Matterport: Who is Your Customer?

WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host 31.33K Website Atlanta, Georgia Linked In Facebook Twitter YouTube TikTok Instragram Matterport Service Partner Google Street View Trusted Photographer Zillow Certified Photographer We Get Around Network Member	31.33K DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 9
	Hi All, I the Matterport Ecosystem vision of the future. That said. Matterport executive team, you have created a mess. The only way to clean up this mess is to define the Customer as the one that is paying for the Matterport Cloud Account. Then, all other decisions will be easy. The longer story ... The Matterport announcement Sunday night (25 May 2018) of plans to roll-back the Terms came for the wrong reason: "I’m announcing that we will be retracting the new language in 3.7 of our Spaces Processing and Hosting Terms very shortly due to the confusion that had been caused by the inaccurate article on Inman News and the high amount of misinformation being disseminated through social media." The real reason is that Matterport has failed to define its Customer. While many of us would prefer that Matterport say its Customer is a professional photographer rather than the channel marketing conflict between professional photographer and real estate agents, I would define Customer as the Content Creator that pays for the Matterport Cloud account for processing, hosting and distribution. If Matterport defined Customer in this way - rather than whom consumes the content or a 3rd party that is willing to license the content, then it would easy for Matterport to conclude the following as I stated in part in the WGAN Forum discussion last week: ✓ For Matterport Employees That Are Upset Too Quote: Originally Posted by @DanSmigrod ... You have read all the dystopian discussions from our Members - your clients. We all have been turned into raging fans from raving fans this week. Look at my video above. It's not too late to right the ship. ..... --- Hello, I read the discussion in the We Get Around Network Forum this week. I agree with our customers. 1. Roll back the terms of service immediately to 18 February 2017 2. Develop a plan to offer our customers compensation for their intellectual property 3. Give our customers the option to opt-in either by Space, Folder of Spaces or all. 4. Whatever you do to make this right, the default can not be all content is opted-in 5. Develop a Code of Ethics (Includes: "We will not mine our customer's data to solicit their clients" ) 6. Apologize to our customers. 7. Back up the apology with something of value (hosting, processing, GSV publishing) 8. Act swiftly 9. Be transparent. That was sneaky using the "Continue" Button to be the "Accept New Terms of Service" 10. Hold a Town Hall asking our team what can we do to restore the trust of our customers? [Your Name] --- Thank you and enjoy your weekend. May next week be better for all of us. Dan The key to resolving the dystopian world we are living in is for Matterport to clearing define internally and externally that the Customer is the content creator that pays Matterport. Not the consumer of the content. Not the 3rd party alliance. Not the homeowner. Merriam-Webster defines Customer as "one that purchases a commodity or service." It is very telling that the explanation is that we do not understand: "I’m announcing that we will be retracting the new language in 3.7 of our Spaces Processing and Hosting Terms very shortly due to the confusion that had been caused by the inaccurate..." Actually we do. We are your Customers. You don't think we are. "Unfortunately, some parties, with various motivations, decided to proactively seed the story on Inman News that provided incorrect and misleading information about the terms change that brokers and agents then saw." I applaud the person - or persons - that did reach out to Inman. I had planned to do so after the WGAN-TV Live at 5 (5 pm EST \| GMT -5) Matterport Ecosystem Town Hall Tuesday (27 February 2018), if Matterport had not resolve this challenge by then. "We are concerned that the wrong perception that the change created privacy issues might cause agents or brokers to rethink their use of Matterport, and we do not want this change to hurt our customers’ businesses. Protecting your current business is more important than developing the longer-term ecosystem, ..." Are the Content Creators - we have the relation with our Clients - and know what right or rights we have to use their Spaces. "...and I am very sorry for anyone whose business has been negatively impacted." Apology accepted. Now is the time to back up the apology with substance. Free processing. Free hosting. Free White-Label for 12 months (then you can charge us). Most importantly, commit to politely asking us to Opt In: not default that we can Opt Out. While a step in the right direction, it's the difference between night and day. You want to default to all content opted in because you are concerned that you will get low acceptance. Yes. That is correct: unless you provide an incentive for us such as a 1) a by-out of our content; 2) monthly recurring revenue for model as long as you use our content; 3) other TBD. If you think Customer first, then the answers will be obvious. The point is that you need to make this win-win-win. If we share in the long-term wealth of the Content we create, we might even create it for free knowing that we will make more money from monthly recurring revenue from our content. Just a thought. Reward us. We are the Customer. "We were never taking your copyright, were never giving ourselves the ability to market to homeowners or agents directly, and were never getting the ability to publicly share the models. However, there are now agents and brokers out there who believe we were doing some or all of these things. That is unfortunate." We all understand that Matterport has usurped our Copyright in a mangled explanation. You give us the crayons and paper to create art that we own, but the art can only be hung in your museum. Okay. Fine. We agreed to that we bought our Camera. That has not changed. What has changed is that we agreed to hanging the art for a specific length of time. We didn't agree that you were going to take the art show on the road and make money for exhibition and not pay us. If we are truly Matterport Service Partners – then Partner with us on the revenue share. Have us excited about sharing in the wealth creation. To repeat, I the Matterport Ecosystem vision of the future. The only way to clean up this mess is to define the Customer as the one that is paying for the Matterport Cloud Account. Then, all other decisions will be easy. What do you think? Thanks, Dan
	7 years ago	Post 1 • IP flag post

I do not see how we had the wrong perception as Bill stated. It was his newsletter that said "To be clear, as a result of the ecosystem license, Matterport will look to generate revenue from goods and service providers by using the 3D Spaces and our SDK to enable them to engage with property owners and residents through the Matterport Platform. These future revenue streams will fund new technology development like our SDK and a multitude of features, and will allow us to continue to deliver advanced 3D media solutions that make it inexpensive and easy to capture and utilize immersive 3D media."

