Page 3 of 28

VRM Linklings

The marketplace

VRM and Personal Clouds

Surveillance vs. Privacy

Research

  • Data & Society issues a Call for Fellows. Particulars: The fellowship program is intended to bring together an eclectic network of researchers, entrepreneurs, activists, policy creators, journalists, geeks, and public intellectuals who are interested in engaging one another on the key issues introduced by the increasing availability of data in society. We are looking for a diverse group of people who can see both the opportunities and challenges presented by access to data and who have a vision for a project that can inform the public or shape the future of society.

 

A Holiday list of VRM links

New VRM developers (in alphabetical order, two from Australia, one from New Zealand)

  • Flamingo. Descriptions:  Personalizing Customer Experience…Empowering businesses…>Flamingo knows that true customer empowerment is achieved by empowering businesses too. Thankfully technology and some clever analytics allow us to do just that….>We have a unique set of tools, created especially for business that will empower individuals across sales, marketing, service, support and business intelligence to know what experience customers and potential customers actually want. Our research tells us organisations that can do this get significant competitive advantage and bottom line growth.
  • Meeco. The Blog. Descriptions: >Your dashboard for life. >It’s time to make digital life simple. >>Be rewarded for being you… >Meeco is a new and easy way to manage your life and the data inside your personal cloud…>Meeco’s beautiful dashboard means one click to your favourite brands, bill payments, travel, banking and shopping…>Meeco gives you a private browser so you control, manage and track your own habits, providing you with rich insight… >>When you decide to share or signal what you want, you can do it anonymously or identified with the brands your trust in exchange for value, discounts or financial reward…  >Meeco will never sell your data because we know it’s yours.
  • MyWave. The Blog. Descriptions: Really putting customers at the centre of the relationship…Founded by former SAP North America President Geraldine McBride in 2013, MyWave is leading a fundamental change in the way enterprises do business with their customers – and how customers interact with enterprises…MyWave’s services and technology platform provide the means for enterprises to evolve away from the existing but outdated push‑based transaction model to a new two-way permission-based relationship based on Mutual Value…MyWave Customer Experience Consulting Services – Customer experience design experts who help businesses re-imagine their customer experiences through the lens of the customer, moving business from the old push-based transaction model to a personalized model….MyWave CMR technology platform – CMR turns CRM on its head by putting the customer in control of getting those personalized experiences anytime, anywhere, on any device. The MyWave CMR platform is constructed so that the customer owns their data. This removes privacy concerns and allows a new dynamic based on trust, advocacy and mutual value in each exchange.

Privacy

Hellbound handbasketry

VRooMy links

VRM developments

  • List of developers and related projects and people on the ProjectVRM wiki. Please make or send your updates.
  • Phil Windley: Intention Generation: Fuse and VRM. Pull-quotage:Fuse, our connected-car product is an intention generator. Here’s a few examples:
    • When Fuse sees your gas tank is nearly empty it can generate an intention to buy gas.
    • When Fuse indicates it’s time for an oil change or tire rotation, it can generate an intention to have the car serviced.
    • When the vehicle raises a diagnostic code, Fuse can generate an intention to get the car fixed.
    • When insurance is up for renewal, Fuse can generate an intention to solicit quotes for a new policy.
    • Geofences could be linked to intentions.
    • Even a crash, sensed by Fuse’s accelerometers, is an intention to seek emergency services.

    As an intention generator Fuse could be seen as a brand-new way for companies to spy on drivers. But we don’t think it has to be that way. If Fuse is going to generate intentions that can be acted on while preserving owner choice and privacy, it must also provide owners with two things:

    1. A way to see, select, and interact with vendors—both those who the owner has an existing relationship with and those who might be good candidates for future purchases.
    2. A way to use intentions and the make the choices that only the owner can make. For example, when my insurance is due, Fuse needs to ask me if I’m happy with my current insurance before going out to solicit bids.

    Both of these features are about providing owner choice and putting the owner in control. In the terminology of VRM, the thing providing these features is typically called the “4th party” and refers to the system that is acting on the customer’s behalf.

  • Customer Commons Web Pal.
  • Joshua Kopstein in The New Yorker: The mission to decentralize the Internet. Has this line: … average users can create personal clouds to store data that they can access anywhere, without relying on a distant data center owned by Dropbox or Amazon.

