When buzz starts to happen in Silicon Valley, the same terms are used over and over again, with a completely different definition for the same words.
Yesterday, a client of ours came in for a quick-stop ‘consultation’ to review a business strategy linked to a VC pitch. [We’re experimenting with a new business model for smaller firms.]
In our discussions, the client used personalization about 15 times. But the product didn’t have personalization as the Valley technology Web 2.0 crowd thinks about it. It had customization which took a push technology (so web 1.0 some might say) and put a field into it that allowed someone’s name to be integrated. And it got me thinking about how words without the common wiki definition of meaning can thrown around by those who are less familiar with specifics, and it all just sounds like blah, blah, blah. And by blah, blah, blah, I mean the blather of content that Scott Adam’s created for the pointy haired boss.
On a related topic, Wired magazine has a great visual this month (September edition) of Web 2.0 markets:
It reminds me immediately of Dilbert’s Business Plan Generator.
It’s a mix and match set of terms to combine adjectives, verbs, adverbs and nouns to create a business strategy. Here are some examples:
We strive to seamlessly facilitate ethical paradigms and assertively integrate business intellectual capital while maintaining the highest standard.
And:
We interactively coordinate high-payoff technology while continuing to conveniently enhance performance based products to stay competitive in tomorrow’s world.
And:
Our goal is to completely disseminate cost effective data so that we may continually integrate long-term high-impact methods of empowerment.
Classic!
Going back to the topic of personalization vs. customization. I think a great article describing the difference is here.
