Re: [projectvrm] Is VRM an Ideologically-inspired Dead-end?

Hi Joe

Thanks for your response.

I know there are a number of marketing-side people involved in VRM. And I 
know that VRM has potential to add to the marketing mix rather than to 
completely replace it.

I respect your opinion and I would defend to the very end your right to have 
it. But I do not accept your conclusion.

From what I understand the VRM Project is an open group where anyone 
interested in VRM is welcome to gather. I am interested in VRM. I think it 
has potential to add something that marketing's obsession with itself has 
lost in the last 50 years. But I also see that the VRM group is as much 
ideological as it is pragmatic. Ideology usually makes for illiberal and not 
very pragmatic solutions. So I challenge VRMers in my own way. By asking 
questions. By picking holes in received wisdom and by creating more of a, 
yes, a Hegelian Dialectic. You are free to ignore my occasional post. I don't 
take things personally.

I take your criticisms on the nose and I reject them. My experience over the 
last 25 years is that your real friends are often the ones who tell you the 
things nobody else wants to tell you, not the things you want to hear.

Best regards from Cologne, Graham

Gesendet mit der kostenlosen WEB.DE iPad App

Am 15.03.13 um 20:04 schrieb Sean Bohan

> Graham:
>
>
>
> There are plenty of people involved in VRM who have worked in Marketing,
>
> specifically from a technology, advertising or CRM perspective.  I have 17
>
> years experience in advertising, specifically digital (client side, agency
>
> side, media buying, tech, strategy, local, national, global), working with
>
> brands like Ford, GM, US Army, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Arthur Andersen,
>
> GTE, AT&T, Sony Electronics, Discover Financial, ToysRUs, etc. A lot of us
>
> are insiders working from the inside because we see something special here.
>
>
>
> We see something that is game changing and additive to customer's choice.
>
> Will it kill advertising? No. Will it kill CRM? No. Is there something in
>
> the model of VRM that a lot of us see as another way of accomplishing
>
> something that starts and is oriented and respects the customer AND the
>
> vendor? Yes.
>
>
>
> This is now the 3rd time I have seen your "I don't like VRM" line, and the
>
> second time today I have bothered to read an email from you on the list
>
> (first was on Twitter a while back). You are more than welcome to hang out,
>
> pay attention, "stick with the VRM discussion through thick and think" and
>
> we would love to have you participate in a constructive discussion, add to
>
> what we are doing and see it evolve (because it is going to happen).
>
>
>
> But I don't have to prove you wrong. I don't have to prove anything to you
>
> because you have added *nothing*. You want cred and rep and respect? You
>
> want people to listen to another "marketing consultant"? Do something, add
>
> something, bring something. If you want to drop little nitwitticisms like
>
> "don't be the 90%", implying that you are so much smarter/better than the
>
> rest of us, then I have only one other question (after hearing your answer
>
> to Iain's):
>
>
>
> Why are you here?
>
>
>
> There are 2 kinds of people in my world, those who talk shit and those who
>
> get shit done. If you want to sit there on the sidelines and do the former
>
> (while invoking the Hegelian Dialectic - that was cute), while we do the
>
> latter then be my guest. If you are going to be a troll, then I might
>
> remind you, it takes no time to set up a mail filter and send your emails
>
> into the trash folder.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Iain Henderson 
> <
 >wrote:
>
>
>
> > Graham, what's the best response rate you have ever had to one of your
>
> > many marketing campaigns; both initial response and conversion rate?
>
> >
>
> > Iain
>
> >
>
> > Sent from my iPhone
>
> >
>
> > On Mar 15, 2013, at 17:16, Graham Hill 
> > <
 >
> >  wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Hi Doc
>
> >
>
> > Thanks for responding to my post so quickly.
>
> >
>
> > Apologies to Joe for responding via his post.
>
> >
>
> > I think it is worthwhile pushing back at a number of points you made in
>
> > this and other email posts. In the interest of developing a synthesis in a
>
> > proper Hegelian Dialectic (Marketing works being essentially the thesis,
>
> > VRM is a better alternative for end-consumers being the antithesis).
>
> >
>
> > First, I would like to put a few of my cards on the table. I am not a big
>
> > fan of VRM. That is not primarily because I am a marketing consultant with
>
