Subscribe to SGEntrepreneurs – Singapore Entrepreneurs (Asia)News Feed About Advertise Contact Partners Resources Team

E27 IV Branded Conversations: Two Towers of Web 2.0

February 9, 2007 by SGEntrepreneurs  
Filed under Events

Leave a comment

E27
logo1.jpg

In the coming E27 IV event: You are the Media, Branded Conversations will be one of the three major tracks. The title of the branded conversation that we will present is the “Two Towers of Web 2.0: Technology vs Customer”. The main focus is to discuss the development of Web 2.0 industry in Asia (including Singapore), mainly in the domain of Web 2.0 technologies and business models. We provide some details in this post on how YOU, our readers can contribute to this interesting discussion before the actual event begins. If you have any burning question or idea which you want this conversation to focus on, here is your chance to start the ball rolling. (Updated: 11 Feb 2007)

In the second conversation in the track of Branded Conversations, Gwen will begin with a five minutes pitch to give an idea on SGE business incubator and how fund works, and offer the guidelines on how you can apply for the MDA fund. For the rest of the time, there will be a panel discussion with Gwen and BL as they engage the audience on a discussion of Web 2.0 industry in Singapore.

Here are some topics which we have done with our initial brainstorming (with Bjorn, Justin and the E27 team):

  • a. Development of the Web 2.0 Industry in Asia (and mainly Singapore):
  • b. Business Models in Web 2.0:
  • c. Emerging technologies in Web 2.0:
  • d. Web 3.0?:

This is how you can contribute in this conversation: Place a comment with the question or comment in this post which you want to contribute to the discussion. SGE will take down these views and we will select the best messages. Let us know whether you are coming as well.

We look forward to seeing you and we will take from this blog entry to the actual day of unconference.

About: Branded Conversations seeks to connect outsider opinions from the public with subject matter experts from within companies. This is intended to stimulate open and transparent industry-public conversations where industry representatives display their thought leadership and strategic perspectives on industry topics while the public counter-offer alternative viewpoints as users or customers. Corporations interested in engaging the E27 attendee population through such “branded conversations” are welcome to email Bjorn at “bjornlee dot inc at gmail dot com” for more info.

The theme on Web 2.0 centers on

  • Conversation 1: IDM-MDA session
  • Conversation 2: “Two Towers of Web 2.0″ by Dr Bernard Leong and Ms Gwendolyn Tan from SGEntrepreneurs.com
  • Conversation 3: “Mystery Event” by Yahoo!

Related Links:
[1] Bjorn Lee, Event: Conversations with Web2.0 Community at E27.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Posterous
  • Tumblr
  • del.icio.us
  • LinkedIn
  • Mixx
  • Technorati
  • email

No related posts.

Tags:


triplepoint-job-board-ad-wanted-developers-500x

Comments

  • Bjornlee, do not dispute that viral marketing and online marketing is cheapest on a per acquisition basis. I know that my from own company marketing numbers.

    However, one weakness online marketing has is an inability to create a brand until a huge critical mass is hit. Also, in asia, you are not mainsteam unless you have off line presence and branding.And not mainsteam means less advertisers and harder to convince potential clients about your product/service.

    So my comment is actually a limited point. I am saying that current internet startups should pay attention to non-online channels to. And factor that in when raising money. Do not just have 2% marketing budget and use it mainly for online referral campaigns and online ads. Have a 5-10% one and include roadshows, PR activities, direct mailers, sponsorships etc. Maybe not mass media as that is costly on a per acquisition basis as rightly pointed out.

    Having said that i must say I am thinking hard on how to leverage user content and community content to evolve my current old school dot com business. Because as you guys point out, the scability and exponential increase in users is just too attractive to ignore :)
  • @ wonderdoggy, i personally agree an integrated approach works. But lest you think I degenerate into a generic conceding of my points and merits of online / "viral" (gosh, i hate that word these days along with buzz") , i will make the case why some Web 2.0 cases have a healthy disdain for mainstream media.

    It stems from the Silicon Valley example. The most successful startups there did not utilize Old Media at all. Most famous case in point was Google and Youtube. One can say they had no choice. As a small startup, the cheapest way is to do your mktg free. and only online offers that. Sure, if "Roadshows, mass media ads, emailers, mailers, talks, PR efforts with mainstream media " are free, they would rationally have done it too.

    I think the same works for Asia. If you ask an entrepreneur (nvm Web.20 or not) which mktg will he use, he will choose the most cost-effective ones. If his product/svc is suitale for online WOM, then online is best cos its free. Like E27, we only rely on MSN, blogs to spread the word. One could argue we are building a process and machinery to test how viable viral marketing is as a viable alternative to old media. We do it..

    Cos we have no money. And it works. =)
  • BL
    Wonderdoggy,

    Yeah, one way of gaining your audience is either to be controversial (like Xiaxue) or being seen as controversial (Mr Brown). In Singapore, pop culture dominates, and hence cool technology platforms don't really appeal to the mass public, unless u are in Silicon Valley.

    Viral marketing is not the only thing. You need endorsements from other major players in the industry. It's just how it works in this sphere.

    Keep the comments and questions coming.
  • Hey BL, I have been thinking about web 2.0 recently and how a new start up can run one well and make money. To me, it seems that web 2.0 businesses are all about advertising revenue or access rights revenue. Eg Youtube is advertising via google ads, linkedin is selling access rights subscription. These are nothing different from the old web 1.0 type companies of which mine is included.

