Month: February 2013

Where VRM stands in the advertising debate

It’s easy to see why the behavioral advertising business feels threatened lately. Already some of the most popular browser add-ons are for blocking ads and tracking. (Here’s one list.) As of last May, according to ClarityRay, 9.26% of all ads were being blocked by browsers. For tech content, the rate was 17.79% and in one country (Austria) the rate was 22.5%. Ad blocking was highest with Mozilla (17.81%) and lowest with Explorer (3.86%).

Not surprisingly, Microsoft smelled the demand and defaulted Do Not Track in the “on” position with its next version of Explorer. Also not surprisingly, this proved controversial.

And now comes Ad Networks Beware: Firefox to Block Third-Party Cookies: New policy could squeeze online behavioral advertising, by Katy Bachman in AdWeek. She begins,

The Interactive Advertising Bureau lashed out Saturday at a new Firefox policy to block third-party cookies, effectively cutting off ad networks’ ability to track users. That could be put a crimp in the growing online behavioral advertising business, but give privacy advocates a victory in their attempts to give users more control over their online information.

Mike Zaneis (@MikeZaneis), the organization’s svp and general counsel tweeted that Mozilla’s new policy was nothing less than “a nuclear first strike against the ad industry.”

Firefox will begin blocking the cookies from third-party ad networks by default beginning with distribution of Firefox version 22 on April 5. The browser would allow cookies from first party websites that users visit, according to Jonathan Mayer, a grad student at Standford University who wrote the patch for Mozilla.

Firefox’s new cookie policy is similar to Apple Safari, but “slightly relaxed,” Mayer said in a blog post.  In practice, both Google Chrome and Microsoft Internet Explorer allow third-party cookies.

The links are mine.

For a good picture of the debate at work, read the whole thread below Mike’s tweet. In it you’ll see how hard it is to draw lines we don’t want others to cross. If we’re Mike and the IAB, we want to draw the line as far out as our self-reguatory principles for online behavioral advertising allow. That line is inclusive of (presumably) harmless forms of tracking. If you’re Chris Saghoian (@csaghoian), one of the creators of Do Not Track (and a voice in that thread), the line not to cross is the personal one that surrounds one’s private spaces. Among those is the vehicle called a browser, in which one would like to drive around the Web enjoying car-like independence.

Here in the VRM world, we are in the second camp. But we’d rather leave the fighting up to others, and instead extend an olive branch toward cooperative development of tools that shake hands and work together across both kinds of lines. That’s what I did at the last link, in September. Since then I’ve enjoyed a positive back-channel conversation that I’d like to keep moving forward.

Also in play are regulatory urgings. This was behind George Simpson‘s Suicide by Cookies, at MediaPost. He begins there by framing up a problem:

Evidon measured sites across the Internet and found the number of web-tracking tags from ad servers, analytics companies, audience-segmenting firms, social networks and sharing tools up 53% in the past year. (The ones in Mandarin were probably set by the Chinese army.) But only 45% of the tracking tools were added to sites directly by publishers. The rest were added by publishers’ partners, or THEIR partners’ partners.

Then he builds the correct forecast of regulatory squeezery, and concludes with this:

I have spent the better part of the last 15 years defending cookie-setting and tracking to help improve advertising. But it is really hard when the prosecution presents the evidence, and it has ad industry fingerprints all over it — every time. There was a time when “no PII” was an acceptable defense, but now that data is being compiled and cross-referenced from dozens, if not hundreds, of sources, you can no longer say this with a straight face. And we are way past the insanity plea.

I know there are lots of user privacy initiatives out there to discourage the bad apples and get all of the good ones on the same page. But clearly self-regulation is not working the way we promised Washington it would.

I appreciate the economics of this industry, and know that it is imperative to wring every last CPM out of every impression — but after a while, folks not in our business simply don’t care anymore, and will move to kill any kind of tracking that users don’t explicitly opt in to.

And when that happens, you can’t say, “Who knew?”

More background on all this can be found at Wharton’s Future of Advertising Program, where they asked a bunch of people “What could/should ‘advertising’ look like in 2020?” I answered here. My bottom lines:

Here is where this will lead by 2020: The ability of individuals to signal their intentions in the marketplace will far exceed the ability of corporations to guess at those intentions, or to shape them through advertising. Actual relationships between people and processes on both sides of the demand-supply relationship will out-perform today’s machine-based guesswork by advertisers, based on “big data” gained by surveillance. Advertising will continue to do what it has always done best, which is to send clear signals of the advertiser’s substance. And it won’t be confused with its distant relatives in the direct response marketing business.

