VRM

You are currently browsing the archive for the VRM category.

Watch your money

From TechRepublican:

  Ron Paul’s supporters have provided a measure of radical transparency into his fundraising that would make most political operatives suffer heart failure. Going well beyond the now-passe end-of-quarter fundraising “bat,” the Paul campaign has set a public goal of $12 million raised for the quarter, posting their current total live on the homepage and including the names and hometowns of donors. If a donation comes in while you’re on the site, you’ll see it update live.
  As if this weren’t bold enough, RonPaulGraphs.com has taken it a step further. Using the live data feed that powers the graphic, the site publishes an impressive array of analytics including a minute-by-minute view of donations and projected totals for the month and quarter.

On the Q side, the TechPresident folks have just launched 10Questions.com, with help from the The New York Times Editorial Board, MSNBC and a total of 40 sponsors. Fun to see that the first video question was posted by my old pal Ruby Sinreich. :

On the answer side, here are the editors:

  Why a new online presidential forum, on top of all the others this year? Well, we believe the internet offers our democracy the chance to end the era of soundbite TV politics and start the era of community conversation. Old fashioned televised debates have their value, but TV has several inherent limits. Only a few people get to ask questions. The candidates have very little time to answer, forcing them to speak in canned sound bites. The audience has no way of providing meaningful feedback. If the candidate doesn’t answer the questions, we have no way of pushing them to do so.
  10Questions will turn all that on its head.

Meanwhile, I can’t resist pointing to the Onion News Network (ONN) video story, Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters. Hard to believe it’s not true. Maybe 10Questions can turn that around.

As Rick Segal reports, I’ve taken a board seat with PlanetEye, a Toronto-based company in the travel space. (One which, as many of you know, I practically live in.) I’m equally excited and flattered to be there, and look forward to helping the PlanetEye bring the Intention Economy to an industry that desperately needs it. If you’re interested in PlanetEye’s beta, by the way, there’s more here.

Knight Knews

I always thought that both WNEW and KNEW (radio stations in New York and San Francisco, respectively) should have been, given their call letters, news stations. Anyway, that thought came to mind again when I wrote the headline above for the news below…

It’s the last day to apply for a Knight News Grant. I put in an application yesterday for what I called Project PayChoice, which would be an effort devoted to making it easy for anybody to pay for any news at all, any time. In other words, to make the consumers of news into its customers. This would be part of at the Berkman Center, and advance on conversations we’ve already been having, toward a supplementary funding model for public radio — one that would equip listeners to much more easily and quickly pay whatever they please for whatever they like on the air or in podcasts (still supporting the station-based membership system that’s long been in place). It’s a long shot, but we’ll see how it goes.

Keith Hopper:

  …rooting the VRM opportunity in us vs. them, emotionally-driven arguments is an unlikely way to pave a path towards better relationships between customers and vendors, and I believe better relationships is ultimately the goal of VRM. The more I learn about VRM, the more I hear about the importance of benefits for both the buyer and the seller.

After which he offers four ideas that work for both sides. Much to chew on there.

Exploring annoyances

Hoovers, which I like, and of which I was once a customer, wants me to take a “free trial” but buries what the cost will be once the trial’s over. The small print: $249.99/month for professional subs (can’t wait to save that penny), $50/month for individuals. Too much, Hoov. Sorry.

From Broadband Reports:

  75-year-old Mona Shaw was angry after constant delays and broken promises derailed her Comcast Triple Play installation. Her solution? The woman took a hammer to a local payment center (via) and smashed a support rep’s keyboard, monitor and telephone. “Have I got your attention now?” asked the woman, who was arrested for disorderly conduct.

This post by Trey Tomeny got me going on A VRM Proposal over at the ProjectVRM blog. Lots of good fodder there, and kudos to Trey for getting an interesting ball rolling.

Putting patients in control of their own health care data is a Good Thing. Each of us should have the means to accumulate and store personal health care data as we move through various care systems, from routine interactions with doctors to emergency room visits to relations between ourselves and the insurance companies, hospitals, schools and other institutions that have a bureaucratic interest in our health.

I believe that many of our health care problems, including the high number of people killed each year by bad or absent data, can only be solved by a fully decentralized system, rather than by a centralized one (or ones) run by governments, businesses, or some combination of both. Unless the individual patient is the point of integration for health services, we’ll continue to have a system that consists of multiple silos, each with their own separate data stores, each raising the risks of error and ignorance, which in health care can too often mean the difference between life and death.

As it happens, this is (to me, at least) one of the holy grails of . It is the single VRM “vertical” into which the whole world fits.

Joe Andrieu, who has done some of the best thinking around on the VRM subject, points us MIcrosoft’s , a new services provides a way for individuals to manage their own (and their family’s) health care data.

As Joe pionts out, it says the right stuff…

  When it’s your job to protect your family’s health, you need every advantage. Imagine if you had a way to collect, store, and share the health information critical to your family’s well-being.
  HealthVault is the new and FREE way to do just that.
  Imagine controlling the flow of your health information. Whether you need to search the Web for the most up-to-date treatments, catalog existing health records, receive test results, or monitor current physical readings — HealthVault gives you the control you need.

Also,

 
  1. The Microsoft HealthVault record you create is controlled by you.
  2. You decide what goes into your HealthVault record.
  3. ou decide who can see and use your information on a case-by-case basis.
  4. We do not use your health information for commercial purposes unless we ask and you clearly tell us we may.

There’s a privacy policy. Far as I can tell it’s okay. For the purposes of this post at least, let’s give it the benefit of the doubt.

