You are on page 1of 191

A Vertical Market Solutions for Retail Reader by Mary Regine Joaquin

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-


Attribution
Share Alike 3.0 Philippines License.
License
Order

1. Preface

2. Dedication

3. The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of


Business as Usual - Book Review

4. Web 2.0 Heroes: Interviews with 20


Web 2.0 Influencers - Book Review

5. 95 Theses - Reflections

6. Systems Proposal - Others


Preface

Hey there,

This book is not like what it may seem to be… If you noticed, the
template and the design of this book are actually far from being, well as the subject
suggests, too CORPORATE-ish or BUSINESS-ish (as I call it). As the sole author of this
book, and being my first, I would want to reflect my personality in it without
sacrificing the CONTENTS of the book. I would want to take a different approach in
rendering my thoughts and opinions about some issues, subjects, or things that
would co-relate with vertical market solutions, far from the usual. By the way, why
do I want to take that different approach I was saying earlier? Well, it is because all
throughout the duration of my 2nd term as a college junior at the De La Salle-College
of St. Benilde (Philippines), our Vertical Solutions Subject required us to read
articles about Retail Technology, Retailing, and etc. and most of the time, I was
discouraged to read an article (well online) JUST BECAUSE I find it really not
interesting –- not because of its CONTENTS but merely because of how it was
presented – the template was so (well like what I termed it to be) SO CORPORATE-ish
making it dull looking that would less likely attract teenagers like me BUT what
should I EXPECT right? IT SHOULD BE LIKE THAT in the first place because most of
those articles were posted in BUSINESS Sites … I don’t want my readers to feel like I
am torturing them, in a way, so I decided to MIX and MATCH… My personality, self-
preferences, freedom as the author to how I would want the layout of it to be PLUS
“A Vertical Market
VERTICAL MARKET SOLUTIONS equals (drum roll)

Solutions for Retail Reader by Mary Regine


Joaquin.”

P.S.
Hope you’d like it….
Mary Joaquin
Dedication

I dedicate this to God, my loved-ones,


my mentors, and to my doggies…
Chocolate (but we call him Chokie most
of the time), Danny, and Braguldi and
to our late dogs JC and MOCHA.
The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual
Book Review

The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual, Chapter 1



Quotation

“We die. You will never hear those words spoken in a television ad. Yet this central fact of human existence
colors our world and how we perceive ourselves within it.” – Christopher Locke

I was actually moved by his quotation. That never crossed my mind or maybe I just don’t have the time to
think of it or maybe I don’t entertain issues or thoughts about death maybe because I was afraid to think of it. When
I read that part I was like “Oo nga noh! He has a point.”

Learning Expectations

I was intrigued with the chapter’s title: INTERNET APOCALYPSO. So which means, I suppose, the
revelation of the internet or how it came to be, what may be the struggles it under-went to in the past (I’m sure there
must have been instances because Internet is a very big deal now and having that concept in the past, I guess those
people who came with that idea would look or sound ridiculous. No one would actually believe it at first, I suppose),
and the events that made affected by the internet as well as the things that affected and contributed to its success
now. At this very moment I really don’t have a clue of why it’s called that way (the chapter). But I’m excited to read
it because maybe it’s the things about how internet came to be, history, people behind it, some stories before its
creation, what it is for, and many more.

Review

Christopher Locke said that WE WILL DIE and yes I certainly agree to that. Everybody would end their
lives FORTUNATELY (not like THEY’LL KILL themselves. Maybe some would) and it is an inevitable process or
event in our lives that we should all understand though even if it is a fact why do we rarely hear people conversing
about it, never seen in a television advertisement? I don’t know either. He said “This central fact of human existence
colors our world and how we perceive ourselves within it” which maybe explains why we always think or say LIFE
IS TOO SHORT. Make the most out of it. Cherish every moment we have in this world. He said “Life is too short
because we’ll die.” I was moved by that actually. He is really right. The thing that made our lives short is the fact
that we don’t know when to die. Because we are so busy thinking of the ways on how we could spend it the way we
want it, unfortunately, we tend to forget what matters most in our lives. Christopher Locke said “Amazingly, we
learn to live with it. Human beings are incredibly resilient. We know it’s all temporary, that we can’t freeze the good
times or hold back the bad ones… We come to understand that life is just like that” and because of that we want to
live our lives to the fullest. Get the best from it and live it. We long for something we are not, for something we do
not have. We long to have more and be more. As they always say “You would always want the things you don not
have even if you are already good enough”. Christopher Locke said “Longing is a living evidence of heart, of what
makes us most human.” But some companies take advantage of that. They don’t want you to long. Of course they’d
give you the thing that could satisfy your longings. He said “We die. And there’s more than one way to get it over
with. Advertising has some serving suggestions for your premature burial.” For me maybe advertisements would
lure you to buy these products, would want you to buy it because of the benefits it’ll give you and that you tend to
forget that you’ll die eventually. It makes it hard for you to think that you’ll die because you don’t want to live those
material things; things that make you forget and get over that idea.

I was also wondering… What was the connection of that first paragraph with the internet? He answered “A
lot.” He said that the Net grew like a weed and was populated by geeks, loners, misfits. I wonder why? But I know
others would say “Yeah that’s true!” It was once used by some universities and the military. It’s hard to log on to
that if you are outside those institutions. The idea that the internet would someday play a great role in our lives today
would be a laughing matter. No one would ever believe you. Internet was long been ignored and because of that it
prospered. It attracted millions of people. He said “Internet became a place where people could talk to other people
without constraints. Without filters or censorship --- perhaps most significantly NO ADVERTISMENTS.” Now of
course everybody sees it as a very important part of our today’s lives. “To the mindset, the Net is just an extension of
the mass media, primarily television” he said. This works and somebody is really becoming rich with this. He also
said that if we missed the early days of Usenet and didn’t Lynx, we then miss the magic of internet culture. I
obviously don’t know what he meant by that. I started using the net around 2002 when things were kind of faster
compared to the 1990s. Internet connects people and empowers them through those connections. “The internet
technology has also threaded its way deep into the heart of Corporate Empire. Where once upon a time lockstep
loyalty to the chairman’s latest attempt at insight was no further away than the mimeograph machine. One memo
from Mr. Big and everyone believed” which means that we are starting to get the feel of regaining our voices; we
now are somehow out of that controlling power, that managed world. We have this knowledge, the true knowledge.
We have this knowledge of what we do best, our craft and this drives our voices and this is what we most want to
talk about according to Christopher Locke and I totally agree to that. I mostly want to talk things that interest me.
Who on earth would do the otherwise unless it is really needed right? Workers and markets are speaking the same
language now! That conversation is really vital. Without it they can’t do business, they can’t prosper and they would
be left behind by other companies their competitors. “There are two new conversations today: vibrant and exciting;
both mediated by internet technologies but having little to do with technology otherwise.” He also stressed out that
there are this firewalls that separates those conversations and those are traditional, conservative, and fearful
corporations. Maybe they don’t want to indulge themselves to that world because they find it really risky and costly
at the same time. They want to stick with what they have started with and find comfortable with that.

We really rely on commerce, the buying and selling of goods and services. We are alternately the buyer and
the maker of these. He said that nothing is ever wrong with that concept except when it becomes all about life and
except when life becomes secondary and subordinate. And that the beginning of the 20th century business do
dominates all other aspects of our existence. That is really true. It’s all about doing this to earn money for us to
survive. All the things that we’re doing right now are actually the things that sustain our lives our daily needs and
wants.

From a span of time, commerce really evolved. Traders would come from different parts of the world and
would all meet up in the marketplace, the heart of the city. The buy things there and sell but most importantly they
converse, they talk. Christopher Locke said “In the market, language grew, became bolder and sophisticated,
leaped and sparked from mind to mind.” Markets are conversations. It is the human voice that we hear everyday,
rely on to, and best understand. Christopher Locke said “What went wrong?” He explained NOTHING WENT
WRONG but things did change. I have read from this chapter that obviously commerce rely on to people, they
depend to them but now it is divorcing itself from them, workers or customers. Marketplace went out of the heart of
the city and factories replaced them on that spot. Commerce has come to ignore the conversation that defines
communities as human Christopher Locke said. But my question is, are they doing something about it?

In a new globalized community, Internet plays a great role in our lives, in our businesses. Internets give a
wide variety of choice. Businesses install intranets now wanting that same purpose. Now “e-commerce” has arrived
and this offers service online. You could buy things online. There are online shops such as Amazon. Internet came
up with the concept of infinite channel-surfing he said. I don’t want to return to the time when I was doing my
research I do browse this encyclopedia and other articles where internet then were slow, dial-up, what more in the
1990s? How fast does an internet can go? 28.8 kbps? Christopher Locke said “To most traditional companies, the
notion that the workers might actually know what they are doing was a huge insight.” Innovation they said is such a
dangerous task because it violates some of the fixed principles and policies. It goes beyond what is considered fixed.
Those companies should indulge or engage themselves to what we consider is NOW if they want to survive or
prosper. Christopher Locke quoted “This engagement must be fearless and far-reaching. Workers must become fully
empowered and self-directed. Suppliers must become trusted allies in developing new products and business
strategies. Scarier. Markets must come to have faces and personalities in place of statistical profiles. Flat-out
panic!” So the future of business is about differences, about diversity, about breaking rules, ABOUT DOING IT
FIRST, and most of all ABOUT building communities and spreading knowledge. Networks greatly facilitate the
sharing of relevant knowledge within the community joined by like interests he said. With the help of the internet,
awareness spread much faster compared to mass media.

Much of today’s businesses, they have to be relaxed, take a deep breath. They need to understand that
employees already know how to do the work far better than the company could ever hope to dictate Christopher
Locke said. And I agree to that. By now they should be very much open to that if they want to prosper. Their
employees are their great investment and termed as the human capital. Even the Zen master Suzuki Roshi quoted
“To control your cow, give it a bigger pasture.” They should learn to trust people especially people who greatly
affects your business and the web is responsible for that concept.

What I’ve Learned

Honestly, I didn’t realize at first how internet, the web, has changed our lives. I thought that “Yeah! It makes
processes, doing our assignments, searching a lot faster.” I didn’t know what the internet been true before it was
fully accepted by the community, by our systems. It has been mocked, never believed, except for some, the power
and benefits it can give the people. I have learned too that the first people who developed these were actually, some,
hackers and they’re proud of that label. I have learned that Yahoo! is one of them but now they are fully respected in
the industry. Because internet evidently affected our lives big-time, some businesses want to indulge themselves in,
and make advantage of it like Amazon, e-commerce. The world has taken a new perspective but some are still you
know conservative and very traditional who doesn’t want to indulge themselves much in the world where everybody
enjoys now and I have learned that that is because they don’t want their workers to actually know what they were
doing in the first place. So selfish of those companies. Christopher Locke even suggested to burn down those
companies but come on you know that it was a joke.

The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual, Chapter 2



Quotation

“The voice that the Web gives us is not the ability to post pictures of our cat and our guesses at how the next
episode of The X-Files will end. It is the granting of a place in which we can be who we are (and even who we
aren’t, if that’s the voice we’ve chosen).” - David Weinberger

He is really right (for me). The web really is actually where I could show the world who I really am. I can
show to them the things we can never talk about in person, maybe because we don’t have time to see each other or
maybe because we didn’t get the chance to know each other better. I do it by posting my pictures on the web,
posting not for the sake of just wanting people to see what I’ve been doing but to let them know, by just looking at
my pictures, what kind of person I am. I don’t want to write a lot of stuff that would describe me… I want others to
know me not because I said it, but because they’ve witnessed it themselves.

Learning Expectations

Maybe upon reading the first few lines of the chapter, I was totally intrigued by the line or by the question
what’s the web for? I know there must be this very mind opening answer to that because obviously in my own
perspective I already know what to answer. Surely if I could answer it then why can’t he? Maybe there is this very
great explanation to that and that is what I want to learn.

Review

I have heard what the web is and that is for surfing the net fast and quick, sending electronic mails to my
friends, sending files, chatting with them online, looking for my long lost friends or some who were already living
outside the country eventually wanting to establish or maintain our communication, where I could learn latest
gadgets in stores, where I could buy stuff online, where I could research stuff for our projects in my school, where I
could sell some items, where I could blog myself, and most especially web for me is my FREE on-line MAGAZINE
where which I could learn the latest scoop about my favorite pop-princess Britney Spears. So much to tell about
what a web is for me and I was surprised to read what David Weiberger has written in this chapter “We know
telephones are for talking with people, televisions are for watching programs, and highways are for driving. So
what is the web for? We do not know.” What does he meant by WE DO NOT KNOW? I know! I even placed
several things describing what a web is for. He even said that the webheads and full-time aficionados do not
understand what a web is but sense an opportunity. But hey, if they don’t understand what a web is for, why are they
still developing or why have they developed one anyways? Maybe what he meant by that is that these people were
spending a lot of time, effort, even billions of cash to make one yet they still do not know what the web IS REALLY
FOR. I’m also baffled by that. He continued, “It’s the uncles and aunts who pepper you with questions about all this
web stuff.” Surely, we all want to know the answer to his question, we want to know all the things about THIS WEB
STUFF. Longing to know the right answer indicates that there is something missing in our lives. He said “What is
missing is the sound of the human voice.”

“The longing for the web occurs in the midst of a profoundly managed age” AND hey we are in this age.
He said in this chapter that to be a business is to be managed because a business manages everything. In our own
homes as well, we manage things inside our house, our lives, and our families. There are several advantages you
could gain out of living that managed life and the following are the things he cited: Risk Avoidance, Smoothness
where everything works in a managed life, fairness because in earlier times life is just so plain unfair, and
discretionary attention which states that risks are lessen and now you have the chance to decide what interests you
the most. But he also added that NONE OF THESE are delivered perfect. If some didn’t work right it’s as if we feel
so violated because we expected so much more from that managed life. A managed life CONTROLS US, control
who we really are. He said “A managed environment expect behavior from us THAT WE ACCEPT as inevitable
although of course, it is really mandatory because it was mandated. We call it professionalism” AND you know
how most of the said PROFESSIONALS act, dress, talk, and do things right? He even said that some of us don’t
mind doing this or even ENJOYED doing this and I was like, yeah he’s right. I have witnessed a few people who
have enjoyed and were even good in doing it. He said that it was quite disturbing. I find it real disturbing too. It’s as
if somebody is controlling this certain person and has turned him/her into this very different person I used to know.
(I don’t want my life to be governed by those principles, where you’re being controlled at, but it is really inevitable.
I sometimes enjoyed the benefits it gives me). He said “Our longing for the web is rooted in the deep resentment we
feel towards being managed.”

OUR VOICE. Our voice greatly reflects what kind of persons are we, our moods, our thoughts, and etc.
“Our voice is our strongest, direct expression of who we are. Our voice is expressed in our words, our tone our body
language, our visible enthusiasm” he said. I sort of agree to that but I don’t think IT IS REALLY OUR VOICE that
really depicts or as our strongest expression of who we are but I guess it would be our eyes. It is the mirror of our
soul but hey I see his point I just don’t 100 % agree to that. He even said that managed business has taken our voices
away, our identity, the freedom to show who we really are. They all work in a look-alike room, speaking civilly,
wearing uniforms, and so on. The point is they’re doing those because IT WAS MANDATED which means them,
working in that specific managed business, have to obey it. But what’s the problem? Why are we making a big fuss
out of it? Surely people won’t mind tackling this issue. They’ll just say SO WHAT? But we really all have to look
outside the box. Why do we have to shut up and eventually loose our voices? David Weiberger said “We are all
victims of this assault on voice, the attempt to get us to shut up and listen to the narrowest range of ideas
imaginable. It is only the force of our regret at having lived in this bargain that explains the power of our longing
for the we” and of which explains why we long for the web, searching for answers because we are trapped in this
scenario, in this world where we wouldn’t want to be in. A world where we are controlled and don’t have the right
to express our real voices, a world where we could express who we really are without stepping on other else’s shoes.
We want to escape form that. We want to change it. We are finding ways where we could express who we really are
without even breaking the rules of the company. Maybe somewhere OUTSIDE THE COMPANY would do. Like in
the web. People who work for a corporation sometimes teamed up with people across the country. They’d
communicate through the web. They are still doing business but HEY THIS IS WEB, I can present myself in a way
that my company has not dictated me to for as long as I’ am doing my job I was tasked to. He said “The memo is
dead. Long live e-mail” which signifies that we have come to enter a new phase in our lives where we are not
limited to express who we really are, where things are not limited only to what the company is used to. He added
“We do not know what the web is for but we adopted it faster than any technology since fire…. We embrace the Web
not knowing what it is, but hoping that it will burn the org charts” which signifies that we are desperately hungry
for our voices back. For that freedom against that rule. And now I understand why most of the people don’t know
what web is for. Simply because they don’t even know where to start or to begin the reasoning with. With David
Weiberger’s help, it really enlightened me and I want to take all the things I’ve mentioned in the first paragraph,
those long lines of just pure and very practical reasoning of what is a web for back. The web is for CLEARING the
norms they have created in the past, and starting a new one… A world where our voices can be heard… A world
where our voices ROCK!

What I’ve Learned

I have learned and realized that HEY it is really not fun to be controlled by anyone or even controlled by the
old practices we all have come to accept because that makes me NOT ME. That makes me follow rules, follow this,
and that without even realizing WHY DO I HAVE TO DO THOSE? Especially in our school, it’s is really a must
for us to wear corporate attire during Mondays and business-casual during Tuesdays. I wasn’t really a BIG fan of
that but I know why they’re doing that to us. It’s just during Mondays and Tuesdays but the point is they’re trying to
steal the moment where I could just be myself for a certain period of time. In a week, they’ll steal that 2 days and
would let me wear clothes designed to be worn by people who works for a company. But it’s far better than making
us wear it everyday even worse making us wear school uniforms. Of course when I step into the real world, I have
no choice but to surrender to that policy and THAT IS MY POINT… They are controlling the person in me. Just
like in this chapter that says we want to be in a place where we can be who we are. I’m not that person who wants to
dress like one.

The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual, Chapter 3



Quotation

“People talk to each other. In open, straightforward conversations. Inside and outside organizations. The
inside and outside conversations are connecting. We have no choice but to participate in them.” - Rick Levine

I suppose that whenever two people are talking, there is this connection you’ll see or even feel somewhere in
the middle. You can sense if they were just plain faking it. Two people or groups of people talking together to be
have this oneness in them, you know and feel that they are talking with their hearts not just with their minds (for
me). You can see and feel the interest, honesty, and their attention is there.

Learning Expectations

The title of the chapter is TALK IS CHEAP so maybe there’s got to do with how people or maybe
companies are able to converse, transact, or even send files through the Internet (I guess). We are talking about 20th
century man so I guess everything must be processed smoothly, quickly, or maybe even better JUST A CLICK
away.

Review

The author or the writer of this chapter is Rick Levine. He started it by telling a brief story about his life most
especially during his childhood days as a potter’s kid. He described his environment, what it looked like, and his
memories about watching Italian potters spinning clay. Rick Levine said “I remember the first time I tried to throw
twenty-five pounds of clay, thinking I would start with less than the sixty or seventy pounds I saw growing like
graceful mushrooms on my dad’s wheels. I landed flat on my back, shoulder blades bruised, smelling twenty years of
clay dust on the wood floor beneath my head, as the…” obviously he is not just the potter’s kid but a potter at heart
too. He obviously has an interest to this kind of activity and wants to learn badly maybe through his experiences. He
even said “You can’t learn to throw large forms without losing lots of them in the process.” I can compare this to a
TV commercial here in the Philippines (a commercial recently launched around June of 2008) I just can’t remember
what product it is but in the commercial a little girl was soaking in the rain because she shared her umbrella with a
friend (I suppose they’re friends), then the other girl was in her school uniform having this school activity where
they were asked to plant a plant then she wiped her hand in her cheeks then there’s this mud left on it. Then she said
“I’ am dirty, but see I’ve learned.” The commercial was like emphasizing that parents should let their kids
experience things, surely they’ll make mistakes, but it was from those mistakes that we would all learn. Failures
would make us stronger and from failures we all gain new learning which strengthens our personalities, strengthens
us AS INDIVIDUALS. And Rick Levine was also stressing that too (from how I understood it). He is an artist not
just this person building software and designing web sites. He said “I consider myself an artist and a craftsman, and
bring a craftsman’s attitudes to my work and life. One perspective that seems to surface with some regularity is a
deeply instilled obligation to do new work, create stuff people have never seen before.” As an artist as well, he
makes sure that his works would be unique from others, would have unique features that would make it distinct from
the rest, a principle he believes in, a principle that would make him succeed. He added “There is a bit of irrationality
in believing that if I follow my own intuition and, at some level, don’t pay attention to what other people think, I’ll
create unique works that will surprise and delight. Artists have a stubborn faith in their ability to create newness
from next to nothing. This faith shapes their work, enables them to establish themselves as individuals,
fingerprinting their way through their medium.”

There is this question “What’s this got to do with business? With organizations? Then he answered LOTS.
He explained that these companies depend on those people who has this pride in the things they do. And for me
those kinds of people really are a great asset of a company. They have this ability to do great things even exceed our
expectations because they seem to be very competitive and reliable. They have the attitude that spells out
SUCCESS. Levine said “Some people apply a craftsman-like care to their work, and their voices are heard,
remarked upon, and recognized as uniquely theirs.” Let’s apply that to the web pages. You know when you entered
the site of let’s say Paris Hilton (her my space account), would you expect that her site would be all gothic and
surrounded by blood with scary graphics? Of course we know she’s into this glamorous world, a world of money,
fashion, socialization… Her page may closely resemble to those. A page that’s hers, that matches who she really is.
He said “The Web is no different. Every Web page we see has a person behind it.”

“Voice is how we can tell the difference between people, committees, and bots” he said. In the web, there’ll be a lot
of conversations because a web is a tool that lets people communicate with one another. There are several tools or
ways indicated in this chapter of how we can communicate with others (co-workers, schoolmates, friends, etc.) and
those are through e-mail, mailing lists, newsgroups, chats, and web sites. E-mail is an electronic mail. Sure you
have a clue what a mail is but this is electronic dude. Write a letter to your friend maybe let’s say in the
yahoomail.com, put the address of the receiver of your mail, subject (optional) then send it. In less than 1 minute the
receiver of your mail would receive it. Mailing lists have two flavors, one of which is the one-way lists where it lets
you send to a large number of people at once, but recipients can’t respond to the entire list the message was sent to.
They can only reply to the person who sent them the mail. The other one is the two-way list and it is the otherwise of
the one-way list where recipients could reply to or respond to all of the recipients and owner of the mail.
Newsgroup, just imagine this, you are inside the fan site of Britney Spears. There is this space where you could
comment things about her. An avid fan said “I love Britney… Where and when is her next tour?” then another
viewer of that page replied to that post saying “Dude It’ll be in the Philippines this December”… Web pages as
explained by Levine “The Web lets us look into other people’s lives in an intimate way. It enables us to see people
as they are, close up. Have you ever been browsing for information, read an interesting page, followed the author’s
name link, and tripped through his personal pages, read his badly written poetry, looked at pictures of his dog, cat,
family, friends, and trip to the Bahamas?”

What I’ve Learned

I have learned that to be successful we have to go beyond the limits of what we can do. We have to strive
hard to do works that is entirely different from the things, technology we have today. Those people who tried their
luck became billionaires, successful just like the developers of the first Web, Net! No one believed them at first but
hey WHO CARES? They believed in themselves, in their vision and they succeeded. Everybody mocked them
because their proposed project is entirely different from what they have during that time, entirely unique. They
believed in what they can do, and what the project could do to them and into our lives.

I also learned the different tools and the distinctions between the those that we use in communicating with
others in the web like e-mail, newsgroups, chats, and etc.

The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual, Chapter 4



Quotation

“When you think of the Internet, don’t think of Mack trucks full of widgets destined for
distributorships, whizzing by countless billboards. Think of a table for two.” - @man

Internet, as I should have known by now, is a tool for people, organizations, and systems to
communicate. It is not just a tool used for sending data and etc. There wouldn’t be the word conversation
at all if there wouldn’t be a group or groups of people to begin it with and that is really what an internet is
all about., connecting people, organizations, and etc. together.

Learning Expectations

Chapter, written by Doc Searls and David Weinberger, entitled Markets Are Conversations. I want
to learn how markets became conversations. How the web affected them and what the web has got to do
with conversation/s. What happened along the way with the market’s relationship with the people they
have depended so much ( their customers and workers) once, did they lost the thing we called
communication or if yes, were they able to fix it at least by now?

Review

What the authors were stressing out in this chapter is that markets are nothing more than
conversations. People and markets need to talk, communicate, converse to be able to have this thing
called business in the first place. In the olden times, what happens in a market is that people would TALK
about goods and services, who deliver best; people would also talk about latest gossips and etc. So
basically it was a world of TALKING, sharing insights about this and that, and in the process news spread
including news about your products (now in the forms of TV advertisements, radio ad, etc). They should
not ignore the people instead prioritize them, know their needs, wants, in turn they will not ignore you as
well. They should engage themselves to this people. The authors said “Markets were conversation,
doesn’t mean "markets were noisy. It means markets were places where people met to see and talk about
each other’s work.” A place that is so engaging, a place where there is this what we call INTERACTION
between the markets and the people because I have read in this book as well (I can’t remember the
chapter) that on the course of the rise of the industry, MARKETS don’t depend on the people as well as
with their workers much as they did in the past. They somewhat built this barrier between them
(bureaucracy, division of labor, professionalism, managed life). The authors said “The product of mass
marketing was the message, delivered in as many forms as there were media and in as many guises as
there were marketers to invent them. Delivered locally, shipped globally, repeated inescapably, the
business of marketing devoted itself to delivering the message. Unfortunately, the customer never wanted
to take delivery.” Customers need to be convinced, to be looked in the eyes, to have this personal
interaction but with today people became more like CONSUMERS rather than CUSTOMERS. You’d
entice them to buy this and that because of these reasons you would be sending out in the commercials.
You are actually convincing them and lost that touch (market-customer relationship) and the authors
added “We know that the real purpose of marketing is to insinuate the message into our consciousness, to
put an axe in our heads without our noticing. Like it or not, they will teach us to sing the jingle and recite
the slogan. If the axe finds its mark we toe the line, buy the message, buy the product, and don’t talk back.
For the axe of marketing is also meant to silence us, to make conversation in the market as unnecessary
as the ox cart.” That kind of scenario has been silenced and maintained for years now yet we decided to
remain silent and that silence is termed as the industrial interruption of the human conversation. Internet
is a place where we buys stuff, talk, looks for vendors, something to buy, MORE LIKE COMMERCE.
The authors said “The Net is a real place where people can go to learn, to talk to each other, and to do
business together. It is a bazaar where customers look for wares, vendors spread goods for display, and
people gather around topics that interest them. It is a conversation. At last and again.” Now, internet has
long revived that long lost touch of communication between markets and customers. Now they are talking
again. And beside from the latest successful comeback of Britney Spears (VMA 2008), this I consider one
of those remarkable comebacks in the history. In the net, you’d look for something to buy, you would
come across this page where there is this so called newsgroups. You would see some opinions of people
who have bought the product already and those people who replied to that and more. The authors quoted
“These conversations are most often about value: the value of products and of the businesses that sell
them. Not just prices, but the market currencies of reputation, location, position, and every other quality
that is subject to rising or falling opinion.” These conversations actually affect the product and the
company as well. These can make or break products and companies (their image or how they were
positioned in our place) or these could even save falling companies or products. Business really for me
depends on to conversations, how people perceive products and them. Companies should OWN the
conversations and they can do that through advertisements, public relations, marketing communications,
pricing, positioning.

What I’ve Learned

I have learned that talking or conversing with others is really a must for you to be able to survive.
For me I can relate that to this saying “No one is an Island, No one can stand alone.” Each and everyone
of us need one another, we need each other’s opinions, suggestions, and company to become better
persons better yet better human beings and for organizations they need this to prosper, to innovate, to
become better leaders in their industries, and most importantly to survive. Advertisements entice us to
buy their products, but where is the interaction between you in the market? That makes us more like of
consumers that customers but with the help of the internet, we came to interact again. People come and
visit sites that interests them, sites where they could freely say their thoughts about products le us say.
They would talk about this certain products over the net and those conversations can make or break the
products so the companies SHOULD OWN THE CONVERSATION.

