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.
Leave a Reply