Need to know the "Why?"

It's pretty much common knowledge now for those of us who keep up with stuff of this nature that peers hold more weight than brand messaging when it comes to influence. The obvious reason for that is the big word "trust" and that traditional marketing is seen as "any thing to make the sale." There's an ulterior motive. Makes sense, I'm on board.

But I'm not content with that. In my job, in what I do, that's not enough. I need to know the "why." Why? Because the "why" is the real phenomenon. The "why" is the kernel of insight that will allow successful solutions and experiences to be crafted. Working off of "people don't trust marketing messages" doesn't give me a lot to go off of. How do you combat that? It is the reason companies are abandoning their marketing tactics. But how do we know that is right either? I think if we take a step back and pretend we are 4 years old again, we might get at something. Remember being 4? Or have you been around a 4 year old lately? They play the "why" game. All. the. time. Anything that can be said can be asked "why." Why? Because the question applies to everything. Why? Because everything is the universe can be questioned. Why?...

See what I mean?

So. I think if we took a moment and started asking those "whys," that is when we will get at the information we need to understand. I'm starting to think it's just basic human nature. And the masses will follow whoever they are made to feel a part of. So if brands can do that better than peers, is there a chance to be a big player in the game of influence again?

hmmm.... but why?

Are we swinging too far ?

I was in a meeting with a client yesterday and they asked my my opinion on whether companies/brands should be able to add/change information to the entry about their business on Wikipedia. Or is that is infringing on the dialog? My answer: as long as the business doesn't hinder others input, why shouldn't they? If we are talking that the new way of the world is an open 2 way communication between companies and consumers, those companies have as much of a right to be in that conversation. I think we have to make sure that we don't swing to far to the other side of this mind shift, and disallow the owners of the brand to tell their side of the story. It's participatory, not exclusionary. Everyone needs to play by the same rules, and everyone should be heard. Isn't that what this is all about?

Changing the world

I've been doing some reading on the legitimacy and trust in user generated content(UGC). Interesting dynamics going on... UGC is often given more weight in the mind of people, but there is also a trepidation on many's part to take UGC at face value because of the inherent bias attached to it. There's also lots of talk about the influence UGC has over, well, basically everything now.

Which led me to my thought for the day... I was recently in a conversation where the topic of Wikipedia and its legitimacy was in question. Given the nature of the origin of the information, were people inadvertently taking inaccurate information that they read on the site as truth? Yes.

But. If enough people write the same "wrong" information. And enough people begin to believe it, what power that contains! I think this social phenomenon may have the power to alter reality for the masses, even if it doesn't mean too. If enough people see the word "red" and is told it is blue, doesn't eventually that word become the identifier for that color? Perhaps it is a stretch, but the influence this new world affords can be a bit scary. And oh so exciting!

Web 2.5

So.

We are all intimately familiar with Web 2.0 and all its tenants. Maybe not ALL its tenants, because there still may be a few still lurking waiting to be uncovered. But I digress. This new focus in communication has been very exciting, and has brought a completely new layer of importance to the Web. But I for one am very much looking forward to Web 2.5. What is that you may ask? By no means is that an official term, but to me it represents the normalization that occurs, and the separating of philosophy or approach from execution that tends to happen with big "waves" of innovation on the Web.

Web 2.0 often equates to "community" in the minds of many. It's easy to do. The connection is very strong, but it is not true. Online "community" has become the new portal. Remember that? The days of every brand/company wanting to become THE portal for their industry or area of expertise? Problem with that was any given company was never the all encompassing owner of their industry, and with everyone calling users to their site to find every resource they could ever want on a topic, it diluted everyones' messages. Even worse, users often didn't get the information they really were looking for. Sometimes, they just wanted to find a phone number, not every resource link on the topic of medical supplies.

The same is happening now. I hear it every day. "We want our site to be THE community people can go to talk about foot odor. We want message boards and blogs to offer to our users!" Really? Will people really be looking to you Foot Powder brand to supply an avenue to talk to others? Maybe. Most likely not. Just because we are living Web 2.0 doesn't mean that every application that is related is a solution.

But, the portal demand diminished when people realized it wasn't the portal users wanted, it was more and related information, organized in a way to help them save time. The same will happen with Web 2.0. Web 2.0 will be divorced from its connection to community when the light bulb goes on that it may not be message boards people want, but rather a seat at the table in the discussion, and insight into peer pulse. Will communities go extinct? Absolutely not, but I believe Web 2.0 will begin to reach further into the realm of driving factor, rather than tactical implementations.

Think "Web 2.5" is copyrighted?