Privacy

Business

  • Jamie Smith: Thinking about Moments and Thinking about Context.
  • Karl Bode in Broadband ReportsAT&T Offers $70 1 Gbps in Austin — With a Big Catch. Pull-quote: “The asterisks (**) on the Premiere offer indicates that you must agree to participate in AT&T Internet Preferences behavioral tracking and ad service if you want that price point. Internet Preferences “may use your Web browsing information, like the search terms you enter and the Web pages you visit, to provide you relevant offers and ads tailored to your interests,” says AT&T. That’s a thirty dollar markup from Google Fiber pricing simply for not wanting to have your online activity watched and monetized by AT&T. While Google tracks search history, cookies and GPS location data, AT&T’s Internet Preferences appears to use deep packet inspection (a la Phorm or NebuAD) to monitor each and every packet, including how long you spend on specific websites.
  • Johannes Ernst: There are only three business models.

Big Data, meet Big Privacy

Look up “big data” (with the quotes) today on Google, and you’ll results that look like this:

Basically, a heap of hype. The only visible organic search results are a Wikipedia article and the a May 2011 report that McKinsey wrote for corporate customers. I am sure some of those same customers are among the advertisers hogging acreage in search results.

Whenever you see a money river that gets bigger and bigger while flowing in a circle, you’ve looking at a mania. That’s what we see here, and in Google Trends as well:

Big Data today is entirely an obsession of the B2B (Business to Business) world. It may fuel B2C (Business to Consumer); but the consumer does not participate except as a source of data and as a target for marketing messages guided by Big Data analytics. So, while we get to witness the Big Data mania as individuals, we don’t participate in it.

But we will.

Think about computing before it got personal around the turn of the ’80s. Before then, “personal computer” was an oxymoron. But eventually computers became something everybody had. Today our phones are computers. The same thing happened with networking. Before the Internet got huge in the mid-’90s, networking was something companies and governments did.  Today computing and networking are fully personal as well as fully corporate. And far more value is generated by people computing and networking than by companies doing it only with themselves and each other.

It’s a good bet that Big Data will follow the same path. Individuals will be able to do far more with data of all sizes than would ever be possible in the B2B world alone.

Meanwhile, the B2B appetite for “big data,” and eagerness to use it to market at us, has raised privacy as an issue. Back in the pre-Internet world, privacy wasn’t very controversial. We all knew what it was, and how to protect it most of the time. In the new digital world, we don’t, except through relatively primitive means, such as ad and tracking blocking. In The Rise of Ad Blocking, published in August 2013, PageFair found an average ad blocking rate of 22.7%. On some browsers it’s much higher:

This is the market speaking.

So is Big Privacy: Bridging Big Data and the Personal Data Ecosystem Through Privacy by Design, a paper published today by Ann Cavoukian, Ph.D. and Drummond Reed. Ann is the Information & Privacy Commissioner for Ontario, Canada, and Drummond is Co-Founder and CEO of Respect Network. Ann is also behind Privacy By Design, which “advances the view that the future of privacy cannot be assured solely by compliance with legislation and regulatory frameworks; rather, privacy assurance must become an organization’s default mode of operation.”

Both Ann and Drummond are coming from the customer side of the C2B relationship. In other words, they are coming from the need for VRM ways to solve market problems and open up new opportunities. It also goes straight after “big data”:

Recent technological and business developments have given rise to a new understanding of personal information. It is now being compared to currency and energy1—often being referred to as “the new oil.” It is an economic asset generated by the identities and behaviors of individuals and their technological surrogates. These metaphors, which express its increasing economic value to organizations, ring especially true in the case of Big Data. Indeed, Big Data derives economic value from its use of personal information to such an extent that if personal information is considered to be “the new oil,” then Big Data is the machinery that runs on it.

However, like our current dependence on fossil fuels, Big Data’s current use of personal information is unsustainable, increasingly resulting in “pollution” via privacy infringement. At the moment, individuals have little, if any, control over their information’s use and disclosure in Big Data analytics. In addition to a host of privacy concerns, this lack of informational self-determination gives rise to an uneven exchange of the economic value. While the owners of Big Data algorithms profit from their use and disclosure of personal information, the individuals the personal information relates to do not—at least not directly. If not properly addressed, the privacy and economic concerns raised by Big Data threaten to decrease individuals’ willingness to share their personal information—in effect, cutting off the flow of the “oil” on which the analytic “machinery” of Big Data runs.

