as you note there are no shortage of variation on the theme sites out there (indeed, it’s hard not to groan some days when there is 20 variations of Digg, MySpace or Facebook in the submissions list). If you’ve got a startup you’d like us to look at use the submission form and we’ll take a look.
Those brands that don’t want to advertise on popular (read: high traffic) user-generated content sites will leave space for their competitors who want the exposure to increase awareness of their brands.
Web2.0 already boring and near death.
sounds like BS. I don’t think anything will change over the next year. There needs to be a bigger catalyst to affect anything.
The online advertising model which drives popular sites like Facebook/Google will have to change as more and more advertisers recognize how ineffective click through ads have become. Myself and everyone else I know have learned to block most ads out when viewing a web page. If we ever do click on an ad, it’s typically a mistake and we never follow through with anything. I suspect most of the click throughs are by internet newbies who will soon learn.
Hi Duncan, the “glitz” of 2.0 ventures lost it’s shine when people realized that it was simply a pig with lipstick they where looking at. AJAX etc. do have their place, but if the model relies on these newer technologies as it’s primary “wow… I got to use it” factor then it’s due to fail. Look at silverlight, great technology but other then Microsoft, I haven’t seen wide (if any) adoption while flash is fading fast. Remember 10 years ago, the great “splash page” fad that has since been replaced with just your home page, well, web 2.0 is no different
Jon
ps: submitted a start-up for TCs review
April Fools!
Nhick
http://www.itrush.com
This would have happened if not for Microsoft’s intervention!
fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
There will always be fads … and users will migrate based in the current fad and their fancies. But the argument on social networks is switching costs: If I wanted to move from social network A to social network B, I will also have to convince my entire network to move along with me for network B to have the sale level of usefulness.
Regarding advertising on the web, I do not think it will go away, as a matter of fact it will increase, but I do think that advertisers will start paying a little more attention to context. It only makes sense. The question is, however, how important is context and how it affects a brand.
I think it will be a big issue, not just for UGCs. I think people are going out of their way, as I do, to avoid ads, and eventually, people will just stop advertising, or rates will plummet, so those startups relying solely on ad revenue will be in serious trouble.
I said so as much a few weeks ago…
The Web Advertising Bubble Has Got to Pop
http://www.loui...got-to-pop.html
Deals will still be done, the big startups will make the news, and many small startups will quietly retire to the dead pool. The next big things will be sites that are lightweight, use minimal bandwidth, and supports SMS.
What an outrageous statement. Let me make a statement of my own here:
“Companies that get paid to make predictions based on just mere hunches, but call themselves Internet experts since their CEO founded an Internet security and ISP, will see their clients find better ways to spend money in 2008.”
Hmmm…Don’t think I can agree with that prediction at all. I expect to see advertising increase over the next year. The advertising funds aren’t what people need to be worried about, rather it is the willingness of vc’s to fund companies until they can become profitable. A lot of companies I doubt will ever become profitable.
I think it is fake news, web 2.0 is itself a medium of advertisement by sharing content.
big deadpool?
Duncan,
Talking of innovative websites – these guys are paying off my phone bill! You should write about them.
https://www.fluc.com – They get my vote!
Web 2.0 isn’t going to die in 2008, but here is a list of the top 10 signs your start-up is fucked.
http://fuckedne...rtup-is-fucked/
And yes it’s a link to my blog. It was either that, or copy and paste the top 10 here.
Duncan, Merry Xmas and thank you for the response.
@ #9 Exactly!
We have found some more like those. We are tracking all bloggers predictions and prophecies on our Twitter account http://twitter....m/predictions08
I think Web 2.0 will thrive in 2008.
그런가요?
컨텐츠 발굴이 부족해서 그렇지 웹2.0 자체가 죽지는 않을 것 같은데요.
Some doomsdayers talk of the death of WEB 2.0
but
others talk about the rise of WEB 3.0 the semantic WEB.
Check these links out …
Wikipedia
and
Web 3.0 = (4C + P + VS).
The Buzz around Web 2.0 may die but as long as consumers will use the Internet media , advertising will grow.
