3% of all business owners make 84% of all private biz income. Why? They’re not covering for unknown weaknesseses.
Why Social Networking (locally and digitally) Can Be a Bad Idea.
Info
This article was published on November 15, 2008. So far, 13 people have left their thoughts. Share your own thoughts.
148.7 – The maximum number of social relationships any average human being can handle, according to research by anthropologist Robin Dunbar (1998) and others.
73,395 – The maximum number of people following one person on Twitter.com (right now.)
Houston, we have a problem. Are we wasting our time with social networking?
As Craig Harrell of Rainmaker Marketing says, “A rubber-banded stack of business cards is not a sales strategy.” We have transferred the impulse to gather stacks of business cards from local networking events, to gathering stacks of “followers” on the internet. Without an intentional strategy, neither one will make us more money in less time. We can use our digital relationships to build business, but not the way we think.
We’ve been taught that the best way to grow our business is to go WIDE, when actually the best way is to go DEEP. The fact is that hundreds to thousands of tepid contacts (these aren’t relationships) online or at a networking event don’t hold a candle to one strategic alliance partner who will feed us business on an ongoing basis. Go deep, not wide.
Can you go deep and still have a wide digital set of “followers”. You bet.
It’s the difference between networking and building a network, the difference between collecting contacts and developing connections.
While 148.7 is the maximum number of social relationships we can have, almost none of us are taking advantage of this relational capacity to grow our business. If you have more than one or two alliance partners truly feeding you customers, you are in an elite group. And yet I’m convinced that the majority of businesses under $50 million a year can be built on one to two dozen truly committed strategic alliance partnerships.
It’s not easy to find a friend. You sift through hundreds if not thousands of people in your life over many years to come up with those few people you feel comfortable letting your hair down around. It’s no easier to find a strategic alliance partner, and we don’t have years in business to do it. That’s where a WIDE reach can lead to a few DEEP relationships that will increase the revenue in your business.
Having 73,395 followers on Twitter is, by itself, largely meaningless, but with a very powerful potential. As with the analog (physical) world, it is our own intentionality that determines whether anything will come out of this stack of contacts to make us more money in less time.
Which of these people are we truly connecting with? Which ones can I truly serve by connecting them to others or to resources to build their business? Zero in on those few relationships at a time and see where they take you. Then go back and dive into the pile of contacts and zero in on a few more. Keep doing this until you find those few people who you can rain on and who can rain on your business for years to come.
The other advantage of having 73,395 people following you is that this “tribal identity” of being on Twitter together gives you a built in WIDE audience that will likely always be a better channel for future clients than a shotgun advertising campaign. If you want to introduce a new product or service, there is no question this is the best place to start – with people who already have a passing familiarity with you.
Continue to develop a following. Get it as big as you can – it’s much better than stone cold advertising. But always be mining this growing group of followers to find the few that you can really serve, the ones you can send clients or customers to regularly. They will be able to do the same for you (hint – the best way to train them to help you is to help them first.)
The short story – Go deep, not just wide. Whether locally or digitally, stop networking and build a network instead. Stop making contacts, and develop connections. You’ll make more money in less time.
Add Your Own
Thoughts
Scot Duke
11/17/08
Outstanding point of view. The point on having a Ga-Zillion Twitter followers…I couldn’t have said it better. Thanks for being out here.
Ankesh Kothari
11/17/08
Thanks for a post that makes us think.
I think a few distinctions should be made…
1. Dunbar mainly studied non-humans. His observation of humans was only empirical. He has done no experiments on humans to find out the optimum number (really – how could he? There is no way to manipulate a lot of groups of people and then figure out the magic number.)
2. Also, Dunbar states the magic number to be between 100 to 230. (148 just has a 95% confidence interval – so there is a huge margin of error.)
3. But more than that – Dunbar’s research states that 148 is the number of people “in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person.”
The part after the comma is important – and how each person relates to every other person.
You don’t really need to know how each of your client is related to every other client of yours – do you? Then you can have significant relationship with a lot more than 148 people.
Dunbar clearly states that 150 would be the mean group size only for communities with a very high incentive to remain together.
So 150 is the right number for a cult.
But for most others, they can definitely have more than 150 meaningful one-on-one relationships.
Admittedly one can’t have 73,395 meaningful relationships. But I think a 1000 is no problem.
Which brings us to Kevin Kelly. And his theory of a 1000 true fans:
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php
Chuck
11/17/08
Scot,
Thanks for the feedback. Looking forward to getting to know you better.
Ankesh,
Thanks also for your feedback. A couple thoughts on your post:
We’re talking about two different relationships. Your reference to Kevin Kelly’s “True Fans” is the same as my “Raving Fans”, which I stole much more directly from other authors – Kevin had the common sense to change the description a little.
Raving Fans are a subset of Strategic Alliance Partners (in my little world.) As Kevin Kelly describes them (and I would say the same), a Raving Fan is ONE BUYER who is committed to buying from you regularly. A Strategic Alliance Partner is someone who regularly sends you new buyers – every week, month, quarter. In the digital world of eCommerce, an Alliance Partner could be someone who links directly to your business and starts sending you 10 clients a day (and you to them).
