User-generated content (UGC) is the hallmark of Web 2.0. Indeed, many people take UGC as a synonym for Web 2.0. At the same time, there's no shortage of UGC skeptics who question its quality and integrity in spite of its proving successful in business.
But now a new question plagues the Web's business leaders: With the age of Web 2.0 passing, are the business models built upon UGC still sustainable? To answer that question, we need to revisit some fundamentals of UGC.
Web 2.0 is, at its heart, a social Web on which users are able to produce enough buzz via UGC to gain the attention of other Web users and, subsequently, "network" with one another.
"Networking" is not the same as "consuming," however. A common misconception of Web 2.0 is that people produce UGC for others to consume. By contrast, UGC is a medium that introduces the content producer to the public -- i.e, "This guy often produces something interesting/illuminating/fascinating; therefore, we should follow/link/become friends with him."
The primary motive behind creating content is not for consuming, but to gain an impression from the public or a niche community for the end-purpose of networking. The UGC contributors on today's Web generally gain nothing except attention. Content is not king, attention is. This is the secret to a successful Web 2.0 business and is why some such businesses succeed and others fail.
In turn, then, a successful Web 2.0 business is not the one that works hard to improve the efficiency of UGC consumption. By contrast, it is the one that leverages the opportunity for successful interpersonal networking.
But this type of attention-first, content-second, UGC-grounded Web-2.0 business model is unlikely to sustain through the Web's evolution. The critical argument against such a model is it doesn't produce enough value. Attention's value is shallow because it is a secondary productive force that helps to produce capital but doesn't produce capital itself. The greatest contribution of Web 2.0 is that it liberates humans from geographic restrictions. Its limitation, however, is that Web 2.0 does not provide ways for the liberated Web users to produce exchangeable commercial value. Web 2.0 itself cannot overcome this limitation. To resolve it, we look forward to the next evolutionary stage of the Web.
In the next stage, user generated content will evolve to become user generated assets. The primary issue for Web 3.0 businesses will then be how to help users build solid, consumable assets by generating content. This Web will be more of a marketplace than a platform or a social community. As a consequence, however, the percentage of free UGC will drop, and the percentage of paid UGC (or user generated assets) will emerge and rise. The innovative, value-generating mind will finally be rewarded. Through this new phase, we may step out of this present economic crisis and enter a new age of strong growth.
— Yihong Ding, Semantic Web researcher and blogger
Hi yihong how about a technology that uses ontologies from DBs like CYC et al to generate a belief and their strengths for a specific user?? Ofcourse will have to track the history and activity of that specific user......... Will that generate some exchangeable asset??
thank you for your insightful post. i completely agree that ugc has evolved beyond simple “content” into a real digital asset that can truly be leveraged, and believe that the advent of web/video3.0 will introduce many new and exciting implementations of digital video and asset management.
we have seen this trend evolve and have helped numerous big-named brands, including mlb, mtv, itv and the nfl, take the next step and manage their digital video assets in new and creative ways. for example, for last season’s mlbactober.com campaign, (and with the help of adobe premier express), the entire organization embarked on a new campaign during the world series that allowed visitors to marry their own user-generated content, with professionally produced content provided by major league baseball. the promotion resulted in hundreds, if not thousands, of submissions from visitors that integrated amateur with professionally-produced content to create entirely new digital properties. for a more recent example you can check out the nfl site at www.replay-re-cutter.nfl.com.
we see this ‘thirdway’ of ugc (not pure amateur or professionally produced content but rather a fusion of both) as being the next evolution of the genre, where brands empower users to mashup, preprovisioned professionally produced video assets, to ultimately create new and unique piece of ugc media of their own. not only does this engage the user, but provides the means for the final video to be totally brand safe as it has been created from preapproved professional and amateur media assets.
we are seeing widespread adoption of this trend which shines a light into the multitude of ways that brands will capitalize on this next generation of web video. clearly, we are in the midst of a transition within the space and agree that this third way will, indeed, drive a new generation of growth.
