CRM 2.0: Co-Creation of Value & DIY (NO! not DUI)

I'm a little bit perplexed and I need to ask you guys something though I'm going to do what I'm going to ask you about in this entry.

The Question

OK.

If you don't know by now, I'm writing CRM at the Speed of Light 4th Edition under an incredibly tight deadline. I have until early August to nail 400 plus pages (less than the 3rd edition but a daunting task) and I just really got started about 3.5 weeks ago. I'm making a lot of progress but its pretty well be a 24X7 effort and I'm forgoing a lot of things that I normally do - like much of my client work. I'm maintaining as best as I can with those clients but all of them know there are no whitepapers or any written docs until the fall and this book is out of the way. I'm only traveling once in the next 6 weeks that I have to do this. Needless to say, my blog and podcast as well as my entire life is suffering as a result. But I REALLY feel obligated to keep up the blog.

What I'd LIKE to do is combine the work I'm doing with the book with blog entries. Meaning, as I put together some interesting concepts that I might use in the book, I would publish it to the blog and, if need be, cut and paste it into the book as is, tweak it and use it. Or conversely, write something into the book, decide, "hey, this would be a really good blog subject or entry" and do the opposite - preview it (without my publishers permission I suppose) on the blog so you'd get a taste of whats in the book.

But even though I'd love to do it this way, I have always had this thing about originality that I find kind of important. For example, I think authors who use ghostwriters, even if they have good ideas, are doing readers a disservice most of the time. Their actual voice matters and if you have to use a ghostwriter because you don't have time or you can't write well, then don't write the book. OR at least give the ghostwriter author credit which is fair. I've also never been a giant fan of repurposing the same content for something else and have mostly avoided doing that. Though I have less of thing about that. If I don't like that, then I shouldn't like service oriented architectures or object oriented modeling since they depend on the creation of reusable objects, which I'm fine with.

So I'm vaguely (and I do mean vaguely) uncomfortable with my own idea, but it would be a way of keeping the blog up with good content though one way or the other I'd be using it in the book too (meaning potentially exactly as written which is where I have the problem - not in the case studies or data used). I'm kind of looking to some of you to tell me "its okay Paulie. You can do that. We don't mind" OR if you really feel strongly "What kind of ass are you, Pablo? Get your act together!! BUCK UP MAN!!"

Either way. Just let me know. I've already spoken to my publisher and we're cool about this.

In the meantime, I'm going to do what I'm a little diffident about doing. I'm writing this blog entry and then its going straight into the book in the chapter on customer experience and note the bidirectional value of that. Or maybe the new business models chapter. I haven't decided yet.

The DIY Customer Experience

I've been noodling on the DIY customer experience. This isn't the idea of "experiential try and buy" when companies like Viking have stores where you can actually use the items that are there. I wrote abou this back eons ago in but the actual idea of co-creation of value on the spot - the value for the company being purchases and the value for the customer being not just the purchased item, but the idea of participation in the creation of the item or the event or the experience itself.

Here's one that caught my eye.

There's a store in Beverly Hills (naturally) (thanks to Springwise on this) called Fashionology LA that has girl Tweeners (chicklets between 8 and 14) designing and creating their own clothes right in the store. Very cool. They actually walk up to these large interactive displays and choose....well you can see what it is when you read the picture I have here. An excellent summary of this at The Moment which has an okay picture of the kiosk.

The Process, The Experience

The basic theme for the store is Dream It!, Make It! Wear It! While that sounds really very oh so very cool girfriendy, it is a genuine business model too. Even before the kids start designing, they are working from what the store's creators, Jamie Tisch and Elizabeth Wiatt call "Fashion moods" which are seasonal. The first season of the store's opening, which is right now they had "moods" they called Rock and Roll, Pop Princess, Malibu, Juku, Peace - which are in the form of a character. I'm presuming that Juku is modeled after the Harajuku stylesetting Japanese girls thatGwen Stefani lauds in her music. If you don't like the styles, you can create some what seems to be a conglomeration of your own.

Here's a couple of Harajuku trendsetters for those of you who spend their nights wondering about Gwen Stefani's fashion faves.......

In any case, the kids come in and go to what is actually a HUGE kiosk like design station which is all very colorful and interesting and highly interactive and functional. They choose the seasonal style. They then choose what they'd like to design - a dress, pants, shirt. The big picture. Then they start accessorizing right away with "Thingalings." (A little too cutesy for me - and maybe even for an 8-14 year old too). These can be bling or charms that are hung onto the apparel, a thing that's sewed on or clipped on. Can be as much or as little as you want. Once you're done, here's a description from Mami Magazine on what happens next that's probably better than anything I could have written, given that I'm not particularly fashion smart nor am I an 8-14 year old girl, despite the way I throw a fastball.