I just signed up for it. Turned out I had an ancient PassPort account with a password I actually remembered, but that the system declared too weak, so I had to choose a new non-memorable (strong) one. A pointer toward help doesn’t quite get you there, but I puzzled my way to something I had to write down.

Anyway, now that I’m inside the thing, I’m not sure how this is going to work for non-obsessed civilians. Which is to say, filling it with useful data takes work, a lot of it manual.

Before I do that, I’d like to ask the HealthVault folks (and the rest of ya’ll) a few questions. (Some of these are also Joe’s.)

  How can I get data out again? Specifically, is there an API that will allow me, at my discretion, to share the data with parties of my own choice? Or to move the contents of my vault to another container of my own choosing?
  What if any of my data, or data about my data, is locked out of my control? That is, what cannot be copied out or removed by me?
  Is this a system that only works with Microsoft-approved “partners” of one kind or another?
  What are the data formats being used? Are they standard and open?
  Does the system welcome the development of standard mechanisms by which my doctor and other health care providers can put data into my “vault”? (Terrible term, by the way.) For example, I would like my future diagnoses and treatments to be copied, by my permission, from my provider into the “vault”. I would also like be able to share that data, at my discretion, with other providers should the need arise. Far as I know these systems are not yet in place, or fully in place. Whether they are or not, I would like them to be built on open standards and to use open data types, rather than ones controlled by Microsoft or any other company. Or .org. Or .gov. Or whatever.
  How about transaction records? Those are valuable too.
  How about interactions between health care providers and insurance companies? I would like to be copied, automatically, on every insurance payment submission by a health care provider to my insurance company or companies.

The idea behind VRM is to enable buyers and sellers to build mutually beneficial relationships. In fact, that’s the mission statement we came up with a week ago today. I think the way to do that is with tools that make the buyer both independent of seller control, and better able to engage with sellers — in ways that work well for both parties.

The key is independence. If HealthVault is yet another system for creating dependencies that trap individuals into coercive relationships, it will fail. If it’s a system that brings a new and better way for patients to relate to health care providers — without trapping the patient inside a closed system — that would be cool.

And it will also just be a beginning. There’s a long way to go with this one. But if the paths are open, we can get there. If they lead to more silos, we’ll be wasting our time.

Answers

[I just posted an answer to questions raised by Al and Max in the comment thread under the Go from hell post. But when I hit “submit”, nothing happened. When I went back and hit “submit” again, WordPress told me I’d posted the comment already. I tried another browser. Still not there. So I copied it, expanded it, and posted it below.]

Al said,

  Also thinking about VRM as coming from the reciprocal of CRM, maybe thats the wrong approach. Maybe we should be looking for the reciprocal of advertising ? i.e. something more aggressive and direct in the same way that advertising rudely interrupts our attention, maybe we can rudely interrupt the producers attention.

That’s appealing at an emotional level, but I don’t think VRM can work if it’s a reciprocal either of advertising or of CRM as we know it today. But at least with CRM we have something that respects the ideal of relationships.We need to be able to relate to vendors. Being rude or aggressive isn’t a good place to start.

Max said,

  I agree with your spirit, but I’m struggling with the notion of “creating the tools to serve me versus them and on my terms.” I think I would like some of those tools! But I wonder if there’s a paradox. When those tools are created, and then achieve success with real scale and impact, don’t they assume high propensity to become what you’re arguing against in the first place — big companies trying to serve many, with a desire to grow bigger? Every big, evil company started as an ambition, an idea, then became a small business, then a mid-size business, then a big business. Regarding tools, what about the all-important individualist tool of voting with your wallet, or voting with your attention? Is there not an ongoing erosion of the monopolies that big companies once had on information, essentially empowering individuals to vote with their wallets and attention more effectively — at least for the subset of society which chooses to?

The tools I’m talking about here are not ones big companies can control. I’m talking about tools like the open source suite that started with Linux and Apache and now includes several hundred thousand hunks of code that approach (even if they do not technically achieve) the NEA ideal: Nobody owns it, Everybody can use it, Anybody can improve it.

There is no giant Apache company. Nor even a giant Linux company. There are large companies that take advantage of both Linux and Apache, however. IBM, Google and Amazon, for example. But they do not control those code bases.

Also, I am not arguing against “big companies trying to serve many, with a desire to grow bigger”. If they do that by serving customers respectfully and well, I don’t care. Instead I’m arguing against companies of any size continuing to relate to customers as “consumers” that can be herded into CRM-maintained silos like cattle, or assaulted with endless “messages” the vast majority of which are irrelevant, no matter how well “targeted” they are.

And yes, we do vote with our wallets, but we need to give companies more than a wallet to relate to. And we can’t depend just on sellers to give us that “more”. That’s what we have with loyalty programs, for example. They provide fancy and sometimes fun ways of relating to them (and to each other) inside their silos. Airlines are good at the former, and Amazon and Facebook are good at the latter. But we’re still just talking about silos here. The data we accumulate in those silos is too often theirs, not ours. My Netflix movie reviews cannot be shared with Yahoo’s. My shopping choices, presumably recorded by the grocery store in some database somewhere, are theirs, not mine. And, in the absence of a true relationship, the data we provide too often gets used in ways that are annoying for everybody. Loyalty cards, for example, inconvenience the buyers (one more card to carry in the wallet, one more fob for the keychain), slow down the check-out line, force the seller to provide dual pricing for countless SKUs — and then give the buyer a receipt with a discount on the back for stuff the buyer just bought.

Buyer-side tools would be independent of sellers, and would provide sellers with better clues for serving buyers than would ever come from any locked-down CRM system.

« Older entries § Newer entries »