(note: Pls Excuse the gigantic email. Instead of replying to everyone separately I have combined it all into one response)
Venessa - Yes, the process and the right bridges as to be able to provide individuals with the tools they can use to control and aggregate their own data, systematically, in an ultra-usable fashion in a way that really makes sense.
Right now we are becoming very dependant on the (supposedly) free data services we are becoming addicted too. The cost is the loss of the personal information power and of the self determined data use for the individual.
The VRM threads on this list are very inspiring for me (as you can tell). At the risk of coming across a bit too gregarious instead of what Katherine suggests (a controlled experimental environment) I am suggesting the opposite.
I agree, the process needs to be provided. Bridges need to be built. The bottom line needs to be changed. To me it is very clear we are at the tipping point as Iain's Mydex document suggests. The customer is now becoming aware that they dont have control over their data and that this is important for many reasons. So where are the tools to use the strengths of the customer? How are these tools going to work together?
Maybe we need to think bigger? The internet is a global environment paid for in a large part by customers data. How can we use this global environment and aggregate the customers strength and data for themselves? (independence)
Expanding The Structure
Mydex and a personal data store alone is not a proportional response to the task at hand. We need companies like Mydex to interoperate to provide structure for customer strength.
Perhaps instead of developing a commons we should brainstorm about what infrastructure is needed to proverbially fight fire with fire?
What would it take to develop interdependence? As Doc explains "Interdependence requires the independence of both parties." In this regard, does the customer not first need a point of Independence to be able to be interdependent? Are we now in danger of loosing our independence (and self determination) as customers wholesale!!
To be interdependant first one must have some sort of independance. Mydex is a bastion developing this interdependence. But Mydex alone is not enough and a data store is but a vehicle.
In line with the theme of imagining what a VRM Utopia should be: Maybe we should consider how to combine the customer strengths from across the Internet?
Lets build bridges and join together the best bits from community organisations like Mydex, creating a charter that bonds VRM companies and co-operatives from around the world into One Customer Union. But why stop there? Lets call it a super customer infrastructure and create a structure specifically to suit what we are trying to accomplish as a community (which is VRM). I think we would all agree that what we are striving for would start at the point of Vendor Relationship Management but that what we are discussing means much, much, more!
Perhaps we should put all of the customer strenghts from all over the world into one community, so that if an individual goes into any busines online or off anywhere they can produce a VRM card representing this combined strength. Lets create an effort to line up the international policy community, the international customer community, the international technical community and with it the ability to wield the combined power of these organisation as to provide some real strength to the customer. At the end of the day the lure of VRM for me is the customer mass. Its these technical tools and the magnanimous type of social backing VRM inspires which is needed to provide the customer with data independence.
Maybe the VRM Crew should lead the charge on a charter and talk to ISOC and the OECD and make the case that a business community organisation need to be fundamentally backed and supported. Customers need to be able to apply their basic strengths in a global way that is suitable for the information age environment. Should we lobby to include all these powers and protections that are dispersed across the internet? Either way - for Internet scale problems I think we need Internet scale community and solutions.
The OECD recognizes this in its recent report on the
THE EVOLVING PRIVACY LANDSCAPE: 30 YEARS AFTER THE OECD PRIVACY GUIDELINES. The OECD privacy guidelines being arguably the one most powerful document for providing customer strengths to ever be drafted (so far). Enterprise, the OECD explains, "are not always able, or willing, to tailor their service offerings to meet the specific needs of smaller jurisdictions or individuals. Individuals expect privacy protection wherever they are." (OECD, 2011)
As Frank explains:
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.
As a community we can overcome these interdependencies.
VRM inherently suggest the application of data tools to provide fundamental privacy protection. The personal data store is an infrastructure to design trust, its bigger than privacy its independence, its the ability to TRUST.
Trust is one of the dimensions of the framework
to measure the progress of societies proposed by the OECD Global Project. In
this framework, trust is considered as a key input into human well-being
because it indicates the willingness of individuals to co-operate with others.
As underlined in this paper trust has emerged as one of the best available
measures of social capital and the evidence in this paper shows that trust
displays close associations with a number of other dimensions of social
progress. (Morrone, Tortoraneli, et al, 2009:p.31) HOW GOOD IS TRUST? MEASURING TRUST AND ITS ROLE FOR THE PROGRESS OF SOCIETIES
VRM (as Doc has taken pains to explain to big corporate business) is about the customer dimensions of social progress.
