Digital Offers CG call

<scribe> scribe: Ian

Meeting schedule

IJ sees Mondays at noon ET is the best time (according to doodle poll)

dezell: Keep in mind that if participation from Asia grows, we may need to move the time
... I suggest that we start with noon ET on Mondays and keep open mind as participation evolves

RESOLUTION: Meetings of this CG will take place Mondays at noon ET

Next meeting: 28 November

Following meeting: 12 December

ltoth: We will regroup in Jan 2017

Recap of the IFSF Digital Marketing Meeting

ltoth: IFSF is the European flavor of Connexus

KylieVDavies: During the digital marketing kick-off session I shared some slides
... one of them was a high-level architecture diagram of the potential systems in scope for digital marketing
... I had put together a long list of use cases to review, but it was clear immediately they were too low-level
... so we began to look at scope in terms of comms between sites, or digital marketing platforms
... there was a goal of alignment between IFSF and W3C work
... we also considered existing loyalty systems and their data
... there were arguments for and against whether digital marketing should be its own standard or an extension of standards
... we want to do a gap analysis

IJ: Gap analysis++ .. like our charter says!

KylieVDavies: Key actions: a call pre-Christmas ... working with Gray Taylor, and looking at cpg use cases
... EFT / loyalty
... another action was to leverage CPGs to build a common set of use cases and try to broaden participation on the call

ltoth: the group initially started out very brick and mortar, but by the end of the conversation there was more recognition of role of mobile (e.g., order ahead, prepay and pickup)

<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to talk about 1) CPGs and 2) scope of W3C vs. Con/IFSF

dezell: Selection of digital offers in addition to payment methods is an area for opportunity for w3c

Participation in this CG

ltoth: To whom can we reach out?

Manu: quick question on previous point - digital offers could be exposed on web sites to be discoverable
... and available outside payment flow
... was there any interest in digital offers that way?

dezell: David brought it up
... I brought up schema.org (but not search)
... we talked about wanting a solution from beginning to end (reach, resonance, reaction)
... and metrics to know if coupons are working for them

Ed_C: It sounds like IFSF and Conexxus are leading the way, but the whole thing of digital offers goes way beyond that retail segment

dezell: We are also talking about ARTS getting involved, as well as Alibaba

<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to talk about ARTS

ltoth: I agree we are petro-centric at this time given our outreach to people we know
... we are missing retailers from other verticals
... we need to reach out to other retailers
... can we reach out to members within W3C

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask if people have reached out to ReedLuhtanen from Walmart?

manu: Has anyone reached out to Reed from Walmart? He's involved in this space; he has good relationships in other verticals.

<manu> Ian: I've spoken w/ Matt Howater, MAG is a W3C member which has a lot of retailer members, that would be a good starting point.

<manu> Linda: I can reach out to MAG

<scribe> ACTION: Linda to reach out to MAG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/18-digitaloffers-minutes.html#action01]

<manu> Ian: We may not be far enough along yet, we're talking about work that we would like to happen. Not sure how to frame the conversation. We want to raise awareness among MAG members? I think that may be fine.

<Ed_C> * they accept manufacturer coupons today

<scribe> ACTION: Ian to reach out to Best Buy [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/18-digitaloffers-minutes.html#action02]

dezell: Joerg has some good leads (but he's out of pocket for a few weeks)

manu: Jay from Best Buy ... we could speak with him

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to speak to Best Buy

Ed: Steven Goforth may also have good contacts

<manu> Ian: I have a contact at Best Buy as well - will reach out to Kip.

ltoth: This has been US-centric (or North American); would be good to expand

KylieVDavies: Not sure how feasible it is, but we could leverage some contacts via accenture
... would NACS contacts help?
... we may be able to reach out to some of our clients directly.

<manu> Ian: One of the things that I think will help outreach is if we have a nice narrative and materials to share with people.

<manu> Ian: We can even have scalable scenarios where we ask our MAG colleagues if they could circulate something to their members.

<manu> Ian: Also, to help harmonize messaging, it might be good to say where we are and what we're doing. I don't want to preclude small scale outreach. We may want to think about the narrative, why do you have to participate now, what's the benefit, we're in exploratory mode. We don't want to make people think we're further along than we are.

