Rethinking “2.0″…

So this morning I received an e-mail from my DoD New Media colleague, Jack Holt, asking for my thoughts on the idea of changing the name of the New Media Directorate to “Online and Emerging Media.”  At first I pointed him to my post Official Announcement: It’s Just “2.0″.  He pushed back with a good point that echoed Steve Radick’s comments on that blog post: what happens when it becomes Web 2.5, Web 3.0, etc.?  This discussion got me thinking further about what the heck to call this stuff!  Here’s my response to Jack:

Hmmm, yeah. I see what you mean. Truthfully, none of these terms are really great. What if in the analog age we’d called it “analog media’ thinking that was so future-focused…. then digital media usurped analog. Social media and social networking feel like fads: social is not the point, social networks are really just laying a foundation for us to be able to leverage our contacts to accomplish new things in different ways. As for 2.0, indeed there will be a release 3.0, etc., so 2.0 doesn’t get us much except outdated too quickly. I like “new” because it never ends. I like emerging even more because it has cutting edge connotations. “Online” concerns me because I’m not sure that the clear distinction between online and offline that we have today will exist in the same way in the future as mobile technologies blur the line between the two. I am concerned about lumping this all in as “media” because the changes that are happening are bigger than just the way we communicate. The cultural shifts are not captured by “media.”

Official announcement: it’s just “2.0″

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…

Marketing agency turned Sherpa

In his blog today, Chris Brogan asks what the current and future roles and capabilities of marketing agencies need to be in our world of new media.  He’s received a tremendous number of insightful responses.  I wanted to share my response to his question and give you a chance to check out some of the others as well. 

I see the lines between customer-facing functions, e.g. marketing, sales, PR, customer service, product development, blurring in the 2.0 world as the tenets of collaboration, openness and truth take hold of organizations and individuals.  This leaves the new media marketing agency with the role of “Sherpa,” guiding clients through the culture change that new media participation requires.

Pain points: the catalysts of change

Harvard Business School Professor Andrew McAfee’s presentation yesterday morning at 2008 WIRe and ICES Enterprise 2.0 Conference did a wonderful job utilizing Professor Chris Argyris’ research and analysis to explain the differences between a Model 1 (command & control) organization and a Model 2(open & collaborative) organization and why it’s so difficult for Model 1 organizations to transform into Model 2 organizations.  Simply put: it requires a complete and total inversion of the culture, values and approach. 

What’s tough, as Professor McAfee pointed out, is that there are many, many examples of successful Model 1 organizations and very few examples of Model 2 organizations.  Therefore, it’s hard to prove that Model 2 organizations are empirically better in some way.  Truthfully, which model you embrace depends upon what your organization trying to accomplish: there are plenty of situations in which the Model 1 organization is, indeed, the way to go.

That being said, as I wrote about in my post, Renaissance 2.0: the Birth of Truth, those of us in the 2.0 world have this nagging in our guts that, in most cases, embracing the collaborative tenets of 2.0 will enable better results than will closed behaviors. 

So, if there are so few examples of Model 2 organizations, we need to justify the need to migrate to a Model 2 organization in a way other than by example.  I’d suggest that we build the case for emulating the Model 2 organization by focusing on our pain points–things that are imperative. 

What creates a pain point/future imperative?  Really the same things that drive change and innovation: internal or external needs for improved productivity and/or profitability.

To use a simple social networking example that many of us can relate to, the pain point that often gets people to start using Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. is “everybody’s doing it.”  With so many people interacting on social networks, there is pressure to use social networking tools be a productive (contributing, participating, valued) member of our personal social circles.

As a consultant working with DoD’s New Media group, the pain point of ”practicing what we preach” has driven many team members to personally use social media tools so that we can advise internal customers.  For revenue-generating companies, addressing a customer need or winning a competitive threat by being first to market are pain points that are ultimately driven by a profitability imperative.

In our world of information overload and time scarcity, until an organization (or individual) feels the pain of its Model 1 processes and practices, it’s unlikely that it will embrace Model 2 tenets.  More and more organizations are starting to feel the pain, and thus, are embracing the technologies of 2.0.  However, to be successful at Model 2, an organization must make a strategically-driven mindshift and not just utilize the present day 2.0 tactics that support Professor Argyris’1970s concept of the Model 2 organization.

2 Catch 22s of 2.0

You can’t understand the value of 2.0 until you’re doing 2.0, but you’ll never do 2.0 unless you understand the value of 2.0.

You feel that you need training to use 2.0 tools, but can’t understand that you don’t need training to use 2.0 tools until you’re using 2.0 tools.