Around the late 90's there were many contenders, and many chancers, claiming that the dot.com revolution meant that their business was going to emerge as a ruler in the new world order.
Some were right (Google, E-bay, Amazon) and some were wrong (anyone remember boo.com?)
So now we have the web 2.0 revolution descending upon us, who are the companies that are doomed dinosaurs, and who are the bright eyed furry mammals staring up at the giant comet heading their way?
Now as William Goldman says in "Adventures in the Screen Trade" : "the single most important fact, perhaps, of the entire movie industry" is that 'nobody knows anything' (a sentiment echoed by Martin O'Neil at the end of the BBC's World Cup Coverage)
This nihilistic punditry even has statistical credibility as the bolshie economist Paul Ormerod shows in his book "Why Most Things Fail"
However, given that Ormerod gives those entities with a higher rate of innovation a slightly better than average chance of success, my bets are on The Guardian and the the BBC. In our research at Bell Pottinger, both are consistently showing up on web maps on a range of topics whether UK-centric or International (albeit in English language searches).
Both of these entities were fast into this area and have continued to try new stuff (eg the Guardian's comment is free) and it seems to be paying off at last. Our maps show that they often have a large "share of reference" to coin a phrase.
So what is the moral of this story?
For those who like their aphorisms menacing it must be "innovate or die". For the more cheerful souls it might be "come on in, the water's lovely".