| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

CRM CEM: Should We Keep the Names Or Get Rid of Them - Discussion Session

This version was saved 15 years, 6 months ago View current version     Page history
Saved by Axel
on October 1, 2008 at 6:27:19 pm
 
Part of the challenge of find the “right” new term for CRM is that the current term means different things to different companies, and different companies are in different places along the “customer strategy evolution.” To some CRM is quite internally focused, for example; to others it’s more “CMR” (as with Disney). Personally, I think of CRM and CEM as two very different things – CEM, for me, being a something a company does as part of its CRM strategy.
 
Do we need to say specifically what we are giving a title to? That is, write the definition first, and then suggest a name that fits best?

 

This segment is to determine whether or not we should even call this Customer Relationship Management or Customer Experience Management to begin with.

 

 

Paul G:

I'll start off by saying that I think that CRM/CEM are acronyms that don't really reflect what's going on right now, so calling it CRM 2.0, while convenient isn't necessarily right. Let me point out an example of what I mean.

Disney Destinations, the travel agency arm of Disney, changed their CRM program to a CMR program. They said they were moving from an inappropriately called customer relationship management program to what they thought was a slight change of emphasis - customer managed relationship program. In my normally hyperbolic way, I think this is much more than a slight change of emphasis, but instead a significant reflection of how the relationships with customers to business have changed and is considerably more appropriate - even if not the right acronym or name quite - for the current state of things that should be reflected in the name.

 

 

Mei Lin Fung MLF:

 

Customer Managed Programs CMR - is pointing the way that I was going, that the CRM in the future is going to or is likely to be, more useful for the customer than the business. But it will go in both directions, so I thought of this idea of "Value Exchange Management" where I as the customer can choose to show my chosen amount of "preference profile/demographic/even income or assset data" information in exchange for more specific information  about the business that I might want to buy from. The business can look at my profile and decide what best to show me first, second, third.... and even bundle and sell and price differently based on my preferences and profile. The Power has moved to the People. Will a completely new set of software developers or application providers sell something to consumers that works for them like their personalized "consumer reports" and "better business bureau"?

 

Marco De Veglia:

Companies can like it or dislike it, but when they think "CRM" they know it's something they do (or, usually, they should do) to manage the relationship with their customers. In my opinion, "CRM" is already a classic, like "marketing" or "TQM". Acronyms are probably the worst way to communicate concepts, from their bad sound to obscure meaning to the non-initiated. But, on the other hand, billions of words have been spent on the "CRM" word and finding a new one would need a lot of PR-power just to be put on the map.

So, in my opinion, we should keep "CRM". The "2.0" flavor seems hot these days, thanks to the "web 2.0" hype that's driving a lot of money again to new dotcoms. Hence, it can't be bad to "twozero-ize" our old "CRM" friend.

 

Axel Schultze:

CRM 2.0 = Customer Relationship Modeling. In the past 2 years of this wiki it became pretty apparent that the new customer interaction model is Collaborative, Social, Open. None of those attributes are part of a "Management Tool" How can I collaborate but at the same time MANAGE, how can it be social, yet I am still the MANAGER, how can it be open if it requires somebody in CONTROL. However CRM is widely used that we may consider keeping the term but with the attribute 2.0 referencing to the new MODEL. And as many posts here suggested, social integration, customer integration, collaboration are the key attributes of that new model. Hence many of the old elements will fade away. Mega integration in ERP, Accounting yade yade yade won;t work in acollaborative model. You won't want customers which you don't even know there names part of your integration emire.  So CRM 2.0 may need some slick connectors for one node of the network (your company) but other connectors if at all for all the thousands of other nodes (your customers and customers customer). Terms like "User Provided Content", "Co-Creation" are no longer fantasy of a busines science fiction but part of the new customer engagement model that need to be reflected in CRM 2.0.

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.