The follow-up question was, “What do we need to do now for this future?” My answer to that one:

Three things.

First, make sharper distinctions between brand and direct response advertising — distinctions that make clear that the latter is a different breed, with different virtues, methods and metrics.

Second, follow and encourage the development of tools that give individuals more independence and ability to engage.

Third, do more research on the first two, so we have better tracking of trends as they develop.

Our job with ProjectVRM is the last two.

The right frame for relationship is personal, not social

The short answer to Brian Solis‘s headline question — Are Businesses Becoming the New Big Brother in Social Media? — is no, because they’re not that smart. In the body copy and graphics of his excellent post, Brian explains why. Here’s one sample:

There are several other images like that, each of which says something we — as users and customers — have known all along, but companies spying on us (even for our own good) don’t. Or do, but have rationalized spying anyway, because that’s all they know how to do. So far.

Brian:

Considering that 58% want you to engage in times of need, 42% wish to hear from you in good times, 64% only want you listening to be at their beck and call, and half of all consumers don’t want you listening at all, what are you to do?

Obviously social media, and specifically social listening, isn’t going away. But it does take tactfulness, genuine intentions and diplomacy to listen, learn, and engage (directly or indirectly) in ways that consumers feel recognized and important. It’s hard to imagine that anyone who says something negative or positive only to have it appreciated and considered by an organization will feel anything other than thankful.

Agreed. Especially if the frame is still a social one, and the interplay happens on social media (meaning Facebook and Twitter, mostly).

But relationships of human beings are personal, not just social.

The problem I have with my car or my airline is not a social one. It’s personal. Obviously, I can make it social, and that’s how Social CRM works today: I complain on Twitter or Facebook. But why should I have to go through Facebook or Twitter to get a dialog going with a human being at a company providing me a product or service?

What we need is VRM. There is lots of VRM development going on, but we’re still missing VRM tools that match up with CRM tools. It’s as simple as that. Many are in progress, but they aren’t here yet, in the sense that any one of us knows we can use them, on our phones or computers, to get through to somebody on the other side, and to deal at a machine level with the stuff that machines handle best.

CRM can’t do it alone, and it’s wrong to expect it to do what it can’t. It takes two hands to clap. The missing hand for CRM, all along, has been VRM one.

What we need, I believe, at this point, is a few CRM-facing VRM companies and developers to get together with CRM developers who are ready to build out their side of VRM+CRM relationships. D2D: Developer to Developer.

Some of the VRM developers we need are on this list. Others will need to step up. And to do it soon, because it’s becoming clear at last that both SCRM and CRM can’t get it done alone.

Wanted: a handshake across the paywall

For five years I was a loyal subscriber to the Boston Globe. When I was out of town, which was a lot, I’d read it online, because the print subscription covered that too.

This academic year I’m out of town more, so I canceled the subscription, because I didn’t want to pay $3.99 per week for a digital-only subscription. Not when I’m also in Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York and other places, with other papers that I also like to read — and to pay for, preferably on an à la carte basis, or something close to it, like I can when I buy a paper at a newsstand. There’s no way to do that. But I still go to the Globe often, to catch a story, such as this one, which hits a paywall:

I only get that on the browser I use most, and which I assume carries a cookie telling the Globe that I’ve visited too often without subscribing. It’s annoying, but I get around it by using other browsers and other machines.

I don’t do that to avoid paying. In fact I’d be glad to pay, because I believe information wants to be free but value wants to be paid for. That means I’m willing to pay something for all the media I use, including music for which I hold rights to play (one doesn’t really “own” music, but instead holds rights to it). But this is impossible as long as media vendors supply all the mechanisms of relationship. There’s no handshake with that system. Just the sound of one hand slapping.

The promo-covered paywall in the screen shot above tells me the Globe’s subscription system has no idea that I was a loyal subscriber for a long time, and am willing to pay more than the $0 that I’m paying when I go around their wall. It also tells me the Globe values data justifying its 99¢/week promo more than its relationship with me as a reader and a long-term subscriber. But I’m not insulted because I know I’m not dealing with human beings here; just a software routine.

Many questions come to mind when I look at a fail like this. Like, Why should a new subscriber get a better deal than a veteran one? Why not have, say, a frequent-reader program, modeled on airline frequent flyer programs?

