Category: Links (Page 4 of 7)

VRM and CCOs

In The Rise Of The Chief Customer OfficerPaul Hagen of Forrester begins,

Over the past five years Forrester Research has observed an increase in the number of companies with a single executive leading customer experience efforts across a business unit or an entire company. These individuals often serve as top executives, with the mandate and power to design, orchestrate and improve customer experiences across every customer interaction. And whether firms call them Chief Customer Officers (CCOs) or give them some other label, these leaders sit at high levels of power at companies as diverse as Allstate, Dunkin’ BrandsOracle and USAA.

Other titles meaning roughly the same thing are Chief Client Officer and Chief Experience Officer. All, Paul writes, “are charged with improving the customer experience.”

From the VRM perspective, that’s all we need to know. We’re the customers, and we’re charged with improving our experience too.

So I dug around a bit, and came up with a few leads and links that I’ll post here as a shout-out to the folks and disciplines involved.

First is the Chief Customer Officer Council, founded and led by Curtis Bingham (whom I see by LinkedIn is, like me, in the Boston area). Next are (via the CCOC),

These are people VRM-equipped customers are going to meet in the new middle. This small post is toward making the acquaintance.

Ting rings the opening bell

Here, according to the ProjectVRM wiki, are the ideal characteristics of VRM tools:

  1. VRM tools are personal. As with hammers, wallets, cars and mobile phones, people use them as individuals,. They are social only in secondary ways.
  2. VRM tools help customers express intent. These include preferences, policies, terms and means of engagement, authorizations, requests and anything else that’s possible in a free market, outside any one vendor’s silo or ranch.
  3. VRM tools help customers engage. This can be with each other, or with any organization, including (and especially) its CRM system.
  4. VRM tools help customers manage. This includes both their own data and systems and their relationships with other entities, and their systems.
  5. VRM tools are substitutable. This means no source of VRM tools can lock users in

Note “mobile phones” in #1. Like a car or a wallet, a mobile phone is personal. Ir also supports our independence, helps us express intent, and is substitutable. Bearing all these things (and more) in mind, Ting.com has come to market with the clear intent of doing the best it can to support customers’ VRM intentions.

Go down Joe Andrieu’s list of user driven services

  1. Impulse from the User
  2. Control
  3. Transparency
  4. Data Portability
  5. Service Endpoint Portability
  6. Self Hosting
  7. User Generativity
  8. Improvability
  9. Self-managed Identity
  10. Duty of Care

… and you’ll find that Ting comes about as close as any mobile phone company can come to respecting all those things.

Ting is an MVNO — a Mobile Virtual Network Operator. That means it operates as a phone company, but does not own facilities. Instead it re-sells the raw base offerings (minutes, texts, quantities of data) that it buys from a carrier with facilities. In this case, Sprint. It works everywhere in the U.S. that Sprint does, but it has a much more friendly and sensible set of offerings and pricings than any of the major mobile phone companies. It’s about as gimmick-free as you can get. That is, Ting is the very opposite of what Scott Adams in The Dilbert Future calls a “confusopoly.” Sez Scott,

A confusopoly is a situation in which companies pretend to compete on price, service, and features but in fact they are just trying to confuse customers so no one can do comparison shopping.

Cell [mobile] phone companies are the best example of confusopolies. The average consumer finds it impossible to decipher which carrier has the best deal, so carriers don’t have normal market pressure to lower prices. It’s a virtual cartel without the illegal part.

Ting is a VRM company. Its management and other personnel have been involved in many VRM discussions and events, and a number of VRM folk have been involved in Ting’s beta as well. Our family, for example. So far we’re loving it. The data service especially is surprisingly good. At our kid’s high school in rural New Hampshire, both voice and data service is pretty much perfect.

Here are some of the stories about the Ting launch that have hit so far:

Plus these from Zemanta:

GoDaddy VRooMed?

GoDaddy CEO Warren Adelman says “We listened to our customers. GoDaddy no longer supports SOPA.” (Here’s the GoDaddy blog post.)

Lauren Weinstein says that’s not the same as opposing SOPA: “they’re the same ethically vacuous firm as always, with their public facade changing like a chameleon, blowing in the wind of Internet public opinion.”

I still see it as a good sign when a company in a direct personal service business changes its mind because its customers made clear that change was required.

What I’d like to know now is what GoDaddy customers said to the company personally. (Not just that customers pulled their accounts in protest.) When I know that Warren Adelman and the company turned around because of direct personal pressure, in real conversation with paying customers who wished to remain so — and not just because of negative PR or customers bailing — then I’ll be glad to call it a full VRM move by customers.

Some links:

Prototyping a new business model for everything

For IIW next week, and I have been working on a prototype demonstrating , using on the  app from .  The description at the EmanciPay link is minimal so far, but the model has a great deal of promise, because what it puts forward is a new business model for all kinds of stuff: easy voluntary payments from anybody for anything, to escrow accounts where the money can be picked up by the intended recipient with no strings attached. The first target is public radio (as it has been, ever since the earliest ProjectVRM meetings at the ), but it could easily apply to and other media as well.

We still need financial institutions to weigh in and take up a new business model for themselves, and it would be cool if some of them showed up at IIW next week for that, but in any case we’re taking one small step in the direction of a major sea change in the way markets for media work.

