Interactive marketing and e-commerce strategy blog for the local, mobile, social web

Have you heard the big news? It appears the web is dead. At least that’s what Chris Anderson is saying over at Wired Magazine this month. In the Web’s place, Anderson suggests a closed environment – think Facebook and iPhone apps – is using the Internet to replace the existing, open Web. Were you even aware there was a difference between the Internet and the web? I suspect not. And, frankly, for most people, it’s not a difference worth paying attention to.

The basic argument goes like this: apps and controlled environments like Facebook are choke points, limiting consumers’ access to only the content those providers permit. The winners? Anyone who can control, and monetize, the choke points. The losers? Google, whose search spiders can’t get past the choke points. And, eventually, you, when you can’t get content you want without paying some type of premium.

Anderson argues this process is well underway. For instance, he notes the growth in the market share for pageviews among the top 10 sites on the web – from 31 percent in 2001 to roughly 75 percent in 2010. These sure sound like choke points, right? But, remember, most of the top 10 highlight content NOT created by the site itself and frequently direct traffic offsite. Think Google, Yahoo, Facebook, YouTube, etc.

Anderson suggests one reason the rise of choke points is inevitable is because ad dollars haven’t moved to the Web as much as traffic has. Without choke points, what’s going to appeal to advertisers? But, to suggest that online media has failed as an advertising medium due to limited clicks is counter-intuitive; nobody clicks on broadcast-media advertising, yet we don’t doubt its effectiveness (or, at least, we don’t doubt its effectiveness enough). Similarly, to suggest no brands have been built in the Web age is absurd. Ever hear of Amazon? Facebook? Google? Did they grow due to heavy broadcast media ad spending? Of course not. Maybe online ads attract fewer dollars because sophisticated brand builders are gaining mindshare through more efficient use of their resources.

As for Anderson’s “…single entrepreneur-mogul-visionary model, a ruthless paragon of everything the Web was not: rigid standards, high design, centralized control” argument, I say “Meh.” Didn’t Facebook come under fire recently for making the content on their site available to Google?
These visionary entrepreneurs want to have their cake and eat it, too. It’s not a case of “either/or.” It’s very much a case of “and.”

Don’t believe me? Then why is WebMonkey (owned by Wired, I should add) highlighting great, open-web focused techniques by, among others, Apple? Isn’t that The very same Apple accused of following the “…single entrepreneur-mogul-visionary model”. Hmm…

And what about the idea that apps fragment content discovery and minimize Google’s role? Actually, it’s possible Google will suffer. But it’s equally likely some entrepreneurial soul will fill the same role among content within apps that Google has performed for the web. Why? For the same reason Google achieved its dominance: because customers are looking for someone to help them find things. Maybe Google won’t fill the search role for apps. But it’s likely someone will. If disruptive technologies like the web have taught us anything, it’s that the established players don’t always stick around, but it’s rare that the services the affected companies offer don’t also reappear in the new context. And don’t many people worry about Google’s influence due to its size in the search market? This may be one way to limit the effect of their hegemony.

Assuming the web is dead (I don’t, in case you hadn’t noticed), why should you care? Two big reasons:

1. Are these choke points blocking your access to customers? Can you get a message to any customer at any time saying whatever your choose? If yes, then no worries. If not, I’d be concerned. In this regard, the iPhone App Store is a little problematic; Android, not so much.
2. Are they – or could they in the future – increasing your cost to reach customers? This is really the same as #1, expressed in economic terms. Between internet service providers, marketing firms, e-mail hosting companies, publishers, etc., you’re already paying to talk to customers. Are the “they” in this scenario adding to those costs or simply changing who you’re paying? As long as it’s not the former, I wouldn’t get too worked about it.

We can expect to see seismic changes in the online world over the next decade due to mobile’s influence – just like we saw over the last decade-plus due to the Web itself. And that’s OK. Stressful, sure. But still OK.

Think I’m nuts? Do you think the web is dead? Do you think it’s troubling? Tell us all about it in the comments.

---

Are you getting enough value out of your small business website? Want to make sure your business makes the most of the local, mobile, social web? thinks helps you understand how to grow your business via the web, every day. Get more than just news. Get understanding. Add thinks to your feed reader today.

Or subscribe via email.

And while you’re at it, don’t forget to follow Tim on Twitter.

Technorati Tags:
business, Chris Anderson, E-commerce, e-commerce, facebook, Google, google, internet business, internet marketing, mobile, online marketing, strategy

Sphere: Related Content

Tagged as: chris anderson, E-commerce, Strategy, the web is dead, web, wired

{ 0 comments }