Research Paper: New Media

Pages: 10 (2584 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: 6  ·  Level: College Senior  ·  Topic: Education - Computers  ·  Buy This Paper


[. . .] " (Cormode and Krishnamurthy, 2008) One example is Altimeter's Social Media Measurement Compass. It is related that the points of the compass make identification of six major business goals that social media can assist in influencing. Those six points include:

(1) Innovation -- collaboration with customers;

(2) Brand health: attitude measurement;

(3) Customer experience;

(4) Marketing optimization;

(5) Operational efficiency; and (6) Revenue generation. Cormode and Krishnamurthy, 2008

Part Two - Web 1.0 Tools vs. Web 2.0 Tools

The work of Cormode and Krishnamurthy (2008) states that Web 2.0 "Web 2.0" captures a combination of innovations on the Web in recent years. A precise definition is elusive and many sites are hard to categorize with the binary label "Web 1.0" or "Web 2.0." But there is a clear separation between a set of highly popular Web 2.0 sites such as Facebook and YouTube, and the "old Web." (Cormode and Krishnamurthy, 2008) These separations are reported to be "visible when projected onto a variety of axes, such as technological; structural; and sociological. " (Cormode and Krishnamurthy, 2008) In addition, it is reported that Web 2.0 is "…both a platform on which innovative technologies have been built and a space where users are treated as first class objects. The platform sense consists of various new technologies (mashups, AJAX, user comments) on which a variety of popular social networks such as Facebook, MySpace etc. have been built…" (Cormode and Krishnamurthy, 2008) The primary difference stated between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 is that content creators "were few in Web 1.0 with the vast majority of users simply acting as consumers of content, while any participant can be a content creator in Web 2.0 and numerous technological aids have been created to maximize the potential for content creation." (Cormode and Krishnamurthy, 2008)

Stated to be important site features that mark out a Web 2.0 site are those as follows:

(1) Users as first class entities in the system, with prominent profile pages, including such features as: age, sex, location, testimonials, or comments about the user by other users;

(2) The ability to form connections between users, via links to other users who are "friends," membership in "groups" of various kinds, and subscriptions or RSS feeds of "updates" from other users;

(3) The ability to post content in many forms: photos, videos, blogs, comments and ratings on other users' content, tagging of own or others' content, and some ability to control privacy and sharing.

(4) Other more technical features, including a public API to allow third-party enhancements and "mash-ups," and embedding of various rich content types (e.g. Flash videos), and communication with other users through internal email or IM systems. (Cormode and Krishnamurthy, 2008)

Social media Web 2.0 tools are stated to include those as follows:

(1) Implicit Social Applications. Skype, which offers voice calling over the Internet, now has over 80M users globally, and is constantly adding new features (conference calls, voice mail).

(2) Peer-to-peer and Web 2.0. A P2P peer who supplies content of interest is not a friend in the social networking sense. Friends in real life may share interests in similar content (books, music etc.) but often they share pointers in the form of recommendations. In the P2P sense, friends in real life act as .torrent files. There may well be interest in consuming the bits simultaneously and interacting as people do now over the phone while watching a sports event.

(3) The Web 2.0 Electronic Fence. Web 2.0 can bring balkanization -- people in one social network may not communicate frequently with some of their friends who spend more time on other social networks. Artificial separation into tribes is encouraged by some of the Web2 sites who want to maximize and retain the set of members inside their "electronic fence." However, there is a counter-current due to the prevalent link-based nature of the Web -- users will constantly link to sites outside the fence. This will be sufficient to prevent complete balkanization.

(4) Web 2.0 notification and sharing friends. More sites are inviting users to "add friends," but there are only so many times that a user wants to find which of their friends on the same site. If this is not necessary to use the site, then users can ignore this, or use a 'bugmenot' equivalent. But for some sites (such as Facebook), all value comes from connecting to friends. Sites currently offer the highly dubious (in terms of both security and accuracy) technique of users sharing their email address books in order to find contacts via email address matching. One proposal is to allow users to record their "social graph" (encoded in XML formats such as FOAF) once, and allow different sites to access this information, essentially linking up all the currently isolated graphs (the MySpace graph, the Facebook graph, the Flickr graph). More insidiously, 3rd party sites can tap into a user's social connection via open APIs and cookie-sharing agreements with a Web 2.0 site acting as an identity manager, akin to a widened notion of the Microsoft Passport. Privacy and Security. We iterate that there are significant challenges in allowing users to understand privacy implications and to easily express usage policies for their personal data. Privacy is typically not well understood by Web2 users, resulting in unintended consequences. Many teenagers accept that their posted data may unintentionally identify them. Simultaneously, dynamic presentation technologies also raise security concerns. Both privacy and security in Web2 demands explicit study and analysis." (Cormode and Krishnamurthy, 2008)

The work of O'Reilly and Battelle (2005) state that Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 when compared reveal the following contrasts:

Web 1.0 Web 2.0

DoubleClick Google AdSense

Ofoto Flickr

Akamai BitTorrent Napster

Britannica Online Wikipedia

Personal websites blogging

Evite Upcoming org and EVDB

Domain name speculation search engine optimization

Page views costs per click

Screen scraping web services

Publishing participation

Content management systems wikis

Directories tagging

Stickiness syndication


Content Marketing Playbook: 42 Ways to Connect with Customers. Junta 42. Retrieved from:

Graham, Paula (nd) Web 2.0 and Why? Creative Commons. Retrieved from:

O'Reilly, Tim O. (2005) Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. 30 Sept 2005. What is Web 2.0. Retrieved from:

Cormode, G. And Krishnamurthy. B. (2008) Key differences Between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. 13 Feb 2008. Retrieved from:

Gladwell, Malcolm (2010) Small Change. The New… [END OF PREVIEW]

Four Different Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?

1.  Buy the full, 10-page paper:  $28.88


2.  Buy + remove from all search engines
(Google, Yahoo, Bing) for 30 days:  $38.88


3.  Access all 175,000+ papers:  $41.97/mo

(Already a member?  Click to download the paper!)


4.  Let us write a NEW paper for you!

Ask Us to Write a New Paper
Most popular!

Media Technology A-Level Coursework

New Media Essay

Impression: New Media in the 2008 Presidential Article Critique

Culture and Media Worlds Term Paper

Media the Two Media News Outlets Research Paper

View 1,000+ other related papers  >>

Cite This Research Paper:

APA Format

New Media.  (2011, October 23).  Retrieved July 22, 2019, from

MLA Format

"New Media."  23 October 2011.  Web.  22 July 2019. <>.

Chicago Format

"New Media."  October 23, 2011.  Accessed July 22, 2019.