Miles To Go.

Charlie Green, author of Trusted Advisor

(MS) Since there is so much buzz around Sharing, (I’ve written about it recently here, here and here) and it’s key component, Trust, I’ve asked some experts to lend their opinions on my blog to fill out the color commentary. Here’s Charlie Green;

Whether you call it “the sharing economy” or “collaborative consumption,” there’s a fascinating new economic and social phenomenon going on.  While not identical, both terms refer to markets for the sharing of products and services between individuals.

It may seem obvious that the role of trust is pretty critical. But just what that role is turns out to be not so obvious.    

Background

The chroniclers of the movement are Rachel Botsman (Botsman & Rogers, What’s Mine is Yours), and Lisa Gansky (The Mesh: Why the Future of Business is Sharing). Botsman characterizes three sub-markets: product-services systems (like ZipCar), redistribution markets (eBay), and collaborative lifestyles (CouchSurfing).

Some of those sub-markets hint at huge scale economies: how many zillions of available-seat-miles go unused on the nation’s streets and highways on driver-only trips? How many available car-hours per day are actually used for driving, as opposed to uselessly hogging valuable real estate? And for nearly every traveler vacationing, there’s an empty house back home going unutilized.

Other sub-markets are more akin to intriguing social experiments: imagine a global foreign exchange student program run for adults, only faster, bigger, and with do-it-yourself vetting, and you’ve got something like CouchSurfing.

In an odd way, “markets” is precisely the wrong way to describe the social experiment part of the phenomenon – it’s anti-market, in a sense, to focus on collaboration and reduced consumption, rather than on increased sales and  intermediating exchanges.

But in more traditional senses, these are very much markets, with loads of interest. Technologies are enabling peer-to-peer interactions; but unlike stock exchanges and book-buying, many of them exist to facilitate real flesh-and-blood interactions. Subletting your house or apartment to someone, or simply hosting an out-of-town visitor, is no trivial social exercise. And lending out your car or tools, while not necessarily social, also involves a social risk.

Which is where trust comes in.

Trust in the Sharing Economy

If you’re going to open up your house to someone you’ve never met before, you will make some form of trust calculus about the possible guest.

The reverse is true as well: if you’re going to go spend some time as the house-guest of a perfect stranger, you also will make some assessment along the lines of, “Do I, or do I not, trust these people?”

Might there be a secondary market here for trust. Indeed, there might.  (Disclosure: I have a small relationship with one such venture, TrustCloud). Suddenly, the decision to trust has economic, and possibly very personal, consequences.

Trusting and Being Trustworthy.  People often talk about “trust” as if it were a single thing.  It’s not.  “Trust” is the result of a trustor and a trustee arriving at an agreement. Trusting is not the same as being trusted. Trust is, if you’ll pardon the abstract language, an asymmetric relationship.

To be clear, the one doing the trusting (the trustor) is the one taking the risk. If I loan my tools or house to you, you might abuse them. The trustee, by contrast, takes little risk.

The trustor’s decision is based partly on the perception of the trustworthiness of the trustee. Wouldn’t it be great, the thinking goes, if we could come up with the equivalent of a FICO credit score for would-be trustees.

The search for trustworthiness metrics goes in two directions. One is reputation;  the other is behavior. Reputation is relatively easy to assess; unfortunately, it’s also easy to game, and can easily be confused with notoriety. Kim Kardashian may score high on reputation, and even influence – but does that mean you trust her?

Behavior is harder to game: to fake behavioral dependability, I would have to establish a track record of dependable behavior – which is, after all, the point. It can be faked, of course, but such an elaborate con requires a level of effort quite out of proportion to the benefit, not to mention out of character.

Trusting. It’s easy to focus just on measuring trustworthiness, particularly in the product-services and redistribution markets, where the trustor wants information about the trustee to mitigate downside risk.

But in the collaborative lifestyles segments of the movement, it’s not just the trustworthiness of the trustee that is important, but also the trustor’s propensity to trust. In the fascinating sub-movement that is Couchsurfing, the parties aren’t just looking to cut risk: they want upside potential in terms of fascinating people willing to take social risks in order to meet others. They want trustors.

The 60s Redux?

