McKinsey: Companies Remain Wary of Web 2.0

Despite what some of you might think, I am not trying to be the single bearish voice among all the live streaming giddiness that is Web 2.0 Expo week. The signs of over enthusiasm - at times my own included - are however piling up in my RSS reader. Once again, it all comes back to economics. It's good to take a step back and look at the reality. It helps us move forward.

According to a thoroughly researched report from the McKisney management consulting firm, executives are wary of investing in Web 2.0 initiatives. The reason continues to remain fear. This goes beyond a willingness to engage in blogs. It also extends to internal wikis. The enterprise is afraid of letting go of the command and control structure.

That said, there is investment. McKinsey says that money is following web services. I wonder if RSS is beating out other initiatives.

The story also notes that a generational gap between Gen X/millennials and the older guard could be at play here too.

The marketing environment has changed, without a doubt. However, it has not done so enough to force everyone yet to adapt how they communicate. Over time they will. It just is going to take longer than we would all like.

This is a big part of what motivates me and why I love my job at Edelman. We have a long road ahead of us to help big companies get over their fears and see the value in participating in the conversation. I am with the right company to make this happen quickly.

Remember, lots of prognosticators and pundits were ahead of their time in the 1.0 era too. The reality was back then that we needed more people on broadband. Every exuberant time brings with it projections that go too far. Some of that is here today. That doesn't mean that there hasn't been a shift.

Comments

[Mike Smock]

Steve,

Do you understand that there are different forms of command and control?

We recently blogged about command and control in marketing organizations:

"There are different expressions of command and control. Command and control can be top down, centralized and autocratic, and, it can be bottom up, decentralized and democratic. There are degrees and flavors of command and control that are determined by the operating environment, type of activity and objective of the enterprise. By nature and definition command and control is not necessarily "oppressive", "autocratic", "top down" or "centralized". It's what you make it."

You can read the entire post here:

http://twoscenarios.typepad.com/maneuver_marketing_commun/2007/03/command_and_con.html

[Anon]

I hope you get a louder voice a Edelman and stop the stream of fake wanna be web 2.0 initiatives. Sorry to say, but at the moment Edelman's track record is terrible.

[David Meyer]

There is no reason that "command and control" cannot be blended with Web 2.0 patterns... that is exactly what we are working on in some of our new products. For more information check out http://en.terpri.se/alensemble/index.html.

[vaspers the grate]

Yes, most companies probably fear not the illusory "ROI" (or ROT, return on time), but they fear hearing from customers.

Corporations refuse to listen to customer problems, suggestions, complaints, and questions.

They are opposed to equalitarian conversations.

They want to say only, "Buy my product."

They want to hear only, "Love your product."

[Alison Byrne Fields]

I thought the most intriguing thing about the article was the hesitance to use internal collaborative technologies (like wikis) because of anxieties about giving it away in a culture where knowledge is power.