Re: Open Loyalty -- Re: VRM Utopia Re: [projectvrm] good Groupon Math

[Katherine Warman Kern < >]

What about a cooperative as the business model?  But instead of forming a 
purchasing co-op to leverage clout for better pricing, this is a cooperative 
leveraging the clout of the demand of many to get better stuff.  

We use revenues to pay for operating costs and share profits with members - 
like dividends- to motivate people to take the time to share thoughtful info 
and be honest and share rheir info exclusively with us.  The better info we 
generate and the better we handle it, the more value will be created at three 
links in the marketing chain:
1)Better than insights than business gets from proprietary consumer research 
(even if it is shared with competitors).
2)We get more relevant offers in response to our info and business gets more 
receptivity to their offers.
3)retail transactions are managed in our trusted ecosystem which gives 
customers the control over what info they contribute back to the co-op to 
encourage continuous improvement from business.

The implication is that there's are three differrent sources of revenue:
1) from businesses interested in the info we generate as a group (In my 
opinion the output will have more value if it is not one rfp (which will be 
hard to reach consensus on anyway) but more like a cluster map - but this is 
getting ahead of where we are now). 
2) from businesses interested in presenting responses to those our info 
predicts will be most receptive and influence others
3) from customers who want us to handle the transaction (because they trust 
our personal data ecosystem and want the option of contributing their data 
exclusively back into our data analysis to signal needs for continuous 
improvement)

I don't know if the legal definition is a non-profit or for profit.  Would be 
great to hear the pros and cons from those in the know.  The principle is 
that the customers who generate the info are rewarded for the value they 
contribute after the cost of making sense of that info is paid for.   

Thoughts?


Katherine Warman Kern
www.comradity.com
@comradity
203-918-2617

On May 10, 2011, at 7:13 AM, Doc Searls 
<
 >
 wrote:

> I think this is an idea worth developing, even though it's not at the 
> center of VRM's focus on individual tools and relationships. 
> 
> I suspect that there are a number of companies already trying to aggregate 
> demand, for what that's worth.
> 
> I'm not sure what a "customer controlled channel for groupons" would be. 
> Maybe one of you could pick a business category many care about in groups 
> (clothing? car rental? home improvement? just stabbing here...) and unpack 
> how it would work. Would, say, everybody interested in car rentals that 
> don't push insurance and prepaid gas scams get together and offer 
> themselves as a buying bloc? And if that's one scenario, what would giving 
> personal information to vendors do? What kind of personal information are 
> we talking about? And how would doing that differ from the 
> data-for-targeted-advertising approaches that are being vetted by a number 
> of companies today?
> 
> FWIW, I think Groupon is a poor example of anything other than a) itself 
> and b) the long-standing coupon business. Our family uses Groupon mostly as 
> a way to try out new restaurants. In nearly all cases we don't go back, and 
> when we ask the workers there how they like Groupon most don't like it or 
> consider it a mixed bag. Relationship is not part of the equation. 
> Discounts are pretty much the whole thing. 
> 
> I agree that whatever this is needs to be a community exercise. If it's yet 
> another company with yet another site/service, it's yet another silo. But 
> that means creating a nonprofit, or something close. Is that what's being 
> proposed here? 
> 
> Doc
> 
> On May 10, 2011, at 6:33 AM, Mark Lizar wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Ok.. 
>> 
>> To further clarify let's reiterate.  What I think we are suggesting, is 
>> that we start by further defining and drafting the scope of the 
>> solution(s) that are contributed to this thread.  
>> 
>> The solution suggested in this thread so far.  
>> 
>> Opening  up Loyalty, creating a customer controlled channel for groupons, 
>> a solution founded on shared control of transaction data in which personal 
>> information is provided to Vendor's on the customers terms.  (a task 
>> already championed by data portability effort and the ISWG) Customers can 
>> then begin to aggregate product interest, knowledge, and reputations of 
>> the company so that  those customers with a similar  demand for product 
>> features or variants can gather together to further benefit the business. 
>> 
>> We are clearly talking about a much more powerful business proposition 
>> than just coupons or groupons alone. We are talking about designing a 
>> channel in which interest can be aggregated in products, where suggestions 
>> for the improvement of products can be made in bulk.  
>> 
>> But it seems that this is the end result?
>> 
>> First, for any effort of this nature to be successful it needs to be a 
>> community exercise, discussing and defining the scope of the specific 
>> problem that we are solving and the methods at the communities disposal in 
>> which it will be solved :
>> 
>> The Scope of the solution which started this thread was: 
>> 
>>> an alternative to groupon's
>>> discounting model, what if there were a means for people who are
>>> existing customers of a category and know a lot about it leveraged
>>> the group effect to improve products and grow a market.
>> 
>> Producing a list of the categories/market of interest for the solution.  
>> In order to create a small experiment based upon such a large idea of a 
>> VRM platform.  At which point we produce a features and benefits list of 
>> the solution in a VRM document and open it to the community to dissect, 
>> edit and contribute to.  
>> 
>> Seems like the beginning of a legendary plan.  Even if it is just the 
>> first such exercise in this direction.  :-)
>> 
>> Best Regards / Mark Lizar
>> 
>> 
>> On 9 May 2011, at 20:27, Katherine Warman Kern wrote:
>> 
>>> So why don’t we do an experiment among interested participants in this 
>>> group regarding a category of common interest to prove when a group 
>>> shares info with each other, everyone wastes less time and money on 
>>> purchase “failures” and spends more enjoying the category. 
>>> 
>>> If we succeed, we will be able to tell a story that projects the scale of 
>>> the platform’s value, based on this example.
>>> 
>>> As Mark suggests we nominate categories and vote to pick the one most 
>>> people are interested in.
>>> 
>>> We keep the initial information sharing very specific so no one has to 
>>> spend a lot of time.
>>> 
>>> So the categories should probably be even more specific than gardening – 
>>> like low-impact gardening or home gardening.
>>> 
>>> As Mark suggests, we list the features and benefits we care about.
>>> 
>>> I’d add two more questions to make sure we create value for participants.
>>> 
>>> For perspective, we each reveal our history with the category – e.g., 
>>> this is my first garden ever, I grow herbs on a windowsill in my 
>>> apartment and wonder why not tomatoes, I have had an organic vegetable 
>>> garden for 20 years and there’s not a weed in it.
>>> 
>>> And to be assured we deliver valued info to each other, we ask for at 
>>> least one problem we are trying solve.
>>> 
>>> We organize the participants on these three dimensions to make it easy to 
>>> find others who can help or others one can help. 
>>> 
>>> We ask everyone to share what they learned, how they acted on it, and how 
>>> helpful it was.
>>> 
>>> Then we have a story to share with others to learn how valuable this 
>>> would be in other categories to individuals and/or businesses. 
>>> 
>>> K--
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Mark Lizar 
>>> [mailto:
 ]
>>>  
>>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:53 AM
>>> To: Satya Krishnaswamy
>>> Cc: Katherine Warman Kern; Bill Wendel; Kaliya Hamlin; Project VRM
>>> Subject: Re: VRM Utopia Re: [projectvrm] good Groupon Math
>>> 
>>> Wow, 
>>> 
>>> This is sounds interesting and potentially very powerful.  Perhaps if we 
>>> collected drafted a document of what a platform and business would be we 
>>> could post it online for some community funding and launch a community 
>>> effort where all of these amazing ideas can be championed from a 
>>> collective. 
>>> 
>>> We have so much expertise, talent, and good ideas here.  We should 
>>> practice what we are preaching and reap the benefits of our passion. 
>>> 
>>> Choosing a path that truly engages with the spirit of VRM.   Clearly, VRM 
>>> is in need of eating its own dog food.  Perhaps collectively we can 
>>> create a runway large enough to really make a platform happen?  
>>> 
>>> Personally, I am deeply engaged in the Identity Trust side of Personal 
>>> data Control, Trust and Privacy.   I would love the opportunity to 
>>> connect the international policy and privacy communities with standards 
>>> communities into a VRM group effort.  Building something with the full 
>>> weicht of the international policy and regulatory communities behind it.  
>>>  For me this is what a VRM Utopia would start to look like. 
>>> 
>>> For those who are interested I have started an Identity & Trust  think 
>>> tank Charter  at Identity Commons that explains the identity and trust 
>>> requirements and topics that are needed.   This think tanks is based 
>>> around the hope that I can aggregate and contribute  identity and trust 
>>> components that I have research for so long to efforts very much like 
>>> VRM. 
>>> 
>>> In this regard, I am open to all thoughts and any suggested avenues to 
>>> progress further. 
>>> 
>>> Sincerely / Mark Lizar
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 9 May 2011, at 16:33, Satya Krishnaswamy wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Katherine's vision is very similar to an idea I started working on last
>>> year - I had briefly discussed it with Doc and Iain when they were in
>>> Mountain View. After a while, I realized that it needed more runway than
>>> I, as a first time entrepreneur, could afford.
>>> 
>>> Interestingly, this idea pivoted into a "personal RFP" like service for
>>> consumers to interact with local businesses such as restaurants, salons
>>> etc (some folks who have seen it have called it 'Priceline for local
>>> businesses' or 'reverse Groupon').
>>> 
>>> The solution (called Glasscart) has been fully developed (including an
>>> iPhone app) and is ready for consumers and businesses to be brought on
>>> board but for various personal reasons, I am not moving ahead with it.
>>> 
>>> If anyone is interested in taking it forward, pls contact me and I would
>>> be happy to discuss more in detail.
>>> 
>>> Satya
>>> 
>>> On 5/9/11 7:30 AM, "Mark Lizar" 
>>> <
 >
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Katherine,
>>> 
>>> I think you are spot on and your comment below is something I have
>>> been thinking about for a very long time.
>>> 
>>> On 9 May 2011, at 13:58, Katherine Warman Kern wrote:
>>> 
>>> To clarify, I'm thinking about an alternative to groupon's
>>> discounting model, what if there were a means for people who are
>>> existing customers of a category and know a lot about it leveraged
>>> the group effect to improve products and grow a market.
>>> 
>>> Lately, I have been imagining what a VRM community platform might look
>>> like and in this regard I have a great idea.
>>> 
>>> What if the VRM community banded together and put together a platform
>>> that combined loyalty card program and paperless receipts upon an
>>> infrastructure of personal data control as to create a user driven
>>> channel for coupons and groupons.   A reverse or Open Loyalty system
>>> if you will.
>>> 
>>> Enabling people to independently control, benefit, gain access too and
>>> make valuable our own personal information in the context of all the
>>> vendor relationships we have.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps this is a bit of a utopian VRM vision, but I do think there is
>>> great potential in the combination of these traditional vendor tools
>>> to build the business book  that contrasts with the Facebook.
>>> 
>>> A concept beyond me to execute but a powerful VRM vision just the
>>> same.    Perhaps it is time that the VRM community started to think
>>> about a call to action and collaborative structure to really make
>>> things happen?    Such a structure would surely have my support
>>> 
>>> Best Regards / Mark
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>