1

“The functions of buzzwords: A comparison of ‘Web 2.0’ and ‘telematics’” by Ole J. Mjøs,

Hallvard Moe, and Vilde Schanke Sundet. First Monday, Volume 19, Number 12 - 1

December 2014. http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4896/4181 doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i12.4896

It is a key task for media research to uncover the assumptions underpinning fashion terms like

buzzwords, and to show their functions in business, political debate and social life. In this

article, we ask which purposes media buzzwords serve, and for whom. We also question the

presumed newness of buzzwords. By critically addressing two corresponding terms — ‘Web

2.0’ and ‘telematics’ — we argue that a media buzzword serves three important functions: it

simplifies a complex field, promotes a phenomenon as something new, and legitimates

strategies and actions. Thus, a media buzzword can be used rhetorically to define a discursive

frame for new media developments. Further, we argue, even though media buzzwords bring

forward a promise of something new, the use of such buzzwords is not new.

Contents

1. Introduction

2. The discourse on buzzwords

3. The emergence and context of ‘Web 2.0’

4. The functions of ‘Web 2.0’ as a buzzword

5. The emergence and context of ‘telematics’

6. The functions of ‘telematics’ as a buzzword

7. Conclusion

1. Introduction

The age of digital media seems swamped by a wealth of more or less comprehensible labels

and expressions. A label that creates buzz accompanies every new service or practice that

emerges. Think of ‘big data’, ‘social media’, ‘Web 2.0’, ‘convergence’, ‘user-generated

2

content’ and ‘interactivity’. These are industry buzzwords. We construct the reality by

defining it, to paraphrase Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann (2006). Terms and expressions

are not neutral. They reflect our notions of reality, and the position we take in it. And in the

battle of concepts, buzzwords have a particular role. It is therefore a key task for media

research to uncover the assumptions underpinning such fashion terms, and to illustrate their

functions in business, political debate and social life (van Dijck and Nieborg, 2009; John,

2013; Allen, 2013).

In this article, we ask which purposes media buzzwords serve, and for whom. We also

question the presumed newness of buzzwords: How can we understand the seemingly

abundance of swiftly emerging and fading buzzwords related to digital media, and the

assumption that this represents something new?

To discuss these questions, this article critically addresses buzzwords as a phenomenon. The

aim is to understand the functions of buzzwords, and, by exploring the societal aspects that

impinge on their functions, also to get a better grasp of our mediated societies. In short, we

claim that the words we use to label new media technologies influence the way we think

about such technologies, and then again the way we make use of them (see also Weick, 1995;

Schein, 2010). In this respect, a socio-economic analysis of buzzwords is important as it gives

us a peek into the more hidden ways of making sense of the world — in particular new media

technologies. Furthermore, a critical analysis may uncover some of the power relations or

paradigms underlying the use of these particular buzzwords (see also Taylor, 2002; Mansell,

2012).

We start by analysing the discourse on buzzwords, uncovering how they originate with a

specific meaning in a specialist context, then become fashionable among non-specialists and

simultaneously lose their precise meaning.

On that basis, we discuss the functions of ‘Web 2.0’, a key term linked to the growth of the

Internet as a ubiquitous part of everyday life in the early 2000s. Based on the analysis, we

argue that as a media buzzword, ‘Web 2.0’ serves three important purposes for the industry:

(1) it simplifies a complex field; (2) promotes a phenomenon as something new; and, (3)

legitimates strategies and actions directed towards this new area.

To scrutinize the perceived newness of buzzwords, we then look into ‘telematics’ as an

analogous term from a different era. Through a comparative analysis, we find that also this

term shares the basic characteristics with ‘Web 2.0’ as well as inhabiting the functions that

makes it a buzzword. On this basis, we argue that although buzzwords bring forward a

promise of the new, the use of buzzwords is not. On the contrary, the analysis of ‘telematics’

and ‘Web 2.0’ illustrate that industry buzzwords has existed for a long time, with similar

discursive functions.

The presumed newness of buzzwords, we conclude, is thus not the result of buzzwords being

a new thing. Instead, it may be due to, firstly, the cultural context in which these terms

develop, and secondly, the fact that the media industry as well as researchers and politicians

have a tendency to overestimate the pace of change in recent history — and in effect fall for

the buzz.

Our analysis is akin to conceptual history, as far as we trace the emergence and use of, and

discussions about, specific terms across settings. Our analysis also resemble studies of

3

‘essential contested concepts’ (Gallie, 1956), in such a way that is emphasises hard-to-handle

concepts with several possible readings and interpretations (see also Jensen, 2010; Ytreberg,

2011). Empirically, we rely on different sources — ranging from business literature, to

encyclopaedias, newspapers, trade press, and corporate and pubic industry information — to

analyse the phenomena under scrutiny. In our analysis, these sources are used both as reports

and records, that is, both to give us information about the certain terms as well as the time and

context in which they were produced (Dahl, 2004; see also Wysocki, 2008). Hence, our

sources resemble ‘cultural artefacts’ in the socio-economic business world, giving us

important information of specific terms in a cultural, societal and technological context

(Neuman, 2006). In the analysis of ‘Web 2.0’, the magazine Wired became a chief cultural

artefact, identifying both the early uses of the term ‘Web 2.0’ as well as the way in which

American new media journalists tend to talk about and report on new media technologies in

the early 2000s. In the analysis of ‘telematics’, the chief cultural artefacts was promoted by a

French policy report about computerization in society.

