Web2.0 is like the Centre Pompidou

Many of the things we now like to call web2.0 have been around for a long time. Dave Winer’s Manila-based blog scripting.com, for example, is in its 11th year. Blogger.com has been around since 1999. So-called user-generated content, as horrible as it sounds, as if we were doing nothing but creating the crap content necessary in old media for advertisers to advertise against, is not even a novelty of the online world – classified ads were printed on dead trees well before Craigslist. Many other things we take for new today were already there in the days of web1.0.

The Centre Pompidou is an art and research center designed by Italian architect Renzo Piano and British architect Richard Rogers in the Beaubourg area of the IVe arrondissement in Paris. One of the most striking features of the Centre Pompidou is that the architects decided to break with architectural conventions by moving functional elements such as escalators, water pipes and air conditioning tubes to the outside of the building, freeing up interior space for the display of art. And yes, the pipes are all color-coded: blue for air, green for water, and yellow for electricity.

So, here’s my point: if we don’t blind ourselves to the fact that Ebay had its feedback forum from the get-go and was a community well before if was a marketplace, that Amazon.com gave us not only e-commerce, but also consumer reviews and collaborative filtering, and that we had friends on ICQ and AIM and Yahoo! Messenger and MSN Messenger – if not on sites that show us our network of friends and our friends’ networks, what we are doing today with web2.0 is turning everything inside-out, just like Piano and Rogers did with pipes and tubes at the Centre Pompidou.

There were social features back then, but they were in the background, or sometimes downright hidden, whereas today you see the social part up-front, and often in a very visual way such as a tagcloud. On Anobii, you see nothing but the social part, whereas on Amazon.com it’s just a feature. Some online newspapers pay lip-service to the fact that readers count and allow them to vote if they like an article or not – but usually don’t display the vote count, nor do they demote an article nobody likes, which instead is exactly what happens on social news sites such as Digg.

What’s more – and done better than Piano and Rogers could have ever done in the design of the Centre Pompidou – putting the tubes on the outside is not merely smart, colorful and pretty to see. With RSS, Yahoo! Pipes and APIs, it feels like the beautiful Beaubourg neighbourhood in Paris where this incredible building was landed thirty years ago had been invited to remake itself in the same fashion as the Centre Pompidou. And that is indeed some really good architecture.

Why I hate Friendster

Here’s David who explains to me why I hate Friendster.

Great stuff, David! see, I thought WorldofEnds was missing something, i.e. the fact that some “private” networks such as eBay and the online dating sites are actually making money by “closing” the network, by “camping” on the edges of the Web – on the Ends – and then all of a sudden somehow making the Ends the center. Making money off the Commons, if you wish. We may as well call this phenomenon the new Enclosures, because that’s what it is. Making money the old fashioned way, just like the phone companies.
What do you think? don’t you agree the same is true about eBay ?
Do you think it’s ok for commerce, or love/dating and not friendship ?
I’m a little confused now. It sure is messy and ambiguous out here :-)
best,
Massimo

Letter to Doc

Dear Doc,
I read your letter to Meg Whitman. Great. Now what do I do? Quit my job?
I do “marketing” for a European Web-company that gathers consumer reviews – just like epinions.com in the US.
I always laugh about (and relish!) the fact that I work as a marketer who will end marketing because a service like ours will allow people to tell each other the truth about products and services and expose the lies that companies try to sell them.
Apparently, the management thinks otherwise.
Last week I learned, much to my chagrin, that “space” on our newsletter was being sold. I had long asked to make this a cozy, private PLACE where we could present only good offers (special offers!) to our members; now I find out that it’s been debased to just another billboard…
Then I hear a lot of talk about the need to gather information about our members so that advertisers can “target” them better. Finally your letter to Meg Whitman. I agree: ads don’t belong on eBay. Maybe they don’t belong our site, either.
Yes, we do indeed look like a “media company”, intent as we are on counting eyeballs and gathering info and “profiles” for the clueless advertisers who hope to sell the “oh-so-cool” products of the clueless companies they work for by interrupting people who are having a conversation on a site that is all about anti-advertising…
Is this really the only way for us to become profitable? I doubt it. Quite on the contrary, I believe that this approach will bring in some money in the short run, but destroy the only real asset we have, trust. To me, it’s all about trust, respect and clutter.
* if we’re just another ad carrier, why should anybody trust us?
* if companies don’t respect the conversation that is going on and just wish to interrupt, why should anybody want to pay any attention?
* if nobody listens, companies will just scream louder – which will only make things worse for everybody…
Is this the only way? I don’t think so. Why not for example present fewer and less intrusive messages that come not from the advertisers but from us here at The Company, from people who will only present good offers from other good companies because we work FOR our members – not against them?
This is just an idea. But there is no doubt in my mind that for us to go the Yahoo! way is nonsense. We are not in media, no matter how much some of us (not me!) may wish we were.