However, when it comes to creating new types of win-win between buyers and sellers – mew win-wins based on the personal control and release of personal information for example – I think there are barriers Joe hasn’t mentioned.

One barrier is that many companies think in terms of ‘knowledge is power’ and see customer data as a means of exercising control (or at least beneficial influence) over customer attitudes and behaviours. They fear that handing over control of information to individuals means handing over control, period.

There’s also a lot of politics (with a small ‘p’) in win-wins. If the cake has 100 incrmental units, and I get 99 while you get 1, it is still a win-win. We are both better off than we were. If we then move to a situation where I get 98 while you get 2, I see myself as a ‘loser’ even though I am still getting the lion’s share of the benefits.

For these reasons, when it comes to VRM I think we should appeal to corporates on the basis of win-win, but I think there will be sustained resistance, especially from those involved in customer data, CRM, direct marketing etc.

Oh, and another thing … Legacy systems and the fear of liquidating sunk costs.

For these reasons, I think that even though VRM is the obvious next step and a huge potential win-win, it’s going to be a slow burn development, not a big bang.

Alan Mitchell

I was using profit in terms of the value realized by that party being greater than the cost to that party. “Value” for a business should be measured in dollars, long term, including such reputational effects of being a good corporate citizen, etc. “Value” for an individual could be much more subjective, hence profit may not equate to dollars. “Value” for a government is harder to evaluate, as it could be related to power accumulation or dominated by the influence of a particular politician or administrator.

As for the timeframe, that’s a tricky one. We all have different planning horizons. Some companies (and people) end up focusing too much on the near term and losing site of lifetime value. Others play the long game and are happy sacrificing today for risky or uncertain potential value in the future. Ultimately it is a personal value judgment.

By the time we look at the third form of the rule of the burden of value, I think these issues end up washing out. As long as each entity involved can see a profit (including transactional costs and opportunity costs), then everyone will play along, no matter how they see profit or what timeframe they are evaluating.

On the other hand, If one party sees it as purely a burden, and doesn’t get enough value out of it to make it worthwhile, that’s a problem. We might be able to route around it, but it is also quite possible that this obstacle could halt the effort for that Protocol. In this framework, profit is in the eye of the beholder. From a design/development perspective, the goal is to help everyone realize a profit so that everyone can support VRM Protocols.

>The burden of creating value lies with the party who can do so with the greatest profit.

is that always the case (i don’t know the answer, am thinking out loud here). profit as measured by whom? and over what timeframe? is it “lifetime” value of the relationship? what if the two parties measure “value” differently (e.g. one is solely focused on financials, the other on ease-of-use?)

again, just thinking out loud here…don’t purport to have answers…