Ha! Good point - but of course we've put a twist on the blog model by 1. Making our ThinkerNet blogosphere invitation-only, and only inviting experts and 2. Editing the blogs to ensure quality.

IE is an attempt to turn blogs into something more B2B.

re: "Web 2.0 proponents have encouraged B2B publishers to blindly convert their existing operations to blog based models in the hope that they will 1. Increase their audeince and 2. Cut costs. And most B2B publishers have taken the bait, with stunningly disastrous consequences."

Not to point out the elephant in the room, but isn't IE a blog-based model? Have the consequences been stunningly disastrous?

I worked in B2B publishing for years but have no clue about how the business models work these days.

Indeed, yes it was very useful. Thanks. 

So the B2B brand's  focus  is on rich insight and credibility delivered as a service, where the internet is one of many touch points and not the only one. 

Well, you know the expression: "Opinions are like [expletive deleted]; everyone has one." 

There is genuine incompatibility between the concept of user-generated content and B2B publishing.

B2B publishers traditionally have seen their role as creating proprietary, original and high-quality content, which they use to attract  a highly qualified/specialized audience of people that buy expensive specialized "stuff." And they then make money by providing their customers (advertizers) with access to that audience.

Well, in the Web 2.0 world publishers no longer have to spend all that moneyto pay pesky editors and analysts to generate that high value content because the Web site readers do it for them, for free.

The problem is it doesn't work.

User generated content is fine for consumer sites, where the content focuses on things that lots of people know lots about (changing a tyre, getting a filling at the dentist, baking a pie). But the entire point of B2B publishing is that it focuses on topics that only a few people understand. And the value of the B2B publisher is in creating content that provides people with information on those topics.

Let's take a real world example of something we might cover on IE's sister site, Light Reading: how to make money by offering integrated VOIP and video on demand over DSL networks. That's a topic which only a handful of service provider employees can talk to, and they are certainly not going to share that information on the message board of a Web site where their competitors can read it.  

Web 2.0 proponents have encouraged B2B publishers to blindly convert their existing operations to blog based models in the hope that they will 1. Increase their audeince and 2. Cut costs. And most B2B publishers have taken the bait, with stunningly disastrous consequences.

At Light Reading we did the exact opposite: poured money into developing huge quantities of data on the telecom industry and then working out multiple ways to make money from the audience that came to read it (Webinars, research, video, live events, etc. etc. etc.).

More later.

Hope this is useful.

Insultant.

My question focuses on the whole issue of "thought leadership" and the B2B space.

Is articulating an opinion equal to thought leadership ?

With so much of opinion all over the internet, who is a true thought leader and how does this person or corporation build credibility ?

Take the example of existing thought leaders... they have existed in the offline world and have established credibility ...

That is the challenge on the internet and for internet brands. 

From a B2B perspective , Lately the "Web 2.0" is dominated more with opinion than deep thinking or analysis . Which highlights the issue of credibility or the lack of it.

As an established B2B publisher , Would like to know your views on it ..

Just sharing this article with you. The writer believed tha even Oreilly could no longer give a valid definition of what he means by Web 2.0

There is No Web 3.0, There is No Web 2.0 - There is Just the Web

jabailo, your comments make for enjoyable reading. Thank You. Individual expression is good and a help in bringing the world together on positive common visions... rather than labels (e.g., 2.0, 3.0). Ideally the Internet evolves significantly before, by and beyond the year 2020 to enable giant leaps and increasingly be a force for good that more so brings together diversity and unity and enables greater dimensions of innovation and prevention. This must happen and in various ways (e.g., perhaps including Knowledge Cafes in Second Life) if a global IT profession is to increasingly emerge and someday reach its highest inherent form perhaps somehow helping humanity to evolve, positive climate change to happen, poverty to be eliminate, war to be replaced by sustainable peace, corruption and the cost of errors to be significantly reduced, education to be free and stress free for all. Software, technology and information have the potential to increasingly enable more fun, joy and value. Positive progress is occurring, and individual expressions and efforts are helping. The whole is however greater than the sum of its parts. As the world increasingly comes together all shall gain, and each human being will more so have the opportunity and support to be lifted, and to help lift others, to their fullest, their best.   

This may even lead people of the world to increasingly act more so as one and to more so come together on positive common visions.

The very though horrifies me!

I dont want to "act more as one".  I want to act like myself.  I would hope there are more and more individual ranges of expression.   I think the "web" is too diverse, too powerful and too expanding to be subsumed by a tinny term like 2.0, 3.0 or whatnot.

 I refuse to use the term and I do not recognize it as valid.