> > 20 years experience running marketing operations for major telcos, banks,
>
> > high-tech manufacturers and automotive manufacturers, but rather because I
>
> > think the value proposition for VRM has a massive fundamental flaw. Having
>
> > said that, I am always on the look-out for new ideas that can help my
>
> > clients make their marketing operations more effective. That is reason
>
> > enough to engage with VRM, and collaborative consumption, and co-creation,
>
> > and service-dominant logic, and a whole lot more besides.
>
> >
>
> > The naming of VRM is relatively trivial at this point in time as VRM, or
>
> > whatever you call it is clearly not ready for prime time yet. When it is
>
> > ready, main-stream marketers will help you change the name to something
>
> > that is a little more marketable and a whole lot more memetic.
>
> >
>
> > VRM has all the hallmarks of an inside-out concept developed by a small
>
> > group (even 1,000 people of which only a few % of them are actively
>
> > involved is still a small group) of marketing outsiders with an axe to
>
> > grind, rather than in response to an obvious need expressed by the
>
> > marketing or end-consumer market. The Henry Ford quote is an irrelevant 
> > old
>
> > chestnut that just illustrates how far away the inventors behind VRM are
>
> > from the innovations required by potential end-consumers. Your point is
>
> > well taken that many successful start-ups start with a great idea and then
>
> > take it to market. But the ones that usually prosper are the ones whose
>
> > products provide a better way to get an important end-consumer job done.
>
> > The ones that fail, indeed the 90% that fail, are those whose products are
>
> > irrelevant to end-consumers’ lives.
>
> >
>
> > The Apple iStores millions of apps are a great case in point. The apps
>
> > that do well are those that help end-consumers do one job really well,
>
> > whether keeping in contact with friends, finding out if their flight is on
>
> > time, or identifying the song playing in the background. App success
>
> > follows a power-law distribution; for every successful app that makes its
>
> > creator money there are thousands that lose their creators money hand over
>
> > fist. The ones that work are the ones that help end-consumers do an
>
> > important job better than the tools they currently have.
>
> >
>
> > The examples that you quote of PCs, graphical browsers and smartphones are
>
> > nice but also hardly relevant. And they miss the essential point that
>
> > winning start-ups typically focus on making life easier for end-consumers
>
> > to do things they want to do. VRM does not do this, nor from what I can 
> > see
>
> > (and I am willing to be corrected) has any substantive work been done to
>
> > look at, e.g. end-user shopping jobs-to-be-done, that would provide a 
> > clear
>
> > set of requirements as to how to help them. Instead, a group of smart
>
> > developers have taken it up themselves to develop products that the
>
> > end-consumer should like. Don’t be surprised if they don’t!
>
> >
>
> > I cannot for the life of me see why any end-consumer would be interested
>
> > in VRM in its current form. Or why any end-consumer would be bothered to
>
> > jump through all the hoops that it requires. Sure, there will always be a
>
> > few early adopters that like to try things out, however, these are often
>
> > not typically influencers. Why would an ordinary Joe, like me, bother to
>
> > send out an RFP for my weekly groceries, or my next pre-paid telephone SIM
>
> > card, or even my life insurance? There are plenty of intermediaries who
>
> > will help me do this and as all marketers know, we are creatures of habit,
>
> > unlikely to move supplier until things turn sour. And how would VRM help 
> > me
>
> > discover new product categories that I don’t even know exist? Social
>
> > curation through my peers will do that, but VRM? I don’t think so. And why
>
> > should I trust a VRM vendor (VRM Vendor Relationship Management anyone?) 
> > to
>
> > get me the best deal anyway. All I am doing is swapping one intermediary
>
> > that I know for a new one that untried and untested.
>
> >
>
> > I could potentially see why an advanced marketer would be interested in
>
> > VRM. If it helps them develop more profitable relationships with customers
>
> > that build incremental stickiness, loyalty and profitability. But 
> > marketers
>
> > have a veritable arsenal of tools at their disposal already to help them 
> > do
>
> > this: from good old promotions, through behaviourally targeted coupons, to
>
> > points-based loyalty programmes. All of these depend on the marketer
>
