Re: [projectvrm] Disruption and consumer power

[Doc Searls < >]

On Jun 22, 2014, at 5:44 AM, Don Marti 
<
 >
 wrote:

> Mary, yes, hopefully we'll end up with something
> closer to the civility level of search engines vs. SEO
> than the level of virus vs. antivirus or spam vs.
> antispam.
> 
> We'll probably end up with legit companies and
> competent people on both the surveillance marketing
> side and the privacy side.
> 
> Don

... And we'll get those on the privacy side when demand drives supply at 
least as well as supply thinks it's driving demand. 

Here's how I put it in The Intention Economy:

> ... rather than guessing what might get the attention of consumers—or what 
> might “drive” them like cattle—vendors will respond to actual intentions of 
> customers. Once customers’ expressions of intent become abundant and clear, 
> the range of economic interplay between supply and demand will widen, and 
> its sum will increase. The result we will call the Intention Economy.
>  
> This new economy will outperform the Attention Economy that has shaped 
> marketing and sales since the dawn of advertising. Customer intentions, 
> well-expressed and understood, will improve marketing and sales, because 
> both will work with better information, and both will be spared the cost 
> and effort wasted on guesses about what customers might want, and flooding 
> media with messages that miss their marks. Advertising will also improve.
>  
> The volume, variety and relevance of information coming from customers in 
> the Intention Economy will strip the gears of systems built for controlling 
> customer behavior, or for limiting customer input. The quality of that 
> information will also obsolete or re-purpose the guesswork mills of 
> marketing, fed by crumb-trails of data shed by customers’ mobile gear and 
> Web browsers. “Mining” of customer data will still be useful to vendors, 
> though less so than intention-based data provided directly by customers.


I think there are two reasons why the Scobles of the world are yakking 
against privacy advocacy. One is that they feel threatened. The other is that 
what they feel threatened by is more talk than action — at least on the 
surface. In fact there is action going on.

The most popular VRM tools so far are ad/tracking blockers and on-demand 
services like Uber. These together are a baby elephant in the room of 
direct-response advertising-driven Business As Usual. (I use that qualifier 
because brand advertising — the kind that addresses populations but doesn't 
get personal — doesn't threaten privacy.) The big noise the baby elephant 
makes today is mostly about privacy and rudeness. This is necessary and 
important noise, and it's what's driving policy all over the place.

More quietly, however, development is also happening. While some is toward 
protection and concealment, some is also toward better expression of demand 
and better communication between demand and supply — and not just toward 
demand for new stuff. In other words, it's on the "own cycle" and not just 
the "buy cycle."

Some of the development in the own cycle is happening with co-creation of CX 
and CRX — customer relationship experience. There will be much more.

I'm curious to see how personal cloud development work exposed through the 
Respect Network launch over the next few weeks will change the overall 
conversation.

Doc

> begin Mary Hodder quotation of Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 04:34:21PM -0700:
>> 
>> Don,
>> 
>> I get what you are saying below.. about the see-saw quasi-balance between 
>> two sides (spammers vs. email anti-spammers)..
>> 
>> My point below that you quoted.. is more about the arguing, or "hating" as 
>> the Scoble post and follow-on comments discussed (his supporters said
>> that the privacy people where hating on Scoble -- but Scoble was kind of 
>> hating on the privacy advocates he perceives as extreme)..
>> 
>> For me the spam / anti-spam war or the surveillance vs. total privacy both 
>> function at the extremes.. even if they settle into something that appears 
>> balanced
>> but where the sides exist at the extremes.
>> 
>> Living at the extremes, talking from the extremes is not a helpful 
>> conversation, even if it makes people feel good to hate on something they 
>> don't like
>> or can't have empathy toward people that are different from themselves. 
>> 
>> And my point was that there is a middle, a conversational middle where 
>> it's not about extremes only where they tend to devolve into fights, 
>> trolling, hating, etc.
>> 
>> One of the challenges I see for Project VRM is how to have a more middle 
>> discussion, between parties that don't necessarily agree but who aren't 
>> at or pushed to extremes.. to come up with something rational and balanced 
>> that allows individuals to be respected parties in digital interaction.
>> 
>> mary
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 21, 2014, at 11:22 AM, Don Marti wrote:
>> 
>>> begin Mary Hodder quotation of Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 03:02:51PM -0700:
>>> 
>>>> Again.. it's a balance. We can still love our technology.. but 
>>>> critically assess what is going on and deal with it accordingly.
>>> 
>>> We worry about technology imbalance the most.
>>> 
>>> Spammers used to have better technology than
>>> end users (Canter and Siegel used a Perl script...
>>> http://www.wired.com/2010/04/0412canter-siegel-usenet-spam/
>>> ).  People worried about spam.  Then companies
>>> chose sides and it all settled down to an
>>> electricity-wasting spam vs. antispam background
>>> struggle.
>>> 
>>> Today, surveillance marketing is ahead technically.
>>> The worst part of the problem is that the business
>>> has not yet consolidated, and everyone thinks that
>>> his or her company can get a piece of it. 
>>> 
>>> (Will be interesting to watch IT vendors switch
>>> sides as their Big Data Rush claims fail to pan out.
>>> If you think today's FUD is bad, get ready for ads
>>> that appeal to the hard-wired UNSEEN ENEMY IS WATCHING
>>> YOU circuit in our monkey brains...)
>>> 
>>> Bonus link:
>>> Why A San Francisco Coffee Shop Stopped Tracking
>>> Customers' Phones
>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/20/why-a-san-francisco-coffee-shop-stopped-tracking-customers-phones/
>>> 
>>> (there is also a Kashmir Hill RSS feed...
>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/feed/
>>> )
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Don Marti                    
>>> http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
>>> 
 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Don Marti                    
> http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
>