Thanks to Wayne for pointing out the Web 2.0 drinking game. It only covers a handful of Web 2.0 companies, so I'll add a few generic rules to the mix. Feel free to add your own in the comments.
- Take a drink every time a site is labeled "disruptive."
- Take two more drinks if it was called "disruptive" by Techcrunch.
- Take a drink every time a company has no business model.
- Take a drink if the company has VC funding yet any decent web programmer could code the whole thing from scratch in just a weekend.
- Take a drink if the site seeks to build "network effects," but provides no value to anyone until such time as the network is established.
- Take a drink if the site attempts to use peer production without any incentive to the peers.
- Take a drink if the site uses the "wisdom of crowds," but the only crowd on the site is the readership of Techcrunch.
- Take one drink for each time the company assumes that every signup will turn into a frequent site visitor.
- Take one drink if the company has the underpants gnome business model.
- Take two drinks if the company is in beta.
- If you are a VC, finish the whole bottle, go home and pass out, and don't come back to work until Web 2.0 is over. You will save a lot of money that way.
If you played this game with Rolling Rock, take a few more drinks just because it's sooooo good.
Take Digg.com.
- It is disruptive: you really think it’s not?
- It has a business model: advertising
- Building Digg.com in a weekend: yes, but you cannot build the network of diggers, the traffic, the PR it has generated in the last 6 months and it has the first-mover advantage that no web developper can develop.
- Incentives to the peers: I am writting this comment without much incentive… yet, I am writting this comment. Same for the diggers…
Sure, web 2.0 might not be as big as many pretend it will be. But it is not worthless either. We’ll see some adjustments in the coming months but the concept will stay.
I don’t think Digg will be one of the winners of the Web 2.0 game. Why?
1. I don’t consider the technology disruptive. Kuro5hin invented the user driven news model 4 years before Digg. And I don’t consider something disruptive if it doesn’t actually disrupt a market. Digg disrupted Slashdot, that’s all, not any mainstream news sites.
2. It’s too techie for the mainstream.
3. Most of the articles suck. In a post a while back I mentioned a friend of mine saying that Digg would be great if they just had someone filter out the crap (i.e. an editor).
4. It’s too easy to manipulate. Post an article, IM your friends, get on the front page.
5. Popularity is not personalization.
Your idea that “advertising will be the business model” sounds intriguing. Tell me all the details.
Link of interest? http://seoblackhat.com/2006/10/02/10-steps-to-guarantee-you-make-the-digg-front-page/