My Web 2.0 Blog

According to an interview with Twitter co-founder Biz Stone in the British trade magazine Marketing a few days ago, the micro-blogging site could be planning to charge companies for using the site. As Stone said:

“We are noticing more companies using Twitter and individuals following them. We can identify ways to make this experience even more valuable and charge for commercial accounts.”

This is a company that was reported to have turned down a $500 million acquisition offer from Facebook – but probably not because they wanted to be a nonprofit. They knew (or at least hoped) that the site would eventually be worth a LOT more than that, once they figured out what sort of revenue streams they could generate, of course.

Back in December, CNET wrote an article about Twitter’s co-founder and CEO Evan Williams having a plan for generating revenue, just not telling anyone what it was yet. There were hints at generating fees from sales-related Twitter content and from corporate users. Looks like they’re still hinting at it.

It’s all very cloak and dagger at this point, which is fine, since it’s not a public company (although this guy clearly wants them to be) and it’ll help build interest. Williams is someone who co-founded Blogger and claimed, in the CNET article, that Twitter will dwarf Blogger.

The traffic numbers are beginning to support that claim. According to Alexa’s Twitter profile, it was the 224th ranked site in the world yesterday, based on a combined measure of page views and users (reach). Its three-month change in ranking is 376. Its reach has gone up 65.5% in three months and its page views per user has gone up 41.9% in that same time period. Those are some pretty big numbers for a site that was already pretty popular back in November.

But the question remains – does popularity equal dollar signs, especially in this economic environment?

UPDATE: After digging around on the Net a bit, I found out that hours after the Marketing article appeared, Stone denied that report – on Twitter’s blog. Oh, the intrigue.

The idea of JobAngels is so simple that I feel stupid I didn’t come up with it myself. It started on Twitter, where the person behind it posted this:

“Was thinking that if each of us helped just 1 person find a job, we could start making a dent in unemployment. You game?”

He had a lot of followers on Twitter, most of whom were experts in the human resources sector, and the response was immediate and positive. Soon after that initial post, he came up with the name JobAngels. That was on January 29. Today, 11 days later, there are more than 1,000 followers on the group’s Twitter page, an article on About.com by Alison Doyle (the job search expert there), along with groups on both Facebook and LinkedIn, as well as, I’m guessing, many other blog postings.

On Twitter, the group welcome people to find someone to help out (which I’m researching now) and to submit a Tweet about themselves if they’re looking for work (which I did today). I have no idea how much I’ll be able to help other people or if I’ll get any responses to my posting. And while, sure, it would be great if something did happen, I’m more inspired by the fact that one person was able to start something of a mini-movement simply by one message to a group of people. That’s the beauty of social networking and Web 2.0 in general. A community of people from across the country or around the world, each of whom is willing and hopefully able to help others out, especially in a time of need.

Having been unemployed since mid-November, I know what it’s like. Inspiration is tough to come by these days. It’s easy to let yourself get down, especially when you read the news stories about all those unemployed people. That’s why it was so refreshing to find out about this group. I’m really hoping I’ll be able to help some people out, because I can say from experience that every little bit counts. And it’s such a wonderful opportunity to help, too.

If you can, please join JobAngels and help spread the employment love.

I was just looking through my Mashable feed and came across an article about Tweetube, which allows Twitter users to share video. When I initially read this, I thought that meant the video would be embedded into the person’s Twitter page – and thus all that person’s followers. That had me thinking, um, no, not cool. The point of Twitter is speed. 140 characters and a cloud of dust. Think of the bandwidth issues! Oy.

But, thankfully, the site simply provides a way to share videos with a shorter URL, a la tweetburner, etc.

I’m by no means a Twitter expert, but having spent a little more time there of late, I’m noticing how many more links outside of the site are popping up in people’s messages. When I first got on the site, it seemed to be mainly about what people were doing (or not doing).

“Eating at Rick’s. The service here sucks. And this hamburger smells like foot. Why is the waiter smirking…?”

“Picking the kids up at school, contemplating the meaninglessness of my existence.”

“That bitch did NOT just look at my man.”

And now that I’m following more people, more and more are posting links to news items, funny stories, etc. Maybe the little things in life aren’t enough to entertain people or this is just the natural transition of Twitter. Will there eventually be videos embedded into the site? Would Twitter then collapse in upon itself?

Well, as the article mentions, there are sites such as 12 Seconds and Seesmic that are specifically for posting very brief videos. But people don’t “Tweet” there so much as they briefly vlog.

Okay, let me just step back and mention that my brain just went a little haywire. I’m finding this happens on almost a daily basis as I realize how far behind the times I am online (or how clearly I’m showing my age).

