What would you give up for the Internet? Would you give up coffee, chocolate, showers?

In this article we’ll try to take ourselves less seriously and we’ll do it by analyz erred to as “The Internet Economy in the G-20” carried out by Boston Consulting Group (BCG).
We would like to think that the research we take the cue from is absolutely reliable, both for methods and contents, in fact, it will provide us interesting ideas on the connection between real economy and internet in the first 20 industrialized countries, data which we’ll analyse in the next articles. But there is an aspect, funny and at the same time sociologically significant, that just leap out at us.
One of the questions posed by the research is: “What would you give up from your lifestyle habits for one year of the Internet?” (Percentage of people willing to give up a key lifestyle habit instead of the Internet for a year).
To each person interviewed it was asked his own willingness to give up on “this or that” key habit in order to keep an internet connection and to each of them 9 options were provided as answer.
The results are absolutely amazing, let’s see them nation by nation:

In Brazil almost all the interviewees would give up their GPS, of course they have the smart phones with built-in GPS receivers!!! But it was really unexpected, at least in intent, how 76% of the Brazilians would give up alcohol! Is it possible to consider internet as deterrent for loneliness and alcoholism? Who knows??? What also surprises me is that more than half of the interviewees would give up coffee and chocolate (in Brazil!?). While probably the percentages, however remarkable, of the interviewees who would give up sex and taking a shower are purely theoretical. It is about those internet users who most probably don’t have a partner and therefore don’t express a true renunciation (maybe they don’t have a partner because they never take a shower?).

In China, the results are really unbelievable; the use of internet seems very deep-rooted, therefore the percentages are very significant. All the daily activities (motor, personal, intimate, of hygiene,…) are set-aside in order to keep on being connected online. It seems that for a great part of the Chinese interviewees, the real world has a secondary role compared to the web.
The sensitivity that the Chinese have to internet is absolutely amazing; it is perhaps justified by the desire to communicate with others and to be informed, considering also the bad relation between the Chinese government and the information, and consequently, with Internet and the search engines since time immemorial.
In this case too, we find very high percentages of internet users who would give up showering for an entire year. According to the statistics there are over 500 million Chinese… a choice that would damage the entire terrestrial ecosystem.

The French turn out to be more virtuous, the answers are in line with what we have seen in Brazil, with a (positive) difference regarding the renounce of the showering and a negative one regarding the alcohol. In essence, it is confirmed the great willingness of giving up something just to remain connected to internet.

The Germans love Internet and we are sure of it, how else do we explain the fact that the 77% of them would give up beer for one year of internet?
Having analysed the first four countries, we can identify the first interesting common indicators. One of them is definitely the car, whose connection with internet is almost constant in Brazil, France, Germany, (24,23,23), the other one is the giving up sex (12,16,16).

In India the results are a little bit different from the previous ones, maybe because India is divided into two parts as far as the use of Internet. Lots of people would never stay away from Internet, but at the same time (around) 30% of Indians don’t even use it. Comparing to the previous surveys, the gap between the actions to which they would gladly give up and the others “indispensable”, is undoubtedly reduced.
India doesn’t have the stratospheric indicators of China, but it is not so far away from it, many Indians challenge aspects of their daily life. We find significant percentages also regarding the habits apparently indispensable.

Still with the intent of evaluating the spread and use of Internet around the countries different from ours, we reach Japan where the use of Internet is very deep-rooted, as the huge numbers confirm, almost unanimous for the first items of the list, chocolate inclusive, likewise the other important numbers for the “secondary” habits such as coffee, alcohol, gymnastic exercises.
From this analysis, it seems that the Japanese are much more dedicated to the virtual social relationships than to the real ones, 56% of them, which means the majority, would give up sex in order to stay connected online. Obviously the web provides them tools of social and relational gratification, equal if not superior to those available in the real world; this is the symptom of a social and personal isolation, of a very introverted society.
The only exception is the shower. We all know that an invigorating and relaxing bath at the end of the day is in the Japanese tradition. We are standing at one of the few cases in which traditions (and necessity) outweigh innovation.