The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual, Chapter 5



Quotation

“We don’t need more information. We don’t need better information. We don’t need automatically
filtered and summarized information. We need understanding. We desperately want to understand what’s
going on in our business, in our markets. And understanding is not more or higher information.” – David
Weinberger

That is really true. Yeah, you know a lot of things yet you don’t understand a lot of it. It’s like
knowing that the water is so deep around 9 feet, diving into it not remembering that you don’t know how
to swim. Or it’s like people or customers want more from your clothing line. Somebody told you that and
hey you made a lot of dresses that were never seen before. But actually what they needed is more variety
and not just dresses. They want you to also sell shoes, bags…

Learning Expectations

I really don’t know why David Weinberger named this chapter as The Hyperlinked Organization.
And obviously I really want to learn the story behind that. David Weinberger is also the author of
chapter 2 and he explained there the real purpose of the web. Now maybe he’ll try to put or explain the
relevance of the web with organizations of today or maybe how organizations were linked (via intranets,
etc). I really don’t have a clue.

Review

David Weinberger stressed out that TODAY business sound so different compared to how it
sounded in the past. In the past, businesses sounded so seriously, requires you a behavior called
professionalism, a world where org charts do rule so much (top-management) that employees’ voices and
a world that is controlled by rules. He even said “The company rewards me for being a professional who
acts and behaves in a, well, professional manner, following certain unwritten rules about the coefficient
of permitted variation in dress, politics, shoe style, expression of religion, and the relating of humorous
stories. In fact, I learn who to trust -- whom I can work with creatively and productively -- only by getting
past the professional act.” Now, it’s a different world, a world where our voices can be heard, where
employees’ voices are given importance by the organization and considered it as an asset for success. He
even said “People are beginning to sound like themselves again.”

“You may not hear any of this at your place of work. But if the Web has touched your business --
and it has -- then the sound is there” he added. For me he is like saying that the web makes us who we
are. What I mean is that, it lets us be ourselves and not pretend to be somebody who we are not. It
connects us to people, to a lot of sources for our projects; most importantly it connects people within
organizations (easy access). Businesses are legal entities, but what makes it more like legal entities is not
because that was written on a sheet of paper but because of the connections between people inside and
outside of it through intranets. The web is about connections and it spreads information to everyone. That
is why the web or the www (world wide web) is hyperlinked. David Weinberger even said “Hyperlinks
are the connections made by real individuals based on what they care about and what they know, the
paths that emerge because that’s where the feet are walking, as opposed to the highways bulldozed into
existence according to a centralized plan. Hyperlinks have no symmetry, no plan. They are messy. More
can be added, old ones can disappear, and nothing else has to change.” I have read in chapter 3 of this
book that what people cares more or about are the things he like doing best Rick Levine even quoted “I
consider myself an artist and a craftsman, and bring a craftsman’s attitudes to my work and life…”
people are brought together because they share same kind of information, information the know and
information the want to know, and the things they care about. Of course, what would people talk about
certain stuff or matter if they don’t care about it at all? There is this sense of wanting that drives you all
together.

Today, hierarchy or the so called “pyramid” in an organization was being replaced by hyperlinks.
It connects people together, doesn’t care about your roles and duties in that organization whether you are
the security guard of this certain company with web, you are linked with people, not just to your bosses
but to everyone as well. In the web, everyone is equal…No authority, no division of roles, no pyramid.
You are in a place where everyone is permitted to be herself, a community where you are no longer
controlled by your organization. Try telling somebody let us say in a chat room that hey you are the boss
of your company. She will immediately tell you LOL or laughing out loud. She’ll tell everyone how jerk
you are. He even said that to have conversations you have to be comfortable being human. (IT MAKES
SENSE). “Conversations are where ideas happen and partnerships are formed. Sometimes they create
commitments (in Fernando Flores’ sense), but more often they’re pulling people through fields of
common interest with no known destination. The structure of conversations is always hyperlinked and is
never hierarchical” he added and for me this means that conversation doesn’t literally implies that all the
things we are talking about are really conversations. There are conversations that really are not considered
one, conversations wherein you are not being human at all. You are trying to be someone else, (dictating
people what to do, trying to laugh at your boss’ joke even if it’s not funny at all) those kinds of things
make you look stupid. Try to be yourself, try to be human; being humans we are not perfect. A real
conversation starts within us. We will always make mistakes, and part of that is that somebody will try to
teach or correct us even in front of others. Being humans, we talk about human stuff example is like when
you are talking to your boss somewhere in Makati and you are out to have some coffee and JUST THAT,
your conversation should be more like the things that happened to you today, about basketball playoffs
and forget about business matters. David Weinberger even said “Conversations subvert hierarchy.
Hyperlinks subvert hierarchy. Being a human being among others subverts hierarchy.”

Most of the organizations of today are hyperlinked. They are much closer to their markets now
compared in past where they have created a barrier between themselves with them, they act faster, and
learns more knowledge of coping up and surviving in their industry because they now sought opinions of
individuals which was never sought in the past and by doing that so they obviously have more edge. In a
hyperlinked world, David Weinberger said “The official structure is of little use to you. Instead, your
network of trusted colleagues becomes paramount. Your effectiveness depends upon how networked you
are, how hyperlinked you are.” You don’t need depend that much already with the people who have more
authority than you instead you just go to the web and look for the answers there. The more you are linked
with people, sites in there, the more efficient the web is for you. David Weinberger even said “Intranet
technology is sophisticated enough to let you control exactly who has access to what, so it’s no longer an
all-or-nothing proposition. You can let customers see product-design discussions but keep them from
seeing what its competitors are saying to you; you can let a supplier check the processing of a payment
but keep it out of the pages where your accountants are evaluating bids. You have all the flexibility you
need. The old excuses for pulling up the drawbridge and keeping everyone out entirely just don’t hold.”
For me that means, you now have the authority to let people see what you want them to perceive you to
be. You now control your lives, your image, and your position. Web lets you do that, gives you the option
to be or to let you show the person you want them to perceive you to be. It doesn’t give limitations or
boundaries. It won’t dictate you.
What I’ve Learned

I have learned that not all conversations are considered conversations. A true conversation is a
conversation done by two people talking the same interest, not afraid to be wronged by others. There are
some people who will debate with you and when you fired back he’ll get mad or pissed at you then that’s
not conversation at all because a real conversation is when both of you were respecting each other’s
insights and opinions. We all make mistakes, we are not perfect, that makes us human.

I also learned that web has really touched our businesses. It linked people within or outside it
together, having the sense of oneness or equality where hierarchy never will exist. A place where
knowledge and information could be gained or shared. And not just having or knowing a lot of
information but understanding it as well.

The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual, Chapter 6



Quotation

“Ideas, talk, and conversation were now encouraged among workers because they helped to
deliver what organizations so desperately needed: a clue.”

In the past, organizations don’t need their workers’ opinions, to meddle much of the things that
the organization was doing. They were so afraid that these workers would gain knowledge, that these
workers might takeover the business or would abandon the organization once they have already gained
sufficient knowledge needed to start their own and stuff. I guess that was a bad practice and I am glad that
now workers’ voices are so needed and are given importance by the organization. They already have the
say to what was once not.

Learning Expectations

Christopher Locke and David Weinberger were the authors of chapter 1 and 2 respectively. From
their chapters I have seen the difference between their topics. Locke focused on the history of the web,
how it came to be, its struggles to be in its position right now, etc. Weinberger, on the other hand, focused
on what the web is all about, proved me that there is a much deeper meaning to describe the existence of
the web now and not just for surfing the net, communicating, but more beyond those, more complex. The
web is really for creating a whole new world, a world that all of our voices can be heard, a world where
we could freely express the person we want others to perceive us to be. So I guess this chapter is more on
the combination of those topics.

Review

“From the furthest historical reaches of Jump Street, markets have been conversations. Craft and
voice were joined at the hip -- what you made was how you spoke. But then it turned out that the world
was round, there were other places across that Big Blue Wet Thing, and trade routes got longer, natch.
Producers became further removed from markets” according to the 2 authors of this chapter. This just
implies that there really exists a communication between markets and as time passes by, people found out
that the market is so big, big enough that some, once settled in a market, would go beyond the seas and
explore other places to sell their products. Market became bigger and bigger. Big enough that workers
need help from machines. The two said “Producers immediately saw that this was a Good Thing.
Moreover, they saw that repeatable processes and interchangeable parts were an Even Better Thing, as
such mechanization led to significant economies of scale -- a fancy way of saying more money” and yeah
IT WAS A GOOD THING INDEED. The more they faster and the more they produce the more
opportunity of gaining money from it. Because of these changes, organizations have to manage their
systems, their business even more. They were not just making pieces of crafts each day, but volumes of it
so that instance gave rise to mass media and bureaucracy, a new form of business which tells organization
what to do efficiently. Bureaucracy believes the command and control management. Bureaucracy gave
rise to the division of labor or let’s say organizational charts which determines who got to speak at all.
The two said “New knowledge was desperately needed to fuel this expansion” and the solution was?”
The two answered “Slowly (some are still attending summer school), companies began to realize that
workers knew more than they’d been letting on -- mostly because no one had asked them for about a
hundred years… Ideas, talk, and conversation were now encouraged among workers because they helped
to deliver what organizations so desperately needed: a clue.” That was dominant in the past. Maybe,
there are still some companies who think like that but maybe there would be just few companies in.

Then internet came in. The 2 said “Internet technology encourages open distributed speech, a
fancy way of saying "tellin’ it like it is." The human voice is the primary attractor, both to the medium
and within it.” The net for me ended the interruption between human conversations. For a long span of
years, markets and workers are long separated. Workers’ voices were never given importance then but
now it would have to be the best source an organization relies to. But some companies know that the
command and control management hinders the spread of conversation and knowledge between human
being in the organization, some still prefers to do things using this. Some otherwise believes in “Via
intranets, workers are already speaking among themselves. Via the Internet, markets are already
speaking among themselves” as what the 2 authors said. Businesses know the fact that the internet is free
and fro me it is a blessing for everyone. They also said that markets value only 2 qualities and those are
the engagement and passion-for-quality of genuine craft (for me, their workers and their skills) and the
conversations among recognizably human voices (all of their employees’ opinions, says, their thoughts,
their voices).

They said “We’ve always conversed, connecting to the people of our world in our authentic
voices. We connect to ourselves the same way; that’s the mystery of voice” For me our lives depend on
our voices, on their voices. We depend on each other. We depend on the things they have to say, what I
have to say. The web fulfilled our longings, our longing to talk, to communicate, to show our thoughts
and selves to others.

What’s the future of the web, somebody asked? The future of the web relies on how we want it to
be. I found out that the web would then create our future. The 2 said “The questions themselves are
intended to confuse the issue, and the answers are nothing but the smirk on the face of someone who just
proved himself right.” I have read that we hear questions based on fear… I agree to that. And we hear
questions based on heart. We answer questions the best way we can. The best possible damn answer we
could provide them. The 2 said “Because the proper answer to a heartfelt question is a conversation, and
conversations make the world.”

The authors also shared the secrets of their success. They have shared with us the Twelve-Step

Program for Internet Business Success and those are Relax, Have a sense of humor, Find your voice and
use it, Tell the truth, Don’t panic, Enjoy yourself, Be brave, Be curious, Play more, Dream always, Listen
up, Rap on.

What I’ve Learned

I have learned that the web played a great role in the development (internally and externally) by
businesses. You could see the great change it contributed to those businesses and its workers. Once,
workers’ voices were often disregarded but now it was considered as one of the greatest asset of the
company. You could very well see the difference from the past and the present.

The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual, Chapter 7



Quotation

“We will strive to listen in new ways -- to the voices of quiet anguish, to voices that speak without
words, the voices of the heart, to the injured voices, and the anxious voices, and the voices that have
despaired of being heard.” - Richard M. Nixon

I like this because THERE are so many people who want to be heard in this world and it was
expressed through many forms and ways and I’m glad that somebody steps up and wants to cope up with
this kind of situation and even said that they will strive to reach out or listen to those people even if it
entails them to do it in several new ways JUST like the Church here in the Philippines. The priests now
actually have this site in the net, friendster, youtube, and the likes just to reach out to the teens. So
basically, they are coping up with time (most especially with the technology during THIS time) and
finding new ways on how they could help people and listen to them as well.

Learning Expectations

I still don’t have a clue yet of what this chapter has in stored for us but maybe from Richard
Nixon’s quote, saying things about voices desperately want to be heard (maybe concerns, opinions, and
etc) and some people striving to listen to each has something to do with this chapter. I will certainly know
the answer once I’m done reading this chapter and I want to be enlightened more of what those voices got
to do with internet or web stuff.

Review

According to Christopher Locke “Irony is perhaps the most common mode of Internet
communications. The Net didn't create the mentality, but it did come along just in time to give it new
expression." I really don’t get it! Why does IRONY became the most common mode of internet
communications? He continued “Nixon speaking about unheard voices of the heart from the height of the
1960s is a prime example of why most people have despaired of ever being heard at all. And of why
they've stopped listening for answers from above -- from Big Government, Big Business, Big Education,
Big Media, Big Religion.” People, let us say, employers or the big bosses of a company (I have heard
from the past chapter of this book too) in the past don’t give importance to what their employees have to
say or to their opinions because they feared that once they do that employees would have much
knowledge about the things happening in their business and they feared that those employees might take
over or become smarter than them so the in the end whenever employees would have questions regarding
this matter about their company projects they’d approach their big bosses for answers obviously because
they don’t have enough resources to get the answers from and it was those bosses who knew it all BUT if
those bosses don’t know the answer to their questions either then they are left to answer it by themselves
so WHEN the net came into picture MANY were relieved, glad, and thankful for that invention. With
that, employees don’t rely much into their bosses and instead look for the answers in the net. With the net,
employees GAIN knowledge not even provided to them by their bosses. So now, employees are much
informed and knowledgeable compared to those of the past. Christopher Lock even said “Ignorance is not
a value you often hear extolled. Let's make up for lost time. Here's how it works; it's pretty simple. When
you ignore people long enough, they begin to feel invisible. Because your important concerns do not
concern them, they begin to figure it's a two-way street. They begin to ignore you back.” This just
emphasized more the idea I want to express. Employers or bosses ignore or don’t give importance to their
employees’ opinions, voices, and etc made their employees less dependent to them and relies unto stuff
that would most benefit them.

In the past, businesses IGNORED the net (invisible) because they didn’t see as important as we
perceive it to be today. Now, the net threatens the foundations of business. So see how important it is?
Charles Locke said “Invisibility is freedom. At first it feels awful that no one can see you, that nobody's
paying attention. But you’d get used to it.” He even continued “One thing the Net is good for is
organizing markets. Especially if you're invisible and powerless, ignorant of how things are supposed to
work, ignorant of business-as-usual. Especially if you're intent on end-running the empire.”

What I’ve Learned

I have learned what the internet has brought us today. THE CHANGES it brought to our lives, to
the businesses, employees and employers, to the market. Internet is not just for communication basically
for chatting and stuff, finding your friends, telling the whole world that THIS IS ME and BELIEVE IT,
but most importantly for businesses. It organizes the market and without it, it threatens the existence of
those businesses who greatly depends to the net.
Web 2.0 Heroes: Interviews with 20 Web 2.0 Influencers
Book Review

Web 2.0 Heroes: interviews with 20 Web 2.0 influencers
Book Review, Chapter 1


Quotation

“Web 2.0 is creating more openness in integrating things that you would have had to build from
scratch before. Nobody has even started looking at how you manage rights and security within that. We're
not quite at the big levels of monetization yet where security is as big of a concern as it should be.” –
Max Mancini

In the past, especially in the early 1990’s, it is really hard to construct a site and it’s very costly.
You do not have the means to build it unless you would build it from scratch unlike now; there are these
web applications that help you do that (less costly and fast). Now, even if you don’t have a degree in
Com-Sci, let us say, you could still manage to write your own blogs or even start your own site but since
these are all made for public and these apps and sites are in public it is really hard to distinguish whether
they could copy the works of others (something like that) and it’s hard to block and track down blogs that
contain foul words for THESE are blogs (opinions and feelings) and that is how I understood Nobody has
even started looking at how you manage rights and security within that.

Learning Expectations

I am greatly expecting to know more about what web 2.0 is. I want to have a clue of what it is, for
what it is, and its features (if any). Honestly, I still don’t have a clue of what web 2.0 really is about.
Sounds silly but that is one of my reasons for reading this eBook. The VERY first time I have ever heard
about this (which is just SOOO recently) I didn’t care. The second time, I got curious but still didn’t
bother knowing it. Third time, got interested so I bothered asking yet didn’t go into details. The nth time,
our professor in vertical solutions subject which is sir Paul “Pageman” Pajo really got into details. That
was when I really started taking web 2.0 seriously. I planned on surfing the web for its meaning but sir
Pajo gave us an eBook about it to read.

Review

Chapter one is about Max Mancini’s opinion about Web 2.0, about his job, and etc. Well, Mr
Mancini is the senior director of disruptive innovation at eBay. He runs eBay's Platform and Disruptive
Innovation team. When he was asked if they are finding whether people are willing to share more
information now, I was surprised to know that eBay has something to do with the creation of Facebook.
Facebook is a social environment mainly to let people converse and know and share same interests while
eBay is a different story.

When he was asked how would he and eBay define Web 2.0 he said the components I see really defining
Web 2.0 are platform or web services, innovation that is built on top of that platform or web services, and
distribution of that information.

Another defining moment for the trend in Web 2.0 was the development of ad-support models that made it
possible to monetize things that would have otherwise been unmonetizable.

One of the great things he said that is important is that right now there's an explosion of web services that
have opened things up. He was just saying that nowadays there are just numerous web services or
applications out in the internet that people could use especially for conversing with others. It just so
happened that the creation of so many web services doesn’t mean success because in the first place, it was
expected to be that way.

When he was asked, what would be the next best thing he said that it would have to be on
mobiles. There are plenty of opportunities in mobile. He even said that he makes business platforms that
are flexible enough so sooner or later when that next best thing popped out then his platforms could easily
adapt it. He let’s his business operate no matter what the next best thing would be like. He focuses on his
business’ products or services innovations rather than worrying much on their business’ platform. What
matters is now. They will just catch later.

What I’ve Learned

After reading this chapter, I’m still not sure whether Web 2.0 is an OS (ahaha). I really thought at
first that it was some kind of an operating system (like Vista and XP) that is why all throughout the time
that I was reading it, I kept on searching for clues that would confirm that Web 2.0 is really an OS. But as
I go along the way, I just have proven it to be wrong but not yet sure of what it really is at the same time. I
can just relate Web 2.0 to blogs and communities online like MySpace. I’m so eager to go and read the
next chapter… Maybe that will make everything clearer.

Web 2.0 Heroes: interviews with 20 Web 2.0 influencers
Book Review, Chapter 2


Quotation

“Going back into the 1990s, I believe that there really were Web 2.0 properties; it's just that
nobody knew to call them that. In fact, they were mocked.” - Alan Meckler

What he meant by this is that Web 2.0 already existed around 1998 or 1999 it just so happen that
people, at that time, did not realized its importance and long ignored it so it ceased to exist for quite some
time then just popped back recently and that was the time when people started to understand its
importance and gave attention to flourishing it until it was much developed and many websites were out
of this. Alan Meckler is claiming that WEB 2.0 IS NOT SOMETHING NEW.

Learning Expectations

I am expecting more enlightening stuff about what Web 2.0 really is all about. I was still quite
unsure of what it is after reading chapter one, though chapter one somehow answered some of my
curiosities about it, the BIG QUESTION MARK if it’s an OS, and somehow helped me build a
foundation or an idea to where I should begin understanding Web 2.0. I am also hoping to find or to
know what his opinion about the NEXT BEST THING… Would we still be seeing and experiencing the
same stuff as we have today in the future? I would also like to know his views about this Semantic Web
more known as Web 3.0.

Review

Alan Meckler said in his interview… We tend to think that we have seen it all, when in fact we
have not seen anything yet. For me what he meant by that is that people assume that Web 2.0 was like the
NEXT BEST THING well if in fact it was just a continuation of what businesses had in the past. People
think that what we have now would still be the things that would govern our lives, businesses or even our
society in the future. WE HAVEN’T seen those yet like what happened to Yahoo! Yahoo did not see or
did not even thought Google was coming. It’s like, NOW GOOGLE holds the spot but it can not be rest
assured that it will LOCK the spot. If that NEXT BEST thing happens, everyone should be prepared even
Google. It might just do the same thing as what Google did to Yahoo! (Google stole the limelight to
Yahoo! and is now the biggest search engine all over the world).

He even said Web 2.0 brought the learning curve down to a really low level so you didn't need to
be a computer engineer to be able to run your own blog site. You don't need to be a computer engineer or
advanced scientists to get your message out to the Web. Anybody can customize your web experience
nowadays as simply as drag and drop. Which means that Web 2.0 has lead us to the understanding that
this things may be done IN REALITY unlike in the past, thinks like the wiki, flicker and stuff do not
exist. Now Web 2.0 made everything convenient and easy to use. He even said that we don’t need
software that much. Everything is made available in the web.
What I’ve Learned

I have learned that sooner or later the things we know today might not be the things we’ll know or
use in the future. I see the possibility of new innovations that seem hard to do or develop and stuff that are
very futuristic like what Alan Meckler described using a cell phone like when he raised his cell phone
over a billboard that has bar code in it, the vendor would then receive the signals then text message
(maybe) him back with more details about the product being endorsed by that billboard. I know it’ll be
hard to make but I know a museum in Japan that makes use of their Nintendo DS that once people go
over to the paintings, they would receive information regarding the painting like who the painter might
be, the date it was painted, the subject, story behind the painting, and etc. He also said, like what Mancini
said, that there are lots of great opportunities in mobiles. There are roughly around 3 billion cell phones
out and that people all over the world change cell phones much frequently than changing their desktops. I
also noticed that Alan Meckler seem to be not fond of this Web 2.0 stuff and just kept on emphasizing
that Web 2.0 already existed around 1998 so still I didn’t get the answer I was looking for.

Web 2.0 Heroes: interviews with 20 Web 2.0 influencers
Book Review, Chapter 3


Quotation

“In the past, users did not have control. Today having a user controlled experience and
leveraging the end user creates added value. The bar for customer service has gotten higher, because
people now expect that service to be 24/7, very reliable and they expect it to be free.” –Eric Engleman

In the past, making websites seem so hard to do. It will cost you a lot and really needs computer
engineers, at least, to really develop one. But nowadays (with the aide of our technology) people can
make the impossible, possible. Even if you do not have any major in programming or whatsoever that are
related to computers you can actually have one and even customize it the way they want it. The service is
expected to be 24/7. Sometimes when their server is down, customers like me really FEEL bad not mad
because I was just expecting it to be working and the thought that I made an effort and allotted time to it
added to that even if the service is free still I expect something more from them that is why siguro.

Learning Expectations

Well I am expecting more to learn what Web 2.0 really is because up to this moment, I am still
unsure (maybe because it was so complex that I am just not aware where to begin grasping it in the first
place). I also want to know what Eric Engleman has to say about it.

Review

Well the one being interviewed this time is Mr. Eric Engleman, the GM of Bloglines. Bloglines
was one of the early innovators of Web 2.0 and was launched in 2003. He said that Web 2.0 is such a big
thing (complex). He said that Web 2.0 is really about the end users (on how they can fully have a say or
control to their platforms) creating desktop experience in the web. He even said that people need to be
constantly talking to their customer base, constantly innovating and coming up with great ideas (just like
what the book The Cluetrain Manifesto: End of business As Usual said or implied to its readers). For me
what he meant by that is that because many people were able to break the entry to that industry and
sooner or later there would be somebody out there that would just put Bloglines out of business and the
main thing they have to do is to constantly talk to their customers to help them figure out what is in
demand, what is new, what is hot… Something that would help them innovate somehow. He even said
that one of the coolest things about Web 2.0 is that it is a lot of constant delight and surprise. Whether we
use them as a great utility function is not necessarily the case. First because the barrier to entry is so low,
companies are constantly doing new and interesting things.

What I’ve Learned

I was first and foremost shocked to find out that the book we just recently read which is The
Cluetrain Manifesto: End of Business as Usual has something to do with Web 2.0. Eric Engleman even
said that we really have to read it because it was written or published around 1999 when Web 2.0 wasn’t
there yet. It was just amazing to know that they could actually write something that didn’t yet exist. It was
like the people in the 80’s or 90’s perhaps, people who talked about the internet and they were mocked
because nobody believed them at first of what the internet could really do in our society. It’s like the book
The Cluetrain Manifesto: End of Business as Usual’s authors really did think and know what was coming
but I remembered what Alan Meckler said… He said that Web 2.0 already existed in the past it’s just that
people don’t know how to call them. Was he referring to that incident? I have learned that Flicker, wikis,
MySpace are actually made from Web 2.0. People who use it can easily manipulate or customize it the
way they want it (or even in a fun way).

Web 2.0 Heroes: interviews with 20 Web 2.0 influencers
Book Review, Chapter 4

Quotation

“The best, most innovativemost innovative ideas, we haven’t come close to seeing yet.” – Gina
Bianchini

I really like this because other heroes as well have pointed this out too. They said that we thought
we have seen enough, we thought that the best things are the things out there already but really we have to
wait for that moment, the moment where somebody could put the most brilliant idea into action and
would put people into their proper places.

Learning Expectations

I am expecting to get or read the real definition of what web 2.0 really is. I have been waiting for
the person or the hero to really be brave enough to point out to everybody that this is what Web 2.0 really
means because the past heroes all implied to us that it is really hard to define it because it is such a
complex term to describe first and foremost.

Review

Gina Bianchini was the one being interviewed here. She and Marc Anderson started this site called
Ning.com, a site that provides the platform for creating a social network and leaves it to the individuals to
decide the topic of their social network (I can best compare this to a WordPress) and creating one, with
Ning.com, everything is just a minute away from generating a fully working social network where the
administrator could choose whether it would be private or be public.

According to the book Web 2.0 Heroes: Interviews with 20 Web 2.0 Influencers “Gina was
considered a hero in the Web 2.0 space and her work on Ning has helped propel her to that status” but
what is ironic for me in here is that she really does not care pointing out the real meaning of the word
Web 2.0 because for her it does not matter. She does not think of it that much. What she cares for and
thinks a lot is how to give people the freedom to create (though that is part of Web 2.0). For her, Web 2.0
just means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. For me what she meant by that is that Web
2.0 is such a profound word to describe and each and every person (those who at least know about it)
when asked about it wouldn’t give you a definite answer to what really it is just like what Max Mancini,
Alan Meckler, and Eric Engleman did as well. It is really the freedom that motivates people to be
involved in social networking or social media and not really because of Web 2.0. What I meant by that is
that there are some people who are involved in these social networks and media but still don’t know about
Web 2.0. For Gina, there are people who have spent time trying to really define the real definition for
Web 2.0 and the point of having a definition of something is to have something that people will agree on,
and a lot of people don’t agree on what Web 2.0 really is that is why there is still no exact term to
describe it. It is just another topic which people could talk about but what really matters is what it brought
to us today… FREEDOM. . I kind of agree to her. As of today, nobody has yet enlightened me of what
Web 2.0 really is but I have read some but I wasn’t fully enlightened. Maybe the term Web 2.0 is really
hard to define though what really is important here is making the most out of its benefits that it has given
us.
When Gina was asked “For you, What do you consider to be the most misunderstood issue
surrounding Web 2.0?” And she replied… The problem is thinking that there should be a definition. I
don’t think that there should be or that there needs to be.

She also said that people or companies shoud work, think, and act fast or else they would be
irrelevant. In our time today technology moves fast and Gina even sited an example.. Around 2006 a
company announced that they would be making a MySpace for middle age women but it is already 2008
and they have never seen that launched. Maybe because that is already irrelevant.

What I’ve Learned

Now I have proven to myself that Web 2.0 is about freedom, about communities, about social
networks, and social media enabling people to fully connect with their friends whom they haven’t seen
for a long time, share thoughts or opinions in the web, about personalizing their pages (in the past it is
really hard to make or build a site for yourself especially if you are not a computer engineer or computer
science major) but today generating one is just a click a way and you pimp it the way you want it (more
on the end-users preferences).

Web 2.0 Heroes: interviews with 20 Web 2.0 influencers
Book Review, Chapter 5


Quotation

“One person can now communicate with a mass audience, most of whom they will never
encounter” - Dorion Carroll

For me I agree to this. In the web, you may choose whether to be known or to be anonymous.
Some even make use of pen names and that even contributed to ones anonymity. People can now talk to a
wide range of mass audiences and yet some of us don’t even bother knowing this person’s identity. We
can talk to this person but the next day we would never be able to. For me, that is just how big the web is.
There are 1.3 billion people on the net and you meet people by chance (maybe because you have this
certain interest that brought you two in a same site or newsgroup) but maybe tomorrow you can never
ever have the chance to talk to that person.