2. The discourse on buzzwords

In order to discuss the functions and newness of buzzwords, we first need to understand the

discourse on buzzwords, that is, how buzzword as a phenomenon has emerged, and which

connotations it carries.

The Oxford English Dictionary describes it as “a keyword; a catchword or expression

currently fashionable; a term used more to impress than to inform, esp. a technical or jargon

term” [1]. Further emphasizing its negative aspects, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary calls

buzzword “an important-sounding usually technical word or phrase often of little meaning

used chiefly to impress laymen” and “a voguish ward of phrase” [2]. According to the Oxford

English Dictionary, the term was first used in American business schools in the mid-1940s.

From the late 1960s, the term was also used in response to new technology to create a new

type of jargon that was nearly as incomprehensible as it was sophisticated. As such, the term

‘buzzword’ has its historical roots within the language of the business and technology sector.

One of the early books within business literature to discuss the term ‘buzzword’ is Robert K.

Mueller’s Buzzwords: A guide to the language of leadership published in 1974. Mueller

argues that buzzwords can be temporary phenomena that quickly vanish, or they can get

introduced in the common word stock of language [3]. In his 1990 book Business buzzwords:

The tough new jargon of modern business, Michael Johnson defines buzzwords as “terms that

capture the big trends and issues of the moment” [4]. Thus, also here we see the link to trends

and fashion. Johnson does however employ the term broadly; even as a synonym for ‘jargon’

and ‘new vocabulary’. These uses stress the characteristics of buzzwords once they have

gained momentum and caught on in widespread use. Importantly, though, a buzzword is not

born as such. A term we see as a buzzword had a different and more precise definition in its

original context, before it became a buzzword proper. It develops from a term with a specific

meaning in a specialist context, becomes fashionable among non-specialists and

simultaneously loses its precise meaning. Thus, one cannot invent a buzzword, but a term one

hopes will become a buzzword.

4

Although such an understanding may inform us about the roles of buzzwords, it tells us less

about the function of buzzwords and the actions of those embracing them. To understand

these aspects, we need to scrutinize buzzwords from the viewpoint of those promoting them.

A few studies do seek to understand the functions of buzzwords. David Collins takes what he

calls a critical-practical perspective on business buzzwords and describes these terms as

organizational phenomena [5]. He claims buzzwords do not simply occur, but are actively

sought and produced to serve an explicit or implicit purpose: Concepts that become

buzzwords are created and disseminated by groups of people working within an apparatus,

which has grown to become an industry in itself [6]. Collins also acknowledges that

buzzwords, especially when coupled to management consultancy, take on a pejorative tone

[7]. Furthermore, he argues that these phenomena should be taken seriously, because of their

impact: management fads and buzzwords are important in the way they reject critical inquiry

and present a ready-made-view of the world. This claim is also supported by studies on how

business communicators relate to buzzwords (Gilsdorf, 1983).

By tracing the development of the term buzzword, and by mapping how it has been

understood within different spheres, we have shown the term’s significance. The seed of a

buzzword is planted within a specialist field. Here the term in question has a precise meaning.

However, as the term gets adopted outside its original context, its meaning changes —

simultaneously serving other functions for the users. But what, more specifically, are these

functions? In order answer this question, we now turn to consider two media buzzwords —

‘Web 2.0’ and ‘telematics’. This is done by first mapping the emergence and history of the

two terms, and then, by tracing their functions within society.

3. The emergence and context of ‘Web 2.0’

The term ‘Web 2.0’ is often claimed to have first appeared at the Web 2.0 Conference

organized by the O’Reilly Media in San Francisco in 2004, as a label of the new kind of

experiences the ‘new’ Web allowed for (Web 2.0 Conference, 2004; O’Reilly, 2005). Tim

O’Reilly, wrote in a promotional piece for the first Web 2.0 Conference:

“I hope I’ll get your attention when I say that the trends that are

emerging today are at least as earth-shaking as the Web and the

open source movement turned out to be” ... “’m talking about the

emergence of what I’ve started to call Web 2.0, the Internet as

platform.” (O’Reilly, 2004)

However, the term did in fact emerge much earlier, although with a somewhat different

meaning. Already before the “dot-com-bust”, in 2000, Clay Shirky, the American consultant

and lecturer on Internet technologies, used the concept. He referred to the general

corporatization of the Internet business — previously populated by “young, revolutionary

zealots” — into a more conventional corporate and business culture, as ‘Web 2.0’ (quoted in

Tedeschi, 2000; see also Rivlin, 2005; Allen, 2013).

Still, it is probably right to say that it was the O’Reilly Media’s conference in 2004, and the

following conference the year after that defined and promoted the term to a broader public. In

5

2005, the term caught on, as pointed out in Wired: “After O’Reilly hosted his Web 2.0

Conference last autumn [...], digi-pundits began using the term Web 2.0 to describe the

growing swarm of applications and Web sites that exploit collective intelligence and

participation” (Levy, 2005).

It was no coincidence that Wired picked up on the ‘Web 2.0’ term. Since 1993, and initially

with the support of professor and MIT Media Lab founder Nicholas Negroponte, Wired had

covered new technological developments and their impact, and particularly the Internet. Just

weeks prior to the second Web 2.0 conference in 2005, O’Reilly published an essay entitled

“What is Web 2.0?” (O’Reilly, 2005). Soon after, Wired journalist Ryan Singel commented

on it: “The theory has been percolating for some time. But it intensified last week when

O’Reilly published an essay on the topic, as well as a graphic outlining the key categories of

this new medium” (Singel, 2005). In this essay, O’Reilly attempted to explain what the term

meant and its implications. With the graphic outline, “Web 2.0 Meme Map”, O’Reilly aimed

to show how “[y]ou can visualize 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that tie together a

veritable solar system of sites that demonstrate some or all of those principles, at a varying

distance from that core” (O’Reilly, 2005).