The parallel with the 60s is instructive. Some of the era’s social experimentation didn’t make it out of the 70s. But the Beatles, Steve Jobs, and the Grateful Dead were all once-radical types who created models that are mainstream business today.

Even the hard-core economic segments of the sharing economy aren’t as radical as we think. The timeshare industry “shared” underutilized vacation home capacity; so did distributed computing in the 70s-80s. McDonalds’ discovery of breakfast was another capacity utilization play that paid off big.

In any case, we’re all going to be talking more about trust. And that’s likely a good thing for us all.

Doug Krugman, Greg Matusky, Roo Rogers, (M) and Xin Chung @S2 Learning Even

the woods are lovely, dark and deep
but I have promises to keep
and miles to go before I sleep
miles to go before I sleep

Robert Frost, in a poem of simplicity itself, captures the essence of the foundations of trust: promises kept.

I was at Shared Squared NYC’s monthly learning event last night, where a whole lot of people made good on a whole lot of promises. And there was lots of chatter about trust, as the social networks have spawned so much peer to peer interaction (and the P2P has spawned its share of weird interactions).

In short, the problem that is emerging is that people, for better or worse, form  judgements based upon online information, make promises and commitments, and then are disappointed with the related offline episodes. Happens all the time, across a variety of peer to peer actions. There are a gazillion examples of the difficulties of this toggle, like

• Lady GaGa tickets bought through Craigslist for cash at the last-minute
• A Wimdu rental, where the pics were great, but the pillows just plain smell.
• A RelayRide renter who changes his plans last minute and screws up the rest of your calendar

But the upside of getting trust right in the sharing economy (and in P2P lending, and in dating, etc etc.) is that more trust leads to more and faster transactions and interactions within a community. I think Stephen MR Covey (son of 7 Habits Stephen) had it right quite awhile ago when he wrote The Speed of Trust. You can add his good work to these recent pieces on the subject:

• The Trust Projects recent manifesto…
• Letters and outreach to the community by Scaffold and Legit
• Neal Gorenflo doing everything possible to forward the sharing conversation via shareable (Nice work!)
• Shared Squared finally announcing an event calendar in NYC

But, at some point, in order to truly scale, I really passionately believe the sharing economy must deliver an indicator of trust between the two parties in a transaction increases if not ensures the assets at risk. The only product in the market that is out there, doing it today and in increasing numbers with both communities and users is TrustCloud. (You can claim your TrustCloud here). And yes, I am an investor and have blogged on the topic here, here and here.

Eventually, they will be compelled to ensure trust is sufficient. And just as airbnb has done, others will need to underwrite that risk. People- and perhaps their insurers! – will want better answers to questions like:

• Will my car be returned in good order?
• Will my apartment be sacked while a couchsurfer is there?
• Will my boat he left on the rocks by this drifter that borrowed it?
• Is my daughter safe with this tutor who comes to the house?
• Will I ever see my lawn mower again?
• Will this ride share going to get me to work, or roll me out of the car in Mexico?

And all that attention has forwarded the discussion, but trust is not an absolute from the get go. We as humans observe behavior and actions before trust is earned,  and we frequently reassess trust levels along the way. It can work between online and offline as long as it is observed, recorded and elegantly presented in context.

So, not unlike the man in Frost’s Poem…

The accumulation of recorded behavior, events and affinities that leads to the confidence to exchange something of value, tangible or intangible is IMHO the most accurate and applicable definition of Trust that any P2P marketplace can rely on.  

And this is why, simply, behavior trumps reputation every time.

PS: I’d love to hear what you think of the new TrustCloud. Enter your comments below, or on their site. Mine is above at the top of my blog.

Largest on water cleanup- Ever.

News spread pretty quickly that the Shell Oil LNG platform destined for Long Island Sound sunk back into oblivion last week, likely for good. In its proposed form, it would have towered above all other structures on either side of that great body of water and inspired the curses of generations to follow. It should have been a procedural layup, with the interests of the Sound split between two states, both struggling with budget and resource constraints, and zero organized advocacy to oppose the revenue generating and cost saving proposal.

Now the legend of how that didn’t happen continues to grow, just as quietly as it snuck up on everybody before the battle began.

