Project VRM - User contributions [en]

Identity issues

2009-03-05T02:12:17Z

Ka9dgx: Thoughts about the need for both Vendor and Consumer identity

Very much a stub...

For VRM to work, there's a minimum requirement of a GUID for each <em>seeker</em>. For reasons outlined in the [[privacy issues]] section, I don't believe that seekers' RFPs should contain contact information. In this context a GUID could be as simple as as public URL; (And yes, I'd really like to come up with a better term than "seeker," but nothing's yet come to mind.)

In light of Don Marti's elegant Upside-down buyer's guide idea (currently living in [[Project ideas]]), publicly verifiable vendor identity goes from a nice-to-have to a virtual requirement. While it doesn't seem to make sense for seeker identity, does a DNS-overload approach (think Domain Keys or SPF) make sense as a partial mechanism for establishing vendor ID? If so, does that automatically disallow third parties that don't have Web presence/commerce of their own?

Note possibility of reputation coming into play here: reliable identity is key if the repuation/trustworthiness of a vendor (or another seeker, as a source of information about a vendor) is a factor in offer evaluation...and it seems like it should be, at some point. Very nice extension of the idea.

Dropping a link in here so that I don't forget: [http://blog.joeandrieu.com/2006/12/03/internet-identity-reputation-networks-and-more/ Andrieu on Reputation Networks and More]. The longer it rolls around in my head, the more significant reputation seems to be in this whole process.

----

Feel free to edit this part... MikeWarot (Ka9dgx)

VRM can't work without identity. To be clear, I'll use the conventional terms for things...

If I as a consumer want to use VRM to offer the chance to sell to potential vendors, I have to provide a secure channel for getting information back to me. In the CRM world, the Corporate Presence (Website, etc) serve as a defacto means of security the identity of the Vendor, and the means of securing the identity of the consumer is usually by withholding goods or services until some form of payment is tendered, making the identity of the consumer a lower priority for the vendor, because they don't care... they just want to sell and get paid.

In a VRM world, the situation is completely inverted... the consumer knows who they are, and must provide some proof that they are willing to pay... but have no means of verifying the identity (and thus reputation) of a Vendor within the VRM framework... and thus must eventually revert to the CRM model unless some alternative means is provided.

----

I bring this up because one of the examples I recently suggested was VRM as a tip jar. In order for it to work on a large scale, there has to be some identity proof for the Vendor, even if the consumer doesn't have goods to withhold, because they don't want to pay for fraudulent claims... their money should go to the right person.

Unless there is some form of identity verification both ways, with some mutually trusted party in the middle, VRM is going to face an uphill battle for adoption.

Talk:PayChoice

2009-03-03T16:57:44Z

Ka9dgx: How do you make sure the right person gets paid?

How would you make sure the right person gets paid? It's important to make sure the money (or credits) go to the right person. The system won't work without it.

Misc

2008-08-09T05:09:52Z

Ka9dgx: /* Categories of VRM data */ added dislike

== Categories of VRM data ==
What you've done, like, and want

Done: Transaction history. Your copy of your transaction/interaction record categorized

Like: Preferences. Where do you like to sit on a plane, car, color, and size

Dislike: Preferences, allergies, etc.

Want: Personal RFP. What things do you want to buy and how do you describe your need

Perhaps there is a service to intelligently inform one category from another. For instance, by looking at a transaction history you can deduce preferences and suggest wants. You always want to sit in the aisle seat and buy milk every week.

== VRM meets DRM ==
Perhaps VRM should stand for Vendor Rights Management as well as Vendor Relationship Management.

Perhaps rights management and relationship management should be the same thing.

Perhaps companies doing DRM wouldn't have to bear the full responsibility for managing the rights involved in relationships. Things could be done by mutual agreement by both sides.

We need to make "rights management" something that is mutual in operation, and mutually beneficial. How should we approach that?

Expressions of Relationships

2008-08-09T05:06:58Z

Ka9dgx: /* Some interesting questions / thoughts */

These are my rough notes of what is being written on the flip chart during the VRM meeting breakout on 2006-01-25.

==Relationships vs. Expressions==
* [http://socialcustomer.typepad.com/vrm_expression_matrix.pdf Relationships v. Expressions (PDF)]

==Types of Relationships==
* marriage
* business partnership
* counselor
* subscription
* friendship
* family
* membership
* fanboy
* contract
* employment
* confucian
* mentor / advisor
* citizenship
* blacklist
* champion
* familiar stranger
* colleague
* teacher
* stalker
* neighbor
* patron
* customer
* vendor
* circle of trust
* sponsor
* priest / shaman / rabbi / ...
* advocate
* alumni
* nemesis
* cohorts
* shared experience
* enemy

==Expressions of Relationships==
You know it is a relationship when ...
* there are implications for the future
* expectations
* recognition
* subscription
* payment
* tipping
* genealogy
* hate sites
* strong feelings
* recommend
* contract
* employment
* ask advice
* expose yourself to vulnerability ("trust")
* blacklist
* conversation
* stalking
* repeat patronage
* badmouth
* reliance
* federation
* referral/introduction
* sponsor
* invite
* rebuff
* evaluate
* hug / PDA
* advocate
* commenting (e.g. blogs)
* give gifts
* find
* respond
* keep apprised
* request
* extend credit
* support
* vouch
* shared experience
* having coffee
* conferences

==Dimensions==
* Time
* Transparency
* Intensity
* Frequency
* Commitment
* Control
* Potential to real
* Latent to explicit
* Reciprocity
* Symmetry
* Frequency of interaction
* Cardinality

== Some interesting questions / thoughts ==
* Are we presuming that relationships are bidirectional? (e.g. crush) No ...
* Relationships are not boolean -- there is a degree, e.g. very close vs. "have heard of some guy.."
* Law/lawyers as a source of a relationship taxonomy
* Confucianism as a source of relationship taxonomy
* A social network that doesn't allow you to include your enemies isn't worth having.

Expressions of Relationships

2008-08-09T05:06:12Z

Ka9dgx: /* Types of Relationships */ Added Enemy

Talk:Scenarios

2007-11-07T15:18:11Z

Ka9dgx: the missing 90%

Well, that's all and good, but where are the rest of the people in the world... you're only considering producer/consumer pair.

This oversimplification is harmful.

The real world has intermediaries, who add value to a transaction.

Examples include:
Recommendation information from friends
Quality enforcement information (USDA, FCC, UL, etc)
Merchants who have reputations tied to the quality of their wares

All of these get thrown out of the picture in the diagram... they are 90% of any transaction... much to big to ignore.

VRM is really about re-wiring the intermediaries, and providing tools to enable them to better add value.

--Mike-- (ka9dgx)

MikeWarot

2007-01-09T21:14:23Z

Ka9dgx: home page for Mike Warot

Long time reader of Doc Searls and other blogs.
* I still don't see why RSS is better than a good set of bookmarks and tabbed browsing.
* I do see why Podcasts are expensive (its the editing and post-production investment of human time)

blog: http://mikewarot.blogspot.com