Learning Expectations

I am expecting to learn what Dorion Carroll has to say about it. I am intrigued whether he would
say the same things as what the other 4 heroes said that Web 2.0, to begin with, is such a profound word
to describe and that it is about people, communities, conversations, blogs, and that each one of us has
different perception or thoughts of what Web 2.0 really is. I am also intrigued whether he would do the
otherwise and would say an exact definition of what Web 2.0 is or if he is one of them.

Review

Dorion Carroll works in Technorati who tracks 100 million blogs and more than a quarter of a
billion pieces of tagged social content each day. If Web 2.0 is about people or blogs, then Technorati is
about tracking those. Dorion Carroll is Technoratis’s vice president of engineering. He also works for
Oracle, Electronic Arts, and etc.

When he was asked of what he consider Web 2.0 to be and he answered “It can be a bunch of
different things and Technorati has been a part in the creation of Web 2.0. On the one hand, it is this idea
of public social discourse, that aspect of the social Web that lets people connect and that gives an
opportunity to have an open sharing of idea.” For me, his answer closely resembles to what Gina
Bianchini pointed out in chapter 4. Now, I have proven that Web 2.0 is really a profound word to describe
because even this people, who even contributed to the creation of Web 2.0, are having a hard time
figuring out or specifying a real definition for it. Now I understand what Gina Bianchini meant by I don’t
see the need to think of a definition for it why? Because as of the moment, I haven’t read yet the exact
definition for it but I somehow grasped what Web 2.0 is that it is about blogging, communities,
conversation, people, social media, social networks and the likes. It is about enabling people to meet,
interact, and have the freedom to express themselves in the net (like express their opinions or thoughts or
even personalize their pages).
What I’ve Learned

I have learned and realized that Web 2.0 is such a complex word to describe because even Dorion
Carroll (as what I have been expecting him to do) also said the same things as what the previous four
authors described it to be but one thing for sure is clear to me, that Web 2.0 is something that enables
people to have a community of their own, a specific topic to govern it, personalize its looks, and freely
express who they want others to perceive them to be. For me, Web 2.0 already existed in the past it’s just
that (it is true) that people didn’t know how to call it. He said that blogging in 2004 is such a rare thing
maybe because people didn’t know how to begin with it in the first place. Maybe there was no means or
stuff.

Web 2.0 Heroes: interviews with 20 Web 2.0 influencers
Book Review, Chapter 6


Quotation

“Because everyone can contribute content, it’s hard to focus on the best content” - Raju
Vegesna

Yes I agree to this. Everyone has different approach to a certain topic, let us say. Everyone has
different thoughts and opinions about it. You just can’t say that it’s wrong just because you don’t agree
with what he or she said. Everybody has their own points it’s just that they have different approach in
saying or pointing it out. It’s about agreeing into something that makes it right but overall there is no right
or wrong that makes it hard to focus on the best content because everyone contributes one it’s just that
they have different approaches unto how they want to say or deliver it.

Learning Expectations

I am expecting to learn what Raju Vegesna and Zoho contributed or involvement in Web 2.0
because I have noticed from the past chapters that some even started Web 2.0, some contributed to what it
is today now… I would really want to know whether Raju and Zoho have the same perception about Web
2.0 like what the other previous authors believe in or do they have a different opinion about it or whether
they have a definition for it.

Review

The one being interviewed this time is Raju Vegesna who works in Zoho. Zoho.com is a site that
offers office productivity suite from AdventNet (parent company of Zoho). Zoho provides a number of
tools including an online word processor, an online spreadsheet, an online presentations tool, an online
conferencing tool, an online notebook for taking notes, a scheduling and planning tool, and etc. They also
have other tools as well, including CRM tools, a database application, wiki tools, and chat. While Google
and Microsoft are moving forward to online office space, Zoho has already got a foothold in these areas.
For me, Zoho is an online site where we could do, let’s say, documents in the web. According to Zoho
there are lots of people contributing to the site which makes it run more smoothly and that is what Raju
meant by Web 2.0 is a combination of the wisdom of the crowd and the read/write web. For me they have
taken this to the next level. Instead of installing applications into your desktops or laptops now people
don’t have to (just a waste of space in our desktops’ or laptops’ memory). Now they have this web
applications (they said hidi na daw uso ang applications na iniinstall pa). According to Raju if Zoho fits
the Web 2.0 world he said that Zoho perfectly fits into the work side. Zoho's tagline is “Work. Online”
that is why they make those kinds of applications so that people and business users can do their works
online. When he was asked What are people misunderstanding about Web 2.0? He said that he saw a
video talking about Web 2.0 saying that it is AJAX. For him it is not AJAX that Web 2.0 is a concept of
Read/Write Web. That it is the concept of wisdom of the crowds. AJAX on the other hand is a technology
that makes sites more interactive and that definitely helped the concept of Web 2.0 but Web 2.0 is not
AJAX. He also said that Web 2.0 has to be community driven that the community has to be involved
there. I agree to that. From the past chapters, I have learned that Web 2.0 enables interaction between
several entities. It connects people and lets them personalize their pages the way they want it to be. So
there is this involvement in it an involvement that has never existed in the past and involvement that
interests the community.
What I’ve Learned

At first I thought wow this person is brave enough or is smart enough to really define what Web
2.0 is but on the latter part he said that it is very hard to technically define it but if he has to define it then
it would be social sites and software, and social networks, user generated content such as you tube, it is
also these technologies like RSS and using API's and web services. I have also learned that AJAX is not
Web 2.0 that it is just a tool or an instrument that made Web 2.o more interactive. Now I know that Raju,
though shared with us his thoughts or perception about Web 2.0 is also having a difficulty in really
defining it. Basically he said in his own terms his thoughts about Web 2.0 but what is really amazing
there is that it resembles the opinions of the other previous heroes it’s just that they don’t have a definite
words for it but logically speaking they are one.

Web 2.0 Heroes: interviews with 20 Web 2.0 influencers
Book Review, Chapter 7


Quotation

"Whereas the last era of the Web was people publishing things and you went onto the Web to read
it, with the current era anyone can contribute, can write content, or can launch applications on the Web."
- Richard MacManus

I am so lucky that at least I get to be in this era where people don’t have to have computer
engineering or computer science degree just to put up something in the web like articles, blogs, and the
likes. These past few days, I have been addicted to blogging and I don’t know why. When I asked my
friend why am I feeling that way she said because you can totally express yourself in it. Like an open
diary. I was so surprised to hear that from her because honestly she’s not the type of person who would
normally comment onto those kinds of questions and when you hear her say it, she’s so serious. Her
response never crossed my mind, at first, not until when she said it to me. I am so thankful for those
people who made life so much easier and less complicated.

Learning Expectations

I really want to learn what the one of the founders of Web 2.0 Workgroup, Richard MacManus,
has to say about Web 2.0. I want to know whether this man who was said to be involved with Web 2.0
since before the word Web 2.0 became a mainstream. I want to learn how he thought of that? Did he see
Web 2.0 coming or becoming a very hot icon or trend today or was just that plain coincidence?

Review

Richard MacManus was the one being featured in this chapter. He founded Read/Write Web (a
popular weblog that focuses on Web technology news, reviews, and analysis.Currently it is ranked as on
of the Top 20 blogs in the world by Technorati) and also started Web 2.0 Workgroup along with some of
his colleagues. Them creating Web 2.0 Workgroup is just one example of their efforts to help bring
attention to the topic. Originally, Web 2.0 Workgroup was built or created for blogs discussing Web 2.0
technology but because Web 2.0 became more conventiona then now the site became a primarily simple
portal for some of the leading Web 2.0 sites.

When he was asked about how would he define Web 2.0 he said that it has come to be like a
marketing term. Web 2.0 in the olden days was called as dotcom era not until Time Magzine named it as
Web 2.0 making it the person of the year around 2006(Never heard of that.. Thanks for informing
me..LOL) He even added that it was hard to technically define it. (Just like what i suspected him to say).
He just said that if he had to define it then it would be social sites and software, social networks,
YouTube... Plus the technologies like RSS, APIs, Web Services, and etc. (Just like what the previous
heroes defined it to be)

When he was asked whether what would be the best feature of Web 2.0 he said that it would have
to be- that everybody can contribute. Well I just hope that at least they get to filter the contents of those
contributed stuff because as a user of those stuff at least I want an assurance that the ones posted there are
right but of course I still have to research much further but time is gold (LOL).
What I’ve Learned

Just noticed with the previous heroes including Richard MacManus’ that whenever they would be
asked whether if they could define it most of them said that IT IS HARD TO TECHNICALLY
DESCRIBE IT and almost all of them said the same things…. Web 2.0 would be social sites and
software, social networks, YouTube... Plus the technologies like RSS, APIs, Web Services, and etc. And I
noticed that whenever they would be asked about the semantic web their answers are basically the same
although expressed in different terms but the best way to say it is like with what Richard MacManus
said… “THE BIG DREAM IS THAT THE WEB BECOMES MORE INTELLIGENT”.

Web 2.0 Heroes: interviews with 20 Web 2.0 influencers
Book Review, Chapter 8


Quotation

“Just because somebody does come out with an application that works better and at a little bit
cheaper price, most users won't switch because the cost of converting is so high.” – TJ Kang

It does not mean that some companies just launched their new products or applications in the
market that performs much better and less cheap compared to your current application that does not mean
that you have to switch right away. There are a lot of factors to be considered and one of it is to know
who the users might be, will the much efficient work caused by the new application be able to
compensate the high costs incurred in converting, is it really needed or advisable to change now, and the
likes?

Learning Expectations

I want to learn what Mr. TJ Kang has to say about Web 2.0. I am really curious and wondering
whether he would destroy the foundation I have built within myself about Web 2.0. honestly
understanding Web 2.0 is really quite though. I know that it is about social networks, interactive websites,
blogs, conversations, web applications but every time I read those stuff over and over again it seems like I
kept on searching for more answers… I am expecting more deep thoughts about it...

Review

The featured hero for this chapter is Mr. TJ Kang, the CEO of ThinkFree. ThinkFree is actually an
online application suite that also happens to be compatible with various OS like in Windows, Macintosh,
UNIX, and Linux. Think free is one of the early leaders in the online office application space. Mr. Kang
has a background that helped lead to what is now Web 2.0 that is why is considered as a hero.

When he was asked how he and ThinkFree would define the term Web 2.0 he said that it is an
application form and a vendor- and device neutral one at that. What is interesting in there is that first I
don’t get it and the second one is that it’s different from what the previous heroes just answered when
they were asked to define it. He even added that Web 2.0 means many different things to many people and
he doesn't think there's anyone who could say the correct definition of Web 2.0 What is interesting is that
he said that he is more excited about the variety, the diversity of the ideas about what the term means to a
lot of people. My question is? What could have been the cause for him to think that it would be more
interesting to know what other people thinks of Web 2.0 rather than really knowing what Web 2.0 really
is? Honestly, I have been reading this eBook for quite some time and the scenario for me is different. I
kept on searching the real definition of Web 2.0 all throughout their pages and I noticed that there are
things that they agree on and things that they don’t but that do not make things less complicated in fact,
that confuses me.

What I’ve Learned

I have learned that some developers now are trying to make or create the so called semantic web
or Web 3.0 where when you search for a word, you really don’t have to put the keyword but the search
engines would then look for the meaning of that searched word instead of you putting the keyword and
basically he is not just the only person who have pictured this… Some other heroes also said the same
thing.

Web 2.0 Heroes: interviews with 20 Web 2.0 influencers
Book Review, Chapter 9


Quotation

"There are a lot of ideas around Web 2.0 that are network-oriented, human-oriented, rather than
just pointing at a specific piece of technology" - Patrick Crane

I am luck to be in this kind of era where there are lots of options for me to pick in and not just be
left with specific options or technology. Web 2.0 enables human-oriented and network-oriented
applications or sites (for me) which is cool because now I can personalize my page the way I want it to be
and in just a matter of minutes.

Learning Expectations

I have seen that Patrick Crane is working for LinkedIn. Last October 30 our professor asked us to
make a LinkedIn account and he also oriented us to that site. I find it cool… Much cooler when I really
get to put something in my LinkedIn account. It’s like a social networking site like MySpace it just so
happen that the site is really intended for business use or a network for professionals to be in. I just
wonder what Mr. Crane feels or thinks about Web 2.0;

Review

Patrick Crane was the featured hero for this chapter. He works for LinkedIn. Mr. Crane is the vice
president of marketing at LinkedIn. Linked in is a networking site for professionals. It connects
professionals together and through those connections enabling them to accomplish tasks, get information
about their market and their industry, do research and other stuff.

When he was asked if he could define Web 2.0 he said that it is a fundamental course direction for
the internet. What? Well, that is kind of confusing… Well he added that he sees Web 2.0 as a course
correction. The reason that he didn't believe that it is a fad because it weaves the social fabric together
again where it re-establishes the relationships we have in the offline world, puts them in the online world
and enables that group consumption to happen again. Well, I thought he would say something much
different from the rest but he just said it in a different way. For me what he meant by this is that Web 2.0
enables interactive communication between people in the online world maybe through social networks,
social media, and the likes.
When he was asked about what probably be his favorite feature in Web 2.0 he said that the most
interesting thing that they haven't covered yet was the ability to mix and remix; however he wouldn't say
that it's everywhere yet. What does he mean by that? That he likes that mix and remix feature but hey it
does not exist yet? Well at least he knows where Web 2.0 is getting at, Good thing!

What I’ve Learned

In the past few chapters some of them claimed that sooner or later we wouldn’t be needing our
desktops anymore, that desktop applications, probably most or even all of them, would be web based in
the future but Mr. Patrick Crane said the otherwise that there's going to continue to be a need for desktop
applications. In fact, its applications will continue to advance and get richer in terms of their functionality
and those functionalities won’t be duplicated in a web environment.

Web 2.0 Heroes: interviews with 20 Web 2.0 influencers
Book Review, Chapter 10


Quotation

“When you look at the numbers, the millions and millions of users that are using some of these
services seem like a mot. If you look at the grand scale of things, there is still a lot of untapped potential
in the world.” – Shaun Walker

In my opinion what he meant by this is that there seem to be a large number of people already
connected in the web but it is also a fact that there were a large number of people weren’t connected in
the web as well. There is so much more out there yet in some areas connectivity still seem to be a
problem,

Learning Expectations

I expect to learn what the featured hero has in mind about Web 2.0 and the semantic web. In my
previous reviews about the previous chapters of this book I really didn’t give much importance or
attention to what could have been their thoughts about the semantic web maybe because Web 2.0 was still
hard to understand at that time so I first focused my attention in knowing that but since I already have this
idea about it (it took me several chapters to really understand it because it’s really confusing to
understand maybe because those heroes have different thoughts about Web 2.0 and their thoughts mixed
and clashed in my mind) so now I’m ready to focus on the semantic web.

Review

The one being interviewed in this chapter is Mr. Shaun Walker, the president and chief architect
for DotNetNuke. He is the creator and continues to be its key spokesperson. Well he has been involved
with DNN and having seen some sites evolved from their framework has given him numerous of
interesting thoughts about Web 2.0 and to some other related stuff. When asked about what his thoughts
would be about Web 2.0 he said that one aspect of it is that it is user-generated content which means more
people compared in the past are interested big time in contributing content to the Internet like blogging
their thoughts about some stuff, posting comments about this artwork (for example), and etc. Now people,
including myself, want more ability to express ourselves in the net and demands more ability to interact
with other people or community. We now contribute knowledge or information in the web unlike in the
past where people just used to consume those web contents. Just like what the other heroes said, social
networking is also another important part of Web 2.0. Why? Because these social networks such as
MySpace, Friendster, and Facebook enables interaction among its members, personalize their interfaces
(rich user interface), and most especially enables user-generated content. According to him, there were
also the bad side of it. Since more and more people can contribute content in the web so the effect is that
there were so much more content out there that it's becoming more difficult to find what you're looking
for. When he was asked about what feature could have been the most important one he said that ALL of
those are important and are closely linked together. Well I agree to that. When he was asked what could
have been the most misunderstood part of Web 2.0 and he said that it would have been the term itself.
Well I understand him maybe because the previous heroes including him agrees to several stuff but also
disagrees to some stuff about Web 2.0. Maybe they just have different thoughts about Web 2.0 and that
the meaning really lies unto the users themselves. Well just like what the other heroes discussed, the
interview also tackled things about the semantic web. Well some heroes said that it could be something
we’ve never seen before, something extraordinary like cell phones able to read barcodes and stuff… But
most of them, including him, agreed that IT’S TOO EARLY to tell if WEB 3.0 could have been the
semantic web…

What I’ve Learned

Well I have learned first and foremost that connectivity in other countries is not a problem
anymore because their country has good infrastructure. Mr. Shaun Walker lives in Canada and it’s a big
country yet they still managed to build such great infrastructure. I have heard my professor in my
Programming Application class that he has been to Singapore and even when you’re just riding a cab you
can connect to the web but here’s the thing Singapore is such a small country so I understand it’s just that
Canada is a large country. I have also learned and verified that it’s really hard to give definite definition
about Web 2.0 though I know its features and what it can do yet it’s really hard to define it but the
thought is there.

Web 2.0 Heroes: interviews with 20 Web 2.0 influencers
Book Review, Chapter 11


Quotation

“The more you can open up your platform, your idea, or your concept to invite other people to
build on top of it, and work within it, the better.” – Biz Stone

For me Web 2.0 is about sharing of knowledge. As more people help each other with their
applications or platforms and share more information, the more applications get better and the more we
benefit from it.

Learning Expectations

Now I already have an idea about what Web 2.0 but I am still curious whether this next featured
hero has different thoughts about it but mainly I would like to focus on his thoughts about the semantic
web because so far I’m contented with what the previous heroes said about Web 2.0.

Review

The featured hero for this chapter is Mr. Biz Stone, co-founder of the site called Twitter. Twitter,
often described as micro-blog, enables its members to say short-messages (more like status messages)
about what they are currently doing at that time. Well I have an account there but sad to say I’m not active
in it but I planned on being active this Christmas break (LOL). Got so many plans this break ehehe. Well,
when Mr. Stone was asked about his opinions about Web 2.0 he said THE same things... That he thinks
that people have very specific definitions of elements that go into it. Web 2.0, just like what the others
also said, is increasingly a social environment and that people are using it to interact or communicate with
one another like what they've always done but only now--- in such an OPEN way. Maybe what he meant
by OPEN is that now people can only not consume the contents found in the web but Web 2.0 also
enabled them to contribute something in the web, users can now personalize their sites unlike in the past,
and maybe because it’s OPEN for the reason that basically YOU can freely put something in the web like
your own platforms or like your thoughts about this person or etc. When asked if there could be anything
that people are misunderstanding about Web 2.0 he said that SOME thinks that THERE IS NO WEB 2.0
that THERE IS ONLY WEB. When asked about the semantic Web or the Web 3.0 he said that when he
hears people talking about the Web 3.0 you'd see a lot of eye rolling because people tend to talk so much
about it instead of really working on it. He's really not entirely familiar with what people are associating
with Web 3.0 because he is still catching up with what's supposed to be Web 2.0 and what gets added into
that and what doesn't. For me, that’s a great attitude. Focus on what’s there for the meantime and once
you are done and satisfied then move on with the next. Just like what I have read in Getting Real… Don’t
mind the problems that weren’t there yet, don’t think about it yet, think about it later and just prepare
yourself for it.

What I’ve Learned

Well I was expecting to learn more about the semantic web but it seems like he’s not interested or
maybe he just don’t give much attention to it yet that he doesn’t want to talk about it for the meantime. I
have learned and connected some stuff that I have read in some books into some topics here.

Web 2.0 Heroes: interviews with 20 Web 2.0 influencers
Book Review, Chapter 12

Quotation 
"If you don't innovate, then you'll loose market share and you'll wish you did." - Seth Sternberg

Change is the only constant thing or event in this world. You have to cope up with change or else
you’d get left behind. Companies need to innovate to cope up with change/s like in the technology, trends
in the market, or new stuff and if they don’t many would loose interest in their company and that could be
the reason for their downfall.

Learning Expectations

I expect to learn more from the featured hero about Web 2.0 and the semantic web, Web 3.0 (the
hero’s thoughts about it). The last featured hero didn’t talk about the semantic web and I was hoping that
Seth Sternberg would share something about it. I know it’s still hard to say or describe Web 3.0 but at
least I want to know whether the other previous heroes and Seth Sternberg have same thoughts about it.

Review

Seth Sternberg is the featured hero in this chapter and when asked about his thoughts about Web
2.0 he said that Web 2.0 is an interactive web. Well I understand that Web is really not interactive and
that people consumes content in there where these people consumes and contribute content in the net with
Web 2.0. There are some technologies such as AJAX that made the net more attractive to people. Another
thing is that Web 2.0 empowered individuals to voice out their opinions through blogs, Flickr, YouTube
and makes those individual as publishers that have reasonable chances of being found or discovered by
others and this has to do with the way that SEARCH evolved. With Web 2.0, you could actually use
tagging and etc that makes contents be filtered out. Another aspect would be the OPEN part... There are
this open APIs that some people uses to build their applications.. Also with Web 2.0 advertising was
made easy and a lot more efficient especially if you have sites with a lot of traffic because traffics say that
there are a lot of people visiting your site and you could actually make money from that. When asked
about his thoughts about the semantic web he said that he don't think that Web 3.0 is really defined yet
and that some people said that it is the Semantic Web. He didn't look into it enough yet. He thinks that
each wave of innovation happens because a couple of fundamental technologies come out that enable new
things. These days, he actually has a feeling that it's going to be mobile because people have been excited
about mobile for a long time but mobiles are locked down by the carriers so he said that it's really hard to
start a business from that but with the iPhone that opened the doors open because of its very, very rich
browser environment, it opened the possibilities.

What I’ve Learned

I have a great feeling that the Semantic Web would really be in our mobiles. Most of the heroes
that have commented or shared their thoughts about the Semantic Web or the so called Web 3.0 said that
it could be in our mobiles (applications or stuff).

Web 2.0 Heroes: interviews with 20 Web 2.0 influencers
Book Review, Chapter 13


Quotation

"Web 2.0 is less the name of a specific phenomenon, and more of a label we put on particular
observations." - Joshua Scachter

Maybe because people have different thoughts about Web 2.0, first and foremost it was vaguely
defined, so most of the people find it hard to give a definite definition in it. They base most of their
description about Web 2.0 on their observations in it.

Learning Expectations

I want to know what Mr. Joshua Scachter has to say about Web 2.0. I want to know if he’s got
different perspective or approach into defining it or whether he could cite to us something that the other
heroes never cited before in their interviews. I really want to know more about his thoughts about Web
2.0 but what really intrigues me the most is the semantic web issue, most commonly referred to as Web
3.0. I want to know his thoughts about it and the possibilities that could happen in the future in relation
with the semantic web (such as products, innovations, features, etc).

Review

The featured personality here is Mr. Joshua Scachter, the founder and creator of del.icio.us. Well
basically del.icio.us serves like a bookmark where it keeps your favorite sites for future use. Well, let us
go straight to the point. When he was asked about his thoughts about Web 2.0 he said that when he just
first started working on del.icio.us (2003) it was just something that he was building. he never really
thought of Web 2.0 and it was never a concept for him in building the site. Well I have once read that
somebody said that Web 2.0 already existed in the past it's just that the people didn't know how to call it
in the first place and maybe that just happened to him. He already had the thoughts or even the concept of
the site it's just that it never crossed in his mind that hey he is building a feature out of Web 2.o because
nobody has ever thought of NAMING it in the first place or nobody has ever instilled into each others
minds that THIS IS WEB 2.0 not until maybe around 2005 or 2006. One feature of the Web 2.0 is its
lkow barrier to entry and del.icio.us has a low level of entry but he never intended to build the site as a
business plan but because HE WANTED it (not for money) and he has the ability to build something like
that. He was asked (as the previous heroes were asked as well) if Web 2.0 is AJAX and he said as well as
the previous heroes that IT IS NOT.Another concept of Web 2.0 is communities. he said that even before
Web 2.0, communities in the web already existed like Topica, Yahoo! Groups, Friendster... And he is not
sure that community is necessarily a component. But here's the thing... like what I have said earlier,
somebody said that Web 2.0 already existed in the past it's just that nobody knew how to call it back then
so maybe this is what that person is talking about. When he was asked to define the Semantic Web he said
that it is more about DATA and not about the Web. He believes that the semantic web would change costs
and technologies. It will decrease the costs of implementation... And he thinks that more and more
computation will be pushed to the edge. Data stores will get smarter, bigger, and faster, and more
appropriate for web-scale use.

What I’ve Learned

I now believe that Web 2.0 already existed way before 2005 or much earlier but it’s just that
nobody knew how to describe or refer to it in the first place. People were actually using its features
unconsciously maybe because of the fact that Web 2.0 was vaguely defined so it was vaguely used as the
same time.

Web 2.0 Heroes: interviews with 20 Web 2.0 influencers
Book Review, Chapter 14

Quotation

"Today, if you have an idea that you want experiment with, it doesn't cost very much to try" -
Ranjith Kumaran

Unlike in the past, you really have to have a degree in computer engineering or science to be able
to create an application (hardcoded) but now because of the help of Web 2.0, the barrier to entry is low
and it enables low cost of project implementations (if you’ll compare it with the tcost they have in the
past).

Learning Expectations

For this chapter, I would just focus more on knowing Mr. Ranjith Kumaran’s opinion about Web
2.0 and the Semantic Web, the Web 3.0 (as they refer it to be).

Review

The featured personality here is Mr. Ranjith Kumaran, the founder of You SendIt.com. For me
YouSendIt.com closely resembles to YahooMail.com because it allows end to end users to receive and
send files BUT with YahooMail, they only limits the file size of up to 10Mb but YouSendIt.com allows
LARGE files (of any size actually) on the Web today so basically businesses and professionals make use
of this the most but they also caters individuals as well. When he was asked to define Web 2.0, he said
that he'll start describing it from the top. He said that the Web actually enables communication and allows
data to move very freely and fast fromn one place to another but the question is is there an interesting
conversation going on around that file transfer? When he was asked if what could be the most important
feature of Web 2.0 he that it would be his ability to easily adopt services and thus connect to more people
and start more conversations. Well I agree to this. For me I'm an avid fan of Britney Spears and I was able
to know more about the things that were happening to her because of those conversations. I get to read a
lot of conversations between the anti- and the pro-Britney LOL. I get to see their points and react onto it
myself as well. i learn from those conversations (it's not just about a simple conversation because once
you compile those up, it'll create an information that you might just been wanting to know who knows?).
When he was asked what could have been the most misunderstood thing about Web 2.0 he said that
people see Web 2.0 as something that happened all of a sudden if in fact it has been around quite a while.
Well, he is not the first hero to ever state this so I really believe that Web 2.0 already existed already in
the past it’s just that people from the past didn’t know how to start defining it in the first place and I know
why? Based from my observations, the previous heroes a(some of them) said that it’s really hard to define
Web 2.0 SO WHAT more in the past? When he was asked about the semantic web he said that it will be
more on the automated thing combined with people augmenting it. He has already seen some things like
that happening like some of the facial- and image-recognition technologies out there already. He said that
we are far from automating at least most of everything but we're approaching that point slow and steady.

What I’ve Learned

Based from the other heroes’ opinions about the semantic web (if memory serves right) I
haven’t remember somebody said that the semantic web is already existing today except Ranjith Kumaran
and I was totally convinced with what he said that approaching that point slow and steady.

Web 2.0 Heroes: interviews with 20 Web 2.0 influencers
Book Review, Chapter 15


Quotation

"Web 2.0 is really about the user experience and not the underlying technologies" - Garrett Camp

By now, I have already read a lot of chapters and that made me realize in my own opinion that
Web 2.0 indeed is really about user experience only accompanied by technology. It enables the users to
fully create something in the Web (especially the things that they are interested in) unlike in the past
where I guess it’s more on technology than user experience.

Learning Expectations

I am expecting to learn what he has got to say about Web 2.0 but I would really like to focus on
learning his opinions about Web 3.0 or the semantic web.