<manu> Ian: I think having those materials would help a lot.

ltoth: Are there things that we are missing?

<manu> Ian: I think we need to tell people a story of where we are that gets them excited to get involved. We know we need to do gap analysis, building participation, that's true, but if we tell people that, I don't know why they would join. There is a missing piece of the narrative that lets people know that this is the time to join. We need "anchor tenants" to the CG. Compel people to get involved. I haven't thought through a strategy to identify members. We

<manu> could make it really interesting to people to get involved.

<manu> Ian: For bigger scale, I think we need to be more strategic about it.

<manu> Linda: How do we get there?

<manu> Ian: I would start simple - someone needs to step up and write a proposal. It involves thinking about the story, the deliverables for that story, that's the marketing/communications part of the CG work.

<manu> Linda: I thought that was the charter and the problem statements.

<manu> Ian: Yes, to kick off community group, but now we're talking about how we drive membership. You need a motivating story to get involved.

<manu> Ian: What we have is shy of a dramatic and motivating story to get people involved. We don't have that yet.

<manu> Ian: We don't have motivating/marketing material to get people to sign up.

<manu> Ian: We need a compelling story line, understand why it has to happen now, why it needs to happen at W3C.

<manu> Linda: How do we get people involved for compelling issue discussion?

<manu> Ian: My story goes like this - when we started to do payments work, it was a similar chicken/egg problem, we had to talk to orgs one by one. We got some interest, it becomes a faster pace of interest.

<manu> Ian: Key coupons and standards body, important retailers, best buy, coca cola, retailers, - some of them are in W3C community, we should start with those, it is chicken and egg. We can hone messages on the friendlies.

<manu> Ian: We are into the strategy of how we do this, this is useful, valuable to get our story down.

dezell: +1 to Ian's comments
... getting this compelling message is what we need to do
... a workshop in 2017 could help raise awareness

Manu: The payments work didn't just take one year, it took longer
... credentials similarly

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that payments took more than a year, same for VC, and it was constant outreach.

Manu: Conversions don't happen in one go

Brian: Timing is a concern for me given the speed at which the industry is moving

Manu: I think some of this work takes that long in practice
... it doesn't mean that you can't start doing things sooner, but consensus on international standards takes longer

<manu> Ian: I want to distinguish the effort to build our community, which I simply don't know how to speed that up beyond ground work because there is no regulatory mandate, no built in community for some of these topics. I distinguish that community building part from the doing the work part.

<manu> Ian: These are no binary/serial.

<manu> Ian: I agree with Manu, to get consensus on the problem statement takes time. We have debates on if we're trying to do too much or too little, IP concerns, it takes a while to get people to line up. I welcome all suggestions/experience on how all of this moves more quickly, key stakeholders at the table, I personally don't know where the right leaders/innovators are who would help pull many others along. That would be helpful to hear from people more

<manu> embedded in industry.

(IJ is not ready to step up to take an action on comms yet due to schedule)

Charter and problem statement feedback/comments

ltoth: We've not received many comments though some are pending
... we are expecting a presentation from JICC (8122 project)
... I expect that presentation on 28 Nov
... if you have comments on charter, please send to the CG's mailing list

Verifiable Claims

(Yay Brian!)

ltoth: Let's continue the topic of "agility" on next call

[Back to verifiable claims]

Manu: Some of us feel that verifiable claims might be a useful technology for digital offers
... in our verifiable claims efforts, we've been asked to provide some use cases around financial services

<manu> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-comments/2016Nov/0022.html

Manu: questions from Microsoft on who will implement?
... right now we've not had parties other than Conexxus speak up; so the perception right now is that there is not interest
... my concern is that we are not far enough along in the CG to make a strong statement

<manu> Ian: I wouldn't be comfortable with the group making statements, we haven't prioritized, refined them, the group is not far enough along to make a statement.

<manu> Ian: If organizations wanted to step forward, that's fine.

dezell: I agree with Ian; the group can't make a statement (nor did I think Manu was asking for that)

manu: Correct; I was not asking for a group statement
... Thanks; I wanted to give a heads-up that this is going on