It seems to me the key here is to just deliver a system that provides more value to all parties. Then the rest will take care of itself.
If the system increases sales, reduces operational and sales costs, reduced legal risk data mgmt. (ask Sony) , and increases brand equity then corporations will readily embrace it. They will reduce their investment in less effective and efficient processes/methods.
If the system helps individuals/consumers protect their identity, secure better offers, reduce unwanted solicitations, receive more relevant content/ communications, reduce risk, ….and more? Then consumers will also embrace the solution.
While markets are not purely efficient ( established vendors will try and maintain status quo) , the market will respond to a system that delivers more value. Deliver results and there will be little need to proclaim and evangelize a VRM principals/ charter/philosophy to drive adoption/use.
Having built a system that does this and not experienced broad adoption my realization is that the key is not technology, or philosophy. The challenge is building broad awareness and growing the business in the face of so many chicken-egg interdependencies.
- frank
From: Venessa Miemis [mailto:
]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 4:24 PM
To: Mark Lizar
Cc:
; Doc Searls; Project VRM; Devon Loffreto; Henri Asseily; Jon Lebkowsky; Jim Bursch
Subject: [projectvrm] Re: VRM Utopia - The structure - Using Rights and Customer Independance
What i took away from that post, mark, was not only painting the picture for the customer of why they should have the right to be empowered by their data, but also painting the picture for the vendor of why it's not only the "right" thing to do, but profitable.
the story that hasn't been told is how vendors make the transition to a more viable, sustainable, and healthy relationship with customers, and how VRM fits into the big picture reformation of ethical markets.
maybe i misinterpreted, but it totally makes sense to not just explain the reason this should happen, but to also describe the process of building the bridges between here and there.
- venessa
Sent from my iPhone
On May 11, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Mark Lizar <
">
> wrote:
There is currently a great deal of talk about rights and customer strengths at the moment. A declaration of Customer Independence is great but it is the application of that independence that really matters. Its the use of the Bill of Rights that will change things.
We are all here on this list because we know that a change is needed on the bottom line. The Money Line.
The truth is, we as customers have a right to access our data. The truth is, that we don't get access (beyond our personal details) to our data taken by vendors. Vendors control aggregation of information about their customers but us customers are blocked at every turn from that advantage. This is never so apparent as Jim points out in advertising media. Even when we pay money we are systematically prevented access to anything but the deceiving over stretching, data stealing advertising industry. We are only systematically able to access 'just' the personal details of ourselves the customer. The rest comes in unusable bits.
This does not have to be the case. Legally we have the right to access our information. Legally we can wield Freedom Of Information, Data Portability, Subject Access Rights. We can wield customer power to gain beneficial access to information, what is needed is the combinations of these 'strengths', we need to open up the loyalty.
What if VRM develops a charter for VRM business. So that business can wield a charter of customer strengths, legal policies and assert independence as to directly facilitate change. A group effort. Perhaps what is needed is a group of organisations with the same sort of charter. A Union perhaps for fourth party organisations that can politically open the Loyalty of Companies for the customers.
As for the makeup of what a personal data org that is trustworthy might look like more food for thought inline below.
On 11 May 2011, at 14:43, Katherine Warman Kern wrote:
But why stop the idea there! The idea of a co-operative is very valuable, perhaps what this community needs is a combination of structures? Even more recently I have been thinking that was is really needed is a customer union, something powerful enough that access and control of shared vendor data can actually become a reality.
>> Am I missing something or is the key difference between a cooperative and a community interest company the issue of caps on dividends?
Yes I think so. In a UK CIC (community interest company) the cap on the salaries and dividends along with regulated transparency balance the financial benefits with the needs of the community as to make an inherently trustworthy company.
Interestingly, Belgium has the “corporate co-operative” concept where all companies would “own” the company as a co-operative. This is why SWIFT and SITA are/where Belgian entities. Any surplus would then either go to reserves or be distributed to the co-operative shares, shares could be distributed in proportion of the contribution of each company (a little bit like a building society where the clients are the shareholders).
Best Regards / Mark Lizar