broadstuff

Seven weeks ago Susan Boyle exploded into world consciousness with an unliley and amazing performance in the early rounds of Britain's Got Talent. Tonight was the final, where she was up against 9 other acts that had also come through the process. For the record, the results were:

1st: Diversity (dance act)
2nd: Susan Boyle (singer)
3rd: Julian Smith (saxophonist)

I was quite interested to see how various types of prediction of the winner may work. I looked at Prediction Markets, Twitter, and the Delphi Technique.


Prediction Market

The diagram above show how wrong the Hubdub prediction market was. At close, Susan Boyle was at 78%, Diversity was 6%, another singer was at 6% and Julian Smith a lowly 1%. As you can see it precited many others ahead of Julian.


Twitter

I looked at two potential sources - Trending, and my own Twitterstream.

- Trending had Susan Boyle, Diversity and Stavros Flatley ( a p*ss-taking dance act ) in the top 3 places in that order at point of close.

- My own stream was very much in favour of Diversity, loved Stavros Flatley, and treated Susan Boyle as no longer cool.

Neither registered Julian Smith in any significant way.


Delphi Technique

The Delphi technique involves gathering a diverse group of experts to cover a subject. It differs from crowdsourcing in that its a small (ie non statistically relevant) group rather than a mass. I used my family in this test, and the support was:

Diversity 60%
Stavros Flatley 20%
Julian Smith 20%

When asked about Susan Boyle, the view was "she'll probably win, but this is who we like".


Results

Delphi technique was the most accurate (assuming we adjusted for the opinions on Susan Boyle as everyone's 2nd vote), which is a fascinating result.

Prediction market did the worst, which is equally fascinating. I'd have predicted the reverse would have been true.

Neither the Twitter Trending nor my Followed stream saw Julian Smith at all - hypothesis is that the people he would appeal to are by and large not yet on Twitter - ie my family group is probably a better representative sample of the overall market than Twitter is today.

Another reason to beware of Twitter buzz (see my earlier discussion of this over here).

(By the way, the post event Twitterstream is broadly in agreement with the outcome, as opposed to last night's furious reaction to the outcome)

Another day, another Facebook "Boob with boobs" story - this time about Breast Cancer:

After having a mastectomy, Sharon Adams decided to raise awareness of breast cancer by posting photographs of her scar on Facebook.

They were accompanied by a description of the mother of four's fight against the disease and encouragement from her for other women to go for regular check-ups.

But within a day, the social networking site removed the photos after describing them as 'sexual and abusive'.

Breast cancer sufferer Sharon Adams was banned from putting her mastectomy photos on Facebook

The action triggered a wave of protest, with nearly 900 people joining an online group calling for the ban to be lifted.

'I put these pictures out on Facebook to put a message out to women - check your breasts regularly and do not ever be ashamed of a mastectomy,' said Miss Adams, 45, yesterday.

'For Facebook to claim they were sexual and abusive was absurd. Facebook has online groups about sexual positions and some groups which are bordering on racist - but they ban this.'

This follows the furore over Facebook banning pictures of mothers feeding babies with bared boobs, as they were considered not safe and secure for all users, including children. But anyone who has been on Facebook will know that bare breasts are not hard to find.... as the article notes, there are a lot of breasts in more compromising positions.

So in Facebookland it seems that the only allowed boobs are on women who are fit and f*cking. Still, what do you expect of a service started up by college students?

But as well as the tittering, there is a bigger point here, in that the users in both cases have decided what they believe is the correct treatment, and have forced the network to change policy this time by protest. And kudos to Facebook for reacting this time. Now, how about doing the right things by the lactating mothers?

The background - on Britain's Got Talent tonight (thats the show that the very viral Susan Boyle is in, final is tomorrow night) a little girl (Hollie Steele) sings, breaks down onstage and is then given another go (not a thing given to any other performers, I add). At the end of the show, the format is that the highest public voted act goes straight through to the Final, but the next two most popular get to have the 3 judges decide which one of them goes through. She comes joint second with a guy who can sing both voices in "Barcelona".

The 3 judges put the little girl through, and they admit its largely as a sympathy vote, over the other act.

The little girls's bravery makes the nightly news in a sympathetic light.

So far so good.

However, the Twitterstream, which has been following Britains Got Talent (#bgt) in big numbers, goes apoplectic at this point - the general feeling (running at about 50:1 as best I can gauge* ) is that this is a fix (thats a polite term), so this result is definitely not a reflection of the public's - or at least the Twittering public's - view.

