Re: [projectvrm] question. VRM-SCRM?

[Dan Miller < >]

Iain:

I like Joe's 10 characteristics as well. I don't wanna be a downer, but I'm having trouble mapping all 10 to a single, trusted, viable entity.

Any thoughts?

-Dan

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Iain Henderson < "> > wrote:

Hi Chris,

I'd have thought that conformance to most or all 10 of the characteristics of a user driven service (as set out in Joe's blog post here) would be a good start point for building trust, alongside the 4 you set out.

Cheers

Iain

On 14 Jul 2010, at 17:08, Christopher Carfi 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"> > 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"> > 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