First time to this site and learnt much from your views/perspectives…and would like to share some thoughts as a newbie to web 2.0…hope i won't drift too far from the points of your discussion…

I was confused by all these relationship marketing stuff quite a while ago…as traditional wisdom goes, the relationships you built in business dealings have better chance to turn into lasting personal relationships, while building business based on personal relationships often end up ruining your personal relationships…

…so why all these talks about businesses built on true relationships? Anyway relationship marketing is abt marketing but not relationship right?

…then much contemplation…zzz…

At this point, my guess is, the best practice is not to have a business relationship with your community. However that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any money or material elements involved. It can be voluntary sponsorships, for instance.

You don't create premium content and promote them, you don't sell and you certainly don't do any pricing. Although you may create easy and convenient and even remarkable-experience-creating ways for people who care and want to give back so they can support your work. As mentioned above hard cold cash is not the only currency available anymore…

The key is, you don't sell. Your friends have full control & initiative over what they want to do (and in what form) with their hard-earned currencies for you.

Say if you pay Van Gough for his painting (or organize an exhibition), you don't really want his painting, you don't care whether it's in his studio or your living room or public space. You love him, you respect him, you see him making the world a better place everyday and you just want to make sure he can afford to continue doing so.

It involves money but it's not a buy-sell relationship. It's friends being generous to each other.

People can see your generosity. People want to give back. People want to be part of a sincere effort to change the world. And people will pay for what you give them for free simply to support your work, or for extra copies/experiences as gifts to their loved ones…

…well is it too idealistic? … …

But the real test of any community is how long people stay the course because the involvement is meaningful. And if money is the currency that's involved my question is how can that engender contribution, generate new forms of value, create essentially more human business. At that level I share your concerns about congruence.

Can paid subscription power that? Well I don't know. But collectively those interested in what social business represents have talked for a long time about this as being a shift from transactions to relationships, or at least a re-balancing. This is an important thing for us to grasp and develop now because if we don't what we essentially get is old empires in new clothes, and a massive lost opportunity.

i commend you for taking such a strong stand. It's a hot topic, and I certainly don't want to make it seem like Chris is the bad guy here. It was a collective effort launched long with 3 other people so I don't want to make Chris the poster boy for my concerns.

But I was disappointed with the launch. Not because it was a paid service (because as John said above, the freeium model is ripe with it's own shortcomings; namely providing a forum for internet jaskasses to spout off with zero accountability) but rather in how it was promoted.

I was disappointed that they chose to use the scarcity model to encourage people to sign up. Don't get me wrong, everyone uses it and I get the psychology behind it, but aren't you playing us if you are using that technique.

I mean if it is the great service you say it is then give me a price and let me decide if want to sign up or not. Don't play me with the psych-babble that we all know entices people to sign up quick. It just seems so cheesy to me. It reminds me of those goofy infomercials back in the 80's with Tom Vu on his yacht with 7 or 8 bikini-clad women selling his ?? (I don't even know what he is selling)

And hell if you decide 3 months from now to raise the price for new subscribers i say HELL YEAH!

I just failed to see how that launch was consistent with any of the messages that I know all 4 of those individuals practice regularly (this is not btw condemning their character…just the techniques used to launch this service.).

I believe you read and commented on a similar comment I made on Rex's triiibes blog, but I find someone like Chris Guillebeau to be very consistent with the message preaches. “Here is my shit, here is what it costs. Buy it if you like, if not, don't sweat it as I have lots of free stuff to give you.”

I thought that would have been the approach taken on that launch, but it wasn't.

Perhaps it was a mistake in marketing, perhaps not (again as John said…perhaps this was being begged for by their troops), I just know that such things raise red flags and that maybe, just maybe the message and the character don't match. Time will tell.

DD

I think what upset some people was how TT was launched.

The ‘product’ launch was perfect; it didn’t happen by accident. Lots of planning/design/coordination went into this and it went very well.

What’s the problem?

Guys like Chris, Darren, JJ and others are (in different ways) champions of the little guy/girl. You know what I mean.

But something about the TT product doesn’t ring true – can’t put my finger on it. My guess is that there will be a TT book, then a TT vid and so on… maybe TT the movie, who knows!

PS – thx for the link to Stowe.

I believe that 'blatant integrity' is a probably better, more nuanced and more appropriate, than open, and for the reasons you mention.

Stowe Boyd's done a good of summarizing the essential points here. http://www.stoweboyd.com/message/anne-mccrossan...

While I'm not part of CB's community, I am a member of private offline business groups. There are things I prefer to discuss with this circle of friends. Not everything has to be for the public consumption.

There is an incongruity in this and tricky issues of trust. And if this is a proposed business model for others to follow then it does little to advance the idea of communities of interest as anything other than another form of ownership.

As the connected web develops this has quite significant implications, and the people who are social leaders do have a responsibility to consider this. Human growth, generative, iterative relationships and formative learning experiences go beyond the consumption of content in this form.

Also, this strikes me as another form of old fashioned 'schooling', and divisions around what is and isn't human business via this model reinforces a disconnected society, not a connected one. Hence the 'dark ages' comments that Stowe has made.

As I said in my response to John below, this isn't the way I'd suggest going if the strength of the network is what one wants to realize. As a marketer, I'd say there are nuances around the business model to fix for this proposition to be true to the Chris Brogan brand as we know it (I can't speak for the others as I don't know them).

If I understand your concern correctly, you fear that Brogan and co promise something which is impossible to deliver upon, namely the value of a network which is intrinsically based on relationships. Or, after looking at the Universe, he's selling the promise of a new one even before he's created one. And in doing so others might follow even before Brogan's business model has proven valid, creating 'black holes' into the informationsphere with all bright internetstars locking themselves in in lucrative new micro-universes.

I'm making it grotesker than it is for the sake of clarification. But I'm kind of lost about the point of what you're pointing out here. I know it's tempting to say: 'Well isn't that obvious?' and leave it at that. But I don't believe it is obvious and it maybe valuable when it is clarified.

Despite you saying it's only an assumption, a monthly (and increasing) subscription fee was the message upfront, with a 'buy now and you get it cheaper' message, and fees attract takers. It's a different kind of investment. Those aspects trouble me about this particular model. I hope however those that do join have a really fantastic experience and that the community endures for as long as Seth's has.

Chris has put in the hours more than most, I agree he deserves success. Many people have very tight tribes who've created strong communities and incomes and done so with integrity, and that's not an issue. As I said I question business model because I think it needs tweaking, for the reasons I've explained. It's a personal view, but I've bumped up against the opening pages three times and just haven't been able to let myself sign up and that can't be a good thing, and I know I'm not alone.

You mentioned generative listening so let me ask you, isn't this a perfect time to be listening to what's below the water line? And isn't it ok to ask a few questions in pursuit of a better product? Because if that's not what human business is about then I'm not sure what is. It's just as important to be able to buy into the expertise of the network and the caliber of the company one's in as the leaders, at least if the potential value of the network is something one wants to realize.

There are several very large flaws in the free model – first off, as Seth is fond of saying, it scales to infinity. I've personally witnessed Chris make significant contributions to this social ideal at great cost, including spending way too much time away from his family. If he's erred it's that he's given too much away.

I would argue that subscription certainly can create community (I say can, because execution is what usually makes a community click or not.) The kind of community it can create is one that's invested, accountable, involved and there for a specific reason. What I've seen in free models is that anyone can show up, spout their views on generative listening as the antidote to the velocity of today’s overloaded information flows and then check-out. Where's the value in that?

I've belonged to both kinds of tribes and know the kind I like to be a part of.