The report describes the Personal Data Ecosystem (PDE) as “the emerging landscape of companies and organizations that believe individuals should be in control of their personal information and directly benefit from its use, making available a growing number of tools and technologies to enable such control,” adding (in boldface type), “So if privacy infringement is the negative externality that Big Data frequently ignores, the PDE is the emerging positive externality that can turn the combination into a positive-sum outcome where both data subjects and Big Data users benefit.
The paper defines Big Privacy this way:

Big Privacy is Privacy by Design writ large, i.e., it is the application of the 7 principles of Privacy by Design, not only to individual organizations, applications, or contexts, but to entire networks, value chains, and ecosystems, especially those that produce and use Big Data. The goal of Big Privacy is the systemic protection of personal data and radical personal control over how it is collected and used. Radical control is an embodiment of “informational self- determination”—the right enshrined in the German Constitution relating to the individual’s ability to determine the fate of one’s information.12 This means that it must be possible to assure whole populations that their privacy is being respected because the network, value chain, and/or ecosystem producing and processing Big Data has implemented Privacy by Design at a system-wide level, enabling individuals who consent to the use of their personal information to reap a proportion of the benefits. 

The paper goes on to detail seven architectural elements of Big Privacy:

  1. Personal Clouds
  2. Semantic Data Interchange
  3. Trust Frameworks
  4. Identity and Data Portability
  5. Data-By-Reference (or Subscription)
  6. Accountable Pseudonyms
  7. Contractual Data Anonymization

These in turn leverage the  “Seven Foundational Principles of Privacy by Design”:

  1. Proactive not Reactive; Preventative not Remedial
  2. Privacy as the Default Setting
  3. Privacy Embedded into Design
  4. Full Functionality – Positive-Sum, not Zero-Sum
  5. End-to-End Security – Full Lifecycle Protection
  6. Visibility and Transparency – Keep it Open
  7. Respect for User Privacy – Keep it User-Centric

ProjectVRM gets a mention. I’d also like to add a pointer to the Personal Data Ecosystem Consortium, which has done pioneering work in the PDI, and whose work pulls toward the future alongside ours here.

The paper also does the best job I’ve seen yet of explaining the Respect Trust Framework and XDI, both of which normally require a lot of mental chewing to get down. They still do; just less this time.

I’ve always thought that XDI was a brilliant and elegant solution looking for a problem. I still do. The difference now is that it’s found the right one.

LG jumps on advertising bandwagon, runs over its own customers

Used to be a TV was a TV: a screen for viewing television channels and programs, delivered from stations and networks through a home antenna or a cable set top box. But in fact TVs have been computers for a long time. And, as computers, they can do a lot more than what you want, or expect.

Combine that fact with the current supply-side mania for advertising aimed by surveillance, and you get weirdness such as Doctor Beet‘s LG Smart TVs logging USB filenames and viewing info to LG servers. According to Doctor Beet, viewer activity is actually reported to a dead URL (which may not be, say some of the comments). The opt-out is also buried an off-screen scroll. And LG tells Doctor Beet to live with it, because he “accepted” unseen opt-out terms and conditions.

But wait: there’s more.

If you want to really hate LG — a company you barely cared about until now, watch this. It’s a promotional video for “LG Smart AD,” which “provides the smartest way to reach your targeted audiences across the borders and connected devices with excitement powered by LG’s world best 3D and HD home entertainment technology” and “enables publishers to maximize revenues through worldwide ad networks, intelligent platform to boost CPM and the remarkable ecosystem.” The screen shot above shows (I’m not kidding) a family being terrorized by their “immersive” advertising “experience.”

This promotional jive, plus the company’s utterly uncaring response to a customer inquiry, shows what happens when a company’s customers and consumers become separate populations — and the latter is sold to the former. This split has afflicted the commercial broadcast industry from the start, and it afflicts the online advertising industry today. It’s why the most popular browser add-ons and extensions are ones that thwart advertising and tracking. And it’s why the online advertising industry continues to turn deaf ears and blind eyes toward the obvious: that people hate it.

