Page 36 of 40

It isn’t just how far. It’s how.

VRM is a horizontal idea — making the customer into a platform for business — that will support progress in many different vertical areas: retailing, health care, travel, governance, music, public media… and that’s just part of the short list we’ve been talking about over the past few months.

Every so often we get a progress report. Such is the case with 1000 Miles To Go For The Enterprise And True Customer Relationships, by Chris Carfi. A sample: Perhaps the easiest thing to point out is that it’s still 100% focused on the sales team, and implicitly views the customer as the enemy, or at least simply the next transaction.

We can’t fix CRM from the inside. What we need is to fix customers, by giving them tools that make them more than slaves that companies “acquire”, “capture”, “retain” and otherwise “own”. And more than “resources” as well. As it says here, our reach needs to exceed their grasp. That’s the challenge. To meet it we need inventions that mother the necessity.

We don’t have those yet. But we’re working on them.

VRM in the Financial Times

Making customers more revealing is a fresh piece in today’s Financial Times. It was written by Alan Mitchell, who has been an advocate of VRM since long before it acquired that acronym. An excerpt: “As individuals increasingly use digital data to organise and manage their lives, they will demand software tools and services to help them gather, store, protect, analyse and use this data efficiently.”

There’s more there. Read on.

Meanwhile, here’s a bonus link on S-curves and’better buyers’.

Building the Intention Economy

VRM is part of the Intention Economy I first wrote about here. The gist:

The Intention Economy grows around buyers, not sellers. It leverages the simple fact that buyers are the first source of money, and that they come ready-made. You don’t need advertising to make them.

The Intention Economy is about markets, not marketing. You don’t need marketing to make Intention Markets.

The Intention Economy is built around truly open markets, not a collection of silos. In The Intention Economy, customers don’t have to fly from silo to silo, like a bees from flower to flower, collecting deal info (and unavoidable hype) like so much pollen. In The Intention Economy, the buyer notifies the market of the intent to buy, and sellers compete for the buyer’s purchase. Simple as that.

The Intention Economy is built around more than transactions. Conversations matter. So do relationships. So do reputation, authority and respect. Those virtues, however, are earned by sellers (as well as buyers) and not just “branded” by sellers on the minds of buyers like the symbols of ranchers burned on the hides of cattle.

The Intention Economy is about buyers finding sellers, not sellers finding (or “capturing”) buyers.

So here’s SpringWise, telling us about , and its new service . Not sure it’s a breed of VRM, but since it’s in the same Intention marketplace, I thought it was worth a mention.

VRM catch-up

I just added VRM Hub Blog to the ‘roll on the right. Lots going on there, as in the Hub itself. Of special note are Ownership of data, privacy policies and other VRM creatures and Whose data is it anyway? In those Adriana unpacks some of what she’s slso been posting to the ProjectVRM list. Adriana also posts her own notes from the latest meeting.

Jay Deragon asks, Does Disequilibrium Precede Disruption?

In Venn and the Art of Data Sharing, Eve Maler presents this useful graphic:

She explains,

VRM partly involves what could be called restriction of data flow — undoing vendors’ grip on users’ info in a way that’s familiar to proponents of privacy-enhanced and user-controlled IdM. But other VRM scenarios involve enhancement of individuals’ opportunities to share personal information, for example by issuing a personal RFP to potential vendors. As Doc Searls has said, VRM is “personal first and social second”, so it seems to have a closer kinship with digital identity but could provide new social opportunities as well.

Eve does a good job describing how VRM can get social while not subordinating to social networking, its scenarios or its technologies. The same goes for VRM and identity. This last point is especially significant in respect to a pair of upcoming identity events: next week’s Digital ID World (DIDW), and the Internet Identity Workshop () coming up on November 10-12 (and about which Phil Windley says more here). VRM can contribute to identity conversation and tech development — and even be part of that work — without being a subset of that work. I’ll be talking more about this in my keynote at DIDW this coming week.

By the way, mark your calendars for the next VRM Workshop (VRM2008b), scheduled for the day after IIW in the Bay Area. The location is not yet determined. (If you have any good ideas, suggest them.)