Emphasis added.

And once again you would think that they would learn from their past mistakes. Back when they launched the Realtor dot com syndication, there was no opt-out option. Only after vocal rejection to that did they implement the opt-out. And it did take some time to take effect. We said back in that it should be opt-out by default and then let us opt-in if our clients and we chose to participate.

But as @DanSmigrod said Quote:

Originally Posted by DanSmigrod
While a step in the right direction, it's the difference between night and day. You want to default to all content opted in because you are concerned that you will get low acceptance. Yes. That is correct: unless you provide an incentive for us such as a 1) a by-out of our content; 2) monthly recurring revenue for model as long as you use our content; 3) other TBD.

22 Lahaina, Hawaii	22 photosbyhopsing private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 4
	Dan, you are absolutely SPOT on. This is quintessentially one of the basics of business and marketing. There are customers, and there are customer getters. We get the customers. We pay the monthly hosting. We provide the basic service of seeing beautiful products, the Scan. Matterport provides us with a great camera, hardware for hosting and the opportunity to make a living. Maybe. They knew long ago, the money is in the monthly hosting. Just like your basic services home security, cable TV or electricity. Give them $1000 worth of free stuff and charge a monthly. Or charge them for a camera and later introduce a monthly rate. Or force them into a monthly rate. I know my dreams have been stolen. But it's still a great product. Oh well, it will happen again. Good luck guys. they've already shown their cards.
	7 years ago	Post 2 • IP flag post

1.48K	1.48K Gerhard private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 2
	@DanSmigrod Thank you for writing this. I know now why you are the mayor of WGAN Town or sheriff lol. I so wish that more people can read what you wrote. Especially in the closed group on Facebook. Becuase there are a lot of people there that is just blindly accepting everything they hear and don't question. And it is our right to ask questions. There is nothing like a dumb question only a dumb answer. I also love Matterport like a brother in jail and have big things lined up with it for this year. So I get why people get upset and want to take out the pitchforks because you fight for what is right. You use your brain and intellect and dissect everything, ask questions. But when I saw the way they were answering people and also how this unfolded, the writing was on the wall.
	7 years ago	Post 3 • IP flag post

365 Las Vegas	365 DaveFahrny private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1
	I take issue with this statement. We were never taking your copyright, were never giving ourselves the ability to market to homeowners or agents directly, and were never getting the ability to publicly share the models. However, there are now agents and brokers out there who believe we were doing some or all of these things. That is unfortunate." When I do a Virtual Tour for a client they get a email within a few days from MAtterport marketing to them. I mymbook That is out-of-line. Am I wrong?
	7 years ago	Post 6 • IP flag post

232	232 PeterMcCready private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	I must say, I take issue with that statement too, I’d expect to be asked to opt-in if I truly owned the copyright... Bill, I thoroughly applaud the rollback (I can imagine how hard it was), if the Ecosystem is truly that important to your plans, please work with the content creators with a view to opting-in, make it a win-win for all.
	7 years ago	Post 7 • IP flag post

WGAN Basic Member 639 Website New Brighton, PA Facebook YouTube Matterport Service Partner Google Street View Trusted Photographer We Get Around Network Member	639 frstbubble private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	I do not see how we had the wrong perception as Bill stated. It was his newsletter that said "To be clear, as a result of the ecosystem license, Matterport will look to generate revenue from goods and service providers by using the 3D Spaces and our SDK to enable them to engage with property owners and residents through the Matterport Platform. These future revenue streams will fund new technology development like our SDK and a multitude of features, and will allow us to continue to deliver advanced 3D media solutions that make it inexpensive and easy to capture and utilize immersive 3D media." Emphasis added. And once again you would think that they would learn from their past mistakes. Back when they launched the Realtor dot com syndication, there was no opt-out option. Only after vocal rejection to that did they implement the opt-out. And it did take some time to take effect. We said back in that it should be opt-out by default and then let us opt-in if our clients and we chose to participate. But as @DanSmigrod said Quote: Originally Posted by DanSmigrod While a step in the right direction, it's the difference between night and day. You want to default to all content opted in because you are concerned that you will get low acceptance. Yes. That is correct: unless you provide an incentive for us such as a 1) a by-out of our content; 2) monthly recurring revenue for model as long as you use our content; 3) other TBD.
	7 years ago	Post 8 • IP flag post

Matterport: Who is Your Customer?6481