Dustin makes an interesting observation to John's post, Co-creation Part 4. With the example of Build-a-Bear in mind, he says sometimes a great service organization doesn't do things customers don't want to do, but

They do something the customer doesn't want/know how to do ON THEIR OWN. Coming from an art/design/marketing background, I don't want to program the back-end of an elaborate website. I would LOVE to be involved in the collaborative process of that programming though. I would love to pick the brains of the programmers to find out what is truly possible and have some hand in shaping the functionality of the website. Back to Build-A-Bear. How many adults/kids would want to do that on their own? Yet the store thrives by FACILITATING the experience. Service companies need to facilitate the experience in a way that makes it enjoyable for the client.

For instance, when it comes to phone calls, BT (the UK telecoms giant) used to pour vast amounts of money into ads saying how marvelous it is to talk to people, posing as a facilitator of conversation. I thought this was patronizing nonsense. I want my phone company to be an agent: to make telephones work really well for me and not to dress themselves up as pseudo-therapists. Where facilitation may apply is in innovation - three way calling, integrated voice messaging etc etc.

Dustin's Build a Bear is one example of taking an agent market (here's a bear!) and creating an experience. That's an idea that could work well for others, and badly for some; there are some things I just want done, thankyou, and the less fuss you make doing it, the happier I am.

Some people talk of the brand as a place. Companies like eBay and Amazon are uber-facilitators, they've shifted from the business of just doing things for you, to helping to get things you want.

(What makes this interesting is that the goalposts move. One example: I used to just want my rubbish removed; now I want to know more about how it is recycled. I used to just buy Salmon at the supermarket; now I want to know a lot more about how it is caught. I'm becoming more interested in the inner workings of these businesses.)

On a related matter (as Hannibal Lector would say) it's interesting that we talk about advertising, PR and research agencies. That suggests an outdated business model. It used to be that companies would like to leave the sordid business of talking to customers to the ad men. The tedious chore of listening to them could be left to the researchers. Any direct contact could by hygienically removed.

I think what we need now are not agents that get in the way of the customer conversation but facilitators who help to enhance it. That is an enormous shift of mental models away from manipulation towards authenticity, one that some in the business will struggle with and that many others are going to relish.

Here's an interesting professional parallel. In the legal profession here in the UK, there is a big effort to shift disputes from the hideous Dickensian world of the litigators (the ultimate "agents": we'll be beastly on your behalf) to that of the mediators, folks who try to facilitate a solution that isn't a dumb second-hand battle in which those with most at stake are represented by those with a financial interest in obfuscation and delay.

I think the same thing is likely to hit the marketing trade, and the PR agencies in particular. There'll be less emphasis on speaking on behalf of clients in bland press releases, and more on helping clients speak for themselves with more authenticity.