May 22nd, 2009
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.
Tags: ambition, belief systems, beliefs, blog, brand, branding, business, businessman, chart web, collage, colors, commenters, communications, core values, design, designers, doug martin, eklund, excitement, exit strategy, experiment, Facebook, failure, failure rate, Friendfeed, fun ride, functionality, grouping, image map, interactions, lists, marketing, mashable, models, network, networked, networking, one question, organization, road maps, roadmap, social, social media, startups, statistical analysis, statistics, strategy, success rate, tech, technology, twitter, update, Value, web industry
Posted in branding, business, featured, social media | No Comments »
April 22nd, 2009
© dbking
Is your brand outstanding or just standing out in the cold?
A business‘ full visual identity is what sets it apart from its competitors. With a landscape full of copycats, fakes and mundane bussinessmen, it’s your duty as an exceptional entrepreneur to set yourself apart from the rest. Getting an amazing business card is only one part of the equation. Receiving multiple business cards from different people at the same company is when you realize a brand is truly special. Here’s why your brand is sucking at making a lasting impression.
Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: blog, brand, brand identity, branding, business, business card, business cards, card portfolio, clever design, cohesion, collectibles, colors, communicating, communication, communications, competitor, copycats, core values, design, designers, differential, digital space, entrepreneur, excitement, fakes, feelings, fight club, gift recipients, gimmick, grouping, lasting impression, marketing, media, organic matter, organization, productivity, science, social media, twitter, unique snowflake, update, Value, visual identities, visual identity, visual translation, visuals, words
Posted in branding, featured | 4 Comments »
April 21st, 2009
© Anita Gould
The colors you associate with your brand are extremely important.
Even if someone isn’t aware of who you are or what you do, your brand’s essence is conveyed right away by what your colors tell them. Many different feelings are associated with individual colors. Picking the wrong color could turn a customer away before they have the chance to become one. Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: attempts, best friend, brand, branding, business, businessman, clue, colors, communicating, communication, communications, consensus, conveyance, design, designers, desire, doing business, emotional color, emotional effect, feelings, friends, generalities, gould, headway, lists, Lost, marketing, Peers, science, strategy, tagline, usability, Value, verbal message, visual representation, visuals, words
Posted in branding, featured | 5 Comments »
April 15th, 2009
There’s a LOT of talk these days about branding. We’ve been told that design, the right (or wrong) website layout and communication can make or break a business.
What you market, how you market and where you market are all crucial and important. Should you market your brand on Radio, Television, or Social Media? Are YOU the brand or do you need a mascot or a cool logo? What should your business card say? What’s your tag line? Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: basic essence, best choice, brand, branding, business, business card, coach, color scheme, colors, Communiation, communicating, communication, communication matters, communications, cool logo, design, design logo, designers, goals, happiness, interaction, interactions, marketing, mascot, media, motivator, niche, present, radio television, setting goals, share information, simplicity, social, tag line, tagging, Television, website layout, words
Posted in branding, featured | 6 Comments »
Has the Web 2.0 bubble burst?
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.
Just remember, Rome wasn’t built in a day. Also, Rome is just a city now instead of an empire. Think about that.
Connect with me on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.
Tags: ambition, belief systems, beliefs, blog, brand, branding, business, businessman, chart web, collage, colors, commenters, communications, core values, design, designers, doug martin, eklund, excitement, exit strategy, experiment, Facebook, failure, failure rate, Friendfeed, fun ride, functionality, grouping, image map, interactions, lists, marketing, mashable, models, network, networked, networking, one question, organization, road maps, roadmap, social, social media, startups, statistical analysis, statistics, strategy, success rate, tech, technology, twitter, update, Value, web industry
Posted in branding, business, featured, social media | No Comments »