Interesting, so people don't need to change? Don't you think that people should learn to appreciate the UGC and thus, turn it to UGA? not everything, of course but there's valuable information out there. I wouldn't pay for it because I got used to not paying but not because I don't think it's worth something.
And serious talks about web 3.0? right, I'm sure 4.0 is coming pretty soon too.
I think you make an excellent point on something quite hard to grasp by some. Currently, in the marketing and PR world, the buzz about Web 2.0 and how to conquer it and dominate it is an expansive wave. It seems to be something everyone is dreaming about taking advantage of. But, there's no bullet proof analysis to the theory that user generated content can actually be fully directed to make profits. I know, many new media theorists have elaborated on the power of honest, independent and non corporate points of view, however, those opinions are hardly under corporate interest's control. If they are, the equation breaks.
I do believe there's an opportunity for marketing in the Web 2.0, nevertheless, it should not be considered within the current "wild, wild west" environment of blogging and social networks applications. There should be a different frame, one that can, in the less invasive of ways, have a bit of control of a situation.
UGC right now has valuable info that can be converted into asset. But you have to look for it! Psychologist Herb Simon says best "A wealth of information creates a poverty of attention". There in lies the problem with Web 2.0 - there is way too much information. If we build some kind of intelligence (AI perhaps) to ferret out the valuable asset from the 'junk', maybe that will help enable us to really maximize UGC.
You are exactly right. Nobody would like to pay to read a blog or a message. Why? because they are UGC (user-generated content) but not UGA (user-generated asset). Certainly we would not pay it. When you say that nobody can beat the price of Web 2.0, unfortunately there is another sentence following that you forget to mention: it is because Web 2.0 itself has not really produced anything that is worth of being purchased! And this is exactly where the problem is.
Let's think of something you would be willing to buy. For example, how about gold? Or maybe a TV set, or even a pencil. Why do you want to buy them? It is not only because they themselves contains certain value, it is also because the value is exchangeable, and hence it becomes an asset. Web 2.0, however, is very poor on converting human's knowledge to be the exchangeable value/capital, though it provides certain help on exchanging the other forms of capital. This distinction tells where Web 2.0 is great and where the limitation of Web 2.0 is.
About when Web 3.0 may come, I think it will come sooner than we (not just you) might think.
You make very good points. One point that I'd like to add, is that I don't see Web 2.0 going anywhere, anytime soon (unless the government steps in somehow). I don't see Web 3.0 as a replacement for Web 2.0. I think they will co-exist in the near and long-term future (in webspeak who knows what that means).
Web 2.0 is totally social and Web 3.0 is not. I just don't see the assets that will be created in Web 3.0 as being saleable. I can't ever imagine paying to read a blog or read a message board. You can't beat the price of Web 2.0.
Yes, UGC brings value on both of its content and the connection/attention it creates. And I agree to you that we are away from (or even far away from) totally explored the value of the connection/attention UGC creates. However, the main issue is whether the created value is a first-class consumeable capital or a second-class auxiliary capital. This is the distinction between the sustainable growth and the insustainable growth.
There is a fundamental quesiton when we talk about economy. With respect to any product, we would ask whether the product is "exchangeable"? The commercial value (or using a formal term, the capital) is created based on the character of exchangeability. It is the character of exchangeability that causes the flow of capital. Things that cannot exchange cannot flow. Things that are hard to exchange are hard to flow. And so on. Exchange causes the capital flow, and capital flow generates the wealth in our society. When a type of economy can consistenly produce wealth to the society, it is a sustainable business model; otherwise it is not.
Now back to the connection/attention generated by the present UGC. We would like to ask whether this type of generated value is great as to be an exchangeable value in our soceity. Unfortunately it is not. The connection/attention generated is hard for exchanging though it does provide facility for the owners to exchange the other values by owning this value. This is why I call the produced connection/attention to be a secondary (or auxiliary) capital. Its value is mainly represented by its abillity to help capital exchange rather than the ability of exchanging itself. Therefore, although there might still be much unexplored value of this connection/attention business (and I agree to you), this type of value is not sustainable to the growth of economy in general. Hence the businessed built upon this model cannot walk in a long journey into the future. We need to invent new models according to new, more exchangeable mind asset. That's the requirement for Web 3.0.
