Web 2.0: Where does Europe stand?

This report provides a techno-economic analysis of Web 2.0 and an assessment of Europe's position in Web 2.0 applications. Firstly, it introduces the phenomenon of Web 2.0 and its main characteristics: technologies, applications, and user roles. It then provides an overview of its adoption, value chain and business models, before moving to an analysis of its drivers, industrial impact and disruptive potential. Finally, the report assesses the position of the European Web 2.0 applications industry and its prospects for growth. "Web 2.0" is defined as a set of applications (blogs, wikis, social tagging, social gaming etc.), technologies (including AJAX, syndication feeds, mash-ups, and wiki engines) and user roles. The most pertinent characteristic of Web 2.0, as compared to the previous "version" of the Web, is that it enables users to become, with little effort, a co-provider of content. The available figures about recent Web 2.0 diffusion deliver two messages. Firstly, its spread is extremely rapid by any standards, although not uniform for all its applications. Secondly, the intensity with which users participate differs a lot. At the centre of the Web 2.0 value chain are the providers of Web 2.0 applications who may be pure Web 2.0 players or traditional players from related industries such as the media and Web 1.0 industry. They provide opportunities for users to network and/or to create content. As yet, no dominant revenue model for Web 2.0 content-hosting sites has been established, although advertising is the most common one. The content hosting platforms may in turn choose to remunerate content creators through different revenue-sharing schemes, or simply rely on their voluntary contributions. We discuss four aspects of Web 2.0 which may have a disruptive impact on industry: (1) Providers of Web 2.0 applications are becoming increasingly numerous and large, and contribute to growth and employment. (2) They already constitute an important threat to other industries, in particular content industries. The content industry is responding by diversifying into Web 2.0. (3) Web 2.0 applications and software are being increasingly adopted by the enterprise and public sectors as tools for improving internal work processes, managing customer and public relations, innovation, recruitment and networking. (4) The growth of Web 2.0 leads to a derived demand in the supply of ICT hardware and software. Europe's current position in the supply and development of Web 2.0 applications is rather weak. Although Web 2.0 is used almost as much in Europe as it is in Asia and the US, Web 2.0 applications are largely provided by US companies, while Europe and all other regions are left behind. About two thirds of the major Web 2.0 applications are provided by US companies, with similar shares for revenues, employees, and even higher shares for innovation indicators such as patents, venture capital and R&D expenditures. The corresponding shares for the EU are around 10%. Nevertheless, Europe could have the advantage in some areas of the Web 2.0 landscape, for example social gaming, social networking, and Mobile 2.0.

[1]  J. Burgelman,et al.  Social computing – Implications for the EU innovation landscape , 2009 .

[2]  Corina Pascu,et al.  The potential disruptive impact of Internet2 based technologies , 2007, First Monday.

[3]  P. Anderson What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education , 2007 .

[4]  J. Johanson,et al.  The Mechanism of Internationalisation , 1990 .

[5]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis , 2008 .

[6]  Miltiadis D. Lytras,et al.  Web 2.0: The Business Model , 2008 .

[7]  J. Fagerberg,et al.  The Oxford handbook of innovation , 2006 .

[8]  V. Frissen,et al.  Users In The 'Golden' Age Of The Information Society , 1970 .

[9]  David Beer Making Friends with Jarvis Cocker: Music Culture in the Context of Web 2.0 , 2008 .

[10]  David Osimo Web 2.0 in Government: Why and How? , 2008 .

[11]  M. Porter The Competitive Advantage Of Nations , 1990 .

[12]  Ann Majchrzak,et al.  Corporate wiki users: results of a survey , 2006, WikiSym '06.

[13]  T. Fish Mobile Web 2.0 , 2006 .

[14]  Chrysanthos Dellarocas,et al.  Using Online Reviews as a Proxy of Word-of-Mouth for Motion Picture Revenue Forecasting , 2004 .

[15]  Chrysanthos Dellarocas,et al.  Using Online Ratings as a Proxy of Word-of-Mouth in Motion Picture Revenue Forecasting , 2005 .

[16]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2003 .

[17]  Michael J. Cooper,et al.  Measuring innovation. , 2011, Healthcare executive.

[18]  Paul Israel,et al.  The Sources of Innovation , 1990 .

[19]  Tim O'Reilly,et al.  What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software , 2007 .

[20]  Ala-Mutka Kirsti Maria,et al.  The Socio-economic Impact of Social Computing: Proceedings of a Validation and Policy Options Workshop , 2008 .

[21]  Katarina Stanoevska-Slabeva,et al.  Mobile Web 2.0 , 2007, Bled eConference.

[22]  Danah Boyd,et al.  Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[23]  S. Mazzocchi Open Innovation: The New Imperative For Creating and Profiting From Technology , 2004 .

[24]  William G. Griswold Five Enablers for Mobile 2.0 , 2007, Computer.

[25]  J. Avery,et al.  The long tail. , 1995, Journal of the Tennessee Medical Association.

[26]  Andrew McAfee,et al.  Enterprise 2.0: the dawn of emergent collaboration , 2006, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[27]  Cachia Romina Social Computing: Study on the Use and Impact of Online Social Networking , 2008 .

[28]  Salvador Barrios,et al.  Mapping the ICT in EU Regions: Location, Employment, Factors of Attractiveness and Economic Impact , 2008 .

[29]  Diana Gosálvez Prados,et al.  Six ways to make Web 2.0 work , 2009 .

[30]  Pascu Corina,et al.  An Empirical Analysis of the Creation, Use and Adoption of Social Computing Applications , 2008 .

[31]  R. Armstrong The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More , 2008 .

[32]  Ala-Mutka Kirsti Maria Social Computing: Study on the Use and Impacts of Collaborative Content , 2008 .

[33]  Kirsti Ala-Mutka,et al.  Social Computing: Study on the Use and Impacts of Collaborative Content IPTS Exploratory Research on the Socio-economic Impact of Social Computing , 2008 .

[34]  Asta Bäck,et al.  "Ads by Google" and other social media business models , 2007 .

[35]  Yu Jeffrey Hu,et al.  From Niches to Riches: Anatomy of the Long Tail , 2006 .

[36]  J. Rochet,et al.  Platform competition in two sided markets , 2003 .