The buyer’s envelope, please

Sitting here talking with Tara about her new VRM business. Lots of helpful ideas bouncing around. So we’re both pausing in the midst to write stuff down. Here’s my brain dump of the moment, with some actionable ideas toward the end…

For retailing, the Net changes everything. But it’s still new. It’s three seconds after the Big Bang and all we have are a few light elements, a lot of heat and no galaxies. Yet $billions are already being made in online retailing, and$billions more are being spent and saved by retailers and shoppers using the Net to advantage. And because of those $billions, and the successes of companies like Amazon and Zappos, and services like Google Checkout and Orbitz, we’re inclined to think this stuff is mature. It isn’t. It’s still embryonic and protean, compared to what it will become.

In the meantime, consider this thesis: Amazon and other excellent online retailers have improved the online shopping experience as far as a retailer can. Yes, there is always room for improvement, but there is only so much improvement you can carry out only on the sell side, even if you’re equipping buyers to do a better and better job. At a certain point the improvements need to happen on the buy side. You need better buyers, not just better sellers. You need to improve the tools available to buyers — tools that help buyers with all sellers, and not just within each seller’s walled garden or silo.

Therefore… At a certain point the problem is no longer scale but scope.

Amazon and its competitors are pushing out the envelope of sell-side scope. On the buy side we’re just getting started. The envelope is still mostly empty. The job of VRM is to start pushing out its walls, starting at close to zero.

Another way of putting it. There is only so much any retailer can do, because they are sellers and not buyers.

Still another: It doesn’t matter how big you make a walled garden if it’s still a walled garden. At a certain point you reach the Multiple Walled Garden Problem. (Shall we call it MWGP? Or SO for Silo Overload?)

If you’re carrying a pile of retailer loyalty cards, you have a silo overload problem. It may not be a huge one for you, but it’s still a problem. It’s friction, and not just for you. Loyalty cards can be a PITA for the seller as well. They require multiple pricings, slow things down at the cash register, and involve piles of often wrong and irrelevant data. But I don’t want to go into how good or bad loyalty cards are here, because they’re beside a larger point: that we need to start solving market problems from customer’s side, by improving the scope of what the customer can do in the same way with multiple vendors.

For example, take affiliate programs, or affliliate marketing. Tara has been schooling me about these things, which are a huge part of how online retailing works. Hell, I didn’t even know that when I clicked on an a Head Butler link such as this one, Jesse Kornbluth gets a kickback (or at least puts himself in a position for one) from Amazon.com. He’s not just pointing to a book. He’s part of a new retail system in which commissions or kickbacks (or whatever you want to call them) are silo’d. Amazon has one kind and other retialers have other kinds. Some have none. Whether he means to or not, Jesse discriminates against those, and does so for financial reasons.

From the sellers’ side this is all fine in the sense that it’s a free (and fee, I suppose) marketplace. Every retailer is at liberty to compete by providing the best kickback system.

But what if the customer wants, say, purchasing guidance that’s uncontaminated by bias toward one kickback system over another? What if the intermediary guides the customer to a seller that doesn’t have a kickback program, and the intermediary gets nothing from the sale while the seller gets everything? Wouldn’t it be better to have the buyer (or the intermediary, on behalf of their buyers, and for the good of the marketplace) assert a single form of commissioning that’s fair and helpful to all sellers and all intermediaries — even while respecting the kickback (or commissioning) systems that are already in place?

This is a greenfield here. Let’s think and talk about it.

Also, let’s think about what kind of research project this might make — or that the theses presented here might make — for a business school student or class (at HBS or elsewhere). Because that’s one of the things I’d like to do in the next school year, which is just getting started.

Looking back on a forward-moving workshop

I’m up the coast at a nice old-fashioned hotel in Portland, Maine, with my first opportunity to follow up on an outstanding first-ever VRM Workshop. Lots of progress was made on many efforts. Lots of topics came up that surprised and encourged me. VRM and information portablility inside health care, for example.

Here are the pix I shot. Those of you with Flickr notation privileges, please feel free to label people, sessions and so on.

