Thanks for the input and observations.

Yes, you are probably right, I should have run the definition earlier in the piece. Get it right next time.

Who is the research for? It’s principally for agencies and agency owners who are not yet
a) as large as they want to be
b) as profitable as they want to be
c) prepared to look at a new way of doing business as a means of achieving a) and / or b)

Much of what you say is true particularly about what agencies claim. You clearly either work in the sector or know it well. the UK is probably similar to US (I guess where you’re from).

The “harsh reality” you cite is where I want to find work. My skils are in helping agencies move forwards and utilising some of these tools will be an appropriate method for some of them to achieve strategic goals.

I hear what you say about the turnout for my seminar. BUT in correlation with my research findings, UK businesses are far behind the curve. There are those who have yet to assess web 2.0 (and lots of other things) as tools to improve and grow their businesses. And, it is these that I am targeting. And I think they are going to turn out on Wednesday morning.

I’d be interested to learn more about your business and what your areas of expertise are.

Thanks again for the comments.

Best wishes

Rebecca

“I left the definition to the end because the vast majority of respondents claimed to know what it was.”
Fundamentally, who is your report for? If it’s solely for the same agencies on whom your research was based, that’s fine, you can leave the definition to the end as they already know what your report is about. But if it’s going to be circulated to a wider audience (which it has been), then you *must* contextualise your information and the report as a whole. As of now, your report seemed to be nothing more than a repackaging of someone else’s findings, which you then somehow got agencies to give their $.02 on - there were no actual insights, strategic thoughts, visions, or recommendations.

“The unsustainability of the comment was based on the fact that that agency said they *CLAIMED* to be using it and actually weren’t.”
Agencies claim a lot of things. They all claim to be great creative shops turning out never before work, they all claim to be fresh and funky and great places to work. They all claim to have ground breaking ideas for their clients (and ones that will shake up the industry as a whole). But the harsh reality of it is that they’re all the same, and very few are truly able to implement and leverage technology to move their own business forward, let alone add value to the business of their customers.

Finally, I appreciate that you want to have as many sheep turn out for your seminar breakfast, but topics such as “how to build a reputation online” just aren’t that much of a pull. Any company claiming to know what Web 2.0 is, or that they’re already using it in their business, should already know such basics as how to build their reputation online! Something to keep in mind though, one surefire way to build a poor reputation online is by publishing reports with nothing but out of context participant quotes, artificial findings, and 0 insight.

To answer your questions:
Mckinsey link http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_abstract_visitor.aspx?ar=1913&pagenum=4

I left the definition to the end because the vast majority of respondents claimed to know what it was.

My analysis was based solely on the research (it seems more focused that way) A wider analysis is probably worth doing - wanna collaborate?

The unsustainability of the comment was based on the fact that that agency said they *CLAIMED* to be using it and actually weren’t. And so they are going to get found out in that white lie….= unsustainable.

I grant you Wikipedia is not always wholly accurate but for certain (webby) things, I think the authors are probably pretty well informed. [nuclear physics and brain surgery may be a tad more dodgy subject definitions].

BUT do you have a source of a better definition?

I am hoping Adriana Cronin-Lukas will come up with some good observations and maybe a definition at the event on 30th.
Are you coming?

Rebecca