The data of South Korea are not so dissimilar from those Japanese with some exceptions. It seems that the Koreans, just like the Japanese, don’t love chocolate while, according to these data, they appear to be more passionate (and less inclinable to take a shower) than the Japanese.

With the aim of giving you global and exhaustive information we move to another continent, in South Africa, whose percentages are practically the same as the European ones, with an unexpected exception, and that is the car, to which the interviewees don’t intend to give up. A people of internet users and drivers

We find high percentages in Great Britain as well and for the first time is exceeded the 90% limit, not so much for the fondness towards internet but for the disaffection toward fast eating proposed by the fast foods. The people of her majesty do not like the fast foods, not even a bit.
Comparing to the answers given by the European neighbors, two are the indices out of standard, the 65% of alcohol renouncement (against the 77% of the Germans) and 25% who would give up sex (against the 16% of Germans and French).
Besides the emergent role of internet in the lives of the people across the planet, also emerge the everyday habits, the different traditions and customs of all the latitudes.

To cap it all, the United States of America, whose answers are fundamentally in line with those European, with a slight show of affection towards their cars and personal hygiene.
The picture that emerges is extremely coherent, internet is globalizing us, people of different cultures, traditions and languages show their passion for the cyberspace, declaring it inalienable, not even in exchange for some important activities of their daily habits. In some cases is almost reached the paradox, the virtual world with its own intangible, I would say “differently real” offer of relationships and virtual emotions, becomes the first choice.
Of course, it’s only a survey, therefore it is recommended to separate the declarations of the intents from our real actions, but the numbers are clear, there is a precise, similar, perception of internet in our life regardless who we are and where we are.
Upsetting our perspective, if we examine the percentages we notice that fortunately the real world still play the main role, even more so we remember that this is about intentions of giving up and not of real renouncements.
We hope that the majority of people will not lose at least some of the healthy and necessary daily habits such as showering.


In thanking the BCG for the contents examined in detail published online, we remind you that WorldTwoDotZero is only a game, a web walk to take together, it doesn’t have any commercial purpose.

Me, you, them, Google and the first three search results

Motori_ricercaThis article takes cue from the news released a few weeks ago which revealed the important goal achieved by Google: 100 billion searches by month.
The first result was the impressive spread of this news on web, a phenomenon already noticed by us in some other similar occasions. After all, it was only a piece of news to be released, furthermore of a huge impact, with Google as protagonist, just perfect to capture the readers’ attention.
The following days I found this news practically everywhere, proving once again that one of the web’s main tasks is that of a sounding board: well-known journalists, editors, bloggers, computer scientists, not one succeeded in resisting the temptation to report the terms “Google“, “100” and “billion.”
The paradox I would like to underline consists in the fact that the news, almost like a tape duplicated over and over again for hundreds and hundreds of times, began to lose identity copy after copy and in short time reduced itself to a mere synthetic announcement. Unfortunately, as often happens, almost all the “loudspeakers” limited themselves to announce the fact making only some fast comments on the subject, a tam-tam which I personally found banal. In brief, this led me to check some aspects, therefore, indirectly to write this article.
The oxymoron subsists in the fact that the news which states the Google’s growth has also produced thousands of clones, so much so if you search today through Google, the three terms “Google 100 billion” you’ll find 1.040.000 potential results. A short-circuit: the news which states that Google has monthly billions of contacts it has billions occurrences, traceable precisely through a Google search and, consequently, causing dozens of millions of clicks from users: billions of clicks which produce millions of clicks, internet is really a self-supporting system.
From the numerical point of view I agree with Larry Page, the goals Google can achieve, are above and beyond. With at least 1 billion of potential internet users per day, an efficient engine which is also transnational, an unlimited space at its disposal,… Google could be used by all the people of this planet multiple times per day. With a number of cyber users (smart phone and tablet) which are constantly increasing, I do believe that the goal achieved is significant, but also extremely easy to surpass.
We know, based on statistics, that the 93% of the “digital natives” (age group 16-24) uses internet at least once a week (Source EuroStat 2011). Therefore, not only all of us the grown-ups use the search engines, but most probably, the young ones and school-age children use daily these tools too.
At this point I wonder where is channeled all this potential? Are we progressively abandoning other search patterns limiting ourselves to use only one tool? Do we entrust ourselves unconditionally to these search engines?
More precisely, how we behave in front of a list of search results? Are we able to choose the most appropriate information? Do we have enough analytical capacity and patience?
I searched online some statistic data which could confirm my suppositions. I have to say that my search revealed itself long and less gratifying than I expected. Maybe once again, we find ourselves in front of an oxymoron. I wasn’t able to find, through the main search engines, some reliable and complete statistic information in order to certify the use of it. Internet is not always a transparent universe.
I have found however three examples.
The first one takes cue from the leak of information given by AOL, an “accidental” mistake, as it is said on web: some tens of millions of search query made by over 600.000 users. This “data pack” is probably the only significant data, in terms of numbers, available on internet.
I briefly summarized the gather data in the following table; here are recorded about 20 millions clicks by the data’s sample AOL, I would say a good number (click on the image to read the detail).