Review

The featured personality here is Mr. Garrett Camp, the founder and chief product officer for
StumbleUpon. He started StumbleUpon in November of 2001.When he was asked about what he thinks
of Web 2.0 he said that for him Web 2.0 is much more interactive. Sites nowadays have more
participation from users and there are community elements to it with things like profiles, reviews, ratings,
and user-generated content. The examples of those, for me, would be sites like MySpace, bloggers,
twitters, Amazon, etc. He added that today it seems like every web site wants to add social or community
features; ways for users to interact. For me they are doing this because they don’t want to be left behind.
According to one of the 95 theses, if businesses wouldn’t indulge themselves in this trend then certainly
they won’t have markets. In the past, users go to sites to read or buy stuff but today the web enables those
sites to be a much more interactive platform. For him the semantic web would be more on personalization
and social graph. He added that the third wave would be more on to trying to utilize human input to
define what good content is, and it has the technology to help manage and organize that information.
Discovery, recommendation, personalization, and generated content are all parts of the third wave. The
semantic web is mostly an academic term for bringing structure web. Another hero also said that this
would how semantic web would work like when you type orange instantly you would get the kind of
orange you are looking for THE FRUIT and not he color for instance so this would be associated with
lots of tagging and recommendations.
What I’ve Learned

I have noticed that the semantic web would be more on the organization of the data or
information and I have read another hero said this as well so I know that these people weren’t just simply
coming up with assumptions of what the next web would be like just like what the other people did in the
past. They had an idea that Web 2.0 would be like this and BOOM it happened. So they are not just
talking shit here but instead coming up with sensible and may-seem-not-realistic (for today) but I know
we’ll get there.

Web 2.0 Heroes: interviews with 20 Web 2.0 influencers
Book Review, Chapter 16

Quotation

"The most important thing is that even though we felt n the '90s that the Internet was having a big
impact in people's lives, we're seeing in this decade that it's reconstructing a lot of industries and shifting
a lot of value around while improving people's lives." - Rodrigo Madanes

For me the net or the web nowadays are more powerful instruments in reconstructing a lot of
aspects in our world today than of course what it used to do in the past. It gives a lot of values in our
works today while improving people’s lives at the same time.

Learning Expectations

I am expecting that the featured personality would stress more on his opinions about what the
next BIG THING would be or most commonly referred to as the semantic web and maybe a little more
about his thoughts on Web 2.0.

Review

The featured personality here is Mr. Rodrigo of Madanes of Skype, a Web 2.0 site and company.
Well Skype is used to make phone calls to other people through the use of peer-to-peer technology and it
is for free. When he was asked about his thoughts on Web 2.0 he said, as what the others have said as
well, that it is such a complex set of technologies and enablers. It increased communication between
people, watching videos, have a very interactive web pages, and etc. When he was asked about Web 3.0
or the semantic web he said that he is not sure of what could be it. Everybody has been envisioning of
what could be it and that is GREAT because at least now the semantic web would be able to figure out
how to structure all the things that have been dumped in the net so that you can navigate it much better.
This will happen NOT OVERNIGHT but will happen a longer period of time and somewhat
unpredictable ways.

What I’ve Learned

I have learned that most of the interviewed personalities are unsure of what could be the next
BEST THING and what could be the things that would lead to the fulfillment of that but what is great is
that at least THEY have some ideas in mind though it is yet hard to say that that would be it but at least
you know the vision is there that could somehow give structure to the Semantic We

Web 2.0 Heroes: interviews with 20 Web 2.0 influencers
Book Review, Chapter 17


Quotation

"Web 2.0 is about how businesses are changing, how people are collaborating, and how people
are unlocking content to be used in new and innovative ways through customization, at orders of
magnitude of less cost than they've ever had before."- Rod Smith

From what I have read and learned from the past chapters is that Web 2.0 has given the people to
contribute and at the same time consume all the contents out in there in the Web unlike in the past where
people could only get those information now these people are actually making use of those contents and
were making it as powerful tools that makes our technology, way of life, and businesses go far or prosper
(in my own opinion). Now these people could access, contribute, or even alter those contents LESS costly
than what it is used to be.

Learning Expectations

I expect to learn what these featured personality has to say about Web 2.0 and what could have
been his thoughts about the Semantic Web. I was wondering whether he has the same opinions as others
about the two (Semantic and Web 2.0) or whether he will contradict all of their opinions or visions and
could make a definite statement about those two.

Review

The featured personality here is Mr. Rod Smith of International Business Machines most
famously known as IBM. Well, I would like to go straight to the point. When he was asked to define Web
2.0 he said that they stick closely to the O'Reilly definition that Web 2.0 is the intersection of Social
Changes, economic changes, and technology changes. Well I also agree with that. Not only have I heard
or read the other featured heroes’ opinions about Web 2.0 that has given me enough reason to agree to it
but O'Reilly’s definition of it somehow resembles my belief or opinion about Web 2.0 (personally).
Everybody, in all areas of life, are being affected by the changes it brought. In the business side I believe
that the consumers or clients are being much exposed to information and I don’t see anything bad about it
but rather it is a good thing because not only it gives us much knowledge of these things but it also create
value for the whole community. When he was asked about the single most important about Web 2.0 he
said that APPLICATIONS don’t have to live forever… They are disposable. When he was asked of
where does he see the Web going next like what could be the next revolution and he said (as what others
did say as well) that it's hard to predict and anything I predict will be wrong. According to other
personalities interviewed as well that we thought we have seen the best things but the really best things
are yet ought to be searched still and for me even Mr. Smith believes in that (in my own opinion). There’s
got to be a lot of things that would happen in the near future and nobody really knows what could be the
next course of the web and it’s hard to say your assumptions for NOBODY really know. You say it now,
you’ll realize that IT’S really not in the future.

What I’ve Learned

I was moved with what Mr. Smith said about the Semantic Web and he said that it's hard to
predict and anything I predict will be wrong. For me, it’s got to be the wisest opinion I have ever read
from this book. Everybody kept saying that IT IS UNPREDICTABLE yet they kept coming up with this
and that and they kept on saying that NOBODY really knows what that could be and we thought we have
seen it but really we haven’t and HERE COMES Mr. Smith with an impressive statement about Web 3.0.
For me, that is the wisest thing to say.

Web 2.0 Heroes: interviews with 20 Web 2.0 influencers
Book Review, Chapter 18


Quotation

"Enterprises want to take advantage of the social and collaborative aspects of Web 2.0 but don't
necessarily want the business models of Web 2.0 shoved down their throat" - Tim Harris

For me some companies want to take advantage of the benefits Web 2.0 for their businesses but
that doesn’t mean that these companies would literally adopt all the principles of it into their businesses to
the point that it will alter their business models.

Learning Expectations

I expect to learn what this big giant company, MICROSOFT, has to say about Web 2.0 or even
their thoughts about the Semantic Web. I know for a fact that Microsoft is into innovation and making
more stuff modernized and that made me wonder if they are planning to start that Web 3.0.

Review

Well the featured personality here is Mr. Tim Harris of Microsoft. When he was asked about his
thoughts on Web 2.0 basically he said that when people talk about it, it really goes down to three pillars.
The first one is the technology pillar, the business pillars, then the last one would be the social construct.
Well I agree to this. From what I have observed, most of the past personalities interviewed also said
things that would basically fall under these three and even Mr. Rod Smith almost said exactly the same.
For them that the meaning of Web 2.0 is that there is this new social construct-type software that enables
collaborations-that democratizes the publishing of information out to the internet. And the social side of it
would be the most important feature of Web 2.0 but the technology and business pillars are definitely the
enablers of that. For me he is like saying that definitely these 3 pillars are dependent to each other that in
a way they affect the other one. When asked about Web 3.0 or the Semantic Web he said, just like what
Mr. Smith said, that it's hard to point a particular thing and say that that would be the next evolution and
he doesn't think he'll be able to say that. That for him the next best thing will be companies figuring out
how to make use of the technologies that have been brought to market. Actually it has taken almost 10
years for Web 2.0 to come out what more with Web 3.0?
What I’ve Learned

First I have learned the 3 pillars of Web 2.0 and those are technology pillar, business pillar, and
lastly social construct. Base from my observation, all of those heroes or featured representatives of the
companies said things that would basically fall under these 3 pillars and somehow if somebody would ask
me about what Web 2.0 would be then definitely this made it easier for me to explain it because
everything boils down to these 3 pillars.

Web 2.0 Heroes: interviews with 20 Web 2.0 influencers
Book Review, Chapter 19

Quotation

"Anyone with reasonable smarts can have a good idea for a web property on Monday and can
have something on the air two weeks from Thursday." – Tim Bray

This means that people who really have the brains, guts, great ideas, and the willingness would be
able to pull off a great idea for a great application in just a matter of short span of time and would be able
to nail it down sooner or later. Those that have the vision and the brains would be able to come up with
things that are highly in demand or something that would be sellable or something that people would like.

Learning Expectations

I’m curious of what the featured personality has to say about Web 2.0 and if there could be some
other information that the others have not said yet and I would really want to know his opinion about the
next best thing or more popularly known as the Web 3.0 or the Semantic Web.

Review

When asked about Web 2.0 Tim Bray said that it is the Internet based on the culture of
contribution from the edges by the individuals and by technology developers but Bob said that it is the
leveling of the playing field where the players are all equal. Everybody on the net nowadays has an equal say in
how the Web and the information on the Web resolves. When they were both asked.. What could be the next thing
after Web 2.0.. They joked that it wil be Web 3.0 (of course eheh). Bob said that when that comes then we
would be able to see huge volume and an explosion in growth in the face of clients who traditionally have
not connected to the Web very well (I wonder what he meant about that). He also added that he's thinking
about technologies such as mobile phones, car's stereo, car navigation system could be a part of that
semantic web... We never know.. but something that could bring drastic change (in my own opinion)
something that we never thought of and never seen of..

What I’ve Learned

Now I am certain that web 3.0 is really not yet affirmed to the point that in my own observation
those that were interviewed were still not certain (they admit it) about it and nobody knows yet because it
could still be something that we have never thought of nor even seen so really there is still no clue of how
and what could be it but one thing I’m sure… It could bring DRASTIC change to our lifestyles and
society.

Web 2.0 Heroes: interviews with 20 Web 2.0 influencers
Book Review, Chapter 20

Quotation

"[Web 2.0] is all about giving a lot of control back to the user and leveraging that infrastructure
that we built with "Web 1.0" to enable extremely rich experiences now, that we could not do back the
day" - Michele Turner

Well the rest of the people who were interviewed were actually saying the same things… No
wonder because it is the truth... Now everyone can consume and contribute in the web unlike in the past
where there were like no interactions or less interactions between the users and the nets or sites…

Learning Expectations

Well I was just curious why they became the FINALE chapter … LOL.. Well was it because they
are the most famous company or biggest contributor of Web 2.0 or maybe just no reason at all? LOL…
Well I have to know what they’re opinion is about Web 3.0 because we know that ADOBE is a head of
the game and I am very much curious of what they have to say.

Review

For Adobe Web 2.0 is a lot of things so he really can't pinpoint very specific details about it.
Adobe has built the infrastructure for Web 1.0 to do a lot of stuff that we are seeing today and for them
Web 2.0 is a user generated content (just like what the rest of the people interviewed and companies said)
...The next best thing for Adobe is of course it would be web-enabled desktop applications like Adobe air.
Many companies, in their own opinion, whether they are corporate enterprises or they are commercial
Internet companies have invested in this whole massive Web Service architecture and they are excited
about seeing some really phenomenal applications coming from their partners.

What I’ve Learned

Well maybe the reason why Adobe has been the finale for this whole thing was because (in my
own opinion) they have contributed one of the so many major aspects of not just Web 2.0 but also Web
1.0 as well and it is really important to know what this company has to say about Web 3.0 because in my
own observations, they are one of the most aggressive companies when it comes to developing new
technologies for everyone…
95 Theses
Reflections
Thesis 1

MARKETS ARE CONVERSATIONS which means (for me) that


conversation is a vital tool in our everyday transactions. Conversation is vital in
spreading information about what they are selling, the things their
products/services can do, importance of it in our everyday lives, its features, and a
lot more. Those may be spread with the use of or through advertisements
(televisions, radio, newspapers, brochures), internet (blogs, chat rooms, websites,
etc), word of mouth (seminars, press-conferences), and etc. and eventually those
would help spread information regarding the product across the city or country or
even worldwide. How would a friend of a certain individual be able to refer the
product to her/him if there would be no specific contact with the product? Those
above mentioned ways are forms of information-sharing where they would usually
converse the basic gist or things about the product or service then eventually the
second party people would spill it to the point that the other parties would know
about it then those would inform others (their friends, families, relatives,
boyfriend, girlfriend, neighbors, schoolmates, professors, chat mates, text mates,
etc) then again eventually those would iterate the whole process again and again.
So basically what I am trying to say here is that in a marketer’s life, to converse
with others is a form of spreading or informing things about their products/services
and this is really a MUST. Transactions would not even be possible without
conversations. Without it, there would be no clients, no company, no
Thesis 2

MARKETS CONSIST OF HUMAN BEINGS, NOT DEMOGRAPHIC


SECTORS. For me I was baffled by this phrase. I was confused if it was referring to the
people involved in it such as the vendors, the suppliers, or to make it short people who
sells ONLY or was the phrase referring to the customers, clients, or in short people who
buys from the vendors ONLY, or was the phrase referring to BOTH? I assume it is both.
What would a market try to target or to whom do they intend to sell their products or
services to? Of course it would have to be to the people or the “so called clients or
customers”. They should try to inform people about their products or services then make
them buy or try it, afterwards generating money or cash from those activities. But the
question is, should they only sell it to this specific group only or to everybody instead?
With the phrase markets consist of human beings, not demographic sectors, that phrase
implies that markets should not just consider A PART OF A POPULATION or A
SPECIFIC GROUP WITHIN THAT POPULATION but everybody. There should not be
any division, specific groups, or whatsoever. SINCE a market consists of human beings,
so for me everyone should be a target of its sales and advertisements. They should try to
woo everyone to buy their products or services not just people in this specific social class.
Considering we are all human beings, that made us all eligible of that right, of that
opportunity. Try to make your products available for everybody. Have different variations
and prices that can be afforded by all depending on their own preferences.
Thesis 3

CONVERSATION AMONG HUMAN BEINGS SOUND HUMAN. THEY ARE


CONDUCTED IN A HUMAN VOICE. According to the second slide having the phrase
“MARKETS CONSIST OF HUMAN BEINGS, NOT DEMOGRAPHIC SECTOR” which
means that IN A MARKET we are dealing with human beings and they are consisted of
human beings. How does a normal human being should act or even sound like? Of course
he/she should act or sound NATURAL, without pretentions, not trying to be the person
you’re not for the sake of selling out your product. You as a marketer (a seller of a product,
provider of a service, a supplier, etc.) should sound human at all times. Do not try to over act
to the point that you will look ridiculously insane or to the point that NO ONE WOULD
BELIEVE YOU because they consider you as a not reliable source because of how you
sound or act therefore affects the image of your products or even the integrity of your
business. They would think that you are a scam and may even be accused of making them
“bola” because of how you sound in your conversations maybe too flowery words,
exaggerated details to the point that it is really unimaginably unbelievable already, the voice
may sound really annoying instead of the impression you want to establish because some
people knows even by just looking at you if you are just forcing it or if it just comes out
naturally. Remember this, “Human beings are the smartest creature God has ever made”.
Thesis 4

WHETHER DELIVERING INFORMATION, OPINIONS,


PERSPECTIVES, DISSENTING ARGUMENTS OR HUMOROUS ASIDES, THE
HUMAN VOICE IS TYPICALLY OPEN, NATURAL, UNCONTRIVED. As humans
we know how humans sound and being humans we should sound human, we should sound
genuine and most of all natural. We can never fake it. Marketers have to converse to their
clients or customers in the most natural or genuine way. They should not sound too
serious when they are actually discussing something with their prospect clients especially
if that marketer just ambushed this specific prospect client in a mall, let us say, to discuss
the contents of their product’s or service’s brochures and hey dude you will just give them
this same-old-same-new lies and that serious tone? How do you think will they react to
that? Of course annoyed and what-a-waste-of-time reaction, or even the I-have-no-time-
for-that smirk. What the heck? Do you think you will be able to capture their trust or even
attention in that lame manner? Some companies prefer their employees to sound like that
well maybe because they are in this very serious world of making money. They want to
look as serious as possible to make them look more professional, more corporate-ish,
more businessman or businesswoman employed in this very sophisticated high-paying
company. As marketers, they should learn how to sound natural, open, and genuine when
it comes to conversing to their clients or customers. They should learn to listen to their
customers. Listen to what they have to say, their opinions, and stuff with regards to their
needs or even wants. In that way, they’ll be able to gain more interest with what you are
actually talking about and you, likewise, would get the most human-sounding
conversation with them, their positive outlook that would help your business in the future,
and most of all their trust and interest for you product.
Thesis 5

People recognize each other as such from the sound of this voice. For me, we are all
human beings and as human beings it just makes us aware of a lot of things regarding our
environment and the group we are in. Human beings came from the same roots… Which is still
scientifically unclear, but spiritually we all are the children of God. We all do the same things
though in different manners. You pee, I pee. You eat, I eat. You fall in love, I did a hundred
times. You get bored, I do too. You get tired of writing and thinking what to write, I certainly
do too. What I meant with those things is that I KNOW WHAT IT IS LIKE TO BE A
PERSON. I know how things work here. I know what it’s like to be a human being. PEOPLE
RECOGNIZE EACH OTHER AS SUCH FROM THE SOUND OF THIS VOICE means (for
me) that we all have the knowledge and proper instincts to help us make good judgments. The
voice according David Weinberger “Our voice is our strongest, direct expression of who we
are. Our voice is expressed in our words, our tone our body language, our visible enthusiasm.”
There are people who are good at telling whether this person is just plain faking it, whether this
person is trying to be somebody who he is not. By just looking at this person, certainly they
know the answer to that.
Thesis 6

The Internet is enabling conversations among human beings that were simply not
possible in the era of mass media. The first sentence means that the internet has served to be
the central path to which human beings could communicate without restrictions the way mass
media has never did. Internet has some free web applications, software, etc that enables
communication (like yahoo-messenger, e-mails, newsgroups, blog spots, multiply, friendster)
between people or groups of people without limitations, has less censorship, and unrestricted, a
place where o one controls or tells them what to do unlike in Mass media where it is a part of
the so-called managed world (for me) where it follows certain rules and behaviors which are
imposed by the nature of their works. E.g. CNN reporters, as much as possible, have to deliver
reports or news that is not biased. They are not supposed or, as much as possible; restrict
themselves from stating out their own opinions regarding on the things, events, etc they are
covering. Their job is to cover news, inform others about what they have covered but
comparing to the internet, they are restricted to a lot of things. They simply can’t sound natural,
express their own thoughts, and debate with the person that they are interviewing in case that
that person said something she disagrees with. Their voices are not important; for mass media,
but it is the NEWS and things that they are covering that are much more important.
Thesis 7

Hyperlinks subvert hierarchy. For me, this just means that the web actually beats the
purpose of hierarchy, the organizational chart that depicts power within a company. According
to David Weinberger “Intranets are enabling your best people to hyperlink themselves together
outside the org chart.” which means that there are numerous of ways in which people within a
company, let’s say, employees to communicate with others in a very human-sounding way. In a
chapter (I can’t remember where) in the The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as
Usual Book, I have read a part there that says a real conversation starts when you sounded
human and when you accept the fact that no one is perfect and you should take the fact that
somewhere in you life you’d be wronged by others simply because you are wrong and that you
should not be pissed about it instead accept it without holding any grudge. Whether you are the
CEO of your company or you are the security guard instead when you are on the net NO ONE
WOULD CARE. You would converse with different people in the net having different names,
family backgrounds, occupations but who cares? You are all gathered in the net because of
your interests let us say interest over this car. You would converse with people who have the
same interest as you are (maybe through blogs, chat rooms, newsgroups) with that car without
even caring WHAT that person really is. The thing that is important here is THE TOPIC YOU
ARE talking about, the thing that you both care about. That’s how humans sound.
Thesis 8

In both internet worked markets and among intranet worked employees, people
are speaking to each other in a powerful new way. For me how I understand or distinguish
intranet from internet is that internet can go the long mile or people or employees are globally
connected but intranets are just systems that linked people or better yet the employees, their
systems inside or those that are within the boundaries of the organization. Both serves a
powerful way in making those people connected, connected in a way that things are just done a
click away from the usual practices people have done before (snail mail, etc). I have witnessed
this form of communications between people who are searching for a partner. Our yaya (as I
remembered) has her pen-pal from the States. They were constantly sending mails and pictures
via snail mail. It will take her weeks or even months to get his reply, even worse they have to
pay in the post office. There was this other form of lovers’ communication and that is the
phone-pal and she has done that as well. But the problem is, IT IS VERY COSTLY. I don’t
know how many times they talk in a week but hey they have this long distance love affair.
Obviously compared today, I can recommend her (if I could just turn back time and we already
have this kind of technology back then) to just chat with him on-line… It’s free and most of all
they can see and talk to each other via webcam, obviously much better than just seeing their
pictures and handwritings.
Thesis 9

These networked conversations are enabling powerful new forms of social organization
and knowledge exchange to emerge. Nowadays, one way of communicating with others is
through the net, either through electronic mails or through, let us say, chat rooms, newsgroups,
or even in blog pages. For me it is a powerful tool that makes the world go round. Without it,
almost all the things we have today would be NOTHING. Our lives nowadays revolve around
this, why? This is the most convenient and powerful tool of gaining knowledge. Knowledge of
what? Of the things we do not know, the things we yet to know, and the things that we will let
others know. In an organization, one way of getting things done is through the net. Net provides
those employees seek for its help millions of solutions or even GAZILLIONS of answers to
their boss’ orders (especially if they know a lot of sites in the web). In the olden days or in the
past, employees depend so much to their bosses so when they do not know the answers they
would approach or ask it to them but sadly those people would return the question to them in
case they do not know how to answer it or they SIMPLY do not the answers to it, but today
DUDE WHO CARES if they can’t answer our questions? There is this what we call NET
where we could surf for information or answers that our boss’ can not give us.
Thesis 10

As a result, markets are getting smarter, more informed, more organized. Participation in a
networked market changes people fundamentally. Because of the rapid spread of the what-
we call Airborne VIRUS called Internet; people from around the globe are becoming MORE
aware of a lot of things like what is happening around the globe, what’s new in the market, and
etc. A lot, or almost EVERYONE, are really benefiting from this contagious virus. Knowledge,
information, and ideas are rapidly surrounding or better yet INVADING the whole community.
People are getting smarter and more informed in the sense that knowledge or details, news, etc
spread much faster than before because internet provides fast information-sharing, in just a blink
of an eye, you could KNOW the things happening across the globe, NOT EVEN POSSIBLE in
the past (not as fast as today). I could compare this to an airplane and a bus. An airplane could go
back and forth from Manila to Baguio maybe around 2 hours at most while in a bus, it’ll take it
days to do the same process. My point is that airplanes are sending faster and a lot of people from
Manila to Baguio unlike what a bus can do .Like in the internet, it could send a lot of information
every minute so just imagine MILLIONS of information you’d been getting and those
information certainly impacts your lives in a way? People are becoming organized in such a way
that they are becoming more aware of their environment, of themselves, that from the
information they gathered (imagine internet can generate or send you a lot of information) they
would have this idea of the things that really matters to them.
Thesis 11

People in networked markets have figured out that they get far better information and
support from one another than from vendors. So much for corporate rhetoric about
adding value to commoditized products. Because of the net, markets became more closer
and closer with each other in the sense that markets now get to talk, interact, share thoughts,
losses, gains, experiences with each other more than what they did in the past. Because of the
Internet, people or markets find more information regarding this other market, in turn that
other market would also get to know information, tips, etc regarding that other market that
would help them improve their businesses. From those information, they are much more
comfortable relying on each other because they get to experience the same stuff, burden this
kinds of problems that most vendors would never understand. Example a business said that
this system they bought last month was already malfunctioning (too early) maybe due to poor-
quality. WHO ON EARTH (vendors) would say maybe that is just another coincidence but
our other products of the same kind weren’t like that? They get to support each other because
they know they are in the same industry, on the same shoes, and goes through the same things
(as marketers, when the market is down, let us say, they are all affected by that also another
example is that when the prices goes up, then they burden almost the same thing…How to
earn money without sacrificing their business).
Thesis 12

There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own
products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone. That is no secret!
Definitely our world today breathes, talks, and feel news, information, details, and etc. whether it
is from somebody they know or somebody they yet to know, WHO CARES? By the way browsing
for details, news, and information is free guys (NET)... What I meant by FREE is that there is less
restriction in reading news or articles in the web, you do not play by the rules imposed by EHEM
your boss, and etc. Of course A NETWORKED MARKET would mean that they are closely
linked together where information about a certain company is open to the eyes of those people
prying their every move. They need to be aware of the things happening around them, to their
surroundings so that their competitors would not leave them behind or even be outwitted by them,
so in a world where competition exists, be sure to expect those rumors, even news that are true,
and etc would surface somewhere in between. It could make or break your company. People do not
care about you! They care about their WELFARE, their BUSINESS. Maybe for me this is a
disadvantage of having a robust network, gaining free access and making the most out of the net, a
world where THERE IS LESS FILTER. Do you expect all that millions of information seen on the
net is true? Of course there are lies as well.
Thesis 13

What's happening to markets is also happening among employees. A metaphysical


construct called "The Company" is the only thing standing between the two. For me the
simplest explanation to this is that those employees are also a part of a company. Since they are
a part of a company, whatever happens to it (either good or bad), whatever affects it, also affects
the people or employees working for that company. Let us say, the company is loosing some of
its major customers due to poor customer relationship management, or maybe because they are
producing products that are becoming less reliable, maybe defective, or maybe because they are
not producing products that suits their markets best (their products are out of trend already) so
in turn, those customers (maybe a lot of them) were shifting to another company and buys or
patronize its products instead of theirs, so obviously the company would gain losses from that
and that could badly impacted the whole company. People inside or within it are affected by
that, since the company is not progressing or even gaining income compared to before, the
company might reduce the number workers they have or maybe suppliers (because they want to
save up or doesn’t want to continue doing this product because it is not generating income
anymore and that certain supplier was the one supplying them the major materials they needed
to make that product). The company in short would fire some (if it is really needed already), or
in some cases reduce employee incentives or bonuses (maybe if the case wasn’t that bad enough
yet).
Thesis 14

Corporations do not speak in the same voice as these new networked conversations. To
their intended online audiences, companies sound hollow, flat, and literally inhuman.
Companies are usually built for business matters. I have read in the book entitled The
Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual that businesses are managed. According
to the same book as well, being managed entitles people or establishments who prioritizes a
managed life to have this certain behavior called professionalism. A business is a very great
example of that. People or employees within it are expected to sound, dress, and act in
accordance to what the company has told them. IT IS MANDATED. People within it are
controlled by rules, rules that they must obey and is obeyed by all. Corporations, by nature,
try to conceal the real identity of those people. They can not be themselves. Their voices are
taken from them and that is what LITERALLY inhuman means. To be human, you have to
be true to yourself. Being controlled that eventually keeps you from doing or saying things the
way you wanted it will never happen. Corporations try to act and sound so serious (see some
of the bosses? They act as if I am the boss around here) to the point that they are not able to
represent, communicate, and have this personal relationship with their customers. They build
this barrier between them. There is less interaction going on compared in the past.
Thesis 15

In just a few more years, the current homogenized "voice" of business—the


sound of mission statements and brochures—will seem as contrived and artificial as the
language of the 18th century French court. For me, the web is enabling businesses or
companies to leave the things of the past and move forward such as being or sounding
seriously to the point that they are not making or establishing any connection with their
markets. Being human beings, both the companies and their markets, to be able to relate with
each other they have to act LIKE ONE even if the nature of their works entail them to be like
this or that. The net or the web is really changing our world today. It parts knowledge,
information, details, and such to everybody much faster and much more in quantity than
before. It is imparting messages to companies that TODAY is different from what you or they
are accustomed to do (like sounding or acting seriously, not minding or not giving importance
to their employees’ opinions or views about certain matter or topic). It is making the
companies or businesses leave the things of the past and realize that they have to move
forward like what other companies were doing right now or they would be left behind. It
entails companies or businesses to be more human-sounding, relate, and reach out to its
market more openly than before. Companies are now experiencing a great transition in their
systems and how they perceive things to be.
Thesis 16

Already, companies that speak in the language of the pitch, the dog-and-pony show, are
no longer speaking to anyone. Meaning the language that companies are using is out of date
already. Dog-and-pony show that the company is showing simply means that it is “empty”
meaning the structure of the company, the dog-and-pony show is all for entertainment and
that is what companies are showing all they are giving the market is all for show all for
entertainment which is being out of date already,. Not too many people are paying attention to
this, in fact, today no one needs this. With the dog-and-pony show that the companies are
showing the intra and internet are being abundant, which should not be the case because today
companies should be considering more the technology that we have today, companies should
know what the market really needs, what the market really wants. With what the companies
are doing technology is not being use properly, the markets need for technology will rise but
what companies are doing is taking that opportunity from the markets. They stick to their old
fashion way which is already out of date, the market does not mind the dog-and-pony show
anymore because they know that they won’t benefit from it all the companies are doing is
showing the market that they would not comply to their demands and stick to whatever they
believe in which will eventually not work for them. Companies are just making things
complicated for them
Thesis 17

Companies that assume online markets are the same markets that used to
watch their ads on television are kidding themselves. For me online markets are different
from the markets that used to watch their ads on television. Why or how? Online market or
markets for me have this what we call customers and the other market or markets referred in
the first sentence have consumers. Sounds trick right but for me markets that used to watch
their ads on television don’t establish connection or relationship with their customers
instead they just produce products, let us say, and pay television networks to air their
product advertisements so that their markets would be able to learn what their product is,
what it does, distinct or unique features and stuff. People who are enticed or are lured by the
commercial would buy it straight to the nearest sari-sari stores (if available) or nearest stores
or malls. That made them for me as CONSUMERS not CUSTOMERS because in my own
opinion customers are people who have established connection with the people selling the
product/s. With online markets such as with multiply. An account there added me up and it
sells bags, clothes, and stuff. My friend tried it once. She asked several questions and the
administrator replied with answers on it. So for me they are connecting somehow unlike in
markets that used to watch their ads on television who sells products straight to the
supermarkets or stores without enough customer-owner relationship.
Thesis 18

Companies that don't realize their markets are now networked person-to-
person, getting smarter as a result and deeply joined in conversation are missing their
best opportunity. For me, companies MUST be aware that their markets just like what the
sentence said that their markets are now networked person-to-person. Because of the kind of
technology we have today, most especially because of the net, people can now communicate
much more faster, efficient, and OVER THE WEB unlike in the past. In the book entitled
The Cluetrain Manifesto I have read there (I just can not remember the chapter) that people
who share the same interests and passion communicates or meet in the web or are bonded
because of their interests. So this markets I assume have the same interests and that interest
maybe are fulfilled by this certain company let us say PEOPLE addicted to Nintendo DS (a
portable Nintendo game player). Because they all have this certain liking about Nintendo
DS and its games they all talk in this certain forum site and share a lot of information,
concerns, cheats 9for some games), overview of the games, and such. The company who
makes Nintendo DS and Nintendo DS games must BE AWARE of that and make some
research (for me) regarding what could be their markets wants (more games, a new version
of Nintendo DS, or a new version of that game) as well as their concerns or problems (let us
say Nintendo DS is defective for example or their games are only for kinds, HOW ABOUT
TEENAGERS?).
Thesis 19

Companies can now communicate with their markets directly. If they blow it,
it could be their last chance. With the aid of the net and the kind of technology we have
today, companies can very much communicate with their markets directly. How? Why?
What would be their benefits from doing that? And what would be the consequence or
consequences they would have to face it they would blow that opportunity? Those
questions are the things that I would be answering later on.