Happy Holidays,
Lizi
http://www.copenda.com
JasonMcIntyre: the semantic Web is never going to catch up, for the simple reason that it’s mostly useless. The semantyc Web paradigm considers the Internet as a big encyclopedia where you lookup things. Well, most people don’t care at all about encyclopedias! If you need that, Wikipedia is more than adequate. The hundreds of millions of people on social networks are not there to lookup for anything! It’s like thinking that most people use the TV to watch documentaries. Well, they do not!
Regarding the lack of advertising in Web it’s just as unlikely. Tv is fading out, newspapers are fading out. There are not many places left where you can advertise! And the only one that is growing is the Web! So, where else would advertisers go?
Always looking for simplistic answers to explain major events…
Advertising revenues are low now, and while they rise so does competition.
The problem is not for advertising in web2 but actually all the big money that is trying to muscle its way into the explosive nature of the new innovation that the technology is allowing.
The only ones that have to worry are those big investors as they incorrectly predicted a boom, greed got the better of them (again) and they put millions into startups that could have been developed for under 50 thousand USD.
So for the vast majority of us, a bust is actually nothing to fear, we haven’t got millions on the line, all were looking for is a well paid bit of independence. So let the bottom fall out and take with it all the distortion that these fat cats are bringing to the market with there copycats (VC backed) of original ideas, smothering everyone with more than anyone can stomach.
Let the market investors f….. off back to where they came from, and let the rest of us carry on having a great time developing new and interesting applications while making enough from adsense to buy ourselves a new radiator for our renault 4’s when our babies need it.
http://www.chan...2-renault-4.jpg
What is web 2.0 these days? The term has become meaningless due to every other site on the internet being described as it, even older sites like ebay have been called web 2.0. If you say web 2.0 is dead you might as well say most of the internet is dead.
? 2.0 Most folks don’t even know what 2.0 means. Really whats the difference to the common person looking for content. They just want there content and could care less what it’s called. As far as predictions. The LG Voyager Cell Phone will blow the iPhone out of the water by April 1 2008
hey!
what about the predictions in the economist???????????
review those!!
although, internet slowing down because of too much crap on it might not suit your pov
I maybe even “look” at maybe .09% of the advertisement on my web browsing, let alone do I not click on anything. Ads are worthless and a waste of money.
Check out for some cool MP3’s
http://mp3natio.../strangers.html
Using ‘web 2.0′ in this context is self defeating. Web2.0 could only die if ‘web 2.0′ existed as a tangible and commonly agreed definition. For it to ‘die’, all elements that made up web2.0 would have to ‘die’ at the same time for the term to become redundant – which is practically impossible.
What’s more likely to happen is that the phrase ‘web 2.0′ goes out of fashion in the mainstream, and the tech press move on to using a series of smaller, less encompassing terms.
Then, after several years, we’ll come up with an ‘exciting’ new term to describe the same things we’ve already been doing, the mainstream press will jump on board and the whole ‘bubble or bust’ discussion will start over again.
Deja vu anyone?
Back to advertising, it appears Google’s adsense is keeping many web companies alive! It would be interesting to read exactly how many companies are operating solely by adsense! Possible future article Duncan?
The last Web 2.0 Conference & Expo will take place on Jan 29, 2008. After that Web 2.0 will die. It will be no point going to Web 2.0 related conferences after that.
Tim O’reilly is keeping this web 2.0 thing alive just to promote his conference and milk every last dollar from it. The journalists love it because he does their job and they get paid for it.
IMHO I think that predicting the demise of web 2.0 sites is over-reaching. Yes, I think that VC funding will dry up for sites that are primarily about ad revenue on sites where everyone is invited to invite their friends to talk about anything. No focus, so no chance of network effects. Facebook already nabbed that. But if you define Web 2.0 as any use of users interacting with other users on a site, that TACTIC will continue to be valuable because it connects. But not so much an idea that everyone out there is looking to have a “second life” online. Most people are happy with their “first life” in real life…and don’t have the time to be bantering around on a site that’s all about alternative realities or becoming “friends” with people as a badge of pride…instead of for the purpose of real interaction.
