Like "Wikinomics" before it, "Grown Up Digital" is full of interesting and relevant facts, examples and quotes. It also gave me several things to think about or to research (including shelfari.com now owned by Amazon).
For example, I liked the 8 "net generation norms" - freedom, customization, scrutiny, integrity, collaboration, entertainment, speed and innovation - and how they're applied to various topics throughout the book including the workplace and consumerism. These 8 norms provide a useful framework for examining how the net generation may view or seek to change other areas.
However, for all the useful information, I find the style and tone of the book to be that of a self-aggrandizing cheerleader rooting for a cause than that of a serious analyst.
Examples:
- Applying the woefully over-hyped and overused "2.0" label to yet more areas (and even claiming credit for some as original thoughts) - "The 2.0 School", "Consumers 2.0", "Leadership 2.0", "Film 2.0", "Talent 2.0", "Democracy 2.0" and "Marketing 2.0, as I call it."
- Promoting that the book is based on a $4 million research study, then littering the book with 38(!) references from his 2 children as exemplars of the net generation plus more quotes from his wife, daughter's boyfriend, and kids' friends.
- Making broad sweeping statements with little or no backing. There *are* many useful statistics in the book but there are many claims which are backed up only by an anecdote or a quote from his children. In a section on memory and internet use, for instance, it is ridiculous to list "learning a new language of acronyms, like OMG and LOL" as evidence. Or, in telling one of several Best Buy stories in the book he labels all of the employees as being "vibrant and artistic and are into the latest and greatest technology and extremely passionate about storytelling (p. 150)" That's downright silly. (Clearly, the author has never been to Best Buy!) Why not just stick with the useful facts or stories and leave the pseudo-science and hyperbole aside?
- Employing an informal writing style undermines what are, in places, serious hypotheses. Combined with all of the familial references, it makes it unclear what is fact-based analysis and what is just first-person experience. There are far too many grating references to "net geners" and "boomers" as if they're two sports clubs. And, phrases like "this ain't your daddy's Internet" or "these kids are alright" or "Give us a break!" make the book feel more like a tract defending "the kids" than a serious work.
Despite its flaws, the book is still useful, but the hyperbole and cheerleading cause it to be less than it might have been.