In this same essay, O’Reilly pointed out how the term had begun to catch on, referring to

“more than 9.5 million citations in Google” (O’Reilly, 2005). Although some U.S. and

international media had reported on the first conference (i.e., BBC, 2004), it was around the

second conference, in October 2005, a few days after the publishing of “What is Web 2.0?”,

that the term begun to be more widely reported by various stakeholders — particularly in the

U.S., but also internationally. The organizers of O’Reilly Media’s Web 2.0 conference

promoted the term in interviews with media and in op-eds (e.g., Battelle, 2005). The term was

also covered by Wired under headings like “Are you ready for Web 2.0?” (Singel, 2005).

Furthermore, the technology sections in mainstream media, both in the U.S. and the U.K.,

such as the Guardian, BBC and Boston Globe, devoted space to the term (Schofield, 2005;

Kirsner, 2005). Technology journalists in the the New York Times had already been referring

to the term in the summer 2005 (Rivlin, 2005; Markhoff, 2005).

The attention given to the buzzword ‘Web 2.0’ reached its peak with Time’s announcement of

‘You’ as ‘Time’s Person of the Year’ in 2006. According to Time, the individual was at the

centre of the development of the ‘new’ Internet, and new technology would empower the user

in unprecedented ways. And further, all this was made possible by ‘Web 2.0’:

The tool that makes this possible is the World Wide Web. Not

the Web that Tim Berners-Lee hacked together (15 years ago,

according to Wikipedia) as a way for scientists to share research.

It’s not even the overhyped dotcom Web of the late 1990s. The

new Web is a very different thing. It’s a tool for bringing

together the small contributions of millions of people and

making them matter. Silicon Valley consultants call it Web 2.0,

as if it were a new version of some old software. But it’s really a

revolution (Grossman, 2006).

This explicit reference to the ‘new Web’ in contrast to the ‘overhyped dotcom Web’ clearly

resonates with O’Reilly’s notion of ‘Web 2.0’. By resolutely distinguishing between the new

and the old Web, Time joined the promotion of the idea and the transformative qualities of

‘Web 2.0’. With ‘Web 2.0’, the Internet could be re-defined: Left behind was the dark age of

6

the Internet, which ended in the bursting dotcom bubble. Ahead was the golden age of the

‘new Internet’ characterised by collective intelligence, user-generated content and new

business opportunities.

Hence, having been introduced among specialists within the IT-industries around 2000, ‘Web

2.0’ was “re-launched” with an altered meaning a few years later. It caught on in the

technology press, and later the mainstream media. At the same time, O’Reilly Media

continued to fiercely promote the term within the industry through the annual Web 2.0

conferences, and by publishing books and publications in the years that followed, including

Web 2.0 mash-ups and the niche aggregators (Kelley, 2008), Web 2.0: A strategy guide

(Shuen, 2008) and Web 2.0 architectures (Governor, et al., 2009).

A decade into the twenty-first century, there seems to be a consensus that there is no

consensus on the meaning of ‘Web 2.0’. It can refer to “technologies that enhance

collaboration, software languages that make these kinds of websites possible, and business

plans that propose funding ‘bring-your-own-content’ schemes“, or even a design aesthetic [8].

At this point in time, ‘Web 2.0’ has clearly emerged as a buzzword. With that follows also the

critical rebuttals. Andrew Keen, an author on technological development, attended the first

Web 2.0 conference in 2004. In his book, The cult of the amateur, Keen (2008) describes how

unified “graying hippies, new media entrepreneurs and technological geeks” with a “shared

hostility toward traditional media and entertainment” [9] met to promote the new. In Keen’s

sarcastic words:

So here we were, two hundred of us, Silicon Valley’s

antiestablishment establishment, collectively worth hundreds of

millions of dollars, gazing at the stars from the lawn of O’Reilly

Media’s corporate headquarters. [...] The Internet was back! And

unlike the Gold Rush Nineties, this time around our exuberance

wasn’t irrational. This shiny new version of the Internet, what

Tim O’Reilly called Web 2.0, really was going to change

everything. [10]

Similarly, José van Dijck and David Nieborg draw attention to the widespread celebration of

the term, at the cost of more critical reflections: “The hidden ‘magic’ of Web 2.0 technologies

remains conspicuously unquestioned by all promoters, whether business gurus or cultural

experts. They all claim a brave new world where the spirits of commonality are finally

merged with the interests of capitalism” [11]. At this point, the seeds planted and nourished

by O’Reilly and other industry actors had clearly yielded a full-blown buzzword.

4. The functions of ‘Web 2.0’ as a buzzword

Based on the history of the term ‘Web 2.0’, we can identify several purposes that the term

serves as a buzzword. Here, we focus on three functions, meant as an analytical frame for

better understanding which purposes media buzzwords serve, and for whom.

7

To start with, ‘Web 2.0’ serves to simplify a complex technological field, namely the new

Web and the kind of experiences it allows for. This is the first function of ‘Web 2.0’ as a

buzzword. As stressed by Anders Fagerjord and Tanja Storsul, concepts that can simplify

complex phenomena will often gain momentum:

Most people that are not heavily involved in media and

communication are not even interested in understanding all

details and complexities of the developments. Therefore, in

order to inform people, politicians, and practitioners about the

relevance and impact of media change, it is useful to have

metaphors and pictures that are easy to communicate. [12]

Although the term ‘Web 2.0’ is neither intuitive nor easily comprehensible, it served as a

heading of a set of developments, more or less perceived as pointing in the same direction.

