Author: Doc Searls (page 39 of 40)

A VRM Proposal

At ReplaceGoogle.com, Trey Tomeny outlines a very interesting approach to challenges such as personal health care data control (discussed over here). It’s a “private identity network” or PIN. Here’s what it does:

1. Provision our identity across the Internet so we don’t have to remember and enter countless user names, passwords, and captchas.
2. Filter our data both downstream and upstream so our surfing experience is less interrupted by undesirable intrusions.
3. Provide us with absolute anonymity at those sites that allow it
4. Provide us with convenient, repeatable pseudonymity at the sites that allow that
5. Certify our identity off line as enabled by off line partners
6. Provide single sign on to any device, anywhere
7. Provision our identity to access non-PC machines like locks and ticket acceptors
8. Provide a secure repository for our lifetime of data, while allowing limited access for limited purposes by parties we authorize
9. Provide a trusted way to manage intellectual property so creators and users are protected
10. Do all these things at no cost to the user.

I like where he’s going here, a lot; and I think it makes great fodder for discussion, as well as a challenge for developers. I hope Trey can make the next Internet Identity Workshop (IIW) in December, where folks doing good work on Identity already can bat it around, have fun with it, and maybe take it somewhere.

I also think it has the makings of a VRM system.  I only have two concerns, both minor.

One is that Trey positions the idea as a “replacement” for Google as “the dominant force” on the Net. I think this characterizes both the Net and Google too simplistically. That Google dominates search and advertising as both now stand is a Major Fact, but not cause for added characterization. I think Google could actually be of assistance here.

The other is that it proposes to replace or supplant the Google advertising model (and all advertising models, for that matter) with one that is more direct and efficient, as well as accountable. Regardless of the characterization, it would be make money on the sell side. I think there is much more, and better, money to be made by assisting the buy side in building an intention economy around actual buyer wants and needs. In VRM circles we talk often here about the need for “personal RFPs” or “fractional horsepower purchase orders”. By any name, this kind of thing, would, I think, be supported by Trey’s PINs.

Bill of Necessities

Mary Hodder has weighed in on A Bill of Rights for Users of the Social Web, both on her own blog and then on her Dabble blog. After thinking about the bill, and the issues it raised, she wrote this (among other things):

Well after thinking it through, in different scenarios, and talking with people at the Data Sharing Summit over the weekend, and a couple of our advisors, I’ve decided that it makes more sense for users to:

1. own their data, solely
2. give a non-exclusive license to Dabble when they put data at our site.
3. be able to remove the data, to the extent that we can take it out (backup tapes are problematic but we’ll do our best)
4. part of the non-exclusive license to Dabble will include that we can distribute the data (RSS feeds, etc) about the user’s activities.

This is good, and I’m glad Mary did it, especially after standing by Dabble’s TOU (terms of use) and the notion of co-ownership of data in her first post.

Possession is nine tenths of the law, the swaying goes. Whether or not that’s the case (it isn’t, but so what), the vector of Mary’s choice pointed straight at the heart of VRM, which is independence. Owning one’s data is a way of assuring its independence from Flickr, FaceBook, MySpace and other social silos. It is essential that these outfits respect that independence. They thrive at our grace, not vice versa.

It’s also essential that we understand where independence originates: with the individual. Possession can make us crazy. (Walt Whitman’s poetry inveighed against “the mania of owning things”.) But we have the first person singular pronoun for a good and natural reason. If I share data with Dabble, it was mine first. Same goes with my photos on Flickr and my videos on YouTube. Even if I dedicate everything I create to the public domain, I am still the point of origination for those goods. My power to operate in the marketplace depends utterly on the ability to control what’s mine to begin with.

VRM is basically about two things. One is independence from vendors. The other is engaging with vendors. Both powers should originate and reside with individuals. We can’t relate only on vendors’ terms. We’ve been doing that for the duration. It’s ugly, it sucks, and we need to move past that. They can’t do the moving. We have to assert our own independence.

Speaking of which, I’m glad that Marc Canter is out there, whacking away at persistent cluelessness by companies old and new about What the Web Is and How Users Require Respect. Almost a generation ago, John Perry Barlow wrote A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, directing his case to the governments of the world. Today Marc takes the same basic message to the companies that host our online social networks, and even (to a growing degree) our online selves. I’m glad he does. We need that.

Authors of the bill are Joseph Smarr, Marc Canter, Robert Scoble, and Michael Arrington. Kudos to all of them. (And sorry, I can’t make WordPress put the links in all those names. Not sure what’s going on there. It’s in the HTML I’m writing, anyway.)

Dealing with it

In Competing Messages: Commerce and Sociality Dave Rogers says,

Commerce, at least as practiced in the west, is a competitive enterprise. There are winners and losers, some succeed while others fail. Every player seeks an advantage at all times. It’s a dynamic system, so strategies change and evolve over time, and the system presses against all boundaries in its efforts to find advantages to exploit. What presses back?