I’ve been making test contributions to different public radio stations, using the EmanciPay prototype. Craig has hacked a way for this to show up in my Twitter stream. You can see those here.

A visit to the advertising echo chamber

Two days ago, eMarketer Digital Intelligence ran a post titled Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad. Here are the first few paragraphs:

Older consumers are more likely to click on a Facebook ad, while younger consumers, who are more comfortable with interacting with brands on Facebook, are more likely to click “like.” This information can help marketers target specific audiences with their Facebook ads, a tactic that can be leveraged by using Facebook’s self-serve ad platform.

Over the 10 months leading up to August 2011, Facebook agencySocialCode analyzed Facebook ads for 50 clients and focused on those that included an image, text and a “like” button. The study analyzed how many consumers clicked on the ads, and from there, how many went on to “like” the company’s page.

Women are more likely to click on an ad on Facebook, though both men and women are about equally likely to then click “like” once they’ve done so, the study found. The average clickthrough rate for women of all ages was 0.029%, compared to 0.026% for men of all ages. The “like” rate among those who clicked an ad was 39% for women and 38% for men.

Clickthrough and "Like" Rate* of Facebook Display Ads Among US Internet Users, by Age and Gender, 2011

Older consumers are more likely to click on a Facebook ad, as clickthrough rates increased from 0.026% for the 18-to-29 age range, up to 0.033% for the over-50 group.

However, consumers under the age of 50 were more likely to then “like” a brand, with 18- to 29-year-olds and 40- to 49-year-olds doing so 40% of the time. Those ages 30 to 39 had a 38% “like” rate, while only 36% of those over 50 hit the “like” button.

Clickthrough and "Like" Rate of Facebook Display Ads Among US Internet Users, by Age, 2011

This data supports the fact that younger consumers, having been on Facebook longer, are more familiar with showing support for a brand through a “like” and do so more often. Meanwhile, older consumers click through on an ad to learn more and investigate a brand.

Note the use of “more likely,” several times in those paragraphs. The difference is between fine degrees of “very, very, very, very few.” That’s because highest click-through rate for any demographic is about one third of one percent. Most click-through rates are about one quarter of one percent. That up to 40% of those clicking will also click “like” is interesting only to marketers who ignore the 99.76% to 99.66% who don’t click through at all, and who might regard the ads as noise or worse. Since Facebook allows users to express only one sentiment, it’s impossible to tell what other feelings an ad elicits, if any at all.

Here’s what I tweeted about the piece yesterday…

Doc Searls dsearls Which matters more in this data: bit.ly/putQMr — that only 0.025% click on an ad, or that X% of clickers “like” the ad? #VRM 11 hours ago

… and here’s Bitly’s list of all tweets with links to the piece, which they call —

