My biggest fear of corporate companies introducing wikis into their business models is the capability to consistently police and maintain the site. I think it is a great resource to advertise a company and ultimately become more profitable, but like the L.A. Times example the author provides, it needs to be used in moderation and maintenance. I definitely foresee wiki leading the future of not only advertising, but informing consumers and potential clients.

There are two major reasons I support using wikis for business. The first reason is because of the depression the economy now faces, leaving companies with little to no money for advertising in traditional methods. Luckily, “Thanks to the Web, and networks in general, the cost of publishing and sharing information has diminished substantially— which makes wikis the killer app for corporations,” said Ezra Goodnoe. Whereas in the past, expensive management systems were in place—today the only thing needed are a team of employee proficient in technology and business models willing to adapt to change dependent on the culture and user needs. The second major benefit of wikis are the opportunity to take a business from offline to online in a short period of time which is parallel to the first reasoning of not spending an excessive amount of money on advertising. In a society where people access the majority of news online, companies have to find a way to meet readers to remain profitable companies. The easiest and most effective way to do this is to create a wiki, as well as other web 2.0 tools that can strategically benefit a business.

I believe that everything is good in moderation and it is manifest that wikis are great tools to use, but it is just as important that companies continue to sustain other strategic plans in their business model to remain accessible to varying audiences. The following link provides more specific information concerning how to create wikis for your business, as well as the benefits of implementing this technology savvy tool in your business model: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1P0896B_LU.

In “Wikis Are Now Serious Business,” (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wiki_business.php) author Marshall Kirkpatrick points out ten ways wikis can assist you. Amongst those, I feel like the following are most user-friendly and efficient: very simple publishing, event organizing and exposing research publicly. In a world where everything is transitioning from offline to online, individuals are pushed to learn how technology works. Wikis offer very simple publishing offering a magnitude of people a chance to learn technology. “If you’ve got something that you want to throw up on a web page, to see how it renders or to share it with others, a wiki is one of the easiest and fastest ways to do so,” said Kirkpatrick. He’s right—wikis are used for serious business in an efficient format. And furthermore, it’s an easy way to get involved in the technology Web 2.0 phenomena.

Event organizing is another useful asset of wikis. During his campaign, Barack Obama used a wiki to organize volunteers for his campaign which involved listing events on wiki to inform volunteers. In “How the Barack Obama Campaign Uses Wikis to Organize Volunteers” (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/barack_obama_campaign_central_desktop.php) Josh Catone discusses the tech tools Obama used. I encourage you to read this article to see how utilizing technology tools may have given Barack Obama a competitive advantage over John McCain in the presidential election. The following link takes you directly to Obama’s wiki: http://www.barackopedia.org/. Interestingly enough, it seems that his campaign’s knowledge of technology resources in correlation to the future of traditional media sources allowed him to reach an even larger audience.

Exposing research publicly is merely an advantage of wikis that informs the public in an interactive form. The opportunity for members to use wikis and be able to add content is a useful aspect that people favor. Every individual wants a voice and it seems that wikis give people a voice through either creating your own wiki or adding content on a wiki already established. Either way, it’s a great technique of keep people informed and strengthen the democracy through freedom of speech. 

To summarize my main point, I feel like wikis are beneficial in the transition from offline to online media sources strengthen our democracy. As more individuals become more acquainted with how to utilize tools, it will be become even better. Like O’Reilly states— the more people that use the service, the better it becomes by offering more users more.

Through reading “Seven Blogging Tools Reviewed” and class discussion, what I found most intriguing about blogs is the variety in sites to choose from such as Blogger, WordPress, LiveJournal, etc. In general, most people agree that bloggers use different blogging websites for different and more specific needs. And at the end of the day, blogs can’t be excessively rated because there usage is dependent on what the user wants and how they use it. Furthermore, educated bloggers use blogging websites based on what’s most useful for them regarding applications and widgets. For example, Blogger offers the following widgets (see link): http://www.blogger.com/tour_start.g and LiveJournal offers the following: http://www.livejournal.com/tour/. It seems as if LiveJournal offers more technology advanced widgets such as RSS feeds, voice postings and notifications, whereas Blogger’s theory of advanced application is merely being able to access the site from mobile devices. With that said, if you are running a company—LiveJournal may be able to provide you with the tools you find most useful opposed to a mother who blogs about her children to family and friends. I believe your blogging domain is dependent on the needs you find most important.

