I am officially switching from using the terms “Web 2.0,” “social media,” “new media,” and “digital media” to simply using “2.0.” It’s not that I’m going minimalist on you, it’s just that what’s going on out there is a societal and cultural shift enabled by tools and technologies. As I’ve said before and will say again, it’s never about the tools and technologies. The above terms limit the scope of changes that are infiltrating every aspect, corner and depth of our society. We are entering a new era just as we did with the Renaissance or the Age of Enlightenment.* This era, as a whole, I’m entitling “2.0.”
* can’t help but think of that hilarious scene in the movie Swingers, though… 
I need to get on the ball and follow-up with Ms. Merritt so I can work 2.0 stuff with you at DoD.
2.0 seems so ambiguous though…if you mention “2.0″ to a client, what’s the next thing out of your mouth? “well, let me explain – 2.0 is a term that refers to the use of social media/Web 2.0/new media/digital media and how…oh crap, I just used the terms that I thought I replaced!” I’m not suggesting that I’m in love with the term “social media,” but it’s the best that I’ve heard so far. I think “2.0″ just begs more questions.
majorman, feel free to follow up with me offline re: DoD.
sradick, yes, I hear you. With clients and potential clients who are not in the 2.0 world yet, I find myself referring to it as “the new media space” but then having to further clarify, “you know, like Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace.” I’m hoping that “2.0″ encourages questions of clarification whereas “new media” or “digital media” put us in too small of a box. I think that “social media” is too narrow and leaves out technologies and user behaviors like mobile and VOD. Thanks so much for challenging me — that’s what this “2.0″ stuff is all about: pushing our thinking further together than we could do alone.
I might try that too. Then I don’t have to say Enterprise 2.0, DoDIIS 2.0, NSA 2.0, Transformation 2.0 and all the other 2.0’s.
I am going to go against the grain and refer back to my panel on #wireices and reaffirm I have killed 2.0 from my speak (Chris Pirillo seems to agree) when it comes to saying Web 2.0. Now I can’t quite say it for everything else yet, but I am working on it. Because I don’t want to reject one of the very people I respect in my field [Andrew McAfee] and in fact, my company has a whole core competency based on Enterprise 2.0 and Government 2.0.
I am with you on what DO we call it then, because these catchy phrases only encapsulate so much and leave out other possibilities.
Trust me I am noodling this, but I don’t want to get tied down to versioning, because that limits us still. I’ll get back to you on this.
Ah – good point on “social media” leaving out some of the more technical stuff like mobile and VOD, but I guess that’s why it works for me. When I use the term “social media” I don’t typically even want to go down the road of mobile and VOD because it doesn’t fit. I guess it gives me a way of scoping what I do – social media. Thanks for the thought-provoking post!
Andrea, thanks so much for reading & for commenting. I am certainly having 2nd thoughts, but you’re right, what SHOULD we call this mess? It really comes down to a –ugh HATE to use this phrase — “paradigm shift”(!) from self-serving broadcast(?) to collaboration. I do not believe that collaboration is the POINT, however. Collaboration is the enabler. The effect is productivity, innovation, profitability — all of those “good” metrics. keep me posted as your thoughts evolve on this…