Re: [projectvrm] Fourth (and other) party definitions

[Devon Loffreto < >]

I wonder if the 4th party idea extends the metaphor too far? It has instructive value, but is it constructively necessary?

I see it as a repeating formula: (1 + 1 = 3)

You + Me = Opportunity... which is how new services, inventions, artwork, music, markets and faith spreads. Its the inherent viral network model.

Inc. + Inc. = Inc + Inc + Inc + ...(no implication of Inc_type)

This looks like an asset network to me. It looks like how all substantive social groups look. It looks like new towns and old cities. It looks practical.

Whether the third party advocates for the first or the second party does not matter, because it is implied that any 1 can wear any 1 role in pursuing or serving opportunity. In other words, we each can wear every role at 1 time on the network or locally.

Perhaps the lack of specificity in branding will allow for a more liberal and free _expression_ of the meaning of any party in a transaction. Shouldn't this differentiation be where 'reputation' enters the arena? Is it not a 'reputation tendency' for any 1 to favor any 1 side of a transaction more effectively? The network will translate IDentity accountability on a per transaction basis, and have big-data at their disposal to evaluate tendencies and value. 

The key is not the definition of what party you represent, as that is a simple formula for VRM to drive. The key is building true IDentity-driven opportunity. IDentity structure must drive this. Virtually every IDentity system currently structures IDentity tunnels... as data spaces where you go to get/create your outsourced IDentity. Depending on the implied value of this IDentity, there are more or less steps involved in the process. Very few of the one's driving social networks on the Internet have an ounce of credibility structure. 100% implied IDentity. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google, OpenID, ETC. And yet we are allowing this implied value to drive the valuation of these networks in lieu of establishing actual IDentity-driven structures. Thats not going to work. There is no 'long-term' to that plan. Those networks are all transient and temporary.

If you can map in your mind a morphing cloud composed of triangle-node-structures representing these 1+1=3 network transactions, and see somehow a permanent ID-structure ebbing and flowing within the cloud as mood/need/event/fad/moment/opportunity dictates demand digitally and locally simultaneously... then is this not the structure of VRM in motion? A free market with each node acting in its own best interests simultaneously with the benefits of the network-mass best interests? Win-Win-Win. (1+1=3) with infinite digital memory and extensibility.

 

The 4th party idea is useful in breaking the interests of the market up into discernible parts, but it confuses the dev structure within a network model that empowers users with the same operational Rights and empowerments as service providers. In this model, we are all data-equal by default. Our choices and activities will set us apart. What maintains the integrity of the network is the predictability of the opportunity structure implied within its design. A VRM market is a data-neutral market, since there is mutual-leverage within each structured relationship. 

My thoughts...

Devon

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Doc Searls < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Good post. Insightful as usual.

I just posted on the VRM blog:

<http://bit.ly/dR2tHl>

Lots more to talk about on this, I'm sure.

Now I really do have to make a late dinner.  :-)

Rock on,

Doc

On Apr 13, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Joe Andrieu wrote:

> Doc,
>
> Curiously enough this came up in conversation with Drummond at the Personal Data Deep Dive last week. Unfortunately, I can't agree with you on this one. I blogged about it here:
>
> http://blog.joeandrieu.com/2011/04/13/fourth-parties-are-agents-third-parties-arent-necessarily/
>
> The key distinction:
>
> Fourth Parties answer to the 1st party.
>
> 3rd Parties may not answer to anyone.
>
> And, IMO, this is particularly vital to VRM as a platform, because platforms enable 3rd parties. Let's avoid painting our rose colored glasses so that we unfairly dismiss the 3rd parties we'll need to make this work.  At the end of the day, the distinction between 3rd and 4th is going to be in the eye of the beholder. For every 4th party trying to "help" individuals, there will be someone who sees them as a leach sucking value however they can.
>
> Perhaps more important, this alignment of 3rd parties with "them" reinforces an "us" verses "them" mentality that isn't going to end well. VRM is about creating mutual benefit, not storming the bastille.
>
> -j
>
> Joe Andrieu
>
> " target="_blank">
>
> +1 (805) 705-8651
>
>
> On 4/13/2011 9:45 AM, Doc Searls wrote:
>> Some questions have come up lately about the term "fourth party," which was dealt with at length in this post here:
>>
>>
>> <http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/vrm/2009/04/12/vrm-and-the-four-party-system/>
>>
>>
>> Especially in respect to the other three parties.
>>
>> Like, is the customer always the first party and the vendor the second party?
>>
>> Well, no. So, some clarification.
>>
>> First and second parties are like the first and second person voices in speech. The person speaking is the first person, and uses the first person voice (I, me, mine, myself). The person being addressed is the second person, and is addressed in the second person voice (you, your, yourself).
>>
>> If the first person is a customer, he or she uses the first person voices when talking to a company. Thus to a customer the first party is themselves, and the second party is the company. When companies speak to customers, they are the first party and customers are the second parties.
>>
>> As I said in that piece, neither "first party" nor "second party" are commonly used terms, except in legal settings. Instead in business the most common numbered party is the third one. The term "third party" usually refers to another company allied with the primary one involved in a relationship or a transaction. PayPal, for example, serves as a third party to a transaction. A case for your iPhone is a third party item. Closer to home for VRM is third parties to websites, which assist in personalizing advertising. See the description used in this Wall Street Journal article:
>>
>>
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395073512989404.html
>>
>>
>> To sum it up, third parties mostly assist vendors. That is, they show up as helpers to vendors.
>>
>> So what kind of parties would mostly assist customers? We thought this required a new category, and "fourth party" seemed to make the most sense.
>>
>> When I say "a fourth party is a third party for customers," people usually get what that means. What they want next are examples. Buyers agents in real estate are good examples. Bill Wendell has done a great job carrying that flag. See his Real Estate Cafe blog for more:
>> http://realestatecafe.squarespace.com/ Lending Tree <http://www.lendingtree.com/>
>>  has been raised as an example as well.
>>
>> And a number of companies on this list are also positioning themselves as fourth parties.
>>
>> If VRM succeeds, the category will be huge.
>>
>> The problem we'll face, however, is making sure that VRM-positioned fourth parties don't become third parties for vendors in the process of doing whatever it is they do. This should be a good topic for discussion at IIW.
>>
>> Anyway, hope that helps.
>>
>> Doc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>