With the question how… How would the company or companies be able to do
that? Of course for me use the net. They could e-mail their customers regarding the
matter you want to know and stuff or even join on-line forums (they could even start one)
just to keep in touch with the views and opinions of their customers. Why should they do
that? For me their customers would be their MAJOR lifeblood (ehehe). Businesses are
established (for me) to meet the demands of the people and if the people would ignore
your products or services then there is no reason for you to stay. What would be their
benefits from communicating with their customers directly? There would be this
customer-owner relationship. For me the company should represent the people or its
market whenever they are making new products. Having that kind of relationship would
produce loyal customers and also you may be able to know what their needs are and why
they need it and the latest trends and stuff. And what would be the consequence or
consequences they would have to face it they would blow that opportunity? Some
companies were doing this already and if they don’t do this they might be left behind by
their competitors and might loose customers.
Thesis 20

Companies need to realize their markets are often laughing. At them. Why? For me
because their markets already have an access to those companies and how is that so?
Companies need to be aware that there is this thing we call web or the net where people could
surf for articles, details, information, and the likes regarding different matters and in this
matter it would have to be things about the company, things that pertains to what the company
is all about, the status of the company, latest products or services, their performance in their
respective industries, and such. People are aware of a lot of things because of the net (where
people could communicate and most especially share and obtain knowledge or information).
Their markets might be surfing the net because they want to know or read stuff about your
company such as in the blogs, articles and the likes. With the net, their markets are UPDATED
to the things happening or the things going on with the company. For me it’s not literally
THEIR MARKETS ARE LAUGHING AT THEM but more like their markets, unlike in the
past, have this much information about the company that weren’t even possible in the past.
The net for me has created this kind of bond between the companies and their markets that has
long ceased to exist in the past. Those companies need to be aware THAT THEIR markets
have knowledge of their company.
Thesis 21

Companies need to lighten up and take themselves less seriously. They need to get a
sense of humor. For me, companies need to be serious or sound and act seriously because
by nature companies expect a kind of behavior from their employees called professionalism
(have to dress a-like, impress their bosses, and such) and that is MANDATED. It entails
their employees to reserve their voices, more like, DON’T BE YOURSELF for the moment.
It restrains them from showing and saying WHO they really are because for me they are in
this serious world of money making and they have to do it (more like uniformed). In return,
their markets are becoming less attached to them. In one of the theses it says Conversations
among human beings sound human. They are conducted in a human voice. They NEED to
lighten up because who they are dealing with are generally not COMPANIES but human
beings. And the other one is Whether delivering information, opinions, perspectives,
dissenting arguments or humorous asides, the human voice is typically open, natural,
uncontrived. Companies and their markets are comprised of human beings. And as human
beings dealing with other human beings they need to sound one for them to understand and
relate to each other. I have read in the book The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business
as Usual that to be able to communicate or to have this communication, people first should
sound human or else there wouldn’t be one.
Thesis 22

Getting a sense of humor does not mean putting some jokes on the corporate web site.
Rather, it requires big values, a little humility, straight talk, and a genuine point of
view. Like what I have said in the previous theses, businesses need to realize that the
“entities” they are supposed to deal with the most, aside from its suppliers and the likes, are
the specific group within the society (to people whom businesses try to sell their products or
even services with) which happens to be their target market and those target market happens
to be human beings. They should understand that those people are supposed to be treated not
like an entity of the business but as human beings. Businesses should put their feet on their
customers’ shoes and represent them for them to win their attention or even loyalty. In some
commercials (TV adds) particularly SURF (bar soap) commercial, the marketers made
Lumen (the mother of the twins) symbolize most Filipina wives here in our country. They
tried to relate their commercials with what is really happening in our society because that
appeals more to us (Filipinos) and if you notice most of the Filipinos know Lumen and her
family because their commercial depicts a normal or average Filipino life (the masses). The
commercial is a big hit especially during its first few months. Surf marketers for me won the
hearts of the Filipina wives (most of them) because of its MAKA-MASA approach. The
commercial really did represent and depicts people whom they are trying to target.
Thesis 23

Companies attempting to "position" themselves need to take a position. Optimally, it


should relate to something their market actually cares about. For me what they meant by
that is that companies who try to position themselves in their market should represent them or
better yet put their feet unto their shoes if they want to win their attention or even loyalty.
They should make or formulate strategies on how they could best serve their ideas and
purpose for rendering their products or even services without sacrificing their customers’ or
their target market’s interests. For example, in case here in our society today, a certain
business (a new comer in the industry) is trying to sell cellular phones but for me they will
have a hard time positioning themselves in their market especially if they will just follow the
footsteps of Nokia (make cellular phones that have features already introduced by Nokia). So
they should know WHOM to target, WHY to target, and WHAT to target. I just noticed that
nowadays people wants to have 1 cellular phone instead of 2 (especially people who have 2
sim cards). Nokia does not produce that one yet so what should they do? Grab the opportunity
and make it as their own. Some people want to have one like that so make a cellular phone
that has NEW features and something that has what people or their target market wants (just
an example I know many companies like myPhone makes dual sim card phones).
Thesis 24

Bombastic boasts—"We are positioned to become the preeminent provider of XYZ"—


do not constitute a position. For me what they meant by that is that companies, not all, say
things that are really just plain pretentions just to impress others and people who do that are
just fooling themselves. For me, as much as possible, be true to your words, be true to what
you can offer, and be true to your target market. Do not try to impress your target market by
just presenting them, like what the first sentence termed it to be as, bombastic boasts because
first in my opinion IT IS NOT APPEALING. So what dude? For me it just does not seem
natural and there is no appeal in it or whatsoever that would make me want to stick in this
company and continue buying their products or even patronize their services. When I have
first read it I noticed that there is so much pretention in it and it is like they are shouting to the
whole wide world that HEY WE WILL BE THE GREATEST AND NUMBER ONE
PROVIDER OF XYZ FOREVER AND NO ONE COULD EVER BEAT ME BECAUSE
WE WILL EAT THEM ALIVE (that is how I understood it). As much as possible keep it real
and appealing or relating to the public and not just to some selected few. People patronize a
product because (for example the Surf commercial again “LUMEN”) companies try to relate
in to their target market. They write, do, and say stuff with humility and companies who are
genuine with their words and actions actually succeed.
Thesis 25

Companies need to come down from their Ivory Towers and talk to the people with
whom they hope to create relationships. For me what they meant by that is that some
companies actually do not talk to their target market. I have read in the book The Cluetrain
Manifesto: End of Business as Usual that in the past businesses have CUSTOMERS but with
the practices they have today businesses instead of having CUSTOMERS they now created
CONSUMERS. They said that in the past both parties talk to each other like in the olden times
people meet in the markets to buy stuff, trade goods, settle disputes, or even for gossip. In
short people COMMUNICATE, INTERACT. Unlike today, companies sell their products or
inform people about their products through TV advertisements or even radio adds and the likes
then they would just distribute their products in the retail markets then people would just go
there and grab the products. So basically, it is the TV adds that are speaking to their customers
but what the first sentence is implying to us is that companies must make a way in order to
reach out to their target market because through that they could build a kind of relationship
where ADVERTISEMENTS of any kind can not make. They should interact with their target
market. For me great relationship adds up to customer value and more customer value means
more loyalty to your products and services (the company would really benefit from it).
Thesis 26

Public Relations does not relate to the public. Companies are deeply afraid of their
markets. For me what they meant by that is that some companies are afraid of their target
markets. Are they afraid because they are afraid that once their target market or customers
knew some stuff around their company that limits their chance to earn profit or something?
Really, I’m not sure why but this is what I think the reason why for that is. Companies are
afraid to LOOSE their interests, afraid to loose revenues. For me they just do this “public
relations” thingy for the sake that they could retain their old customers or even attract new
customers but the activities involved in it does not really relate to the public or to their
customers such as providing customer assistance but really their interest is not to relate much
to their customer but just to make their company look “good” that those people who represents
the company just do it to make their customers think that the company is attending to their
needs and that they should continue buying their products. Real public relations is not just
about promoting the image the company wants its customers to perceive them to be but is
about promoting the image the company wants its customers to perceive them to be and at the
same time building up a relationship that is incorporated with respect. They should not just
ATTEND to their needs but rather ATTEND then build a favorable relationship between the
company, the customer, and the public. (That is just my opinion)
Thesis 27

By speaking in language that is distant, uninviting, arrogant, they build walls to keep
markets at bay. For me what they meant by that is that there are some practices that
businesses all over the world tried to do in the past years or even decades, a practice which
distant their companies with their supposedly “CUSTOMERS”. I have read in the book The
Cluetrain Manifesto: End of Business as Usual that there are stuff in the business world that
is MANDATED to them which means they have to follow certain rules and regulations
(which hinders them from showing who they really are like wear corporate clothes and in
some cases uniformed, impress their bosses, etc) and that businesses expects a behavior from
them which is professionalism. They are now speaking a language that is in-humane (not
genuine, uninviting, and the likes). They have to remember that the people they are suppose
to deal with the most are human beings and in order to win their affection, attention, or even
loyalty is to speak the same language like theirs or else they would drive them away and
driving them away means LOSS for the company. If they will still continue doing the
practices that have been established hundredths of years ago then better MOVE ON and
abandon it. Those practices for me were just established because the net wasn’t there yet at
the moment. Those practices that separated the customers from the companies or businesses
BIG TIME!
Thesis 28

Most marketing programs are based on the fear that the market might see what's
really going on inside the company. For me what they meant by that is that some
companies are just plain afraid that their target market or their customers might get full
access over some of their company’s records or information. They are afraid that once
their customers or target market knew the things around their company they might ask for
something that does not favor the company like let us say there is this oil company
named Green, an oil company that does not open to the public their records about their
income statements and the likes. They are afraid that once people knew their financial
status, cash flow, and etc people might start dictating stuff to them, that the people might
know (for example) that they are gaining a lot and that means they are now limited to
hiking their prices over a certain amount and that hinders them from accumulating a lot
more revenues and that is why they do not want to show their income statements and the
likes to the public so that people would not know their financial status and if they said
that WE ARE LOOSING a lot of money because oil price in the world market is high so
now they CAN RAISE it to the figures they said are JUST right to compensate their
losses and nobody would ever argue with them (unless if it is too high already to the
point that people are not already convinced by it).
Thesis 29

Elvis said it best: "We can't go on together with suspicious minds." For me what they
meant by that is that if there is this thing we call “TRUST” and it does not exist between
the both of them anymore then why stick to it? The phrase for me is like saying IF
CUSTOMERS DO NOT TRUST this brand anymore then WHY CONTINUE to
PATRONIZE IT? If you have doubts, at least even if it is just a little, then STOP. What
gave you the reason or even reasons to doubt it? There must be a valid one that made you
suspicious and that is an enough reason for me (as a customer speaking) to stop
patronizing their products. The word TRUST is really hard to establish but could easily be
destroyed. If you are suspicious already then it will just continue to exist unless you chose
not to. Sticking together might just worsen the case. Even with company-supplier
relationship, if there are doubts already existing between their relationship better look for
another company (for the supplier’s side) and supplier (for the company’s side). Example,
with a milk brand from China ahaha. Their customers felt ill whenever they would drink
that company’s milk or they noticed that their infants were becoming feverish whenever
they would be fed with that milk so as soon as they noticed something wrong or fishy then
stop buying the product better yet drinking it especially if you found out that there is this
harmful chemicals included in it. So the great effect of that, NO ONE would ever trust that
product again (in my pint of view) or they would have a really hard time convincing
people to patronize it again.
Thesis 30

Brand loyalty is the corporate version of going steady, but the breakup is
inevitable—and coming fast. Because they are networked, smart markets are able to
renegotiate relationships with blinding speed. For me what they meant by that is that
companies who try to make their customers patronize or still prefer to buy their products
are a good indication that their business is doing well (for me that is an indication that
they have established brand loyalty with their customers) and that is the sweet part of
reality and at the same time HARD TO ESTABLISH. Companies must realize that their
customers are now smarter because they already have the means to be (using the web)
and those conversations among other customers are really taking place in it so those
companies must better be careful and be aware that their every move was being watched
by their markets. Their customers or their markets might loose that “brand loyalty” touch
once they have learned that there are products that are MORE suitable for their lifestyle,
or maybe less cheaper, or maybe because other reasons and companies must make a way
to KNOW those factors, they should be updated to their markets’ or market’s preferences
and the likes because if gaining customers’ loyalty to your company’s brand (products or
services) is the hardest thing to do (even if you have the most brilliant strategy of them
all) yet THE sweetest part of all of that, customers to LOOSE brand loyalty yet is the
simplest and fastest thing to do and once that happen, companies would even have twice
the agony and pain of rebuilding broken TRUST.
Thesis 31

Networked markets can change suppliers overnight. Networked knowledge workers


can change employers over lunch. Your own "downsizing initiatives" taught us to
ask the question: "Loyalty? What's that?" For me what they meant by that is that
companies, suppliers, and the likes must better be careful with their actions and with how
they provide goods and services to their clients because TODAY, they must be aware that
their clients are wiser than yesterday (much well informed and knows a lot of alternatives
to take or make once they are dissatisfied with your works or even with your products). If
you try to reduce (for example) the quality of your service or products you provide for
your clients then (for me) YOU are in great trouble and an example of that is THE sari-sari
stores who sell pandesal for 1 peso a piece. Around early 1990’s pandesals are as big as a
fist but nowadays pandesals’ sizes are of ¼ of that and they sell it for 2.50 pesos per piece
(well that is my downsizing initiatives example) so now people are trying to shift from
pandesals to another alternative. For me, companies’ downsizing initiatives could mean
harm for their businesses. People or their clients have much access to information than in
the past so once they are dissatisfied with what your company provides then they can
easily SHIFT to another company where they could get the same thing you provide or
even more for a lower and much reasonable price.
\
Thesis 32

Smart markets will find suppliers who speak their own language. For me what they
meant by that is that according to one of the 95 theses of the book The Cluetrain
Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual Conversations among human beings sound
human. They are conducted in a human voice. For me their markets are human beings so
they will find somebody who could very much relate to them like companies or suppliers
who will treat them the way they should be treated. Some companies, especially those
who still practice some traditions (only made because there was no internet yet) are really
speaking a different language. They do not or can not relate to their markets because of
that barrier (the language). They are adhering to specific customs that were actually
abandoned already by other companies who realized the effect it could bring into their
businesses especially if they would try to continue with it. The realization came after the
net or the web was established. The web enabled communication between people across
other countries possible and much faster or even just a click away, making people much
wiser than yesterday. So now, they are very much exposed to information… Their
markets are actually rich in information enabling them to make wiser decisions or even
wiser moves. Of course, they would choose companies or even suppliers who would
listen to them… Customers like to be listened to especially when they want attention
from those companies and they do not wish to be ignored.
Thesis 33

Learning to speak with a human voice is not a parlor trick. It can't be "picked up"
at some tony conference. For me what they meant by that is that according to one of the
95 theses of the book The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual Whether
delivering information, opinions, perspectives, dissenting arguments or humorous asides,
the human voice is typically open, natural, uncontrived. In my own opinion, it can not be
faked. You will know somebody even by just looking at that person better yet by just
listening to him or her talk. It needs not mastery, for me what it needs is the word
“Genuineness” ;) For me, being genuine does not mean saying flowery words or acting
nice to them (take note of the word acting and not BEING) to your customers but rather
being open to them. Saying flowery words (for me) is like an act of tricking your
customers to buy or try your services. People, especially nowadays, are a lot wiser
compared to those people or customers in the past so companies must wake up that
THEY are aware of what you guys are doing to them. They can easily spot those who are
just fooling around and those who are there to make open and genuine conversation
better yet building this customer-owner relationship with them. It’s not about getting
people to buy or try your products now but more LIKE ATTRACT CUSTOMERS now
and RETAIN them.
Thesis 34

To speak with a human voice, companies must share the concerns of their
communities. For me what they meant by that is that these companies are willing to drop
the old practices they have come to know or follow (especially in the past) and are
willing to move on and speak the language of their markets and by choosing that so, they
must create a kind of relationship, a kind that has failed to continue to exist in the past
and that is the customer-owner relationship. Those companies failed to represent their
customers and failed to relate to them. They tried to distant themselves to their markets
resulting to a wide gap between those two. They failed to know what these markets
needs, preferences.. They failed to listen to them. Customers like to be listened to and
wants attention especially when they demand for it and companies long ignored that part
of reality. Instead of having customers, then created the so called consumers. It it
through, let us say, TV advertisements that these companies promote their products or
services and that their markets would just drop by to their nearest retail shops and buy
there but during the early centuries, owners sell their products through talking to their
customers… There is this interaction between them. No barrier. Now companies must be
able to know what is in and what is not. They should listen to their customers and relate
to their concerns especially of the whole community.
Thesis 35

But first, they must belong to a community. This is actually a continuation of theses 34. It
says there that to speak with a human voice, companies must share the concerns of their
communities. For me what they meant by that is that these companies who want to interact
with their markets must be willing to hear what their community has to say, their opinions,
wants, needs, or even their concerns. Customers like to be listened to and want attention
especially when they demand for it and companies long ignored that part of reality so that gap
between them and their markets existed. Companies must be able to know and relate to their
customers thoughts and opinions and if they want that, they should talk to them in a human
voice. That is the only and BEST way they could ever do if they really want to share the
concerns of their community or communities but theses 35 said… But first, they must belong to
a community. For me what they meant by this is that, for you to be able to know the concerns
of a community then you should first know THE FEELING OF HOW IT IS TO BE IN A
COMMUNITY. If you do not know that then HOW WILL YOU EVER RELATE TO THEM?
It is like, before you could ever state your opinions, and know their feelings, YOU SHOULD
FIRST PUT YOUR FEET UNTO THEIR SHOES BEFORE YOU JUDGE OR EVEN DO A
MOVE.
Thesis 36

Companies must ask themselves where their corporate cultures end. For me what they
meant by that is that companies must be able to know or must be able to determine what to
take or what their companies must do next in order for their businesses to survive while
trying to cope up with time and technology and most especially with how their clients grasp
information and its sources as well. For me what the corporate culture stuff actually
pertains to are to those things that companies do or practice which do not entail much
interaction between them and their customers giving their relationship with their markets a
LONG crack or in short a gap. For me, this kind of corporate culture, that existed long
before internets were created are just simply HINDERING businesses from really having
this customer-owner relationship and which also entails businesses to change some MAJOR
aspects of business. It is already 2008, and the kind of trend or culture that corporation must
really adapt are the ones that has MORE interaction with their clients or customers. If they
still try to continue ignoring this fad then they would really be left behind by their
competitors. For me they shouldn’t ignore this and they better THINK, analyze, and etc the
possibilities of not having limitations to their actions. They should really know their
limitations, the what to dos and don’ts (especially for a specific time). They should learn
and know when to adapt this kind of culture and when to drop their other practices which
were (maybe) later found to be NOT effective or even efficient.
Thesis 37

If their cultures end before the community begins, they will have no market. For me
what they meant by that is that companies must really know when to be acting, relating, and
doing these strategies. They should know when to react, why to react, and where to react at
the right place and time. For me, there would not be a LONGLASTING culture. In the early
times, businesses tend to talk or interact with their customers or clients so they could sell their
goods or services even for trading goods or for goods but something just happened and that
was when businesses started to NOT give importance to their main partners, their suppliers
and their customers. Their culture during that time was way different from the ones
businesses have during the much earlier times. Businesses thought that it was the best thing to
do especially knowing that it was those days when there was not yet internet. The kind of
culture (business culture) fast invading the whole industry (business) is the kind that entails
owners TO LISTEN to what the customers have to say and what those customers need. They
need to be listened to and they need it especially when they have demanded for it or else…
They would not care about your brand anymore. They would shift to another one. They better
start knowing the things that needs to be known. They better know when to do the do’s and
don’t repeat the don’ts.
Thesis 39

Human communities are based on discourse—on human speech about human concerns. For
me what they meant by that is that our community or society lives, breathes, and feels
information. According to one of the 95 theses of the book The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of
Business as Usual Markets are Conversations. This just justifies my opinion even more that really
PEOPLE converse so they could relate to each other’s situation, needs, and wants. Basically, we
are about INFORMATION and how do we gain one? Of course from communicating with other
people, with our bestfriend, relatives, online buddies and such. For me, what has really been
talked about in those communities are primarily the things that humans or people need, want, or
even aspire. They talk about their concerns… The things that bothers them (maybe), the things
they are so eager to share. For me, without communication, without interaction, or without
contact then there would not be communities. How would you even be starting one if you do not
know what to do, when to do and why to do it in the first place? If there would never be discourse
then how would we know the things we need to know?. According to John Dewey “There is more
than a verbal tie between the words common, community, and communication.... Try the
experiment of communicating, with fullness and accuracy, some experience to another, especially
if it be somewhat complicated, and you will find your own attitude toward your experience
changing.” Through communication, we live and we change. Communication really revolves
their lives and the whole community.
Thesis 38

The community of discourse is the market. For me what they meant by that is that companies
who try to reach out to a certain community is actually trying to reach out to their prospective
or even to their current clients. In the web, there is this certain place where people go and meet
up, converse, or even interact. They are bounded in the same place because they share the same
interests. The place where they hook up is called the community such as MySpace, newsgroups,
blog spots, and a lot more. In that community, people within it certainly share some kind of
interests and passion that is why they are closely linked together and that some kind of interests
and passion is the one that some companies or even most of the companies try to capture. They
need information to feed their business and those information, vital information, are actually the
ones that people in that community talk about or share to others (most likely in the form of
opinions and the likes). Companies try to reach out to this certain community, they even try to
make one so that they could capture the information they would need and those that they need.
They even join or make a community to study the behavior of the people in that community
(how they interact, how often do they change their minds in buying this and that, what are their
current wants and needs, and etc.).
Thesis 40

Companies that do not belong to a community of discourse will die. For me what they
meant by that is that companies who do not wish to interact, converse or even communicate
with other entities will soon perish. Companies who do not wish to meddle with other
companies, organizations, or even know certain fads in the industry will soon be left behind.
Information-sharing is a vital tool in making a company wither all successive trials that may
come their way. No man is an island, no man CAN STAND ALONE. Certainly, companies
need other companies in order to survive, in order to innovate, and in order to be educated.

