[projectvrm] Relationship systems

[Mitch Ratcliffe < >]

Doc,

Thanks, this is exactly the kind of constructive, thoughtful response  
I expected from you. I'm glad you see it isn't a general attack, but  
a request for greater clarity.

My comments below....


On Oct 12, 2007, at 9:59 AM, dsearls wrote:

> At 11:36 AM -0700 10/11/07, Mitch Ratcliffe wrote:
> > Alan has hit upon the problem of treating the transaction as a  
> > separate discrete emanation of social behavior--economic behavior  
> > being a subset of the social--that has remained a barrier to my  
> > embracing the VRM idea. His comments clarified this for me, so  
> > please forgive this vocal reflection on what I've been reading here.
> >
> > Ideally, in the scenarios Doc has laid out along the way, the  
> > vendor only comes calling when the customer raises a flag  
> > indicating a desire unfulfilled. That would work if life were like  
> > an economics textbook's description of rational decisions made in  
> > a market with perfect information.
>
> Actually, what we propose with VRM isn't in any textbook  
> description, rational or otherwise. We're talking about conditions  
> that don't yet exist: most notably, customers equipped to express  
> their intentions to markets outside any vendor's silo.

I just don't agree with that, because while you are describing an  
environment where knowledge is increased, you are still describing an  
unrealistic form of interaction that has been blessed by economists  
for far too long in support of capitalism vs. other forms of economic  
organization. Even with the improvements you describe, this will be a  
far from perfect market, because customer has to be fully informed  
about the state of the market to make the kind of request you  
describe below and get the best result possible.

What if, for example, you don't know there is a superior Garmin GPS  
unit since there have not been user reviews of an announced by  
unreleased product, that the announced unit is faulty, or that by  
waiting another two weeks you could get a superior unit from a  
competitor or a better price. The vendor is still largely in control  
of information. As you know, publication of information is not the  
same as available information -- that's why the news selection by  
national media is different than local media, and bloggers toss the  
whole equation into a frenzy by reprioritizing information.

So, can we agree that we are talking about conditions that, even if  
they don't exist, will not approach perfect knowledge?


> > Instead, folks' attention is captured by something and they  
> > usually buy without doing any research.
>
> Are you saying that all decisions made by customers are on the  
> bases of attention that has been captured?

No, absolutely not. In fact, the ideal would be customers making a  
request for a product that doesn't exist and they'd get the product.  
Markets are constrained by supply as well as demand, so if what you  
want isn't out there, the result of the GPS query would be unsatisfying.

However, the problem is that most "transactions" that can be  
supported by the network are NOT between vendor and customer.  
Therefore, how do we design in a way that supports both VRM and  
everything else in a way that facilitates a seamless experience of  
interaction? Consider, for example, that the request for a friend who  
plays trumpet to jam with you and a GPS unit are similar in many  
ways--why segregate them?

> If so, that's one way of looking at it, but it's very vendor- 
> centric, regarding the customer as a dependent variable, rather  
> than an independent one.

Again, in any market, especially where so many information channels  
are strictly controlled -- can you tell me Apple's list prices for  
the MacBook next year? No, you can project, but you can't know. There  
are a variety of independent variables that are not factored into the  
customer-vendor nexus.

> For example, the fact that I want a particular Garmin GPS -- one  
> that's announced but not yet released -- may make me a "captive" of  
> a Garmin attention-getting system, but that's a characterization  
> that only serves Garmin's marketing arrogance, should it have any.  
> (Which they don't far as I can tell.)

I don't think desire makes you a captive. That's exactly what is  
wrong with mass media capitalism. We certainly agree that the  
customer should not be a prisoner -- we've agreed on that for years.  
I am concerned with the distinction between types of transactions and  
the definition of the user-as-customer, which will silo commercial  
behavior, when it would be far better if economic activity were an  
organic part of social life. It's the sharp distinction between work  
and life that we hear complaints about all the time, e.g. "reclaiming  
our lives" vs. "how to make your employees want to come to work" or,  
which I think becomes the case with a customer-centric environment,  
companies simply decide to let customers do most of the work.

