Dave Winer at Scripting News brings us this. The funny thing is, I actually had to cheat and read the HTML IMG tag to figure out that the tall cylinder in Dave’s picture is a silo!
I just saw it as a graphic of a barn, and wondered, “Why is Dave Winer putting a barn on his blog? Has he run out of pictures?”
In my shrinking mind, the word “silo” had been totally disconnected from its original meaning, and usurped by the very notion of segregated technology realms that Dave is telling us about. So the farm thing didn’t register.
Doc talks about a Vendor Management Systems, to balance the other side’s Customer Management Systems. I, of course, like. A prototype for this is a movie review system where I own and control my data. Today, I rate movies on Netflix and Yahoo, but I can’t get them to share the data with each other, so they make recommendations without info the other one has. If I had a place where I kept my movie ratings and gave each of them a pointer to it, they could read it and I would control the data. It would be very easy to set up, the technology is no trick at all. The hard part is getting enough users to do it this way to gain critical mass. This is also the idea behind Edgeio and Marc Canter’s People Aggregator. Open systems, users own the data, silos smell of sulfur.
This is exciting stuff - I’m talking Identity Big Bang content.
The way I read Doc’s ideas, he’s talking about a real inversion of what advertising is and means. Instead of suppliers advertising what they want us to buy (by spamming our attention), we’ll advertise what WE want to buy, and suppliers will make us offers. Sounds a lot more efficient to me. What am I missing? Why doesn’t everyone want to do this?
Maybe because a lot of what advertising is about is getting us to want things we don’t know we want. But even that can be done in other better ways too. Like by producing cool things and having them explode into discussion. Doc said this too, didn’t he: Markets are conversations.
[...] Kim Cameron on silos. “I actually had to cheat and read the HTML IMG tag…” [...]
[...] Interesting piece from Kim Cameron and Dave Winer of the scripting news Doc talks about a Vendor Management Systems, to balance the other side’s Customer Management Systems. I, of course, like. A prototype for this is a movie review system where I own and control my data. Today, I rate movies on Netflix and Yahoo, but I can’t get them to share the data with each other, so they make recommendations without info the other one has. If I had a place where I kept my movie ratings and gave each of them a pointer to it, they could read it and I would control the data. It would be very easy to set up, the technology is no trick at all. The hard part is getting enough users to do it this way to gain critical mass. This is also the idea behind Edgeio and Marc Canter’s People Aggregator. Open systems, users own the data, silos smell of sulfur. [...]
[...] In a curious sort of way, this is exactly what Kit Cameron, Microsoft’s identity management guru is proposing. [...]
[...] Kim Cameron writes in response to Doc Searls and Dave Winer: “The way I read DocÂ’s ideas, heÂ’s talking about a real inversion of what advertising is and means. Instead of suppliers advertising what they want us to buy (by spamming our attention), weÂ’ll advertise what WE want to buy, and suppliers will make us offers. Sounds a lot more efficient to me. What am I missing? Why doesnÂ’t everyone want to do this?” You can also bookmark this on del.icio.us or check the cosmos [...]
[...] Kim Cameron writes in response to Doc Searls and Dave Winer: “The way I read Doc’s ideas, he’s talking about a real inversion of what advertising is and means. Instead of suppliers advertising what they want us to buy (by spamming our attention), we’ll advertise what WE want to buy, and suppliers will make us offers. Sounds a lot more efficient to me. What am I missing? Why doesn’t everyone want to do this?” [...]
Thanks, Kim. I responded here:
http://doc.weblogs.com/2006/10/08#howVrmHelpsCrm
By the way, I’ll bet one reason Dave showed a barn and silo, and not just a silo, is that it’s not easy finding good images of silos, for some reason. That’s been my experience, anyway.
In any case, looking forward to working with you (and Dave, and others) on this.
Kim responds: Wow. Do you think the people with silos could have gone around and bought all the pictures of silos and hidden them in a huge underground cave so no one would talk about them?   I’ll ask around.
[...] Doc’s VRM proposal is an example of this.  And what’s great about his explanation is that we can see how both sides of the relationship end up benefiting.  Have my robot do lunch with your robot - they’ll come up with something.  Here’s Doc’s piece: Responding to what what Dave says here (which enlarges on what I said here) Kim Cameron replies, “This is exciting stuff - I’m talking Identity Big Bang content.” He adds, The way I read Doc¹s ideas, he’s talking about a real inversion of what advertising is and means. Instead of suppliers advertising what they want us to buy (by spamming our attention), we’ll advertise what WE want to buy, and suppliers will make us offers. Sounds a lot more efficient to me. What am I missing? Why doesn’t everyone want to do this? [...]
[...] And now we’re off talking about data silos again and whether or not they’re any good or should exist at all. [...]
The big guys join the party? …
So while the blogosphere was speculating on the now confirmed Google/YouTube deal over the weekend, the annual ANA Masters of Marketing conference took place in Florida. As reported in the NY Times today as well as on various marketing blogs,…
[...] Until the INTENT of the customer is addressed (i.e. engaging with me when and how I want and need you to) I fear we will just be creating ever more Dove real beauty ads and derivative Mastercard Priceless commercials.  Hey, I am happy the big guys are taking note, but true change will only happen when CRM changes to VRM (I remain and am always a Doc protege).  As Kim Cameron eloquently put it: The way I read Doc’s ideas, he’s talking about a real inversion of what advertising is and means.  Instead of suppliers advertising what they want us to buy (by spamming our attention), we’ll advertise what WE want to buy, and suppliers will make us offers.  Sounds a lot more efficient to me.  What am I missing?  Why doesn’t everyone want to do this? [...]