Web 2.0. A discussion.

[Cory W]

I recently attended Ad-Tech in San Francisco. I went to a branding seminar that had Marketing Executives from both Lego and Levi Straus jeans on the panel.

One of the biggest topics that they discussed was content distribution with potential misrepresentations of their brands. The girl in charge of Levi's brand, forgive me for not recalling her name, said that the most difficult thing for them to do was to "let go of the brand." But she followed that up by saying that once they did, they realized their brands full potential.

The brand no longer speaks to the consumer, the consumer interacts with the the brand.

Brujah posted this in another thread.

Originally Posted by Brujah

CBS declined to join the talks with Fox and NBC regarding their partnership to distribute programming. This excerpt is from the latest Wired, from the president of CBS.

Q. There's a lot of CBS material on YouTube. How does that work?

A. You have to look at it in two different ways. One is content that you will get paid for directly, and the other is promotional content. Our attitude is, either pay us for it or give us promotional value that will eventually lead to us getting paid for it.

Web 2.0 is driven on the concept of sharing information freely. Creating any portal that potentially conflicts with this concept will be highly ineffective. Sites and surfers are now relatively adjusted to 2.0 ideas. Google has made a few announcements recently regarding their search algorithm which hints at becoming even more friendly with 2.0 setups.

The funny part is when you say 2.0, most people don't know what it means, yet they are fully compliant in their web behaviors. Although adult has been slower to move, it will move.

Just a matter of when.

Those are my thoughts of the day, please add on with your thoughts.

What does 2.0 mean to you?
What do you see the future being?

Have a Great and Safe Labor Day all,

Cory.

[Pornwolf]

CBS is looking at it in the most practical light. Here's a quote from their President of Digital Quincy Smith

Embedding and sharing: “We’re very open to the consideration. It’s crazy not to allow the audience to embed ... for now, they can embed across all of their networks.” One issue now: how do you take content from one and embed it elsewhere while give full credit? Another—the advertiser has to be ok with it. He stressed that each partner is different has to be considered that way, adding, “This is not a collection of commoditized assets.”

Coming next: Smith: “We’re working hard on everything—JV, Yahoo, YouTube, you name it. We have to be and, by the way, they should, too. You know this new world—it’s partner. It’s embrace and extend, not hose the other guy.”

Link here

The idea of Web 2.0 is how do you get the most eyeballs possible and make money at the same time.

Honestly adult has been ahead of the game there for quite a while if you think about it.

[Shankz]

I'm waiting for Web 3.0.

[fris]

i only do web 6.9

[kristin]

Memorial Day weekend Cory ...

[TheJimmy]

Come on man, you posted this thread without a link to this groovay video?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=NLlGopyXT_g

or the wiki almighty's spin on 2.0:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0

So what is 2.0 is it purely 'user created content' or is it leaning more towards 'user rated content' or both? Can it be one with out the other, do you need both elements involved to be TRUly 2.0-ey?

I love where this stuff is going...

[RawAlex]

Here is the problem: from a content standpoint, web 2.0 is the taking of already commercialized content and re-distributing it through other channels, often for free. Replays of TV shows, clips on youtube, etc.

Most of this content is already paid for, has already made a reasonable profit, and everything else that happens is gravy.

Adult? Not really Our first run areas are their second run areas: DVDs, Internet, etc. Adult has no initial commercial assured channel to pay for it's product, the product is sold in a marketplace becoming full of free or cheap network VOD type sites and traded files.

They don't need to make money on the net - they just need to hope that they get a bigger audience for their shows during sweeps during broadcasts to increase viewership. For them, the internet "2.0" isn't any different from a movie trailer on TV, an Ad in the newspaper, or a flyer dropped at your door.

For Adult, the internet is the economic engine that has made much of the porn world possible. When the competition for eyeballs is against people giving it away for free, porn loses out.

Web 2.0 isn't porn friendly, at least not in any commercial sense.

[Elli]

I think a possible problem with 2.0 is that the sites are geared towards giving away as much free information (likely database-driven) to as many users for no service charge as possible. This means there is a much higher cost of entry, since the site depends solely on advertising and not on service charges from its users. That's my take on it, anyway.

[AssPirate]

Interesting thread and interesting links about Web 2.0 guys!