While such a term does little good in specific discussions of technical or academic nature, it is

useful in less formal settings as it sketches a loosely defined field. As Rick Singel, journalist

at Wired, pointed out: “No one may be able to agree on what Web 2.0 means, but the idea of a

new, more collaborative internet is creating buzz reminiscent of the go-go days of the late

1990s” (Singel, 2005).

The second function of ‘Web 2.0’ is to promote a novelty. With its “2.0”, it signals a clear

break from the “old” Web, which by the early 2000s connoted downfall and economic crisis.

As such, ‘Web 2.0’ is a rhetoric tool to help “launch” something new. In the mid-2000s, the

term was used to endorse and sell a potential, and stand in stark contrast to the failures of Web

1.0 in the past. By distancing the new initiatives from the old, ‘Web 2.0’ serves to promote a

fresh start for the industry, investors, politicians, and, importantly, the new stakeholders of the

Web; the users themselves. According to Matthew Allen, ‘Web 2.0’ should be considered a

“rhetorical technology”, in which the “computing industry attempted to change the way we

think of the Internet” [13]. This focus on newness and potential resonates well with the

attempts to define the term. In the words of the term’s key instigators:

Five years ago, we launched a conference based on a simple

idea, and that idea grew into a movement. The original Web 2.0

Conference [...] was designed to restore confidence in an

industry that had lost its way after the dotcom bust. The Web

was far from done, we argued. In fact, it was on its way to

becoming a robust platform for a culture-changing generation of

computer applications and services. [14]

Finally, as the third function, the term ‘Web 2.0’ also serves to legitimize strategies. This

follows from the second function, but is especially important — and useful — in settings

removed from the original sectors of use. The more fuzzy its meaning, the more general

strategies can it serve. Further, as the term points to a “set of principles” (O’Reilly, 2005), it

can also be used to legitimate a new set of strategies, which more or less point in the same

direction. For instance, Nicholas A. John (2013) finds that ‘Web 2.0’ has been used by many

user-generated content Internet services (Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, Twitter) to legitimate a

rhetoric of sharing, although this form of sharing for the most part is about commercial

interests (either by making users perform task the company would otherwise pay people to

carry out or by monetizing from the users’ activities). As concluded by John:

8

When Facebook, Google and others talk about sharing

information about us with third parties, rather than selling it, or

even just transferring or sending it — two much more neutral

terms — a parallel is created between our online social

interactions with out friends on the one hand, and commercial

interactions involving some of the wealthiest organizations on

the planet on the other. [...] However, it is still the case that

every time we share something online, we create traces of data,

which constitute the hard currency of commercial organizations

in Web 2.0. [15]

Summing up, in the first years of the new millennium, the term ‘Web 2.0’ quickly grew to

become a key industry buzzword. We have identified three core functions: the functions of

simplifying a complex field, promoting it as something new, and justifying strategies and

actions. It might seem paradoxical that a fuzzy term no one agrees what means can serve as a

powerful tool for strategic purposes. However, the analysis of the ‘Web 2.0’ case clearly

brings out how the ambiguity of the meaning is key for its function as a successful buzzword.

Identifying such functions help us understanding the role of buzzwords, their nature and place

in the society in the digital era.

The question remains, however, how we can make sense of the perceived growth and

intensity of buzzwords. To investigate this, we now turn to look closer at an earlier example

of an ICT industry term — ‘telematics’ — that emerged across the Atlantic, in France, in the

late 1970s.

5. The emergence and context of ‘telematics’

The term ‘telematics’ was coined (as télématique) in a French policy report akin to a Green

Paper, written by researcher Simon Nora and Inspector of Finance Alain Minc. The report,

developed at the request of the French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing (elected in 1974),

was published in 1978. It dealt with the “computerization” of society. Nora and Minc wanted

to show how new technology could reshape the social structure, and why the French political

system had to change in face of the new patterns and scales of economic and social life. The

context was French ICT policy meeting a U.S.-dominated new era of telecom business and

satellite communication technology. The year d’Estaing was elected the French telecom

sector was described as “very weak”. For instance, France had “seven million telephone lines

for a population of 47 million (one of the lowest penetration rates in the industrialized world,

equivalent to that of Czechoslovakia)” [16]. Therefore, throughout the late 1970s, the

escalating strength of the U.S. within the sector internationally was of general concern for

France (e.g., Cats-Baril and Jelassi, 1994).

In their report, Nora and Minc defined ‘telematics’ as the convergence of computers and

telecom, and argued that this development was of major importance:

9

Henceforth, mass computerization will take hold, becoming as

indispensable to society as electricity. This transformation can

be traced to two technological advances. In the past, the only

computers to be found were gigantic. Nowadays, a multitude of

small, powerful, and inexpensive machines are on the market.

They are no longer isolated from one another, but rather linked

together in “networks”. This increasing interconnection between

computers and telecommunications — which we will term

“telematics” — opens radically new horizons. [17]

The interconnections, argued Nora and Minc, would have wide-ranging effects: Affecting

“the economic balance, modify power relations, and increase the stakes of sovereignty” [18].