What shall I say other than I’m truly impressed! In 42.3% of cases we select the first result present on the search list, the second result has a delta of -71.82% with only 11.92% clicks, the third result has 8.44%, while the following results have minimal percentages of selection.
I also find interesting the fact that, quantitatively, positions like the 21st, the 31st and the 41th, are not so far-between them, this shows how an insignificant percentage of users is willing to search with attention what they need and therefore to scroll down the list further than the first or the second page.
The first page has 89.68% of the clicks, basically 9 out of 10 users remain on the first page. I find fanciful that position n.10 is the only one that doesn’t respect the decreasing trend, obtaining more clicks than the 9th one. It is possible that our eye (or our curiosity) have the tendency to pay much more attention to what is placed on the bottom of the list.
These data not only confirm my “feeling” whereby if, after a search, you are not on the first page, the possibilities of being selected are reduced to a minimum, but also concentrates the 62.66% of selections, therefore two-thirds of clicks, on the first three results.
The “relevance ranking” of the search engines, or rather the algorithm which determines the position of the search results, seems to guide inexorably our clicks.
My second reference source is even more “unusual”; it is about data coming from “BrandSoftech“, a supplier of software solutions for online games and casinos. The example is composed of 5.357.519 clicks of 29.327 different key sentences typed on Google extrapolated from 63 different betting sites.
Online are available only the data concerning the first page, therefore relative to the first ten results. It is not clear if the remaining pages capture less than 1% of the clicks or if the study analyses exclusively the assignment of the clicks made on the first page, and only as a consequence of the rounding of two decimal numbers, the example can’t be given of 100%. I personally choose the second hypothesis! In my opinion, we have an important sample of clicks but only relative to the first ten results.