Conversations

  • FoxyLoxy Total surveillance by some of the finest minds on the planet = 0.026% CTR. Pathetic result from a broken model. http://t.co/Yt8UhIi @dsearls about 1 hour ago
  • BSitko Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer http://j.mp/o6dzuF about 2 hours ago
  • Kate_DonahueRT @Britopian: Good info here! Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad from eMarketer http://t.co/PD0G5d1about 5 hours ago
  • sbwhite1RT @Britopian: Good info here! Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad from eMarketer http://t.co/PD0G5d1about 6 hours ago
  • socialmediafltrRT @Britopian Good info here! Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad from eMarketer http://t.co/39vcPW5about 7 hours ago
  • BritopianGood info here! Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad from eMarketer http://t.co/PD0G5d1about 7 hours ago
  • jemiwebRT @dsearls: Which matters more in this data: http://t.co/szArq3c — that only 0.025% click on an ad, or that X% of clickers “like” the ad? #VRMabout 7 hours ago
  • TedCRT @dsearls: Which matters more in this data: http://t.co/szArq3c — that only 0.025% click on an ad, or that X% of clickers “like” the ad? #VRMabout 9 hours ago
  • dsearlsWhich matters more in this data: http://t.co/szArq3c — that only 0.025% click on an ad, or that X% of clickers “like” the ad? #VRMabout 9 hours ago
  • JessicalowensOlder consumers will click on an ad, while younger ones go for the “like” http://t.co/lojMwGUabout 15 hours ago
  • marccustersAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – http://ow.ly/6q67e – @eMarketer RT @ClemLelardouxabout 17 hours ago
  • SMCBrusselsAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://ow.ly/6qDE7about 20 hours ago
  • SocialWendyLooking for Like Conversion Stats for your Facebook Marketing Plans- here you go http://t.co/6uvQ0nrabout 20 hours ago
  • JudithSotoAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer http://j.mp/o6dzuFabout 21 hours ago
  • JessicalowensAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer http://t.co/lojMwGUabout 21 hours ago
  • morantreAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://t.co/x27OSWS – isn’t that kinda obvious ?!about 21 hours ago
  • spl900Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer http://t.co/cwegPnp via @AddToAnyabout 21 hours ago
  • LocalAdExecAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://t.co/jppQvBcabout 21 hours ago
  • Vanessa_BrightOlder consumers are more likely to click on a Facebook ad, while younger consumers are more likely to click “like.” http://ow.ly/6qHJkabout 21 hours ago
  • philpostroAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://ow.ly/6pSDp #ad #facebook #marketing #stat #philpostroabout 22 hours ago
  • Ben_KaplanFor “Like” ads, older users will click on the ad while younger consumers will go for the “like” http://t.co/lAEVaSR via @emarketerabout 22 hours ago
  • ChristinePilchGood insight for marketers: How Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://t.co/t5hmUjsabout 23 hours ago
  • harumotteいいね、とアドのクリックは、年齢や性別によって異なる。いいねはブランド支持を示し、アドはブランドを学んだり、調査するため。Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://t.co/dx0C83cabout 23 hours ago
  • qermsaAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer http://t.co/KcjlX72 via @AddToAny1 day ago
  • WSIThamesAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad r http://t.co/BE32nzM1 day ago
  • ntshas@covertony Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer http://t.co/og6HjTj via @AddToAny1 day ago
  • 10thstepsAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer http://t.co/x9Z8UIv via @AddToAny1 day ago
  • hisomAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://t.co/25llLAd1 day ago
  • jantoniotormoAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://t.co/jWQanZz http://t.co/2V6RGCA1 day ago
  • alina_popescuAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://ow.ly/6qyRn eMarketer.com1 day ago
  • meenricoAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – via @eMarketer http://t.co/kyfG6BR1 day ago
  • EatStrategyRT @eMarketer: Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – http://t.co/LizJHCw1 day ago
  • TheFunKenRT @rachaelcpowell: Old consumers are more likely to click on a Facebook ad; younger consumers are more likely to ‘like’ directly from it http://t.co/iwaDRKR1 day ago
  • V12studioslikes vs ads… Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer http://t.co/WTF09Nt via @AddToAny1 day ago
  • arjunsethiRT @isocket: Did you know that women are more likely to click a Facebook ad? http://ow.ly/6qic91 day ago
  • isocketDid you know that women are more likely to click a Facebook ad? http://ow.ly/6qic91 day ago
  • KellyMcNicolAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer http://t.co/Ho71mFJ1 day ago
  • mrwebmarketingAge affects ‘Like’ rate http://t.co/lTCoJvK http://t.co/W7XoV9J 1 day ago
  • MattLBrennan RT @JamieCrager: Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will “Like” an Ad http://t.co/Y1m6XN8 1 day ago
  • JamieCrager Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will “Like” an Ad http://t.co/Y1m6XN8 1 day ago
  • SocialNet_Fun RT @DonnaAntoniadis: Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer – http://ow.ly/6pPwk 1 day ago
  • imagecomm Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad. http://t.co/ZVixZbw 1 day ago
  • i_Lyndon Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://t.co/r3wJk3b via @zite 1 day ago
  • WordsBySusan #SMstudy: Age & gender differences re Facebook “Likes” http://ow.ly/6qkn1 1 day ago
  • holly_berkleyOlder consumers will click on an ad, while younger ones go for the “like” – eMarketer http://t.co/0WXv3cS1 day ago
  • holly_berkleyAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer http://t.co/0WXv3cS via @AddToAny1 day ago
  • WoodyWittersAge & gender determine whether consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – via @eMarketer http://t.co/8ZF1oFa #socialmedia1 day ago
  • socialradarage/gender affect #socialmedia actions. older people click. younger ones “like,” via @eMarketer: http://t.co/IKqEa7m1 day ago
