|
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Previous topic
|
Next topic
|
|
 Saturday, December 30, 2006
started 12/31/2006; 3:20:24 AM - last post 12/31/2006; 3:20:24 AM
|
|
Doc Searls - Saturday, December 30, 2006 
12/31/2006; 7:20:24 AM (reads: 4917, responses: 0)
|
|
First last post of the old year 
| | Somebody suggested to me that VRM is "the opposite of DRM" (Digital Rights Management), rather than (or in addition to) the reciprocal of CRM (Customer Relationship Management). I had never noticed the "RM" coincidence before. It is, indeed, suggestive. |
| | VRM is Vendor Rights as well as Vendor Relationship management. This rights thing should go both ways, no? |
| | DRM excludes even the possibility of a relationship with the customer, beyond that of jailer to prisoner -- because DRM's "solution" is to sell damaged goods to chained customers inside jails the supplier maintains. |
| | The jailer-to-prisoner relationship isn't a stretch for CRM, which too often has a customer containment objective in any case -- though usually with softer walls and longer chains: memberships, discounts, incompatibilities with competitors and so on. So the CRM mentality doesn't have a hard time rationalizing DRM, because it's just a harsher form of the same old thing. |
| | It still needs a lot more unpacking, since we're just at the beginning of whatever VRM will become. And I'd like to leave as much as possible of that to the rest of ya'll. |
discuss
|
|
|
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
