
Oh dear me. In a room full of 20somethings from the marketing and media industry at IMM07, a panel of three iluminaries were asked to shed light on 'web 2.0'.
Ed Ling, Strategy Director of I-Level (above right), Jonathan Wolf, Director of Corporate at Yahoo Europe (above left) and Michael Steckler, of MSN UK were the chosen ones, with Tim Collison chairing the session.
Tim immediately asked we we all want to know. What the hell is web 2.0?
Michael has the first go, but failed to explain clearly what web 2.0 is. So Tim turned to Jonathan from Yahoo, looking for some simple explanation. Yet the challenge was too much, as we heard another complex explanation that seemed to contradict MSN, which is fascinating. If they can't agree, what chance have we got?
The champion of all things simple was Ed Ling. He sensed that the audience was longing for someone to explain Web 2.0 to them in simple terms, without the cloud of mysticism that hangs around digifolk when web 2.0 is discussed.
Some years ago, I attended the early First Tuesday meetings in London to broaden my understanding of the digital future of communications. Instead I felt that I had entered a digi version of the Freemasons. No leather aprons or funny handshakes, but nevertheless a closed club full of impenetrable language with the resulting perceived superiority that a closed language gives. I should know...I started as a TV buyer, and those guys are good on impenetrable languages...
This inability to connect with a wider group of people continues. At the IMM07 session, the signs were there. When asked how many people had heard of facebook, only 30& of the delegates had, whilst only 7% had a myspace page. The room was not a room full of htmlers, podcasters or bloggers. Just a group of marketers and media folk who are keen to grow their understanding.
With such signs, you would think the Yahoo and MSN would suit their language to the audience. Instead we had emoticons, immersive environments, open source and of course lots of long tails...ummmm nice. All very clever I am sure, but worthless in helping to build understanding. If only folksonomies were mentioned, we would have had the full set.
It was left to Ed to help build the bridge of understanding, so good on him for judging the room better.