[BradM]

web 2.0 is a term that encompasses too much. What it means is interactivity to the next level. Everything is social, can be shared and traded and swapped easily. That can be interpreted in many ways by many people. I hate the term web 2.0. Besides I am waiting for the bugs to be removed and go for 2.03 production version.

[maxjohan]

The future of the Adult Industry? Adult will become more mainstream but no one will buy porn anymore, porn is there to lure them in and then offer them Loans and other High ticked products..

The thing is with web 2.0.. Find something else to sell them, innovate new products and figure out what people really wants to buy from now on

Why do I give away all the secrets?

[TheDoc]

Web2.0 isn't about sharing content or ideas, it's about user interaction. It has been around since the dawn of the Internet, and Adult made it what it is today. The thing is the mainstream market likes to give everything a name.

Web2.0 is all the social sites, blogs, forums, chat rooms, any place you can comment, vote, react, viral market, mass market, video market.. Web1.0 is putting a banner on a webpage, Web2.0 is everything else.

What they are calling Web2.0 is already the past.

[calmlikeabomb]

Something that has failed to mentioned in this thread is 'the web as a platform'.

In my opinion your website needs more than user submitted content to be considered 'web 2.0'. Without more interactive web applications (such as ones using AJAX) and those creating a more interactive environment with less waiting, your still in the 'web 1.0' world. Users don't want to be sitting around waiting for pages to load anymore. They want dynamic functionality that makes for a more interactive experience.

[calmlikeabomb]

TheDoc beat me to it ; - )

[kristin]

I think web 2.0 is also a driving force to get the surfers to overcome misconceptions they may have about the web. With everything online from banking to buying houses, making it easier to navigate, more socially interactive, people feel less like they are getting robbed.

[Basic_man]

What really mean 2.0 for the adult web industry?? That's the question !

[jayeff]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Here is the problem: from a content standpoint, web 2.0 is the taking of already commercialized content and re-distributing it through other channels, often for free. Replays of TV shows, clips on youtube, etc.

Most of this content is already paid for, has already made a reasonable profit, and everything else that happens is gravy.

Adult? Not really Our first run areas are their second run areas: DVDs, Internet, etc. Adult has no initial commercial assured channel to pay for it's product, the product is sold in a marketplace becoming full of free or cheap network VOD type sites and traded files.

True as far as it goes, although that isn't really the problem. If as someone else (wrongly) claimed, in any but a narrow technical sense Web 2.0 had been with us all along, we would already have run into the wall of trying to get people to pay a higher price for our content than many perceive it merits. The problem is that we don't add value.

PC's as a way to view "traditional" porn - ie pics and movies - have both pros and cons - so not everyone will think of them as a better way to view porn than say magazines and movies. Online porn is losing its novelty value among the increasing percentage of experienced surfers, hence the reports that we are (at least in relative terms) beginning to lose our audiences. And among the loyal surfers, we can reasonably expect more and more to be perfectly satisfied with what it available for free (from both legitimate and non-legitimate sources).

I'm firmly of the belief that within perhaps as little as 5 years and not more than 10, we won't even be attempting to sell generic, non-interactive porn. Almost all the content that today we are selling, we shall be giving away to increase traffic, Instead we will be selling live video, dating, etc: not on separate sites but as premium content behind portals offering lots of free pics and movies and basic interactivity. We are going to see more named models appearing live on sites and reacting (or at least appearing to react) with members.

We will also finally get the message that online porn is best suited to being marketed as a high-volume, low-margin product: the opposite to what most of us have done so far. That will probably start to change once the first couple of large corporations get in at the top of this industry and they will also begin to monetize our visitors more broadly. We may not have people right now who can talk to the execs of non-adult companies and convince them to focus on our demographics rather than our product. But we have in large numbers exactly the potential customers many online advertisers want to reach. That's money which everyone is leaving on the table at the moment.

[Pornwolf]

calmlikeabomb that was a great image post. It sums up the parts nicely... now let me ask where the heck did you come from. i ahven't seen one of your posts in the 3 years you have been here ! haha Keep posting bro.

TheDoc, right on target as usual. You go down as one of the top 3 members of this board when it comes to info IMHO.