I also find it interesting that many of the blogging sites contain missions or core values. LiveJournal has, in my opinion, the best set of core values that are vividly seen in the applications and widgets they provide. See the following link: http://www.livejournal.com/site/about.bml. Their emphasis on self-expression, diversity, creativity, community and privacy may be key components that users value. These concentrations run parallel to Tim O’Reilly Web 2.0 components which encourage blog participation, trusting users, hackability, rich user experience, software that gets better the more people use it, the idea of user behavior not predetermined and the concept of the long tail (O’Reilly).

Through research and class discussion, I actually like the fact that each blogging website/domain has different values which secures diversity in the technology world. Just as Twitter and Facebook are studying ways to co-exist, I believe that blogs should appreciate their indifferences.

 Reilly, Tim. “What Is Web 2.0 – O’Reilly Media.” Technology Books, Tech Conferences, IT Courses, News – O’Reilly Media. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Nov. 2009. <http://oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=1>.

From a different angle, “As an individual user, you can use Twitter to tell a company (or anyone else) that you’ve had a great—or disappointing—experience with their business, offer product ideas, and learn about great offers” (Twitter 101). Basically, it gives the corporate world the opportunity to update and exchange ideas with consumers and vice versa. There is much strength in this activity although it is latent, but the benefits are overflowing. Businesses’ are now able to target their consumers and find out what’s working and what isn’t.

The following link is a brief clip from BusinessWeek encouraging readers to follow BusinessWeek on twitter, http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/whatsyourstoryidea/archives/2008/12/the_twittering.html. According to Editor-in-Chief, John Byrne, it is part of their effort to keep readers engaged. The site lists all of the employees who have a twitter account. As a former BusinessWeek employee, I remember what it felt like to be obligated to have both a Facebook and Twitter account. Although, it was only a brief person of time as an intern—it was a risky experience in that people were invited into your personal life. At times, I often felt like I would get in trouble because of what was on my Facebook or Twitter account. It wasn’t that my accounts were provocative, but I felt like it was extremely personal and even with a technology savvy world—I felt that asking employers to tweet from personal accounts violated personal lifestyles.

Overall, I see how twitter strengthens the democracy and public standing of a business because it gives people a voice. Consumers feel like they’re brought into the business world where their opinions count and are actually used. It’s a great source, until some companies like BusinessWeek, in my opinion, take it too far.

In Eric Clemmon’s blog on “Why Advertising Is Failing On The Internet,” (http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/22/why-advertising-is-failing-on-the-internet/) Clemmons is very effective in pointing out the most important reasons why advertising has failed and will continue to do so. Unlike many other transformations from offline to online, I don’t believe advertising will be able to reform and survive simply because people are educated enough to know how to access specific information they want. People no longer need companies telling them why they should utilize their company; instead, people like to make informed decision based on ideals that are parallel to their beliefs or desires.

In the beginning of Clemmon’s blog, he quickly points out that “One newspaper after another is going out of business across the United States, and the ad revenues of traditional print media, even of highly respected magazines, is declining.” This statement is critically important because with the popular rise of newspapers came the significance of advertisements being placed in printed material. Now that people acquire news mostly from the internet, ads are often ignored because people are able to directly access what they want. For example, if I want to look at different life insurance policies instead of looking for advertisements that promote great deals—I’d simple google life insurance policies and thoroughly look at various WEBSITES instead of ADVERTISEMENTS.  In the end, it makes the individual far more educated on their investment.

Furthermore, the following exert comes from Clemmons also regarding the role of the internet:

“It is not meant solely to push content, in one direction, to a captive audience, the way movies or traditional network television did.  It provides the greatest array of entertainment and information, on any subject, with any degree of formality, on demand.  And it is the best and the most trusted source of commercial product information on cost, selection, availability, and suitability, using community content, professional reviews and peer reviews.”