The report instigated a heated public and political debate in France, heated enough to attract

attention overseas. Three years after its original publication, MIT Press printed an English

translation. In its introduction, American sociologist Daniel Bell tried to explain why the term

‘telematics’ had caught on and resulted in “instantaneous and widespread public discussion”

[19]. He pointed to two reasons. First, “[t]he intrinsic fascination of the subject matter [...]

which had not been covered by the French press. Thus, it had the impact of a modern Jules

Verne story” [20]. Second, Bell argued that the report had raised possibilities for restructuring

French political structure with telematics — timely after a period of debate about the political

system. However, in addition to these two reasons, Bell added in parenthesis: “(There was

also — and this should not be minimized — the impact a new concept or new idea can have

when expressed in a bold new word)” [21]. And, he concluded, “The word télématique [...]

may soon spread in our language, as it has, already, in French” [22].

Bell was right; the term did spread outside its specialist area also in English speaking parts of

the world. For a period of time around the mid-1980s, the term ‘telematics’ was used widely

in different social contexts as a label for the new possibilities related to information

technologies.

However, as ‘telematics’ became a buzzword, it also instigated criticism. Contemporaries

criticized ‘telematics’ as a catch phrase emblematic for a new era. In 1984, Danish critical

media scholar Lars Qvortrup, for instance, published a book on the political philosophy of the

information society, attacking technological determinist ideas he saw as flourishing. The

heading of the book was “Telematics”. Qvotrup wrote:

Telematics is one of these rare terms that roam the world and

spreads excitement and fear. In its trail, grand, national

development programs are initiated, while sceptics claim that

[Orwells’s] 1984 will be realized on time. For some, telematics

represents the fulfilment of Popper’s ‘open society’, the

kingdom of freedom. For others, it signals a return to Bentham’s

panopticon, where the power is staged as collective self-

surveillance. [23]

Across the North Sea, in the U.K., Nicholas Garnham — another critical media scholar —

used no less grand terms to describe the importance of ‘telematics’: “Apart from the threat of

nuclear war”, he wrote in a book review, “perhaps the most important problem facing

advanced industrial countries is the impact of telematics” [24]. By 1984, then, ‘telematics’

10

showed one of the characteristics found in ‘Web 2.0’; the rebuttal by critics. The term‘s

meaning was, at this point “of vanishing significance”, argued Qvortrup: “Telematics means

an integrated system of telecommunications and information processing. But, telematics also

means prosperity, democracy, happiness — and, unemployment, oppression, cultural

impoverishment [...]” [25]. This also meant that the significance of the term for specialists

was diminishing. By 2014, telematics is long gone from the mainstream of public debate. It is

no longer a buzzword, but has been re-appropriated by specialists [26].

6. The functions of ‘telematics’ as a buzzword

If we apply the analytical frame of the functions of buzzwords identified in our discussion

above, we can compare ‘telematics’ to our more current example of a media industry

buzzword.

Concerning the first function, ‘telematics’ arguably served to simplify a complex

technological field. The budding potential of telecommunication innovations coupled with the

emerging technologies of networked computing was, in late 1970s France, unknown territory

to anyone outside a small group of specialists. This was an explicit aim for Nora and Minc,

and also an factor pointed to by David Bell in his 1981 foreword: describing in a compelling

way a phenomenon — the impact of the unfamiliar developments of computer technology —

which had not previously reached the attention of the country’s public.

Through its simplifying character, ‘telematics’ could be used to promote a novel

phenomenon, the handy computers networked through telecommunications and their potential

for economic growth and prosperity. That is, ‘telematics’ served the second function of

buzzwords identified in our analysis of ‘Web 2.0’: promoting something new. Again, it is

important to understand the original report in its cultural and political context. For the French

government and the actors who picked the term up and put it to use, it was paramount to bring

attention to what was perceived as an important new field for societal development and

economic expansion.

Bell, in fact, also pointed to the third function of ‘telematics’ as a buzzword when he linked

the term to a pressing political issue, that of restructuring the French telecom sector.

‘Telematics’ came to serve as a heading for a solution to the problem of a telecom sector

lagging behind neighbouring countries, and loosing out in the international race for

development and business potential. In other words, ‘telematics’ acted as a tool to legitimize a

strategy — a policy shift in France to exploit the new technology.

‘Telematics’, then, was a buzzword of the analogue era, having similar functions as ‘Web

2.0’, and a similar pattern of use. This serves to remind us not to overstate the novelty of

buzzwords in the digital era — not to get caught up in the buzz, so to speak. Buzzwords are

not a new phenomenon. When embarking on critiques of buzzwords, we are well served by a

historical and contextual awareness, which helps us understand the underlying perspectives at

play in the use of buzzwords. The explicit business strategy motivations behind the invention

of ‘Web 2.0’, for instance, are a case in point. The specialists who spread the term had an

open agenda, motivated by economic gain. We have showed how, from the very beginning,

11

the idea of ‘Web 2.0’ centres on business. Similar considerations were, however, also key to

Nora and Minc when they came up with ‘telematics’. Explaining the term, Nora and Minc

notes:

The neologism closely resembles the term used in the United

States, “compunication”. The fact that the American term

stresses the computer and ours the telecommunications aspect is

not accidental. It expresses a set of power relationships that in

France give the upper hand to the latter. [27]

The concept of ‘telematics’ was, then, constructed strategically to emphasize fields or

businesses where the French could compete against the U.S. Here, the resemblance to ‘Web

2.0’ — some 25 years later — is striking. Both ‘Web 2.0’ and ‘telematics’ were used to

simplify, promote, and legitimate. The analytical frame of the three identified functions allow

us to focus on certain aspects to highlight how the two terms are similar; they represent key

buzzwords on technology, communication and “new” media, with an interval of a couple of

decades. A frame that brings out similarities should, however, not lead us to ignore

differences.