Well, government presses back, much to the dismay of libertarians. Government, presumably, has the public good as its central focus. We can debate whether or not that’s true some other time, but it’s true enough for the moment. As a result, we regulate businesses to establish boundaries against some efforts to seek a competitive advantage. These are most clearly observed in regulations governing public health and product safety.

Government is not a competitive enterprise. Politics is, but government is not. At least, not at the same scale that commerce is. Governments compete over longer spans of time, unless a war breaks out. But the Cold War is an example of competing governments. It didn’t take Microsoft a generation to defeat all other competitors in the OS wars. I hope the idea is clear. Technology changes this, but that’s a topic for another post.

But since politics controls government, and since politics is competitive, political figures are vulnerable to corruptive influences from commercial interests seeking economic advantages. Again, this shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

So again, what pushes back against commerce?

Very little, it turns out.

This is the point I tried to convey to Doc Searls in our telephone conversation, with no success. By trying to make commercial “messages” more “human,” by trying to make “commerce” more “social,” Doc and those who subscribe to his view cede the advantage to commercial interests at the expense of social ones. In my opinion, we need to start defending social and cultural boundaries against commercial efforts to gain a competitive advantage.

I don’t agree with Dave that commerce is purely competitive, and somehow zero-sum, requiring winners and losers. We’ve gone around on that, and I’m sure I won’t change his mind about it. But my point of view on “messages” is that they are by nature mostly bogus. I have not, for many years (since leaving the advertising and PR business long ago) advocated making “messages” more “social” or anything else.

What I’m trying to do with VRM is come at commerce from the customer side. To make substantive what Chris Locke meant when he wrote we are not seats or eyeballs or end users or consumers. we are human beings and our reach exceeds your grasp. deal with it. There is, implicit in that statement, and as a theoretical basis for The Cluetrain Manifesto, the assumption that the demand side has at least as much power as the supply side — power that the Net does not unleash, but does provide a means for expressing.

In fact, the power Dave talks about us ceding to commercial interests was lost long ago. VRM is about getting it back. But not by petitioning the powerful. Rather by engaging the powerful on fresh terms that are ours and not just theirs.

Health care relationship management

Google and Microsoft Look to Change Health Care is an interesting piece by Steve Lohr in today’s New York Times. (In the print edition the headline reads “Dr. Google and Dr. Microsoft”.) It begins,

In politics, every serious candidate for the White House has a health care plan. So too in business, where the two leading candidates for Web supremacy, Google and Microsoft, are working up their plans to improve the nation’s health care.

By combining better Internet search tools, the vast resources of the Web and online personal health records, both companies are betting they can enable people to make smarter choices about their health habits and medical care.

“What’s behind this is the mass consumerization of health information,” said Dr. David J. Brailer, the former health information technology coordinator in the Bush administration, who now heads a firm that invests in health ventures.

Naturally the piece frames health care as a fight between giants. Even the Larger Context is cast in terms of Big Interests:

It is too soon to know whether either Google or Microsoft will make real headway. Health care, experts note, is a field where policy, regulation and entrenched interests tend to slow the pace of change, and technology companies have a history of losing patience.

I suggest we need to lose patience even faster than the tech companies, and come up with solutions that are not framed in terms of big company (or big entrenched interest) sports, but rather in solving a single problem from a single angle.

That problem is patient records, and that angle is the patient.

The patient needs to be the point of integration for their health care data. That doesn’t mean that doctors and hospitals shouldn’t also have their data. It does mean that the patient should have access to all of it.

The way the system is set up now, important facts about our bodies are not ours. Nor are they easily accessible by us. Yet when we go to a clinic or an emergency room, we are handed a clipboard with a paper form that we are expected to fill out from memory, about our immediate condition and our relevant (and even irrelevant) health care background.

A couple months ago, when I developed a condition called posterior vitreous detachment in my left eyeball, I had to fill out a pile of forms at two different locations. In the course of that experience I found my name spelled three different ways, while I was also challenged to remember how to spell out Type II dyserythropoietic anemia, a rare and relatively minor blood disorder which in emergencies only comes into play when anesthesia is involved — which it might after I fill out forms like this. Who knows, right?

In any case, it would have been handy if I could have auto-filled the forms from my own database, or my own metadata: data about data that lives elsewhere.

While it might be true that the giant sticks in the mud (more like huge pilings holding up a rusty pier) aren’t going to be too cooperative, so what? We — individual patients — need to be able to use our own health care data, for our own good, and for the good of the systems that depend on it, and will be in the line of blame when things go wrong.

I’m not sure patients need to “own”, “control” or even “manage” their health care data. But they clearly need access to it, especially when emergencies come up. Where problems need to be solved, there is business to be made, and I think this is one big one.

