Its one thing to put your contact information in a social networking service. Its another thing to make connections explicit. But its an entirely different thing to make contact information literally tradeable.
The latest YASNS aims to just that, which launches today with venture backing:
The
Jigsaw platform is basically a cross between the online marketplace of eBay and the social networking site of Friendster.com. Jigsaw users are able to buy, sell and trade business contact information. The service costs $25 per month, which gives users access to 25 contacts per month (plus an extra 20 as a sign-up bonus). A salesperson generates access to additional contacts by adding new listings to the system. For each contact added, a user receives two in return. Those who supply at least 25 contacts per month can bypass the monthly fee.
Fowler says the reason for this interactivity is two-fold. First, it keeps Jigsaw as a cash-upfront business, which lowers overhead and reduces the amount of outside capital required. Second, it helps keep the information dynamic, since users also are encouraged to update their contacts’ information for shared use.
Now, I have said the network is the market, but this may be going to far. There is some merit in the notion of a virtual currency for contacts, especially as the target market is sales guys, But contact information, and people for that matter, are not fungible. There would be strong incentives to game the market by trading bad contacts for good.
Jigsaw explicitly says they support contact information, not relationships, and perhaps avoid Plaxo pitfalls.
But consider this exceprt from Michael Schrage’s classic essay on The Relationship Revolution, courtesy of Jerry Michalski:
Consider a small thought-experiment: Whenever you see the word “information” — as in the strategic importance of managing information, or the importance of timely information in solving problems, or the need to make substantial investments in information technology in order to compete in the cutthroat world of global competition — substitute the word “relationship.”
Then consider the value of the information being traded compared to the underpinning relationships.
1. Cliff Allen on December 6, 2004 10:41 PM writes...
This use of someone else's personal data raises at least two ethical questions.
The first is whether a sales rep should be selling an employer's customer list.
Also, it seems that selling customer data to a third party could violate the company's privacy policy.
I wrote a more detailed set of concerns at:
Permalink to Commenthttp://www.allen.com/cgi-bin/gt/tpl.h,content=93&
2. Steve Shu on December 7, 2004 3:53 PM writes...
Ross,
To make light of this subject a bit, I think by recent news the world now knows that even ghosts are fungible so I don't see why contact information wouldn't be either. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041204/ap_on_re_us/ghost_auction
The question in my mind is will there be a large enough market for this and will Jigsaw be able to command premium returns?
You are probably saying similar things actually ...
-Steve
Permalink to Comment3. Charlie O'Donnell on December 9, 2004 2:26 PM writes...
Remember, this practice isn't new... its just the online tool that is. I remember a friend of mine interning for a company that just bought, sold, and traded customer lists all the time... a list marketplace.
I mean, how else would someone's joke signup of my name on a Ladies Home Journal subscription wind up propogating itself into a subscription for American Baby magazine, and dozens of solicitations to have my baby's picture taken at local photoships? I'm on the "mom & baby" list somewhere. (For the record, I am male, unmarried and without offspring.) Contact trading is nothing new and yes, people definately try to game the system by trading garbage lists for good ones. Its also a violation of privacy policy as well, but how do you police that? How can I prove that the Ladies Home Journal sold me to the baby list people? Maybe it was from somewhere else. Consumers really don't have much assurance on this kind of stuff.
Permalink to Comment4. Marcus Kirsch on December 14, 2004 8:20 AM writes...
I agree with Charlie O'Donnell's comment.
Isn't this just another example where the behind the curtain mechanics just becomes public and suddenly it's an issue.
My question would rather be how thsi works on a human-to-human level, which it is aimed on targetting.
Will it just annoy people that suddenly everyone is contacting you or will our natural instinct of social behaviour be our filter by default.
I remember the effect such an openness had on orkut.com. You wouldn't just invite anyone down the seventh level to be your "friend" or at least those targetted would just ignore you if they wouldnt have an immediate idea where the tree you were coming from.
Permalink to Comment