ISOC (the Internet Society) has been building this technical infrastructure with global chapters for a long time(since 1992). This year they have more than 80 Chapters with over 28,000 members. ISOC also has a 30+ million budget for 2011. (
ISOC) ISOC represents the proverbial good guys and VRM should very much consider aligning with an organisation(s) such as this.
So, what might this look like?
What if we conspire to put together a workshop of the solutions we come up with asking some of the best from Harvard and Stanford etc to participate. We should be talking to the most genius people like Acquisti et al who reports that it is evident why Regulators favour notice legislation, as notification
can “transform [private] information about firm practices into publicly-known
information as well as alter practices within the firm” (Schwartz and Janger, 2007
in Romanosky,
S. Telang, R. Acquisti, 2008)
In this regard, my hat is off to Iain and Mydex for pioneering practical infrastructure and properly addressing some of the power dynamics of the customer with the UK government, making real change happen.. :-)
Critically, what I am trying to say is, Vendors need to be given notice from a more fundamental level. Customers are the ones that have to give it to them. There are alot of noticed based regulations and rules around the world that a VRM community can have at its disposal to develop for customers to use. At the end of the day its about the customer Using the Rights and the Strengths to be independent (to give notice to vendors) so that Interdependence is possible. (as Doc suggests)
So what can I do? I can do what we all can do and that is contribute to and support a bottom line that starts managing the vendor at the point of transaction.
I would like to contribute/pledge Open Loyalty to the metaporical concept of this 'Customer Union" (whatever structure it turns out to be) I would like to demonstrate that open receipts/digital copies of transactions is a primary and powerful application to facilitate Open Loyalty. What I (or any one of us, as Frank explains) is unable to do, is provide a solution and infrastructure to the scale that brings in the resources and investment needed to get a powerful message out there, on the Internet scale that is needed. This is something we all would have to team up to do. In this regard, I am only providing one suggestion as a way forward, but we all have suggestions and something to contribute to this. That is why we are here. My fundamental point is that the VRM community needs to agree a focus to get behind and we need to drive that focus until enabled customers are able to flex the muscle of what is VRM.
My suggestion is that VRM focuses on the point of transaction to open the what has been called the silo's of Vendors. So as to Open Loyalty and manage the vendor when we give them our money or data. (the only time customers have Vendors undivided attention)
But, we dont have to stop there we could use Open Loyalty to do a lot more opening. We could move on to open social reputation of vendors through open analysis of advertising practices. Or opening the privacy notices that are not really privacy notices. Or even more powerfully we could open consent so that we can withdraw it any time. (consent should be the Vendor's bank account with the customer. e.g. Open Loyalty). We could even open identity so that a customer could use their yahoo id and their 10 year Starbucks loyalty as to create identifiers that are useful to customers, customer driven, and appropriately pseudonymous. (but i digress)
I believe the best we can do as a community is help the customers to say open, open, open, by putting together all of our tools and tricks as a conglomerate.
Critically, loyalty and customer protection needs to be raised to the top of the international policy list and soon. Personally I think the stakes are about to start doubling and tripling. VRM needs to stand up and say that these customer strengths need Internet scale facilitation to make real change happen.
When it comes down to finally deciding the structure lets devise the method to incorporate companies and communities as members and aggregate all of the customer strengths. Why not create a Charter and call it a Union for the extra privacy protections? Why not be a co-operative? Why not put our data in a CIC? Why not harness the distributed might of the customers? We just need what federations need an organised single minded collective. We already have the talent and the tools. Lets fix the machine!! Lets enable the customer federation.
So I contribute the idea of being aggressive with openness and offer Open Loyalty (its IP, code, my volunteer time and deep understanding of notice and consent processes) as a rally point for a VRM Utopia. Suggesting but one method to apply in hopes it will inspire many more. Bottom line I strongly encourage VRM to act as a community. (comercially, socially, and technically)
Sincerely,
Mark Lizar
(P.S. Seems very fitting that I am sitting on Karl Marx Strauss. in Berlin as I finish editing this post to the list.)
On 12 May 2011, at 00:24, Venessa Miemis wrote:
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:
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