I would add that “scary stuff at the job level” also equals “joyful stuff at the job level” in the realm of opportunity.

I am reminded of when PCs came along. Lou Cole, then an MIS director at a large company, said he felt he went from “wrestling with aligators” (fighting mainframes and large suppliers) to being “nibbled to death by tiny fish” (PCs). He told me this in 1986, when he was running CXI, a “micro to mainframe” card company that later was bought by Novell, where Lou made millions, I am sure. In short, he sided with the tiny fish, because that’s where the future was.

As one wise businesswoman (my wife) once told me, you can’t go wrong by siding with your customer.

The relbutton helped us to visualize the future. We’ll need to keep creating pilots and prototypes in addition to the code to help marketers envision the future and make the concept more real. I agree with Debs — we all struggle with how to change our current media-centric leanings. I believe VRM is additive — media doesn’t go away — but balance and logic is returned.

The difference between now and 10 years ago – it WILL happen a lot faster – it will NOT take 10 years for VRM to impact the market.

Hugs – D

Obvioiusly I failed to communicate something.

VRM can’t work unless it saves time and creates less work for customers. That’s a steep challenge, but it’s what we’re after here.

The shift has to be as practical and useful as the one from cash to credit cards. If it isn’t, it won’t work, and there we’ll be.

I showed the relbutton stuff because it’s the first thing we’ve come up with that shows some of that promise.

You say, “Can the average consumer manage any more transactions that are supposedly easy bacause they are web-enabled but in truth take hours? Give up lots of secure data to do so? And enjoy the experience enough to want to do it again and again?”

We’re not talking about “more transactions”. We’re talking about fewer, better ones, in some cases based on actual two-way relationshiips. Like you have with your travel agent.

We’re talking about making mobile phones and other devices the primary means for interactions not only because they are more personal and in some ways flexible than computers, but because “web enabled” is a freaking mess in too many cases.

Do you recall what I said about the car rental business? About how online they replicate or worsen the airport experience? That’s a perfect example of wasting time that does not need to be wasted.

There are endless cases of needs that cannot be met currently by any online or offline system — such as demand for something not in the CRM or inventory systems of any service. I gave the “stroller for twins in the next two hours” example, but there are many more. VRM, if we can get it to work, will allow you to issue that demand and have it met or not met in short order, without having to go on the Web and shop around, or let your fingers do the walking in the yellow pages, or whatever substitutes for that today.

Again, if you don’t enjoy the experience, it won’t work.

But the key, with VRM, is not to see it as something complicated and additional to business as usual. It’s a way to uncomplicate what doesn’t work very well in business as usual.

The word “lawful” in S.215 (to which both Obama’s and Clinton’s names are affixed, for what that’s worth) speak to exactly the concerns you express.

In broadcast we already have exactly this mess. It is not speech. It is transport. And transport is regulated in ways that speech and the press are not. It is carved out of the First Amendment. Hence “indecent” and “obscene” speech is not only forbidden, but fined severely.

If we conceive the Net as a transport system, and regulate it “lawfully” as that, all kinds of “content” will fall under the same broad prohibitions. Count on it.

This is why, in both Saving the Net and Framing the Net I urge framings of the Net more as place than as transport system, in full respect of the fact that we can’t help framing it as both.

Meanwhile, the less regulation, the better. IMHO.

I found myself feeling pretty contrarian during your presentation at iCitizen, but in the good way. It challenged my strong personal opinion that what consumers most desire is high-quality, low-volume interaction with brands — not complex relationships built around preferences, opt-outs and, as will inevitably happen, chronic upselling.

That said, I’ve been thinking of your talk each time I read about Ariel Waldman’s heated exchange with Twitter over their reluctance to ban abusive users.

http://arielwaldman.com/2008/05/23/twitter-responds/

Her criticism, which I share, is that Twitter is viewing its Terms of Service as a one-way street. We, as users, are required to follow the rules. But when pressed to enforce their end, Twitter announces they’re re-writing the terms to reflect them as a “utility” instead of a “community.”

I look forward to the day when companies view Terms of Service (or any contract) as a handshake instead of handcuffs.