The push back I have received has been from companies invested in brands, thought leadership, large amounts of content, and secure client logins. For them, the idea of a site-less Web makes no sense. And for them, it may well be true that their one or more proprietary, content-heavy sites will be necessary. At the same time, most who have spoken to me have agreed that the demand for more nets in more pools calls for commensurately higher management of the content they are distributing in order to lead prospects and clients back to their “home” sites.

The example of the AP and other content syndicators is interesting. Why does a site-less work for them? Is it because their brand is known, meaning a new player would not be able to live on Facebook alone? Or is it the temporal nature of the content, meaning it is either current and germane to what the user is looking for or it is not? What other content and business models seem well suited to the site-less Web model?

And the metrics question is good. If my blog entry syndicates to Facebook, I have no idea how many people have read it there. Same thing if I sent the full entry is in an RSS feed. But who cares how many people read it, really? As you point out, the important metric is results, whether that’s sales, media visibility, Net Promote Score or whatever. This siteless Web may actually push marketers to abstract their metrics to a higher level, which is actually more along the lines of what they already do with mainstream media.