His definition is extremely precise in that the internet provides opportunity as well as diversity. Users are able to tap in (of content they find not interest in) just as easy as they are able to tap out. Due to the fact that the internet provides you with everything you need, it’s understandable that the traditional media sources have failed to succeed in the internet transformation, especially in the Web 2.0 revolution. Because people are more in tune with technology savvy resources, often people will view an Myspace or Facebook advertisement before viewing an traditional ad or side ad’s on websites.

 It’s definitely a tug of war from the media perspective. After interning with BusinessWeek magazine in New York City for the summer, I quickly realized that advertising basically paid for publications. BusinessWeek magazine went from publishing about 125-150 pages weekly to publishing no more than 50 pages a week. The decline occurred when the internet revolution began and continued to downsize as advertisements took different avenues to reach customers. See the following link which focuses more on the relationship between advertisements and companies. Clemmons sums it up best when he says, “It’s not that we no longer need information to initiate or to complete a transaction; rather, we will no longer need advertising to obtain that information.  We will see the information we want, when we want it, from sources that we trust more than paid advertising.”

 Personally I believe that it is going to be extremely difficult to find a way to sell content and information on the internet. In my opinion, I believe that is what people have been trying to accomplish over several years. iTunes has been one of the biggest best revenues, but few companies have found a way to make a profit. As companies, programs, etc. attempt to sell their content, there will always be another individual or group of people that have discovered another free product, means of accessing free content and social networking outlet. Until the internet and Web 2.0 becomes more consistent, I don’t foresee a way of selling any kind of participation that was once free. Without ads, both of these products fail because like Clemmons states: people don’t trust, want or need ads.

I understand that many companies are looking for a more effective business model because the ones they have in place have failed due to the internet revolution. But isn’t that what is expected? I can’t imagine life without magazines, but I imagine that newspapers will continue to downsize until they make no profit. On the other hand, If you take the opportunity to look at the following YouTube video link, you can see how traditional journalism has changed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Da1kKlPnU&feature=fvsr. If you pay close attention and understand the context, you can interchange journalism with advertising and realize that if advertisements companies take a different approach (business model), they may have a chance in surviving in a different form. I feel as if this is what they are currently attempting to do, but there hasn’t been enough time to see the outcome.

Eric Clemmons. ” Why Advertising Is Failing On The Internet .” TechCrunch . 14 Oct. 2009 <http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/22/why-advertising-is-failing-on-the-internet/>.

Based on Ana Leckenby’s article “Mexican Government is using Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and other Social Media” (http://www.multilingual-search.com/mexican-government-is-using-twitter-facebook-youtube-and-other-social-media/09/09/2009) and my own research experience, I presume that over 60% of companies, both small and corporate, have either an Facebook, Myspace or Twitter account in which they reach out to clients and potential clients. It has become their means of communication. Based on Rubel’s research, it seems that this is because of the baby boomers generation is “embracing popular consumer technology applications nearly 20 times faster than younger generation.” The baby boomer generation is becoming accelerated on almost every level. In the linked article “Does the Tech-savvy Baby Boomer Exist,”  co-founder of a popular boomer social website, Dr. Reisen concludes that “Kids adopt new technology because it’s fun and cool and they’re curious” (http://www.articlesbase.com/self-improvement-articles/does-the-techsavvy-baby-boomer-exist-724405.html).

Of  course the goal of any business it to give its clients the best service it can while recruiting new cliental. The most efficient way to do so is to reach them on a common everyday level. For many cliental, this method is social networking sites. Hence, it’s not unusual that PROFECO Magazine and other companies, including government divisions have chosen to use social networking tools. I believe many people fear that such sites will deplete their credibility; however, in an odd way—it seems that cliental appreciate their new advanced communication outlets. It’s different, it’s refreshing, it’s new. It gives consumers the opportunity to know as much as they choose to and through providing opportunity, consumers react more positively because they have options and therefore, a voice.

The following link is an article written by Jon Swartz in USA Today entitled “Social networking sites help companies boost productivity:” http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2008-10-07-social-network-work_N.htm. The article supports Leckenby’s article discussing how both public and private companies have chosen to promote themselves on social networking sites in hopes to become more productive and also, more exploring. Based on all of the articles read in addition to web 2.0 knowledge already attained, it is safe to say that social networking is a productive tool that will continue to advance.

