Debate over the potential role of Web 2.0 in a down economy
by Joe McKendrick
Dan Carew responded to my last post on ‘Recession 2.0,‘ in which I predicted that in the event of an economic downturn, people would not be as powerless as they once were, because they will have social networking and other Web 2.0-based tools at their disposal to reach out and grab new opportunities.
Dan is a bit more pessimistic, and said my thinking was based on ‘irrationally exuberant’ boosterism and pollyannishness:
“A stock market crash is going to sink Web 2.0 ships, just as surely as it sinks others. And you gotta be kidding if you think the read/write Web could mitigate, no less reverse it.”
Dan feels that an economic downturn, if severe, may give us more time to blog, or use our iPhones from the soup kitchen, but that’s about it. But Web 2.0 won’t do us much good when the electricity gets cut off.
Perhaps if I’m being too pollyanish, then Dan is being too Eeyorish (remember Eeyore?), and the actual scenario would fall somewhere in the middle.
In a follow-up discussion Dan and I are having, I point out that if and when layoffs hit (and we all know we don’t need a recession for that), people have more options to drive their own fate, versus living on unemployment checks and hoping the company calls them back.
“People can remain well-connected to their professional networks, and leverage tools and potential opportunities that have not been readily available in times gone by. If you want to try to start a new business, the Web offers an abundance of ideas and opportunities — and visibility across the globe. Not a lot of start-up capital is required. The Web is an incredible global tool at our disposal, for very minimal cost.”
But Dan argues that if things got bad, they would get real bad, and nobody will want your Web-based services, period:
“Consumers won’t have extra cash to buy the clever non-essential item you’re selling on eBay or a Web store; companies will be retrenching and won’t be hiring consultants.” And don’t bother casting a net for global buyers, because there won’t be any.
Dan also argues that increased productivity, and the advent of the radio and telephone didn’t help folks back in the 1930s. (Hey, didn’t Franklin Roosevelt’s radio fireside chats at least calm down the runs on the banks?)
My argument is that employees and entrepreneurs don’t have to be victims this time around, in the event of a downturn. We have access to far more knowledge, tools, and networks now than we did in previous times, and this is going to help us not only to manage through tough times, but even identify niches where we can flourish. And if this works for enough people, it could help turn the tide of a downturn.
Readers and fellow posters, it would be good to get your takes on whether Web 2.0 can make a difference if things got rough, or if you agree with Dan that we’re toast, no matter how many social network accounts we have.