"Once the girl completes her design, she proceeds to the U-Bar, where a friendly Fashionologist, who could be likened to the coolest babysitter or big sister a girl could have, uses a heat press to add the key design element to her new look and gives her a tray of embellishments to take to a customized Make It! table. The girl settles in to sew, bling, pin and clip to create what will soon become her favorite piece of clothing. Once her garment is ready to wear, the girl steps onto the Fashionology LA stage where she proudly displays her creation for the camera. With her approval, the picture and her unique design will beam through the store on a 70" LCD screen and will be emailed to her so she can share her new look with her friends that very day...."

The Model

Interestingly, there is a fair amount of nasty commentary on this that I've found across the web. Here's a couple of examples of the (narrow) range....

"So, they're using the Buddha and the commune concept of the '60's to push young people into new heights of narcissism, craving new styles and belongings…identifying themselves with the latest expensive manipulation. It's almost as bad as using Jesus to push war. Marketers love to use names and images of what is truly good to sell their cultural heroin."

OR

"I thought I'd seen that place before, then I remembered…it's strikingly reminiscent of the Korova Milk Bar in "A Clockwork Orange". Has that distopia arrived?"

Just before I get into the DIY model, I want to say something about these comments. If I had to characterize my political and cultural outlook in terms of a car move, it would be a sharp left turn. But when I read comments like this which are primarily based around the look of the store which is colorful and the fact that this is fashion design, the pompous self-righteous arrogance of these comments gets to me and makes me want to slap these people upside their heads (metaphorically of course). The latter commenter is talking about a friggin movie scene for godssakes. All for the sake of what is I presume in his or her head a comment with a dramatic pause and slambang finish. Like a movie. The first commenter is talking about this commune concept because the store designer is called "Commune." What does that have to do with ANYTHING? And Buddha? Being a drama king/queen isn't the same as being passionate about changing things. Certainly, the value of the store from a broad social standpoint is debatable - except that its meant to be a store, not a community organizing center.

Presuming these are culturally left of the spectrum - which I can presume they are and hope they aren't - I'm sorry but this stuff makes people like me look like idiots, . And I can do a fine job of that myself, thank you. They should spend the time on something actually important. Maybe they do. Unfortunately, my only knowledge of these commenters is their comments. Yuck.

In any case, the model here, regardless of its crass materialism, is interesting and one that I think we'll see in more adult and younger environments. Its hands on participation in the process of product creation. What makes this invaluable is the sense of "I did that" that comes from the experience.

A test. What's more appealing? A shirt that you bought at Prada or at Walmart that you wear. Or a shirt that happens to look exactly like the one you might have bought at either of those stores - but you dreamed it, made it, wore it? Of course the latter. Because YOU participated in its creation and it is something that YOU crafted to the way YOU wanted and then YOU "built" it (with the guidance of someone) using YOUR hands.

Let me ask you this. Would you rather listen to Purple Haze by Jimi Hendrix or listen to Purple Haze by Jimi Hendrix, lyrics by YOU (whoever you might be...). That's aside from the royalty stream that is.

Human beings love to participate and create. I'm seeing co-creation and collaboration based business models emanating from the writings of academic core thinkers like C.K. Prahalad (who doesn't return email inquiries for book interviews, apparently. Must be an important guy) in his "Future of Competition" and stories of those business models such as those rather deeply outlined in thought leader Patricia Seybold's "Outside Innovation." I'm seeing its visible effect in grown up level enterprise activities that propagate the model such as the collaboration going on with SAP, its partners, and its customers in multiple places to design assets that benefit both SAP and the customers involved. Salesforce.com is doing the same with its IdeaExchange where customers not only create ideas but can vote them on or off the island.

The DIY is the difference, though. We're not talking about a suggestion box even when its in a coolness state as a threaded forum or community. Just passive idea suggestion is fine to some degree but co-creation is really the key because its hands on and there is a feeling of participation in something that you had previously not thought you had the skills or the tools or the time or the talent or any form of wherewithal to do. But then a company comes along and says, hey, youngster, (or old enterprise guy), come and don't just buy a product, but design the product with the tools, make the product with the tools and the support and then wear your creation that you made with the products, services, tools and experience in this fab store I've provided for you. We're all happy with the result. You've paid a premium price for the experience of your own creation and the product that's a result of that. So we're happy. You're happy because you can not only wear the product, but remember the way you got it. Happilly.

Works for the Tweeners. Works for the Boomers. Works for the Seniors. Works for the crassly commercial. Works for the minimalists who spend $2 million on a loft in Manhattan so they have a place to not furnish. (But as a design, I love minimalism. Don't have much of it though. Pack rat.)

Works for CRM 2.0 too.

Very cool, despite the self-righteous schmucks who really do nothing but make themselves look silly by ranting at a store for the "financially-enabled." Like that's such an important sign of the apocalypse. I wish they'd spend their time and expend the effort it took for their rant to help a great organization like, say, Doctors Without Borders. Who don't care about Fashionology LA at all.

I don't care about Fashionology LA either except as an example of an interesting model for business that is based on something I do care about - customers owning more of their experience than they ever had been able to in the past.