    So logically, the only advantage a 2.0 approach has is its scalability which is exponential since it is community led. But how does a fledging web 2.0 company scale effectively with limited resources? that seems to be something i hear a lot from our new entreprenuers.

    I hear so much talk about viral marketing and I know it works. But there seems to be a disdain for old school marketing and alliances. To me a web 2.0 firm would do well to ally with an existing 1.0 firm which already has a large relevant database and even better in a similar service. At the same time, while the viral marketing is being planned, above the line and below the line marketing should be done too. Roadshows, mass media ads, emailers, mailers, talks, PR efforts with mainstream media etc should all be done.

    I find it very strange that our web 2.0 entrepreners work so hard to build a cool platform and then expect viral marketing to do all the rest.

    A good example would be Xia Xue who now has learned to leverage mass media to her blog's advantage.

    Another example is STOMP with its clear resource advantage and mass media ads via SPH newspapers. These efforts work sometimes in spite of their software. Just some thoughts.
  • BL
    Kee Peow,

    Thank you for your thoughts to Ridzuan's questions. We are currently working to get it at least in the form of a podcast so that our readers (who may miss the event) might be able to hear how the whole event transpired.

    Ridzuan,

    On your first question, to get global, there are two possible ways:

    1. Tap into regional markets, focus on mainly big ones like Indonesia, Malaysia, China, India or even Vietnam. However, one barrier of entry may be language and knowledge of the local market which is diverse across the region.

    2. Go straight to the source, i.e to Silicon Valley. For that, you need to get your technology startup reviewed by TechCrunch or some big players like Guy Kawasaki. For that one, if I am doing a web 2.0 startup, I must try to save a bit of money to get there and do the promotion at that place. It's a risk, but not many people will dare to try such an idea.

    On your second question, I will say that you need to identify what kind of integration is feasible. One local startup that I liked is BookJetty.com, where I can create a booklist to share with friends and keep track of what new books I like to read. In essence, the service must be specific and focus on something such that one can find monetization later.
  • To answer Ridzuan's question 1 on getting the word out, we can:

    1. Get to know people (like the many great people at SGE) who know that particular region that you wanna venture to (e.g. Malaysia or China)

    2. Get started with your venture and stay in the game. From my experience, if you stay in the venture game long enough, you are bound to meet interesting and good friends/partners who can help you with whatever expansions to these regions.

    Finally, great work to the folks at SGE for bringing this event. Hopefully we can get to view it online via youtube or something for those who are not able to attend.
  • From a newbie perspective...Each time I think of a Web 2.0 venture, a few things strike me...and it's not so much the technological availability but more of...

    1. How do I get the word out? This is in-line with what BL said. I'm a Singaporean with contacts primarily based here. How do I capture an international audience fast enough for the venture to sustain itself? Even going for the regional market is tricky because of the diversity of language, culture, etc...

    2. Should we still be looking at web 2.0 or should be look at integrating concepts of web 2.0 into the real world? Concepts like user-generated content/services and the like. (perhaps, some emerging technologies could address this?)

    just some thoughts...will add to it as they come...
  • BL
    Justin,

    The web 3.0 is a troll. :) After all, in Singapore, with all the web 2.0 successes I see so far, are due to controversies. So, in the same light, a VC I met last night was telling me that MMORPG is web 3.* (put your favourite number).

    Actually, I hope that in my lifetime, I can see (pick your favourite number).0 that we can go into the virtual world and move around, like one episode of futurama, where Fry and gang went to the World Wide Web by wearing some headgears that send them to the internet.
  • BL
    Bjorn,

    It's interesting that you point out that the useability design, friendly interfaces and 'viral' marketing tactics brought about some success for social network community type companies like MySpace and Facebook. The key point is that they have the vast market to allow these companies to tap into, for e.g. the universities, the amateur music and etc. In a more diverse setting in Asia, how can we leverage on these traits to create value for our local web 2.0 companies?

    In essence, for Singapore, the first day you build a web 2.0 company, you must go global if you are not building interesting web 2.0 technology that enhances how users can work with the web but more innovative use of technology to deal with markets.
  • its not too clear nor intuitive why technology and customer are the two specific towers of Web2.0 to the general audience. seems too generic a bi-polar classification of web2.0 as that can be generalized to other industries like energy.

    Perhaps we could discuss whether technical or marketing proficiency is more important in making a Web2.0 success. Its not too difficult to create a social network these days. The feaure sets are standard and it often boils down to useability design, friendly interfaces and "viral" marketing tactics that determine success. While Friendster was the first popular one earlier this decade, upstarts like MySpace and Facebook have usurped their position while ever newer networks like Bebo continue to show promising growth numbers to threaten them. If i might generalize, MySpace succeeded by shrewdly focusing on the amateur music bands and their fan bases. Facebook got viral because Mark Zuckerberg linked social networking beautifully with the hormone-charged dating scene of college campus communities in the Ivy Leagues before it filtered down virally across the country. Is there any real difference in technical competence between say, Myspace vs Orkut? Not really. I think it boils down to marketing.

    What say y'all?
  • hahaha web3.0 :)
blog comments powered by Disqus