Both ‘Web 2.0’ and ‘telematics’ bring promises of commodity, of markets and of income, as

both has been used to promote new services and technologies for the new information

economy. Yet, the extensive marketization of the media and telecom since the 1980s and

onwards have meant that buzzwords like ‘Web 2.0’ exist in a very different world.

‘Telematics’ was coined in the context of national, state policy, in an era — and region

(Western Europe) — where the commercial possibility of media and telecom was heavily

limited by state politics (see e.g., Hallin and Mancini, 2004). Although parts of the French

telecommunication monopoly had been “sectionized” during the 1960s and 1970s, “greater

autonomy from the civil service” was only gained by the late 1980s [28], and de facto

privatization only happened towards the mid-1990s. Similarly, the French state monopoly in

broadcasting was only brought to an end in the early 1980s. Thus, during the first years of the

1980s, when the French debated télématique, telecommunication and the media were still

firmly defined as public services — not as commodities.

‘Web 2.0’, on the other hand, grew as a buzzword in the U.S. context, where the information

technology industry of the early 2000s was not only through-and-through a wholly marketized

sector, but also one subject to a distinct light-touch regulation. In addition, online media were,

as illustrated in the discussion of the emergence of ‘Web 2.0’, surrounded by a frenzy of

commercial initiatives. ‘Web 2.0’ had its roots within the private media industry itself and

was strongly linked to the promotion of new inventions from Silicon Valley. Thus, to a higher

degree than ‘telematics’, ‘Web 2.0’ underlined the economic potential of new technology and

the marketization of the society.

While ‘telematics’ reflected a technology more or less incomprehensible — or at least

irrelevant — for the everyday life of people in late 1970s and early 1980s Western Europe,

‘Web 2.0’ had a far broader reach as it served to label, among other things, services preferred

by a growing population of Internet users worldwide. Around 1980, the global

communications infrastructure and the computer industry were in their infancy. Though

satellites and telephone lines facilitated communication across continents, and though visions

of networked communication, as showed above, fuelled the very invention of the term

12

‘telematics’, global electronic communication was confined to only a few spheres of society:

it was expensive and cumbersome compared to the opportunities provided by today’s

globalizing industry landscape.

This does not indicate that ‘telematics’ was a term reserved for the few. If so, it would not

have caught on as a buzzword. Rather, ‘telematics’ to a larger extent than ‘Web 2.0’ pointed

ahead, to a near future of networked media and communication with ample opportunities for

industry, and new services for users. ‘Web 2.0’ pointed to something more readily available

for the general user. One might argue that this difference in the direction of the two terms —

the degree to which they present visions rather than existing practices — constitute a basic

division. However, it seems more useful to grasp the difference by reference to historical and

societal contexts. A key is therefore to acknowledge that the technologies in question, and the

public’s use and take-up of them, were at very different stages. In this sense, technological

maturity matter for our understanding of buzzwords. In our case, it entails that buzzwords

related to digital media in general, and networked communication especially, by the 2000s

appear as more widely relevant as they refer to something — no matter how vague — that

exists and affects everyday life right now, and not just an industry or a field of policy-making.

Broad societal developments create different contexts for an industry buzzword at different

places and different times. In our cases these societal developments can be related to

marketization and the maturity of a globally networked communication system, and they

explain why there is a perceived newness to buzzwords in the digital era. In a marketized,

media-saturated, networked society, buzzwords might be easier to spot and appear stronger or

more abundant. Beyond such impressions, though, the basic functions remain the same.

7. Conclusion

Based on an interest in analysing the discourse on buzzwords, and to get a better

understanding of how buzzwords serve purposes in the media sphere, we have traced the

emergence of buzzword as a term and described its characteristic journey from being given a

specific meaning within a specialist field, through its dissemination among non-specialists

and the corresponding loss of a precise meaning. Further, we have used the case of ‘Web 2.0’

to develop an analytical frame for the analysis of buzzwords, identifying three key functions

— to simplify, promote and legitimate. With this frame, we have studied ‘telematics’ in

comparison with ‘Web 2.0’, bringing attention to pervasive features of buzzwords and at the

same time underlining how contextual aspects help us understand difference.

This article has shown how different sorts of actors invented the two terms, at different times,

for somewhat different purposes and with different effects. Still, the comparative analysis has

illustrated that the terms share basic characteristics that make them buzzwords. The media

industry as well as researchers and politicians have a tendency to overestimate the pace of

change in recent history. But whereas the term ‘buzzword’ bring forward a promise of

something new, the use of buzzwords is really not: Industry buzzwords have existed for a

long time, with more or less the same discursive functions.

13

Our analysis of buzzwords helps peek into taken-for-granted discursive paradigms enclosing

our language about new technology and our perceptions of how technology can be used to

serve our society. As this article has illustrated, both ‘telematics’ and ‘Web 2.0’ have been

followed by a strong belief in growth and progress, yet, in ways that favours certain forms of

growth and progress: While ‘telematics’ stresses the importance of interconnections,

infrastructure and industrialisation, the term ‘Web 2.0’ has been linked to commoditization

and commercialisation, masked in more acceptable terms such as creativity, connected

individualism and collective intelligence. Both terms point ahead, but to a somewhat different

future.