The answer is that it’s a pain in the ass for a paper (or any business) to do something different than what it already does. In the Globe’s case the bureaucratic overhead is even higher than it looks, because the Globe is a subsidiary of the New York Times, which has the same 99¢ promo (that I wrote about almost a year ago). Even if the two papers don’t use the same content management and subscription software, the policies obviously work in tandem, meaning there is at least twice the inertia to overcome.

Additional inertia is locked up in the heavy burden of sole responsibility for a “relationship” that barely qualifies for the noun. If I had a real relationship with the Globe, I could respond to the above with a message that says “Hi, there. You know me. Remember? I do. Here’s the evidence. Now, can we come up with something that works for both of us here?”  CRM (Customer Relationship Management systems should help, but typically don’t. “Social” CRM is built to listen for signals from prospects or customers; but neither Twitter nor Facebook are mine, nor do they represent me as fourth parties — ones that work for me.  (Twitter and Facebook may serve me, in a way; but they are paid for that work by advertisers.)

There are some VRM-friendly signs on the horizon. For example, in this Guardian interview, Tien Tzuo, the founder and CEO of Zuora, explains what he calls “Paywall 2.0.” Here’s what he says about 3:50 into the video:

Don’t think about it as just a paywall. Don’t think about it as just a tollbooth for you to make money. Think about it as an ongoing dialog with your customers, and allow your paywall to stretch, and go to where your customers really want to go.

(Disclosure: last year I gave a speech at a Zuora event in London.) I want the Globe and the Times to have 2.0-generation paywalls: ones that stretch to embrace my loyalty and my good intentions. I would also like that embrace to appreciate independent signaling from my side of the relationship, not just what it picks up from CRM radar pointed at social media. (And let’s face it: If I have to go on Twitter to get some action out of a company, there’s a failure in direct communication. Here’s one example.)

We also need the VRM tools that match up with 2.0 generation ones on the media sellers’ side. For example, let’s say I budget $2 per day toward all the media I use. (A lexical digression: I don’t “consume” media any more than I consume a hammer. That’s why I say “use” instead of “consume.”) And let’s say  I have the capacity to track what I use, in a QS (quantified self) kind of way. Then let’s say that I’m ready to divide that $2 up and parse it out, using an EmanciPay system. This would put money on the market’s table.

Then maybe, once the money is on the table, we can shake hands over it and actually do business.

Bonus link: House of news

 

 

VRM development work

I’ll be having a brown bag lunch today with a group of developers, talking about VRM and personal clouds, among other stuff that’s sure to come up. To make that easier, I’ve copied and pasted the current list from the VRM developers page of the ProjectVRM wiki. If you’d like to improve it in any way, please do — either on the wiki itself, or by letting us know what to change.

While there are entire categories that fit in the larger VRM circle — quantified self (QS) and personal health records (PHRs) are two that often come up — we’ve tried to confine this list to projects and companies that directly address the goals (as well as the principles) listed on the main page of the wiki.


Here is a partial list of VRM development efforts. (See About VRM). Some are organizations, some are commercial entities, some are standing open source code development efforts.