I interpreted your sentence "The primary issue for Web 3.0 businesses will then be how to help users build solid, consumable assets by generating content." as "the businesses should help the users change/improve the content they share, so this content becomes a monetizable asset".
To me, there are two values in UGC: 1) the value of the content itself and 2) the value of the connection it creates (or attention in your terms).
If I get you right, you're saying we should be capturing the value of the content with the help of new technologies (which I don't disagree with).
My overall point is, today we are far from capturing the value of the connection as well. I believe (this is where we might be disagreeing) the value of the connection is not as shallow but today we just cannot accurately see, manage or capture that value. And hence my point on the need of technologies to evolve.
From your explanation, I think we're approaching the issue from two different angles, with both pointing to the direction of the need for technologies to evolve.
I am not sure whether I get your point clearly. But please allow me explaining a little bit more. Hopefully it might help.
I sincerely agree to you that there is a value of the 'bond/connection' that UGC creates between the creator and the reader. In the article, I use the term "attention" to represent such a type of value. But likely "attention" is not enough to cover all the value generated by the present UGC. At least, however, I hope readers might get my point, i.e., the value produced by the present UGC is as shallow as attention, though it could be more than attention, I agree.
The problem of Web-2.0 version UGC is that it does not add substantial consumeable value to the world except its native expression. This is actually why in this financial crisis many people suddenly start to complain the Web-2.0 bubble and they accuse that the Web-2.0 business model generally do not make money (besides stealing money from the VCs). This accusion is, unfortunately, reasonable because of the reason I explains in the article. The UGC-grounded Web-2.0 businesses does produce some value. But the value they produce is too shallow to sustain for a long journey.
Finally, as you said, and I totally agree, "it's the technologies which should evolve and NOT the users per se." This is indeed what I tells at the end of the article. I look forward to Web 3.0. When people start to abandon the present UGC model and go for a new consumeable UGC model. It is not just a change of the upper-level expression forms. It actually demands the fundamental upgrade of the infrastructure of the Web, as if the process from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0. Users would be customized in the progress of Web evolution. But the mainstream is still the evolution of technologies.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
We all know the Web is expanding. But how is this actually happening, and what does it mean for our future? Let’s take a look at four areas in which Web expansion is occurring simultaneously:
On the stage of the recent TechCrunch50 conference, startup Imindi, which offers a service involving the mapping of thoughts and associations in a database for use in social networking, received a hostile welcome from Silicon Valley. This does not mean that the Imindi service lacks innovation. On the contrary, Imindi might just be too novel for many people.
Where is the Semantic Web? Is it too hard, too complicated, too sophisticated, or too unrealistic to achieve? Or do we just need to better understand the Web's history in order to get there?
Prior to Web 2.0, Web content was presented as raw data rather
than knowledge. Through collective human efforts, like "tagging," isolated data
pieces on the Web now become connected and organized as knowledge. Although Web
2.0 is still limited in its ability to organize knowledge, it is the first Web era in which we are seeing a new group of "thinkers" emerge.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
Saunders is wrong on Hulu, Fritz thinks. By most measures it's been
a success, and there's no reason this model won't become even bigger in the next three years. Oh, and he hates Steve's hat.
As enterprises leap into the Web 2.0 world of blogging, commenting, and social networking, just 'being there' won't deliver ROI. You may want a 'Web Evangelist' to systematically harvest the feedback in order to polish your product or service.
Data mining of social networks means people might face unforeseen consequences as a result of their seemingly innocuous personal choices and associations.
Some of the "cool" people are testing a new Web service: Blippy. It could be a great data source for corporations to glean info about customers’ credit card purchases. But it has all sorts of possible privacy and security problems. Buyer beware!
Meet Leo Prieto, the "anti-Murdoch" of Latin America, and founder of www.betazeta.com, one of the region's largest and most exciting social networks and content aggregators.
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
What kinds of companies are doing the most innovation in the data center? Turns out it's midtier enterprises that are taking the "Just Right" approach.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
