So what do film stars and Web 2.0 have in common ? Read on to see why value is not always where you think it is !
While checking out CNN I came across an article called "Beware the return of the Web Bubble", which turned out to be about media companies potentially spending too much money for online social networking businesses.
Linked to this article was another called "Star Power fades in Tinseltown", the same journalist Paul R. La Monica discusses the failures of recent movies with big stars as opposed to the success of movies like 'Superman returns' and 'The Chronicles of Narnia'. Even though I watched and enjoyed both these movies I truly can't think of the names of the lead actors.
As the journalist explains, numerous stars, including Cruise and Gibson, are making the headlines for bad reasons, alienating "a large portion of moviegoers". Indeed, why not go for great writers, special effects and search for new talent. Paying millions for a well known movie star is not proving to be so rewarding.
For the past few years, monstrous box office hits have often been based on comic books, novels and sequels. And most of them have not had featured well-known actors and actresses. The characters and stories have driven the film's success.
What is the common factor ? 'Star' sites of the moment on the Web considered 'Web 2.0' and film stars are being paid far too much ! Buying into a company is completely different to paying a well known star to be in your movie, but maybe the glitter of the stars, just like the web 2.0 buzz, is distracting people from the real value.
As Jeffrey Zeldman explains in his "Web 3.0" article, it does seem that the hype around web 2.0 is getting a bit much. 'Copy cat' projects with a simple Web 2.0 veneer are popping up like honey pots. As La Monica points out on CNN Money, this could create a vicious backlash, similar to the web 1.0 bubble burst !
Taking these two concepts further, the real issue is savvy business decisions, rather than a cyclic economic trend. When News Corp. bought MySpace they most probably made a great deal. The finance world later realised that News Corp. had swooped in at just the right time, which triggered this grand race to copy them.
The CNN article is more of a warning, just like Zeldman's web 3.0 article; it shouldn't be a race it should be business as usual. Rushing into negotiations and paying 20 times the real market value (if there is any value and it's not just a pale copy) is what lead to the web 1.0 bubble. I recommend Zeldman's article for a better understanding of the web 2.0 hype.
There is real value out there, regardless of all the hype about web 2.0. Just make sure that you're buying into value and not hype.
Article Refs. :
- Media companies shouldn't overpay for their own MySpace (CNN Money)
- Star Power fades in Tinseltown (CNN Money)
- Web 3.0 (A List Apart)
