Re: [projectvrm] What do customers want from VRM

[Devon M T Loffreto < >]

Alan wrote:

"Here, we hit a language problem because the word 'relationship' conjures up all sorts of connotations of emotional intimacy that are just not relevant. I wish I/we could find a better word to describe what's going on."

I think the most accurate wording is "transactional engagement" ... but who wants to say that?

We extend feelings to connect the spaces between our transactions, and add personal context to the "why" we engage repetitively when the experience is positive... or "why" we break the cycle when it goes wrong.

There is a great restaurant on Long Island called Cooperage Inn... I go there regularly... my transactional engagement with them is repetitive... they feed me, I feed them. What keeps the "relationship" predictable?

Operational integrity and consistency. What goes into defining that? So many things. Where does vrm enter the process? Would CI like me to "vouch" for them in some marketing context? Perhaps. Do I want my friends to go to CI and enjoy the experience I have there? Perhaps. Is there a cost that is measurable in terms of "behavior change" on both sides of the transactional engagement that is negative if either of those outcomes ensue? Perhaps. 

Subtlety matters. Niche behavior changes can become overbearing outcomes that affect transactional engagement by root actors.

Thats life.

Aggregating effect online in a big data context has immutable value. The only way to keep the hordes at bay from distorting your personal experience and behavioral expectations is to absolutely control the integrity and meaning of your "transactional engagements". What is the context of your market activity in every niche? Do you aggregate? Do you control your sovereign origin by isolating context?

That is a strategy for each of us to make. There is a big difference between a group of mass-market customers and a group of sovereign Individuals. Structure yields results... and tendencies.

Mass market customers outgrow the carrying capacity of the Earth in terms of its ability to feed itself without the help of artificial chemical nutrients.

Sovereign Individuals create a sustainable model of input-output processing to ensure personal context control to the greatest extent possible.

These are two fundamentally different ways of existing on this planet. The most important and valuable solutions will feed each of those two realities directly. By structure, they will not concern themselves with the "alternative" viewpoint... as Facebook demonstrates so well... the compliant hordes want to be serviced... all the way down the value chain. Make it convenient, and they will come to feed at your trough. (calf-cow metaphor extended)

What is lacking is the view of the model of the sovereign Individual in the construct of how Society works; we are forced to discuss the historical context of why the mass-market has the opportunity to be serviced as compliant hordes with "freedom" and "security" in the first place, which gets old. But the force of the mass-market is overwhelming and present... and building non-vrm tools and models to capture the value within that force is alluring and seductive and has practical value.

There is very little concern given to how mass market capabilities are originated by the mass market, except to the extent that the ideas are about making sure that the mass market continues to get them. This is why governments all over the world promote entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurship education in the manner they do... the goal is never to create more independent sovereign entrepreneurs... the goal is to create more jobs. Entrepreneurs are the means to the end... they are not the value sought... what they enable for the mass market is.

So when we talk about "what do customers want from vrm"... the question is really about how you see yourself. Are you one of many, or are you an Individual? Do your interests exist as a function of your role in the mass market, or are you interested in your own sovereign concerns? What is the foundation and structure of your life, and how do you empower those around you?

I care a great deal about the mass market... I sell there on a global basis daily. But honestly, I like Steve Job's take on that relationship... I really do not care what mass-market participants think they want as Individuals... because I do not think mass-market participants are actually qualified to make that choice for themselves... which is why they are seeking creative solutions to their problems from the mass market in the first place. I will gladly sell convenience... with a nice margin.

But more important to me than the mass-market... I care about sovereign Individuals. I care about the integrity and empowerment that sovereign Individuals bring to my community. I seek ways to empower entrepreneurs, not as job creators, but as Individuals. Part of that is making sure that accountability is empowered... so that a healthy community of strong Individuals is the result. Sovereign Individual empowerment is not about greed or selfish protection and isolation... not if it is done right... it is about building forces of nature that improve the Human condition.

This species of ours is made of Individual parts... we can neither live alone and isolated, nor as a group-thinking horde successfully. Sovereign Individuals have always been necessary for the value creation process, and to the extent that our future is built to empower them, the entire mass-market will be benefited.

Devon Loffreto

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 4:07 AM, < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

To me, VRM neither starts nor ends with a 'relationship' with a particular vendor. 

It starts with empowering individuals to make better decisions, which includes choosing which vendor best fits my needs. It ends with individuals managing their lives better which involves a range of different processes and episodes which usually require the products or services of more than one vendor (which is why making the individual the point of integration of their own data is so important - because they are the point of integration).