Begin with Leah Schmalz, a delightful director of legal and legislative affairs for Save the Sound, a program of Connecticut Fund for the Environment who began the opposition eight years ago with meager resources and virtually zero platform to get the word out. She picked her punches wisely.

Then, out of no where, Kayak for a Cause jumped in, ostensibly because ”Save the Sound” had the brand that most directly fit the core values of the organization. But as KFAC learned more, both organizations realized the symbiosis of their existences. What followed was a virtual marching band of support for Leah and her work at STS. When STS needed to get the word out, KFAC designed an “on the water clean up” over 14 miles of sound. When STS needed a platform to gather more supporters, KFAC was there with a stage, a microphone,and a tremendous crowd ready to listen. When STS needed promotion during a crucial state senate vote, KFAC rallied its 10,000 donors to flood the capital with expressions of concern. And when STS needed financial resources to back up Leah, KFAC was there with five figure support, year after year.

Was is most amazing, perhaps, is that all of this was started with nothing, and done for love: One simple bet, and a few guys redirecting the proceeds to charity became an annual tradition along the Sound.

It’s now hard to fathom that KFAC has always been an entirely volunteer organization which somehow fields a crew of 500 committed souls every year to manage the logistics of a modern day Normandy with a beach party at the end. The leadership and organizational talents of this group are stunning. People like Shirleen Dubuque and Steve Showalter organize provisions, supplies and people with sublime, 11th hour hijinx. Kim Beaumont at DownUnder and Dave Haddox from Purdue have likely trained hundreds of kayakers to be safe enough to make the voyage. Tad Jones worked stage miracles for years, packing thousands of people into legendary beach parties that rallies the troops around the charities. Patrick Sikes was a master magician at logistics. Amy Rule and Kathy Foreman wrangle hundreds of volunteers to do undesirable work details at unmentionable hours. And Adam Uhrynowski and Brian Russell have this magic touch capturing the whole thing on film for us to replay over and again in the long winter months of  frozen water.

All of this energy was harnessed and directed to something good, for years on end. And then last week…

“In sending a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requesting to vacate their certificates, Broadwater has signaled that their proposed floating gas plant is finally dead,” said Leah Schmalz. “Eight years ago, the citizens of Connecticut and New York recognized that this proposed project was not good for our environment or our livelihood,” Schmalz said. “It took years of fighting, partnering with federal and state officials on both sides of Long Island Sound, but now we can say that the health and safety of our Sound will not be compromised by the proposed industrial complex.” More here

Years ago, another KFAC treasure named Morley quoted Pete Seeger  in “Where Have All the Flowers Gone” from the stage, as she had witnessed KFAC grow from dozens to hundreds and then thousands.

I’ve been surprised by some good things happening in my lifetime. Sometimes quite suddenly.

Imagine a big see-saw, with a basketful of rocks sitting on one end. That end is down on the ground. At the other end, up in the air, is a basket half full of sand. Some of us are trying to fill it, using teaspoons. Most folks laugh at us. “Don’t you know the sand is leaking out even as you put it in?”

We say, that’s true, but we’re getting more people with teaspoons all the time. One of these days that basket of sand will be full up and you’ll see this whole see-saw just tip the opposite way. People will say, “Gee, how did it happen so suddenly?”

Us, and our little teaspoons.

Leah Schmalz is now working on controlling emissions and ecoli bloom from the Bridgeport harbor. Kayak for a Cause launches for its twelfth year on July 21th. And Long Island Sound is that much nicer because they do what they do.

No, they don't.

It’s been said 2012 will be the year of Social Media in Business; for the meta travel site KAYAK, it couldn’t come soon enough.

While some businesses are evolving or even transforming how they buy and sell products, many are fast becoming social businesses. In a Fast Company article by Drew Neisser, “Move Over Social Media; Here Comes Social Business” he explains the reasons why every company should be thinking about becoming a social business. According to Neisser, IBM is moving themselves and their clients “well beyond social media into a new era of collaboration, insight sharing and lead generation it calls social business”.

It only takes one disaster, and the whole company focusses on getting social media right.

So big news this week was KAYAK pulled some ads from TLC recently on a previously under the radar show called “All-American Muslim”. In fact, seems 65 other advertisers have done the same, including Lowes. None cited any reason for pulling ads, and so the logical media man assumes it was for underperformance. Advertisers advertise because they are in business. They want to reach customers and have a finite marketing budget to do it.

