Granted not all social media is cut out for the corporate world. Then again with a new coat of paint and a different view point it could be, couldn’t it.

I work with a great team of designers, developers and programmers. All very much specialists in what they do. But the underlying theme on every project is always to give the client the best possible solution – that includes usability, look and feel as well as geared to drive traffic.

Once everyone in a team has confidence that everyone else is good at what they do, it’s not a case of just trying to make something suited for one, but for all. A little input from all sides gives a much better rounded end product. One that ultimately works.

As a reseller of other companies products I as the client expect materials to be available for me to view and use. Isn’t that part of building a brand – why else would big brands turn their print ads into desktop wallpapers? And why too are print ads looking more like desktop wallpapers, artworks, instead of “adverts”.

Please try again using examples to illustrate each point you make. All I see is hand waving, but nothing of substance.

Corporates are being targeted for Web 2.0 (enterprise 2.0, business 2.0 whatever) and the people moving in are the consultants. Usually the consultants have the time to sift the chaff, do the research and, if they’re tech savvy, discern what is implementable.

Corporates like the ideas of internal productivity, external dissemination, and the (appearance, perhaps) of greater corporate governance by putting yourself out there. Trust me, this tack opens doors.

I’ve had more run-ins with IT implementors of large corporates than I care to mention, notably all the banks in SA bar 2. You need those rare beasts, business-analyst types, in fact all of you on this post, who can talk to both to get it done and done right.

Web 1.0 was tech startups being ravaged by VCs without the buffer of good marketing; they were largely absent until 2000-2001 because they preferred telephone to email. Web 2.0 is mannah for marketers, communicators, PR etc. This is what corporates like, and if you get to pitch to them, pray that you get to their mar-comms departments.

Yes, clients are a menace in their lack of understanding (one of mine places PDFs of all his adverts and promotional banners on his site, in the hope that someone will want to download the artwork?) But with facts and logic at your fingertips, they can be convinced even if it takes time.

I’m doing quite a bit of Web 2.0, but mostly for associations with membership. And it’s is a real struggle to get any of the members to publish a photo or even a suggestion. They are terrified; they are used to being passive recipients; they are a bit lazy; they are nervous that people will criticism their opinions; they are worried about their poor vacabulary and spelling. A great many seem to have nothing to contribute, and I am told don’t speak much in the meetings either. So a lot of reasons, but the end result is a sparse website – something that those same members occasionally complain about!

Like everything to do with technology – you need to understand WHEN to use it, rather than just HOW to use it. Keep a strict eye on the client’s marketing objectives and you won’t make the wrong technology calls.

I suppose when when looks at it purely from a commercial angle you get your traditional stuff that is necessary and then you get Web 2.0 which could be described as nice to have.

Listen, I work for these companies, and I advise them all the time: if you can grab an audience and profile them, do it, because that’s the next generation in marketing. But, to be perfectly honest, I don’t wanna be in their databases. Facebook scares the living shit out of me for this exact reason.

Obviously I think there are applications one could dream up that are good for the consumer and the company. But the reason they’re not out there yet is not simply that corporates are small-minded. It’s also because they often don’t work when the intention is completely commercial.

Let’s face it: we’re all cynical of the motives of someone trying to sell us something. And we damn sure should be.

Because I’m in motoring, I generally use something in my field as an example, like BMW above. I agree that corporates shouldn’t own our social habits, but surely you can agree that they do hold the key to a gateway of potential social networking?

(PS: I know you have, so I don’t need you to prove your credentials. But come now…)

You know (he says, pulling out his old, fading scrapbook and pipe) in the old days, when the Web was new, corporates let us do whatever they wanted. And we built a lot of really crappy things that never worked, and also some very cool stuff that would still be considered cool today, but which the world was not ready for.

Fact is, we don’t live in that world today. I’ve seen some great stuff coming out of some of the digital creative agencies lately, which are very campaign-based and thus a bit more experimental. But Web 2.0 is a grassroots thing. It’s driven from a need to socialise.

Do you really want corporates owning your socialising? Trying to twist it to sell their products?

What exactly is this debate about?

Expert web developers are the perfect people to ask about getting content and functionality out to your target audience. They are not experts on how to invent the next big social networking phenomenon. But that, and the Web, are not the same thing. Not yet anyway.