Is there a relationship between Cloud 2.0 and Web 2.0 ?

Cloud 2.0 and Web 2.0 has a broad area of overlap and contains some of the same applications. Cloud 2.0 uses hardware (storage), software applications hosted externally and accessible via the internet. Web 2.0 uses also interactive shared software that is hosted externally and accessible via the internet. One could argue that all Web 2.0 is Cloud 2.0 and visa verse but to get a more clear picture of where there is a relationship between the two subjects I will start working a definition of Web 2.0 and then follow up with a Cloud 2.0 description.

 Web 2.0 definition:

Application types; the definition of application types can be divided into 5 types, in order to simplify the issues of fulfilling the criteria of the definition. The 5 types are of categories as;

1. Social Media/Networks: The application allows the users to produce their own websites accessible to other users for exchange of personal content and communication. Social media/networks play an important role in the distribution of information and WOM (word of mouth) collaboration, which allow users to communicate and interact (interact in form of messaging among other things) Examples: Twitter (message of 140 words), FaceBook, LinkedIn, Ning and MySpace among other. This area will be further developed in its own paragraph.

2. Blogs: Is the same web logs, an online journal, the best known of the Web 2.0 applications (Du and Wagner, 2006) Blogs are often a combination of text Video-casts or Podcasts. With blogs you can combine digital audio and or video which can be streamed and downloaded on small portable devices. Blogs can be public and private towards a specific group of readers/followers. Some blogs as a huge amount of readers/followers which has been very influential and therefore important medias for product and services development (Gillin, 2007). Famous blogs: gizmodo.com among others.

3. Communities (content): This is web sites organizing and sharing specific types of content. The best known of the Video sharing applications is Youtube.com recently purchased by Google.

4. Forums/Bulletin boards: This is interactive sites where exchanging ideas and information is made usually around specific topics and interests. Examples: opinions.com. It has been seen that some of these bulletin boards has developed into online markets (ebay.com) allowing costumers to costumer payments and transactions.

5. Content aggregators: Can take 2 different forms. One of form includes applications allowing users to access easily fully customised syndicated web content. This is when sites are using enabling technologies as RSS (Real Simple Syndication) Examples: Google.com/ig the second form of content aggregators is when websites collect material from different sources to create a customized product or service. Example: Google Maps is a good example of an aggregator.

The most important difference seen from a marketing perspective in Web 2.0 environments is the application user (collaboration) is not only a passive information consumer but an active content contributor with the pro and cons which follow this new way of exchanging information, products and services. As we have an active contributor in form as a consumer the normal enterprise control of the information, product and services flow is not in control anymore. The term User Generated Content (UGC) is often used to underline this special attribute of all above Web 2.0 applications forms.

Social effects: Birdsall (2007) has noticed that Web 2.0 as a social movement has become an internal part of the daily use of many consumers. Several social actions take place in this environment and the almost unlimited possibilities to take contact/ engage and exchange information goods or services with other users allow the creation of online communities. These online communities are formed around demographics or special interests which again create openness in the environment (Beer and Barrows, 2007; Birdsall, 2007).

Generating content and exchanging the content in its many forms as copy reproduce and re-mix information on the Web 2.0 domain is a normal practise. Practices of this kind lead to the democratization process of the technology, information and knowledge (O´Reilly, 2005), which leads to a user participation on a new level, with users becoming contributors, reporters, commentators and editors. The possibility for the users to engage and exchange in a transparent conversation with other users and even industry and politicians has become a reality in the special interest groups and communities. Social media/networks have become part of specially the youth culture but other parts of the society have adapted the possibility to exchange information, goods and services quickly. Politicians have lately used the social media/networks with success. The American president candidate now president of the USA has used social media/networks to deliver his message of change to the entire American population. Herby he has understood the power of the communication platform and the communities which he has created to reach an even broader part of the population more precise and with the possibility to get a reaction from his voters. It is getting uncommon that businesses create such communities themselves inviting people to become members. What has been common is that users of certain products creates communities by themselves to discuss the possibilities of the product and create new ways of using the products on or even find some of the negative sites of the product. 

