Day: February 17, 2009

The new business of journalism, cont’d

writes Why I dislike micropayments, don’t mind charity, but really have a better idea. He mentions VRM and his idea is VRM-like, in the sense that it involves relationships between the buyers and sellers of journalism, in which buyers are — at least to some degree (as I understand it) — in charge of their own side of the thing. An excerpt:

…let’s sum it up. Shifting the news relationship from reader-newspaper to user-creator increases potential trust, an economic good, and unlocks value, which people may pay for. But even the strongest value proposition does not a business model equal.

So let’s move to the concrete: the business model. How do we monetize this theoretical value tucked away in user-creator relationships?

You do it with an idea I’ve been flogging the past couple weeks. You do it with , in which users pay creators for “added convenience or increased interaction.” Note the elegant fit: increased interaction between one person and another is what fosters relationships and trust. Giving paying users otherwise exclusive twitter access to the creator could work. SMS updates could work, as could a permission only room on friendfeed. Even something as simple as a gold star on paying users’ comments—a symbol that they support the creator financially—would provide incentive for the creator to reply. Tiers of stars—bronze, silver, gold—are possible too.

Sounds to me like journals-as-clubs. Anyway, see whatcha think.

Loose Links

Much happening in the UK. Follow the VRM Hub blog to see what’s up. (Wishing I could make every one of these.) The next meeting is on 26 February. Latest posts by Adriana Lukas:

  • Retail, VRM and students.think of VRM as a framework for developing tools and technology to enable individuals to transact on their own terms.
  • Anonymised data a relationship doesn’t make. relationships cannot exist via anonymised data – the whole point of my approach to VRM is to focus on a ‘relationship’ with the vendor, one that is more equal than the current one. The data I voluntarily provide to vendors is a proxy for my relationships with them. The value is not in the data ‘dump’ but in the data flow, which can be cut off at any point the vendor abuses the relationship

Contributor Relationships and VRM? at GenerosityPath.

Twenty Theses for Government 2.0, Cluetrain Style, which has this line: Social media is not driven by the position, the title, or the department, it’s driven by the person.

Why Twitter won’t replace Google search- but will overtake it, by Dan Thornton, has this line: …it’s about increasingly moving towards Vendor Relationship Management, rather than Customer Relationship Management.

Here’s an audio file of my virtual appearance at Blueprinting the Information Valet Economy in December. It’s in the audio corner of the Media Giraffe Project.

Natalie Stovall gives a good example of why the hospitality business needs VRM.

WelCome has Answers to a few questions about VRM. An excerpt: I would suggest that VRM is first and foremost about providing value for the user with any vendor, as opposed to using social networking tools with a particular vendor. VRM is vendor agnostic and silo-adverse. The goal is to catalyze the development of tools for individuals through protocols and standards that let them work with any vendor seamlessly, without loss of functionality or services. (The words are Joe Andrieu’s. See here.

The Kynetx White Paper on Structured Browsing has VRM implications. Joe Andrieu has a long response that’s all about VRM as well.

© 2023 ProjectVRM

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