(Just look at the #bgt stream from about 22.20 for the next 20 minutes - Update: nay, 4 hours - or so)

In the past you would never have seen this feedback, now its very visible in both numbers and points of view, in real time.

This is very interesting, I await to see what happens next - this is a precursor of what I think will be a very disruptive trend, when the realtime response is massively different to the (stage managed?) "user generated choice" shows' results - and then other shows.

* I had another look the next morning, there has been a rise in the defenders but the vast majority - and we are talking thousands of twts here now - felt that either (i) no second chance as its unfair and/or (ii) sing, but don't go through. What is interesting is that - so far - none of this has been picked up in the "official" media despite protests on any comment site going - Facebook groups, BBC and Newspaper online readers pages, the YouTube clips etc. I wonder if this is another reason why Mainstream Media is failing - it genuinely is not reflecting what people actually think, but runs to an agenda from someplace else?

Seen on eMarketer - graph above speaks for itself. My take is most of the stuff is low cost, low (perceived) risk rather than high ROI so clearly its small beer bets right now.

Interestingly, another chart on the page shows that nearly three-quarters of employees agreed that it’s easy to damage a company’s reputation on social media, including 24% who strongly agreed.

(Hat tip Abigail Harrison for link)

Update - have a look at Deirdre Molloy's data in the comment section.

Google Wave is a combination of email, IM and a Wikis with the obligatory "open API" (which is still Google's). It is according to its creators "“what email would be if it were invented today.”

Actually, email is what email should be today - it has evolved organically over 15 years and is amazingly robust considering the thrashing it gets daily. The problem with email is that it is too heavily used and good for its own good.

We had a look at Wave today, but as yet there is not a lot one can get ones teeth into yet - our take so far is that the main questions are around:

(i) It's an attempt at being a "unified communication" system but we're not sure of the functionality that has been unified. The problem with these systems is that users need a metaphor e.g. emails like a letter, twitter is like SMS and in its turn SMS was a bit like a telegram.

(ii) What is the Pro Quo you pay for Google putting in the quids to subsidise it? who is in control? Who owns the data?

(iii) What happens when the Cloud breaks - how easy is i to keep My Documents?

Most of the reviews are of course gushing, which is odd as there is so little there to play with, but hey. We found this grumpy one though

Among the many interesting questions about Wave is this: Is it bloatware? It’s not ready for release yet, and it appears to already be bursting at the seams with features. Screenshots show a service that crams dozens of features, options, and snippets of information on to the screen–less an example of Google-esque minimalism and more like a Microsoft app that’s been through a few versions and is shoehorning stuff in.

Update - actually, GigaOm has also been a bit grumpy

There is an interesting article on Techcrunch on this subject today, and it tallies with what our own realtime search engine tells us when we point it at Twitter in an unmediated way. Techcrunch:

Twitter’s near real-time search capabilities and the ability for them and third parties to mine the collective data from user messages for indicators of what’s buzzing online is the intrinsic core value of the company now that’s it has grown to the size it is now, at least for the time being.

We already know Twitter can be quite the source for breaking news, but critics have in the past correctly pointed out that one should be aware of the fact that the mob isn’t always right, and unverified claims on the micro-sharing service - often from a single user or even a single message - can quickly lead to false or incomplete stories circulating rapidly and viciously until the dust settles and the truth surfaces.

And no sooner does this become useful than it is gamed to uselessness. You can't go to a conference today without someone giving you a hashtag and asking you to Twt to the rafters about it. And as techCrunch notes, now digg like viral posse's are taking it to new lengths:

Today, when you look at Twitter’s trending topics, you’ll notice that the large majority of trends are memes started by a single user or a group of users, with the main goal offering entertainment rather than spreading information. That’s all fine and dandy - no harm in having fun - and I realize well that Twitter’s trending topics are not necessarily required to be giving you and me an overview of stuff that really matters, but I can’t help but think it’s a pity that that list is starting to turn into the top 10 of chain letters people used to circulate through e-mail messages in the late nineties.

There is something else as well, which we found when we pointed our own realtine search engine at twitter in unmediated mode (ie not looking for any one thing, just counting the occurrences of things). We found, for example, that those top trending topics are not actually the biggest topics on Twitter at the moment, they are just ones growing fastest. There are some topics that nare much more perennial, with bigger traffic, but their rise and fall (from a higher base) is far less spectacular.