If the latter is the case, the problem is the the lower transaction  
costs you are aiming at is merely a kind of sleight of hand that  
transfers costs to the customer. Now, if that comes to pass, you can  
still have an intermediary handle transactions to lower costs, but  
why must this be arbitrarily different than other transactions? If we  
begin to rely on certain friends with expertise on certain topics for  
help in commercial transactions, compensating them for their  
mediation, don't we need systems that account for both relationships  
simultaneously and that, in different settings, can separate them  
because we wish it to be so?

> I'd rather express my wish to buy that GPS to the marketplace, in a  
> way that does not disclose more than the information necessary for  
> that purchase (or to augment or leverage any relationships that  
> might be involved; for example, my history as an Amazon and Garmin  
> customer). As of today I can't do that. I have to go from silo to  
> silo hunting things down. Even going to the likes of an Amazon or  
> an Orbitz is still silo-visiting.

Agreed. But the question is predicated on the idea that you already  
know that is the GPS you want. That's a fault in your reasoning.  
You've created an a priori assumption that negates all the social  
interaction that can take place before, concurrent with, and after a  
transaction that, among other things, my help people learn more  
before they make the decision to want anything at all.

> Getting another silo going doesn't cut it. Equipping me with the  
> ability to relate across multiple vendors and intermediaries, on  
> *my* terms, as well as theirs, is what's needed here. That requires  
> anchoring VRM's interests on the customer side, even as we seek to  
> serve interests on both sides.

We obviously agree. I simply think you cannot expel all the other  
aspects of the customer from the equation. There are a variety of  
reasons why it would be bad to do so from a design perspective, not  
the least being that, if you don't intend to shift all the costs to  
the customer, you are creating a specialization in specifying  
commercial desires. The conversation on the list is filled with  
acronyms that we all understand as developers and marketers, but that  
customers never should need to understand, let alone know, because  
the standard for a networked contract is irrelevant to the person who  
needs verified agreement or a prescription filled. Would you ever  
contemplate specifying an interest in a consumer product that  
involves an sales agreement of a different type than you'd want when  
buying from a friend? Both are commercial transactions, but the  
latter comes in the context of a larger relationship. In short, we  
are talking about technical details while forgetting that they don't  
matter to non-technical people.

It is in part due to the exclusion of other aspects of human  
interaction that complement, enhance and intersect with the economic  
that jargon is needed to justify the label "VRM" and the many  
components that will be behind the product of the technology  
discussed here that users will not have full information about, ever.

So, do you design for customers or people when you are being "user- 
centric." If you don't address people, you're missing the mark  
(speaking generically, rather than saying this is true of you, Doc).

> > So, VRM is merely filling the gap between those that are satisfied  
> > with the information at hand and those that desire to negotiate or  
> > find a better deal.
>
> That's one way of characterizing it, but not one I'd use.

Given my analysis, is a a valid characterization? If so, then what is  
wrong with my analysis that makes it an inappropriate characterization?

> > Yet all these transactions take place in a continuum with our  
> > social behavior, which involves many roles and channels of  
> > communication that may serve as a catalyst to a transaction. Alan  
> > put it well: "The 'R' word in abstract simply skates over this  
> > elephant in the room as it it doesn't exist."
> >
> > The problem in the extant social economy of information, both  
> > online and off, is that nothing personal is out of bounds of  
> > business interests, to the degree that we (the people formerly  
> > known as the audience) are not able to define the relationship and  
> > are forced to become "the customer" before we even want to be a  
> > customer.
>
> Agreed. Good point.
>
> > The project I am currently working on focuses on what my team and  
> > I believe is essential to sustaining the difference between a  
> > social relationship and a commercial one: the control of personal  
> > information across many sites and relationships. Given that  
> > control, which is multi-directional and multi-faceted, which  
> > allows for a variety of types of relationships, we expect a lot of  
> > different forms of commercial interaction will be forged, as well  
> > as a richer variety of social relationships than the Web currently  
> > supports due to the emphasis on advertising as business model.
> >
> > We believe the same information may be used in different  
> > circumstances for different types of relationships, and extracting  
> > the maximum value from that information depends on having it  
> > confidential in the new context. So, even if it has been shared  
> > before with someone, it should not be used in a different setting  
> > to elicit a transactional response, unless the customer wants it  
> > to be used that way.
> >
> > Microsoft, or any of the other medical vendors out there working  
> > on this problem (look at Emdeon, for example), will not solve this  
> > problem by creating a medical data silo, HIPPA notwithstanding.  
> > This is because the information about our medical or psychological  
> > health, for example, may be a powerful social anchor that moors us  
> > to a community, yet never becomes "public" for commercial  
> > purposes. We need to find ways to share that information selectively.
>
> Right.
>
> > Neither will this problem be solved by building transactional  
> > silos in the midst of social fields. Both economic and social  
> > value flow over the same conduits, through the same information,  
> > so we need to focus on how and when that information may be shared  
> > as the basic unit of the problem VRM intends to solve.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> > I'm ultimately inclined to say that it is not a matter of putting  
> > the customer in charge, because that, too, defines a role that  
> > doesn't fully address the use of information in defining our  
> > relationships. No one in charge is the only answer, which is a big  
> > trick to pull off. The only way to accomplish this is to build  
> > systems that serve members first, before they become buyer or  
> > seller. It's a bigger social problem than VRM is fitted for.
>
> Three things here.
>
> First, we don't have a VRM system yet. We have progress on pieces,  
> but nothing that fills the bill. So saying what "VRM is fitted for"  
> is premature.