  • HopeRun_TechAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://ow.ly/6pTiv1 day ago
  • adgrlSuAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer http://t.co/vYvSHQn via @AddToAny1 day ago
  • flipelevenAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://t.co/gHNXRq91 day ago
  • RMM_OnlineAge, gender affect Clickthrough and “Like” rate of Facebook display ads. http://t.co/k03QGC1 #socialmedia1 day ago
  • ADWMarketingOlder FB consumers tend to click on ads, but younger Facebookers go for “like”. Interesting stats. http://t.co/N7Y6lcf http://t.co/92ohbTM1 day ago
  • lizzagAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://t.co/cLaI6RE1 day ago
  • ThereseMatthysAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://t.co/muLTxOb1 day ago
  • JBGonzalezAge 50 and older are more likely to click on a Facebook ad while those under 50 are more likely to “Like” a brand. More..http://ht.ly/6qdeg1 day ago
  • SEOSKYE1Do you know your demographic? Contact SeoSkye to find out. http://t.co/DK5EKLe1 day ago
  • Worldcom_PRAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer http://t.co/rJo5ftC1 day ago
  • TravelMediaGuruNEw Study: Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://ht.ly/6pSY11 day ago
  • UXfeederDelicious: Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer: http://t.co/Y5dHn78 [marketing]1 day ago
  • csinkusRT @Foolproof_UX: ‘Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad according to emarketer http://t.co/gosJj3p #Facebook1 day ago
  • byeagercarterWomen more likely to click on Facebook ad – http://t.co/JNmtbm51 day ago
  • allenmirelesRT @AdrenalineJoe: Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad… http://t.co/443Blvo1 day ago
  • LisaOstrikoffNew Media Marketing Insight … RT @emarketer: Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – http://t.co/3iaaohP1 day ago
  • BizBOXTVRT @emarketer: Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – http://t.co/iKkqJQo1 day ago
  • yeuseungAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer http://t.co/RenDc2i via @AddToAny1 day ago
  • GenerationsGuruRT @JanisG: Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer http://t.co/cYJYMzZ via @AddToAny1 day ago
  • MAInteractiveOlder consumers will click on an ad, while younger ones go for the “like” – @eMarketer http://t.co/hiZvUeY #socialmedia #MKTdigital1 day ago
  • JasonKaplerBrands need 2 evolve engagement beyond Likes >> RT @LAdvertising Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://t.co/0i03LsE1 day ago
  • wsipremierSome info for social media marketers on the influence of age and gender on customer behavior. http://ow.ly/6q4ce1 day ago
  • DigitalMNAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://j.mp/o6dzuF1 day ago
  • NetSpeakDesignThis study indicates that if you want “likes” for younger FB users, don’t try advertising for them! http://t.co/lHgM9yt1 day ago
  • YotpoOfficialOlder will click-thru, younger will engage. Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – http://t.co/hniOfTB via @eMarketer1 day ago
  • philaestateAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer http://t.co/35kzQZG1 day ago
  • ClemLelardouxAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://ow.ly/6q67e #in1 day ago
  • CaptiCorrieRT @adrenalinejoe: Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad… http://t.co/ly4MMCf1 day ago
  • jer979RT @robbirgfeld: Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer http://t.co/psTubyU1 day ago
  • AdrenalineJoeAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad… http://t.co/443Blvo1 day ago
  • JanisGAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer http://t.co/cYJYMzZ via @AddToAny1 day ago
  • jconeAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer http://t.co/XSgbdZF via @AddToAny1 day ago
  • pcdnetworkRT @nutshellmail: Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://ow.ly/6pYgX via @eMarketer1 day ago
  • targetmarket1RT @DonnaAntoniadis: Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer – http://ow.ly/6pPwk1 day ago
  • nutshellmailAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://ow.ly/6pYgX via @eMarketer1 day ago
  • resultsjhowaldAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://t.co/0vMVqII via @eMarketer1 day ago
  • sagonphiorWant to know who is “liking” and who clicks on Facebook ads? http://t.co/2udUwbJ1 day ago
  • lipup_kattyAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – http://t.co/qel4x5j RT: @eMarketer1 day ago
  • jerilynbizznessThings to consider when placing an ad – Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer http://t.co/Pk1o4d2 via @AddToAny1 day ago
  • frankcdaleFacebook Ads get a .003% or less click-through rate – eMarketer http://t.co/5l5LuTp1 day ago
  • rocketfuelincOlder Consumers More likely to click on an ad, while Younger One’s go for the “Like” @emarketer http://t.co/qhsqgm2 #online #advertising1 day ago
  • Erika_Vanessa_VRT @eMarketer: Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – http://t.co/LizJHCw1 day ago
  • crushdirectAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer http://t.co/QdmpCoB via @AddToAny1 day ago
  • BTeichenAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – eMarketer http://t.co/62hvr9y via @AddToAny1 day ago
  • DennisPangAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://t.co/2f2YRq4 #Facebook1 day ago
  • ironhorseinter Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad: Older consumers are more likely to click on a Facebook ad,… http://t.co/fV7C8k6 1 day ago
  • bendonaldson News flash: Younger generations use social media http://ow.ly/6q1QN 1 day ago
  • eCommerceFAQs Older consumers will click on an ad, while younger ones go for the “like” http://t.co/i3fuI0i 1 day ago
  • mentionmappAge, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad http://ow.ly/6q1PU via @eMarketer1 day ago
  • mottacaioRT @eMarketer: Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – http://t.co/LizJHCw 1 day ago
  • targetmarket1RT @eMarketer: Age, Gender Affect Whether Consumers Will ‘Like’ an Ad – http://t.co/LizJHCw 1 day ago
  • GuyMansueto 18- to 29-year-olds both click ads and like brands 40% of the time @emarketer http://t.co/7HudEFs 1 day ago