Yeah, there are 20 FB clones out there, but one of them will make it big, so thanks for keeping us updated. When Facebook started, a lot of people said “oh no not another Friendster clone” so remember that successful Web sites are often just small variations of existing ones.
@#29 — I’m with you bro! Well said
I dont see it happening.
Web 2.0 is good for advertising.User generated content is a kind of feedback.People do read them.I say its worth advertising.
Here’s the reality: there are 200-300 millions Americans. Only 1% of them are smart enough not to visit UGC sites (or would visit but would block/not clicking the ads).
The other 99% Americans are still not as smart as the rest of the world anyway. They love Digg and Reddit (what on earth they’re thinking?). They stay on Facebook/MySpace for hours (good for them, I hope they stay there forever instead of studying). They read Wikipedia (which contains a lot of errors). They spent money on Kindle and iPods from generation 1 to 5,6,7 (that’s why McDonalds are still in the business of paying low salary; these people need to work to pay the bill right?).
So no, UGC, ads supported websites are going to be OK as long as there are these 99% not so smart Americans. And we (the rest of the world) know that the number will not change (^_^).
Merry Christmas.
As both a consultant and an in-house senior marketing exec, I spend millions of dollars in online advertising in any given quarter and I can assure you there is more money in this space than ever for 2008. In fact, I’ve been turning advertising budgets away on a regular basis.
The real change in online advertising for the majority of these sites will be what their value to advertisers is. The reason online advertising is still on a very strong growth path is not because Companies realize that their (potential) customers are online – though it certainly helps!. It is because they can track and target their audience creating more efficient and relevant messaging.
What all these “web2.0″ advertising reliant companies are going to face is the quality of their advertising product is generally very poor. This means what advertisers are willing to pay – as they smarten up in their spending and analytics – is changing quickly. Sites like Facebook have problems delivering efficient outcomes to advertisers even at rates of less than $1CPM (Cost Per Thousand Impressions or Ad Views). So what are smaller sites worth traffic wise? Who wants to fund a company that’s only source of profit might be an eCPM of $0.50 or less. Where is the upside? Remember in Bubble 1.0 CPM rates where at crazy levels of $100+ on sites like Yahoo.
From a marketing point of view this excess cheap inventory can be a boon if you know how to drive some value from it. And at rates of $0.05 CPC (Cost Per Click) or less, it’s worth playing around with. It’s not going to keep many doors open from a business point of view though. It might not even cover the costs of bandwidth.
I hope not…. I just updated my list of Sites: http://csteinbe...m/Web%2020.html
GOOD LUCK BEIJING
http://www.chinabirdsnest.com
I completely agree with #43 Ted. People who read Tech Crunch do not fall into the demographic that clicks on Ads, which is why there are so many posts from people who say they never click on ads. That 99% Tim is talking about is the type that clicks ads, buys ring tones off of television commercials, purchases songs for $.99, “Bite” someone on Facebook, amongst other things that I just don’t understand. This is why Web 2.0 will not die. Advertisers go where the people go, and there are plenty of dumbfucks who still fall for advertising online. The only thing I really see the demise of is Non-organic search engine marketing, and the rise of site like Commission Junction once people are rid of the skepticism.
The one thing I personally hope to see in 2008 is a drop in advertising prices. I want another shot at the oldendays when LowerMyBills was the poster child for buying up as much cheap affiliate advertising as possible all over the web and sold that shit for 350 mil.
Predictions of Web death ==> greatly exaggerated.
Predictions of “flocking to the ‘next big thing’” ==> Did this guy just open his eyes for the first time in his life? This is what people have been doing as long as there have been people. I mean, dude, you essentially predicted that people will continue breathing in 2008. Wow, really out on a limb there! Haha!
Bottom line ==> Scivisum = retarded (sorry to insult any retarded people out there by comparing them to Scivisum)
PS To Duncan: We’ll have a good — hopefully — startup for you to review soon… but not quite yet. And it may not be BuzzPal.com (the site I link to in my comments). Cheers and hope everyone had a great holiday!
@49.
Another social networking site?…..
Yawn…….
@50: Actually, no