So-called 'relationships' with organisations are just a phase in the journey. Here, we hit a language problem because the word 'relationship' conjures up all sorts of connotations of emotional intimacy that are just not relevant. I wish I/we could find a better word to describe what's going on.

Most 'relationships' between individuals and organisations are working relationships: making sure stuff gets done OK, like receiving and paying bills, accessing customer service etc. A small minority become value creating partnerships to one degree or other - a richer exchange of information to help create additional value.

VRM encompasses the range of services that help individuals do all these things.

Alan

-----Original Message-----
From: Doc Searls < " target="_blank"> >
To: Katherine Warman Kern < " target="_blank"> >
CC: Iain Henderson < " target="_blank"> >; Project VRM < " target="_blank"> >
Sent: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 3:40
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] What do customers want from VRM

On Mar 24, 2013, at 8:58 AM, Katherine Warman Kern < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Exactly.  

I love that quote too, and I think it's a perfect response to the way analytics-driven marketing likes to approach individuals in the marketplace today. But a negative response to that kind of treatment does not push all relating off the table.

Relationships are not what Consumers or Vendors want to have.

I don't think they don't want it at all, in any circumstance.

From the perspective of the individual, which is where we're coming from here, there is a wide range of possibilities in relating to vendors. Some relating will go deep, some will be momentary.

This is the hurdle VRM struggles with.  They may claim otherwise, but CRM works best when maintaining an existing customer - after a consumer has chosen to be in a relationship and as long as a they choose to remain in that relationship.

CRM tends to concern itself with the "buy cycle" and the "own cycle." Very different, though related. Iain has studied this a lot, as have some others on the list. It's also why something called "Salesforce" is the hottest thing in CRM these days. They're about selling first.

FWIW, VRM is not about adapting to CRM, or about fixing CRM. It should help to do that, but that's not where it starts.

VRM may be the better solution for the stage when a consumer is deciding to be in a relationship.  But it will only work if it overcomes the reason CRM is awkward at this stage, when consumers and vendors alike prefer an arms length encounter.

VRM is about individual-side tools and services for both independence and engagement. The engagement can be anything.

All of the ad blocking and tracking tools and services are VRM to the degree they make the individual independent. They can also evolve to make the individual more engaging, on the individual's own terms, and I'd like to see that happen as those tools and services evolve, and new ones come along.  Our legal work, for example, moves in this direction. (See the two legal chapters in The Intention Economy for more on that.)

A proven alternative is when a Consumer is in a group. The individual has the power of numbers to get what they want and the protection of anonymity. Vendors like dealing with groups, too, because it is efficient.

Vendors don't care who decides which group consumers are in.  

It is the choice of third parties to utilize a top down approach to create and select which group an individual belongs to. They say it is because it is more accurate than self-selection. But hasn't the "freedom of choice" experiment discredited the Old World belief that destiny is predetermined.

I'm a bit lost here, maybe because I'm just tired and it's late.

How do you get people to participate in the process of choosing?  Start with the innate need to discover that there are others with common interests and the inherent allure of the power of numbers. 

After all isn't that why we're here on this email list?

Yes, I don't think we're here to design tools that only work for groups. (I don't think that's what you're suggesting, but I wanted to make it clear anyway.)

There are group-ish efforts here, of course, and they're cool. The trust network stuff, for example, works at the group level, but here's the key: it starts with full agency by individuals. If we don't start there, and assume we have strength only in numbers, we'll be missing the essence of sovereign individual agency.

IMHO, anyway,

Doc

K-

Katherine Warman Kern

www.comradity.com

@comradity

On Mar 24, 2013, at 2:45 AM, Iain Henderson < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Yes, that's a wonderful quote in there......

Developing his theme, Mr. Hegarty added, "To those brands that say 'I understand you' I say 'Fuck off, you don't understand me. Mind your own business, I don't want to be understood by you. I don't understand myself sometimes… and it can be fun.'"

Iain

On 22 Mar 2013, at 19:03, Katherine Warman Kern wrote:

Food for thought.

http://adage.com/article/global-news/john-hegarty-contrarian-view-big-data/240448/?utm_source=daily_email&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=adage


Katherine Warman Kern
www.comradity.com
@comradity
203-918-2617

Iain Henderson

" target="_blank">

This email and any attachment contains information which is private and confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are not an addressee, you are not authorised to read, copy or use the e-mail or any attachment. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and then destroy it.