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

Hi Joe

Apologies. I realised immediately afterwards that I was responding to Sean's 
comments rather than yours. My email client sometimes messes up headers and I 
was not diligent enough to spot the difference until it was too late. I 
actually thought I was responsing to 

 .
 Apologies once again. Lesson learned.

Best regards from Cologne, Graham

Gesendet mit der kostenlosen WEB.DE iPad App

Am 16.03.13 um 08:19 schrieb Joe Andrieu

> Fwiw, Graham, that was Sean's response.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Joe Andrieu
>
> 
 
>
> +1(805)705-8651
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
>
> On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:02 AM, 
> 
 
>  wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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