Where it gets really interesting is in the areas where there is relations between Web 2.0 and Cloud 2.0 and where we place the tools for the two subjects. In the below model you will see that the enabling technologies are placed in the Cloud 2.0 column and the communications tools are placed in the Web 2.0 column.Then you have the column both - which has shared applications with social networking aspects of Wiki, more and SaaS (Software as a Service) aspects from cloud computing. The middle group - both presents or meet the definitions of Cloud 2.0 and Web 2.0. The relation between Web and Cloud is pinpointed around open source, SaaS, SOA (Service oriented architecture and SOE (Service oriented enterprise).

Web 2.0	Both	Cloud 2.0
Blogger	Google docs	RSS
Twitter	Google Wave	Flickr
Facebook	Ning	iTunes
LinkedIn		Skype
Wikispaces		Jing
Podcasting		Slidecast
Voice Thread

Definition enabling technologies/Cloud 2.0:  Enabling technologies has been a source to frustration for the ones who try to define the social media, as these get the labelled of applications (Korica et al. 2006). The applications is often a combination of old/existing technology and the more advanced web technology in order to get the Web 2.0 functioning and can be described as Cloud 2.0 functions. Another difference in Web 2.0 technology is the use of open source software and the free developers who uses their time and effort to create these new applications in the Cloud by a more amateur like basis (O´Reilly, 2005; Constantinides and Fountain, 2008) Many of these applications (Google, Skype etc.) are continuously improved and updated even when users are online on these products, so in short you will not as with other software see the various versions of the software they will happen while you use it which is the principe of using Cloud. This is here the democratization process and the exchange in the hands of the application user who will act co-developer in the open source environment. This new structure of development has led to a fast, low cost and highly efficient application development.

RSS – Rich Site Summary a way to syndicate and customize online content.

Wiki – is an application to allow collaboration publishing.

Widget – is a generic term for the part of a graphical user interface that allows users to interface with the application and operating system.

Mash-ups - are aggregators of content from different online sources to create a new service.

AJAX – is a web development technique used for creating interactive web applications
So, wheter you call them Web  2.0 or Cloud 2.0 computing these technologies will likely serve us for some time to come. 

---

The challanges and threats from consumer 2.0 seen from an enterprise perspective.

Raaij (1998) identified that social and technological developments will create new options and possibilities for consumers, and bring real changes for marketers. Never before has collaboration across time and space been so fast, easy and cheap. This collaboration is either a threat or opportunity depending on the enterprise strategy – resist or embrace. As an Enterprise resisting change will not lead to sustainable business, neither would the embrace strategy if you don’t know how to. As an enterprise you have to know who your consumer will be. One thing the consumer 2.0 has done is to accept the web as social medium, which has changed the acting and behaviour of using the internet and at the same time allowed marketing concepts to flourish (Razorfish, 2008). Consumer 2.0 has been described as the Net Generation and has been identified by Tapscott, (2008) by eight norms. These norms can be compared with the Enterprise 2.0 demand of collaboration which leads to openness something relative new for business.

Consumer 2.0 value characteristic	Enterprise 2.0 open collaboration characteristic
Value freedom and choice what they do	Freedom - open society
Love to customise and personalise	Flexibility and agility – open to suggestion
Scrutinise everything	Candor, transparency, possibilities – open book, open business
Demand integrity and openness (what to buy and where to work)	Lack of restrictions – open shop, open market
Want entertainment and play in work and education and social life	Sharing, access, complexity, sincerity – open source, open bar, open ended, open hearted
Love of collaboration	Standards, Listening, networking, engagement – open systems, open ears, open arms, open door policy
Expectation of everything to happen fast	Expansiveness – open range, opening up
Expect constant innovation	Innovation – finding and opening

Source: Tapscott 2008 and new Paradigm 2008 – Table 2.7

According to Anne Zelenka´s (web Worker Daily 2008) research the net generation is for 90% under 40 years, which mean that most of these people want to pick roles where they are facilitated in

engaging in open, collaborative work environments. Given the choice of two possibilities where the role is more or less equal, the net generation will choose the role in the company where corporate

culture and the tools available and make it easy for them to engage in the conversation collaboration and community they want to work in is delivered to them. What worries marketers and enterprises is how Consumer 2.0 will do their consumption because they do not show the known patterns and perception on vale which makes the old marketing models out of function and an adaption in the Enterprise 2.0 environment must happen. According to Wipperman (Trendbureao 2008) Maslow pyramid of needs has changed with the closed loop where in the process that is never completed self-actualization remains the individual basic motivation and is increasingly coming to the means of self optimization. (See figure 2.7)

