Re: [projectvrm] question. VRM-SCRM?

[Dan Miller < >]

I'm struggling with the concept myself.

I liked the thread that Tara started about the trials and tribulations of self-hosting.

I think that something like Hover.com from TuCows has a real chance to be trusted and viable.

In my day job, I'm working with a company called "Voice Commerce Group", which started its first "Trust Centre(TM)" in the UK. It is a highly regulated, audited repository for - in this case - voice signatures to support electronic commerce. Admittedly, it's a bit nichey, but people are voluntarily registering their voiceprints as a method to protect themselves from instances where an imposter might make a false claim of their identity. Walled garden? It doesn't have to be... Tho for reasons of privacy and practicality, you'd want to house such an element where it can't be associated with other data or meta-data about its owner. (In other words, it is only invoked when an anonymous person claims the identity that is associated with that voiceprint and then it returns a confidence indicator to determine whether that person should be accepted or not.

My point is that even "trust" is contextual. And you can build a viable, trusted 3rd party if/when the user perceives value and it simplifies his or her life in tangible ways.

-Dan

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Christopher Carfi < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

1) Viable

2) Trusted

3) Able to communicate the "why it matters" of using a T3P to regular humans.

4) Trivial to use / fits in with an existing set of activities with little/no incremental effort on the part of the customer

Ok, the first two are kind of snarky, but they are requirements. :-)

-c 

On Jul 14, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Jon Lebkowsky < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

What would be the characteristics of a viable trusted third party?

~ Jon

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Dan Miller < " target="_blank"> " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Alan:

This comment, plus Katherine's note about people taking control of what they wish to share and identifying whom they want to share with, gets to the heart of the current state of of VRM (and indirectly CRM)

We're missing a "trusted 3rd party" to host my stuff and the rules I put around its distribution/utilization.

In the mean time, several existing service providers or vendors have applied expanded their existing CRM systems (as noted above adding sentiment, location, activity streams to the Name, address, payment mechanism) to do three things:

Aggregation (of data and metadata from multiple sources)
Disambiguation (which can be simple de-duping of spew)
Assigning Relevance (applying analytic engines to figure out what's important)

That's the tension. One is under the user control... but lacks a trusted platform
The other is under the vendor's control and may or may not be the product of a trust relationship.

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Alan Patrick < " target="_blank"> " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Couldn't agree more.

If the 1990's (remember AOL, CompuServe et al) are any guide, its because there is no "Mosaic" or "Eudora" that makes DiY usage easy (cue earlier discussion re hassle of hosting your own blog).

Rgds

Alan

I say that because all of the stuff we call "social" (Facebook, Twitter,
Blippy, Foursquare, yada yada) are private commercial walled gardens,
rather than our own servers, services or data buckets. Thus it seems to
me these "socia" things are a bug, not a feature.

Doc

--
Jon Lebkowsky
+1 512.762-6547
http://weblogsky.com

twitter: http://twitter.com/jonl
facebook: http://facebook.com/jonlebkowsky
linkedin: http://linkedin.com/jonlebkowsky