For example, today Twitter says the top trending topics are:

# liesboystell
# liesgirlstell
# 3wordsaftersex
# BGT (Britain's Got talent)

But our system tells us that the following topics, for example are getting more twts:

#yay
#followfriday
#identica
#swineflu
#wikipedia (a lot of the twts are around the scientology banning)

Followfriday is a friday thing, so we suspect its been moderated out of the Trending area. Identica is a big traffic driver on any day you care to look at, as is Swineflu at the moment, and as for Yay - well its just big and random. Our system also tells us that Wikipedia is a bigger story right now than any sex, lies or talent videos.

Now it could also be that we are measuring over different timespans, or counting different things (metrics veterans will know how easy this is...), but what it shows is the Twitter Trend-O-Scope can be focussed in different ways, and will then give different answers.

There is a fascinating little vignette of Social Media's bite going on right now on the Grauniad. The Ethical Blog section put up a Q&A session for Neals Yard, a right-on Covent Garden Homeopathy store, and asked for questions about remedies.

No doubt they were expecting the sort of questions that gentle New Age souls ask when they come into the store about what product to buy, how best to heal this or that etc. What they have got is 5 pages (and counting) worth of Real Life scientists and skeptics asking hard technical questions about documented evidence for Homepathic remedies, how the science works etc etc.

I must say I have been encouraged by this - my view for a long time is that Social Media has risked being too much a creature of the New New Age tendency, but this shows that as a system it has grown up.

Here are some choice quotes:

Linked below is a book on 'Homoeopathy for Mother and Baby'. Given that homoeopathy has never been shown to have any effect distinguishable from placebo, do you regard it as ethical to profit from publications which seek to exploit the anxiety of new mothers to sell pseudo-medicines?

......

Your website states that:

The correct homoeopathic remedy will stimulate a sick person's vitality to send healing energy where it is needed

1) what do you mean by "vitality" and how does a homeopathic remedy stimulate it?

2) what is "healing energy"? What units is it measured in and where does it come from?

.......

> A homoeopathic remedy is not just a minute quantity of a substance, it has also been through a process of potentisation which enables the remedy to act as a catalyst on the subtle energies of the body. Homoeopathic remedies are therefore very sensitive and should be stored in a dark, cool place away from strong smells.

Would Neal's Yard like to explain in detail and give evidence for the process of "potentisation"...

Alternatively, would they like to explain which are the "subtle energies of the body", what units they are measured in or indeed how they can be differentiated from the "obvious" energies?

Or, on a slightly pedantic note, how an energy can be catalysed? Since the chemical definition that I understand for a catalyst is "A substance which lowers the activation energy of a reaction by providing an alternative reaction path/mechanism..."


Haters all .

Apparently Neal's Yard have yet to to reply to the flood of questions, which is of course leading to more commentary. A very interesting lesson here about the Social Mediation of tigers, tails and tall tales.

(Disclosure on my position - as a trained scientist myself, I know that diluting something by 10 to the power of 30 or higher means there is no chemical effect, so the technical thesis of Homepathy is laughable. Also, I know as a chronic sufferer of Man-Flu that that at its worst, when I seek the inevitable remedy of tea (large doses) and sympathy (homeopathic size doses ) , it works as I then get better - because time is a great healer.

But I also know as a lay observer that giving people a bit of hope and attention can have amazing impacts - the "placebo effect" as its known. Thus to me, Homeopathy is "mostly harmless" as its a way of entertaining the patient as nature heals them. Where it gets harmful is when people start to use it in situations that can kill and where we know placebo effects can't help. Neals Yard tried to bring out a Homeopathic Malaria cure for example, and thats a step too far)

Update - Grauniad has bottled it and closed commenting at 215 comments over c 24 hours

Update II - Neal's Yard has decided not to answer. Risky strategy in a digital world. Good comment from PR veteran Mark Borkowsky:

Brands have to deliver on their brand promise – if you say you're the greenest company, you'll get challenged eventually. In the past people challenged companies via word of mouth, letters pages and radio phone-ins. Now technology enables the public to transmit word of mouth in a lethal way, which means brands have to at least be having a dialogue with punters to say they're looking into issues. You cannot crawl under a stone and hope for business as usual. Digital means business as unusual.

Business as unusual - Like that.....