Clearly LG is getting on the surveillance-based advertising-at-all-costs bandwagon here. The sad and dumb thing about it is that they’re actually selling customers they already have (TV buyers) to ones they don’t (advertisers). Their whole strategy is so ham-fisted that I doubt they’ll get the message, even if bad PR like this goes mainstream.

The one good effect we might expect is for competing companies to sell surveillance-free viewing as a feature.

Bonus link.

When the customer gets the pricing gun

Customers don’t normally operate pricing guns. That’s why we have this old Steven Wright joke:

The lady across the hall tried to rob a department store — with a pricing gun.
She said, “Give me all of the money in the vault, or I’m marking down everything in the store.”

It wouldn’t be funny if it wasn’t a scary prospect for retailers.

But what if customers actually do get that power, on their own — meaning they don’t get that power from any seller, but from themselves. Like they get their car on their own. Or their . Or their browser. Or their email.

For example, what if each of us had a way to publish an offer price to many retailers at once? For example, “I’ll pay $2500 for a Canon 5D Mk III camera.” (In fact I’ve already said that, through a VRM company called .) And what if I had a way to escrow that money — and that intention-to-buy — at a bank, ready to pay when a seller meets my price and my terms? That’s the idea (though not the only one) behind . It should be a good business for banks — or for anybody wanting to help activity in markets move faster and more efficiently.

There has already been work in that direction, through the companies listed under Intentcasting here, plus the work some of us did with , a division of . That work began with discussions at around digital identity, personal data and the EmanciPay idea. Once underway, it evolved into the Digital Asset Grid: a way to move data on the SWIFT network that also moves money, with the same high degree of security. Having a secure way to move both personal data and money seemed like good idea, so we created it, and it’s there for the taking.

Meanwile, let’s say that EmanciPay, or something like it, takes off, and the pricing gun really is in the hands of the customer. Will this be the end of the world for mass marketing? Or for anything? Or will it open a huge new greenfield of opportunity, based on much better signaling of pricing — and other variables — by customers?

Like, what if we could signal real loyalty, rather than just the coerced kind we get with loyalty cards? What about convenience? Reliability? Experience with the product, the vendor, and the quality of service?

How would it work if every product we buy, or service we engage, would also serve as the platform for a genuine relationship with maker and/or the seller? This can happen if the product or service comes with its own cloud. Think about that. Your car, your cable modem, your TV, your stove, your dishwasher, your anything can have a cloud of its own, today. picos, for persistent compute objects. When you buy a product with a pico, that cloud might come with all the service materials required, be updated automatically, and contain all the service records as well. And you can add whatever you want to it, or use it as a communications conduit between you and the product’s maker or seller.

This is what makes . It’s not just a second dashboard for your car in a mobile app. It’s your platform for relationships with the car maker, your mechanic, or others in your family who also use the car. Think of it as a service gun. Or the platform for one.

There’s no limit to what you can imagine if you’re an independent party with full agency, rather than a serf in some company’s castle. Or to what can happen between people and companies that value each other’s independence.

 

Come to VRM & Personal Cloud Day

Tomorrow, Monday 21 October, is VRM and Personal Cloud Day at the Computer History Museum. Register at that link. It’s free. Or just show up. (Registering gives us a better idea of head count.)

It’s the time and place to brainstorm about both topics, plus what we’ll be discussing and moving forward the following three days at IIW, also at the CHM.

More details here.

It’s all about leverage on the future. So be there.

Cracks in the walls of the online advertising castle

On the advice of @SteveLohr and @michikokakutani ‘s review in The New York Times, I just ordered Dave Eggers‘ The Circle — a tale of the dystopian present taken to its future extreme: a world where we are all fully devolved into data, and one big company serves us exactly the poop it knows — and helps — us want.

Provided, of course, that there is still money in it.

But there won’t be. The most vulnerable big money game in the commercial Web today is advertising — and it’s headed for a dive, if not a crash. That’s the case @TimHwang and @AdiKamdar make in The Theory of Peak Advertising and the Future of the Web. It’s also the one @DonMarti makes in Targeted Advertising Considered Harmful, and that I make too, in both The Intention Economy: When Customers Take Charge and Beyond the Advertising Bubble, a post I put up earlier today at Customer Commons.