Companies, who do not meddle, interact, converse, or communicate with their customers or
clients would get a dark consequence in the end. Companies who ignore their clients’,
customers’, or even their communities’ concerns really killed their biggest opportunity. For me
customers or clients do not want to be ignored especially if they demand for it and as soon as
companies ignore their concerns then certainly that is an OFF or a very displeasing gesture in
the customers part so what would they do? Shift to another company who would lend them
their ears and COMMITMENT. I have learned that INFORMATION mining from your
customer is really a great asset for the company. This just does not give them vital information
for them to gain competitive advantage but also (the most important thing) the loyalty of their
customers.
Thesis 41

Companies make a religion of security, but this is largely a red herring. Most are
protecting less against competitors than against their own market and workforce. For me
what they meant by that is that companies are more afraid of their own market and their own
workforce compared to their competitors. Really I thought it was the other way around, that
companies need to be more afraid of their competitors than their own market and workforce but
then I have read the book (actually the eBook provided to us by our teacher) Web 2.0 Heroes:
Interviews with 20 Web 2.0 Influencers and in that book Eric Engleman said that sooner or
later there would be somebody who would put them out of business (and that is a fact) and for
me that seems to be natural thing for everybody, especially them businessmen, to think about
that is why he said that they really need to constantly talk to their customers or to their markets
for them to catch up and not be left behind. They are more afraid of the thought that their
customers might shift to other companies (or patronize their goods and services rather than
patronize theirs). They are afraid to the entity or entities that are closely vital to them because
without them… They are nothing. It’s like, having competitors and the possibility that these
competitors would eat them alive is a natural thing but loosing the trust of their workforce to
them, most especially their customers’ seem more difficult to take.
Thesis 42

As with networked markets, people are also talking to each other directly inside the
company—and not just about rules and regulations, boardroom directives, bottom lines.
For me what they meant by that is that it is not just the company’s clients or customers that
are networked so that they could share thoughts, reactions, feelings, suggestions, opinions,
and the likes but also the people within the company (either inside the company’s walls or the
otherwise such as the suppliers and etc). People inside or within the company’s walls or
people directly involved with some of the company’s transactions are not just talking about
the regulations that have been established last week, let us say, or regulations that were
mandated to them just recently, their bosses (what they have been doing, what their bosses
were like whenever they would be speaking to them, and such). People within it, let us say
the employees, talk about random stuff and not just about company papers (more like
company or work stuff). They also talk… talk like what humans do because they belong to
that same group as well it is just that they are living in a world where company’s rules and
regulations, boardroom directives, bottom lines where being discussed a lot, where these
topics prevail among other random stuff that people inside the company talk about. So
basically, what I am trying to imply is that IT doesn’t mean that those people are inside a
company that they are deprived of the opportunity to at least be 40% human.
Thesis 43

Such conversations are taking place today on corporate intranets. But only when the
conditions are right. For me what they meant by this is that there are some things in a
company’s system or intranet that does not exist in other intranets (maybe because they are
in a different industry, types of market and operations, has different approach, and etc).
Basically, in each company they have different structure of intranets thus making each
conversation taking place in each of them different from the rest (or from other companies’
intranets). There are conversations that exist inside one’s intranet but those conversations
are limited or are restricted because their every move or the ones they are saying are being
monitored by the company itself to protect maybe its personal interest. For me that is what
But only when the conditions are right means. When they have passed several measures
then that is the time when those conversations between employees or other entities that uses
the company’s intranet exist. In each intranet, it is possible that several conversations take
place. Most of those conversations have different topics. We can not (in my opinion) expect
to have two intranets functioning alike having the same kinds of conversation or topic
(unless that those companies are related maybe the other one, let us say, the sister company
of this company and etc). Such conversations are taking place today on corporate intranets
and for me those conversations are still not as expressed as what the conversations in the
internet are.
Thesis 44

Companies typically install intranets top-down to distribute HR policies and other


corporate information that workers are doing their best to ignore. For me what they
meant by this is that companies are trying to cope up with technology in talking or imparting
the information they want to share or what they expect their employees to be (such as their
behavior, how they dress, motivation, and etc). They are trying to at least make ways or do
ways to instill to their employees their policies and other corporate information. They are
trying to reach out to them in the best, the fastest, the cheapest, and the most IN-THING to do
nowadays and that is through connecting all their corporate computers into one system or
community. This networked computers are what the companies do to talk or distribute all that
it has to share or convey to their employees most especially the rules and regulations to be
followed by the whole members of its community. Employees hate or try to ignore this
because it's like the company is trying to control them in a way that their actions have been
limited to what is mandated or told to them. According to the book The Cluetrain Manifesto:
End of Business As Usual Corporations do not speak in the same voice as these new
networked conversations. To their intended online audiences, companies sound hollow, flat,
literally inhuman. Maybe, that is one of the reasons why their employees are doing their best
to ignore this.
Thesis 45

Intranets naturally tend to route around boredom. The best are built bottom-up by
engaged individuals cooperating to construct something far more valuable: an intranet
worked corporate conversation. For me what they meant by this is that (this is really hard to
explain but I will do my best to impart my thoughts on this) when intranets are made from top to
bottom usually the ones that are governing the whole community are those people who are on
top (the executives, top management, and the likes) which means that freedom to access
different system or sites, let us say, are controlled or limited to specific areas only that is why it
created this notion about boredom. So it is suggested that the system be built from bottom to top
because the whole scenario would actually NOT BE TOTALLY the otherwise but more likely
employees would have much freedom to manipulate or use the system the way they want it and
in that way, boredom from using it would be lessen and would create a much more valuable
conversation among workers. According to the book The Cluetrain Manifesto: End of Business
As Usual These networked conversations are enabling powerful new forms of social
organization and knowledge exchange to emerge. With the help of the intranet, it enabled
conversation within people in the organization much possible and much powerful because
information-sharing is much faster and richer because it comes in any form therefore
information among different sources are much supplemented.
Thesis 46

A healthy intranet organizes workers in many meanings of the word. Its effect is more
radical than the agenda of any union. For me what they meant by this is that an intranet is
not just there as a new form where companies could impose to their employees or workforce
the rules and regulations that these entities have to follow while they are working for their
company. This just also not serve as a means to spread the information needed within the
company but also intranets are there most likely to empower and organize them (employees or
workforce) in such a way that their employees or workforce would be more motivated in doing
their jobs right instead of creating fear within them. It is better for the company to start doing
this because they would not just help get the best out of their employees but they would also
benefit from it. It is a means of empowering or organizing their employees in turn creating an
environment where their employees would not just think that their company is a place where
they could work but also creating the kind of atmosphere or instilling to them that this is also a
place where you guys could nurture your talents and learn more. Most of the employees does
not work for the sake of earning money but also because they want to learn from the
experiences they would gain from their endeavors in the company in turn producing loyal
workforce which could save them from incurring costs coming from hiring and firing
employees and the likes.
Thesis 47

While this scares companies witless, they also depend heavily on open intranets to generate
and share critical knowledge. They need to resist the urge to "improve" or control these
networked conversations. For me what they meant by this is that companies are afraid of their
intranets basically because they are afraid of the fact that their employees are not networked or
connected and that there are some information about the company that these companies are afraid
that their employees might just discover or might spill to others (other companies, entities, or even
to other employees)… This information would normally be the ones that the companies think
would be the start of their downfall or would star tone of their major problems. But what is ironic
to this is that, companies do really see their intranets as a major tool wherein they could generate
and share critical knowledge across their systems. They greatly depend to this as well and because
of that the urge to improve it is always visible but they must know when to improve it because
there would be time for everything. They must know that improving it wound not be the only
option and they should consider whether it would be really advisable to improve it or should they
just wait a little longer? They should also need to resist the urge to control these networked
conversations. These conversations might really be helpful for them in the long run. They should
open minded and should resist thinking that these conversations might hurt their company. Advice,
just always be prepared to face it (if in case).
Thesis 48

When corporate intranets are not constrained by fear and legalistic rules, the type of
conversation they encourage sounds remarkably like the conversation of the networked
marketplace. For me what they meant by this is that if the company’s intranet is not governed
by any fear that employees should adhere strictly to the rules imposed to them by their
management then usually the conversation that actually takes place in it are usually natural or
uncontrived (genuine). I have read in the book The Cluerain Manifesto: End of Business As
Usual that people within an organization especially the employees tend to sound unnatural
because their voices are taken from them making them speak the language different from the
language spoken by human beings. In a networked marketplace there are less restrictions, less
censorship, and people within it can freely express their thoughts and opinions and in short
nobody is trying to control them that is why the usual conversations that happen in it are
naturally human. If there would not be any of these restrictions then how the people in the
organization would converse or interact would most likely resemble the ones that are taking
place in a networked marketplace or a community that resides in the net where people are not
governed by any rules or whatsoever to keep them from showing or expressing the person they
want others to perceive them to be as well as to share their thoughts without somebody
controlling them or dictating to them what to say or share.
Thesis 49

Org charts worked in an older economy where plans could be fully understood from
atop steep management pyramids and detailed work orders could be handed down
from on high. For me what they meant by this is that in the olden times the way employees
know information regarding a specific matter or project, let us say, is through the top
management themselves. In the past, they have to consult their bosses or even the top
management to know the answers to most of the questions because that is one of the few
means available during that time where they could search for answers unlike today where
there are several means where employees could search for one even without consulting or
approaching their bosses (like through the use of the web where they could search for one).
In the past, that works best for them where the top management would fully discuss the for
example this matter and everyone in that meeting, let us say, fully understood every single
detail about the project but once it has been handed down from employees to employees
somehow the recipients would only get a glimpse of what has to be done or some details
and would have a hard time figuring out the whole thing. Pyramids roughly existed in the
past so I assume that red tapes did as well. Gathering information in the past is such a big
and hard task. Information or instructions would first come from the top management down
to the people to the bottom. Just imagine if it is a big company? How tedious the whole
process could get if you compare to what we have today.
Thesis 50

Today, the org chart is hyperlinked, not hierarchical. Respect for hands-on
knowledge wins over respect for abstract authority. For me what they meant by this
is that companies today are more open in a way that authority within it really does not
matter anymore as much as it mattered in the past. In the past employees have high
regards with authority and because of that those employees tend to listen more to what
these authorities were saying and they even did depend to them for answers. They
treated them more like the gods of the companies but today, aided by our technology,
those companies became more open to the idea that the employee’s position in the
company would not matter for as long as that employee contributes knowledge in the
company unlike in the past, companies did not really care or gave importance to what
these entities have in mind or have to say because for them they are just employees of
the company but now these companies treat them differently in fact these employees
nowadays are one of the company’s very important asset which means that these entities
are considered important. For me Today, the org chart is hyperlinked, not hierarchical
means that a company’s organizational chart is connected in a way that the entities
within it depend on to each other, shares knowledge and opinion, listens and is open for
other’s ideas unlike in the past where a company’s org chart is hierarchical and that
people within it have high regards for authority and that people placed on the topmost
part of the chart are the ones who really matters in the company compared to the ones on
the bottom part where most of the time that their opinions are likely disregarded.
Thesis 51

Command-and-control management styles both derive from and reinforce bureaucracy,


power tripping and an overall culture of paranoia. For me what they meant by this is that
the exercise of authority and direction within a company forms or styles bureaucracy and other
forms or culture of paranoia. This command and control also reinforced the following. For me
bureaucracy is an organization operated by a hierarchy of officials and is governed by
complex rules and regulations that are applied rigidly or strictly. Command and control states
that there should only be one authority for each department of a company so that the
distribution of orders would only come from a single person because 2 or more authorities in a
department may create confusion. That notion may have probably motivated some people to
take the power or authority from others who posses it (power tripping) and also because of
that some people are paranoid that others might take away their authorities from them so that
distrust or suspicion of other people and their motives causes these “so-called” paranoia.
Because command and control states that there should only be one authority for each
department of a company, that might have created this hierarchy of individuals in an
organization and these individuals greatly possess power within the org and that people under
them should strictly adhere or follow their orders as well as the management’s (principle of
bureaucracy where the works of an org is divided into several categories carried out by
specific departments).
Thesis 52

Paranoia kills conversation. That's its point. But lack of open conversation kills
companies. For me what they meant by this is that there are some companies or let us say
people within companies that are living and breathing the culture of paranoia and because of
that they try to limit the information, details, and etc that they are sharing with other people.
Doing that so limits or kills conversation because of obvious reasons like the ones I have said
in the other thesis Command and control states that there should only be one authority for
each department of a company so that the distribution of orders would only come from a
single person because 2 or more authorities in a department may create confusion. That
notion may have probably motivated some people to take the power or authority from others
who posses it (power tripping) and also because of that some people are paranoid that others
might take away their authorities from them so that distrust or suspicion of other people and
their motives causes these “so-called” paranoia but on the other hand giving out limited
information could also hurt you or your company. This may result in unfinished works
because of lack richness in information therefore causes delays and affects work schedules,
poor decision making, and etc therefore may put the progress of the company in a slow mode
or may even kill or totally put companies down because of its weak management, and the
likes
Thesis 53

There are two conversations going on. One inside the company. One with the market.
For me what they meant by this is that in a company, conversations are taking place within
entities and there are conversations that are taking place inside the company (or within the
people that closely work for the company) and the other one is with the market. The ones
inside the company are usually the conversations between an employee and another
employee, top-management and employees, top-management and suppliers, and the
company and its alliances where they would most probably discuss their strategy on how to
best serve their markets, let us say, how they could best market their products or services,
partnership terms and agreement, and the likes. Usually those kinds of stuff are the kinds of
topic (in a conversation) that focuses more on the core activities of the company while the
conversation with the market are the conversations between the company’s customers where
their conversations primarily focuses more on their thoughts, questions, and their
experiences about the brand, company, or even with the company’s products or services.
These conversations may be done or may take place through several options and the first
one is through chat rooms, blogs, news groups or etc (somewhere in the web) where these
customers or their market usually share their thoughts or insights about the brand, company,
their products, and etc. The second one is maybe done through personal meetings, word of
mouth, and the likes.
Thesis 54

In most cases, neither conversation is going very well. Almost invariably, the cause of
failure can be traced to obsolete notions of command and control. For me what they
meant by this is that the two conversations going on which are conversations taking place
inside the company and the ones with the market, in most cases, are not really effective or
going very well as it should be. That said failure could be the effect brought about by the
command-and-control principle and why? Earlier the theses said Command-and-control
management styles both derive from and reinforce bureaucracy, power tripping and an
overall culture of paranoia and paranoia kills conversation. That's its point. But lack of
open conversation kills companies. For me, the reason why it is not going very well in
most cases is evidently because of the very root reason, the principle of command-and-
control (and that is what almost invariably, the cause of failure can be traced to obsolete
notions of command and control meant for me). This principle may have given the or a
way for power tripping and culture of paranoia to exist and these hinder active and open
communication (like giving out rich information about your product and company and not
just the summary of your company information or giving out the so called safe answers to
other entities to ensure that these other entities would not find anything to put you or your
business down) to flourish within an organization that may have resulted to this “In most
cases, neither conversation is going very well” to happen.
Thesis 55

As policy, these notions are poisonous. As tools, they are broken. Command and control
are met with hostility by intranetworked knowledge workers and generate distrust in
internetworked markets. For me what they meant by this is that the notion of command and
control if treated as a policy could be fatal and if treated as tools, people or employees tend to
break it and why? Like what I said in my other reaction paper command-and control is this
and maybe this could also be the reason why intranetworked workers hate it: Command and
control states that there should only be one authority for each department of a company so
that the distribution of orders would only come from a single person because 2 or more
authorities in a department may create confusion. That notion may have probably motivated
some people to take the power or authority from others who posses it (power tripping) and
also because of that some people are paranoid that others might take away their authorities
from them so that distrust or suspicion of other people and their motives causes these “so-
called” paranoia, This does not just create issues around the company but also builds up
distrust or suspicion in internetworked markets because companies or some employees of the
company are afraid that these internetworked markets are much knowledgeable and more
informed than they used to be in the past and that they may find some things that could put
these companies or people down.
Thesis 56

There are two conversations going on. One inside the company. One with the market.
For me what they meant by this is that in a company, conversations are taking place within
entities and there are conversations that are taking place inside the company (or within the
people that closely work for the company) and the other one is with the market. The ones
inside the company are usually the conversations between an employee and another
employee, top-management and employees, top-management and suppliers, and the
company and its alliances where they would most probably discuss their strategy on how to
best serve their markets, let us say, how they could best market their products or services,
partnership terms and agreement, and the likes. Usually those kinds of stuff are the kinds of
topic (in a conversation) that focuses more on the core activities of the company while the
conversation with the market are the conversations between the company’s customers where
their conversations primarily focuses more on their thoughts, questions, and their
experiences about the brand, company, or even with the company’s products or services.
These conversations may be done or may take place through several options and the first one
is through chat rooms, blogs, news groups or etc (somewhere in the web) where these
customers or their market usually share their thoughts or insights about the brand, company,
their products, and etc. The second one is maybe done through personal meetings, word of
mouth, and the likes.
Thesis 57

Smart companies will get out of the way and help the inevitable to happen sooner. For
me what they meant by this is that there would be some companies, sooner or later, who
would go the extremes maybe because they are already fed up doing mundane things. There
would be some companies who would be stepping up and would start the unthinkable yet
predictable things to pop up in the scene. What I am talking about is the companies who are
willing to invest their time and money into something that would change the course of web,
something considered bizarre, extraordinary, and you know something that would change the
things we know today… I can very well relate this to the semantic web, most commonly
referred to as Web 3.0. They said that the semantic web would really be something unique,
something we have never seen before, something unthinkable. In the book Web 2.0 Heroes:
Interviews with 20 Web 2.0 Influencers some of the featured personalities there said that if
there would be somebody who would take the initiatives and the balls to start it and if it
works then THAT’S MONEY for him. Most of the personalities interviewed said that no one
really knows what would be the semantic web but for sure it’ll not be something we have
seen from before or even now… They know that we will get to that point, the point where
reality meets impossible things and for sure some companies would be willing to get out there
and help the inevitable to happen sooner.
Thesis 58

If willingness to get out of the way is taken as a measure of IQ, then very few companies
have yet wised up. For me what they meant by this is that if willingness would be the
measure of IQ then few companies are considered smart. In our time today there are just few
companies who have started working on with the semantic web (well this is the best example
I could site lol). In the book Web 2.0 Heroes: Interviews with 20 Web 2.0 Influencers some of
the featured personalities said in their interviews that there are so many people talking about
the semantic web yet few has taken the initiatives to put those words or opinions into action.
They talk a lot and spend a lot of time researching what could be the NEXT BEST THING
out there and if you have read their articles then you would be convinced as well that many
companies or individuals just have ideas and thoughts about it but it’ll never be proven right
unless somebody would be willing to step up the game and turn that piece of idea into
something really BIG. There were lots of ideas generated from their conversations YET few
companies or even individuals have started working onto making those opinions, thoughts,
and descriptions of what the next or the semantic web would be into reality. And in this case,
if willingness would be the sole or maybe the main basis for ones IQ then many flunk the test.
Thesis 59

However subliminally at the moment, millions of people now online perceive


companies as little more than quaint legal fictions that are actively preventing these
conversations from intersecting. For me what they meant by this is that there are some
companies, in the opinions of some of the people online, try to somehow prevent their
conversations from intersecting. Somewhere between their conversations, there are some
companies who are prying over it and once they see something that would affect their
company in such a way that it will hurt their brand, product, or even their image they will
try to do some proper means on how they could intercept these conversations and these
companies would most probably want to stop these conversation from spreading so that
they could somehow lessen the negative impact brought about by this conversation/s. To
make the long story short, they do that mainly because they want to protect their own
interest, their money, business, and reputation so if you’d notice nowadays some
companies try TO join some communities so that they could monitor these conversations.
From what I have read and heard, it is a must NOW for companies to actively participate in
a community better yet a community for their market, for them or else they would be left
behind. Some companies even tried putting up their own communities where they could
bind their markets or the people interested in their product, services, or even IN THEM.
They also put up or started their communities to study their market’s behavior on
purchasing goods and services, latest trends and technologies, demand, and etc.
Thesis 60

This is suicidal. Markets want to talk to companies. For me what they meant by this is that
there are STILL some companies who try to distance themselves from their markets. They
ignore their markets when their markets demand for their attention. I have read an article, I
am not just sure exactly when and what article was that (as far as I can remember I have read
that article just recently or maybe this term) and in that article there were these companies
who ignored e-mails from their markets (they failed to reply to them for the last 31 days, well
almost a month – not good!). These markets may have some concerns or questions or
otherwise but whatever that might be you have to give time to them, you have to make them
as your number one priority that without them you are nothing and that companies must
always remember to keep their relationship with their markets and if they do not have this so
called relationship, these companies should establish it as soon as possible, if they still want
to be in the game. Ignoring them would not do your company any good, unless these
companies have their own reasons to and in their tight minds, but remember that their
opinions, suggestions, reactions would help make these companies’ brands, products,
services, or even images get better and not just to hear something very displeasing or
whatsoever. THEIR MARKETS WANT TO TALK TO THEM and to hear from them. They
want it especially if they demand for it.
Thesis 61

Sadly, the part of the company a networked market wants to talk to is usually hidden
behind a smokescreen of hucksterism, of language that rings false—and often is. For me
what they meant by this is that there are some companies who still do not speak the language
of human beings. When I searched for the meaning of hucksterism it says that this refers to
the one who uses aggressive, showy, and sometimes devious methods to promote or sell a
product. For me I can very well relate this to one of the 95 theses Conversations among
human beings sound human. They are conducted in a human voice. That means that these
companies are catering their products or services to human beings – their markets and these
markets need somebody who is genuine, open, and somebody whom they could find the word
sincerity in every conversation they make and not to the typical type of entities (companies)
who speaks a different language from their markets, a language that has full of pretentions in
it, very showy, and aggressive which somehow drives their customers away because they do
not want to hear nor entertain that kind of language (very uncomfortable for their side). Their
markets want to talk to those entities who could speak and act the language they use. They
need and demand for those entities that could very much represent them, entities that could
very much understand and attend to their needs and wants, and entities that could put their
feet onto their markets’ shoes.
Thesis 62

Markets do not want to talk to flacks and hucksters. They want to participate in the
conversations going on behind the corporate firewall. For me what they meant by this is
that there are some companies who weren’t still able to fully talk openly to their markets
instead they put this kind of wall in between them which made their markets seem to ask for
more participation from them. Markets do not want to talk to flacks and hucksters. For me
this means that they do not want to interact nor have conversations with people or entities that
were really not talking the same language as these markets do. These markets need genuine,
open, and sincere conversations or interactions with entities that wish to have that owner-
customer relationship with them and those that do not well those are the companies who miss
their opportunity to earn money BIG time. These markets also want to be involved with the
conversations happening inside the physical premises of the company. Markets nowadays are
much wiser than the markets from the past maybe because of the fact that the net has enabled
powerful means to spread knowledge among the markets, among communities. I do not think
they want to participate in the conversations going on behind the corporate firewall just
because they are nosy.. NO! There are more better reasons than that… ehehe Now everyone
wants to have a say, wants to know this and that… Everyone is interested in participating
whether it’s something very personal or the otherwise.
Thesis 63

De-cloaking, getting personal: We are those markets. We want to talk to you. For me
what they meant by this is that the markets wants to strip those companies down. Not literally
as in making those companies’ officials get naked or something but you know in Filipino
term Gigisahin or Pipigain ba yun? For me they want to get the best out of those companies.
They want to see the real THEM. They want to strip them down because those companies are
kind of like reserving something… They don’t talk openly to their markets, they are so showy
and aggressive when it comes to dealing with their markets to the point that they are kind of
missing the point why actually they are having those kinds of interaction. They speak a
different language from their markets, a kind where their markets are kind of having a hard
time dealing with that made them think that these companies are not taking them seriously or
they want to talk to them as in they want to strip them down and force them to speak their
own language (the language used by humans and not the self-generated language – language
of most of the corporations out there), getting personal, being able to get something more
from those companies, something intimate and very relating, something very human. We want
to talk to you means that their market actually wants to talk TO THEM as humans and that
these people just need to loosen up, be relating, sincere, open, attentive, and genuine and that
solves everything.
Thesis 64

We want access to your corporate information, to your plans and strategies, your best
thinking, your genuine knowledge. We will not settle for the 4-color brochure, for web
sites chock-a-block with eye candy but lacking any substance. For me what they meant
by this is that there are some companies who thought that their one-way ticket in wooing
their markets to buy their products are through advertisements, brochures, or the likes. Well
in some point there is no problem with that but what most companies do nowadays is that
they would inform their markets about their products through advertisements and the likes
then they would distribute it into several retailing shops then their markets would just buy
their products in those shops. Basically there is no interaction between the owners and the
customers and in some cases the advertisements can not suffice the kind of information
learned or shared through personal interaction. Their markets nowadays are more
knowledgeable and smarter than these markets used to be in the past. They want more, more
information or more involvement. They will never be contented with advertisements,
brochures, or sites that are well crafted in terms of its appearance because what their
markets really needed is the substance of what these advertisements, brochures, or sites
contain. They need the richness of information and why? They will never settle for just this
or that because their markets nowadays, for me, are more knowledgeable and smarter so
companies must better do something about this or else… LOL
Thesis 65

We are also the workers who make your companies go. We want to talk to customers
directly in our own voices, not in platitudes written into a script. For me what this
actually refers to are the workers or employees of a certain company. As I go along reading
several e-books I found and learned that there are some companies who basically get the
voices of their workers or employees. These e-books did not refer to their workers as robots
but for me it seems like they are being treated like that. Companies make their workers or
employees abide by their company rules and regulations which in some cases are very normal
to hear and there really is nothing wrong with it but what seems to be like not right in it is that
in some cases, the company’s rules limits their workers capacity to act like human, to be
themselves. These rules and regulations imposed to them stole their voices and made them
speak a different language, different from what they used to speak when they are still young
maybe and much different from what their markets are using. One of the 95 theses said that
Corporations do not speak in the same voice as these new networked conversations. To their
intended online audiences, companies sound hollow, flat, literally inhuman and so workers of
these companies do, speak, or act this way. These workers wants to sound or act human or be
themselves whenever talking or interacting to their customers better yet they want to find
ways to communicate to these markets.
Thesis 66

As markets, as workers, both of us are sick to death of getting our information by


remote control. Why do we need faceless annual reports and third-hand market
research studies to introduce us to each other? For me what they meant by this is that the
workers and the markets of the company are both sick of how these companies interact or
even share information to them. In some cases, some companies try to inform their markets
about their products and brand through several means of advertisements and in most cases
these advertisements lack the richness of information, the kind that these markets wish to
know or have. These kinds of information sharing are the kinds that limit the people or their
markets from fully grasping or knowing what the product or brand is really all about and not
just a short glimpse of what these products or brands can do and targets the most. In the case
of the workers, interaction between the big bosses of the company and them are limited and in
some cases this big bosses create the kind of barrier that separate themselves with this
workers in short the kind of barrier that never made them interact with each other and these
big bosses would sometimes talk to them on maybe how their company is progressing or
performing in their field through annual reports if in fact these workers want interaction
between them and maybe that is what they meant by Why do we need faceless annual reports.
Thesis 67

As markets, as workers, we wonder why you're not listening. You seem to be


speaking a different language. For me what they meant by this is that these markets and
workers seem to be wondering why some companies ignore them (maybe these
companies ignore what their workers and markets are trying to say or something like that)
example a first time user of computer customer bought a desktop set in this company. The
company seems very glad that this customer bought the desktop in their store and said
that our hotlines are 24/7 available in case you have suggestions or reactions about the
product. After several weeks, the customer experienced something different in his newly
bought desktop (though it’s not broken or anything serious but the point there is that the
desktop is not expected to perform that way or be like that in the customer’s opinion or
knowledge for example) so he e-mailed the company about his concerns in the
performance of his newly bought desktop. He asked them if it is normal that his computer
monitor turns off whenever he would press the sleep button and that he can not revive it
so he need to unplugged it first then open it again. The company received the e-mail but
was not able to reply as soon as they got it and in fact they never returned the e-mail and
that scenario is one of the examples of what they meant by wonder why you're not
listening… These companies whenever talking, interacting, or conversing with their
markets seem to be insincere and they talk very shallow and very pretentious and
aggressive and with that scenario I just gave a while ago just proved that some companies
are good in saying flowery words to their customers but when it is time for them to
Thesis 68

The inflated self-important jargon you sling around—in the press, at your
conferences—what's that got to do with us? For me what they meant by this is that there
are companies who try to use the press in promoting their brands and products. Press people
are a very important entities in helping the companies spread the information about their
brands and products, helping them position their companies in their markets, and help them in
wooing their markets to buy their products. In that press conference, companies would most
likely talk about several things that would boost their companies’ images. They would say
pretentious words that are often vague in meaning because only their companies could
understand what they are talking about because they use the kind of language that not
everybody understands and in doing that so, it seems like these companies are trying to
distance themselves from their markets. They speak a different language, a language that is
most commonly referred to as inhuman. What's that got to do with us? For me what they
meant by this is that while the companies are doing that, these markets are now puzzled and
unsure of their real intentions. Are they doing these press conferences to tell or inform us that
these are your products and your brands if in fact your messages really did not represent the
needs of your markets? That you did not take our needs and wants into considerations and
now these companies are telling them to buy their products…
Thesis 69

Maybe you are impressing your investors. Maybe you are impressing Wall Street. You
are not impressing us. For me I can relate this to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s
SONA (I just can not remember what SONA was that – the date I mean when which she
delivered that SONA). Well I watched her SONA and noticed that President Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo delivered her SONA in English and I was wowed of course because her
words were seem real and convincing but after a while I noticed that is seems too flowery
and most especially IN ENGLISH most of the time (and some words, I admit, I can’t
understand LOL) but I really didn’t know at that time that it was quite unusual or very odd
for somebody to speak ENGLISH in her speech most fo the time why? Many people,
especially the people from the provinces, said that they were so disappointed with President
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s SONA because they can not understand it because it was in
English. For me, she could have done it the other way around. Who is she talking to? Who
is she addressing her speech? To the Filipinos right? And in my opinion she should have
just delivered it in Filipino (most of the time) because she has to know the fact that not all
Filipinos are good or even knows how to understand or speak English (though we’re ranked
3rd as the country having its most population speak English -- in the world) so many
questioned her intentions. Who is she addressing her speech to? Foreign invertors, the
business people, or to the Filipinos? Though I know her intentions were good but somehow
she could have considered prioritizing first her real MARKETS… the Filipino people.
Some companies in my opinion do the same thing as well.
Thesis 70

If you do not impress us, your investors are going to take a bath. Do not they
understand this? If they did, they would not let you talk that way. For me what they
meant by this is that if these companies still try to continue disregarding or listening to their
markets or even to their workers then they might just loose them. Some companies were
seemed having a hard time abiding by this. They find it hard to loosen up a bit and try to cope
up with their markets. They are having a hard time building the kind of relationship that could
ensure them their spot or even the highest spot in their field in the future. They still continue
on doing ways that could deteriorate their customer’s trust or liking in their products or even
in their brand because they failed to listen to them. The authors also questioned whether the
investors of the company knew anything about this kind of behavior or mentality? Because
for sure if they know this they would do several measure to straighten up these companies’
acts or behavior. Why? These investors are the one that puts initial funds that the companies
use in their daily operations. Basically, if they pull out their shares then the company would
die and these investors in my opinion have the right to do whatever it takes for them to make
these companies do their best in prioritizing their markets because their shares are at stake.
Thesis 71

