You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


Home | Sign In | Contact Us | Careers | Site Map | Help


Advertisement

Why Web 2.0 Is No Bubble: Corporations Are Willing to Pay for It

People who read this also read:

Everyone seems to want an answer to the question "When will Web 2.0 startups start making money?" The implication is that unless we can answer the question, the "bubble" of Web 2.0 will burst and all of us who believe in this stuff will be revealed as fantasists.

The fact is, it's incredibly hard to make money as a Web 2.0 startup aimed at consumers.

There are hundreds of these companies, and they all clamor to brief us at Forrester. Each has its own twist on blogs, social networks, ratings, user generated video, or whatever. It's hard to get people to pay attention to a new tool, and the value of the tool depends on lots of participation -- the classic chicken-and-egg problem. Your competitor is always one twist ahead of you. Some of these startups will succeed but the odds are one in a thousand -- you need just the right idea, at the right time, with the right push or set of potential customers, and you need to take off with such velocity that you leave the competition in the dust.

Once a startup like this does take off, there's that other pesky little problem -- monetizing the success. Google transformed the online world by first generating huge traffic, then finding a business model. But Google's success was based on a fantastically clever advertising mechanism that was automated, attracted new advertisers, and served searchers nearly as well as it served advertisers. Facebook hasn't yet unlocked that advertising gold mine, and flubbed up its most prominent try with Beacon. Twitter has no business model yet. Ning has hundreds of thousands of visitors, but still runs Google AdSense ads. And these are the successes. No wonder people are skeptical.

A few of these companies may (and likely will) unlock that genie as Google did and take off. But for any given startup, the odds are astronomical.

The amazing thing is that there are a class of startup companies making good money right now from Web 2.0. They're not flashy and they don't grow like mushrooms. But they've got all the business they can handle and they are growing. I am talking about companies that serve corporate social application needs. This isn't the typical Web 2.0 business paradigm, since serving corporate customers means lots of client service, which is people-intensive -- it doesn't lift off miraculously like a pure technology startup. In fact, in many of these companies, the technology itself is positively mundane. But the startups grow because they deliver value for which they can charge a premium and get customer loyalty. The customers of these companies don't defect when something shiny and new comes along, because they like the service they're getting.

Here are some examples, listed by the objectives they help companies accomplish (for more on these objectives see Chapters 4 through 9 of Groundswell).

Listening. Communispace now has hundreds of private communities that its client companies are using to learn about their customers. It succeeds because it's unlocked the key to running and moderating these communities effectively, and grows despite charging $150K or more per year per community. The other class of listening companies are the brand monitoring companies, and the track record here is great. Research giant Nielsen bought BuzzMetrics. Another research giant, TNS, bought Cymfony. J.D. Power & Associates bought Umbria. MotiveQuest, which is still independent, has typical clients happily paying $30K and up to work with it.

Talking. Talking with the Groundswell is tricky, but there are plenty of agencies ready to help you with it. After building dozens of campaigns and sites, Blast Radius was bought by mega-agency Wunderman. Brains on Fire ignited the spectacular success of Fiskateers. The digital divisions of companies like Edelman also compete in this space, as do the big Web service companies like Avenue A/Razorfish (now part of Microsoft).

Energizing. Ratings and reviews are the easiest way to energize customers to sell others, and the companies that provide them are taking off. Bazaarvoice's clients have generated over 10 billion customer reviews. PowerReviews works with over 200 retailers. And ExpoTV has built a business around consumers creating reviews on video.

Supporting. Support forums work -- they please customers and they reduce costs. Lithium has an impressive client list including Dell, AT&T, Comcast, and Sprint. The community space is crowded, but other companies with growing client lists include Jive Software, Awareness, and Mzinga/Prospero.

Embracing. Startups that enable clients to source ideas from their customers have a bright future, because customer-generated innovation is hot right now. Salesforce.com bought Crispy News and turned it into Salesforce Ideas, which powers idea sites for Dell and  Starbucks. And Innocentive is growing rapidly, with 50 companies including Procter & Gamble offering prizes of $10,000 or more to innovators that can solve their problems.

While many were distracted by sparkly consumer-facing startups, these companies were building and growing solid businesses. Look how many of them were acquired! This is no bubble, because companies that deliver business value to clients have durable growth potential. Could this be the Web 2.0 business model everyone is looking for?

* * *
Sign up for the Harvard Business Publishing Weekly Hotlist, a new weekly email roundup featuring the top highlights from HarvardBusiness.org.

Comments

Another important thing people tend to forget: you don't necessarily need to make money to be a successful Web company. Even if there is no real model for you, your technology may still be useful enough that a bigger player acquires it and integrates it into its own product line. Sure, you'll never make it to an IPO, but you'll still make nice money.

Startups are laboratories of the Web, where new technologies (or ways to use technologies) are invented to be used by bigger players. Unlike the labs of yesterday, they are small and cheap and quick, and the old rules don't apply.