In Chapter One of Web 2.0: A Strategy Guide, Tim O’Reilly discusses how users create value and enhance Web 2.0 applications in detail. As I read the information, I immediately connected to an application I use everyday and access more than twice a day—Facebook. O’Reilly states “Web 2.0 turbocharges network effects because online users are no longer limited by how many things they can find, see or download off the Web, but rather by how many things they can do, interact, combine, remix, upload, change, and customize for themselves” (O’Reilly 1). I believe this statement represents everything that Web 2.0 embraces. Web 2.0 has provided applications that people are able to customize and make their own, thus giving them a voice. With traditional journalism dying, this is a major transition in allowing people to surf the web for news and entertainment that they find most important.

Without prior knowledge or experience in Flickr, individuals can also upload, create captions and comment on Facebook. I like how O’Reilly parallels comments and metadata for convenience, making it more user-friendly. Like O’Reilly states in online article “What is Web 2.0” (http://oreilly.com/lpt/a/6228), metadata ultimately allows room for service to improve as more people use it (O’Reilly 5). One thing that Facebook can’t do that Flickr can is create a faster network system, which performs for everyone while drawing in more users. Ironically, more people begin to stop using Facebook as problems occur and are failed to be fixed quickly. Often Facebook stalls, especially Facebook chat which is a metadata tool, which indirectly and perhaps unconsciously forces users to stop using tools as they repeatedly fail.

The idea of becoming increasingly comfortable that O’Reilly discusses is a strategic, yet logical concept. While some users initially trust Web 2.0 applications, other users take a while to get used to new programs that require such a heightened level of trust.  

Facebook, by far, is an Web 2.0 application that build contexts for interaction which is apparent through Facebook chat, creating events, playing games, etc. Althought Facebook doesn’t always improve its bandwidth and network capabilities allowing more users to be online at the same time—more programs and content are added or removed depending on the level of participation. Whereas many people are unable to see how Facebook is profitable in some many ways, advertisements, games and businesses all make themselves profitable through being affiliated with a program so emergent. See the following youtube link for more information concerning how Facebook is such a strong advertisement tool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CBuYqZt930.

If an average individual was asked what exactly Web 2.0, the individual may not know that his or her internet activity includes Web 2.0 applications, such as blogging, Facebook, etc. In fact, O’Reilly states that blogging is one of the most popular applications of Web 2.0 (6). Although people aren’t aware of the tools they use to communicate and share information, they use it almost every day. While, blogging can merely be just a personal diary online—many companies have taken this idea and enlarged it, which is why the majority of companies today have Twitter and Facebook accounts, along with a number of others. I really like the comparison O’Reilly uses comparing Barnes and Nobles to Amazon. Amazon, by far, has made its site more user-friendly which is often indirectly appreciated. The appreciation is seen through the more service it receives, like O’Reilly’s assessment of BitTorrent. As Amazon gets more service, the site gets better and while Barnes and Noble continues to be a Web 1.0 application—it fails to bring customers from offline to online effectively

Back to the analyst of large companies using Web 2.0 applications, this past summer I interned with BusinessWeek magazine. One of the requirements was that each intern had a Facebook and Twitter account that was linked to BusinessWeek Exchange so that readers and subscribers could put a face and personality with the print and online publication writers. In the same way that DoubleClick was a Web 1.0 application, but restricted to marketing firms—Business Exchange is a Web 2.0 application that is used by business professionals and those who will to learn more about the business world. This is why earlier I stated that an application can use multiple principes or practices, but not all. If you take a look at the Business Week exchange link in parentheses (http://bx.businessweek.com/), you will notice a number of things including video’s located on the right hand side, active users and most active topics. Users are able to voice their opinion and transfer credible experience into this application that continues to recruit even more users. There are a number of highly distinguished business-oriented individuals who use this site, but you wouldn’t find Beyonce, Brad Pitt or individuals as such using the site because it is not within their focus. You’d more likely find these individuals on Twitter or Facebook.

With that said, Web 2.0 is a number of things—depending on what the user wants out of it.