Snobbery 2.0?!?

For those of you that aren’t aware of my background, I first delved into the web, finding my passion in all things geek based when I started working for Carsonified around 5 years ago. Having launched an online mortgage brand (those were dark dark days, not to mention boring!), I had originally been taken on due to my experience in events. Little did anyone know the apple fan girl that was about to be unleashed with a ravaging passion for web and in particular apps.

When Tim O’Reilly coined the phrase “web 2.0″ back at in 2004 when he hosted his first web 2.0 conference, it was unexpected how rapidly this term would be welcomed by the web community and used for years to come. Since then, it’s been described as many things, including “participatory web”, “network as a platform” and “the architecture of participation” to name but a few.

Having discovered that I had an inner love, passion and some might say addiction for the web, I knew that everything I wanted to be involved in moving forwards had to connect people in some way or another as that’s what makes me tick. It therefore flabbergasted me when having started at Global Personals, people found it so hard to grasp that I was still doing something that I was passionate about and was still centered around the web. The reason? It was associated with dating rather than being a web platform.

Now whilst the stigma is slowly reducing around the subject of dating, it would appear that there’s still a certain level of snobbery around
web companies and their apps. From what I can tell, to be considered “web 2.0″, button corners should be rounded wherever possible, appear wet, love gradients, reflections, BIG TEXT and lack E’s in the name wherever possible. Oh and it also helps if your office is based in San Francisco and is endorsed by a weblebrity.

The truth is; the web should act as a tool to help connect people, to make their lives easier, ease collaboration and to make content more accessible. It shouldn’t be about being considered “part of the cool gang” to purely grow ego.

Now please forgive me if I’m wrong, but the last time I checked, dating was very much considered “connecting”. Run on a platform with constant developments to encourage engagement and reduce barriers, take out the fact that you’re helping people with a serious life issue, it would otherwise be considered a social network.

The difference is (and this is what I think is key) we don’t market it as a web app. It’s purely something that we’re trying our hardest at (not doing too badly either given that we’re the largest privately owned dating company in Europe) to do a bloody good job. Whilst all of the hype around web 2.0 might be all well and good, I can’t help but wonder what difference it actually makes to the end user (who more often than not outside of the web industry bubble haven’t actually heard of the phrase). Having tweeted to ask the difference between a web company and a web 2.0 company, it seems I’m thankfully not alone (see below!).

I’d love to hear your thoughts on the subject below. Don’t hold back!

Back to blog list

Pingback: Tweets that mention global personals » Snobbery 2.0?!? -- Topsy.com
http://www.project14.co.uk Luc Pestille

I think “welcomed by the web community” is a bit strong – from my experience, I think “welcomed by marketeers” is probably more accurate. Those of us who design an build these things hate the phrase (well, I do) – it’s a nonsense, and presumes that we should be on 3.0 (beta) by now.

What the marketeers mean when they say “2.0″ , is 1) usable, 2) interactive (but not at the expense of #1), 3) content lead (rather than style over substance), and 4) stylish (of whatever the current trend is – gloss is SO 2001).

What was the question again?
http://antoniogould.com Antonio Gould

Hi Mel,

No-one ever wants to admit it, but dating websites were where Web 2.0 ideas were happening ages before they went mainstream. They’re also a great example of where people are willing to pay for a service (try to get Facebook or Foursquare to charge 30 quid a month.. )

I’ve used them loads of times as examples in design meetings – it always raises a few eyebrows

A
http://www.twitter.com/hamsternator John Hammond

Sorry Mel, but from where I’m sitting I see a lot of rounded, graded buttons; a tag cloud; Facebook/Digg links; your own live Twitter feed; TWO snazzy looking links to your company’s Twitter feed; a link to your RSS feed and a nice big chunky search bar.

I’m also told that “Gary, 47, from Merseyside sent a new private message” and that the Dev Team say “7 years of constant innovation”.

Whether you believe in Web 2.0 or not, you’re trying awfully hard to be a part of said ‘cool gang’.
http://globalpersonals.co.uk/mel-kirk.html Mel Kirk

Luc – Thanks for your comments. I think you’re right – it actually stands for the evolution of the web but has somehow now become a standard to which people aim for? As for the question, I’ve forgotten now, haha.

Antonio – Agreed. Striking a balance between a site that encourages interaction and yet monetises the users is a hard balance to strike and I think it if weren’t for the topic of dating would be much more recognised!

John – I can completely understand where you’re coming from with your comment but I think my point is that we have never marketed ourselves as a web 2.0 company. For us, our main priority is with connecting people (doesn’t mean it can’t look nice at the same time!) and therefore we’ve always marketed the benefit of our product rather than the technology that it runs on. In terms of the Global Personals website, I think it’s worth bearing in mind that we aren’t just trying to attract members to our sites, but top quality developers and designers to the company as we’re expanding at a rapid rate. Therefore it’s important that we demonstrate we’re current in our thinking and designs and dynamic as an organisation. Oh and we’re in Windsor too!
http://www.twitter.com/hamsternator John Hammond

Mel, you make a fair point about the look and feel. Whether it’s “on trend” or not, it does look good so why not! I think for me though, Web 2.0 IS about the cuddly, fluffy stuff like “connecting people”. I read the reasons why you believe you don’t market yourself as Web 2.0, and I’ve always considered those things to be the epitome of it. I don’t know if that means I’m wrong, or if it means 2.0 is all a lot of tosh. Either way, I like Windsor so give us a shout when you need a C++ dev (Not a very 2.0 skill probably!)
http://globalpersonals.co.uk/mel-kirk.html Mel Kirk

John – We are actually hiring C++ developers, so if you’re interested, drop me your CV to mkirk@globalpersonals.co.uk