- Posted by Berislav Lopac
June 9, 2008 12:32 PM

Good post - and a great list of interesting companies to watch (and imitate?)

- Posted by Benedikt
June 9, 2008 1:21 PM

Hi Josh - nice post summarizing all the players in this space - I find that brand owners are still very confused about who does what - and where to start. But I send them to Groundswell as a starting place.

FWIW MotiveQuest pricing does start at about $30k for a project.

My commentary on the "field of dreams" approach to communities here:

http://tinyurl.com/3msnso

Rgds - TO'B

- Posted by Tom O'Brien
June 9, 2008 1:34 PM

Nice article describing a different point of view on Web 2.0 etc. Thanks.

- Posted by Workpost
June 10, 2008 11:03 AM

Right on the spot - just as an added dimension; the next trend is not just to provide an application that does something (listen , engage, etc.) but open access technology platforms that allow others to build applications that takes things to the next level – just like Ning’s pf the world changed the dynamics of social networking paradigm companies like WiseWindow are changing the dynamics of web wisdom and interaction.

- Posted by Sid
June 11, 2008 1:38 PM

Great post. I agree that people misunderstand what "web 2.0" really is, instead only focusing on the examples that get all the media hype.

"Web 2.0" is part of online evolution - bringing the Internet closer to what the founding groups originally envisioned - a communications platform. The Internet has been seen more as a business platform, especially with the dot com gold rush, but it was originally built for communication.

Enhancing communication can't be a bubble (but specific subsets of companies can be for sure). As always, people are throwing stuff at the web to see what sticks first, then they can worry about how to make money.

I think that I smarter than having a brilliant business model for an idea that doesn't stick.

- Posted by David Mullings
June 12, 2008 5:11 PM

Thanks for a great post!

The service quality behind Enterprise 2.0 successes is undoubtedly true.

So why do companies want to go 2.0? I think it's:

1. They believe the benefits (costs, pr etc.) are long term.

and/or

2. They believe customers are going to demand it more in the future.

and/or

3. It's an "exploit or die" kind of a trend.

This is at least close to the way I repeatedly hear the "why" reasons categorized.

- Posted by Simo Huurinainen
June 16, 2008 7:23 PM

Hi Josh,
I was interested in your comment..source ideas from customers..

Thats just what i am doing but it needs an x factor..to make this work and induce paying customers...I believe there are two
possibliities ...
The 4 billion poor
...The 200 million students in Asia.

The key is finding the protocol to engage thse markets..

Thank you for your info .. Ian ceo startup-poor.com

- Posted by ian
June 17, 2008 3:30 PM

This is indeed an insightful position... one certainly not talked about in the social media space.

I feel a strong sense that many in the social media arena are not terribly excited about getting too comfortable with the corporate world. But, as you point out, business might just be the people social needs to survive.

I would love that because it would continue to make the community part of social media all inclusive.

Social requires everyone.

- Posted by Sage Lewis
June 18, 2008 7:59 AM

The internet is here to stay, web 2.0 is an interactive business
tool. Ecommerce will increase in the future.

- Posted by carole salah
June 25, 2008 3:45 PM

Interesting stuff --

The salesforce URL has a typo, should be :

http://www.salesforce.com/products/ideas/

Thx -

Timojhen

- Posted by Timojhen Mark
June 30, 2008 8:59 AM

Trackbacks

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1377

No trackbacks have been made to this entry.

Return to The Groundswell Effect

Join The Discussion

* Required Fields




Verification (needed to reduce spam):

Return to The Groundswell Effect


Posting Guidelines

We hope the conversations that take place on HarvardBusiness.org will be energetic, constructive, free-wheeling, and provocative. To make sure we all stay on-topic, all posts will be reviewed by our editors and may be edited for clarity, length, and relevance.

We ask that you adhere to the following guidelines.

  1. No selling of products or services. Let's keep this an ad-free zone.
  2. No ad hominem attacks. These are conversations in which we debate ideas. Criticize ideas, not the people behind them.
  3. No multimedia. If you want us to know about outside sources, please point to them, Don't paste them in.
We look forward to including your voices on the site - and learning from you in the process.

The editors


Stay Connected

RSS Feeds
Email Newsletters
Twitter: @HarvardBiz
YouTube
Podcasts on iTunes
Harvard Business Mobile

About the Authors

The Groundswell EffectJosh Bernoff, a vice president and principal analyst at Forrester Research, has risen in thirteen years to become one of America’s most frequently quoted research analysts. Josh’s analysis, which aims at a deeper understanding of people and how they use technology, has been cited by sources from The Wall St. Journal to “60 Minutes.”

Charlene Li is a vice president and principal analyst at Forrester. She is the driving force behind Forrester’s Social Computing and Web 2.0 research, examining how companies can use technologies like blogs, social networking, RSS, tagging, and widgets for marketing purposes.

Order the book
2500_c.gif