I can get with that - so lets examine it a little further. The consumer is now responsible for their own data - problem right there as most consumers can barely update an app let alone update their data. Then comes the issue with who has access to that
data and what part thereof - again more ‘house keeping’ for the consumer.
So our dependence now shifts to the consumer always being up to date, always setting the correct permissions etc. Versus - do nothing and care less about your privacy as long as the service is free and you get what you want.
Until we validate with real empirical data which clearly shows that vendors can make ‘money’ the new way we’re destined to remain in a holding pattern. We all talk about value - our job now is to ‘Show Me the Value’.
And that is bloody hard work and fraught with all kinds of risk.
From: Jim Bursch <
">
>
Date: Thursday, December 12, 2013 at 9:10 AM
To: "Peter J. Cranstone" <
">
>, "
">
" <
">
>
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Theory of peak advertising
I think "send some data" is conceptually problematic, and gets at the fundamental problem with big data and its ilk. The minute data is sent, it starts to deteriorate,
like fruit that has fallen from a tree.
Let me run with this analogy. Lets say people are fruit trees and their data is their fruit. The best fruit stays alive on the tree.
Currently big data harvests the fruit, which eventually rots, and the trees resent that their fruit is being taken and for the most part wasted.
Advertisers are looking for specific kinds of tress that are indicated by the fruit that they bear. This is important -- advertisers are interested in the trees, not the fruit.
What advertisers need is a tool that helps them find the right trees. The fruit indicates the right trees.
MyMindshare is a tool that inventories the fruit trees and allows advertisers to find the trees with the right fruit profile, without picking the fruit, and delivering the advertisers message to the right trees.
So why should the trees enter their fruit in the inventory? Because advertisers are ready willing and able to pay to get their message to the right trees.
Jim Bursch
310-869-5340
">
@jimbursch
On 12/12/2013 7:19 AM, Peter Cranstone wrote:
" type="cite">
Totally agree - what becomes important is the signaling method. Can consumers change behaviors (if the tools are there) to signal (communicate) the right message or will they simply keep doing what they’re currently doing?
It’s almost like we need multiple intent signal profiles…
- It’s ‘Me’ (need to send some data) - just surfing but I like X, Y & Z
- It’s ‘Me’ (need to send some data) - Interested in buying X, Y & Z
- It’s ‘Me’ (need to send some data) - I want to buy X, or Y or Z if the price is right
Sending NO data is not really a viable option - sending quality data and the right amount of it to provide some value is going to be required.
From: Jim Bursch <
">
>
Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 5:06 PM
To: "
">
" <
">
>
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Theory of peak advertising
I think there is something that is being missed. Advertising is communication -- the point of advertising is to communicate a message to a potential customer, and more specifically,
to communicate the right message to the right person, which would be the person most likely to buy or otherwise act on the information.
Advertisers don't give a squat about data -- they have no interest in purchasing data. What they want is to communicate to the right person at the right time.
The promise of "big data" is that they can identify the right people at the right time, a promise that they generally fail to deliver on.
Advertisers will pay to get their message in front of the right person. The premise of MyMindshare.com is that advertisers should pay consumers directly to get in front of the right people. If advertisers are paying, that creates an incentive for the right
people to raise their hand and say "I'm the person you are looking for."
Twitter with an eBay business model.
Jim Bursch
310-869-5340
">
@jimbursch
On 12/11/2013 2:05 PM, Peter Cranstone wrote:
" type="cite">
>> With that in mind, it seems important to understand that tools are not useful unless they come with incentives to build mutually beneficial relationships.
Yep. Make it easy for the user to send his/her private data and in turn make it easy for the Vendor to read and do something with that data in real time. Remove the friction and drive up the value. Apple’s iTune store and Amazon’s web site are prime examples
of removing friction.
From: Jake Parent <
">
>
Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 2:54 PM
To: Matt Hogan <
">
>
Cc: Adrian Gropper <
">
>, Kevin Cox <
">
>, "Peter
J. Cranstone" <
">
>, Don Marti <
">
>, Marc Guldimann | Enliken <
">
>,
ProjectVRM list <
">
>
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Theory of peak advertising
People definitely understand the language of value. But to me the future of marketing is in reducing the transactional (and often antagonistic) nature of the buyer/seller relationship and replacing it with a process of mutual value creation.
In other words, an understanding between these two parties that businesses providing customers with something isn't a zero-sum game.
In fact, as a marketer, I strongly believe that a more community approach to business not only maximizes value for the customer but also for the business - it allows them to better harness customers as researchers, innovators, and sales-people.
With that in mind, it seems important to understand that tools are not useful unless they come with incentives to build mutually beneficial relationships.
Jake
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6911 - Release Date: 12/11/13
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6912 - Release Date: 12/11/13
|