Amanda doesn’t want to talk, she doesn’t care to dance and she claims that all she wants is exactly what every guy wants.

If she next claims to be a huge sports fan, I’m going to have to find this girl and marry her immediately! (Please tell me you love football!)

You’re beautiful, smart and very funny, Amanda. I have a room full of food and a lifetime supply of Viagra (in case I ever need it in the future).

I’m down on one knee; awaiting your reply …

Today’s social networks are “train cars” of conversations.

People connect to people they perceive as “headed in the same direction they desire to pursue”. The subsequent conversations reflect common threads of interest. The different train tracks represent different conversations, different platforms, different affinities and different transactions.

f you reflect on Doc Searls comments above you will see a systemic failure of “business” to make progress in the fundamentals of human interaction, relationships. People produce business results and businesses produce relationship results. If we measured the “relationship results” of businesses the scorecard would likely create a failing grade. Businesses have been consumed by financial measures as dictated by public and private markets that measure economics. The social web is creating a new measure of business based on the fundamentals of relationships. The people have known and continue to know how “business has failed them”. It has never been a secret rather business environments have simply controlled the conversations that speak to the relationship issues.

The momentum of a train is based on speed and mass. The faster it moves with greater mass the harder it becomes to stop it and anything in its way simply gets run over.

What say you?

to read the entire article go here: http://www.relationship-economy.com

Your comments hit upon the very reason “people are connecting to people” using the current stage of social networks. While the current “system” of social networks, which are nothing more than connecting train cars, it reflects the human desire for connectivity which has been voided by corporate obsession with results, money. for decades upon decades.

The systemic evolution of business has missed the one most important factor, people and relationships. What we are witnessing today via the social web is a discovery, by the people and between people, of the freedom to express and subsequently the connectivity of those expressions with others.

The early stages of transactions, in the form of conversation, will be preceded by social commerce which will enable the economic exchange of value given and value received in numerous forms created by and between people.

This is fun to watch how corporations are reacting and their lack of understand the underlying dynamics of the social web.

Example: We were recently at a meeting with executives of a Fortune 500 company and the discussions were centric to the social web. The issue of social commerce was brought up and the opinions of the executives were that people wouldn’t buy things through their social network profiles and businesses wouldn’t engage is making purchases with other businesses via a social network.

When asked how many of the executives were active participants in social networks 100% answered they were not and 40% didn’t even have a profile on Linkedin. When asked how many of their employees (in excess of 20,000 employees) were active in social networks their answers were “We don’t know”.

How can business executives draw conclusions with no experience or understanding of the dynamic of the social web, relationships? The answer is they do and they will continue to, right or wrong.

The awakening will come when markets move, when competition leads the movement, when executives engage with people who find satisfaction and benefit from engaging with other people, when the world shifts and an alarm ripples through the executive suites.

What say you?

Jay Deragon
http://www.relationship-economy.com

And some companies make it a policy to frame their business mission inside of a moral one. One example is Johnson & Johnson, the Credo of which anchors the company’s approach to its markets.

And Shawn, I think having a “small-town mentality” is a good thing, on the whole. And I expect some of those values to start working in relations between customers and larger companies. I might be wrong, as Amanda insists, but I think our ideas around VRM are sound ones and worth exploring.

I also won’t argue with you about McDonald’s, but I will about Starbucks. There are a few good ones. And their coffee itself can be very good. I’m particularly fond of their Cafe Verona blend.

Mine is much more a small town type mentality. Not surprisingly, I *live* in a small town as well. Maybe small town folks like myself prefer the relationship because that’s what we’re accustomed to on a daily basis.

I won’t go so far as to say “you’re right and I’m wrong”, however, because I think rural America is a significant “market.”

If you are correct on the larger scale, and I’m wrong — it saddens me. It means that Walmart will take over the world, and we’ll all become more bitter and reclusive as a society.

Oh, and regarding McDonald’s, I think it’s more “consistency” than customer service. Service aside, when you go to McDonald’s, you know exactly what to expect (food-wise). Same with Starbucks. They’re not cheap, rarely have good service, AND they don’t even have great coffee. But you know what you’re gonna get. It’s consistent.

Instinct says that customer service is the key to sales. Actually, it’s not. Take McDonald’s: Customer service is at historic lows; and sales have NEVER been better.

The problem with all this relationship crap is that the gurus try to imbue human intuition. The fact is that the profitable corporate animal isn’t human. And for a 1,000 people who insist it be so, there are 100 million who just don’t care.

I just purchased a $16,000 web filter from a man that spent the weekend playing Guitar Hero III on his Wii. It’s easier for me to send money to a person than to a contract. Maybe that’s naive, but it’s true regardless.

I’ve followed another salesman through 3 different companies because of the relationship factor. The company doesn’t even offer the best prices all the time, but that trust based on a person is valuable to me. I’m assured by much more than the contract that things will be done RIGHT. If a mistake is made, my salesman will MAKE IT RIGHT.

Do I want my waiter to sit down with me and have brunch? No, because he’s busy waiting tables. But what about if we’re waiting in line at the grocery store? Yes, you’d better believe I’d have a conversation.

Indeed, and Frank, Doc, I do see your points; I think your examples are compelling. But, generally speaking… I think it boils down to a corporate attitude of either “dance” or “take it or leave it.” See, I think (I’m certain) that business and the system in which it functions is male. “He” will always manage the dance and frankly always prefer not to. ALWAYS. He just wants to consummate the deal. Period.
With regard to demand engaging supply… sure, but there comes a point where she’s just TOO much trouble. The girl’s got too much baggage. She’s too needy. And business will conclude that she’s not worth it no matter how pretty she is. Know what I mean Vern?

Lastly, as to the reverse proving increasingly inadequate, says who? Not all women are needy. Frankly, it’s a lot of work. I’d rather just be fed, flattered and fucked.

- Amanda

PS Ed, advertising does work; and no, I do not want to dance with you.

PPS Seth, I am real. I chose my own name is all.

But this is more like a hologram arguing with a ghost about the mind-body problem. There may be no substance, but it’s definitely high-concept.