April 24, 2006

A part of me who thinks that this whole word of mouth thing has jumped the shark

web 3.0: when shutting-the-fuck-up adds value.

Mark Pilgrim (onto web 4.0)
Russell Beattie (but will his Yahoo ads live?)
Dave Winer (we'll see)

Tags: , , , = Powered by Qumana


alan said...

The most interesting thing surrounding the whole WOM deal is in order to use it, you need at least two mouths, one as a speaker, the other as the listener.

Having two mouths implies a certain physicality, i.e real folks breathing close to each other.

The third person, the marketing droid, needs a certain proximity in order to measure/count/trumpet their findings without getting bitchslapped by either of the other two for invading their personal 'space'. This is the first problem that goes undocumented, in trying to sell this stuff.

The second problem with these programs is being able to identify the type of folks who can actually spread the word in a 'viral' manner, which itself is a poor choice of wording as viruses are just as bad for you in meatspace as they are on the web.
Just think! "Would you like Measles with your marketing?"

I suppose a case could be made for this sort of message infection by cruising ER rooms to acertain market penetration, but how many folks do you think are gonna spread the word when their throats are swollen shut?

WOMBats are more like it.
STFU is right.