Chris Carfi has some extensive coverage of the worshop here and (especially) here.

So does Mark Scrimshire. In this post he adds, “I believe that The Student-Faculty-Institution inter-relationships could make a great field test for VRM. Harvard would be a great place to test out some of the theories”. Great suggestion. Mark also blogged on VRM and the Medical Home concept.

Sean Bohan streamed much video during the workshop (Alston Bolen was watching), and also pointed to the stream of tweets. I hope some of the recordings show up soon.

Here’s VRM’s own tweetpile.

JP Rangaswami couldn’t make the workshop, but blogged wisely on VRM and related topics while participating vicariously.

Tom Guariello shot a video of my opening talk on Day 2. David Cushman watched it, and advised mobile operators to “sit down first”. (Speaking of mobile operators, here’s my talk about VRM at Mobile Monday in Amsterdam last month.) The Head Lemur calls it “the latest attempt by Doc Searls to bitchslap companies into realizing what Peer to Peer means”. I like the Lemur’s opening graf:

A lot of companies never got the memo that the Internet is a Peer to Peer medium, meaning that anybody with a keyboard, internet access, and a bad attitude has just as much power as a multi million dollar, multi national organization out here. Our cost to publish is less than a round of Golf, and is a hell of a lot faster. Even News organizations haven’t figured out that the 24 hour news cycle has been replaced by the 24 second news cycle.

 InContext approves of the workshop

Blogging from the workshop, Joe Andrieu observes that the social graph is plural.

Gerald Beuchelt says the workshop “helped me quite a bit to sort out how Identity Management and VRM intersect, but also differ in some respect”.

That’s all I have time to blog before showering in our hotel before heading back on the road, as the family goes to a gathering for the next few days here in Maine. More later.

Once again, great job, everybody!

Because principles are good to have.

I’m vetting ten VRM principles here: all grist for next week’s VRM Workshop mill. We’ll be changing these as the workshop approaches, I’m sure.

Note that these apply to management of relations with vendors by customers: the narrowest scope of VRM. The larger topic of relationship managmement (RM) is part of the discussion as well. Obviously there are other relationships — with chuches, clubs, civic organizations, government bodies and so on — where VRM tools apply, but the individual is not a customer. Do we want to broaden things by saying “individual” and “organization” rather than “customer” and “vendor”? I think we’re better off with the former than the latter, but I’m open.

  1. VRM provides tools for customers to manage relationships with vendors. These tools are personal. They can also be social, but they are personal first.
  2. VRM tools are are customer tools. They are driven by the customer, and not under vendor control. Nor to they work only inside any one vendor’s exclusive relationship environment.
  3. VRM tools relate. This means they engage vendors’ systems (e.g. CRM) in ways that work for both sides.
  4. VRM tools support transaction and conversation as well as relationship.
  5. With VRM, customers are the central “points of integration” for their own data.
  6. With VRM, customers control their own data. They control the data they share, and the terms on which that data is shared.
  7. With VRM, customers can assert many things. Among these are requests for products or services, preferences, memberships, transaction histories and terms of service.
  8. There is no limit on the variety of data and data types customers can hold — and choose to share with vendors and others on grounds that the customer controls.
  9. VRM turns the customer, and productive customer-vendor relationships, into platforms for many kinds of businesses.
  10. VRM is based on open standards, open APIs and open code. This will support a rising tide of activity that will lift an infinite variety of business boats, and other social goods.

VRM linkage and thinkage

Adriana Lukas posts insightfully about how we are Reaching the limits of silos, not networks, which she wrote  in response to Noah Brier‘s Metcalfe’s Plateau, to which I also responded with Pulling the scales from our whys. It was fun to find Bob Metcalfe himself (inventor of Ethernet and a fun guy) amongst the commenters, pointing to Metcalfe’s Law recurses down the long tail of social networks, preciently penned two years ago.

Joe Andrieu does some deep VRM diving with More on Level 4 Platforms. On what it means to be open, he writes, “If a single entity or group owns the platform, it isn’t open. If there are barriers preventing users from accessing or developing on the platform, it isn’t open. If you can’t, with reasonable effort, improve the platform itself, it isn’t open.” [Later…] Joe has a good follow up post on user-driven search.

