What seems like ages ago, the Internet used to be one way street when it came to content generation and distribution. A site owner would post and manage content generated by them for general users of the ‘net to view and download. With the advent of Web 2.0 tools, much value is added to this process by making content a two-way street—allowing users to “talk back to” and play a part in what content is. Blogs, reviews, social networks are several of the ways general use of the internet has shifted from being a monologue to a dialogue where people share their opinions and post factoids or news on a given subject.

This new paradigm poses some interesting questions. In the development of a Web 2.0 enabled website, one approaches it in much the same way as any other website. There is design, development and functionality to think of in terms of what value it brings to the user. There is defining what the user will gain the most value out of the site’s eventual content strategy. However, a powerful obstacle in launching and establishing a Web 2.0 enabled site is starting the dialogue that will become the value defined by the overarching strategy.

Starting that dialogue is difficult. Creating a Web 2.0 site that depends on users providing content is like providing a location with some hors d’oeuvres and inviting people to it. There’s no guarantee they’ll come nor is there a guarantee they’ll talk if they do. It’s frustrating because with any dialogue one wants it to come naturally but this requires a huge amount of patience.

One of the ways I’ve thought of is to create some sort of incentive strategy to spur the start of conversation which is then replaced by the value of conversation itself. The most obvious one is paying users directly to post content, of course, but when there is little or no investment this is most likely out of the question.

Another way to provide incentive is to pay indirectly. For example a user’s post can have some ads associated with it and depending on the traffic their post generates a percentage of the ad revenue can be distributed to them. This structure acts almost like a co-ownership scenario where the posting user feels some obligation to the amount of traffic that is being generated by their contribution therefore they are also compelled to provide high-level content rather than just a blurb of unfounded thoughts.

A third, potentially effective way to provide incentive can work to a market which immediately realizes the value of a collaborative space. Arguably, the demographic for this is younger and more web-savvy. It’s my opinion that an older user base is less likely to associate with collaborative tools on the web for a plethora of reasons and will be more difficult to translate any incentives that are associated with the technology. Perhaps this is attributed to as we get older our propensity to share diminishes but most likely it’s rooted in unfamiliarity.As a concluding part of this post, I wanted to bring up the fairly obvious point of when developing an idea that is based on User-Generated Content (UGC) one must include in their business model a strategy to begin a content driven dialogue. The market age and level of technological acceptance plays a large role in how value is derived by the user. As sharing and collaboration on the web increases though, this will be easier to incorporate, I think.

As it stands now, users of the web are only beginning to realize the value self-promotion has on them, their personal development and satisfaction. When creating a Web 2.0 offering, this value ought to be defined to the market but will not stand as the only incentive for use and content provision—at least not at first.