It only took 1,500 years, but the English language welcomed its one-millionth word this week with the addition of “web 2.0” to its already crammed lexicon. As someone who makes a living out of words, I wholeheartedly welcome the term, and hope that someone, someday, can actually tell me what it means.

I don’t begrudge “web 2.0” for being meaningless. Having a meaning isn’t necessarily a precondition for acceptance into the English language anymore. As someone who has worked in a corporate environment, I’ve heard plenty of meaningless words. For example, can someone can tell me the definitive definition of “best practices,” “synergistic energy” and what exactly “turn-key” describes?

Before you throw the party, understand how this milestone came about. The Global Language Monitor, a Texas-based group of academics, that “documents, analyzes and tracks trends in language the world over, with a particular emphasis upon Global English” in their spare time, came up with an algorithm to scan thousands of print and online publications. Once said algorithm sees a group of jumbled letters occur 25,000 times in a search, it is designated as a word.

I’m guessing by that standard, “John and Kate Plus 8” will be word 1,000,001 based on mentions in US Weekly alone.

... nothing, if you are Facebook.

According to Comscore via TechCruch, Facebook drew 222 million unique pageviews last month. Even more impressive, that translates to 80 billion pageviews and 22% of total Internet traffic. Yes, more than 1 in 5 internet users worldwide have been to Facebook. Still, Facebook has no real way to monetize that number... they just can't make money.

So, our eyes turn to MySpace. The much-maligned networker's traffic has held steady at approximately 100 million unique pagviews per month. And although it is still the nation's largest social network, it trails Facebook worldwide by about 100 million users. But, with the backing of the mighty News Corp, and its flexible ad streams, it outearns its more popular rival considerably. In a comment to TechCrunch, they said:

We are laser focused on building a sustainable global business which we measure by profits and revenue - not just eyeballs. In a tough economic climate, our international revenue is up 35 percent year over year and we continue to focus on those markets with the strong monetization opportunities. Additionally, MySpace continues to dominate the U.S. market–where the bulk of online advertising revenues reside–both in terms of monetization and user engagement with more than 76 million unique users and a 40% spike in engagement year over year.

Looks like MySpace is still ahead where it counts. With headlines like these, how can MySpace not make money?

Mom indicted in MySpace suicide case
Myspace murder trial turns graphic 
Man gets three months in MySpace sex case

(credit: ComScore)

There is a great article in Slate today, A Radical Business Plan for Facebook, in which Farhad Manjoo suggests the seemingly absurd idea of Facebook actually charging users for social networking privileges. Manjoo cites developer David Heinemeier Hansson for reasoning:

"We've found out that having a price is really cool for making profits," Hansson pointed out last spring in an entertaining presentation called "The Secret to Making Money Online." "You have customers, they pay you money for the product or service, and you get profits! It's almost too simple to work."

Indeed! In fact, Hansson also reveals, "I've heard that over time—hundreds of years actually—this has been how most businesses have made their money."

So Manjoo lays out a simple proposition for squeezing a few nickels out of the 100 million Facebookers, a company that according to its founder Mark Zuckerberg is still looking for a business model.

Judging from some of the folks in my social network, a sizable minority of Facebook users have hundreds of "friends" and check in to the site multiple times a day—call them superactive users. Let's imagine that Facebook became a tiered service. A free plan would limit you to 200 friends, one status update per day, or some other non-Draconian combination of restrictions. But for $5 a month, the limits would be lifted. Certainly, many users would balk; tens of thousands would join Facebook groups to protest the new pay model. Let's assume that 95 percent of users will refuse to pay a dime. That still leaves 5 percent, or 5 million people, to pay $60 a year. That's $300 million in the bank.

$300 million is nothing to sneeze at, but judging by Microsoft's $240 million Facebook investment, Facebook is valued at about $15 billion. So Facebook may earn its full potential in 50 years. I hope Facebook's investors aren't holding their breath.

No doubt Facebook’s value is in the 100 million active users. However, does a massively popular site like Facebook, or Twitter (another Web 2.0 favorite lacking a business plan), lose its geek-chic and credibility when it places financial considerations anywhere near user considerations (see Facebook's ill-fated Beacon rollout or Napster’s attempt to go legit)?

Twitter certainly seems to agree with that thought, though there are rumblings of a Twitter business plan in the works. In an interview with TechCrunch's Michael Arrington last July, Twitter cofounder Evan Willaims claimed, "We’ve thought about it. We had to do some thinking about that to raise a bunch of money, but it’s not actively in development right now."

To bring it all back to the title of this post, I quote a piece by Simon Dumenco of Advertising Age:

What if not everything that flits across our screens -- computer or cellphone or whatever -- can be contorted into serving as a profit center? As I've said before: I don't think every tweet or blurp or bloop or fart that emanates from a human can or should have ads sold against it or be otherwise monetized.