VRM Development

From IIW
Jump to: navigation, search

Issue/Topic: VRM

Session: Tuesday 2F

Conference: IIW-11 November 2-4, Mountain View, Complete Notes Page

Convener: Doc Searls

Notes-taker(s): Gon Zifroni

Tags: VRM, independence, symmetrical relation, reverse-cookie, demand first, pull, anonymity


Discussion notes:

Doc Searls starts with a general description of VRM:

You should be in control of the data you generate. In a digital world it is convenient to have all your relations under your control: centrally controlled by you.

> The set of identifiers that give you access to services online.

Problem addressed: The independence of the individual both independent of anybody else but at the same time able to engage with multiple people.

Iain Anderson of MyDex gave (once) an example that grew out of the kernel of VRM, the change of address. I want to be able to change my address for multiple services at the same time, although various services have single interests in my identity.

  • XDI (Drummon Reed)
  • PDS
  • MyDex
  • Information Card (Ms)
  • R-card (relationship card)
  • Switchbook
  • Mine! project
  • Kynetix
  • Azigo

Iain came up with 4000 variables negotiated within a relationship. There are symmetrical relationships with equal power on both sides. While with asymmetrical relationships you sign a ULA > Web services and business models are anchored on this. "We tell you what the relationship is". You may have a lot more interest about what you buy in the store than they do, but you don't have access to it nor control over it.

Following a question by Susan (Value Networks), Doc gives the example of the loyalty card (green stamps catalog): tracking what you're buying in the store, targeted ads. But they don't know what you actually want, they tell us what we want: intent is not captured.

Joe's response: Game about open systems to being beholden to services. Statement: if an alternative emerges services will adopt it.

Doc talks about multiple pricing schemes to incent buyers to use self-checkout scanning in shops. In a nutshell the history of e-commerce is "1995, the invention of the cookie. The end."

There's more talk about intent "vendors don't know what I want to buy next".

Doc talks about Kynetx: everything is an n point, with an event and a rules-set described by rules-engines.

Joe continues: Kynetx is about augmenting your experience: some of the Google results you might have a relationship with which Google doesn't know about but can be surfaces for you from your end.

Write rules for queries by users/buyers going by shops/stores checking their inventory based on your query.

Supply <> Demand

Routing our intentions: individuals express their demand to generate supply. What's the downside of the store saying they have it? Third party needed to ensure their reputation. If companies are advertising wrong data about their stores: leverage the regulations or social reputation (trust).

Demand <> Supply

  • Opposite of CRM where sellers own the relationship with buyers.
  • Supply chain automation (question by Ace Swerling)
  • Notion that the customer brings a lot to the table
  • Reverse auctions example for just in time manufacturing
  • Key example is the personal RFP, example of demand driving supply
  • Priceline.com, Kayak alerts, consumer type of behavior, LivingSocial, Blippy, Shrout
  • Is social the backbone of VRM or not? Are relations the fourth party?
  • Joe's comment "Nobody owns email‚Ķbut it wasn't initially."

The r-button in one configuration can say: "I'm willing to deal with customers on your terms" With emancyterm both terms (seller, buyer) can be matched up.

Question: Is it similar to ad-exchange? 3 parties: Publisher, Advertiser, User.

Joe says key distinction: the publisher website could have other websites behind it. "You're broadcasting your needs" > Personal generated claim or preferences. Diff with ad-targeting: Groupon is still push from the vendor. The fact that I Like Lady Gaga does not mean that I want to buy the album, I already have it! (see Reverse-cookie)

Remark: Yes but we tell google all the time what we're looking for, what we want.

Ankit Kapasi: point to point sharing, share within contacts. > The systems that we have without gesture we find suspicious.

How can we do some of the things we have offline online: offline we have anonymity "I want less identity when I walk into the store". Why can't I take my shopping cart from one site to another?

Problem of this discussion are the commercial examples. Discuss retail commerce without thinking like marketers. Let's try other examples. Why can't I change my credit card when I'm loosing it, while not loosing all your trusted relations?

Kevin Marks talks about how Webfinger helps discovery under the user's control.