Creating the Intention EconomyNovember 17th, 2009 View Comments |
Tweet |
Continuing the line of thinking about personal APIs and personal RFPs, components of the broader trend in using algorithms to aid human decision-making.
Wings, Outstretched, Margaret River Mouth, Western Australia
Continuing a line of thinking from Powering Social Search through Personal APIs, referencing Scott Adam’s note on broadcast shopping, Doc Searls, Advertising in Reverse:
Here in the VRM development community we’ve been talking (and in some cases working) for several years on the Personal RFP. Technically an RFP is a “buyer-initiated procurement protocol” for businesses doing business with businesses: B2B as they say. With VRM the buyer is an individual. Hence, Personal RFP.
… In business, RFPs use an open protocol (essentially, formalized paperwork and bidding processes). Anybody can use it. We need the same for broadcast shopping. Any of us should be able to broadcast, in a secure and selective way that protects our privacies, specified goods we’re shopping for.
Why?
Every retailer and intermediary should be interested because the promise of the Net for buyers is not an infinite variety of closed silos, but a truly open marketplace where any buyer can do business with any seller — and on the buyer’s terms and not just the seller’s.
This, of course, is based on a subtle yet important mind-shift; Doc, on The Intention Economy:
I also believe we need to start viewing economies, and markets, from the inside out: from the single buyer toward the surrounding world of sellers. And to start constructing technical solutions to the buyer’s problem of getting what he or she wants from markets, rather than the seller’s problem of getting buyers’ attention.
Of course, the difficulty is in applying concepts for a better future to today’s practicalities; Alan Patrick, The contradiction inherent in the (Social Mediation) system :
The reality … is that no one individual yet has the market power to extract anything like sufficient surplus back to themselves to make this a rational economic instrument. In order for this approach to work it needs an aggregation system which is on the user’s side, and big enough to aggregate large numbers of users – and that means the aggregator ultimately must derive its funding from the user, not the commercial entity.
Not yet. But that’s why networks and communities matter, by creating the structures and relationships necessary to shift market incentives. That’s my hope.
—
(More on the topic by Doc Searls: Intention Economy Traction).
November 17th, 2009 at 7:29
There is an interesting dynamic in this regarding personal vs. aggregate buying. (At least, that's how I interpreted it.) If the goal of community is to leverage buying power, much power has shifted back to the supplier because a supplier can likely diffuse a community simply organized around bargaining. However if there is no community and buyers act on their own accord, suppliers are free to price discriminate and buyers potentially get better deals in the way of something like value-added selling.
It seems to me that intentions are best kept from a community, at least in economic terms. The first rule of negotiation is to keep your reservation price secret. When interacting as an individual with multiple suppliers via a Personal RFP mechanism, this seems very efficient, and honestly, fair, between the buyer and the seller.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:38
I don't see the goal of the community to leverage buying power; instead of building up market power for individuals, a tearing down of market power held by companies.
Therefore, the game mechanics between individuals and the community are a little different here. At least that's my first thoughts. This is very much a thinking-out-loud exercise here :)
November 17th, 2009 at 11:21
[...] Creating the Intention Economy [...]
November 18th, 2009 at 1:27
[...] Creating the Intention Economy — 4:01am via Google [...]
December 8th, 2009 at 17:15
Just saw this
Alan is dead on in my opinion, but Doc's stuff has been very dogmatic against aggregation…which leaves me wondering in a lot of ways.
That post from Alan is the true “VRM manifesto”
December 9th, 2009 at 2:55
Meaning, a “practical VRM” manifesto?
Today, aggregation pays (meaning, money flows to those that own lots
of data). I think Doc is interested in a tomorrow where aggregation
isn't the economically dominant strategy it is today.
Perhaps if the econ of aggregation change, pulling from the same
trends in niches (Umair's Nichepaper manifesto) and demonstrated by
the hyperlocal stuff, perhaps aggregation won't pay like it does
today, and instead of aggregation it's all about facilitation: routing
through a market rather than accessing a warehouse.
Not sure if that makes any sense :)
December 9th, 2009 at 7:55
I thought that the warehouse was the market
Someone has to be the market maker right?
And isn't aggregation just market power manifested?
Except for infinitely flexi intangible products, or a revolution on
physical mnfctring, I don't see how anyone escapes this
December 10th, 2009 at 16:07
Yep, someone has to be the market-maker. There has to be a warehouse.
But the market-maker doesn't have to own the warehouse, only be able
to tap into many.
But not for every market.
Beyond the big picture, it's more interesting to see where it applies,
is meaningful, hasn't appeared yet but will. This is what Masnick
meant when he wrote that media and entertainment are just “canaries in
the coal mine” for many other industries. The real fun is applying the
principles to picking out the next ones. Build a better
school/truck/bureacracy, right?
December 10th, 2009 at 17:24
no doubt
i can't wait to find out what other industry gets me all jazzed about this
although communications is still pretty fun
December 11th, 2009 at 17:49
+1 :)
December 12th, 2009 at 1:49
+1 :)
January 15th, 2010 at 15:40
[...] Restructuring markets by rebalancing relationships. (taylordavidson.com) [...]