My so-called Live

Among the many memes I’ve failed to launch, among the most worthy is the World Live Web. The term isn’t mine. I got it from Allen in 2003 or so, and totally saw the sense in it. So, for much of the last three years I’ve suggested that the split that really matters is not the generational one between Web 1.x and Web 2.x, but the functional one between the static and the live. But I was starting to loop on the topic, so I pretty much dropped it. (Well, not completely. Just mostly.)

Now, however, comes Seana Mulcahy, who writes, Searls posted some compelling info over three years ago now. Typically in our business I think three years ago is beyond old news. However, this has a shelf life and applies to folks just starting to question it and explore it.

And here’s Denise Shiffman, who writes,

  By 2006 The New York Times had already used Web 3.0 to refer to the Web that offers meaning – where the sum of knowledge and behavior can be accessed (of course this is of primary importance to performance marketers). But the one I like best is used by industry pundit Doc Searls: Live Web, which is meant as an all encompassing term to refer to 2.0, 3.0 and everything in between.

  Marketing 2.0 is defined by the open, collaborative, social, virtual, user-generated, mobile environment of the Live Web.

Well, actually that’s not what I meant, but … whatever. (See Denise’s comment below.)

Hey, who knows? Maybe there’s Live in it yet.

5 comments

  1. Ed Brenegar’s avatar

    There are many dicotomies along the static-live divide. For example:
    static – dynamic
    abstract – concrete
    iconic – interactive
    ideal – real

    This is something I’ve been working on related to the role of values in organizations. I’ve now come to see a distinction between Values 1.0 and Values 2.0.
    Values 1.0 – idea – icon – irrelevance
    Values 2.0 – idea – interaction – integration – impact

    I wrote about this at http://edbrenegar.typepad.com/leading_questions/2008/04/social-objects.html
    and have created a one page diagram conversation guide at http://edbrenegar.typepad.com/Values2-0.pdf.

    What I’m seeing is a pathway to operationalizing values within organizations. In so doing, the values are alive, and not historic icons of the past, or static memories that have marginal value for the ongoing work of today.

  2. Denise Shiffman’s avatar

    Doc,
    The article you reference in OMMA was supposed to be an excerpt but they edited without my permission or approval. In the Age of Engage, I refer specifically to (and note in endnotes) an article you penned, “Linux for Suits — The World Live Web.” The exact comment in the book, “I agree with Doc Searls: We need to think of the Web as alive, as an ecosystem with a heartbeat that is constantly moving and changing in order to create engaging, interactive marketing, and valuable business interactions at each touchpoint.”

    That’s what I took away from what I thought was an exceptional article.

  3. Doc Searls’s avatar

    Thanks, Denise.

    I just made a strike-out of the last line referring to your piece, with a link pointing to your comment here.

  4. Twitter The Next == The World Live Web « Nowstream’s Weblog’s avatar

    [...] Searl’s has talked about this several times over the last several years. It’s easy to agree with someone like Doc on your own blog to try and [...]

Comments are now closed.