It is being suggested that the hype behind Web 2.0 and participatory/social media isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. According to this Reuters article:
Web 2.0, a catchphrase for the latest
generation of Web sites where users contribute their own text, pictures
and video content, is far less participatory than commonly assumed, a
study showed on Tuesday.A tiny 0.16 percent of visits to Google’s top video-sharing site,
YouTube, are by users seeking to upload video for others to watch,
according to a study of online surfing data by Bill Tancer, an analyst
with Web audience measurement firm Hitwise.Similarly, only two-tenths of one percent of visits to Flickr, a
popular photo-editing site owned by Yahoo Inc., are to upload new
photos, the Hitwise study found.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
What percent of visitors to movie theaters went there to contribute movies? to bookstores?
These percentages are small, but they are much bigger than zero, which is what they were with the equivalent technologies 5 years ago, and they’ll grow as more people continue to get comfortable with the idea.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:05 am
Is there any data on;
- how many comment on videos
- how many share videos
It can still be a big party with a small kitchen?
April 19th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Is this any different than the 1% argument? or the dissenters comments regarding Time magazine’s “Person of the Year” (is everyone). Sounds like the same issue to me, perhaps with a bit more traction.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:36 am
I echo John - I visit Flickr at least once a day and upload maybe a few times a month - because it is not solely about posting - it’s about interacting.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Web2.0 isn’t limited to a certain set of sites either. What about personal sites?
According to a Pew internet survey from over a year ago: “Fully half of all teens and 57% of teens (in the US) who use the internet could be considered Content Creators. They have created a blog or webpage, posted original artwork, photography, stories or videos online or remixed online content into their own new creations.”
http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/166/report_display.asp
April 20th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
When you visit, share or comment you are much more than a couch potato or voyeur as the article suggested. Those numbers give the Web 2.0 an accurate pulse on interest and taste as people tell their social networks what they like rather than centralized media sources pummeling our brains with what we should think is important and “next.” Don’t hate Reuters, don’t hate!
April 20th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Totally agree with John and the others about comments, sharing and other stats overlooked about content generation.
To me, it’s actually impressive that in a relatively short period of time so MANY people are contributing and creating; it’s still early days for all of this.
And it’s also important that it’s amateur content that people are choosing to spend time with. This point is just as significant, isn’t it?
Sheesh, Reuters is hating aren’t they!
April 21st, 2007 at 4:23 pm