As the needs are changing for the Consumer 2.0 and their habit of doing their buying transactions are taking place where they want and when they have the time. This is a huge challenge for the distribution of goods and services. According to Day and Fern (1997) to generate sustainable value from any innovation (Social Media) requires deep knowledge of the consumer and their purchasing preferences. Constantinides and Fountain (2008) argues that in social networks and through medias the consumer preferences and decisions are based on new inputs which is beyond the marketers control as it is user generated content which are build in these communities. According to Tapscott (2008) the business opportunity for the enterprise 2.0 is to form symbiotic relationships with- even to foster - emergent structures/communities since the fundamental nature of self organization is that it cannot easily be controlled, but it can be steered. One of the great issues for marketers and enterprises is the issue of trust and loyalty when we are talking web applications (Social network etc) towards the consumer 2.0 and the contracts which should be made. Simmons (2008) argues that networks of people gathering homogeneously together for social interaction often around consumption and brands are the “tribes/ consumers” which enterprises has to relate to and get them to exchange the companies product, services and information among each other. Tapscott (2008) explain that Enterprises who figure out how to establish trust across a dynamic business web through automatic IT based methods that substitute for formal contracts can gain agility and speed towards the Consumer 2.0. The evidence is strong that a myriad of quantitative changes are becoming qualitative – and that the nature of the corporation and the dynamics of competitiveness are changing. This is in general the Enterprise 2.0 model.

Social Media opportunities and possibilities for enterprise 2.0

It is obvious that there are challenges which an enterprise has to work on using Social Media and the use of this in the marketing communication. It has been clarified that the use of social media is a way of collaboration among enterprises, employee and consumers. An important thing for the enterprise 2.0 is how it can use collaboration as a competitive advantage which is an opportunity to be explored. Frost & Sullivan (2006) has in their whitepaper search about collaboration found that there is a positive impact on enterprise 2.0 and the business performance. On quantitative measures, such as profitability and sales growth, collaboration is a key driver of success. This is strong evidence of a clear return from collaboration solutions in enterprises. In other words a good strategy and market opportunities can impact product quality, development and innovation, but when these activities are performed collaboratively, it is collaboration that is the stronger catalyst. The significant impact of collaboration on labour productivity, costumer satisfaction, product development, innovation and quality further implies that collaboration can also shape success that is more intangible  which the Frost and Sullivan whitepaper find in their research. To fully prosper the collaboration and get the

value for the enterprise marketing and development and innovation must include the consumer not as a target for products but as co-producer of experience. Collaboration with the consumer becomes more important than just sending simple messages to the consumer. From the social media perspective the enterprise could divide the consumer in 6 social technographic profiles according to their participation levels in the collaboration process (Li and Bernoff, 2008):

Technographic profile	Application used	Content created
Creators	Publish a blog/website	Upload created video/music; write articles or stories and post them
Critics	Post ratings/reviews	comment on blogs and forums; contribute to articles or wikis
Collectors	Use RSS feeds	add tags to web pages or photos
Joiners	Maintain a profile/ an account on social media site	Social network, content community
Spectators	blogs or customer reviews, watch video or listen to audio	podcasts
In actives	None of these activities	None of these activities

Table 2.8 – Source: Li and Bernoff, 2008 – Social Technographic profiles

It is important to know how the social technologies are being adopted by the costumers so the enterprise could make the business context and strategy according to the social profile. Marketers in the enterprises 2.0 should be especially concerned about 2 of the 6 social profiles above, the “Creators” and the “Critics”. The “Creators” is the trend setters and brand evangelists  (Hoegg et al, 2006) and the “Critics” is the trouble makers whom you have to work with respectfully but focus on “Creators” who are positive in order to establish and build a group of followers.

Looking at the enterprise 2.0 it is clear to see that using the possibilities of collaboration gives the enterprise an opportunity of better performance especially when they know how to address the collaborators whom has a different angel to the enterprise according to the technographic profile they have. With the proper application of collaborations capabilities and quality, high performance the enterprise 2.0 can create and enliven a collaborative culture in a space that can help contribute to the company’s results and bottom line. So the enterprises do not only have to look at the limitations but they have to see what the collaboration and hereunder the social media can do to help the enterprise 2.0 to gain prosperity and success together with the costumers/consumers.