The data are very similar to those proposed on the first table list; in fact they strengthen the role of the first entries of the list. Now the first three entries reach 71.86% and if the percentage report is only between the first ten values it is necessary, in absolute terms, to deduct about 7%. Which is to say that in this case too, it is better to be tenth that ninth; actually in this case the gap between the ninth and the tenth place is even more evident, this certifies the fact that, most probably, we trust much more our visual perceptions, (first and last places), than what we read, or rather, we pay more attention to what is present on certain points of the video screen.
If about 2/3 of the users choose one of the three first results proposed by the search engine, I can well understand why Google, as a consequence of a search, proposes always at the top of the list, at most, three sponsored links. It refers to the three links which, statistically, are the most watched.
The positions n.1, n.2, and n.3 are those preferred by the cyber users.
If it is true that the most of the users “prefer” or “is satisfied” with the first results of the list, we have however, based on the data AOL earlier revealed, about 10% of the users who goes on the second page. So, if from a certain point of view, the phenomenon of the “easy click” on the first three results may result worrisome, it is important to underline that all is not lost yet. There is a category of people capable of selecting what ensues on the following pages and, I would like to add from my experience, more and more skilful audience is able to repeat the same search adding further terms, reducing so the number of occurrences outcome of the same search.
These two evolved behaviors cause on web a phenomenon called “Long Tail“, from the expression coined by Chris Anderson.
Such phenomenon highlight the 80% of the less popular needs (of any type or kind): basically it allows us (you) to track down that movie, that book, that information “of niche” which is of no interest for the most part of the users and, therefore, hardly traceable without the search engine.
In addition to these two sources which, as I mentioned before, are far from institutional, I recommend you to read the research carried out by Cornell University called “Eye-Tracking Analysis of User Behavior in WWW Search“.
In this case the number of clicks and the users’ sample are not so important, but a keen attention is being paid to the users’ perception of the page, through the study of “ocular index “, in other words, how long the user observes the page and in what manner. Again, the first three needs have a leading role compare to the others.
For the most curious of you, I also recommend the view of the services “Google trends” which monitor the web, proposing daily statistics relative to what is of the great interest for users. Unfortunately, the clicks on the big numbers normally show general information and they end up underlining national popular events such as gossips, football and politics… From the social point of view, I believe web is much more complex and definitely much more receptive than synthesized in these “trends” pages.
In conclusion, there is to be both optimistic and pessimistic because web gives us the opportunity to communicate, to express our opinions, to post a video, a photo, material which certifies unequivocally a fact, to look for something very difficult to find present only at the end of the “long tail”,… But, at the same time, we often tend to be satisfied with what web offers us without using completely the tools to our disposal, first of all, our brain.
Do not be satisfied with the first three results given by the search engines, you may find something more interesting on the second or the third page.


The Spin cycle: Technologies, people, society in “global rotation”

