I must admit I am a bit lost in the propensity of so called ‘guru’s to label everthing as 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and so on. Thats why I headed this blog post as 10.0 – I thought I would get a break on the pack and wait for others to catch up.

Is it just me. One of the tenets of the Social Web is that in many ways it is a call to humanise persona’s and audiences (Brian Solis) and its meant to engender connections between friends, peers, advocates, influencers, consumers and the like. Yet we seem to want to label everything as if its a new release of an operating system or some other application.

Now I sort of understood the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 though the inventors of the worldwide web argue that this was just jargon 2.0. The web was always designed to facilitate use cases we associate with Web 2.0 according to them – we just hadn’t got there. But there was no new technical specification between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0.

Then we got Enterprise 2.0. Supposedly an Enterprise that utilises Web 2.0 to streamline processes whilst enhancing collaboration. But no one ever explained what Enteprise 1.0 was? An Enterprise that doesn’t use Web 2.0? Or it doesn’t use it to streamline processes? Was there a dot release between Enterprise 1.0 and Enterprise 2.0? Or is it you either upgrade or you don’t.

As if that wasn’t confusing enough we now get Customer 2.0, Sales 2.0, Marketing 2.0, Web 3.0. As if a customer suddenly changes behaviour? from one day to next and immediately upgrades to 2.0? Heaven help us when the Customer gets to 7.0.

Why do we feel this need to label people and processes with technology based terms? Why can’t we discuss the changes in customer behaviour facilitated by the emergence of social networks and the increasing collaboration of the social web as just that? Why append a meaningless label such as 2.0.?

Will B.