In Predictions: What Technology will Replace, Jeremiah Owyang includes this:

“Outside” Sales teams could be replaced by Vendor Relationship Management (VRM) s where customers define what they want, companies respond.

Bart Stevens points to this excellent piece by John Hagel on the advertising bubble.

Eve Maler says relationships are complicated, and includes good links to follow in the midst.

Ben Laurie says “the next generation of identity management systems and will only flourish if people can freely experiment with it”. VRM needs that.

In e-sourcing place, Alan Buxton posts Have you heard about Vendor Relationship Management? Among other things he says,

The concept is intriguing, but it looks like the project/movement is made up purely of marketers and internet mavens. And looks like the people involved in the project are trying to reinvent from scratch something that corporations have been struggling with for years. There don’t seem to be any people with real experience of being professional vendor managers. If anything the opposite is the case.

I appreciate Alan’s interest, but I also thought that was an erroneous claim, and said so (among other things) in my comment below the post. (It’s #3. Can’t find a direct link.)

In How Do Customers Communicate?, Jay Deragon begins, “The voice of the customer is getting louder, more effective and targeted”, and cites a white paper (that’s behind a highly annoying and bad-CRMmy registration wall, so I won’t link to it) that says, “Customers now have the resources to communicate and interact how they want, when they want, from wherever they want—creating a cultural shift to an always-on, always-connected society.”

Stephen Lewis says “in the end, keeping your business under your hat gets you nowhere”. Unless you’re a criminal like Meyer Lansky, one subject of Steve’s post, and a criminal whose business was by necessity hat-contained. One of my own favorite lines, however, comes from Hyman Roth, the character based on Lansky who was one of Michael Corleone’s unfortunate victims in The Godfather, Part 2. “Hyman Roth always makes money for his partners”, Roth said. He was played by the great actor and teacher Lee Strassberg, nailing an accent that is so perfect for its time and place that it still gives me chills to think about it. (My father had that accent, as did Frank Sinatra and many of the older characters (pronounced “carac-tas”) in The Wizard of Oz.

Anyway, VRM is about customers making partners of companies, and making money for those partners. Among other things.

VRM blog log

More catching up here, now from my comfortable chair and my very own desk with the big screen and the open windows and the cool Pacific air wafting up our hill overlooking Santa Barbara… man, I do like this place. Anyway, here goes…

First, a great line (in this case a tweet) from David Wienberger: “As I’m standing outside the Pearly Gates, I hope that G-d doesn’t tell me, ‘Your soul is very important to me.'”

Next, Craig Leonard’s Vendor Relationship Management and it’s Impact on What We Do.

Then, Netweaver’s It’s all about the relationship.

Then, Chris Heuer’s It’s about conversation, not marketing.

Then, David Tebbut asks Who controls your information?

And, spurred by my health issues, John Cass writes Doc is sick, let’s talk about VRM while Mark Scrimshire writes The Doc is right.

Also, Graham Saad’s Organisations should embrace VRM with open arms.

There are more, but I need to run. Wanted to get these up while they were in front of me.

Link wrangling

I’ve been in a health tunnel, but there’s light at the end of it now, so I’m getting down to taking public notes on recent VRM postings. Here goes.

It’s not a VRM post, but I like Kevin Marks’ How to be viral.

In Traditional CRM, CRM 2.0, VRM — Who Gives a !*@#?, Paul Greenberg actually has positive and important things to say about VRM, its inevitable dialog with CRM, and the challenge of something he calls The Scenario.

My6Sense is a start-up that I’m gathering from mumblings may be in the greater VRM space.

Echovar sees us entering a decade it embarrasses me to name. Insightful stuff.

Chris Heuer’s Toward a More Social Organization touches on VRM

Diane Mermigas urges marketers to revisit Cluetrain, and mentions VRM. Good take on the ‘train, too.

In The Shaping of Things to Come, JP Rangaswami sees some VRM stuff going on with Amazon.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2023 ProjectVRM

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