Speaking at the D7 Conference, Mark Cuban says that despite the growth of YouTube, the Internet video market over the last decade has actually been a disappointment. CNET:

The problem, he said, is that when Google bought YouTube it focused on ubiquity rather than making money. The result, he said, is that the market can't really sustain itself.

"This is a company that is literally subsidizing the bandwidth for the world," Cuban said, speaking at the D: All Things Digital event. That's a risk, Cuban said, if someone were to ever find a better search business model than Google.

"I think its a real disappointment to see where Internet video has come," Cuban said, noting that the industry still doesn't have advertising standards, among other shortcomings.

Yes and no. In our Future of Online Video work we use the model in the diagram above to show what is happening. The X axis is time, the Y axis is total market share in financial terms. Internet technology tends to destroy existing value at a faster rate than it creates new value. This is due to 3 main reasons:

(i) It is initially heavily subsidised by offset economics, Google, as Mark notes above, or VC funding etc

(ii) It is operationally lower cost and is being set up by startup skunkworks, so can subsist on lower revenues anyway (and thus highlights the main structural weakness of teh incumbents)

(iii) It "cheats" by not paying its full way in full in the early days - content piracy for example.

Typically teh new media goes for market share first (using its advantages) and only competes on economics later. This is standard and it makes it harder for incumbents to combat new entrants.

However, Cuban did point to how some of the incumbents are crossing over - and the structural issues they still face:

"Hulu has done some great things and they are focused on monetization," he said, but also added "they have some big pockets that they have to appease."

But big picture, at the end of the graph you will see what happens time and time again with new media models emerging:

- They do have an S curve, they do figure out how to make money eventually - Movies, Radio, TV, Newspapers 1.0 all went through this phase.
- The old incumbents decline inmarket share, but still stick around for a long time

Our models predict that the TV/Movie/Video industry is starting to enter a period of major turmoil now, which will exist for about 2-3 years (depending on wider economic conditions) but in 5 years time a clear New Media industry will have arisen. The music industry and print newspaper industries are further down this curve. What is easy is predicting what will happen, harder is predicting who will be around.

As Cuban notes, YouTube, which still relies on massive Google subsidies, will eventually have to pay its way as a business model - but right now it is "crashing" the market. One of the other predictions we make is that incumbents will use all means at their disposal to reshape the market structure - attacks on piracy and low cost bandwidth are already starting.

We also predict an attack on Google's market dominance/subsidy of Online Video will occur.

This morning I was pointed to an article by Steve Radick on the "20 uses of Social Media in Government 2.0". My initial reaction was that its heart was in the right place, but it was also easy to lampoon if you were a skeptic. To work it also has to appeal to the head - ie to be adopted in the organisational space just appealing to passion is not enough, there has to be a more "rational" rationale.

I've gone through the points one by one to try and add this rationale, or point out what is required. Its not meant to be an attack on the writer, more a "build on work of those who have gone before" sort of thing. Its in the style of scrilbbles in the margin, that one may make.

(I'm speaking from the point of view of having more than a few scars from implementing new systems and effecting change over 20 years or so in organisations - Social Media is one of a long line of good ideas with great promise that may still founder)

Anyway, on to the 20 points (in italics) and my comments:

1. The risks of social media are greatly outweighed by the risks of NOT doing social media.

This is an assertion with no proof given, and thus unfortunately lacks credibility as it is a device used by all who would pimp something new, for good or ill, material or inconsequential. Recall also Machiavelli's words about steadfast bolstering of the existing vs lukewarm support of the new. To be credible the statement needs to be backed up with a summary of WHAT the expected benefits are, and WHY the risks of not doing social media are so great.

2. Your Government agency/organization/group/branch/division is not unique. You do not work in a place that just can’t just use social media because your data is too sensitive. You do not work in an environment where social media will never work. Your challenges, while unique to you, are not unique to the government.

Too general, and thus easy to pick holes in - there are clearly some parts of government where information is very sensitive. In fact, there are even parts of government where social media probably is not appropriate. Loses impact because of this blanket assertion, and also because Social media's benefits are not explained..

3. You will work with skeptics and other people who want to see social media fail because the transparency and authenticity will expose their weaknesses.

Absolutely. And with skeptics of many other things. But not all are skeptics because they are scared of something exposing their weaknesses, and to tacitly imply this is the case again makes it into a faith based argument - "believe or be an infidel" - that puts off any neutral and gives ammunition to naysayers. Better to grab the Machiavellian view of the dynamics, as noted above.

