Re: [projectvrm] question. VRM-SCRM?

[Doc Searls < >]

Title: Re: [projectvrm] question. VRM-SCRM?

Two sources here:

Joe on user driven services:

http://blog.joeandrieu.com/2009/04/26/introducing-user-driven-services/

Me on the four party system.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/vrm/2009/04/12/vrm-and-the-four-party-system/

Doc

At 9:08 AM -0700 7/14/10, 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 <
>  
>  "
> >
>  > wrote:
> > What would be the characteristics of a
> > viable trusted third party?
> >
> > ~ Jon
> > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Dan
> > Miller <
> >  > 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 <
> > >  > 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