KAYAK is a small entrepreneurial company, the type that we need badly in America. Unfortunately, KAYAK’s explanation came out in the form of a (likely) hastily written blog post from the CMO right out of the classic Gas-on-the-fire PR strategy. It starts with a typo (as I often do as well), and rambles just enough to contradict between backing a show for moral reasons and pulling out for performance reasons. I’ve written worse. (full disclosure: I know the CEO and have shared beers on occaision).

Here’s that first post:

We would like to apologize to anyone who was offended by how we handled our decision not to continue advertising on All-American Muslim when it
returns in January. We decided to advertise on it in the first place because we  adamantly support tolerance and diversity. Our 150-person team includes people
from all over the world, and from all walks of life. Our team includes people who are descended from early Europeans who came here escaping religious
intolerance, and newer Americans who include many religions. We get what America is about.

For the record, we didn’t “pull” our ads. Our ads kept running on this program, but we have made the decision not to give TLC more money when the show returns in January.

Unfortunately, this decision comes across as bending to bigotry. It also appears that we did not support people who deserve support as people and as Americans. For that, I am profoundly sorry.

I should have communicated more clearly. We would not want anyone to think that we caved to hatred. I wish I could share some of the emails I’ve received from our team. They are also very unhappy with how I handled this. Please allow me to explain the decision. First, our approach to advertising decisions is to choose advertising based on who watches it, not the political leaning of the program.

When we decided to give our money to TLC for this program, we deemed the show a worthy topic. When we received angry emails regarding our decision to advertise, I looked into the show more thoroughly. The first thing I discovered was that TLC was not upfront with us about the nature of this show. As I said, it’s a worthy topic, but any reasonable person would know that this topic is a particular lightning rod. We believe TLC went out of their way to pick a fight on this, and they didn’t let us know their intentions. That’s not a business practice that generally gets repeat business from us. I also believe that it did this subject a grave disservice. Sadly, TLC is now enjoying the attention from this controversy.

I then checked the Florida Family Association website to see how this was portrayed. Besides the regrettable hatred, I also noticed that we weren’t listed. The email was a template, so people who sent thousands of emails seemed to be unaware they were sending it to us. The amount of vitriol in the emails was saddening, but I didn’t exactly feel pressured (not to mention we wouldn’t bend to such pressure). Many of the emails I’ve received expressing disappointment in our decision have been much more civil, and I applaud you for that.

Lastly, I watched the first two episodes. Mostly, I just thought the show sucked. Based on our dealings with TLC and the simple assessment of the show, I decided we should put our money elsewhere. Apologies again.

- Robert Birge, KAYAK Chief Marketing Officer

But then social and traditional media kicked in, picking apart the post and accusing the company of pandering to religious groups (who pointed out, correctly, the show had no bomb makers). This, to them, implied TLC was going light on Islam and they called for support to be pulled. Meanwhile, support was being pulled, likely for entirely different reasons- economics. But I think the big lesson learned is that businesses are beginning to wade into social media, and they have to get a handle on the tremendous benefits and swift dangers of living in that world. As for KAYAK, the best thing they can do in this Holiday season is to focus. Sure enough, this clarification just came out from CEO Steve Hafner.

This is actually my first blog post ever. Frankly, I wish it was on a different topic.

I want to respond to the questions and comments we’ve been receiving about KAYAK’s advertising on the TLC show “All-American Muslim”. We’re a small company with fewer than 200 employees, and we advertise on a lot of TV shows. We don’t have the resources to vet the content of each show. We also continually adjust our media mix – meaning we start, stop,  and restart advertising on specific shows periodically.

Our decision regarding advertising on All-American Muslim was in no way influenced by demands from third parties such as the FFA. We do try to avoid advertising on shows that may produce controversy, whether we support the content or not. We simply don’t want people to confuse our choice of where we spend our TV dollars with a political or moral agenda. Plus there are plenty of shows that are just as effective from a marketing perspective.

We’re not bigots, and we’re not experts in TV programming. We are trying to make the world’s best travel site. I hope this blog post puts this issue to rest and allows us to get back to work.