Your tired notions of "the market" make our eyes glaze over. We don't recognize
ourselves in your projections—perhaps because we know we are already elsewhere.
For me what this actually refers to are the people whose eyes glaze over whenever they
would hear the companies’ notion about their markets and that they do not feel as if they are
included in these companies’ projections are actually THE MARKETS themselves (I
guess). Though companies or some companies kept on telling people that THIS is who we
are and THIS is what we want to achieve and we are here to SERVE people (maybe through
their mission and vision statements or commercials) there may be some who find it very
mushy, very showy, or better yet very insincere. Their messages (commercials, mission and
vision statements) may seem very far from what they are actually showing for example they
said in their commercial that “our hotlines are 24/7 available… ready to serve you in case
you have problems about us and our products or further suggestions on how we could
improve our craft and the likes… just call on..” and a caller had a problem about their
product and so he called the hotline around midnight and to his disappointment no one
received his call and for me that is just one scenario on why these markets said that We
don't recognize ourselves in your projections… these companies should very well keep in
mind that they have a much wiser markets today that in the past and that they should very
well give importance into their relationship with their customers or market.
Thesis 72

We like this new marketplace much better. In fact, we are creating it. For me the people
referred to as the “WE” here in We like this new marketplace much better… are the
companies’ markets customers, consumers, clients, buyers, or however and whatever you
would like to call them -- themselves. Nowadays these people or markets have much freedom
or access in the net. The net, especially nowadays, gave them the freedom to actually start
their own sites, sites that are based more on their interests and preferences. They could also
self-personalize it giving them the opportunity to decorate it the way they want others to see
it. Also now, this market or these markets were able to build a new community for them, a
community surrounded by conversations regarding similar or related topics (for me the topics
depend on the kind of site where it occurred in). Now people or markets were able to
exchange information as fast as the speed of light. They were able to fully get a hold of the
kind of environment they wish companies gave them in the first place-- a place where there is
this called interaction among the owners and its customers. Now, because of the kind of
freedom that our technology and web has given to our society, these markets were able to
start a kind of marketplace, a kind when compared to the kind they had in the past, this was
much way better because there is this thing called interaction… A site built by the customers
themselves.
Thesis 73

You're invited, but it's our world. Take your shoes off at the door. If you want to barter
with us, get down off that camel! For me this means that NOW THE markets or the so
called customers of the company were able to build a kind of place where everything,
including the conversations happening in it, very human. Everything sounds human and this
place is not governed by any rules, rules that were enforced by somebody to take a hold of
everybody. It is a free place for everyone a place that unites people especially those who have
the same interest to meet up and interact. And because of this, these people have become
more connected to each other, wiser and more aware of its surroundings therefore making
them much wiser compared in the past. Because of the kind of conversation happening in that
place, now these companies would want to take a hold of that. The kind of connectivity that
these people or markets have made these companies flock into that place with the intention of
(for me) none other than making business with them only with those markets rules and
regulations. You're invited, but it's our world means that these companies are allowed to join,
meddle, and interact with them but ONLY that IT IS THEIR PLACE and abide by their rules
– to sound human. For me it’s like – respect our boundaries and regulations. You are here in
our place so act and sound like us.
Thesis 74

We are immune to advertising. Just forget it. For me what they meant by this is that these
markets, customers, clients, buyers, or however or whatever you want to call them are already
used to companies fronting their brands or products to them. They are already used to the fact
that these companies only do is to make themselves (I mean their company names and brand
names) and their products look enticing to their markets. Their markets hear that (offers or
advertisements) from them 24/7 but what is off in here is that these companies know how to
make their products look good in the eyes of the public but there were some companies who
do not stick by their words. Some companies said that they offer the best computer set in the
world but once you get to use the product that was when you would notice several
inconsistencies with their advertisements and their product’s performance. What I am talking
about in here is for example the after sale service. Some companies take advantage of that and
even lets customers pay for them to repair it if in fact the product was till under warranty and
something like that. For me, no product is perfect it is just that the other activities surrounding
the product such as customers asking about their products and such and the company was not
able to reply to it or something like that made the markets somehow pissed or made these
companies look bad and that is how I understood them saying Just forget it and it is as if they
are saying that FORGET IT.. WE KNOW IT ALREADY.
Thesis 75

If you want us to talk to you, tell us something. Make it something interesting for a
change. For me what they meant by this is that there were some companies who just sell their
products through advertisements of any sort like TV advertisements or radio adds and they
would just distribute it into their markets nearest retailing shops then now these markets
would just grab one of these so basically in the whole process there were no interaction or
whatsoever between the owner of the products and the customers and so the markets feel for
them and sick of the same old same new gimmicks to capture their attention. Now that these
markets are much wiser compared in the past, they demand for something else – something
personal and something new from these companies. Now they want those companies to talk
to them and to tell them something and for me that is what they meant by If you want us to
talk to you, tell us something. For me what they meant by this is that these companies should
initiate first conversation with them or try to find ways on how they could fully get the kind
of owner-customer relationship that these markets want from them. If these companies are
trying to make a move in them or if they want to talk to them then better be good – better do
something that is fresher and very now like they want interaction, they want to have this
owner-customer relationship, and they want to be heard especially when they demand for it so
I advice that the companies do something about it.
Thesis76

We've got some ideas for you too: some new tools we need, some better service. Stuff
we'd be willing to pay for. Got a minute? For me what they meant by this is that the
markets, customers, clients, buyers, or whatever you call those entities are not just there for
companies to persuade or encourage to buy or even patronize their products but are there to
also provide information, information that is not just vital for the company but to them,
markets, as well. I think it will be more like a give and take effect. These markets or
customers are willing to share some thoughts, ideas, or suggestions on what these companies
could sell or provide to them for their own convenience/s as well. They are willing to
dedicate a portion of their time to talk to those companies about it (their concerns or ideas)
and it would be just up to those companies whether they would give them, their opinions or
suggestions, importance and time. It will be a great opportunity for those companies to take
advantage of those details provided by their markets because they could gain competitive
advantage from it. Now, these companies have to make time and allot specific people and
activities that would focus on getting information from the people or from their markets
directly. They need to get a hold or access to those information because for me it is a vital
information that would enable the companies adopt to new changes and demand, upgrade,
and things like that and they should always remember that those stuff that they would be
suggesting or will be sharing – they are willing to pay for it.
Thesis 77

You're too busy "doing business" to answer our email? Oh gosh, sorry, gee, we'll come
back later. Maybe. I have read an article I just can not remember where but I just read it
recently and it was like a survey or something and I have read there that only a short
percentage of companies gives or replies back to their customers. So for me, this is not a good
number and a good indication. This means that these companies are not really giving
importance to their markets and for me these markets play a vital role in their success or
maybe in their business endeavors. These markets really want attention especially when they
demand for it. They should treat them (for me) like royalties as much as possible and they
should not ignore them. You are too busy "doing business" to answer our email? Oh gosh,
sorry, gee, we will come back later. Maybe?! – for me this sounds sarcastic and that
companies are too busy to give time to them and these made the customers off to this
companies and now they were thinking whether they would still want to buy or continue
patronizing this company or product because the customer service stuff sucks and the
customer service stuff is really important for the customers and it is a shame that these
companies are continue on ignoring it. These companies must always remember to always
give time to their customers, customers who believe in them that without them their business
is nothing.
Thesis 78

You want us to pay? We want you to pay attention. For me what they meant by this is
that the markets, customers, clients, buyers, or whatever you call them was like making a
deal or kind of like saying some conditions to this companies. They said that if they want
the companies to make them buy or patronize their products then those companies first
have to pay attention to them. They should make those markets feel as if they were being
represented well (their needs, wants, preferences- like pricing, and other related things)
before they would be encouraged to buy. In case of a certain local advertisement of the
product brand named SURF – the laundry soap I know that Surf really did grab the hearts
and the attention of its target market. They listened to them. They captured the hearts of
the Filipinas especially the mums. Lumen, the actress who played the role of mother in
that commercial, really represented the typical Filipina women – simple, maalaga sa
pamilya, and a wise buyer who prefers cheaper laundry soap that performs the same as
with soaps that are much way expensive. Now the company’s markets are much wiser in
buying nowadays and that companies must be aware that they are like that today and that
they have to cope up with that and make ways on how they could fully get access to those
information vital for them to survive or even progress in the future. They should make
some activities available for them to fully get access of those information why? Their
markets are willing to cooperate (it’s a good thing) but first the companies have to make
sure that they would give importance to every word they say.
Thesis 79

We want you to drop your trip, come out of your neurotic self-involvement, join the
party. In the line We want you to drop your trip… The “WE” refers to the customers of the
company while “YOUR” refers to the company. For me this means that the companies’
markets are trying to convince them to somehow loosen up and try to mingle with them. In
reality, there are some companies who try to distance themselves with their markets and for
their markets it is not a good thing. First, markets feel as if they were being ignored by the
companies themselves if in fact the scenario should be the otherwise. Companies must give
importance to their customers and for me giving importance means building an owner-
customer relationship which can only be established once these companies try to interact with
them. They should sound and act human for them to connect because if they don’t then how
on earth would this two be able to relate right? So in my own opinion, the markets are fully
aware of this kind of scenario and they are at last doing something to alter this. They are
trying to make a move by encouraging these companies to drop that kind of attitude and join
their league. They have to go down their thrones and accept the fact that today is the time
when these people needs conversation or interaction with them and they have to be sensitive
that these people are reaching out to them and they need to respond to it.
Thesis 80

Don't worry, you can still make money. That is, as long as it's not the only thing on
your mind. For me the ones being referred to as the entities who could still make money for
as long as it is not the only thing on their minds (MAKING MONEY) are actually the
companies. For me, a company’s goal should not just focus on earning money, how they
could generate a lot of money, and money, money, money. For me they also have to focus
on other things while fulfilling their main goal of gaining money. That is not bas for as long
as you grow your company as an economic entity, fulfill the needs of the community, help
the community, and then earn money. They could also focus on community service.
Greenwich Pizza Corporation does not just focus on generating money but they also give
back to our community and that gesture is fully acknowledge by the people who have
learned about it especially me. They should also contribute to the wellness of the community
and factors that could help them gain higher market share and stuff like make more alliances
or good relationship with other sectors or business entities, with your market, do several
activities that would make your company grow and the likes (They should focus on the
activities that could make their company grow as an economic or business entity) while
fulfilling your company’s goal of earning money. It is not bad to make GENERATE
MONEY as a goal for your company for as long as you are balancing your responsibility as
an economic entity and as business people.
Thesis 81

Have you noticed that, in itself, money is kind of one-dimensional and boring? What else
can we talk about? For me this means that in itself, money is really a boring topic especially
if you would stress this out to your market in whatever ways you would do it. For me, of
course! Your company would be gaining the money from them so who is much happier? You
or them? Of course you, companies, would most benefit from it (markup LOL). But this is
really a boring matter and companies should try to figure out doing other things aside from
making or talking money for them to be able to capture the attentions of their markets. They
should try to do several activities that could strengthen their relationship/s with their market/s
like talking to them online or personally meeting up with them. They should find ways on
how they could best simulate interest in their markets. Companies (for me) should bare in
mind that they have to maintain constant communication with their markets and that
sometimes they have to set aside the fact that they are talking to them because THEY NEED
TO. They have to ignore that kind of mentality and just be themselves and sound and act
human. They should initiate activities that could help them build an owner – customer
relationship. Their markets want something else from them, something to talk about that
would interest them the most – things that would not be about money.
Thesis 82

Your product broke. Why? We would like to ask the guy who made it. Your corporate
strategy makes no sense. We would like to have a chat with your CEO. What do you
mean she is not in? I have read a similar article about this. In the article it says there that
there is this company that is good in selling out their products to their markets like advertising
their products and telling people that our product is the best blah blah but what is sad to
know that once their markets have some concerns, problems, or even suggestions about their
products the company do not attend to them and in short they ignore them after these people
have bought the products from them and my question is why are they like that? After they got
what they wanted from them then they would simply ignore them and for me that is rude.
How would they be able to gain the trust of their markets if in this simple stuff they failed?
For me, they would earn money, yes, but not in the long run. These markets would realize
that the company provides poor customer service and for me poorly responding to your
customers may just end them loosing the touch for your products or even for your company.
Remember, news travels as fast as the speed of light nowadays and that companies must
better behave and do their best to retain and acquire customers.
Thesis 83

We want you to take 50 million of us as seriously as you take one reporter from The
Wall Street Journal. For me this means that the companies’ markets are now demanding
from them serious treatment, just like how they treat the reporters that would initially be
instruments on how they could fully stress out to the public their companies’ images as
well as their products and brand names. For me, the companies make the reporters as an
instrument for advertising. They need to show or treat them as nicely as possible or else
these reporters would instantly put to the newspapers, radios, or televisions negative
comments or feedbacks about their companies’ brands, names, and images and maybe that
could be the root cause of the markets accusing the companies treating them differently
from the reporters of Wall Street. Well they made Wall Street as a symbolism for power and
if these reporters spread negative news about their products or brand names then this could
mean that their companies are in great trouble. One reporter could mean DEATH or
DANGER for their company. These made their markets somehow furious and would want
them to take THEM as seriously as possible because there are 50 or so millions of them
being ignored by the companies compared to ONE reporter being treated seriously by the
companies. In my own opinion, yes really there is this disparity of treatment between this
reporter and those customers and I do not think it is fair. Both should be taken as seriously
as possible for both plays a great role of making the business function.
Thesis 84

We know some people from your company. They are pretty cool online. Do you have
any more like that you are hiding? Can they come out and play? For me there were just
few people inside the companies that understand what these markets need, how they think,
and how they want to be treated. There were some who reach out to them and in some cases
(in my own opinion) without the company’s consent. These entities from the company act
human and talk the same language as these markets and so they relate to each other and they
get to know and feel and have an idea of how these markets be treated like. They know how
to respond to them and how to talk to them and so there is this understanding between these
entities (cool people from the company and the markets) that is why the markets are so fond
of them because in my own opinion these markets think that these people are heaven sent
because somehow, God has answered their prayers. These people from the company try to
talk to them maybe online that is why they sid that They are pretty cool online. Because of
this, the markets, customers, clients, people, or whatever you want to call them seem to look
for more of this kind. They are kind of like asking if there were more people who talks the
same language as they do hidden inside the barriers of the company’s building and they were
even asking whether if these people could come out soon and interact with them because
those kinds of people are the people they want to be talking to in the first place.
Thesis 85

When we have questions we turn to each other for answers. If you didn't have such a
tight rein on "your people" maybe they'd be among the people we'd turn to. For me
what they meant about this is that markets rely on to each other for answers. The best
example I could give maybe is this… There is this certain company who still has no
intentions to interact with its markets online maybe because they are not really aware that
there is something like this where which they could fully communicate and know their
markets concerns, maybe because of personal reasons, or maybe they are not aware that their
markets are already connected online, or maybe THEY DO NOT have time to respond to
their customers needs or questions so whenever these people have concerns about this
company’s products or services or maybe certain issues, they usually turn to each other for
help. These companies that they are referring have employees which strictly abide by their
company’s rules and regulations so that they are somehow limited to interact with their
customers or clients (just like the people from the call centers who sound so serious
whenever you are talking to them) and that these markets think that if they would not impose
their strict rules and regulations unto these employees or if they would not control them in a
way that these employees talk the same language as these companies were using then maybe
these employees could be one of their circles where which they could turn t whenever they
search for answers.
Thesis 86

When we are not busy being your "target market," many of us are your people. We
would rather be talking to friends online than watching the clock. That would get your
name around better than your entire million dollar web site. But you tell us speaking to
the market is Marketing's job. For me what they meant by this is that some companies treat
their markets as dollar signs. For me these markets, for them (I mean the companies), are
money, money, money like speaking to them is really not an option but a MUST that is
basically a part of their jobs, their job to go speak to these people or should we say target
market so that they would be able to of course generate income for their company. For me
many of us are your people means that these companies treat their target markets as if they
are their people or puppet. They trick them into some kind of illusion to get them to buy their
products or services and control them in a way. They, for me, would say flowery words just to
get them to buy those and for me it is like these companies are making them more like robots
that once they have entered their traps then now these companies have much access on these
people. They are sick and tired of that and they just now prefer to be doing stuff other than
talking to them like talking to their friends online and stuff.
Thesis 87

We would like it if you got what is going on here. That would be real nice. But it would be
a big mistake to think we are holding our breath. For me what they meant about this is that
there are some companies who think that their markets are so into them to the point that they
would forever patronize their products and would always be patient to them. For me we would
like it if you got what is going on here means that the company’s markets would much appreciate
it if they would somehow make an effort to reach out to them and that would really be nice
example there is this company who started a site where they could personally attend to their
markets needs or concerns like a newsgroup site or something like that. The site is all about their
markets – interactive sites, more screenshots maybe of their products, FAQ portion, and question
and answer area or something like that depending on what kind of markets they have. These
markets are like saying that it will be nice if these companies would be able to know or be
involved in what is going on with their community and they are very willing that these
companies be able to join it but what is not true is that these markets are really not dead na dead
or obsessed to the fact that they would be joining and would not be disappointed if they would
not join either.
Thesis 88

We have better things to do than worry about whether you will change in time to get our
business. Business is only a part of our lives. It seems to be all of yours. Think about it:
who needs whom? For me what they meant by this is that the markets have much more
things to worry about and they are actually tired or fed up waiting for these companies to
change because today, there are still some companies who still managed to distance
themselves to their markets, talk different language – a language that is not genuine, honest,
and open… something that their markets do not understand. For me we have better things to
do than worry about whether you will change in time to get our business means that the
markets are kind of like fed up to wait for these companies to really dig what’s new with them
and how they could best communicate or have relationship with them. Think about it: who
needs whom? Means that these markets are kind of like sarcastic in saying WHO CARES? If
you do not change then who would suffer ME or YOU? They should remember that there are
other companies out there that delivers or produces the needs and wants of the people to them
and that the companies should be aware that these people, if they would not do something,
would rather shift into the other company who provides the same service and products like
theirs.
Thesis 89

We have real power and we know it. If you do not quite see the light, some other outfit
will come along that is more attentive, more interesting, more fun to play with. For me
this means that the markets are really a great and big factor for a business’ life. They need
these markets for these companies to go on and flourish maybe or to stay in the game. If these
companies do not see their markets’ roles in their businesses or if these companies continue to
ignore them, then that could be the end for them. They have to be aware that nowadays the
competition is high and that wrong turns like this could be fatal for them. We have real power
and we know it means that these markets are really influential for their businesses and play a
great role for who they are right now, what they are, and where they are at this very point. If
you do not quite see the light, some other outfit will come along that is more attentive, more
interesting, more fun to play with means that sooner or later, if they would still continue
ignoring them, the markets, then they could just switch to other companies that provides the
same products or even services just like what your company is providing only this time THIS
company pays attention to what these markets are up to, listens to their concerns, and gives
attention to every each one of them and maybe that is the kind of attention the people needs.
Thesis 90

Even at its worst, our newfound conversation is more interesting than most trade shows,
more entertaining than any TV sitcom, and certainly more true to life than the
corporate web sites we have been seeing. For me what they meant by this is that, indeed
markets are really conversations. Conversations really drive these entities to buy their
products or services, Conversations that makes or breaks a company, their products, or even
brand names. For me, companies should be aware that their markets are now connected and
that they should join their league. They should find ways to interact with them online and in
that way these companies would be able to get information, information that would be vital
for them, for them to stay on the game, to have competitive advantage, or even information
that would drive them to innovate some areas or aspects of their business. If these companies
are not yet connected to them or somehow does not interact with them then I advice that they
should start as soon as possible or else they would not have markets at all. And for those who
already started taking actions to this then GOOD for them because not that they need to
realize to talk to these people but they should very much know that these people or their
markets think that their newfound conversation is more interesting than most trade shows,
more entertaining than any TV sitcom, and certainly more true to life than the corporate web
sites that they have been seeing.
Thesis 91

Our allegiance is to ourselves—our friends, our new allies and acquaintances, even our
sparring partners. Companies that have no part in this world, also have no future. For
me this means that there are certain or some companies who still not make or find ways to
interact with their markets and that IS really a bad move to make. There are some companies
who make such wrong turns like they would encourage their markets to buy their products
and would say flowery words just to catch their attentions but once these markets were able to
buy their products and have problems with it of course they would approach or call (by any
means possible) the companies to try and figure out the defects or something but according to
a survey I have just read, a big number of those companies ignore their markets as soon as
they were able to purchase the products or some has poor customer service which is really
bad. Some companies do not build this owner-customer relationship which distances
themselves to their markets and their markets DO not like that. For me markets are
conversations and if those companies still try to distance themselves sooner or later they
would find their stores empty – no customers at all. They need to interact with their markets,
socialize, make friends because Companies that have no part in this world, also have no
future and for me there is no harm in trying. Just give time and exert effort if they still want to
continue doing business in the coming years.
Thesis 92

Companies are spending billions of dollars on Y2K. Why can not they hear this market
time bomb ticking? The stakes are even higher. For me this means that there are some
companies who invest a lot of their dollars (billions of dollars) and time for researches on new
innovations for their company and invests billions and billions of dollars for actually
upgrading their systems and for me for as long as they have the mean and the reason to do so
then NOTHING is really wrong with these moves or activities because these could even be
good investments for the company but what bothers me is that these companies do not
balance things off. They invest a lot on Y2K but hey they ignore the most important part of
their company – their markets. For me, these markets are actually the main reason why these
companies are there and yet they ignore them? For me why can not they hear this market time
bomb ticking? Means that if they still continue doing this then what would be the point of
these companies innovating if in fact there is nothing to innovate about because they do not
have markets at all? Why can’t they understand and sink into their heads that their markets
are really the most important entity and they should make them and their relationship with
them as their number one priority? The stakes are even higher means that the companies
thought that investing their billions of dollars on Y2K would stabilize their companies and
making this as their number one priority could even put them in a much risky position.
Thesis 93

We are both inside companies and outside them. The boundaries that separate our
conversations look like the Berlin Wall today, but they are really just an annoyance.
We know they are coming down. We are going to work from both sides to take them
down. For me this means that these markets are willing to take some actions so these
companies would go down to their towers. They are willing to cooperate with them so
they could achieve that kind of fulfillment. They are willing to be patient and wait for
these companies to realize that they need to tear down that barrier that keeps them from
gaining this owner – customer relationship. They need to tear down that distance that has
long been existing between them and that hinders them to fully interact and have this
separation rule over them for so many years. Now their markets are like saying that these
companies need to interact or converse to them in any means that would be available out
there and that could be both accessible by both parties – the company and their markets.
For me the boundaries that separate our conversations look like the Berlin Wall today,
but they are really just an annoyance means that they could compare the thing that
separates them to the Berlin Wall. The Berlin wall (if I am not mistaken) is the wall that
separates the East and the West Germany in the past but today the wall’s purpose was
gone but some remains of the wall is still up and those remains were just annoyance for
some people and it’s like the kind of barrier that keeps the companies and their markets
separated, the companies are starting to loosen up yet it’s still not 100% so their markets
are willing to cooperate to tear down those remaining barriers.
Thesis 94

To traditional corporations, networked conversations may appear confused, may sound


confusing. But we are organizing faster than they are. We have better tools, more new
ideas, no rules to slow us down. For me this means that there are some traditional companies
that are kind of like new to what technology, trends, and environment we have today and
those companies that are still stuck to that kind of system may not be able to move or
transcend because how will they be able to do that if they are not open to changes that were
happening today. But the question is? How about those companies that managed to move
forward and be open to the changes and trends that were evident today? For me But we are
organizing faster than they are means that those companies that managed to move forward
and have been opened to the changes have this advantage over the traditional corporations.
They have the ability to organize much faster than those traditional companies and why?
Because most of the changes today in my own opinion are those that gives more importance
to making life or works less complicated and a lot faster which enables those companies to
organize their businesses much faster. For me we have better tools, more new ideas, no rules
to slow us down means that because they have opened their doors to these changes they were
given the opportunity to have better tools, generate efficient and new ideas, and most
especially NO RULES to stop them from doing business with their markets.
Thesis 95

We are waking up and linking to each other. We are watching. But we are not waiting. For me

the ones being referred to as the “WE” in here we are waking up and linking to each other are actually

the markets themselves. It is not new to hear that these markets are linking together in fact this has

long been occurring already and actually they have been connected through several means and some

of it would be in chat rooms, newsgroups, blog, certain sites, MySpace, Facebook, and etc. We are

watching means that these markets are fully aware of the changes happening in our society today – I

mean technologically speaking they are much aware than how they used to be in the past. They are

eagerly watching changes in the net, in our technology, contents out there, and a lot more. They are

excited of the changes that would be happening and would happily embrace it. But we are not waiting

means that it is not their jobs to seek for the next best thing rather it would have to be the jobs of the

companies to seek for the Semantic Web, let us say. These markets are happy with what is out there so

far (in my own opinion) and what is out there is up to the companies to decide on – decide what to

provide for these people to have fun with without sacrificing their intentions to actually generate

money and give value to the community.


Systems Proposal

Others
A Vertical Solutions Study on the

Customer Relations Management

of Greenwich Pizza Corporation

Presented to the

Information Management Program

School of Management and Information Technology

De La Salle – College of Saint Benilde

In Partial fulfillment of the

Requirements of the subject

Vertical Solutions

Submitted By:

Bato, Randee Ceasar T.

Empino, Romir Gian O.

Joaquin, Mary Regine Christa N.

Peregrino, Eugene

Vertical Solutions, O0B

September, 2008

Submitted To:

Sir Paul Pajo


Chapter 1 – Organizing for Improvement

1.1 COMPANY BACKGROUND

1.1.1 Company Overview

Official Name: Greenwich SM Valenzuela Branch

Address: G/F SM Super Center, Karuhatan Valenzuela

Headquarters: Pasig City, Philippines

Type: Subsidiary of Jollibee Foods Corporation

Line of Business of the Company: Restaurants

Logo:

1.1.2 History

Greenwich Pizza is one true Filipino pizza chain – a small entrepreneurship that
made an extraordinary leap to the big league. What started out as a small over-
the-counter pizza store in the Greenhills Commercial Center in 1971, is now the
Philippines’ biggest pizza chain.

The initial steady growth of its business is credited to the entrepreneurial spirit of
Mrs. Cresida Tueres. By 1994, her store counter grew to 50 branches. It was
then that fast food giant Jollibee Foods Corporation saw the great potential in
venturing into the growing market of pizza and decisively obtained a deal,
acquiring 80% of Greenwich shareholding. The new company became known as
Greenwich Pizza Corporation and went through exciting rapid developments with
the mobilization of experienced marketing and operations teams.

Successive innovations happened for the company immediately after the


acquisition. In September 8, 1994, Greenwich opened its first store at Ever
Gotesco Commonwealth Shopping Mall, sporting the new and vibrant image of
Greenwich. New packaging designs were introduced in June 1995 and 7 different
pizza flavors were launched in July of the same year. The Greenwich Special
Pizza, with 7 toppings, became the classic favorite of customers.

In October 1995, the Greenwich marketing campaign went into full swing. With
the young and the young-at-heart as the target market, a tri-media campaign was
launched to reveal Greenwich’s new image. By year-end, Greenwich had more
than doubled the previous year’s sales from Php100 million to Php200 million
with a base of only 53 stores.

The ensuing years saw a remarkable boom in Greenwich’s operations and


revenues. In 1996, launching local actor and personality Rico Yan as the image
model proved to be a successful campaign strategy. By the end of that year, the
number of stores had grown to 80 and sales rose to nearly Php500 million.

In September 1997, Greenwich opened its 100th store in Fairview Regalado –


that’s twice the number of outlets in just three years! By year-end, 20 more stores
were added and sales doubled to Php1 billion.

To support the expected growth in 1999, Greenwich acquired new pizza


equipment in late 1998 and complemented its state-of-the-art pizza crust
production line in the Pasig commissary. This automated system produces
consistently high quality pizza crust to ensure customer satisfaction and meet
operational efficiencies.

In August 1999, Greenwich made a significant improvement by loading all pizza


flavors with more toppings of choice meat and vegetables without increasing its
selling price. Within the same year, new appetizing Pasta Supreme dishes were
launched: So Meaty Spaghetti, Lasagna Supreme, and Baked Chicken Macaroni.