RTs are not conversations. They are echos.

Here are more, from “Related Articles” that a service called Zemanta shows me, in one of my WordPress panels:

Some of these are “promoted.” Note that Zemanta assumes that everything related will be in the same echo chamber.

Here is my favorite view of that echo chamber, as it now stands:

It’s from , by , CEO of the investment bank . He has many other similar (and equally fascinating) graphics at Slideshare.

The least colorful part of the graphic is the word AUDIENCE, over on the right. That’s you, me, and the other 99.xx% out there who don’t click on an ad, as well as the 00.xx% who do.

What we see here is how supply tries to drive demand — and fails most of the time.

The much bigger market opportunity is in demand driving supply. That’s what we’ve been working on with , at Harvard’s , for (as of this month) the last five years.

In that time the list of VRM development projects has grown from none to dozens. They are in Santiago, Johannesburg, Vienna, New York, London, Boston, D.C., Dubuque, Santa Barbara, Salt Lake City, Montreal, San Francisco and elsewhere. In their own ways they all help Demand signal Supply, rather than the reverse. They serve the actual intentions of individual buyers, rather than the machinations of advertisers and their legion of assistants, all scheming to grab the attention of an “audience” — a delusional term that suggests a patient group, all facing a stage, ready to applaud a performance.

It’s early in the new game here. That game is Customer Intentions vs. Advertiser Guesswork. As I said in The Data Bubble, back when The Wall Street Journal launched their terrific What They Know series (about tracking users without consent),

Here’s what’s delusional about all this: There is no demand for tracking by individual customers. All the demand comes from advertisers — or from companies selling to advertisers. For now.

Here is the difference between an advertiser and an ordinary company just trying to sell stuff to customers: nothing. If a better way to sell stuff comes along — especially if customers like it better than this crap the Journal is reporting on — advertising is in trouble.

Here is the difference between an active customer who wants to buy stuff and a consumer targeted by secretive tracking bullshit: everything.

Two things are going to happen here. One is that we’ll stop putting up with it. The other is that we’ll find better ways for demand and supply to meet — ways that don’t involve tracking or the guesswork called advertising.

Improving a pain in the ass doesn’t make it a kiss. The frontier here is on the demand side, not the supply side.

Advertising may pay for lots of great stuff (such as search) that we take for granted, but advertising even at its best is guesswork. It flourishes in the absence of more efficient and direct demand-supply interactions.

The idea of making advertising perfectly personal has been a holy grail of the business since Day Alpha. Now that Day Omega is approaching, thanks to creepy shit like this, the advertsing business is going to crash up against a harsh fact: “consumers” are real people, and most real people are creeped out by this stuff.

Rough impersonal guesswork is tolerable. Totally personalized guesswork is not.

While the advertising mills keep talking to themselves, VRM development continues. As it starts to go mainstream, we’ll need a new organization, primarily for customers, rather than just for developers. We’re working on that, and expect to have it going in the next six months. So stay tuned. Meanwhile, join me in thanking the Berkman Center for giving us the runway we needed to get VRM development off the ground.

Google’s Wallet and VRM

Yesterday Google opened the curtain on Google Wallet. I think it’s the most important thing Google has launched since the search engine. Here’s why:

Reason #1: We’ve always needed an electronic wallet, especially one in our mobile phone. And, although others have tried to give us one, it hasn’t worked out for them, because…

Reason #2: We’ve needed one from somebody who doesn’t also have a hand in our pocket. Google WalletGoogle is the only company in the world that can pull this off, because it’s the only company in the world that lives to commodify exactly the businesses that desperately need commodification, and to await interesting consequences. I can’t think of a single company that’s better at causing tsunamis of commodification so they can join hundreds of other companies, surfing them to new shores. List the things Google does but doesn’t make money with, and you’ll have a roster of businesses that needed commodification. What Google looks for is what JP Rangaswami and I call because effects: you make money because of those things, not with them. (Note, not talking about “monetization” here. A subtle distinction.) A Google lawyer once told me this strategy was “looking for second and third order effects.” Same thing. Either way, they’re out to give us — and retailers we do business with — a hand. (But they will need to keep it out of our pockets, which includes data we consider personal. We’re the ones to say what that is, and others — including Google, Sprint, Citi and the retailers — need to respect that.)

Reason #3: This reduces friction in a huge way. It’s not an exaggeration when Google says this on their Vision page for the project:

In the past few thousand years, the way we pay has changed just three times—from coins, to paper money, to plastic cards.

Now we’re on the brink of the next big shift.

What weighs your wallet down? What slows you down at checkout? Sometimes it’s pulling out cash, but most times it’s dealing with cards. In the last few years every store, it seems, has been piling on with loyalty cards and keyring tags. This last week Panera Bread started, and watching the results have been a clinic in business fashion gone wrong. The poor folks behind the counter are now forced to ask customers if they have a Panera bread card, and the customers have to either say no (and feel strange), or to produce one from their wallet or key ring. Yesterday I asked the person behind the counter how she liked it. “We don’t need it, and customers don’t want it,” she said. “We’re only doing it because every other store does it. That’s all.” That’s a pain in the pocket nobody needs.

Says Google,

Google Wallet has been designed for an open commerce ecosystem. It will eventually hold many if not all of the cards you keep in your leather wallet today. And because Google Wallet is a mobile app, it will be able to do more than a regular wallet ever could, like storing thousands of payment cards and Google Offers but without the bulk. Eventually your loyalty cards, gift cards, receipts, boarding passes, tickets, even your keys will be seamlessly synced to your Google Wallet. And every offer and loyalty point will be redeemed automatically with a single tap via NFC.

This assumes that the ecosystem will continue to support the kind of loyalty programs we have today. It won’t, because we won’t and that brings me to…

Reason #4: Now customers can truly relate with vendors. That is, if Google Wallet and participating retailers and other players welcome it. See, CRM — Customer Relationship Management — has thus far been almost entirely a sell-side thing. It’s how companies related with you, not how you related with them. They set the rules, they provided the cards, they put up the websites where you filled out long complicated forms, they send you the junk mail, and they do the guesswork about what you might want, usually because you’ve bought something like it before. But what if your phone has your shopping list? What if you want to advertise what you’re looking for, as a personal RFP for something you need right now, and may never need again? Think of this as advertising in reverse, or what Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) calls “Broadcast Shopping”. This is one example of how …

Reason #5: Now demand can signal supply in great detail. Until now, about the only signals we could send were with cash, cards, and whatever might percolate up the corporate CRM chain from “social” CRM. There’s a lot here (see Brian Solis’ Converation Prism, for example, or follow Paul Greenberg). But those all depended on second (vendor) or third parties (all the petals in Brian’s prism, which actually looks more like a flower). They weren’t your signals. I see no reason why the open commerce ecosystem shouldn’t include that. Why should customers always be the dependent variables and not the independent ones? Speaking of independence…

Reason #6: Now you have your own pricing gun. You can tell a store, or a whole market, what you’re willing to pay for something — or what you might offer along with payment, such as information about your other relationships, or the fact that you just moved here and are likely to be shopping at this store more. (Or that you’re a high-status frequent flyer with another airline, and considering the same for this one.) Why not?