In addition to the evidence compiled in those sources, there’s Flash Ad Takeovers Drive 55% of Consumers Away (by Tyler Loechner in MediaPost). The headline actually understates the case. Here’s the opener:

Adblade, a content-style ad network, commissioned a study carried out by research company Toluna which found that 82% of consumers feel that online ads are “detrimental” to their online experience at least some of the time. The report focused on questions revolving around the obtrusiveness of ads…

The emphasis is mine, not that it’s required. More stats:

When it comes to ads causing one to navigate away from content, an overwhelming majority (55%) of respondents said flash ad takeovers are most likely to do the trick. The ad type that is second-most likely to drive consumers away from a page are right-side banner ads (10.4%). Pre-roll (9%), top banner (8.5%), and middle-of-the-page ads (7.1%) round out the top five.

The source might be a bit self-serving, though. See here:

Over 66% of respondents believe middle-of-the-page ads to be the most obtrusive, compared to just 4% for end-of-article ads.

Adblade specializes in end-of-article ad placements, so those particular results play into their hands.

Still, we’re talking about least-aversive stuff here.

That’s always been an imperative of sub-optimal advertising, though not of advertising that actually appeals. And indeed, appealing advertising does exist. Every fat magazine testifies to the fact of advertising that appeals in some settings at least as much as does the editorial. Note that those ads are not personal, and depend not at all on surveillance of privacy invasions of any kind. They simply do a good job of sending strong signals — economic and otherwise — to populations that are interested in them.

The other breed of in-demand advertising, I would ad, are classifieds. The success of Craigslist and Google’s (search-results) Adwords  attest to that as well. Note that those don’t creep us out. At their best, they just work.

And that’s what always wins in the long run.

Why Google and Facebook need to go direct

In Google sets plans to sell users’ endorsements, and describe new ways that Google and Facebook are taking liberties with users who have had nice things to say about companies’ products and services in the past, in contexts where they didn’t expect their words to turn into personal endorsements (especially ones for which they are not paid). Specifically,

Google on Friday announced that it would soon be able to show users’ names, photos, ratings and comments in ads across the Web, endorsing marketers’ products. Facebook already runs similar endorsement ads. But on Thursday it, too, took a step to show personal information more broadly by changing its search settings to make it harder for users to hide from other people trying to find them on the social network.

(on the left) An example of a Google shared endorsement…

The problem, privacy advocates say, is when Web companies use or display the personal information of users in ways the authors did not expect when they originally posted it.

“People expect when they give information, it’s for a single use, the obvious one,” said Dr. Deborah C. Peel, a psychoanalyst and founder of Patient Privacy Rights, an advocacy group. “That’s why the widening of something you place online makes people unhappy. It feels to them like a breach, a boundary violation.”

“We set our own boundaries,” she added. “We don’t want them set by the government or Google or Facebook.”

There is a simple reason why Google and Facebook feel free to take these kinds of liberties: we pay them nothing, so they feel free to make us the product they sell, rather than the customers they serve.

This kind of abuse (and it is exactly that) will cost more value than it adds, for example with the Times story and this post. Even if the costs aren’t obvious on bottom lines, the negative externalities are large, and growing.

So here’s a simple suggestion for both companies: go freemium. Charge for value-added services, such as genuine, accountable privacy, within circles that customers (no longer just “users” or “consumers”) help define. We are legion, and you are increasing our numbers every day.

Online advertising is already post-peak and possibly headed toward oblivion, at least for ads that aren’t whitelisted by the likes of Adblock Plus. Ad and tracking blockers and enlightened browser makers, all working for the demand side of the marketplace, have their fingers on a pulse that Google, Facebook and the other ad-supported Web companies ignore. Enlightened as they are about their algorithms, analytics and infrastructures, they are literally senseless toward the consumers they sell to their customers — and the far greater return on investment they would get if lots of those consumers were customers as well.

A couple years ago I heard a Google executive say the company would never “go direct” because it was an “engineering company” and that didn’t want to make less than $1 million per employee. The implication was that going direct would require lower-wage and lower-skill workers in call centers — and other forms of non-engineering-type overhead. Yet there are plenty of highly profitable companies that do high quality service (call centers and all) with plenty of margin. For example: Apple and Amazon.

The writing is on the wall, big guys. Time to wake up and smell the demand for respect, privacy and genuine service. It’s huge.

And, if you’re ready to talk about it (or anything), come to IIW the week after next, at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View. It’s cheap. (Heck, Google is already a sponsor — and we do thank them for that.) It’s an unconference, so we can easily make “going direct” a topic there. (Hey, if you don’t, one of us will.)