We're still talking about this thing, "VRM," so we have to be able to  
offer propositions about it for purposes of argument. Yes, we don't  
have a VRM system. I want more than VRM, because the isolation of  
commerce from the rest of human behavior is irrealistic and  
impractical, per the changing currencies argument I presented in my  
second posting to the list yesterday. For me, what I've read here is  
not fitted for the problems I have as a person, because I look to  
integrate as much of my life into a whole, instead of arbitrary silly  
little parts.

I want a relationship system. Not an operating system, nor a  
platform, simply a service that ties life and lives together.

> Second, I like what you're doing. It sounds like we're on parallel  
> if not converging tracks. Speaking for myself, I'd like to support  
> your work.

Great -- we'd love to have you on board. I'd be happy to talk  
anytime. At this point, though, I'm not willing to be specific  
publicly about what we will put in the market soon, precisely because  
it is, we think, fairly remarkable and we need to preserve time in  
which competitors might respond.

We fully intend to make what we build completely open to developers  
for their use, and will support standards and proposed standards, as  
well as proprietary APIs, in order to make it as universally useful  
as possible. BUT, it will take time and it is my preference to build  
on revenue, as VCs want too much for their money in many cases and,  
more importantly, do not comfortably wait for returns. Google and  
Facebook, by focusing on their customers first, before revenue,  
produced extraordinary results. We are spending our time on  
development rather than wooing funding, though I can't say I haven't  
been distracted by funding issues more than a few times.

VCs may feel free to indicate they are interested in investing and we  
can, in the best spirit of Project VRM, respond with an attractive  
offer.

Interesting thought as I wrote the last sentence of the paragraph  
before the last. I want my customers to tell me what they want, and  
several have, paying for it along the way, but I am not interested in  
building just what my customers want, because we want to deliver more  
than they expect. Given that we haven't announced anything, is that  
wrong? How is that analogous to the problem of market knowledge in  
your GPS example?

> Third, I think where we differ is in where our vectors are  
> anchored. You seem to be in the social. VRM is in the personal. The  
> distinction is a fine one, but it's still a distinction. No doubt  
> VRM has a huge social aspect -- what could be more social than a  
> relationship? But for the purpose of clarity (as well as code  
> development guidance), we are trying to approach problems of  
> relationship from the customer side.  Could be that's exactly what  
> you're also talking about, and I just read you wrong. Not sure,  
> though.

Agreed that we're talking from different vectors, though I think, if  
we draw this as a series of concentric circles, you'd be hard pressed  
to place the social within the economic. Likewise, if we draw this as  
a hierarchy, and assuming we've dealt with Maslow's lower needs, that  
the economic is more important than the social.

Finally, you hit the nail on the head with code development guidance.  
My concern is that relationships are not about one or even two sides,  
therefore the code aimed only at that problem will be reductive in a  
social context, making it inappropriate or unsuccessful.

Thanks for listening. Looking forward to expanding the discussion.

Best,

Mitch

>