Reason #7: You can take your shopping cart with you. Back when e-commerce began, in 1995, my wife’s sister was the VP Finance for Netscape, so that company was something like family for us, making my wife (not a technical type) an early adopter. One of her first questions back then was one that exposes a flaw that’s been in e-commerce from the start: “Why can’t I take my shopping cart from one store to another?” At least conceivably, now you can. Let’s say you want to shop at Store B while you’re at Store A. This already happens when you scan a QR or a barcode with your smartphone to see if it’s cheaper at Amazon or something. But what if you want to be more sophisticated than that? The implications for retailers can be scary, but also advantageous. After all, retailers have physical locations, which Amazon doesn’t. Retailers can earn loyalty in ways that are as unique as each store, and each person working at a store.

Reason #8: Now you can bring your own data with you. Inevitably, you will have a personal data store, vault, lockerdata wallet (yes, it’s already called that), trust framework — or other combination of means for managing and selectively sharing that data in secure, trustworthy and auditable ways. And your data doesn’t just have to be about shopping. Personal tracking and informatics are getting big now (read Quantified Self for more). That’s stuff we bring to the market’s table as well. The wallet in one’s phone seems a good way.

Reason #9: Now you can actually relate. When a customer has the ability to shop as well as buy, right in his or her wallet — and to put shopping in the contect of the rest of his or her life, which includes far more than shopping alone — retailers can discover advantages other than discounts, coupons and other gimmicks. Maybe you’ll buy from Store B because you like the people there better, because they’re more helpful in general, because they took your advice about something, or because they help your kid’s school. Many more factors can come into play.

Reason #10: Now you’re in a free and open marketplace. Not just the space contained by any store’s exclusive loyalty system. Nor in a “free” market that’s “your choice of captor” (which is one of the purposes of loyalty programs).  Along those same lines…

Reason #11: You don’t have to play calf to every store and website’s cow. The reason you can’t take your shopping cart with you from store to store on the Web is that e-commerce normalized from the start on the calf-cow, slave-master architecture of client-server computing. This is what turned the Web from a peer-to-peer, end-to-end egalitarian greenfield into fenced-off ranchland where vendors built walled gardens for “consumers” who fed on the milk of each site’s exclusive offerings, and also got cookies that helped calf and cow remember each other, but which sometimes also tracked the calves as they wandered off into other gardens. It was a submissive/dominant system from the get-go, and has been flawed for exactly that reason ever since. Google Wallet, at least conceptually, gives you ways in which you can relate to anybody or anything, on your terms and not just theirs. And not just in the old commercial-Web-based calf-cow system. You can divine the bovine right in your pocket, and avoid or correct vendors trying to feed you tainted milk or tracking cookies.

I could go on, but I have a book to write and not much time left. But I consider Google Wallet a move of profound importance, even if it doesn’t work out, so I’m putting this list out there for us to correct, debate or whatever else we need to do . At the very least Google Wallet gives us one thing a BigCo is doing that can mesh well with what the VRM development community has been working on for the last few years. I hope the synergies will get everybody excited.

[Later, in August…] Some additional news:

Stay tuned.

VRM comes to (and from) Chile

VRM.cl is a new VRM effort in Chile. The site is in Spanish, but I’m having no trouble reading it translated by Google Chrome (a major advantage of that browser). It’s new, and they’re on Twitter as well, through @VRM_cl. I also added them to the blogroll on the right. We welcome them aboard the VRM development community, and look forward to following their progress.

Stuff going on

Loose beginnings:

  • Yesterday Thomas Ruddy, who lives in Switzerland and words for the government there, gave me a variant on the old “On the Internet nobody knows you’re a dog” line. It was this: “On the Internet, every vendor knows you’re a dog.” And treats you like one, because that’s the way the system is rigged. He’s working with colleagues to un-rig it by developing an open source protocol for relations between personal data stores (aka safes and vaults) and other entities — in which the individual holds the keys what is theirs. Watch that last link (and where it re-directs) for more developments.
  • @xmlgrrl Eve Maler tweets, “Interesting. Crowdmap:CI is exploring non-social and selectively-shared checkin use cases. http://is.gd/k1GcP #VRM #UMACrowdmap is a non-commercial alternative of sorts to Foursquare and other familiar location-based ‘checkin’ systems. (“Checkins with a purpose”, sez here.) It’s from folks behind Ushahidi, which does good in the world.
  • Marketing can do better, says Parable of Kristian (Cruz), citing VRM, which is called “a giant leap towards building an economy where organizations listen up–instead of shout down.”
  • Along those same lines, Valeria Maltoni lists VRM among Three Important Business Conversations in 2010 You May Have Missed, pointing to the post here titled Where Markets Are Not Conversations. That post in particular contains a good summary of the privacy-insulting presumptions of business-as-usual.
  • Nicolas Shriver says “Somehow, Groupon is using Vendor Relationship Management (VRM) to have a better conversion rate for their offer, by letting users pick which offers they are interested in.” Nothing Groupon does looks like VRM to me, but it’s an interesting reference in any case.
  • In The Revival of Peer-to-Peer, Oliver Amprimo writes, “Vendor Relationship Management & Federated Social Web initiatives by Markus Sabadello / @versionvega are useful attempts to push the 2.0 logic further:http://bit.ly/dJjP3q. They are part of a growing movement that has a strong attention to Identity Management with ethics and personal responsibility in mind. For this purpose, they revive the decentralized / federated approaches made popular by Peer-to-Peer (P2P) before the web 2.0 rise and glory. P2P was killed by the music & media industry for the wrong reasons: comfort and refuse to reinvent itself. Web 2.0 remained centralised, transforming consumers as authors, but not owners. This opened doors to appropriation of personal data by Corporations, which found here new avenues for making profits. But this has not closed in no way the gap between Physical & Digital in terms of individual responsibility. Instead, this generated the privacy issue. So, no matter what was said 10 yrs ago to kill it, see how this revival of P2P is to bring responsibility and ethics on the Digital side of our lives.”
  • In Redefining Customer Experience: CRM, VRM and “Disruptive Technologies”, Michael Hinshaw writes, “If we look at CRM as the corporate view of customer relationships, and VRM as the customer view of their corporate relationships, the real promise of “customer experience” as a strategic discipline comes into focus: Straddle these two perspectives and embrace the tools they enable to leverage disruptive innovation in ways that benefit everyone.”
  • Inspirited Enterprise quotes Alan Mitchell‘s The Customer is not King:

    A tectonic shift
    But today that’s changing and we can look at the world through a different lens – that of the decision-maker (the person) rather than that of the decision-influencer (the seller). Once you do this it quickly becomes apparent that this meta-need – to make (and implement) better decisions – is bigger than all other needs (for chocolates, for cars, for current accounts etc) because it embraces them all, subsuming them into the bigger task of achieving what the person (not the seller) wants to achieve.

    Person- or buyer-centric services then, sit on the side of the individual, helping the individual achieve what the individual wants to achieve, including managing relationships with many different suppliers more efficiently and more effectively (VRM, or Vendor Relationship Management). The central questions here are, What challenges does the person face when doing this? How to do it better?

    The difference between now and say, twenty years ago, is that twenty years ago this person-centric perspective was operationally irrelevant. You couldn’t do anything practical to help people address these challenges. When marketers said ‘the customer is king’, it was just a disguised way of saying ‘the organisation is king’.

    Now, however, as information becomes a tool in the hands of the individual, that’s changing. The organisational king is being deposed. This is not about superficial changes in ‘how to achieve the same old marketing goals better’. For example, it’s got nothing to do with arguments about whether it’s easier, cheaper or better to get marketing messages across via social media or mass advertising. It’s a deep, structural, tectonic, remorseless and comprehensive transformation in the relationship between individuals and organisations.

    And if you keep on looking in the customer mirror, you simply won’t see it coming.

And I’ll leave those as the last words (or the first) for now.

1 to Every

I have here at my left elbow an original 1993 edition of The One to One Future, by Don Peppers and Martha Rogers — the inaugural book in the authors’ , and one that had no small influence on , written six years later by , , and myself. From its pages protrude little plastic flags that I started sticking there, seventeen years ago, to mark quotable passages. The book was, and still is, ahead of its time. Dig some of the chapter titles:

  • Collaborate With Your Customers
  • Engage Your Customers in Dialoge
  • Take Products to Customers, Not Customers to Products
  • Make Money Protecting Privacy, Not Threatening It
  • Society at Light Speed.

This was two years before the arrival of the commercial Web (via the graphical browser).

I look at that chapter about not threatening privacy, and I think Geez, people were getting 1:1 wrong long before they started getting Cluetrain wrong. So I go to check and find David Weinberger talking about 1 to 1 and how people get it wrong, in The Cluetrain Manifesto itself. (Most of the original book is online here, but its sidebars are not, and that link goes to one of those sidebars, courtesy of Google Books.) For Wired, David also gave the book a thumbs-up review in 1995 and  interviewed Martha Rogers in 1996.

Look around and you’ll find other connections. There are plenty.

The latest is 1toEverything: innovation through a customer’s eyes, by , who worked with Don and Martha for many years. His post could hardly bowl a better strike, right up the VRM alley. One pull quote:

Nearly anything you see out your window – cars, office buildings, people, the weather, birds, restaurants or billions of other possibilities – can and will be differentiated on your behalf by applications that haven’t yet come to market.

Yeessssssss!

In fact the VRM development community has brought some of those applications to market. Others are on their way. Others are open source projects that will be in continuous development, because that’s how open source works. The growing list is here.

I love this chart in Bruce’s post:

Everything in there can be remembered in your (aka — or either), which is in turn part of the . At the first of those links is this helpful graphic by of :

So this is to welcome Bruce, Don (who kindly pointed to VRM to in the first comment on Bruce’s post) and everybody else from the 1 to 1 community who wants to weigh in and help out with VRM development and (at last, because we’ve been holding off waiting for code) evangelism.

