John Cable published a blog post this past October titled "The End of Web 2.0?"
His end was marked by the drained IV bag of venture capital that no longer pumped its lifeblood into the veins of all the loosey-goosey ideas hatched to amass audience rather than revenue. When the flow stopped, so did they.
Many are now on life support. Last December, Peter Schwartz published this article in the The Huffington Post. He cites the Web's most popular social network, Facebook, and the $300 million they earn as having little impact on the expenses they burn. With ad dollars evaporating and their need to add more servers and personnel, their future, in a way, looks grim.
Peter talks about Web 2.0 burnout, and the "longing to return to the wholeness of the physical world." That has resonated heavily with me for a while now.
As Peter explains, Facebook grows by reaching new audiences but also recedes as old audiences shut it off. They unhook. And go back to taking long walks, reading books, hanging with real friends and seeking some white space in life.
Twitter continues to grow at an explosive rate. In better, more fantastical times, fanciful conjecture such the late Portland journalist Russell Shaw's prediction that Google should buy it might be exciting. But this would'nt be too thrilling today unless Twitter or Google could explain how to monetize all those millions of disposable and time sensitive Tweets.
The true fate of Web 2.0
In recent months we've read about layoffs in the Web 2.0 space. Jaxter, LastFM, Mahalo, Yoomba, LinkedIn and YouSendit are some of the many firms doing everything they can to weather the storm.
None of this comes as any surprise given the state of our economy. But does all this point to a pandemic that could wipe out even the most popular Web 2.0 sites?
It's still too early to tell of course. But we all need to be prepared. There are plenty hanging on for dear life in real estate.
In order to survive they must evolve out of the primordial FREE waters of Web 2.0, deliver real benefits and start charging their users. This presents a challenge to the many people who have been enjoying and benefiting from these no-cost services.
A couple weeks ago real estate's largest online community, Active Rain, enacted a controversial subscription fee for new members. It would be absurd to think that AR could continue operating without finding some way to monetize members who use its platform to build their businesses.
Recently, on Twitter I posed the question, "Would anyone here pay for their Twitter account?" Every single single response I got was "not I."
Really? Mmm. I would. Considering the benefits I've reaped from a free Twitter, I can only imagine what I could garner interacting with a paid membership. The thought of Twitter going away because they can't create revenue from its millions of users who have been spoiled by free is alarmingly sad.
So given the inevitability that many more Web 2.0 sites will perish, including those inside our own industry, do you have a game plan for what's next when the free service you've been leveraging either goes belly up or starts charging?
You should. After all, it's not likely that door knocking is going to come back into fashion.
- Davison
Twitter: 1000wattmarc
Sign up for the 1000watt Spotlight e-newsletter
and keep up with the ideas, apps and people that are changing real estate.
20 Tools to Bring your Real Estate Business to the Cloud
A mist of difference
Freaking...
My guess is that when a social networking site starts charging, members will drop and find another free service. Eventually, 1 or 2 sites will really dominate and start charging fees to its members. By this time they will have established a ROI.
Twitter would be one worth paying for "IF" enough people paid for it.
This is meant at everybody "Twitter owes you nothing". There is no easier way to drive traffic to a website/blog and meet/network with locals, for FREE!
I liked the article & Chris' post re: ROI. If you recall the growth of online dating, the free services were all the rage, they came & went. In the early stages people continually jumped ship & followed, but eventually the paid model began to gain a foothold. My sense of why the paid model worked in online dating is that it served to establish a level of "seriousness" among the participants – quickly skiming off the scammers/spammers. A "paid Twitter" could become a more "credible Twitter", and I for one would be glad to pay for the service.
I am sure many eyes will be on AR to see how this decision to charge will affect it's future growth. If AR is successful, I anticipate many of these sites like Twitter will enact a paid membership.
There are great benefits to these sites and if the option is print, I will still consider it good value in comparison, even when there is a charge. Sign me up!
Hi Marc
Here is The Failed Promise of Real Estate 2.0- on year later http://blog.homegain.com/blogging-and-social-networking/the-failed-promise-of-real-estate-20/
Interesting question. The same was asked about Google– would you pay $5 per month? The answers are interesting. It was at the end of 2005 but still.
http://tinyurl.com/y76b4r
Personally,I would (probably) not pay for Twitter. IMO, you'd see more blatant business marketing done on it. Corporate twitters would abound and all the interesting folks would likely leave to a easily copied version. Heck, if a few of the influencers left, many more would follow. But hey, what do I know, I'm still in the stock market.
[...] guys have to say:Realestatewebtrainer, Greg at Bloodhound and Realestateindustrywatch. Marc at 1000Watt has a slightly different [...]
I liked the article & Chris' post re: ROI. If you recall the growth of online dating, the free services were all the rage, they came & went. In the early stages people continually jumped ship & followed, but eventually the paid model began to gain a foothold. My sense of why the paid model worked in online dating is that it served to establish a level of "seriousness" among the participants – quickly skiming off the scammers/spammers. A "paid Twitter" could become a more "credible Twitter", and I for one would be glad to pay for the service.