In my last post, I drew attention to what I see as the dichotomy of Web 2.0 in the enterprise. In this piece I look at some of the marketing aspects. I'm addressing this because I know many professionals are highly sceptical about Web 2.0 'stuff' and question the value it can deliver. I'm looking at this from a different angle though it amounts to the same thing.
To me, conversation of the kind the utopians propose is dangerous in the world of marketing. There is, in my opinion an illusion being created by PR and marketing, eager to grab because in the world of Web 2.0, the next fiction might as well be the next truth. As Century of the Self amply demonstrated, PR is a past master at manipulation. That doesn't change in the current world. If anything, I see it as taking on a fresh intensity.
Take for instance this piece on Fast Forward where the author claims the solution to all our education problems is social media. Not only is it stated as fact, it is rooted in ideas that have no context to repeated research findings by people qualified by experience and academic rigour. The best one of the author's supporters could muster was a personal attack and a failure to deal with any of the issues. It may be amusing to some but to me it's intellectually offensive. Beneath the bare words I see a marketing push for something wholly inappropriate in the context of the argument being made with a subtext to flog conceptual consulting and other meaningless services. I suspect a number of organisations will fall for this. To me this insidious presentation of fiction as fact is merely an extension of old practices. Or as Hugh MacLeod said to me in a Skype conversation: "Same shit, different flies."
Last week a colleague pointed me to what would otherwise have been a great piece on HR shared services. Unfortunately it is a vendor sponsored piece so to me it will always have a certain 'taint' that takes away from the veracity of what is otherwise a good argument. The question remains, how do I discern solid understanding from a desire to flog services?
Another example. The well aired issue of GSKs weight loss drug and subsequent spat over Debbie Weil's involvement led to Maggie Fox recording a conversation with Ms Weil. While there were plenty of interesting points, I found Maggie's questions lacking in depth. But then I wouldn't expect depth from marketers because they're not in the business of investigation.
Here's another example. Office 2.0 2007. Last year was a terrific inaugural event as people wrestled with all sorts of nascent ideas. There were very few 'real' customers but then I didn't expect that. I'm not sure this year will be that different. And yes - I am happy to be proven wrong. According to this year's blurb:
The Office 2.0 Conference is a collective experiment organized every year in San Francisco, CA and aimed at discovering the future of online productivity & collaboration. It is a unique gathering of visionaries, thought leaders, and customers using innovative online services for getting things done at the office, at home, and on the go. Please register before July 31st in order to benefit from the early bird rate.
Sounds good in theory except that on this occasion it's being organised by a bunch of marketers. If marketing is shaping the content then I suspect this will be little more than a thinly disguised 2-day pitch event. Why? It's not in the interests of marketers to propose speakers who will present contrarian views. Can you imagine for one minute someone like Vinnie Mirchandani telling attendees about the realities of working with CXOs who are trying to inject innovation into the enterprise? It's not that Vinnie (or I for that matter) are opposed to Web 2.0 stuff. Quite the contrary. But what neither of us are prepared to do is give it the uncritical hype airtime so many others are prepared to offer when there are other issues of greater importance at stake.
The organisers are making the myopic gesture of giving away an iPhone to all attendees. Given that attendees are purportedly coming from 20 countries and the iPhone is only any good in the US, it is monumentally stupid to make that sort of gesture. I'd rather have $600 less on the entry price. What's more, I suspect a significant number of attendees will already have the iPhone, especially as this event takes place in San Francisco and will no doubt attract many of the Silicon Valley blogerati who've already invested in the latest Apple toy. It is for those reasons that I won't be attending.
Sure - it would be nice to meet up with what I expect will be much the same crowd as last year. Sure, it would be good to hear new conversations (though I doubt things have moved on THAT much.) But as I said to several of the organisers: on the basis of what I've seen to date? A marketing binge with zero value for me as a person trying to figure out how these technologies help business professionals. And for what would almost certainly be a $2,000 round trip cost, I can think of better ways to spend my money. Not one has chosen to challenge me on that assertion. That's a pity but entirely predictable.
Technorati Tags: office 2.0
Sponsored By: EditGrid - collaborative online spreadsheets
Marketinglink to original post