Jayeff... respect as always.

Porn has mastered one of the aspects of Web 2.0 for many years now... superdistribution and monetization of content. For us until recently it has been through the use of clips via gallery posts using MPG, WMV and other formats.

It goes all the way back to the early 90's with Vivo. Share the content & monetize it.

If you look closely a lot of the startegies that are being implemented are nothing but that. YouTube is one big MGP in a sense. But, they are just now learning how to monetize it and share the revenue through sharing the ad money with selected directors.

Look at the CBS push for widgets then think about feeds with upsales.

Communities... Remember Redclouds/Voyeur Web?

You have to give adult credit where credit is due.

Sure, Ajax has added a new interactivity to everything but the base of Web 2.0 has been laid by adult... as usual.

What I'm concerned about is that we haven't developed anything new to offer Web 3.0. We are currently playing catch up which has never happened before.

[datatank]

Originally Posted by Pornwolf

Communities... Remember Redclouds/Voyeur Web?

How about this one http://bianca.com/

[jayeff]

Originally Posted by datatank

How about this one http://bianca.com/

Been around since 1994

[SomeCreep]

Originally Posted by WEG Cory

What does 2.0 mean to you?

Using .css templates. Pure html is now considered ancient like the cretaceus period.

[Masterchief]

rude.com/tangotime.com/pornotube.com/xtube.com are what I would consider web 2.0 in the adult realm. I love them because I get to wank off at all the free content to my heart's desire

[Pornwolf]

[TheDoc]

Thanks PornWolf



I think Web3.0 is more of a technical aspect, technology has to help. With interactive flash movies, xml/rss live data pushes, personalized subscription services, and live-personalized desktops. Even email could easily be replaced with subscription services (bye spam), xml based internet would make easy content filtering (that includes porn). Your PC will stay at your house but your Internet Life will be stored online is a bit freaky.

Personalized Search theory + Google type Desktops, xml data feeds being put through flash virtual worlds..

I guess Web3.0 has started, but it has to wait on Web2.0 to finish, and with most of the net still working within Web1.0 - it's going to take awhile.

[The Apprentice]

Originally Posted by Shankz

I'm waiting for Web 3.0.

I'm waiting for the internet Part II.
I'd pay to have an internet that's free of bullshit info and search engine abuse...

Almost everytime I search Google I get at least one or two MySpace results. Or how about when you're looking for music and get someone's winamp playlist? Bogus redirect pages, misleading keywords, useless spam...

They should make an internet II, with hand picked websites. I'd pay for it.

[maxjohan]

Originally Posted by jayeff

We may not have people right now who can talk to the execs of non-adult companies and convince them to focus on our demographics rather than our product. But we have in large numbers exactly the potential customers many online advertisers want to reach. That's money which everyone is leaving on the table at the moment.

Yup, I'm with you on this one

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by jayeff

Instead we will be selling live video, dating, etc: not on separate sites but as premium content behind portals offering lots of free pics and movies and basic interactivity. We are going to see more named models appearing live on sites and reacting (or at least appearing to react) with members.

Creating events (like shows by stars) works - except that without all the other content, the girls (and guys) wouldn't be stars to start with. Porn's star making system (DVDs in particular with the large idstribution studios) are what creates porn's stars. For television and the movie industry, DVDs are just a way to stretch out the income potential for their already made (and paid for) content. For porn, it is primary - for TV and movies, it is far down their long tail of revenue streams.

The more they get into that market, the more they take away value for our content. Doubly so because they have little reason to "sell high", because almost every penny of revenue for them is profit - the show or movie was already paid for when it ran in prime time or in theaters. For Porn, this is the primary distribution channel.

Same thing happens when they hit online: Except for bandwidth and encoding, they have few true expenses because they are pushing content hat is already paid up. Further, end users are more likely to tolerate actual video commercials in the stream, which porn cannot do. So they can ticket price stuff for free.

Without a star making and star maintaining system, there is no way to pay to make the product - so all the "interactive" in the world will mean little because the people doing it will be effect nobodies.

Originally Posted by jayeff

We will also finally get the message that online porn is best suited to being marketed as a high-volume, low-margin product: the opposite to what most of us have done so far.

