Re: [projectvrm] VRM as an advertising search term

[Don Marti < >]

I like the broad label too.

It worked for "agile" in software -- which can be
everything from transforming your software environment
to running the same old dysfunctional workplace,
but making the programmers stand up at meetings.

  
http://www.mattblodgett.com/2015/08/if-you-dont-buy-philosophy-dont-bother.html

There's minimal VRM, which is just like CRM except you
make the customers do the data entry, and maximal VRM,
where the customer completely determines what is to
be made.  Along with a bunch of enabling technologies
(tracking protection is the loss prevention department
in the "VRM Store")

Some of the varieties are customer controlled or
initiated, others aren't.  Some give power to third
parties such as publications and review sites.

Don

begin Doc Searls quotation of Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:57:41AM -0400:
> 
> VRM got named off-handedly in a Gillmor Gang show long ago. It wasn’t what 
> I wanted and it wasn’t ideal, but it stuck. In other words, it market 
> tested itself. CMR, customer managed relationships, was already around and 
> going nowhere. It also sounded like a typo of CRM. There were no other 
> candidates.
> 
> I think it would be a big mistake to ditch the VRM label at this point, or 
> to fork it more than it already is. 
> 
> FWIW, I was once involved in an effort to re-name ATM to something that 
> wasn’t a banking acronym (automated teller machine). It didn’t matter. 
> People called it ATM without knowing what it means. The market was tested 
> and the jury was in. Same thing with current TLAs (three letter acronyms) 
> like LTE. (Know what it stands for? Neither do most other phone users.)
> 
> The best thing any of us can do is support the term we have. Use the #VRM 
> hashtag. Wave the flag when it makes sense.
> 
> The biggest problem we have as a movement is wanting to differentiate our 
> offerings from all the other ones in a given category — to the degree that 
> there is almost no common code. 
> 
> Take intentcasting, for example. We have 22 listings under Intentcasting 
> here: <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/projectvrm/VRM_Development_Work 
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/projectvrm/VRM_Development_Work>>. Some are 
> duplicative and the thing needs weeding, but my point applies to all of 
> them: they fail to add up because they’re all too different. Wouldn’t it be 
> cool if we had some simple open code for signaling “this is an intentcast 
> by a customer” — and if all these developers used that code in their own 
> differentiated ways?
> 
> Making *that* happen would be a more leveraged effort than trying to fix 
> what works well enough with the #VRM label.
> 
> Doc
> 
> > On Aug 26, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Nathan Schor 
> > <
 >
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > As a viable alternative to VRM, what do folks think of 'Customer 
> > Initiated Commerce' which I'm starting to use, encouraged by some initial 
> > good feedback.
> > Or a close 2nd choice: 'Customer Empowered Commerce'
> > Or the semantically equivalent, but more alliterative:
> > 'Customer Controlled Commerce' or 'Customer Commenced Commerce'
> > I agree the term VRM, in its entirety as discussed on this list, clearly 
> > encompasses more than commerce.
> >  But for the subset of interest on commercializing our marketing 
> > initiative, a term centralized around 'commerce' (or its equivalent) 
> > works well right out of the mouth.
> > BTW It's my intent to start, yet again, a discussion of the pros and cons 
> > of branding ourselves with the venerable 'VRM' label, an issue discussed 
> > here many times. If I recall accurately, Doc described how the term was 
> > adopted initially, somewhat inadvertently, by his fellow authors of 
> > Cluetrain, thereby becoming the default description.
> > Since the term was born in the embryonic days of this movement, it's not 
> > surprising VRM doesn’t now cover fully the impact of the marketing 
> > initiative Cluetrain inspired. All in all, VRM served us well, at minimal 
> > as a counter-point to CRM.
> > My biggest issue with VRM as it stands now is a practical one: Not taking 
> > the most persuasive route when initiating a communication encounter (both 
> > face-to-face and written).
> > When introducing the movement to someone uninformed, the term positions 
> > me at a persuasive disadvantage because I'm forced to first correct VRM's 
> > natural semantic meaning of supplying goods/services amongst vendors, 
> > before pointing out the customer empowerment component at the heart of 
> > VRM. The upshot is missing to ignite the crucial chemistry of the initial 
> > moment.
> > Nathan Schor 305.632.1368 
> > 
 
> >  
> > <mailto:
 >
> > Brief bio: My main interest is customer-initiated commerce 
> > <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/projectvrm/Main_Page>. I also teach a 
> > class, 'Persuasion for Founders and Engineers 
> > <http://www.meetup.com/PersuasionforEngineers/about>', as well mentor 
> > startups 
> > <http://www.foundersspace.com/mentors/nathan-schor-master-of-persuasion/> 
> > in sales and marketing.
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Philip Browning 
> > [mailto:
 
> >  
> > <mailto:
 >]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 7:26 AM
> > To: 'Doc Searls' 
> > <
 >;
> >  'ProjectVRM list' 
> > <
 >
> > Subject: RE: [projectvrm] VRM as an advertising search term
> > Would suggest it's possibly an accidental misdirection and simply draws 
> > on the Gartner defn of VRM:
> > http://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/vendor-risk-management 
> > <http://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/vendor-risk-management>
> > Doc - have you ever had interactions with Gartner about the use of the 
> > acronym VRM?! Perhaps you should - as an education exercise if nothing 
> > more! ;)
> > P.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Doc Searls 
> > [mailto:
 
> >  
> > <mailto:
 >]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 26 August 2015 12:01 AM
> > To: ProjectVRM list 
> > <
 
> >  
> > <mailto:
 >>
> > Subject: [projectvrm] VRM as an advertising search term
> > Just looked up “Vendor Relationship Management” on Google, and at the top 
> > of the results is an ad for VRM (with the Wikipedia definition) by a 
> > company called Vendor Insight: <http://www.vendorinsight.com/ 
> > <http://www.vendorinsight.com/>>. It’s a B2B thing, about vendor risk 
> > management, and has zero to do with what we’re about here. But it’s 
> > interesting that they use VRM (as we define it, via Wikipedia) as bait.
> > Doc
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/>
> > Version: 2015.0.6086 / Virus Database: 4409/10508 - Release Date: 08/25/15
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 

-- 
Don Marti 
<
 >
                   
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
Are you safe from 3rd-party web tracking?  http://www.aloodo.org/test/