The key, as with all VRM projects, is that the solution needs to be anchored on the customer side — in this case the patient side — of the relationship. The answer to the silo problem is not yet another silo. It’s a silo buster, or a silo integrator.

Any ideas? I can think of a few, but would rather see the rest of ya’ll go first.

“It’s all good”

That’s what Brad Fitzpatrick wrote in response to what Marc Canter wrote in response to what Owen Thomas wrote in Valleywag.

I like schvitzatura’s comment on Marc’s blog:

The true Web 2.0 Revolution was the rebuilding of the “walled garden” (softer, and with pretty little syndication bricks)…the technology exists but the business owners are still wanting to maintain “their own in their own”. Single-sign-on duchys and realms will still be the balkanized order of the day…

All this is is globalization, at the Web 1.9-2.2 mesoscale; the tribes will balk at any ham-handed introduction of interconnect.

This is why the Data Sharing Summit (which I’ll miss, regretably) is a right-track move.

Earth to walled-garden builders: You can’t own customers for the same reason you can’t own slaves: they’re human beings, and they want to be free.

Prediction: in Web 3.0, the best wall-less gardens will win.

Unscrewing the car rental business

Ever since the VRM conversation began with the Identity conversation, we’ve looked to the car rental business as one that desperately needs unscrewing.

This has come home to me in the last few weeks, while I’ve been on the road with the family, renting a bunch of cars. Three experiences stand out.

First was when I brought my rental Chevy Cobalt back to Budget at SFO (San Francisco’s airport). I had just filled the tank. The indicator on the dashboard, however, said slightly less than full. I showed my receipt to the woman who took in the car. She said “You only bought 1.35 gallons of gas, but drove 65 miles.” She said nothing more, and printed out a receipt from her hand-held device (what do you call that thing?), with a “fuel charge” of $9.50. By my math, the car got 48 miles to the gallon for the little I drove it: from San Jose to San Francisco and then to the airport — all highway driving. How far off from reality could that be for a car that small and weak? But never mind the math. This was clearly a screw-you. To this woman I was a cheat, clearly. And I was being punished for that. Never mind that I’m a Budget FastBreak member and rent from them a great deal. Rules are rules.

The next unpleasantness happened in Cambridge, Mass, where our rented Buick from Alamo was a victim in a 5-car accident in which an out-of-control car actually took off the corner of a cop car before jamming into the side of ours. Nobody was hurt, and the whole thing was almost comically weird. But at the end of the incident our car could not be driven and had to be towed somewhere. I called Alamo’s roadside assistance number, where the woman on the phone told me that she couldn’t help me at all unless I had a police report. The police on the scene told me that wouldn’t be ready until the next day. When I relayed that information to the roadside assistance woman, she said she was sorry, but couldn’t help me without the report. She also told me I wasn’t allowed to have the car towed back to the Alamo agency at Logan Airport until the police report was ready. The only choice then was to let the police have it towed to an impoundment yard, where I would have to pay to spring it at some later time. We reached an impasse there, at the end of which I asked if she could be of any further help to me, and she said no. So I hung up — or thought I hung up — after which I said to my wife, “Well, Alamo can go to hell.” Then the voice in my bluetooth headset said “Pardon me, sir?” Turns out I hadn’t actually hung up. The Treo does that, sometimes. You press “hang up” and it doesn’t. I said, “I didn’t know you were still on.” “I’m trying to help you, sir,” she said. “I thought we had agreed that you couldn’t do that without a police report,” I said. Then she explained that she has this routine that she has to go through in dealing with customers, and that the police report thing was pro forma. But in fact she could at least help me by giving me a claim number. Why she couldn’t do that earlier she wouldn’t explain, and I didn’t press her on it. With the help of the claim number, we were able to get a replacement car after we towed it back to the agency, and payed the tow fee, of over $100. But the runaround was no fun.

The third unfun experience came yesterday with Enterprise, from which we were renting a rather nice Toyota Corolla that we picked up at the airport in Baltimore. Turns out it had extremely squeaky brakes, however, so we brought it in to the nearest Enterprise location. There they swapped it for a Suzuki Reno. Now, we had already upgraded from a “compact” to an “intermediate” at the airport so we could get a car with room for a family’s full set of bags in the trunk. The Suzuki barely has a trunk, and is hardly in the same class as the Corolla in other respects. The guy at the agency said the Suzuki and the Corola are both “considered intermediate” in size; but let’s face it: they’re not equivalent, much less “similar” (which is the weasel word the car agencies use to swap you from what you thought you rented). I would have preferred it if the guy had just said “Hey, we’re sorry, but this is all we’ve got.” I could have accepted that. But instead he tried to convince us that a clearly inferior car was “equivalent”.