Now THAT'S very cool.

Technorati : CRM 2.0, co-creation of value, culture, customer experience, style, user generated content

Comments

[Paul Greenberg]

Hi Paul,
It think that you're right - for the most part. I shouldn't have overlooked that aspect of it. But if in fact, the kids were just watching the cool fashionista doing the work for them it wouldn't be the same experience. Even if the kids worked from just the interactive kiosk. It would be like me getting an opportunity to watch one on one, Jeter or A-Rod take batting practice and swing for the fences because I asked them to or having one of them actually teach me how to hit and help me with the bat and the swing etc. AND have it work. Home Run, Paul Greenberg!! :-). There is a different sense of excitement and more depth when you are a direct participant in the experience rather than an indirect participant in the ambiance of it all. Though the ambiance is a significant part which I shouldn't overlook either - so thanks very much for that. I thank you and CRM at the Speed of Light 4th Edition, thanks you, (and will).

[Paul Sweeney]

I'd like to posit an alternative theory (but not having been to this store, take it with a pinch of salt). Perhaps the true value being delivered here is NOT custom, personal clothing, but a "retail-leisure-entertainment" experience. Think about it: you get the attention of a cool, older girl, who is going to style with you; you play with safe borders (in that you have seasons, themes etc.), you get your photo taken and are the centre of attention, just for a while. The involvement and interaction in the process creates an experience and the experience is then "broadcast", socially in the clothes they wear, digitally on email and myspace. To see how actually impactful the fashion element is, it would be interesting to trace how much they wear the clothes they made. On another point, their is a reason some people buy "brand" and some people buy "home made/no-label". Old fashioned aspirational group referents. When we seriously want to look good, we wear our best shirt, the Hugo Boss suit, etc. Fashion is (IMHO) semiotics. Mastering the language of fashion is to move towards attaining social power and influence. It can be a serious game, and highly pressured for kids and adults alike. Perhaps, just perhaps, the "break" offered by the store, is room to play safe with clothes. BUT it may not be a case for "personalisation through interaction", if you know what I mean.

[Chris Bucholtz]

This Fashionology LA thing stuck a chord with me. Years ago, I worked for the San Francisco Giants retail department, and one of the big sellers was the authentic jersey with the names and numbers the customers selected sewn on them. On occasion, I'd run the orders - and the actual requests for player jerseys, which were made at the same time - over to the place where these were made. They were a big deal - contoured, hand drawn letter patterns, made to fit the arch of the back over the number buts still stand straight up so each one was unique, with an orange base layer and a black top layer. Pretty elaborate - and pretty expensive, as I recall. Customers asked for all kinds of names, from my own boring "BUCHOLTZ" number 10 jersey (yeah, I bought one) to "BIG BOB" number 24 (no one respected that Mays' number was retired!) to "CRAZY CRAB" number 69 to "BENZINGER" number 14 (Oh, that was Todd Benzinger - he actually played for us). Anyway, the value people put on these jerseys was immense - not just because they were the same garment the player wore, but because they had what THEY wanted on the back. They had a hand in what the jersey ended up looking like, and that enabled us to charge a premium for the service.

--Chris

[John Harrison]

Paul-

Including ideas from your book on the blog is a great idea. I enjoy reading, but many times I wish I could have a conversation with the author and get him/her to see things from a different perspective...or, perhaps change their view on the subect.

I look forward to reading your posts regarding the book and hope I can provide some valuable feedback.

Thanks for the blog and the story about the "create your own clothes" store.

Take care-
John

[Scott Rogers]

Paul - I have no problem with parts of the book being part of the blog.
When I read a book, I become immersed in it and enjoy following the threads. I think having snipets of the book as part of the blog would be like movie trailers - can wait to read the whole thing!
Scott

[Tara Spalding]

Hi Paul -
This is fantastic - I strongly agree. In all of my "free time" I design baby clothes (and sew). My debut of my line will be over labor day weekend, so wish me luck.

What's unique about my clothing line is that I'm filling a northern california style gap as designs especially for our offsprings are highly judged and the itsy bitsy cutesy cookie cutter mainstream childrens designs well- doesn't cut it for the likes of parents that I hang out with.

This gap are designs of the real california life - in patterns.

So I begun my crusade coming up with 20 designs. Pretty fun. But, what was interesting was that about 8 really rose to the top. That helps me from a production standpoint, but starts limiting my audience - right? I mean really, all of my designs are priceless - I just need the right audience.(ha)

Secondly, what I really heard from my buyers was "I like this but, can I have it in cammo print instead of retro flames?"

Thus, I am also launching a custom design book. This allows pickyune moms to pick the fabric and design that they wish. And they can order it in sizes from 0-3 months to 5 years.

Now I don't have the cool technology budget to do this all virtually, but I'll let you know what gets the bigger fanfare & profit for me over labor day weekend.

Thanks for the blog - I think it's right on. ~Tara