Just on my last post – Paul Montgomery’s headline really gave me the shites.
This blog has already run under the tagline, ‘Stop here for a Web 2.0 reality check’ and the very first blog was an eloquent examination of why Web 2.0 was a “load of poo”. I still feel it sets a benchmark in so many ways.
Anyway, some where along the way I kind of just stopped fighting it, but more recently it has really started to peeve me again. And the cyclingnews.com story has stirred up all of those feelings again, so prepare yourself for a rant.
Web 2.0 inherently suggests that so-called Web 1.0 is bad. It’s outdated, outmoded, passe. Now, I know Monty didn’t have any intention of suggesting such things with his blog about CN but if you listen to the podcast he links to, cyclingnews.com gets panned for being ugly and very un-Web 2.0.
Yet, guess what? It’s still the undisputed category leader. It’s the one wearing the yellow jersey to use its own parlance. But how can a site that is so Web 1.0 be crapping all over Web 2.0 sites.
Because content has, and always will be, king. Your Web 2.0 frills are well and good, but they mean nothing without a compelling proposition behind them. 10 years down the track there will be a plethora of dead social networks, mash-ups, user-generated content sites. But you know what? You very rarely see any media business that does awesome content go away – no matter how unsophisticated they’re delivery of that content is.
Most every new social network or user-generated content site I see profiled on TechCrunch has bugger-all content and certainly not enough to justify anywhere near the amount of VC dollars or attention they get.
Is it just me or do you get this feeling things are starting to spiral out of control again? Consider the old Squash as back. IMO there’s never been more of a need for the Web 2.0 reality check.