Please enjoy the holiday season. Steve Hafner

 Simple, focussed and to the point. Good CEO reaction.

PT Barnum would have been proud

I was heartbroken this week as news that the wedding of the century lasted 72 days… Actually, what brought tears to my eyes was that the American public took yet another collective step down the ladder in race to the bottom, and this particular bottom is a big one, if that shot from the New York Post isn’t retouched!

How does anyone assemble such a large group of lazy, nihilist, shallow, hopeless aspirationalists and suck them into actually believing that shallow self-absorbed and dumb as a clogheel is any way to go through life (to quote Judge Smails from Bushwood CC). Oh, and all the while selling them products and services that redefine trashy?

1. Turn on a camera I guess.

P.T Barnum may have said “sell to the masses, eat with the classes… the Kardashian Empire has somehow gotten Americans to consume endless hours of totally worthless pettiness, appears to be selling them fairly lame clothing (with what is best described as VS syndrome it looked so good on her…), and almost loading all those follower/purchasers into a ridiculous fee loaded credit card. That was finally pulled, as the smell from the fees and interest must have even penetrated the perfumed confines of the Dash boudoir. It seems no one every got poor underestimating the class of the American people.

So truth be told, I don’t mind Kim. She’s pretty. And she is not the first to run the table in the star-infatuation for profit racket.

Elizabeth Taylor carried that type of fascination factor throughout her live, and was no stranger to quickie marriages and headline grabbing affairs. But she actually DID stuff. Decent movies. Ardent support of AIDS victims. Classy as hell fashion. And articulate positions on a variety of issues that concerned our society. On the other side of the spectrum of nothingness, there is Paris Hilton, who is furious she can’t muscle onto a magazine cover lately, having contributed equally as much to society’s table as Kim, to date.

Kim has become the most extreme symbol, so far, in just how low and desperate America’s aspirations are for something better, and how totally devoid too many Americans are these days of the skills and work ethic required to actually earn any of it. That’s the saddest part of this progression, and it won’t stop until we find something better to do with our time. Like developing a skill, or creating something that benefits society, our community, or just a circle of friends. And it will take tuning the crap out of our lives and getting on with something more rewarding and redeeming.

And what’s next for Kim and the value of the throne as Queen of Nothingness? Perhaps the best answer came during lunch with Sam Zell yesterday while he talked about distressed assets: price is the cure for any perceived defect.

Sponsorship for her next wedding, or a ringside seat at the birth of her as-yet-un-announced secret love baby (no doubt conceived during an yet-to-be announced affair while married to her now belatedly-beloved for 72 days) may well fetch less that $17M. How much less and how quickly her price falls depends on how soon America snaps out of it, and moves on to something with meaning.

I’m counting on that happening, but not fast enough.

The Kardashians next season begins November 27th. Plans for her run for the Senate are as yet un-announced…

I didn't have a pic for this one, so Baxter is up

Lao Tzu, with that simple phrase, would have been a mover and shaker in digital media. Here’s one reason why…

I had time for a cup of coffee with Charlie Greene, a trust advisor who has carved out a unique niche teaching Trust-Worthiness to all sorts of companies, corporate citizens, and high level advisors. In fact, I would venture to call him The Trust Advisor, not just a trust advisor. Check out his multiple books on the subject here.

I came into the meeting wondering if the processes he had developed would be applicable in the Sharing Economy where TrustCloud functions.  What he told me opened a whole new perspective on the concept. In his words, the basic elements of trustworthiness are contained in the Trust  Equation.

(T+C+R+I) / S

Now let me explain:

1. T stands for trustworthiness—how much the  buyer/client trusts the seller (or vice versa)
2. C stands for credibility—it speaks to words and credentials.
3. R is  reliability—how others perceive the consistency of our actions, and our actions’ connection with our words (integrity).
4. I is intimacy— how secure or safe the client feels sharing with us.

The lone term in the denominator is Self-Orientation, and it has a  double meaning. Partly it’s about selfishness. But Self-orientation is also about our attention, our focus. Are we  listening ? Or are we listening to truly hear.  Are we obsessed by our own desires, by our  insecurities? Or do we truly focus on others needs, paying attention even when it doesn’t necessarily benefit us?  Only the latter builds deep, long-term relationships.