> > analysing the hell out of their existing customer data to identify little
>
> > groups that may be in the market for this product or that service. And it
>
> > clearly works. For a piece of frequent flyer programme strategy work that 
> > I
>
> > have been doing for an airline client I reviewed 20 econometric studies of
>
> > FFPs. A dominant airline at a hub with an FFP adds 12-18% of the average
>
> > fare paid to the ticket price through creating member lock-in and 6-14% of
>
> > the average fare paid to the price through reduced price sensitivity. With
>
> > results like these already available through tried and tested tools, why
>
> > would any FFP marketer be bothered to take a punt on VRM?
>
> >
>
> > VRM is an interesting idea. And the consumerist in side of me really wants
>
> > it to work. But currently it is just that; an idea. It’s biggest flaw is
>
> > that it doesn’t obviously help end-consumers to do anything that they 
> > would
>
> > remotely be expected to want to do. Now or in the future. Hoping that the
>
> > first few VRM apps will steer them away from marketing with its
>
> > behaviourally targeted messages, attractive promotions and addictive
>
> > loyalty schemes is pure fantasy. Sadly, hope is not a viable business 
> > model.
>
> >
>
> > I will stick with the VRM discussion through thick and thin. And if it
>
> > ever becomes even remotely viable, I will be the first to start to talk
>
> > about it to my corporate clients. But we are clearly not there yet.
>
> > Somehow, I doubt if we ever will. Show me I am wrong!
>
> >
>
> > Best regards from Cologne, Graham****
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Am 15.03.2013 um 16:46 schrieb Joe Andrieu:
>
> >
>
> > Agreed. PIDM has just as many shortcomings, if not more, than VRM. It even
>
> > costs 33% more in letterrs!
>
> >
>
> > Both names are so non-user friendly as to be practically useless in
>
> > describing the value proposition to regular folks.
>
> >
>
> > VRM worked because it created traction and I sometimes use it to direct my
>
> > discussions. If people know VRM, I can follow one path. Most do not, so I
>
> > focus on benefits and use cases.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > PIDM suffers the same "management" conundrum. Nobody wants to have to
>
> > manage anything. We just want to be able to. To me, PIDM ends up more
>
> > limiting than clarifying. Identity is simply how we correlate parties
>
> > between transactions. It's about how identifiers and identifying
>
> > characteristics can be used to build a consistent mental/data model across
>
> > contexts. It has nothing to do with the working data set that matters to
>
> > what anyone is doing at any given time. My word documents or spreadsheets
>
> > on my computer aren't my identity, but they are my data.
>
> >
>
> > The most important words in this email, for example, have nothing to do
>
> > with identity. But they are the important information context for anyone
>
> > who might want to contribute in a meaningful way. Yes, it might matter 
> > that
>
> > Doc said this or Nathan said that, or the Graham framed the initial post,
>
> > but the words used by each shape the meaning of their names at least as
>
> > much---and probably more than---their names shape the meaning of the 
> > words.
>
> >
>
> > In the US discourse on identity, this has led to a specific separation
>
> > between Identity Providers and Attribute Providers. Identity providers 
> > help
>
> > you correlate people from session to session. Attributes give you more
>
> > details about particular parties. Despite initially bundling attributes
>
> > with identity, those behind FICAM, OIX, IDESG, and NSTIC have all
>
> > acknowledged that identity and attributes are much more powerful and more
>
> > gracefully handled when separated.
>
> >
>
> > That said, identity should just work. And we should have sovereign control
>
> > over any information shared and used on our behalf.
>
> >
>
> > But I have no idea what term will gel in the public discourse for
>
> > describing the magic we're creating here. So, try another. Sooner or later
>
> > something will stick.
>
> >
>
> > -j
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013, at 08:25 AM, Nathan Schor wrote:
>
> >
>
> > +1 Doc.  To paraphrase some admiral “Damn the term. Full speed ahead”
>
> >
>
> > Nathan Schor
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Sean W. Bohan
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Mobile: 646-234-5693
>
> Email: 
> 
 
>
> Email: 
> 
 
>
> Skype: seanbohan
>
> Blog: www.seanbohan.com
>
> Twitter: @seanbohan
>
> AngelList: http://angel.co/sean-bohan
>
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/seanbohan