It’s still early. What we have so far is just the beginning of what we expect to be quite huge by the time it becomes established. But this stuff has been a long time coming, and it’s important to recognize our earliest and best pioneers.

And while I’m spreading gratitude around, the biggest props go to the , for giving us four years of runway to get VRM off the ground. Hats off to the faculty, staff and fellows who have done so much for us — and still do. We couldn’t have done it without them.

Awake at the wheels

A year ago, at VRooM Boston 2009, , founder and CTO of Zeo — the hot new sleep fitness company — visited questions  about who owns and controlled personal data. Was the sleep data you produce as a customer entirely Zeo’s? Was it yours? Both? Neither? What right should anybody have to use it, and under what conditions?

These kinds of questions aren’t easily answered at a time when mining and selling personal data has turned into a white-hot industry, whether people like it or not. Data about individuals is also easy to rationalize as a corporate asset: something that makes the company itself more valuable.

Since then answers have begun to sort themselves out.

First came Brian, the Cornell student who writes, “I hacked Zeo. And I got paid for it.” Specifically,

I opened Zeo up, soldered to the lines that drive the display, and got my sleep phase output to my PC in real-time! This generated substantial interest from Zeo – and Ben Rubin (Zeo CTO) and I began our discussion on hacking, open source, and Zeo. I was thrilled when I learned that part of my summer would be interning for Zeo creating official ways to get at Zeo data!

Then this month Ben wrote,

Remember everyone’s favorite Zeo-hacker-turned-intern, Brian?

This summer, Brian produced two amazing projects for Zeo: the first – the Zeo Data Decoder – allows you to get at your sleep data without uploading it. The second (the main course, if you will) is the Zeo Raw Data Library.

Use Your Brain

The Zeo Raw Data Library uses the serial port on the back of Zeo (you were wondering about that unused port, weren’t you) to pump out two very cool things:

  • Your sleep phase in real time (Wake, REM, Light, Deep every 30 seconds)
  • Your brainwaves!

We hope developers will use the Raw Data Library for cool applications.  Need some ideas?

  • Build a lucid dreaming application that triggers a light or sound when a user enters REM sleep.
  • Wake yourself during REM in the middle of the night and keep a sweet sleep journal.
  • Use brainwaves for cool Brain Computer Interface projects while you are awake.  For inspiration check out interAxon.
  • Visualize your brainwaves while awake for bio-feedback applications like concentration or relaxation.

How do I get my hands on it?!?

Calm down and step away from the brainwave detector…

You can get the documentation, the library to read the RDL, and an example sleep stage and brainwave visualizer over on sourceforge.  Yup; we decided to open source all of that stuff, so feel free to hack/modify to your needs (and share if you like!).  The special firmware (2.6.3R) needed to run the RDL is over here after you fill out a simple form.

We encourage people who are using the RDL to jump on the forums and discuss it.  People are already using the RDL to optimize polyphasic sleep naps and help them lucid dream with Zeo.  Please use the forums for support and also feel free to email us at DeveloperRelations@myZeo.com.  We’ll also do our best to help troubleshoot, but remember that this is an alpha release so there may be bugs.

The Future is Open Wide

We released the Zeo Raw Data Library because

  • It’s your data–we want you to be free to use it any way you like
  • We are really excited to see what people develop that ends up helping others get a better night’s rest

Please let us know what you think in the comments on on the forums.  Hack away!

I just had to post that whole passage because it’s so completely cool.

Next is combinatorial API fun. From Ben’s latest, All Together Now: Zeo Integrates with Digifit,

Where Sleep Quality meets Fitness and Weight

Zeo is proud to announce the first partner using ZQ outside of our own web application:  The Digifit Dashboard for Healthy LivingSM iPhone app.  Digifit is the only Healthcare and Fitness app for the iPhone that integrates heart rate monitoring for tracking cardio fitness. We’re pretty sure Columbus from Zombieland would be happy with this — his #1 Rule for a Zombified America is Cardio!

Now with the new Digifit Dashboard for Healthy Living SM ,users can also track their weight and sleep (using the Withings WiFi Body Scale and Zeo) and see them conveniently within the Digifit dashboard.  We think Digifit founder says it best:

Withings and Zeo are leading edge pioneers in the industry and we are thrilled to partner with them. With the latest upgrade, our Digifit app completes the health triad puzzle by ‘automagically’ tracking the three most important influences on one’s health: exercise, weight and sleep. We do indeed have it All Together Now.

This is close to home for me, because I’m just starting to get into serious fitness work, which started with my Withings scale. Gotta get a Zeo thing now. (Like the one above.) And Digifit.

Ben again:

This is Just the Beginning

Digifit is the first partner to leverage our soon-to-be-released Web API, which allows data from Zeo to flow out to any internet connected service that wants to leverage the power of sleep quality.  We’ll continue to partner with organizations working in athletics, nutrition, general health, and more to help their users leverage the power of sleep fully so stay tuned!

For more on API jazz, follow . I especially like his Prezi here. Gets you thinking about bi-directional or “full duplex” APIs. This tutorial shows how to do context automation with KRL webhooks and the API.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2024 ProjectVRM

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