Well– Microsoft is giving away souped-up Acer laptops to bloggers. That’s giving, not lending, for the purpose of reviewing the new Vista OS. And it has started a firestorm on the blog-o-net. Is it ethical? Is it bribery? Is it a PR disaster in the making? Is it a bunch of bloggers sniping at each other and Microsoft because they can?

I tend to agree with Scoble et al– he says it’s “awesome.” I am less inclined to subscribe to the outrage shown by B.L. Ochman et al; she says it’s a “brewing ethics scandal.” I fail to see the problem of giving away review units with no strings attached (i.e. no positive review guaranteed), so long as the reviewers disclose this sponsorship. Smart readers will sniff out a shill vs. an honest reviewer.

Can this be a PR nightmare for Microsoft? Well if Vista sucks it can be a good old-fashioned PR pickle, based on putting out a crappy product. But if Vista rocks, then Bravo! The only other way I can see this being a PR problem is if Microsoft backpedals by asking for the laptops to be returned in an apparent response to online backlash.

Whoops.

But the real fun, as in the title of this post, is watching the discussion develop across several blogs, with several honest opinions being shared. That’s entertainment!

Over the Christmas holiday, I noticed the passing of Dr. Frank Stanton, longtime CBS executive and effective right-hand to William S. Paley at the age of 98. Stanton was instrumental in the building of the CBS radio empire, moving the network into television, and programming what was for most of his tenure known as the “Tiffany Network.”

What we should remember most about Stanton was that he was a pioneer in media measurement. It was his research into ways of measuring radio audiences in the 1930’s that brought him to the attention of Paley, and established principles of broadcast advertising that are now taken for granted, as much as they are now being re-written by changes in media.

There are many things to praise from Stanton’s career (Jack Benny; block programming; “60 Minutes”), and some others that give us pause (a role in the Hollywood Black List; “Gilligan’s Island”), but in these circles (media, advertising, PR, and new media), it is important to trace our obsession with measurement in no small part to Frank Stanton.

I keep hearing it– from colleagues, from the general upbeat mood surrounding Web 2.0, and from my own memory feeling a slight sense of deja vu; are we witnessing the beginnings of a Web 2.0 bubble?

I am finally moved to write after seeing Stephen Strong’s article in the December issue of Omma, titled “A Roundabout on the Superhighway.” Strong makes a lot of apt comparisons between Web 2.0 technologies and their Web 1.0 counterparts (Flickr/Ofoto, YouTube/Dancing Baby, etc.). That fits in with my own thought that Web 2.0 technologies are not so much startlingly new concepts, but new ways to do existing things– i.e. communicate– more effectively (plus it puts communication tools in more hands). For me, when I first heard of blogs, I didn’t think they were terribly revolutionary, but startlingly simple– stripping down the Web so that everyone can publish (as Strong writes, Blogger and MySpace are synonymous with GeoCities and Tripod– too true).

What does this have to do with a bubble? Strong doesn’t talk about it, but if there was a Bubble 1.0 there can be a Bubble 2.0. Here are a few reasons why I think it could happen:

1. Venture capital is already pouring into Web 2.0 companies, and established Internet names are flooding into the space before we as observers can fully comprehend why. It’s happening fast, and:
2. Web 2.0 startups are giving things away for free. Generally, they have a revenue model behind the giveaway, lesson learned from Bubble 1.0, but I fear that:
3. People are Stupid– I mean, people can have short memories of th last bubble bursting when there is a land rush on, and it is not hard to imagine a lot of no-revenue startups raising a lot of money based on a cocktail-napkin business plan, and:
4. Can an IPO rush be far behind? We haven’t heard a ton about Web 2.0 IPOs, but it only takes one Netscape yodel (I know, Yahoo! had the yodeling, but Netscape.. bah, never mind) to start an eventual avalanche. One IPO I am curious about is Salary.com (disclosure: as a former employee, I own a small amount of Salary.com stock so I will not speculate on how the IPO might do), because, while it is more of an Internet 1.0 company, it is going out without any record of profitability. If that or a similar IPO succeeds, Web 2.0 companies could decide it’s time to jump in, and it’s off to the races again.

Of course, I have no idea if a Bubble 2.0 will happen, but I have my suspicions–whether or not it will be nearly as big as Bubble 1.0, I won’t presume to say.