I love exploring the dynamics of Trust (and trust-worthiness), and have written regularly about what I have learned on the subject (here’s the Trust tag in my blog) including such favorites as MadMen, Catfish, and Fool me Once. I have also been speaking on the topic: one fun afternoon was spent with Cam Tonkinwise of Shared Square and his class of students at the New School  studying (you guessed it) the sharing economy. I was hit with a ton of new questions about Trust and its components.  Every time I think I have explored every corner, I get another view that gives me deeper understanding and deeper desire to dig deeper. As the dinosaur product development monster FAKE GRIMLOCK famously said: RIGHT IDEA MAKE BURN INSIDE TO FIX. CAN TAKE DAY OFF FROM IDEA? IT WRONG ONE. Trust has that grip on me.

So I began to think Trust as it applies to our online “social vapor” (a term Xin Chung coined to describe all the low stakes, hi volume events we participate in online that form a picture of our offline personality).

How much better would you feel about sharing a ride, if that someone had done the same with others. (C above) Even better if that share was with someone we knew. How confident might we been lending out our powertools if the borrower had proven reliability in a similar sharing economy circumstance. (R) How important would it be to know someone you were about to give the housekeys was actually connected to others in your network. (I) And, of all these data points, what does the denominator of paying attention to the needs of others affect our trust. (S). The formula works, even when applied in rudimentary terms to the sharing economy.

The sharing economy has some really cool companies that are just starting to get some traction:

• Share a room with airBnb  or wimdu
• Share a ride with getaround or relayrides
• Share a skill with zaarly
• Share a (tool) or thing with neighborgoods or snapgoods
• Share a project ($) with kickstarter
• Share your driveway with Park at my House

Each of them have a unique idea to change the way our planet consumes resources more efficiently. and they have domain expertise in forming and communicating with that specialized market. Now, imagine an eco-system where people are doing more and quicker exchanges with each other because trust had been built within the community. Awesome power. All from a simple equation. But to make a sharing economy-type point to the sharing economy, would it not make perfect sense to use and re-use one common asset to track trust-worthiness across the eco-system?

I think so. How ’bouts you?

~~

Charles Greene’s trust indicator test is here… http://trustsuite.trustedadvisor.com/landing/A/C

My Disclaimer Here:  I have an investment in, and a deep belief for, the benefits of  TrustCloud, mentioned above.

Stay in the chair

I got this from a recent sermon. It works for start ups. Belief is only really real when true or false means life or death, or similar consequences.

Think about this story: a boy is asked to prove a theory to his class and he chooses the pendulum. He rigs up a baseball and a string and ties it to a pivot on a whiteboard. He explains that, because of the effects of friction and gravity, once the pendulum swings, it will never return higher than its original point and eventually, because of those same forces, it will find rest in equilibrium at the middle. Does the class agree? Yes, of course, everyone has studied this and knows it to be true. And so he begins, swinging the ball and watching in move back and forth until yes indeed it settles as expected. Theory proven. Teacher impressed.

But wait, he says… true or false is easy with no stakes.

So, he takes down another pendulum set, this one strung high into the rafters, containing a giant chain and a 30 lb cinderblock capable of crushing a skull if moving at any decent speed. He asks the teacher to sit in a chair very still and measures out the chain so the block comes just shy of the teacher’s nose. And he repeats the theory. The class unanimously agrees, the pendulum won’t swing further than its prior apex. The teacher is less resolute, checking all measurements and possibilities. He reluctantly agrees and sits there motionless as the block swings with a whooshing sounds across the room and crests just shy of the wall opposite his chair. It begins to retrace its path, building momentum and force as it passes the equilibrium point and continues toward him.

The teacher ceases to believe what he himself has taught. He bails out, to the boos of his students.

To test the depth and breadth of your Belief, consider the absolute of True or False means Life or Death. Do you believe in your start-up enough to sit in the chair? Do you belive in your marketing plan? Your next hire? Your big acquisition? Your next partner? Your logo? Your next shareholder loan in order to make payroll? Your ability to pivot?

Before you make your next big start-up step, ask yourself… how long can I stay in the chair?