Back in ’98 (11 YEARS AGO!! There went my brain again.), I started working for a company where I surfed the Web all day, as did all my coworkers, so we all knew the Web ridiculously well. Sure, the Web was a lot less packed than it is today, but there was still a ton of stuff and we all had a pretty good grasp of the newest, coolest sites. It’s what we were paid to do. But now – zoinks!

This is not to say sites like Tweetube, 12 Seconds or Seesmic shock me. I guess it’s just coming to grips with the realization that there’s no way I’m going to truly catch up. Technology is coming at us too fast and won’t stop. It’s something that was brought home by an article I read about Ray Kurzweil in the most recent Rolling Stone. Pick it up if you have the chance. There are some mind-blowing possibilities in the near future.

Let’s face it, though, should I really expect to keep up? I mean, writing this blog is my attempt at that very pursuit. I’m sure within six months, a year, I’ll have a much better idea of what’s out there – and realize how much I’m unaware of. What did  Socrates say? “I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.”

I suppose my hope is that Twitter doesn’t stray too much from its current raison d’etre. Many times, there is beauty in simplicity.

Last week, I was reading a chat session by the Sports Guy, Bill Simmons. I’ve been reading Simmons regularly since a friend introduced me to his columns back in 2001. Back in 2007, he began doing podcasts as well. During the chat session, he mentioned his feelings on what he sees happening with podcasts:

“It’s like radio on demand and I think it’s going to kill satellite radio in 2 years. I really do. It’s also a huge threat to real radio in my opinion, especially when people can get internet in their cars and can just cue podcasts up within 3 clicks.”

He also talks about radio becoming much more niche-oriented over the next decade, even noting the prescience of “Pump Up the Volume” (a movie I’ve long been a fan of). I’m trying to decide if I agree with Simmons.

I don’t have satellite radio, but know people who do and most love it. The homogenization of regular radio over the last 10-20 years (thanks Clear Channel!) has made it much less appealing to listen to. Oddly enough, it’s also losing money.

According to this Rolling Stone article, radio saw record declines in 2008, its worst since 1954. It also mentions how SiriusXM can’t be fully to blame for the downturn, since the stock was hovering at 17 cents (it’s now a little above 14 cents). The recession obviously has a lot to do with radio’s revenue issues, but I think it’s safe to say that the Internet is contributing, too. People have so many more options with the Web – and those options include podcasts.

The question, of course, is how podcasts can make money. Will listeners be okay with advertising regularly interrupting podcast streams? Will advertisers be okay providing visual advertising to audio podcasts (since visuals can be added to audio podcasts), or would that even make sense? Can podcasts make money based purely on sponsorships? Can options such as donations from listeners or Google’s AdSense generate enough money? All questions that have yet to be answered.

Personally, I’m still waiting for someone to figure out a revenue model for podcasting that truly works. Whether it’s a few years down the road like Simmons suggests – hard to say.

Since starting this blog a whopping two days ago, I’ve been thinking about who reads and writes blogs. My assumption is that people in their 20s and 30s are the main contributors to the blogosphere, and probably the main readers as well.

I would guess I read between five to 10 blogs a day on average, and at least two or three every day. My parents? Combined, I would be surprised if they read two. (I’m sure they’ll let me know if I’m wrong.)

So I decided to dig around and try to find age breakdowns, to see if they would bear this assumption out. Googling “blog readership 2008,” the first result was the Pew Internet & American Life site, which provided what I was looking for.

First, to get a feel for general usage, according to a December 2008 survey, 72 percent of American adults (18 and older) use the Internet on an average day, while 10 percent read someone else’s online journal or blog and 3 percent create or work on their own online journal or blog.

Fortunately, the Pew site also offers an Excel sheet which drills down further into the numbers.

When asked if they had read someone’s online journal or blog yesterday (which for my purposes, are like saying “on an average day”), the age breakdown, according to the same December 2008 survey, was:

• 18-29: 15%
• 30-49: 11%
• 50-64: 6%
• 65+: 7%

And when asked if they had ever read someone else’s blog or online journal, the age breakdown was:

• 18-29: 43%
• 30-49: 34%
• 50-64: 24%
• 65+: 19%

Meanwhile, when asked if they had created or worked on their own online journal or blog yesterday, the age breakdown was:

• 18-29: 5%
• 30-49: 3%
• 50-64: 2%
• 65+: 2%

And when asked if they had ever created or worked on their own online journal or blog, the age breakdown was:

• 18-29: 20%
• 30-49: 10%
• 50-64: 6%
• 65+: 5%

The stats seem to support my assumption. What was most interesting are the numbers for those who had ever created a blog. That 18-29 year-olds did so over three times as often as 50-64 year-olds and four times as much as those who are 65 and older didn’t necessarily surprise me. But that they did so at twice the frequency as 30-49 year-olds did. The question is why?