Finally, the historical comparison serves yet another purpose, sorely needed within the media

and communication sector: The case of ‘telematics’ encourages us to take a step back and

look at our use of buzzwords today. In 30 years, ‘Web 2.0’ will for the few be a quaint idea, a

distant memory of a bygone era. For the majority, ‘Web 2.0’ will be long forgotten. In its

place, new buzzwords will emerge.

About the authors

Ole J. Mjøs is Associate Professor at the Department of Information Science and Media

Studies, University of Bergen, Norway. He specializes in the fields of international

communication and global media. He is co-author (with Trine Syvertsen, Gunn Enli and

Hallvard Moe) of The Media Welfare State: Nordic Media in the Digital Era (University of

Michigan Press, 2014), and is the author of Music, Social Media and Global Mobility

(Routledge, 2012) and Media Globalization and the Discovery Channel Networks (Routledge,

2010).

E-mail: ole [dot] mjos [at] infomedia [dot] uib [dot] no

Hallvard Moe is Professor of Media Studies at the Department of Information Science and

Media Studies, University of Bergen, Norway. He is the co-author (with Trine Syvertsen,

Gunn Enli and Ole J. Mjøs) of The Media Welfare State: Nordic Media in the Digital Era

(University of Michigan Press, 2014) and is currently editing (with Hilde Van den Bulck) a

collection of essays on the history of teletext in Europe.

E-mail: hallvard [dot] moe [at] infomedia [dot] uib [dot] no

Vilde Schanke Sundet is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Department of Film and Television,

Lillehammer University College, Norway. Her research interests include digitalization and

media convergence, audience participation and television studies. She is the co-author (with

Gunn Enli, Hallvard Moe and Trine Syvertsen) of TV — en innføring [TV — a introduction]

(Universitetsforlaget, 2010), and has published several articles in journals like Media, Culture

& Society, Convergence, Media History and Nordicom Review.

E-mail: vilde [dot] schanke [dot] sundet [at] hil [dot] no

The authors are listed alphabetically and have contributed equally to this article.

14

Notes

1. http://dictionary.oed.com/, accessed 25 September 2014.

2. http://www.merriam-webster.com, accessed 25 September 2014.

3. Evans, 1977, p. 141.

4. Johnson, 1990, p. 21.

5. Collins, 2000, p. 2.

6. Collins, 2000, p. 4.

7. Collins, 2000, p. 10.

8. Ankerson, 2010, p. 174.

9. Keen, 2008, p. 13.

10. Ibid.

11. Van Dijck and Nieborg, 2009, p. 870.

12. Fagerjord and Storsul, 2007, p. 28.

13. Allen, 2013, p. 264; see also Allen, 2008.

14. O’Reilly and Battelle, 2009, p. 1.

15. John, 2013, p. 178.

16. Jelassi and Enders, 2005, p. 210.

17. Nora and Minc, 1981, pp. 3-4.

18. Nora and Minc, 1981, p. 4.

19. Bell, 1981, p. xiv.

20. Ibid.

21. Bell, 1981, p. xiv.

22. Bell, 1981, p. xx.

23. Qvortrup, 1984, p. 11, our translation.

24. Garnham, 1984, p. 86.

15

25. Qvortrup, 1984, p. 11.

26. Telematics and Informatics is for instance the title of a scientific journal “examining the

social, political and cultural impacts and challenges of information and communication

technologies”, published by Elsevier; http://www.journals.elsevier.com/telematics-and-

informatics/, accessed 25 September 2014.

27. Nora and Minc, 1981, p. 179.

28. Hulsink, 1999, pp. 264-265.

References

M. Allen, 2013. “What was Web 2.0? Versions as the dominant mode of Internet history?”

New Media & Society, volume 15, number 2, pp. 260-275.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444812451567, accessed 26 November 2014.

M. Allen, 2008. “Web 2.0: An argument against convergence,” First Monday, volume 13,

number 3, at http://firstmonday.org/article/view/2139/1946, accessed 26 November 2014.

M.S. Ankerson, 2010. “Web industries, economies, aesthetics: Mapping the look of the Web

in the dot-com era,” In: N. Brügger (editor). Web history. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 174-

193.

J. Battelle, 2005. “Building a better boom” (Editors’ note appended), New York Times (18

November), at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/18/opinion/18battelle.html, accessed 26

November 2014.

BBC, 2004. “Visionaries outline Web’s future” (8 October), at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3725884.stm, accessed 15 October 2013.

D. Bell, 1981. “Introduction,” In: S. Nora and A. Minc. The computerization of society: A

report to the President of France. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, pp. vii-xvi.

P. Berger and T. Luckmann, 2006. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the

sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin.

W.L. Cats-Baril and T. Jelassi, 1994. “The French videotex system Minitel: A successful

implementation of a national information technology infrastructure,” MIS Quarterly, volume

18, number 1, pp. 1-20.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/249607, accessed 26 November 2014.

D. Collins, 2000. Management fads and buzzwords: Critical-practical perspectives. London:

Routledge.

H.F. Dahl, 2004. Mediehistorie: Historisk metode i mediefaget. Oslo: Damm.

16

W.W. Evans, 1977. “Language and the lay linguist,” American Speech, volume 52, numbers

1-2, pp. 134-145.

A. Fagerjord and T. Storsul, 2007. “Questioning convergence,” In: T. Storsul and D. Stuedahl

(editors). Ambivalence to convergence: Digitalization and media change. Göteborg:

Nordicom, pp. 19-31.

W.B. Gallie, 1956. “Essentially contested concepts,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society,

New series, volume 56, pp. 167-198.