forza_centrifugaAs I have already mentioned in a previous article, article in which most probably I haven’t been too original, opinion you may share only by reading the article, web has changed the world. But how did this change happen? What process did it activate? What changes will follow? Maybe if we try to analyze the dynamics which have brought the net to the attention of our society, it will be easier to realize or simply to guess what the future will bring or at least a part of it.
I would like to start from one consideration: the first web or web 1.0 whose diffusion took place in the 1990s offered static contents that hardly changed as the days went by, with graphics package similar to that of the newspapers. The pages were columns structured with a title or a subtitle and a text. The images applied were a few as well as the colors, but the difference which strikes more than all, is how the contents were rarely put through an updating. It surely looked alike with the good “old newspaper”, but being on web, it turned out to be of no use, not even fit to wrap the fish in. It is not hard to find online “old web pages” which describe an event or a service or even disused old blogs whose last, and sometimes the only post, is dated 1995 or 1996.
The biggest limits were of technical nature, the creation of the web pages was often delegated only to the computer technicians, sometimes even to improvised technicians. The action of publication had to submit to a wearing “braid” which considerably slowed down the updating of the contents, to not mention the editing of macroscopic grammatical errors.
Do not misunderstand me, every rule has its own exception, there are examples in the first web that excel in communication and navigation, however often thanks to the inspiration of one individual and not due to the “teamwork.”
I dare to compare these first pages to the first prehistoric icons carved in stone. They have many aspects in common! First of all, they are hard to cancel or even change, second, they were created by using primitive tools and last but not least, there was no awareness from the maker regarding the importance of his creation, the conception of a rough and primitive product from the communicative point of view even though of inestimable value.
Therefore the stone age of the web coincides with the web created in the twentieth century and the “stonepages” have been the direct expression of it. A good web expert has in his drawer a list of stonepages links, web pages designed at the end of the 1980s and in the early 1990s.
Continuing our cursory and general analysis, we ought to underline the incredible evolution made by technology and the way it progressively succeeded in producing more dynamic and interactive tools, creating software which permit the editor to insert and publish contents in complete autonomy. Equally decisive was the diffusion of tools which simplified and speeded up the creation of multimedia material such as digital cameras, high tech video cameras, audio tools and so on…
The electronics and the computer science have certainly given a conclusive contribution by proposing new tools, simple to use and affordable to everyone.
So, the new Web has its genesis in the innovation, but such a mass and a transversal process cannot be limited to some extra bit and chip, the step-change took actually place from the very moment when the persons, the people, the vulgo, took knowledge of these tools and begun to use them daily.
This excessive use, not only has immediately determined new forms of communication, of social exposure, but above all, it has induced new requests of use, clearer.
Being an experienced computer scientist I know that the good result of a project, of a software programming service, depends very much on the actual use/ liking of the internet user as well as on the quantity of suggestions actually applied by him to the software.
The stage two of 2.0 is characterized by the users’ ability in over stimulating the means at their disposal finding sometimes innovative and original ways of use, sometimes even suggesting new developments.
The stage three of 2.0 has been even more important because it had turned millions of individual web users into a virtual society and some of the web tools into social networks, in other words, it has been created the first de facto virtual agorà. The stage three surprised everybody, even the most optimistic employees for its intensity, but above all, for the course of the phenomenon. As I already mentioned a few pages ago, there was some billion of people who felt alone, who had that tribal necessity to exchange two words, to feel each day alive by bringing in one’s own small way his fast and precious contribution.
The society is caught by this network and it won’t succeed in going out of it.
The second and the third stage have had a massive impact on the tools proposed by web, bringing new stimuli and a lot of money to those people able to plan and succeed in innovation.
The stage four of the new web is nothing but a second turn of field: further innovation, greater use and identification from the individual as well as further borders’ extension of an already mass phenomenon.
At this point of my monologue it becomes clear that the web 2.0, which all of us are experiencing, is a circular phenomenon, rapid and in constant growth. A circular phenomenon which rotates fast inserting a centrifugal force that runs over all the participants! Just imagine a billion of paper handkerchiefs which rotate at an incredible speed inside a huge washing machine. For this reason, when we use a new tool provided by social networks we feel sometimes played-out, we are into the spin cycle
The spin cycle has another evident collateral effect, it expels, throw out from its center the heaviest objects: politicians who love the monologue, researchers who use complex tools and well-structured publication procedures, whoever wants to keep a secret, long-winded orators, and others…
If you are not cooperative, if you don’t want to take a challenge, if you think it’s better to communicate using ways and slang typical of last century, or if you are just too slow, you don’t live the real-time web, or perhaps you are not fit at all for the innovation, then my friend, you are out of web, you exist “only “as a real person, but from the virtual point of view, you are simply meaningless.


News on paper or online?


