November 28th, 2008 by Scott Annan
This is an open appeal for your help.
As you probably know, we are just about to launch a new website that will completely change how professionals and companies manage their professional network. It’s like a really smart, connected address book that tells you who you should call and when. We think its a revolutionary service and a major improvement over the way most companies currently manage their “customer database”.
As part of the product development process, we had to name our new “baby” and after several months of debate, we finally settled on the name DEX.

Last week we received a “Cease and Desist” letter from a law firm representing “Dex Media“, the company that delivers yellow pages online and to your door, telling us that it was illegal to use a name that was similar to theirs. After seeking a lot of advice and soul searching (crushing), we have decided that we cannot afford to fight this allegation, even though we believe it is false.
This kind of reaction by established businesses needs to change. While we have openly blogged about our process and as we try to develop our product collaboratively, they pay a team of lawyers to “monitor the internet” and guard them against other people. I think that lawyers and businesses need to update their “cease and desist” letters from aggressive and threatening warnings to “inform and engage” letters that seek to educate and engage their “potential competition” and their customers, and that they need to get involved in the ongoing dialog that is taking place – whether they are listening or not.
Well, while they’re trying to protect what they have, we’re going to use this opportunity to open up and collaborate even more by “crowdsourcing” a new name for our product. In case you’re not familiar with the term, crowdsourcing is when you use a network of people to accomplish a task that is often performed by an employee or agent (then called “outsourcing”). Over the last five months we have received some fantastic ideas and inspiration from all of you who have been following our development process and I think this is the perfect way to engage you to complete the story.
In our business – much like other businesses – a catchy product name is paramount to success. So, please take a minute to visit the crowdsourcing product page and recommend a smart product name or vote for one of the names that have already been submitted. It would help us in a really big way, you’d be showing “big business” that cooperation is a viable alternative to protectionism, and you’d be doing your not-so-small part in helping the little guys prevail.
Thanks.
June 4th, 2008 by jeff
We spent a lot of time talking about the right message for Mercury Grove’s splash page before there was much to show for it.
I think that this particular task took on serious significance for Scott A. There’s a lot riding on this call to action and so it needs to be just right. We need to hit the right chord with potential customers/ community members, find our voice and phrase it smoothly enough that readers won’t give it a second thought. It’s a lot to expect from 50 words.
With several discarded drafts, it’s easy to lose site of the progress being made – however incremental. Our meeting at Dunn’s was valuable – there’s nothing like blueskying over smoked meat on rye – but the more business-minded contingent of the group shot our idea to pieces before I was hungry again. First comes frustration, then comes perseverance.
Later that night, it took a shift in thinking and a 45-minute conversation with Scott A. to brainstorm a new direction. We still had nothing concrete, but we knew what might work. Scott wanted to bounce the idea off a few people.
Working this problem through has been purley collaborative. There are a lot of really strong writers working together so a bit of a defined approach might tighten up the way we work through drafts.
That said, all this stop-start contributes to an intimate appreciation of who we are, what we do and how we’re going to tell people about it. Try having the same high-level conversation 20 times over, but explaining it in a different way with different vocabulary each time and you’ll see what I mean.
I understand Mercury Grove more today than I did yesterday. And I’ve been saying that since day one.
May 25th, 2008 by Scott Annan
Nearly ten years ago a small team in a small San Francisco apartment launched “The End of Software” revolution. The fundamental concept was that companies didn’t need to “own” software code and host it within their network. Instead people could access the software remotely via a web browser at the office, at home, or anywhere there was an internet connection. The type of software was a logical starting point – customer management software that the salesforce could access while on the road. And Salesforce.com was born.
Over the last 10 years Salesforce.com has led the transformation for how people use software at work. Today most corporate applications are accessed through a web browser and many of these are hosted outside the network by external companies. Over time, the “End of Software” revolution evolved into a new trend of ”Software on Demand” or “Software as a Service” which allows companies to rent software rather than having to purchase it.
But to the users of the software, it is not a service. It’s software.
The future of software needs to be more than just forms and databases, it should actively and purposely help educate people who use the software on best practices, industry standards, and success stories on how to achieve a task or manage a process more effectively.
As we develop our software we are looking at how we can further empower the people that use our software to improve their customer relationships by providing success stories, feedback on industry ratios and norms, inspirational stories, tips from experts, quality content from the web…
I think that is the kind of service that software companies should be providing, and I hope that people will begin to expect it from their software partners.
Surely we are past the “utility age” of computing.