We know there is real demand on the
part of advertisers for mindshare (the attention of consumers).
In this market, consumers are the supply (the sellers) and
advertisers are the demand (the buyers).
So, the question really is twofold:
1. At what price are consumers willing to satisfy the demand of
advertisers for their mindshare (attention)?
and,
2. Is that price LESS than what advertisers are currently paying
ad-supported media?
The answer to the first question is, of course, "It depends"
I believe the answer to the second question is "YES, a lot less."
And I intend to prove it with MyMindshare -- which is live and
fully functioning at MyMindshare.com (albeit without any consumers
or advertisers).
Jim Bursch
310-869-5340
">
@jimbursch
On 12/12/2013 10:25 AM, Peter Cranstone wrote:
"
type="cite">
Here’s the key part:
absolutely, it shifts
to a consumer that we are empowering by making them a
real market participant, with all the incentives that
market participation entails.
Is there REAL demand for this or not? Consumers don't buy what
you do, they buy why you do it. Right now I have no idea
whether or not there is real demand for this or not because
there’s nothing in the marketplace.
And user interfaces for this have to be just about bullet
proof (which is why I suggest a browser, simply because
everyone knows how to use it).
From: Jim Bursch <
">
>
Date: Thursday,
December 12, 2013 at 11:00 AM
To: "
">
"
<
">
>
Subject: Re:
[projectvrm] Theory of peak advertising
I like to think
that I have adequately addressed all these issues in
the development of MyMindshare (it has been many years
in dev).
Let me see if I can break down the issues you are
raising:
"most consumers can barely update an app let alone
update their data" -- This is a user interface design
problem. At MyMindshare I address it by integrating
data creation/maintenance in the operation of the
messaging system. So, the user is not presented with a
seperate, tedious task. The principle is to make it
simple, make it easy, make it part of the user's
natural path.
"who determines the ‘correctness’ of the data" -- The
user(consumer) determines the correctness of their own
data.
"verifies the identity" -- A starting principle at
MyMindshare is that we are dealing with real, honest
people, until there is an indication otherwise. Real,
honest people behave one way, and unreal or dishonest
people behave a different way, however slightly. A LOT
of dev work has gone into sensing the differences. One
of the major differences is motivation and goals. We
facilitate the motivation and goals of real honest
people while making it difficult for the others.
"dependence now shifts to the consumer" -- absolutely,
it shifts to a consumer that we are empowering by
making them a real market participant, with all the
incentives that market participation entails.
"do nothing and care less about your privacy as long
as the service is free and you get what you want" --
what we call 'learned dependence' which happens in the
absence of a true market.
"our job now is to ‘Show Me the Value’.
And that is bloody hard work and fraught with all
kinds of risk."
That is the task and duty of every entrepreneur.
Jim Bursch
310-869-5340
">
@jimbursch
On 12/12/2013 9:09 AM, Peter Cranstone wrote:
"
type="cite">
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
No
virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6913 -
Release Date: 12/12/13
No virus
found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6913 - Release Date:
12/12/13
|