[projectvrm] Tracking as an issue

[Doc Searls < >]

[I changed the subject to the actual topic: tracking as an issue. I also 
pulled in some replies already threaded, sort of.]

In San Francisco a couple days ago I ran into Brandon Barnett, director of 
business innovation at Intel Labs, who also runs We The Data. Links:

http://wethedata.org/
http://wethedata.org/about/why-we-are-doing-this/

Many more there. Lots to dig and dig through.

A fun read: 

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/an-open-letter-to-targeted-online-advertisers

And all of PDE.Cc: http://pde.cc/

As VRM developers — that is, developers working on the side of individual 
human beings — we have an advocacy position. Our job, as Phil Windley put it 
so perfectly from the stage a couple days ago in San Francisco, is to "build 
the world we want." He added that we have a moral obligation to do that. That 
is, our obligation is as human beings first, and as employees second. 

Earlier Marc Davis gave a terrific talk about feudalism and the 
enlightenment. What we had with the Net and the Web as they were designed 
originally was an enlightened thing, he said. (Background: 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment>.) What we built on top of 
that, Marc said, is a feudal system. (Here's Bruce Schneier on the same 
metaphor: <http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/feudal-security/>.)

What Phil wanted to make clear was that it didn't matter what company or .org 
or government you worked for. Your moral obligation was to yourself as an 
independent and sovereign human being. And, to help with that, he invented a 
base layer for what he called "The Internet of Me and My Things" (about which 
I wrote this 
<http://customercommons.org/2013/02/18/the-internet-of-me-and-my-things/> at 
Customer Commons).

The conference was the same one that Phil, myself and Shane Green of Personal 
spoke at a year ago. The delta between the two is huge. The deep-water 
tsunami of personal sovereignty, which is today felt mostly in the form of 
generalized discomfort around unwanted personal tracking, is moving toward 
shore. You can feel it. A year ago, the audience (mostly of telco executives) 
listened politely and moved on. This time they listened and agreed, even if 
they didn't know what to do about it.

While the "big data" conversation continues apace inside the corporate space, 
the "my data" conversation is getting stronger and more coherent. 

What makes VRM different is that, while we stand on the individual's side, we 
aren't just protesting. Relationship is our middle name. We need to help 
organizations at the same time as we help ourselves. To some degree this 
means tracking ourselves and helping the trackers track in good ways are two 
sides of the same coin.

On the advertising panel at this show, one of the panelists said it would 
easily be possible for big telcos to give mobile phone customers extremely 
personalized messages, all the time, because each company has huge 
collections of highly personal data for everybody. But they don't for two 
reasons. One is regulatory restraint: they aren't allowed to. The other is 
that "it creeps people out." That they admit this is a good sign.

There are many convergences here, and we need to thread them out. Quantified 
Self + Health Care. Intentcasting + CRM. Internet of Me and My Things 
(IoMaMT) and the Internet of Things in general (IoT). (Also personal 
inventories and those of all retailers.) Personal and organizational APIs. 
The lists go on. Let's tease them apart.

Doc


On Mar 22, 2013, at 8:06 AM, Joe Andrieu 
<
 >
 wrote:

> I love this point.
> 
> People will eventually have their own tools for "maximizing utility". The 
> US is already a self-help nation in books... Someone is going to figure out 
> the psychological angle of VRM and figure out not just how to help people 
> manage vendor relationships, but how to semi-automatically help us navigate 
> our toughest life choices.
> 
> -j


On Mar 22, 2013, at 7:01 AM, "Nathan Schor" 
<
 >
 wrote:

> Since this topic is regularly discussed  here, this may be of interest:
> “Tracking helps the digital marketplace work better. It just needs to be 
> fully transparent so you can manage it 
> effectively.”http://www.evidon.com/trackermap
> 

On Mar 22, 2013, at 6:13 AM, Katherine Warman Kern 
<
 >
 wrote:

> Katherine Warman Kern
> 
> On Mar 22, 2013, at 7:49 AM, Chris Savage 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
> 
>> Been offline for a couple of days (combination of nontrivial cold plus 
>> nontrivial day job).
>> 
>> But...
>> 
>> If you are right about that, does it have any implications for what VRM 
>> can/should do?
>> 
>> Chris S.
>> 
>> On 3/19/2013 8:04 PM, Don Marti wrote:
>>> begin Chris Savage quotation of Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:02:45AM -0400:
>>> 
>>>> (3) Vendors can induce people to buy stuff via what they learn from
>>>> tracking -- maybe even more stuff than the people would buy in the
>>>> "Gold Standard" scenario -- and thus make extra money by tracking,
>>>> even though people are less happy as a result of being (in this
>>>> case) manipulated into buying crap they don't really need or want.
>>> I'd have to agree with number three.  People's
>>> budget-making selves are always pulling tricks on
>>> their stuff-craving selves to keep the unmindful
>>> purchasing down.  And sellers are taking sides with
>>> the stuff-craving self against the rest of the
>>> individual.
> peer influence is also a cost effective and less evil strategy. Isn't that 
> what Amazon is emulating when they say other people who bought x bought y?  
> (I'd bet they experimented with other alternatives which more likely to 
> trigger the creepy reaction.)
> 
> Why not pivot the purpose of third party tracking from serving Vendors to 
> serving Customers. Reveal what their peers (personally or 
> psychographically) are thinking/doing or not (some women pay a huge premium 
> to be assured they won't see someone else in the same dress). I suspect 
> this is the most efficient way to facilitate discovery and increase 
> receptivity.  It emulates natural behavior on a broader scale, making it an 
> efficient use of time and money for both customers and vendors. It may even 
> be designed to be a fun discovery process.  It is more trustworthy than 
> social media where crafty folks are gaming the system to manipulate 
> influence.  
> 
> Bottom line - it capitalizes on the number one reason people buy 
> non-essential things - affiliation. 
> 
> It is VRM on steroids number-wise.  A bevy of empowered customers who 
> choose to affiliate with each other, instead of one here and another there 
> hoping someone is listening. 
> 
>> 
>>