Is it because more 30-49 year-olds are parents and, along with their careers, probably don’t have as much time to spend on creating a blog as their younger counterparts? Or are 18-29 year-olds simply online more, possibly because when the Internet started to really take hold in the ’90s, they were kids and it was more likely to become a daily activity in their lives? A combination of the two? Other reasons? I’m curious to find out people’s thoughts.

I was surfing through LinkedIn the other day and saw this article mentioned in one of the groups I belong to. The author, Renee Lemley, talks about her trifecta of social media networking – Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter – and what she thinks people can get out of each venue. It’s an interesting take on the topic, providing a concise overview of each site and a solid list of each of their benefits.

Since I have accounts on each site, I didn’t need convincing on what those benefits are, because I’ve seen them myself – at least Facebook’s and LinkedIn’s.

For Facebook, I’ve:

• reconnected with a bunch of people from high school who I hadn’t talked to in a long time as we get ready for an upcoming reunion
• kept up with friends from all over the globe
• finished 10th out of 500,000+ in one of the weekly poker tournaments!

And on LinkedIn, I’ve:

• connected with people I otherwise wouldn’t have through the various groups I’ve joined
• targeted potential referrals as I look for work
• been contacted about a freelance job that, while it didn’t work out, gave me hope that possibilities do exist there

Twitter, meanwhile, I’m bad about. In the six months since I’ve joined, I’ve made a total of three updates – and the first one was on election night. I guess I have yet to understand the utility of it. I’m much more likely to make updates on Facebook, since more people I know are on it than on Twitter (at least that I’m aware of), so it’s like Twitter is, dare I say, overkill. And it’s not as if I haven’t tried, either: I even have a Twitterrific app on my iPhone, but it tends to get lost among my other apps (which include Facebook and LinkedIn). I think the solution is to merge my Twitter and Facebook accounts – then read through Lemley’s article again about its benefits.

I’d be interested to hear about what sites other people use in their social networking pursuits.

We’re one week into Barack Obama’s presidency and I’m realizing that his taking over for Bush has an interesting, perhaps even fundamental, parallel with the beginnings of Web 2.0.

According to the Wikipedia entry on Web 2.0, Tim O’Reilly (who helped coin the phrase) was using the term in referring to:

“the historical context of web businesses ‘coming back’ after the 2001 collapse of the dot-com bubble, in addition to the distinguishing characteristics of the projects that survived the bust or thrived thereafter.”

It was a response to what people realized (too late) was a faulty business model. Sound familiar? Look at Bush’s most recent approval rating and you’ll have some idea of what I’m talking about.

Of course, Web 2.0 wasn’t the paradigm shift that Obama is to Bush. It was more of a readjustment. “This didn’t work, but parts of it did, so let’s dump this, tweak that, keep this stuff, move these things around, bring some new ideas in, get users more involved and, voila, the new Internet.” What I think has been similar, though, is the public’s reaction to these changes.

Web 2.0 has been tremendously popular with Internet users. Check Alexa’s Global Top Sites list and you’ll find YouTube, MySpace, Facebook and Blogger in the top 10, and I’m guessing sites such as Flickr, LinkedIn and Twitter are moving up quickly. And Obama’s approval rating is higher than any incoming president since Kennedy’s in 1961.

Interestingly enough, the term “Web 2.0″ first become notable in ’04, the year of Obama’s coming out party at the Democratic National Convention, and it seems like the majority of people are still enamored with both. Now, though, comes their first true tests.

Obama’s finally in office and he’s inherited an unholy mess. Expectations are sky-high and the pressure is on for him to fix, well, everything.

Web 2.0 has been around for half a decade and, while still popular, many of the sites haven’t figured out how to become profitable. Now, EVERY business is trying to figure out that very thing, so it’s not only about profitability – it’s about survival.

For both Obama and Web 2.0, it’s all about the bottom line. Results.

We’re at a fascinating time in the United States. Is President Obama all that he’s been hyped up to be or is he just another politician, albeit a historically different one? Will Web 2.0 continue to change the Internet or will it crumble like much of the Web’s first iteration?

Whatever the case may be, I’m up for the ride, and that’s why I started this blog. I want to not only document this crucial time for Web 2.0 and see what happens, but also learn more about the various parts that make up the whole. And I’m guessing the president will get mentioned a few more times down the road, too.

Thanks for reading this and I hope you continue to do so.