Culture Shock of Web2.0: How to Adopt and Adapt

Culture Shock - Do we need Web2.0 book?

Is the idea of culture shock applied to Web2.0 seem too theoretical? This idea seems to fit well with what we see in technology use. While some companies and individuals thrive others seem to sink. Or as the anthropological theory describes: in shock! Technology use in applications is such a phenomena; it either motivates or alienates people. Technology use also has the quality of resonating with certain groups or in certain locations. Anthropologist Kalervo Oberg first described this phenomena in terms of adopting to a different culture by native Americans (Indians, Eskimos) in Canada. His ideas apply to Web2.0 because the Internet has made communication more intimate and immediate. The Internet use changes the way people communicate, inform and interact just as much are a foreigner enters a new community. It is also just as available to anyone. Recent events in places like Iran and China where the young generations are using the Internet to organize and protest social oppression are good examples of how Web2.0 can change the way people interact. In Iran there are more bloggers per capita than anywhere else in the region (even Israel). Internet connectivity and blogging software technology have turned a society with limited legal expression opportunity to a highly connected society. This phenomena was seen in Russia during the communist era where copiers were used to duplicate censured literature. The Palestinian intifada used portable FAX machines and public phones to communicate and organize avoiding Israeli military intelligence.

Beyond the theory there are crucial business aspects which new technology managers need to take into account when social behavior is involved. All of the developments in social networking, personal communication (cell phone, VoIP) and use of open source software is highly dependent on motivation of social groups to use certain technologies in their life. Transitions to new ways of communicating and organizing needs to make life easier, simpler, more effective or even add a new dimension to life. Blogs are not more intimate than newspaper columns but they give a format and accessibility not available until now.

The Web2.0 idea has been with us for a long time, Tim O'Reilly wrote his article explaining the idea of Web2.0 on September 30 2005. This article is not a definition of what to do with the web as much as an observation of a trend (what is happening on the web). Actually, the Internet as a place for two way communication is what made Web2.0 idea popular. This popularity is growing into a major trend with many different applications: communication, information, protest, political ideology, financial services, the applications are becoming a new flood of networking. This is what happened in the 1990's when web site technology made shopping and information sharing easy (Amazon, e-Bay, Yahoo, google). The idea of creating a common place for groups to communicate, share ideas, write articles, distribute songs and video is not new. The site Photo.NET started by Phil Greenspun in 1993 (16 years now). It was a basis for a book Philip and Alex's Guide to Web Publishing [amazon] [b&n] published in 1999. So the ideas of Web2.0 are not that new and by the time O'Reilly coined the term Amazon, e-Bay and many other sites had many people using helpful "Web2.0 functions". So why some people take to all these ideas quickly and some are slow? Why do some companies are 'totally out of the game?' It's a personal and group communication culture shock. Until now it was hard to get your ideas to many people. It also took time to write, sing or photograph and present it to people. It was also hard to get to people who are interested in what you have to say. Even magazines and local cable TV shows did not have the immediacy and the focused audience.

Companies and individuals adopting Web2.0 for communication, marketing, customer relations are diving into a new world of not doing business as usual. There are just as many risks as rewards, you can get it right and produce a service like Amazon or Photo.NET which changes the way people buy and interact with each other. This takes vision and leadership. The difference between Oberg's observation and technology change is in the group behavior. There is a group of creators, the initial core developers and marketers which takes an idea and makes it into a usable popular tool. Technologists call this the "killer app". Marketers have called this a paradigm shift, the innovator's dilemma or crossing the chasm (also leading edge or bleeding edge technology has been used). There is another anthropological group which adopts and disseminates the technology. These are the "early adopters" they either need the functions a technology brings or simply want to do something new (cool, innovative, different). Early adopters take a raw idea and make it into a useful process - anthropologists call this behavior (more than just a tool). New creative uses of technology come from small groups that make a big impact on the followers. Social networking used in the Internet has been adopted so quickly and enabled communication at unprecedented speed and coverage. The Iranian election protests organized and communicated via twitter, YouTube and FaceBook. These applications virtually replaced all traditional communication and reporting channels. This one event has shown how quickly a technology can be adopted and become useful.

I will end this article here. This idea is just starting to take shape in my mind. Eventually it will help me to explain what people are doing and help people who are interested in understanding this behavior. I do not see too much talk about this, lots of technology and marketing writing. Lots of "how to..." - twitter, FaceBook, YouTube... but not how to get someone to understand what is happening and how to actually think in your own way, this seem to take time, books usually describe this. Malcom Gladwell's Blink [amazon] [b-n] and the Tipping Point [amazon] [b-n] books were about the phenomena of communicating in networks, connecting groups and the behavior which we seem to have without planning and conscious activities. This is a factor in the electronic networks we build as well.