SOFTWARE and SERVICES
Intentcasting
AskForIt † – individual demand aggregation and advocacy
Body Shop Bids † – intentcasting for auto body work bids based on uploaded photos
Have to Have † – “A single destination to store and share everything you want online”
Intently † – Intentcasting “shouts” for services, in the U.K.
Innotribe Funding the Digital Asset Grid prototype, for secure and accountable Intentcasting infrastructure
OffersByMe † – intentcasting for local offers
Prizzm †- social CRM platform rewarding customers for telling businesses what they want, what they like, and what they have problems with
RedBeacon † – intentcasting locally for home services
Thumbtack † – service for finding trustworthy local service providers
Trovi intentcasting; matching searchers and vendors in Portland, OR and Chandler, AZ†
Übokia intentcasting†
Zaarly † intentcasting to community – local so far in SF and NYC
Browser Extensions
Abine † DNT+, deleteme, PrivacyWatch: privacy-protecting browser extentions
Collusion Firefox add-on for viewing third parties tracking your movements
Disconnect.me † browser extentions to stop unwanted tracking, control data sharing
Ghostery † browser extension for tracking the trackers
PrivacyScore † browser extensions and services to users and site builders for keeping track of trackers
Databases
InfoGrid - graph database for personal networking applications
ProjectDanube - open source software for identity and personal data services
Messaging Services and Brokers
Gliph †- private, secure identity management and messaging for smartphones
Insidr † – customer service Q&A site connecting to people who have worked in big companies and are willing to help when the company can’t or won’t
PingUp (was Getabl) †- chat utility for customers to engage with merchants the instant customers are looking for something
TrustFabric † – service for managing relationships with sellers
Personal Data and Relationship Management
Azigo.com † – personal data, personal agent
ComplainApp † – An iOS/Android app to “submit complaints to businesses instantly – and find people with similar complaints”
Connect.Me † – peer-to-peer reputation, personal agent
Geddup.com † – personal data and relationship management
Higgins - open source, personal data
The Locker Project - open source, personal data
Mydex †- personal data stores and other services
OneCub †- Le compte unique pour vos inscriptions en ligne (single account for online registration)
Paoga † – personal data, personal agent
Personal.com † – personal data storage, personal agent
Personal Clouds - personal cloud wiki
Privowny † – privacy company for protecting personal identities and for tracking use and abuse of those identities, building relationships
QIY † – independent infrastructure for managing personal data and relationships
Singly † – personal data storage and platform for development, with an API
Transaction Management
Dashlane † – simplified login and checkout
Trust-Based or -Providing Systems and Services
id3 - trust frameworks
Respect Network † – VRM personal cloud network based on OAuth, XDI, KRL, unhosted, and other open standards, open source, and open data initiatives. Respect Network is the parent of Connect.Me.
Trust.cc Personal social graph based fraud prevention, affiliated with Social Islands
SERVICE PROVIDERS OR PROJECTS BUILT ON VRM PRINCIPLES
First Retail Inc. † commodity infrastructure for bi-directional marketplaces to enable the Personal RFP
dotui.com † intelligent media solutions for retail and hospitality customers
Edentiti Customer driven verification of idenity
Real Estate Cafe † money-saving services for DIY homebuyers & FSBOs
Hover.com Customer-driven domain management†
Hypothes.is - open source, peer review
MyInfo.cl (Transitioning from VRM.cl) †
Neustar “Cooperation through trusted connections” †
NewGov.us - GRM
[1] † – Service for controlling one’s reputation online
Spotflux † malware, tracking, unwanted ad filtration through an encrypted tunnel
SwitchBook † – personal search
Tangled Web † – mobile, P2P & PDS
The Banyan Project- community news co-ops owned by reader/members
TiddlyWiki - a reusable non-linear personal Web notebook
Ting † – customer-driven mobile virtual network operator (MVNO – a cell phone company)
Tucows †
VirtualZero - Open food platform, supply chain transparency
INFRASTRUCTURE
Concepts
EmanciPay - dev project for customer-driven payment choices
GRM: Government Relationship Management - subcategory of VRM
ListenLog - personal data logging
Personal RFP - crowdsourcing, standards
R-button - UI elements for relationship members
Hardware
Freedom Box - personal server on free software and hardware
Precipitat, WebBox - new architecture for decentralizing the Web, little server
Standards, Frameworks, Code bases and Protocols
Datownia † – builds APIs from Excel spreadsheets held in Dropbox
Evented APIs - new standard for live web interactivity
KRL (Kinetic Rules Language) - personal event networks, personal rulesets, programming Live Web interactions
Kynetx † – personal event networks, personal rulesets
https://github.com/CSEMike/OneSwarm Oneswarm] – privacy protecting peer-to-peer data sharing
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/persona/ Mozila Persona] – a privacy-protecting one-click email-based way to do single sign on at websites
TAS3.eu — Trusted Architecture for Securely Shared Services - R&D toward a trusted architecture and set of adaptive security services for individuals
Telehash - standards, personal data protocols
Tent - open decentralized protocol for personal autonomy and social networking
The Mine! Project - personal data, personal agent
UMA - standards
webfinger - personal Web discovery, finger over HTTP
XDI - OASIS semantic data interchange standard
PEOPLE
Analysts and Consultants
Ctrl-SHIFT † – analysts
Synergetics † – VRM for job markets
VRM Labs - Research
HealthURL - Medical
Consortia, Workgroups
Fing.org - VRM fostering organization
Information Sharing Workgroup at Kantara - legal agreements, trust frameworks
Pegasus - eID smart cards
Personal Data Ecosystem Consortium (PDEC) – industry collaborative
Meetups, Conferences, and Events
IIW: Internet Identity Workshop - yearly unconference in Mountain View
VRM Hub - meeting in LondonNOTES:
† Indicates companies. Others are organizations, development projects or both. Some development projects are affiliated with companies. (e.g. Telehash and The Locker Project with Singly, and KRL with Kynetx.)
A – creating standard
B – Using other standards
1 – EventedAPI

© 2014 ProjectVRM

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