I can't say that I agree on this one either. Porn isn't something you need 24 hours per day. Once a guy has "finished up" for the day, he is done and isn't coming back to porn. Give him enough free content to yank the crank, and you won't sell him much of anything (which is one of the reasons why massive free content sites have the traffic but not always the sales).

Yes,pushing them off to related sites works to a point, but again: once the dude has done his thing (average 6 minutes, apparently) he is GONE to look at sports scores and read jokes. Pussy ain't all that entertaining when you just blew your nut 5 minutes ago.

The only place this has been working even marginally is torrent sites. But there again, they only pull it off because they have (a) little in the way of expenses past hosting, they certainly aren't paying for content, and (b) someone else foots all the bills for the transfer of information. Low dollar high volume low margin. Start paying to use content and start paying bandwidth to deliver it in huge volumes, and suddenly it isn't as profitable a business as you might think. By comparision, junk TGP traffic is a better market... sad.

WEB 2.0 suggests all kinds of interactivity - but without methods in place for the content providers to extract income, Web 2.0 actually KILLS content. Most of the examples I have seen of interactive desktops and what not look like giant websize fuskers, sucking down everyone else's work and putting their own ads on top of it. A great business model if you don't have to pay for content.

[jayeff]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

I can't say that I agree on this one either.

You have re-stated the commonly perceived problems associated with change, without addressing the inevitability of change. Your assessment of the problems is roughly correct, but not the implication that we can therefore stop time.

Your view also overlooks how cheap and effective content is, compared to other ways of attracting audiences. And although excess demand has allowed us to skew normal business models thus far, there is no basis on which to assume we can continue to do that in a maturing market.

[Blingbaby]

Originally Posted by kristin

Memorial Day weekend Cory ...

Nice try though LOL

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by jayeff

You have re-stated the commonly perceived problems associated with change, without addressing the inevitability of change. Your assessment of the problems is roughly correct, but not the implication that we can therefore stop time.

Your view also overlooks how cheap and effective content is, compared to other ways of attracting audiences. And although excess demand has allowed us to skew normal business models thus far, there is no basis on which to assume we can continue to do that in a maturing market.

The "inevitability of change" merely says that Porn as a business online is likley to be the first confirmed death from filesharing and "web 2.0". With the addition of 2257 rules and everything else under the sun against commercial producers, and fewer restrictions placed on non-commercial sites, it is sadly very likely that Porn as business, membership site wise, is a dinosaur just looking for a place to fossilize.

It is pretty clear that the only DNA from the current system that will likely survive is the pure PPV / On Demand companies that will be sending that material to set top boxes or windows media center to be enjoyed on the big screen, once again tightening the commercial porn business down to a small group of companies thathave the money to step into that industry properly (with rights to the material - nobody has defined the line where "web rights" stop and "DVD rights" begin, gentlemen, start your lawyers).

There is great potential that the "webtv" model might have not been wrong, just about 10-15 years too early.

Using porn (or sexy pictures) to lure people to other things is potentially functional business model, except the current underlying support networks for traffic (from TGPs to link sites to blogs to review sites) would all pretty much dry up and go away (no money, no websites).

Admitting that the porn membership site model is likely a dodo is hard. It is harder when there is no model in place to replace it. That, for me, is going to be the real play in the long run.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by WEG Cory

Have a Great and Safe Labor Day all,

Cory.

summers go by fast i know but..........

[psili]

K. I'll be the negroid sheep in this thread...

----------------------------
1. Stop talking about "web 2.0". That shit, as a moniker, doesn't exist other than in an executive board room where the executives think the interwebs are made up of plastic tubes and shit.

2. Ajax hasn't changed shit. If anything, it's given a lot of "designers" an excuse to make a website's functionality worse.

3. Innovation drives Function. Design is tertiary. it's been that way since users have dealt with an interface of whatever source.

In regard to dissemination of content -- what the fuck's the question here? You take an explosive growth of internet users and you have an explosive growth of content that can't be protected.

There's tons of discussions people can make over the moniker of "web 2.0". However, I don't think it's a new web, just a ton of more adopters surfing on the same internet. --- It's not like there's new technology out there, just more adopters / fakers / sadist sheep herders and shit.