I keep on repeating, article after article, on this blog, the concept of the “new web”, how this is a phenomenon much wider than all of us succeed in perceiving today, a dimension, a space, which will change the customs of this century. In a previous article, I have used some statistics in order to describe better this change which, in short, confirms that many of us are “always online” and that this “cyber presence” will continue to grow as far as involving everyone. The numbers give us important indications but, in my opinion, they don’t succeed in representing concretely the change. Much more is needed, therefore I would like to highlight, with the help of a real confrontation, what was “before” and what is “after“, the “real” and the “virtual“.
To do this I have analyzed an area of great interest where the two models, the descriptive sequential one of the 20th century cohabit daily with the new model, visual, fast and interactive of this 21st century, therefore of our times.
Last Monday I bought a papery copy of one of the most important Italian daily newspaper, and that is “Corriere della Sera”, and I read every single page, and soon after the same day, I browsed the version online of the same daily newspaper taking also some screen shots.
To my astonishment the two versions have very little in common. The papery version has a page structure on vertical columns, nine columns differently positioned with six main articles that continue within the newspaper and other six titles corresponding to articles also present inside the newspaper.
On the first “papery” page we find nine images, among these we find a cartoon and, in the four angles, small and middle advertising inserts. We find the same scheme the following pages, mostly characterized by long texts, with an average of two or three images (and some extra image on the sport page, it is Monday after all). The advertising is set aside in big “showcase-pages” made ad hoc.
The symbols used are only a few and the “infographic” elements are practically absent except for the page devoted to weather.
I think, considering the topics raised, the space devoted to football and motorbikes as well as the publicity offered, that this newspaper is oriented toward a predominantly male over 40 audience.
Let’s give a quick look to the version online! The first consideration is related to the contents, they are way different, the version online is updated, the dematerialized information can be updated at every moment, this is why the online site brings today’s news and the papery version yesterday’s news. The main news are all different, which is no small thing. The second difference stays in the number of the contents offered, the web page has an indefinite length and it is opportunely divided in horizontal areas, thing that imposes a certain visual order allowing an easy reading on horizontal sections, from left to right. There are dozens and dozens of articles. I counted the images and only on the homepage they are 142, I remind you that the papery version had only nine and almost all of them in small format.
On the version online they are more articles but shorter, many of them I wouldn’t even consider them as articles, but rather news. Their structure is rather simple and the terms used are basic, sometimes even elementary.
The page contains lots of interactive elements, slide showcases, photo gallery like “Photo story”, videos. Considering the high-level of innovation reached, personally, I would increase the use of the hypertexts, especially the hipertextual weave among the articles.
Paradoxically, the version online, though having much more contains and images, results simpler to visualize, browse and read, in some cases so simple and immediate to seem even banal compared to the “structured” papery version.
My tone in this comparison is deliberately simple, we are on a blog, even if, to say the truth, for an instant I have had the temptation to analyze the “wireframe” or rather the graphic model of design and communication on which the two daily papers are based on.
Seeing the different morphology of the “two daily papers” I’m inclined to believe that the audience is created by different types of people. The version online is oriented to young people and “medium” young people who use internet every day, and therefore who look for a quick reading as well as the latest news and who often choose on the strength of the visual impact due to the terms used and the images provided. The papery version is more reflective, for a less reactive audience, probably more cultured and less frantic.
The papery articles follow the tradition of the “printed paper” , they propose conjectures and showan analytical context. They have a sequential and progressive line.
The articles online are easy and immediate. Most probably the editorial office online is composed by different resources compared with the papery version. Maybe it has different work schedules, always active working on news in brief in contrast to the papery editorial office, more reflective and characterized by the “daily delivery.”
To put it in a nutshell, we have two types of audience, two editorial offices and two ways of operating the information. The splitting between real dimension and virtual dimension becomes more evident when we talk about the journalistic information. Two ways of spreading information, two excellences situated in two different universes, each of them with its rules and its audience.
In conclusion I would like to pay tribute to the “page footer” of the web version where we can find indicated various blogs and forum, a modern and dynamic version from which we cannot leave out of consideration the new ways of communication along with the new tools. My compliments go to the editors online who decided to make such a visionary choice transforming journalists into bloggers and bloggers into journalists.
Returning to the opening question, I consider absolutely anachronistic the diatribe between the information online and the real information, therefore also between the papery information and the information online. They are two complementary universes characterized by different dynamics of use, different services and, often, different audience. The auspice which closes this article stays in the hope that this difference would help to growa plural and well informed society.



