Setting the agenda: Committing to the methodology
An ownership concept
TODD ESKELSEN: The Information Valet Service entity -- however it is constituted -- will manage the playing field, and record transactions, but won't dictate which transactions occur or when or the values exchange. One possibility would be to organize the IVS entity similar to what the BlueTooth Association did. BlueTooth couldn’t make it big enough by themselves. Instead nine companies came together and agreed to share technologies and subscribe to standards for wireless communication between devices. So a challenge is to bring together the "anonymizer service" with the "information you want" and then market it as a private-label to information providers.
There's a challenge in figuring out how to craft the network so so that the range of participants can go from bloggers to Time Warner Inc., Eskelsen said. The organization has to be iterative, open, and has to be started by major players.
ELIZABETH OSDER: IAB, OPA, Bluetooth – is this a movement, a production, an association, an activism, is it Consumer Reports?
JEFF VANDERCLUTE: What are control checks on chaos? Are we willing to entertain a certain amount of chaos?
Understanding and conveying the value to stakeholders and committing to a development methodology are keys to launching the Information Valet Project, consultant Elizabeth Osder told participants in "Blueprinting the Information Valet Economy." Osder was an informal kick-off commentator on Thurs., Dec. 4, 2008, at the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute at the Missouri School of Journalism.
Raligning the loss of value on two sides
I think that information valet needs a better lead, one that convey's a clear, crisp, concise and compelling meaning that moves the project forward. I have taken two things away as compelling:
1. It would be helpful for individuals to have a single place to manage their portfolio of passwords and ID's. A dashboard for managing personal information and perhaps reputation.
2. That consumers/users deserve a benefit from sharing personal information and that overtime, as the network scales folks will find ways to get more and more value back for participation.
In short I summarized it like this:
1. We are all hemorrhaging personal information over the internet
2. Others are profiting from it
3. Consumers deserve to benefit from this, and should get a piece of the pie
The current question
The question for your current framing of IVP is:
- Systems will be delivered to deliver that value back to the consumer, the question for IVP is IF those media companies we now associate with journalism will have a role in delivering that service and also getting their piece of the pie.
Tech development or trade initiative?
For the IVP there seems to be a fundamental decision made to move forward. Is IVP:
- A technology development initative or
- A trade initiative that brings together constituents to consider developing a solution and defines standards, values and puts a working group in place to consider how to "get media companies" requirements into a larger product development conversation.
If it's the later, then there are best practices from the Bluetooth Consortium, Online News Association, Online Publishers Association and the Internet Advertising Bureau to consider. These require study and recommendation for format.
If it's the former, then commit to a methodology, write a market and product requirement and get real about where you are in the market.
Who creates products?
Products are usually created by three types of folks:
1. The visionary entrepreneur: someone has great vision about where the market is headed and develops a product to meet the market down the road.
2. The builder: the develops a product idea and is clear about what they want to build and test the market, refines the vision and push it forward and markets it like hell to get it adopted. This too me is like the journalist who writes stories because they want to do it, and hopes that someone cares.
3 The product marketer: someone sees a clear market need and develops a product to meet that need. Often they work with pure technology developed by entrepreneurs and shape that technology of a market. This is the packaging of a specific technology to a market need.
The IVP is trapped among all three. So much is already out there, it's just a matter of getting down to work. If it's a product you need to begin defining it -- you need end user personas, stakeholder analysis and a map of related technologies and concepts in the market. If it's product marketing you need to map all the required technologies and think about how you build a stack to meet the need, and if it's a big vision, then you need to define enough to bring people onboard.
Next step would be a strawman proposal for what this is based on exisiting feedback. That's what should be used to keep the conversation going.
Two of three values we understand
OSDER: There are three values, two we understand:
- Privacy issue
- Relationship with advertisers where consumer would get paid to look at advertising
- Not talked about – why would InfoValet give us better access to content? Nobody complaints there is not enough information on the Internet.
A possible answer: InfoValet enables a wide array of access points to information and is will enable the delivery of content closer to what you are looking for. We don't wan't information cul de sacs. We need protocols for guaranteeing transparency.
- How do you derive revenue that allows you to create unique and valuable content?
- Leverage brand value of news organizations.