N. Garnham, 1984. “Book review: Pushbutton fantasies: Critical perspectives on videotex

and information technology. Vincent Mosco and Telematics and government. Dan Schiller,”

Media, Culture & Society, volume 6, number 1, pp. 86-88.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016344378400600113, accessed 26 November 2014.

J.W. Gilsdorf, 1983. “Executive and managerial attitudes toward business slang: A fortune-

list survey,” International Journal of Business Communication, volume 20, number 4, pp. 29-

42.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002194368302000407, accessed 26 November 2014.

J. Governor, D. Hinchcliffe and D. Nickull, 2009. Web 2.0 architectures. Sebastopol, Calif.:

O’Reilly Media.

L. Grossman, 2006. “Time’s person of the year: You,” Time (25 December), at

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570810,00.html, accessed 20 October

2014.

D.C. Hallin and P. Mancini, 2004. Comparing media systems: Three models of media and

politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

W. Hulsink, 1999. Privatisation and liberalisation in European telecommunications:

Comparing Britain, the Netherlands and France. London: Routledge.

T. Jelassi and A. Enders, 2005. Strategies for e-business: Creating value through electronic

and mobile commerce; Concepts and Cases. Harlow: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

K.B. Jensen, 2010. Media convergence. The three degrees of network, mass, and

interpersonal communication. London: Routledge.

N.A. John, 2013. “Sharing and Web 2.0: The emergence if a keyword,” New Media &

Society, volume 15, number 2, pp. 167-182.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444812450684, accessed 26 November 2014.

M.R. Johnson, 1990. Business buzzwords: The tough new jargon of modern business. Oxford:

Blackwell.

A. Keen, 2008. The cult of the amateur: How blogs, MySpace, YouTube, and the rest of

today’s user-generated media are destroying our economy, our culture, and our values. New

York: Doubleday.

17

M. Kelley, 2008. Web 2.0 mash-ups and the niche aggregators. Sebastopol, Calif.: O’Reilly.

S. Kirsner, 2005. “Champions of Web 2.0 see a shift to more participation by the public,”

Boston Globe (10 October), at

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/10/10/champions_of_web_20_see_

a_shift_to_more_participation_by_the_public/, accessed 20 October 2014.

S. Levy, 2005. “The trend spotter,” Wired, volume 13, number 10, at

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.10/oreilly.html, accessed 20 October 2014.

R. Mansell, 2012. Imagining the Internet: Communication, innovation, and governance.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

J. Markhoff, 2005. “Marrying maps to data for a new Web service,” New York Times (18

July), at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/technology/18maps.html, accessed 20 October

2014.

R.K. Mueller, 1974. Buzzwords: A guide to the language of leadership. New York: Van

Nostrand Reinhold.

W.R. Neuman, 2006. Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Sixth edition. London: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

S. Nora and A. Minc, 1981. The computerization of society: A report to the President of

France. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

T. O’Reilly, 2005. “What Is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next

generation of software,” O’Reilly Network (30 September), at

http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html, accessed 20 October 2014.

T. O’Reilly, 2004. “Ask Jeff Bezos, Adam Bosworth, John Doerr, Eddy Cue ...,” O’Reilly

Network (21 September), at http://archive.oreilly.com/pub/wlg/5630, accessed 20 October

2014.

T. O’Reilly and J. Battelle, 2009. “Web squared: Web 2.0 five years on,” O’Reilly Media Web

2.0 Summit, at http://www.web2summit.com/web2009/public/schedule/detail/10194, accessed

20 October 2014.

L. Qvortrup, 1984. Telematikkens betydning: Et essay om informationssamfundets politiske

filosofi. København: Gyldendal.

G. Rivlin, 2005. “If you can make it in Silicon Valley, you can make it ... in Silicon Valley

again,” New York Times (5 June), at

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/magazine/05RATPACK.html, accessed 13 October

2013.

E.H. Schein, 2010. Organizational culture and leadership. Forth edition. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

18

J. Schofield, 2005. “One foot in the future,” Guardian (17 November), at

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2005/nov/17/web20.internet, accessed 20 October

2014.

A. Shuen, 2008. Web 2.0: A strategy guide. Sebastopol, Calif.: O’Reilly Media.

R. Singel, 2005. “Are you ready for Web 2.0?” Wired (6 October), at

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/10/69114, accessed 20 October 2014.

C. Taylor, 2002. “Modern social imaginaries,” Public Culture, volume 14, number 1, pp. 91-

124.

B. Tedeschi, 2000. “E-COMMERCE REPORT; As innovation lags behind and the

mainstream moves in, Net entrepreneurs look for ways out,” New York Times 14 August, at

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/14/business/e-commerce-report-innovation-lags-behind-

mainstream-moves-net-entrepreneurs-look.html, accessed 20 October 2014.

J. van Dijck and D. Nieborg, 2009. “Wikinomics and its discontents: A critical analysis of

Web 2.0 business manifestos,” New Media & Society, volume 11, number 5, pp. 855-874.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444809105356, accessed 26 November 2014.

Web 2.0 Conference, 2004. http://www.web2con.com/, accessed 20 October 2014.

K.E. Weick, 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

D.K. Wysocki, 2008. Readings in social research methods. Third edition. Belmont, Calif.:

Thomson/Wadsworth.

E. Ytreberg, 2011. “Convergence: Essentially confused?” New Media & Society, volume 13,

number 3, pp. 502-508.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444810397651, accessed 26 November 2014.