To the hounds! This is a slight more stylish or elegant version of the same thing but not content enough nor elegant enough

I like this definition and while it might lack something in sophistication it does achieve the separation needed between the philosophy and the technology. Philosophy should drive technology so this at least gives us the ability to move ahead with discussions about what technology should support this philosophy. I wouild expect that this group will iterate on both the technology and philosophy fronts. Thanks to I forget who it was that made the point about separation in a previous post but good job!

Couple of comments: First, this definition omits prospects. They have a ton of information about your relative value that your customers don't have. Second, it depends on a definition of advocates. Most definitions include a metric (cust sat, e.g.) that exceeds a threshold (cust sat > 8, e.g.). This for many companies is not a sustainable goal -- the cost to make every customer advocates could put them out of business. Plus, some people by their nature are not prone to advocate-style behavior. I wonder if there's some other way of phrasing this that is intuitive and realistic, and which accommodates these observations, e.g., "create a portfolio of customers that is profitable and is likely to increase in value over time."

I agree that prospects need to be included. In fact, I might argue that CRM is actually a two-part discussion. Before and after. The role of CRM in lead nurturing and as a sales tool is hugely important. Likewise the role of CRM in building and sustaining the customer relationship is critical for expanding customer life cycle value. However, I think they are two separate issues - both addressable by CRM, but in different ways. Different experiences and levels of engagement perhaps...

Today CRM is transactional in nature and is generally defined by company or departmental processes -- limiting the definition to leads, prospects and customers (i.e. those who have made a purchase) assumes that CRM begins and ends with the organization's first (and last) transaction with that particular individual. This is not "relationship" thinking. Many after-sale CRM processes are geared toward driving repeat purchase, not advocacy, goals. Research on cognitive dissonance suggests that customers can be nervous about purchases for long after the sales transaction is complete (and may seek to be reassured that they made the right decision). They don't yet want to buy more stuff and don't have a particular support problem -- today, what CRM process (much less department) cares for these individuals? Other customers may love a product so much that they want to blog about it, but aren't yet ready to buy additional products and services. Today, legal takes care of these customers with C&D letter!

In our 2.0 world, we need to consider information-seeking and information-contributing behaviour, as well as the role of the influencer. CRM 2.0 needs to recognize that the relationship begins and ends with the individual, not the department or company -- sometimes the customer wants information, sometimes the want to buy something, sometimes they want help and sometimes that just want to be assured that they made the right decision. The role of CRM tools, technology, process and culture is to determine what they are looking for and direct them to the appropriate resource.