4. You will work with people who want to get involved with social media for all the wrong reasons. They will see it as an opportunity to advance their own their careers, to make more money, or to show off. These people will be more dangerous to your efforts than the biggest skeptic.

Yes, but these are also the some of the key supporters you will need initially, because very few people behave altrusitically (zealotically?) - most want to see payback. If you don't embrace this reality you are unlikely to get critical mass early on, and will also be blocked by people who don't see the point of handing you the keys to key resources without a transfer of benefits. Its called organisational politics ....

5. Younger employees are not necessarily any more knowledgeable about social media than older employees. Stop assuming that they are.

True. And that assumption also cuts down your likely recruiting base. Also, don't assume all young employees are friends of Social Media or care very much about it either.

6. Before going out and hiring any social media “consultants,” assume that there is already someone within your organization who is actively using social media and who is very passionate about it. Find them, use them, engage them. These are the people who will make or break your foray into social media.

Very sensible first step, economically sensible and brings potential early champions into the camp - but remember that consultants also fulfil a number of useful roles - bringing in credibility via outside case studies, being able to say things no one in the organisation can, giving credibility to the project via neutral, rigorous work (well, some do anyway)

7. Mistakes can and will be made (a lot). Stop trying to create safeguards to eliminate the possibility of mistakes and instead concentrate on how to deal with them when they are made.

True re mistakes being made, but understand that mistakes in the early days of an untested, controversial project will usually kill it. It is critical to manage air-cover and manage the message. The two time honoured models are skunkworks (hidden) and Top Dog support (essential for bigger projects). Ideally a big rollout should only occur once some skunkworks have proved the concept.

8. Information security is a very real and valid concern. Do NOT take this lightly.

Typical - one line on it and then back to the sunny Social Media uplands .

This is one of the biggest obstacles Social Media faces, and it really has to deal with it squarely upfront and constantly in the process. There is very poor reconciliation between Privacy requirements and Social Media functionality today, and this area needs to be far better sorted before organisations will feel comfortable. In my view the rules for consumer Social Media Privacy are not fit for purpose for organisations and need a lot more thinking through.

9. Policies are not written in stone. With justification, passion, and knowledge, policies and rules can and should be changed. Sometimes it’s as easy as asking, but other times will require a knockdown, drag-out fight. Both are important.

True - but also, recall that to fight the good fight it is also good to swing a big axe as well. If there is sound business rationale and demonstration of benefit elsewhere it is a lot easier to make one's case. The words "Return On Investment" (ROI) need to be taken to heart by Social Media people wanting to change things.

10. Be humble. You don’t know everything so stop trying to pretend that you do. It’s ok to be wrong.

It is also necessary to understand that much of what we understand today about Social Media is very early days, and is likely to be wrong as it moves out of Consumerspace into Organisationspace. It is going to be changed as well as change things

11. But, be confident. Know what you know and don’t back down. You will be challenged by skeptics and others who do not care and/or understand social media. Do not let them discourage you.

Confidence is good, but will run out of gas when hard questions arise. One needs to understand the arguments of the skeptics, and be able to refute them rationally, ideally with examples. Calling them no hopers who don't "get it" will just reinforce their views that its all bollocks. For neutrals, it is usually enough to show that there is potential of benefit to themselves and/or the organisational bit they are in.


12. There are true social media champions throughout the government. Find them. Talk to them. Learn from them.

And outside of ones own government - and on that, its more useful to look at Social media success in Enterprises than in the consumer space as examples.

13. Government 2.0 is not a new concept. It’s getting so much attention now because social media has given a voice to the ambitious, the innovative, and the creative people within the government.

And because "Web 2.0" has give a Vox to the Populi, which is rattling many governments. Also, Governments see it as a potential way to cut costs massively. Recall what we said about ROI? If Social Media can step up to that plate, it has a great potential future.....

14. Social media is not about the technology but what the technology enables.


If the technology doesn't work, or is clunky, most people will never adopt it and it will die at birth

15. Social media is not driven by the position, the title, or the department, it’s driven by the person. Stop trying to pidgeon-hole into one team or department, and instead think of a way to bring together people from across your organization.


Implementing stuff cross-functionally in the early days is a nightmare. Even if you get a Top Dog pushing the project, silo heads probably won't collaborate. Look instead to have successful small pilots in politically homogenous areas (or among interested parties in a small value chain) first.