In all three cases the agencies took a “those are the rules” approach to customer relations. And, for all the gloss of fake-friendly greetings at the counter, it’s clear that underneath these car agencies are as customer-hostile as ever.

So let’s tell them what the rules are, instead. Once we can do that, I’ll know VRM has succeeded.

The VRM Vector

What makes VRM (Vendor Relationship Management) distinctive is that its perspective is anchored with the individual — the person, the user, the customer. It is not something that vendors do for customers. It’s something customers do for themselves, and for each other, including vendors.

VRM is not opposed to vendors. Quite the opposite: it supports vendors. It is independent of vendors, but also able to engage vendors in ways that work for both parties — far better than any vendor-side-only CRM (customer relationship management) system can today.

All this comes to mind for two reasons. One is that we’re having a meeting on VRM in the morning here at Oxford. The other is that Dave Winer posted some fine VRM stuff right here. Sez Dave,

The next evolution of the web is to deconstruct social networks into their components. I’m tired of building networks of friends, over and over. Next time I do it, it’ll be for keeps. It’ll be the “real” social network, the one all future social networks build on, just as the format and protocol designed by TBL was the one we all built on for basic machine-level networking.

The “arcs” — the lines connecting people — will need to have better labels. And like the Internet, be subject to innovation by anyone, without anyone else’s permission. Small pieces, loosely joined.

And the arcs will connect groups of people too. Big pieces that act just like the small pieces. ;->

And there will be an easy way for an app to authenticate someone, and access data private to the app, and data that the user has let the app have access to. That way when I register to be part of a new community I don’t have to re-enter all my data again.

Note how Dave declares his independence here; and how he offers ideas that can work for everybody — far better than the your-choice-of-silo system works now. He offers constructive ideas that are not just good for individuals, but can serve to improve the offerings coming from the likes of Facebook, from which Dave and I (and many of the rest of you too, I suppose) are getting a torrent of invitations these days.

Right now I have 35 friend requests on Facebook, on top of the 15 I’ve already approved. I’d like to approve many (or hell, all) of these requests at once, but instead I have to go through this silly stage where I have to say how I know each one of these people. Like it matters. There’s a rectangle of checkboxes with choices like,

– Cut in front of me in the dining hall line
– Frenched my sheets
– Got me stoned
– Gave me a hickey
– Screwed on sight
– Brought the wrong appetizer, but it was cool
– Took my parking space

You can “request confirmation” or “skip this step”. I always click the latter, but it’s never quick, and always a pain in the pants. LinkedIn, Pownce, Orkut and all the ‘sters (that were big several years ago) have their oddball routines as well. All are a little off in what they assume about me and people I might know.

We don’t have the way to fix this yet. But we have the will, the talent, and a growing set of ideas about how to build something that works for each and all of us out here in the real world.

And every new invitation to join yet another social silo only motivates us more.

Customer Divorce Mismanagement

Sprint gives needy customers the boot, Terrence Russel reports. The gist:

“These customers were calling to a degree that we felt was excessive,” explained Sprint spokeswoman Roni Singleton in an interview with Reuters. “In some cases they were calling customer care hundreds of times a month for a period of six to 12 months on the same issues even after we felt those issues had been resolved.”
In all fairness, the figure of 1,000 is relatively small compared to Sprint’s total user base of roughly 53 million, and the company is covering the termination fees and final bills of its jilted customers. But even though the company cites the customer service gridlock as the real problem, I’m led to wonder if this has more to do with Sprint’s obvious desire to overhaul its user base.

I always like thinking of myself as some company’s “base”, don’t you?

Why surveys suck

I just realized this morning that I hate surveys. They tend to be as impersonal and non-conversational as a TV signal — even when a human being is conducting the survey in person. They always see me as part of a group rather than as an individual (which is how each of us feels our needs). They always make assumptions (about me, about what I might want, about what I belong to) that range from slightly-off to outright-wrong. And they always lead to conclusions that represent neither me nor the population in which I am being grouped.

I don’t doubt or deny that surveys do a lot of good. But only in the context of a marketplace where vendors alone bear the full responsibility for relating to customers. Once we, as customers, get tools that let us educate vendors personally, many surveys will become unnecessary. One way we can gauge the success of VRM is by watching the number of surveys decline.

Thought: Some of the best survey questions are the ones that never get asked because sales and marketing impulses override knowledge that the customer would certainly say “no”.

One example is a global customer preference not to hear a sales pitch, “you can go to our website” or “our menu has changed”.

The ability to express global preferences is high on my VRM wish list.

Personal dashboard

I’ve just been pointed to this open letter to Google and Microsoft. Just taking public notes here.

[Note: As of May 2019, that open letter is gone. If anybody can find it, let us know. Thanks.]

Older posts Newer posts

© 2023 ProjectVRM

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