Comments on: You don’t deserve to use web 2.0, and that’s okay

By: joshklein

joshklein — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:30:52 +0000

True. Maybe for-profit isn't the right model for truly local news. But I do want the best and brightest journalists uncovering high level government corruption, not the blogosphere!

By: joshklein

joshklein — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:29:00 +0000

I probably need to shut up about those specific brands because I have conflicts of interest… but in general, I think we could all benefit from being more careful about using blanket marketing truisms like every brand is the same. Some things really ARE commodities, and somebody has to sell them and make money. But margins will be low, and not everything is worth talking about.

Great points, and I hadn't looked into Alan Wolk before – thanks for mentioning him.

By: adchick

adchick — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 04:45:54 +0000

“You can only be a part of the conversation if you have something worthwhile to say.” That really says it all. And your comment about investigative journalism…here in Hooterville, the local newspaper couldn't be THAT bold lest they make fellow Country Club Member angry!!

By: Matt Daniels

Matt Daniels — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:02:17 +0000

Interesting discussion Josh.

I've often questioned brands that should be engaging in this strategy. "Be a part of the conversation if you have something worthwhile to say" really speaks to Godin's Permission Marketing --companies shouldn't be grasping for their customer's attention unless its completely relevant and targeted.

And this even speaks more to Alan Wolk's evaluation of popular/cool brands (i.e., Apple, Nike, and MTV). These are brands everyone wants to talk to. But what about Crest toothpaste and Tide detergent? Should conversations exist with these brands?

By: joshklein

joshklein — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:51:29 +0000

It's not just clients, it's the gurus too! I wish there was a little more honestly about the virtues and drawbacks.

And no, you wouldn't want to be in front of Brandon Jacobs. Sorry for the American-centric reference. :)

By: Zen Elements

Zen Elements — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:59:57 +0000

I especially like the blunt point you make regarding 'time and money'. Too often I hear appraisal from a client that has seen a site than can deliver X-Y-Z for next to nothing. They never understand that it is going to then cost X-Y-Z and round to A again for the redesign/redevelopment to make that site actually work for them and their consumers.

…also, I had no idea who Brandon Jacobs was – I don't follow NFL – but by the sounds of things, I certainly wish not to be in front of him! As for growth in my business, a good few points learned.

Thank you for a great post!

By: joshklein

joshklein — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:34:06 +0000

Thanks Michele. I don't think I can think of a way to talk about Web 2.0 without being a little sarcastic or misanthropic. Any time people get so irrationally exuberant about anything, you know it's time to be contrarian!

By: joshklein

joshklein — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:31:09 +0000

Intellectual? You must have me confused with someone else. But thanks!

By: Michele

Michele — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:40:28 +0000

It's always good to have a little sarcasm and a healthy dose of reality in the marketing mix! Great post — good points all made in a terrific voice. I know that's not the usual techno kind of comment you might expect, but it's what makes your blog worth reading.

By: nicole

nicole — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:34:10 +0000

web 2.0 is dead. at least an intellectual like J.K. can examine the historicity of the phenomenon with brilliance and grace alike. thanks josh!