16. Instead of marketing your social media capabilities, skills, experience, platforms, software, etc. to the government, why don’t you try talking with them? An honest conversation will be remembered for far longer than a PowerPoint presentation.

Personal Comms is all very well, but actually, most busy people with responsibility will have an operating mode something like "Show me the beef. Don't care how you do it. Just do it." When I worked in large organisations I didn't have time for all the people who "just wanted a chat". I wanted to see what they had, upfront, before any talking happened. Powerpoint presentations work well for that.

17. Today’s employees will probably spend five minutes during the workday talking to their friends on Facebook or watching the latest YouTube video. Today’s employees will also probably spend an hour at 10:00 at night answering emails or responding to a work-related blog post. Assume that your employees are good people who want to do the right thing and who take pride in their work.


Sadly, anyone who has spent any time in organisations knows that employees run the gamut from sleazy shirkers to gung-ho boy scouts. In my view its better not to make statements like this, it comes across as ideological, or even worse, naive. We need to show how these systems will "nudge" the majority of the people towards good behaviours and ensure the bad apples can't spoil the barrel.

18. Agency Secretaries and Department Heads are big boys and girls. They should be able to have direct conversations with their workforce without having to jump through hoops to do so.

They are also busy boys and girls, so one of the things they will be worried about is the time spent in having all these conversations, and the incremental costs of them. They thus have to be offset against time and cost benefits elsewhere. Social Media costs money to run - community managers etc - and this needs to be itemised upfront.

19. Transparency, participatory, collaborative - these terms do not refer only to the end state; they refer to the process used to get there as well. It’s ok to have debates, arguments, and disagreements about the best way to go about achieving “Government 2.0.” Diverse perspectives, opinions, and beliefs should be embraced and talked about openly.

Yes and no - decision architectures show that some decisions are big, some are small, some need to be done quickly and others can be done over time. And some have to be done in confidence.

Heavily socialised decisions typically are slow (see note below), leaky and can have high transaction costs - not ideal if the decisions required are short term, small and/or confidential.

Note - it is possible to make "crowdsourced" decisions fast, but there is then increasing risk of crowd insanity rather than wisdom coming into play, and one also has to have checks and balances against the activists who will always try and carry an issue.

20. It’s not enough to just allow negative feedback on your blog or website, you also have to do something about it. This might mean engaging in a conversation about why person X feels this way or (gasp!) making a change to an outdated policy. Don’t just listen to what the public has to say, you have to also care about it too.

There is a reason why governments are careful about promises they make, whereas oppositions and apostles spread promises and solutions around liberally. Its called execution authority, and that needs resources, which are always limited. The worry will be that Social Media interactions will drive all sorts of potential commitments that have to be resourced and delivered, without it being clear that those asking for these things (i) represent any silent majority or are just a strident minority and (ii) will not be satisfied anyway no matter what you do. Social Media enthusiasts have to be able to quantify these costs, outline strategies to manage them, and show the benefits that offset them.

In summary, my conclusions are that Social Media needs to "show the beef" now to be taken seriously, and that means:

- Articulating the benefits
- Being honest about the costs and implementation issues
- Showing where and how the ROI occurs
- Dealing with the privacy issues (social, legal, operational, technical, regulatory) that an organisation faces - its a whole order of magnitude harder than consumer privacy.

Do this and it will be implemented. Fail at these hurdles and it will be another great idea, that would have been amazing if only those idiots had "got it".

So, thats my 20p worth. Comments, Criticisms, Creative suggestions welcome. Big thought though is that Passion is great for recruiting consumers and organisational visionaries , but Prosaic and Practical is what wins in the long run if its implementation and change one wants.

...from ReadWriteWeb, 7 points:

- Open data
- Structured data -> smarter
- Filtering content
- Real-time
- Personalization
- Mobile (location-based, so you could say that's smarter use of data too)
- Internet of Things (the Web in real-world objects)

Good list, can't argue with most of it it - point 1 is still mainly a pipe dream and 2 is is probably expandable to "Structured Metadata", but it tallies largely with our observations.

I'd also add 3 more to make it a round 10

- Something around the continual expansion in bandwidth driving ever more video based services
- Feedback loops and data scraping/mining for making "Personalization" happen
- Software becoming increasingly virtualised - Clouds, widgets, Open Source stacks, Ecosystems.

Oh - and 2010 will be the first "Year of Mobile Web 3.0 ;-)"