Today, Greenwich is present from as far north as Tuguegarao to General Santos


City down south. With over 240 stores and sales of more than 3 billion as of end
of 2005, Greenwich continues to write business history by consistently improving
its product offering and quality through research and development, as well as
continuous expansion of its stores nationwide.

1.1.3 Mission

To serve great tasting food, bringing the joy of eating to everyone.

1.1.4 Vision

We are the best tasting QSR. The most endearing brand that has ever been. We
will lead in product taste at all times. We will provide FSC excellence in every
encounter. Happiness in every moment.

1.1.5 Values

• Customer Focus
• Excellence
• Respect for the Individual
• Teamwork
• Spirit of Family and Fun
• Humility to Listen and Learn
• Honesty and Integrity
• Frugality
1.1.6 Products and Services (as of September 2008)

Here are some of Greenwich’s great tasting products:

 Beverage

TROPICOOLERS

Surfs up with the tropical fusion of sunny Strawberry & Dalandan delight or
breeze through your thirst with the native flavors of Buko Pandan! Summer-sweet
combinations mixed with chewy nata strips in cool crushed ice for that satisfying
island sensation!

CREAM FROST

Slide down the creamy milk chocolate slopes and savor the taste of chilled
chocolate shake topped with whipped cream and candy sprinkles. Or drift across
the clouds of blended strawberry bently kissed by a drizzle of sweet syrup
dreams that begin with a layer of whipped cream and end with wintry crushed
ice. Fulfill your frosted fantasies in each cup.

 Pasta

ALL-NEW LASAGNA SUPREME

You've got to taste the All-New Greenwich Lasagna Supreme! It's now meatier!
So there's more delicious beefy taste to savor in every bite. Every layer is filled
with richer, more flavorful sauce made from high-grade premium tomatoes. Run
your fork through it, and its delightful, tasty goodness will come oozing out.

CHEESY BEEF CANNLLONI

Rolled pasta stuffed with healthy beef filling and covered with a blanket of cream
sauce, cheese over a bed of tangy salsa.

 Chicken

GREAT 8 CHICKEN PACK

Eight large pieces of lip-smacking Greenwich Crispy Fried Chicken which come
in a handy box.

CRISPY FRIED CHICKEN

Your choice of 1pc. or 2pcs. crunchy, juicy Crispy Fried Chicken with rice.

 Desserts

CINNAMON APPLE DAPPLE ALA MODE

A luscious dessert of apple cinnamon, grated cheese, and rich custard, topped
with a generous scoop of vanilla ice cream, all drizzled with caramel syrup.
BROWNIE MAGIC

Luscious vanilla ice cream on top of a soft warm brownie your sweet tooth won't
forget.

 Pizza

PIZZA OVERLOAD

A popular dish made with an oven-baked, flat, generally round bread that is
covered with tomatoes or a tomato-based sauce and mozzarella cheese.

ROLLED- EDGE THICK

Pizza with an Italian sausage, beef pepperoni, salami strips, parmesan cheese,
bacon, and mozzarella cheese.
1.1.7 Organizational Chart

Greenwich S.M Valenzuela Branch


(as of September of 2008)

La L. Eneco

Branch Manager

Dana Torres Marlon Ramirez

Asst. Manager Asst. Manager

Jaycee Chan

Regular Crew

Shaeba Mae Abte Richard Ortega

Scholar Scholar

Service Crews

Scholar
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The critical business process of Greenwich Pizza Corporation is their manual customer
relations management system. They get the feedbacks of their customers manually. They do it
every hour but only up to 3 pm because the scholars need to tabulate or summarize the whole
survey done by the customers and produce one tabulated report and that was needed by the
branch’s manager before their working-hours end and they are asked to do it everyday. The
whole process was done in a slow manner and very tedious. The question is, what about the
feedbacks of the customers beyond that time? What if the service let us say, differ before 3 pm
and after 3 pm? How would they know? And also the answered questionnaires were handled by
the cashier/s up until the scholars get it from them around 3 pm and that means that those
answered questionnaires are at high-risk of getting lost and a lost of just one is also like a waste
of information resources. The following are the specific problems that have been occurring:

• Feedbacks beyond 3 pm are not honored.

It is already a routine everyday for Greenwich’s scholars to get the surveys from
the cashier station every 3 pm because they have to tally it and then summarize the
tallied information and come up with a report regarding that. The group’s main concern is
what about the feedbacks after that said time? What if the service provided after and
before 3 pm differs maybe because their employees may be tired already by 6 pm let us
say? What if the people who works during the mornings performs differently from the
ones working on the night shift? Customers won’t know that the service is great during
the mornings but not during the evenings so once they get this bad impression about the
company’s food or service then that could be a big blow for Greenwich.

• Answered questionnaires are at high risk of getting lost.

There are many people involved in handling the surveys if it could only be done
at least by one person. Cashiers would give the surveys upon ordering then it would be
the service crew’s responsibility to ensure that their customers answered it and at the
same time safely return the answered surveys back to the cashier station. At around 3
pm the scholars would get it from the cashiers. The group observed especially during
peak hours the service crews do a lot of stuff and that they sometimes forget to
encourage or at least get the feedbacks back to the cashier station and that means
waste of resource, paper, and information and if that would happen a lot (and if they
allow that to happen most of the time) then what is now the use of doing the activity in
the first place? Just to get 2 or 3 people’s feedback? That would be a poor basis to begin
with.

• Arriving at an aggregate report based on the survey results eats a lot of time than
needed.

After the scholars received the surveys then they would be tabulating the survey
and come up with a report based on that. After, they will present it to their branch’s
manager and wait for his comment, feedback, or opinion then they would have to
produce another report based on their manager’s thoughts and suggestion then they
would keep it in their database and would e-mail all the reports gathered to their head
office every end of the month. After that, they would print the files to be kept in a special
storage. The group’s main concern about this is that the scholars are trained by
Greenwich themselves to be the next managers of the store. If they would just keep on
doing these things over and over again instead of doing some other things (like
engaging more with their customers, giving an extra hand to other employees, etc), then
how would they be more productive and more competent? The group wants them to be
more exposed in relating to their customers and with the activities in the front end and
back end of the store and not just spend a lot of time in doing this activities if in fact
these activities can already be made automatically. For the group, it’s okay if they
continue doing these activities if there is really no means for them to make things much
faster but with our technology today it made possible that the reports could be generated
in a matter of minutes or seconds.
• Their current system’s slow and ineffective processes affect decision making of the
company regarding quality control.

One of the main reasons why the company does this survey is to ensure that
they are in line with their customer’s expectations and to know whether they are
providing the best quality service and products for them. Quality control should be well
regulated around their stores and this would be done if they would change their current
system.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE SYSTEM

The goal of the study is to optimize the time spent on getting the feedbacks of their
customers regarding their products, environment, and services. This also aims to reduce the
risk of loosing a questionnaire that has been answered therefore reduces the probability of
wasting information resources, minimizes the time spent on tabulating the survey results (as it is
supposed to be), and to make their whole CRM process quicker to make efficient decisions for
quality control. This could be done by changing Greenwich’s current CRM system by
automating it.

• Improved Resource Control

The proposed system ensures that the results and reports are safely kept on a
database by limiting the access and exposure of the results to only 2-3 people. Now they
have a much more grip of these resources and could be retrieved in a timely and orderly
manner.

• To Reduce Human Errors In Tallying Surveys

Reduce human errors by providing firm foundation or metrics of the system that
assures security of the feedbacks or answers (not hackable or be manipulated) of the
customers and efficiency in processing the results and in coming up with an accurate
aggregate report.
• Information Processing Efficiency and Increase Speed Of Reports

To increase the speed in tallying the survey results and coming up with a
tabulated report which are manually done by changing their current system through
automating it, providing a much more efficient and faster accumulation and tallying of
results and generating a much reliable tabulated report.

• To Increase Speed Of CRM Activities And Increased Accuracy In Clerical Operations

To increase the speed in coming up with a report based on the tabulated report
therefore affecting the speed of time it needs to be submitted to the branch manager for
final assessment and the time it’ll be submitted back to them up to the point where they
need to submit the final reports to the main office and the time spent in accumulating,
tallying, and tabulating the survey results by changing their current system, which is
manual, and automating it providing a much more reliable and faster results.

• Improvement Of Management Planning And Control

The proposed system will ensure improvement in management planning and


control because it brings with it the benefits and the promise of a much faster and
efficient generation of results needed for analysis, assessment, and for decision-making.
Now, the heads of the store could be rest assured that they are assessing and analyzing
the accurate results, free from the typical human errors such as miscalculation of the
tallied reports and the likes.

• Faster Decision-Making

Faster decision-making by improving and speeding the tallying and tabulating of


the survey results therefore scholars can now present to the branch manager the report
in a much earlier time. The branch manager could also react to it much faster therefore
enabling the scholars to submit final report to the main office much earlier (than doing
the monthly basis). The main office now could also react to the survey result much
faster.
• To Improve Asset Utilization

The proposed system will do the works done tediously by the scholars. Now,
these scholars can have more time relating and exposing themselves in the works in the
front end and back end of the store enabling them to be more aware of the things
happening inside. Those experiences will help them grow, think, and react as future
managers of the store.

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

One of the significance of this study is to improve the performance of the company by
changing their current CRM system and automating it. This would reduce the time spent on
tabulating the survey results, more efficiently and quicker than with what they have now. With
their current system, they have to gather all the results of the survey as well as the manager’s
report and email it every end of the month but with the propose system they could send the
manager’s report everyday and the main office can access the database of the branch so there
is no need to email the result to them. Now, customers who wish to participate in the survey,
either customers who eat in the mornings or those of the evenings or anytime of the day, can do
it so because with their current system only people who eats or buys in their establishment
before 3 pm can participate in the activity so only the feedbacks of what kind of service, food,
environment they have during mornings or before 3 pm can be assessed. How about after 3
pm’s service, environment, food? How would they know if the same service, cleanliness, and
food were offered to its customer all throughout the day? Now, customers who eat anytime of
the day can actively participate because their feedbacks matter A LOT.

Greenwich now can train and expose their scholars to the work they are supposed to
manage and not just the tabulating part. They would have more people to attend to their
customers needs because the scholars don’t have to do the tabulating part anymore, instead
the automated system would do it for them. Greenwich can now have faster and more efficient
report as a basis for their monthly assessment for each of their branches nationwide.

Customers wouldn’t find the whole activity boring. The system proposed would make
sure that the survey activity would be fun, very interactive, relating, and simple to do. Now,
customers who wish to be heard by the management can actively participate in the activity.
Because of this, they could expect a much improvement on the areas they want improvement in
the first place. Now, there is this higher possibility and assurance that their comments and
suggestions be heard.

For the group, this study may be used as a reference or as a solution to purge common
problem/s in the future.

1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

The boundary of our study is limited only to the Customer Relations Management of the
Valenzuela branch. We only focus on the manual survey process of the store which includes the
time when the cashier/s give questionnaires to customers, the time when service crews gets the
answered questionnaires and return it back to the cashier station, the time when the scholars
would get it from the cashiers then tabulates the survey results daily, the time the scholars send
a hardcopy of the tabulated report to the branch’s manager (everyday) up to the time when
they’d e-mail it to the main office (every end of the monnth.
Chapter 2 – System Analysis

2.1 Use Case Diagram of Greenwich’s Current CRM System

2.1.1 Primary Actors

a.) Customer - People who buys and eats in the establishment and participates
in the activity (survey to get their feedbacks about Greenwich’s food,
services, and such to ensure quality of the said elements).
b.) Cashier/s - A person who handles the money transactions of the
establishment. He/she is also the one who gives questionnaires to its
customers, upon ordering. She/ he gives out questionnaires to a sample of
customers every one hour.
c.) Scholars - People who are literally scholars of the store. The company pays
for their tuition fees, in some selected universities, to take up business
administration. They educate and train them to be the next managers of one
of Greenwich's Stores. Scholars get the answered questionnaires everyday
around 3 pm from the cashier/s then tabulates it in Microsoft Word and e-
mails it to the main office every end of the month.
d.) Service Crew - Employees who serve the ordered food, clean the tables,
surroundings, and such.
e.) Branch Manager - Every branch has its own managers. Branch managers are
the ones responsible for the assessment of the surveys. Managers, everyday,
assess and examines the feedbacks of the people and when she/he have
read bad comments, she/he quickly or as soon as possible contacts their
customers to clarify things.
f.) Main Office - A certain department from the main office handles the tabulated
report from the branch's office. They make final assessment of the situation
and decides what to do next to improve more their products and services.
2.1.2 Use Cases

a.) Order Food - People who wish to eat some of the great tasting food only
offered in Greenwich orders food, directly in the cashier station.
b.) Answer Questionnaire - Customers who were given by the cashier a
questionnaire are asked to answer questions related to customer satisfactory
about the store's service, products, environment, and etc. Not all customers
were given questionnaires, only a sample of the whole population of the
people who ate or bought something in the store were given.
c.) Give Questionnaire to Customers - Cashiers give out questionnaires to a
group of people every 1 hour therefore not all customers were given these
questionnaires.
d.) Handle Answered Questionnaires - Cashiers keep the answered
questionnaires and wait for the scholars to get it from them to tabulate it.
Usually, scholars get it from them around 3 pm.
e.) Tabulate Answers - Scholars summarize the feedbacks or answers given out
by their customers. They place it in a Microsoft Word document and save it in
a folder.
f.) Email Final Report - Every end of the month, the scholars send all the
tabulated files for the month in the main office via e-mail.
g.) Collect Questionnaires from Customers - Service crews monitor the survey
questionnaires. After each customers done eating and leaves the place,
they'd quickly get the papers and return it to the cashier station.
h.) Assess Report - The branch manager of the store handles all the tabulated
surveys. He/she monitors it daily to ensure their product's, service's and etc.
quality and also to respond and clarify quickly to the bad comments provided
by their customer/s.
i.) Make Final Assessment - The main office then makes the final call. They
assess the surveys and makes final decision of what to do next.
Greenwich’s Customer Relations Management System

Order Food

Answer
CUSTOMER Questionnaire CASHIER

Give Questionnaire
to Customers

Handles Answered
Questionnaires

SCHOLARS

Tabulate Answers

Email Final Report

SERVICE CREW
Collect Questionnaires
from Customers

Assess Report

BRANCH
MANAGER
Make Final
Assessment

MAIN OFFICE
2.2 Process Walkthrough (Use Case Diagram with pictures)

Order Food
1.

Give Questionnaire to
2.
Customers

Answer Questionnaire
3.
4. Collect Questionnaires
from Customers

5. Handle Answered
Questionnaires

6. Tabulate Answers

7. Assess Report
8. Make Final Report
(Laptop)

9.
Email Final Report
(Laptop)
2.3 Activity Diagram of Greenwich’s Current CRM System

a.) Order Food - People who wish to eat some of the great tasting food only offered in
Greenwich orders food, directly in the cashier station. Their system is Pay-As-You-
Order unlike in Bario Fiesta where they have this buffet style.
b.) Answer Questionnaire - Customers who were given by the cashier a questionnaire
are asked to answer questions related to customer satisfactory about the store's
service, products, environment, and etc. Not all customers were given
questionnaires, only a sample of the whole population of the people who ate or
bought something in the store.
c.) Give Questionnaires to Customers - Cashiers give out questionnaires to a group of
people every 1 hour therefore not all customers were given these questionnaires.
d.) Receive Questionnaires from Service Crews - Cashiers keep the answered
questionnaires and wait for the scholars to get it from them to tabulate it. Usually,
scholars get it from them around 3 pm.
e.) Tabulate Answers - Scholars summarize the feedbacks or answers given out by their
customers. They place it in a Microsoft Word document and saves it in a folder.
f.) Email Tabulated Answers - Every end of the month, the scholars send all the
tabulated files for the month in the main office via e-mail.
g.) Get Questionnaires from Customers - Service crews monitor the survey
questionnaires. After each customers done eating and leaves the place, they'd
quickly get the papers and return it to the cashier station.
h.) Assess Report - The branch manager of the store handles all the tabulated surveys.
He/she monitors it daily to ensure their product's, service's and etc. quality and also
to respond and clarify quickly to the bad comments provided by their customer/s.
i.) Make Final Assessment - The main office then makes the final call. They assess the
surveys and makes final decision of what to do next.
j.) Give Back Questionnaires to Cashier/s- After the customers have left, service crews
would return answered questionnaires back to the cahier station for safekeeping.
k.) Pass Questionnaires to Scholars – At around 3 pm, the scholars would get the
answered surveys and would start tabulating those because by the end of the shift
they have to ready for an aggregate report which will be given to the branch’s
manager for assessment.
l.) Print Aggregate Report – The scholars must be ready by the end of their working
shifts a summarized report containing the frequently answered questions, feedbacks
or comments, and etc.
m.) Call Customer for Clarification - Managers, everyday, assess and examines the
feedbacks of the people and when she/he finds bad comments, she/he quickly or as
soon as possible contacts their customers to clarify things and to assure them that
they’d do anything to improve or mitigate their concerns.
n.) Continuously Do Quality Control- Even if there weren’t bad comments that the
customers provided, the management must still not stop from continuously improving
some areas in their business as well as quality control.
o.) E-Mail Final Report - Every end of the month, the scholars send all the aggregate
reports for the month in the main office via e-mail as well as the branch’s manager
report.
p.) Inform Scholars about Findings – Branch managers informs the scholars what
he/she has found out or learned about the survey’s results, suggestions fro
improvement, customers’ bad comment (if any) so the scholars could include this
branch manager’s report to those files that the scholars would be sending in the
main office via e-mail.
Greenwich’s Current CRM System

Customers Cashier Service Crew Scholars Branch Manager Main Office

Give
Order
Questio
Food
nnaire

Answer Get
Question Questio
naires nnaires

Give
Receive Back
Question Questio
naires
nnaires

Pass Tabulate
Question Answers
naires to
Scholars

Print
Aggregate
Report

A
Service Crew Branch Manager Main Office

Assess
A Report

Read Bad No Bad


Customer Comments
Feedback Read

Call
Customer for
Clarification

Inform Scholars
E-mail about Findings
Final
Report
Make Final
Assessment
2.4 Process time vs. Cycle Time (Approximate - MAXIMUM)

Activity Target Time Actual Time

1. Order Food 3 Min. 6 min.

2. Give Questionnaire 5 sec. 5 sec. or NEVER

3. Answer Questionnaires 2 min. 2 min.

4. Get Questionnaires 5 sec. 5 sec. or NEVER

5. Give Back Questionnaires 5 sec. 5 sec. or NEVER

6. Receive Questionnaires 5 sec. 5 sec. or NEVER

7. Pass Questionnaires to 5 sec. 5 sec. or NEVER


Scholars

8. Tabulate Answers 20 min. 20 min.

9. Print Aggregate Report 10 min. 10 min.

10. Assess Report 30 min. 30 min.

11. Call Customer for 15 min. 15 min.


Clarification

12. Inform Scholars about 20 min. 20 min.


Findings

13. E-mail Final Report 30 min. 60 min.

14. Make Final Assessment - -

TOTAL 2 hr 35 min 3hr 18 min 25 sec


2.5 Geographic flowchart (Activity Diagram mapping)

7 -pass
pass questionaires to scholars

LEGEND: 8 -tabulate answers

1-order food 9 -print aggregate report

2-give questionaires 10 -assess report

3-answer questionaires, 11- call customer for clarification

4-get questionaires 12 -inform scholars

give back questionaires


5 -give 13-email final repo

6- receive quesitonaires
Chapter 3 – System Design

3.1 Table of Recommendations

Problem Recommendation Affected Activities

1. Feedbacks beyond 3 pm -Make an automated system - Give Questionnaire


are not honored. that could accommodate the
survey activity any time of the - Receive Questionnaires
day (working hours).
- Pass Questionnaires to
Scholars

- Tabulate Answers

- Print Aggregate Report

- Assess Report

- Call Customer for


Clarification

- Inform Scholars about


Findings

- E-mail Final Report

- Make Final Assessment

2. Answered questionnaires -Make an automated system - Receive Questionnaires


are at high risk of getting that could efficiently backup,
lost. handle, and store the survey - Pass Questionnaires to
results into a secured Scholars
database.
- Tabulate Answers

- Print Aggregate Report

- Assess Report

- Call Customer for


Clarification

- Inform Scholars about


Findings

- E-mail Final Report

- Make Final Assessment

3. Arriving at an aggregate -Make an automated system - Tabulate Answers


report based on the survey that could replace the
results eats a lot of time than scholars in tabulating the - Print Aggregate Report
needed. survey results, store it in a
database, and generate - Assess Report
helpful summary of the - Call Customer for
survey results in a matter of Clarification
minutes. This system could
work 3x much faster than - Inform Scholars about
Greenwich’s current system. Findings

4. Their current system’s - E-mail Final Report


slow and ineffective
- Make Final Assessment
processes affect decision
making of the company
regarding quality control.

-Make an automated system - Assess Report


that ensures efficient
processing of information. - Inform Scholars about
This would lessen the Findings
probability of human errors
such as errors in - E-mail Final Report
miscalculating the survey
- Make Final Assessment
results and etc. This system
would also run with lots of
security measures to prevent
members from inputting lack
of information that could
prevent the company come
up with better decisions.
3.2 Use Case Diagram of the Proposed System

3.2.1 Primary Actors

Customer - People who buys and eats in the establishment and participates in
the activity (survey to get their feedbacks about their food, services, and such to
ensure quality of the said elements).

Branch Manager – Every branch has its own managers. Branch managers are
the one responsible for the assessment of the surveys. Managers, everyday,
assess and examines the feedbacks of the people and when she/he finds bad
comments, she/he quickly or as soon as possible contacts their customers to
clarify things and to assure them that they’d do anything to improve or mitigate
their concerns.

Scholars – Who tracks the log-in and log-out database, who e-mails the
summarized report of the manager to the main office, who helps in handling and
maintaining the database/s (customer’s details, log-in and out, and customers’
feedbacks), and who gives a hardcopy of the report to the branch’s manager.

CRM Automated System – A system that is responsible for tracking down the
identities of the people who enter the site. The system wouldn’t allow an account
to enter the site more than once in a day and beyond the branch’s working hours.
It records, in a separate database, the customers’ records and their feedbacks. It
also authenticates whether your username is legal and matched your given
password and also summarizes the survey activity.

Main Office - A certain department from the main office that handles the survey
results from the branch's office. They make final assessment of the situation and
decides what to do next to improve more their products and services. They would
also provide the people who would maintain the databases and the system of the
branch.
3.2.2 Use Cases

Sign Up – A person must first sign up before she/he could participate. The
signing up process would be simple and is done only once (not every time they
wish to participate in another survey at a different time and place). They will be
asked to input their full names, address, contact numbers, gender, birthday,
username, and password.

Log-In – Before a customer could participate in the activity, he/ she is supposed
to be logged in first so that the person’s identity who’ll be answering the
questions could be known by the management. The time they gave logged in
would be saved in a database.

Answers Questions – Customers would be asked to answer simple questions.


They would only pick out the answers provided for them (more like a multiple
choice questionnaire: good, better, best, satisfactory, etc).

Log-Out – After answering the questions, they will be asked to log-out and that
ends the session. The time they have logged out would be saved in a database.

Process Customer Answers – CRM Automated System would record, in a


database, the answers of the customers. The system would assure that there
would be no unanswered questions left.

Generate Summarized Report - Everyday, it will generate a report about the


answers or feedbacks of its customers. The aggregate result would then be
stored in a database and the scholars could easily click print to print out a
hardcopy of the report which will be submitted to the branch’s manager for
assessment. With the new system, the scholars don’t have to spend hours just
tabulating the result, instead, the system does it for them and they don’t have to
email the results of the survey because the survey results would then be stored
in a database that could also be accessed by the main office and now they only
have to email the report of the manager.

E-Mail Report - Every day, the scholars can now send the branch’s manager
report for that day in the main office via e-mail unlike in the past where they
would have to send it every end of the month with the survey results report for
the whole month.

Handle Database – The scholars track down whether there are any problems in
one of the databases example: an account was able to participate in the survey
twice at the same Greenwich branch (which is not allowed) then certainly there’s
something wrong with the system or such.

Monitors Participants – The scholars also track down the people who have
participated in the survey. If there would be an account that is just making fun or
saying none-sense stuff and did it more than twice then the scholars can ban or
terminate the account.

Assess Report – The branch manager of the store handles all the tabulated
surveys. He/she monitors it daily to ensure their products’, services’ and etc.
quality and also to respond and clarify quickly to the bad comments provided by
their customer/s.

Makes Final Assessment - The main office then makes the final call. They
assess the surveys and makes final decision of what to do next.
Proposed Customer Relations Management System

SIGN-UP
<<Includes>>

LOG-IN

ANSWER
QUESTIONS

LOG-OUT
CRM AUTOMATED
CUSTOMER
SYSTEM
PROCESS CUSTOMER
ANSWERS

GENERATE
SUMMARIZED REPORT

SCHOLARS

E-MAIL REPORT

HANDLE DATABASE

MONITOR PARTICIPANTS BRANCH


MANAGER

ASSESS REPORT

MAKE FINAL ASSESSMENT

MAIN
OFFICE
3.3 Benchmarking

Pizza Hut, home to the country’s Pinaka – pizza, was 1958 by two enterprising college
students, Frank & Dan Carney, in their hometown in Wichita, Kansas. Since then it has become
the largest & most popular pizza chain with over 12,000 restaurants in 90 countries around the
globe in 2004.

Pizza Hut is now more than just a pizza place. It offers a unique casual dining
experience that is different from the usual fast-food environment. The casual dining restaurant
now has an expanded pizza menu, appetizers such as ribs and a new line of desserts, soup
options, smoothies, a variety of pasta dishes and a whole lot more. Veering away from plastic
and tiles typical of fast-food joints of old, Pizza Hut now has a very classy, casual-dining feel
with sleek wooden furniture, warm, ambient lighting, and a touch of whimsy dominating the
whole interior. With the new ambience come more customer interaction and service that is
made doubly fast and extra friendly.

Philippine Pizza Inc., the franchise owner and operator of Pizza Hut, has over 140
restaurants, here in the Philippines since it began in 1984. Its locations are strategically located
from Baguio to Mindanao & are now the country’s most popular pizza restaurant, with its dine-in
restaurants, delivery units and express counters. For the more discerning food enthusiast,
there’s Pizza Hut Bistro. A breakthrough concept in dining, Pizza Hut Bistro concept offers the
best of casual dining, giving you the chance to enjoy the best Italian-American, along with
classy ambience and first class service.
DATA ANALYSIS

Process PIZZA GREENWICH


HUT

Number Of Branch Employees 26 20

Number of Branches in the Phil. 140 172

Number Of Customers .260 - 300 220

Type of CRM System Manual Manual

Average time of Answering Questionnaires 2 min. 2 min.

Average Time For Processing The Survey Results 45 min. 20 min.

Average Working Hours 11 hours .11 hours

3.4 Streamlining

• Standardization
Instead of just getting the feedbacks from the people who eat in their stores
before 3 pm, now people who eat anytime of the day could participate in the activity and
this is to ensure that the services or the food being served anytime of the day are of best
quality as well as the store’s environment and its employees behavior could be well
assessed and monitored.

• Automation
CRM is such a very vital part of business. Businesses need to find ways on how
to improve theirs. The current CRM system of Greenwich does not generate much
information as expected. They only get the opinions of the people who eat before 3 pm.
And the group’s main concern is how about the service, environment, and food served
after that? For sure there would be a difference between those times and the group
wants them to capture everything and that may only be done much efficiently and much
faster through automation because Greenwich only gets the opinions of the people
before 3 pm so they could give time for their scholars to summarize the survey activity,
tabulate it, print it then pass it to their manager then the manager would give his
assessment.

• Simplification

Instead of doing the usual process of tabulating then coming up a summarized


report based on the tabulated information, now the proposed system would do the
storing of data into a secured database, come up with a report (more like a crystal report
in SQL), and tabulate the data for them. The main office could now access or view the
survey results in that branch from time to time instead of the scholars gathering all the
results for each month then send it every end of that month. Now the scholars who
usually perform the tabulating, storing, and presenting the survey results could do a
much more productive stuff like to engage more with their customers and offer help in
the kitchen. This way, they could be more exposed to the real operations of the store.
Experience matters the most and the more you gain one, the more you become
competitive and that is what the store needs (reliable people).

You might also like