Speaking of negative externalities, here’s the bonus linkage recommended by Zemanta:

Link-o-rama

VRM

  • There is an interesting correlation happening right now between online advertisers and adblocking technology: they’re both growing. By Till Faida, co-founder of Adblock Plus, in RealBusiness. Pull-quotage…”Our ultimate consideration, however, should lie in keeping these decisions in the users’ hands. So, adblockers should not rid the Internet of all advertising, they should give users the choice to rid their version of the Internet of annoying advertising. Giving the public control is the crux on which the entire issue pivots.”On this front we are not alone. We’ve found common ground with user-rights groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and researchers like Doc Searls and his Harvard-based VRM-Project. In addition, groups like Mozilla and news outlets like CNET have recommended this approach.”We believe in an Acceptable Ads initiative to provide a middle ground for a sustainable advertising landscape. Websites that wish to do so apply to be whitelisted and if their ads conform to the established guidelines, users see the ads they serve under default settings.”
  • Till also wrote this piece, in French for Rue89. I believe it’s the same one, but not sure.
  • Mobile Is Huge — But Two Key Elements Could Slow Its Growth. By Terry Heaton in StreetFight. Sez Terry…”We’re weary of running a relentless gauntlet of jumping, screaming, frantic warnings, hands grabbing, voices shouting, noise-making, disjointed movements, and the almost demonic reaching for our wallets coming from advertising. This is Madison Avenue’s idea of perfection, and the only way you can get there is to completely ignore the effect of advertising on the very people you’re trying to influence. The Web is, at core, a pull mechanism, not one that pushes. It’s why all those big projections of advertising “potential” have turned into a commodified “pennies for dollars” reality.”Doc Searls is onto something with his “Vendor Relationship Management (Project VRM)” concept at Harvard, for it fits the postmodern cultural shift like a glove. VRM is all about empowered consumers who send advertising messages back to the market, where they are bid on by service and goods providers, and you can bet that it will be primarily a local experience (although let’s not underestimate companies like Amazon). In the VRM model, there are ‘fourth parties’ who work on behalf of consumers to send the messages to third parties representing the manufacturers, retailers, or whatever.”
  • Fundamental Features of Persistent Compute Objects by Phil Windley.
  • My Dryer: A SquareTag Case Study By Phil Windley.
  • CRM Meets VRM: How a Personal Cloud Network Will Enable Real Vendor Relationship Management. A Respect Network event. Watch that space for a recording of the webinar.
  • Bill Wendel, Real Estate VRooMer, on the above. In answer to “How can homeowners who are watching the housing market to decide when to sell,” “How would they issue that IntentCast?” and “Right now, there is a shortage of inventory, so seems the opportunity for intentcasting (in real estate) is at hand,” Bill writes,  Eager to pursue answers to that question at IIW, and glad to Hangout on Google before that event with others interested in real estate use cases, or what we call reVRM.  For 22 idea starters, see reVRM-Minifesto on slides 13-15: http://bit.ly/reVRMgameChanger
  • #datatuesday, a #VRM event in Paris.
  • Personal Clouds Are Rolling In, by Elizabeth Glagowski of Peppers & Rogers Group. A flattering short piece. (Small correction: I am no longer a fellow at the Berkman Center — which I was from 2006-2010 — but remain involved while continuing to run ProjectVRM.)