[Pornwolf]

I think it's a handy new name to describe all the new bullshit companies that are getting insane amounts of coverage and funding like Twitter & Scribd... as well as others that deserve it such as YouTube and Facebook.

There's a whole new wave of sites. It's kind of like Generation X IMHO. Just a web generational title with a loose definition of a biz model attached.

[BlueDesignStudios]

I think Web 2.0 is different for adult and non-adult

Non-adult is more community based where everyone contributes to the discussion, thereby creating the very content that they seek

Adult however still requires a producer - you need a girl, a dvd, a webcam, an image for the vast majority of adult applications. And that basic relationship isn't going to change, you'll never have as many girls looking for porn online as guys, it will always be guys looking for girls.

Porn will always be about guys wanking off (usually to a female) - that will never change, the delivery methods will. Finding a new way to deliver an old service is the trick.

[calmlikeabomb]

Originally Posted by Pornwolf

calmlikeabomb that was a great image post. It sums up the parts nicely... now let me ask where the heck did you come from. i ahven't seen one of your posts in the 3 years you have been here ! haha Keep posting bro.

Thanks, Pornwolf - It was taken from an article I was reading during the time I happen to come across this thread. I'm always here, but not posting on GFY.

When I'm not here programming I'm at the college doing it. Soon the bars will rise and software developers will have no choice, other than to start pushing the limits, which will bring us to web 3.0.

Problem with adult is majority of 'webmasters' want to spend peanuts on developing web applications. Everyone is always looking for a deal, plus outsourcing is on the rise. Thus, talented developers are leaving the adult industry and helping to contribute to the success of mainstream. I feel this is why adult is no longer leading the way in web development standards.

Btw, sorry for the 2.5 month delay in my reply. GFY, must still be running slow. Maybe that's why this thread died so quickly ; )

[WonderWoman]

Web 2.0 is meant to allow the surfer to DECIDE what they WANT out of the internet instead of being TOLD what they SHOULD have.

That includes, as the lady from Levis said, deciding what a brand means to them. Web 2.0 allows you to market to individuals vs the masses. Instead of focusing on demographics that have, since the print model, grown antiquated in the world of consumer marketing, it allows you to focus on a surfers direct interests and behaviors, something that if done correctly will make both the consumer AND advertisers happy.

[Voodoo]

Originally Posted by Fris

i only do web 6.9

You should upgrade to 7.2a, it's much more stable.

[xxxjay]

it's a ways off from an adult aplication

[Clark Miller]

Good thread. I'm blown away with how easy paypal is these days, and trying to get a hold of PHP and MySQL.

[CarlosTheGaucho]

I am not that blown off from web 2.0. - too much freedom provides too much mess, but it's a river that was crossed and you have to deal with it - a natural evolution.

What I see is that it really helps to degenerate the value of the "classical" porn content. With increase in free sharing sites and in the time when you can get almost any porn movie ever made for free - if you play 10 clips in a row with more or less same moves and artificial moaning it really gets old (unless it's not the first porn you ever see), on the other hand it does probably provide more space for more original / niched or interactive content.

These days, there is nothing easier than get down to the PC once you are hooked into something and then get it (no matter if it's music, movies or porn), how do I you get the TIPS and input on what can eventually interest you is the question.

I think recommendations is the key for the future.

[harvey]

Originally Posted by Voodoo

You should upgrade to 7.2a, it's much more stable.

7.2a is so old school, get with the times!


now really. web 2.0 is pure hype, just a description of technical applications for something that existed previously. Community driven sites weren't invented in 2005 or 2006, there were a lot of them before this whole web2.0 hype. And a new technology... well, guess if I create a new script we have web7654.34. Anyway, 99% of people identifies web 2.0 with a certain look, not a technology or marketing or business model. Just look. In other words: form before content.

This being said, I agree that many people uses this web 2.0 thing to separate waters: the bad vs the good, the updated vs the outdated, the cool vs the cold. Nothing new under the sun. But, if you work in the services providing market (mainly programmers and designers) you NEED to get with the times or just get off the bandwagon, you already lost the train.

But in true, pure essence... web 2.0 as a concept is bullshit. Nothing new under the sun.

[D-Money]

GFY needs more of these types of discussions.

Just makes me wonder what version 3.0 will be.