LEGO bricks and 2.0 web communities

Often real situations and virtual situations end up by influencing each other and each of them activates behaviors, countermeasures, attitudes, beginning with impulses from the “other space”, whether real or cyber.
The case I am about to introduce you is certainly one of these, but before giving you the details, a short encyclopedic premise is needed.
The definition of community offered by garzanti’s dictionary is a little bit archaic but very clear: “a group of people who lives on the same territory or who has origins, traditions, ideas or common interests.”
The community represents one of the main elements of development in human history. Belonging to a group conceded the safeguarding of our species as well as its evolution. The sharing of perceptions, intuitions, tools, etc permitted us to improve ourselves, to create new and more complex social models and life styles. The confrontation gave energy to our ideas, we explained ourselves, even if sometimes we offended each other, in the end we stood up for each other, we built and improved our habitat, we refined our tools and our lives.
We belong to a community, we have ideas, traditions and common interests and thanks to this physical proximity as well as to the same thought and language we stay united and, consequently, become better each day.
The virtual community, “made” online, has analogous characteristics. It mixes interests, opinions, people and actions. Those people who belong to a community feel they have “something” in common.
I know I repeat myself, but I have to remind our readers how web, as an open system, permits each of us to belong to a network of people in an easy way and free from infrastructures, therefore,to share thoughts and actions with the other cybernauts, known or unknown in the real world, in no time.
The virtual community is, from the sociological and relational point of view, comparable to a real community. It replaces the intensity o a physical contact with the immediacy of a chat or a video and the empathy of a look with the infinite relational weave available online.
Let us go to the point, and that is to our example.
Who among us has never played with the LEGO bricks? For the undersigned, a child in the 1970s, years deprived of video games and commercial television as well as color tv, the LEGO bricks were an explosion of colors, a wall to be climbed with the imagination, they were “my” game.
A game apparently simple, where manual skills and imagination permit a child to plan, create, experience.
In the 1980s and 1990s, LEGO was subject to a strong competition of the interactive games with a “high-technology content”, therefore, a progressive loss of market which put the company in great difficulty.
At the beginning of the 21st century, LEGO, maybe at its height of the financial crisis, tried to reach the young ones with a new product range, the mindstorm LEGO.
The idea, on which the new range is based on, is excellent; it offers a kit for the construction of a robot by mixing bricks and technology.
I suppose the main purpose is to attract the interest of the youngest ones, the preteens, with a complex planning target and a high-level technology in condition to compete with the electronic games.
We live in a world in constant change and, as in this case, may happen that an idea, a production line, turns out to be, from the very beginning, something totally different from what was supposed to and designed for, from what was thought by the LEGO managers as a “good product” for the youngsters.
A different target of consumers, sometimes even older than the one I mantioned before, has adopted these kit and has begun to mix the components creating new innovative forms, new robots.
As a result, a community of planners mindstorm has been created spontaneusly online, capable of subverting the original project, creating new things, sharing them, modifying and remodifying them over and over again.
From what I’ve read on internet, from unreliable sources (who knows, if true), the LEGO leadership didn’t expect this change. It was written that the managers found themselves in great difficulty and that they were thinking of untrusting the work to inventors in training who might well revolutionize the product’s nature.
Later on, or perhaps immediately after, we will never know for sure, the change happened and Lego made room for the mindstorm designers, creating a place only for them as well as additionals features like “Upload your robot” that gave the possibility to present one’s own innovative solution, unique. Today a “mindstormer” can expose his creation, explain how to disassamble it, reassamble it and turn it upside-down or how to create a new robot. In this way a community has been created, a community based on imagination and on originality.
Shortly after, to the community LEGO, were added assemblies organized by the same company, collaborations between LEGO and some of the community’s protagonists as well as the implementation of a new generation of software tools able to create, along with LEGO, new social thematic spaces devoted to the planning.
Today LEGO is a company which has succeeded in loyalizing new consumers, as we may say in jargon, it “repositioned itself” by succeeding in creating new spaces and new opportunities, by listening to the consummers’ wishes and allowing them to express and share their own creativity.
We are dealing with a history 2.0 where internet has functioned as a communication tool and a social network and where the absence of obstacles has permitted the spontaneous creation of a web community capable of sharing a sincere interest, of revolutionizing, renewing and amplifying a trade proposal.
As happens lots of times, the real world didn’t know how to anticipate this necessity, but it was succesful in observing attentively what was going on and, progressively, in becoming an active part of it.
Today LEGO is the propeller of this community of underground designers.
Brick after brick we are building a world more and more 2.0.