Intention Economy

  • The Art and Science of Creating a Psychic Brand, by BusinessWire, for Peppers & Rogers. It begins, “Many companies today are still trying to scale relationships with their customers – by minimizing actual human contact, scripting human interactions and treating customers according to antiquated stereotypes and profiles. In reality, brands should be ‘treating customers like the gods by whose grace every company exists.’ Those words, chosen by Doc Searls, author of The Intention Economy: When Customers Take Charge, may seem a bit excessive, but they are as true as they are shocking to hear. Customers are the gods of any brand, they can give it life or banish it into obscurity – in order to thrive, it is important for a brand to be psychic, so it can anticipate the will of the gods and avoid their wrath.”
  • Everything you think about big data is wrong! By Tracey Parsons in Social Media Explorer. Pull-quotage: “We must change the way we think about customers“When we remember that our customers are people and not “consumers” or “targets” we can better treat them like people. Brands desperately want relationships with their customers. Customers just want their toothpaste. They don’t want big data, but they might want a coupon for toothpaste. They are not thinking about us in the same way we are thinking about them. In fact, customers are getting wise to our trickery and it is having quite the opposite effect. Instead of thinking about our products, they are thinking about ways to block our product messages. They are looking for ways to hide from us. They are feeling stalked.”Trust me when I say that I understand that tracking and building shopper profiles allow us to measure our work. Measuring our work is one of the most critical challenges marketing leaders face today. Showing a return on investment keeps many awake at night. But if the data is bad and turning off our customers, it is time we look for new ways to reach customers. We need to be thinking about small data, personal data, one person’s data, not big data. We should be thinking about intentions and how we can allow our customers to share their intention with us in a way that is not creepy. People are not ones and zeroes. They are more than that, and we need to start treating them that way.”Project VRM inspired this post. If you have some time this fall, do read The Intention Economy.”
  • If ad-blockers threaten revenue, then what’s the solution? By Colin Strong in Newsline. Pull-quotage: “Just as robotics expert Masahiro Mori first suggested in the early 1970s, perhaps there is an ‘Uncanney Valley’ where automated systems get too human like and leave us feeling ‘creeped out’. If we accept this premise then there comes a point at which targeted advertising ceases to improve in effectiveness and consumers get turned off. And this is perhaps an indication that a new era of Vendor Relationship Management (VRM) may start to replace the current authority of Customer Relationship Management (CRM). This is a world in which consumers are actively managing their relationship with brands rather than being the passive recipient of advertising. The term for this shift, created by academic and commentator Doc Searls, is the Intention Economy. In the Intention Economy consumers take responsibility for holding their own data about themselves in personal clouds, collecting it from a variety of government agencies and brands – which forms a fundamentally new value exchange between brands and consumers. So consumers are placed firmly at the centre of their own personal data, being able to collect and integrate it from a multitude of different sources. Consumers may choose to provide brands with selected parts of this data when they wish to engage with them on a purchase decision.”
  • The Cost of Identity in the Personal Data Economy. By John C. Havens in Huffington Post. Writes John,’We have to rethink our institutional structures.’ John Henry Clippinger is a research scientist at the MIT Media Lab Human Dynamics Group and the cofounder and Executive Director of ID3, (the Institute for Institutional Innovation & Data Driven Design). He and his ID3 cofounder, Alex “Sandy” Pentland have created The Open Mustard Seed Project (OMS) to combat the existing model of data exchange for the Internet economy. ‘There’s a logic among companies that collect data which is, If I can get away with something, I can do it,’ notes Clippinger. ‘But they don’t understand the ecosystem they’re creating.’”OMS is building a data banking methodology through a technical architecture they call the, ‘Trustworthy Compute Framework’ (TCF). This allows users to create their own personal data cloud that reverses the current transactional nature of the ‘freemium’ Internet economy. Instead of individuals sacrificing their data in exchange for services, they create general preferences around which companies they’d like to engage with and how. Here’s how the Open Mustard Seed wiki describes the need for this new paradigm:

    Users have not had an easy or reliable means to express their preferences for how their personal data may be accessed and used, especially when one context (a bank) differs so much from another (a health care provider) and still others (family and friends). A user may not know with whom they are really transacting, nor can they readily verify that their privacy preferences are actually respected and enforced.

    “OMS lets users curate their digital personas and manage the data they collect, produce and distribute. They can also pre-determine privacy and other settings for social networks or transactions with brands. This is a critical idea regarding personal data banks — they don’t hinder transactions with companies looking to communicate with consumers. Relationships are actually enhanced via increased trust since people know what organizations will do with their data, and will be more likely to volunteer specifics about their lives in this new transparent framework. (This is an idea known as Vendor Relationship Management, or VRM, eloquently elaborated in the book, The Intention Economy: When Customers Take Charge, by Doc Searls.)

    “Clippinger is evangelistic about the timing for a solution like OMS, noting what will happen if we don’t change the tide of how our data is managed in the current Internet economy — ‘If you don’t have an open platform, you don’t have an open society.’

    BTW, John was for a long time a Senior Fellow at the Berkman Center, and brought me in as a fellow there, back in 2006.

Trends

Advertising and Marketing

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2014 ProjectVRM

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