Is the web 2.0 bubble balloon slowly deflating?

Recently Meg Pickard released an updated version of the now infamous Web 2.0 image map. This new map breaks down who is dead, acquired and alive (X, O, and no mark, respectively)

Kevin Eklund’s statistical analysis of the chart:

Web 2.0: Project or Business?

Mashable touted all those on the list (survivors included) as a testament to those willing to do rather than watch. While I tend to agree with Mashable and others concerning the survival/success rate of Web 2.0 businesses, no one is asking the important question. Only Doug Martin begins to touch upon it:

I created one of the projects Xed out on the first chart. Looking back it was a project and not a business – I got coverage on all the hot tech blogs and the associated huge spike in traffic but there really was not a business there. It did help me get my next job though and it was a fun ride.

Many Web 2.0 companies start out with a great idea, ambition and a rush to get it first to market. The problem with that is when you think like a designer or a developer you get those results. A businessman thinks of the bottom line: money.

Amazing ideas are all well and good but if you don’t have a proper monetization model in place before you launch you are setting yourself up for disaster. You also need short & long term road maps and an exit strategy. Core values and belief systems MUST be set up before you can start doing business. Crawl, walk, run, fly.

I’m not interested in a failure rate or what that means for a new web industry. What I am interested in is why. Why did these companies fold? Why are some still around? Why did some get acquired? Rates mean nothing without reason behind them.

Web You.0

Meg Pickard is at least asking one question, a question about creating a new roadmap:

“If anyone would like to make a new collage of startups in this genre for 2009, I’d be very interested to see it – please post the link in the comments. Here’s the collage above, but with all the defunct companies removed. There are plenty of healthy and exciting companies around these days which could fill those empty spaces. Who’ll take on the task of filling the gaps?”

I propose not just a new update to the Web 2.0 map but a new way to organize it as well.

• Create a maximum uniform height and width for logos.
• Separate into color groups according to what their primary service is (sharing, storage etc).
• Make each logo into an actual clickable image map that links out to each service.
• Show how the social networking services are linked together i.e. Twitter > Facebook > Friendfeed <->Twitter
• Repeat for a Web 3.0 (aka Semantic Web) map
• Tie both the Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 map together in parallel linked maps

Just remember, Rome wasn’t built in a day. Also, Rome is just a city now instead of an empire. Think about that.