Would you rather have one alliance partner who sends you 3,500 customers a year, or 1,000 True Fans? Don’t answer – it’s a trick question. You’d rather have both. Find a Strategic Alliance Partner who sends you a lot of clients, then turn as many of those clients into Raving (True) Fans by exceeding their expectations and creating credibility, community (tribe), consistency, and incredulity with them (knock their socks off).
FYI – Most people use Dunbar’s “150” as someone you would feel comfortable walking across a bar and joining for a drink. My question to you – Do you really know more than a one or two social freaks who could do that with 1,000 people (I don’t know anyone)? Anyone with that kind of capacity doesn’t need to read this blog – they should be stinking rich already via those relationships.
Also, as a many people pointed out, Kevin Kelly’s economics for “1,000 True Fans” doesn’t work. As with most artists, he forgets that $100 in sales is $10-$30 in his pocket. 1,000 close friends becomes 3,000-4,000 real quick. The best way to get those 3,000-4,000 Raving Fans is to find as many of them as possible through a few strategic gateopeners.
Grant
11/17/08
I came across this supporting quote in Godin’s new book, Tribes and couldn’t resist posting it:
page 59, from the section titled Participating Isn’t Leading
Lea
11/17/08
Really great post. Ironically I found your blog through twitter :) I have really been enjoying reading it. I really appreciate your insight, and it has been helping me to question, re-think, and focus myself in my own business. Thank you!
Ankesh Kothari
11/18/08
Thanks Chuck.
I agree with you on your distinction between raving fans and strategic alliances.
What I had a problem with was this line in your post “While 148.7 is the maximum number of social relationships we can have, almost none of us are taking advantage of this relational capacity to grow our business.”
148.7 is nowhere near the maximum.
I know quite a few folks actually who have a network bigger than 150 people.
I personally am not a born networker. Networking doesn’t come easy to me. And so have spent a lot of time trying to become a better networker.
May I suggest you (and others reading this comment) study how Joe Girard maintained relationships with folks? Or even better, study someone introverted who became very popular because of her relationship building skills – princess Diana.
Another small distinction – imho – strategic partners make a subset of raving fans. Not the other way around.
The 12 stages of relationship building makes for some interesting reading (scroll a bit):
http://www.mondaymorningmemo.com/?ShowMe=ThisMemo&MemoID=1789
A strategic partner who is not already a raving fan won’t make for a very good strategic partner.
Pierre
11/18/08
Chuck,
You’ve got a point – no use in linking, or friending etc. with too many people just for the sake of it.
I can see a couple of reasons why a networker would want to collect as many contacts as possible (beyond the sheer compulsion):
- she wants to create a ‘hive’ (dixit Seth Godin) in order to be able to generate a buzz at a certain point of time in the future (launch of new product etc.)
- she wants to create your own online community(for example on Ning)
- she needs as many people as possible to pass on a specific request (charity, missing, expertise) or question – see LinkedIn Answers.
Since the power is in the links, not in the nodes, these are examples of a valid strategy. But I do agree with you : no one can pretend to be really “friend” or “connected” beyond his/her own tribe.
Pierre
Scot Duke
11/18/08
Ankesh,
Now we are still talking about Twitter here arn’t we? And the issue here is still Social Networking and Twitter being worth it for that tool, isn’t it?
In real life I can effectively associate with maybe 200 people on a regular basis, I have over 2000 real people I know from my work in networking for over 30 years, but Twitter is full of too many ‘Non-Humans’ that a human cannot visualize or rationalize with a non-human. This makes effectively associating with more than a 100 Twitters on a regular basis very hard to do, if not impossible to do.
The reason most people on Twitter are striving for the higher numbers is to heighten their popularity amongst a cult or a Tribe they are chief of. A newbie to Twitter would see that this person have 70k followers and conclude they "must be somebody to know’ and they jump off the cliff to follow them. For those millions out there who are only out for the thrill ride of the internet, that is the game they want to play. It has no social implications what so ever…just a game.
In another group of Twitter Users I was told that “if you do not have over 7k followers and following over 10k you are a Loser”. Doesn’t that tell you the type of people who are playing this game.
These people (or in some cases non-humans) who go for those higher number of followers/following are only out for themselves and could care little about associating with any number of their followers, thus is what causes the noise every one calls the Ga-Zillion posts made on Twitter and will be what brings Twitter down over time.
Noise filters like Tweetdeck are the only way to make any sense out of Twitter or bring it into a scope of it being a Networking tool.
Going for quality with knowing just a few hundred people to associate with socially online is much better than playing a mind numbing game. Life is way to short for that..
Chuck
11/18/08
Lea,
Great comment finding me on Twitter that is exactly why we should make contact with as many people as practical. Then we need to take it to the next level and turn the contact into a connection.
Pierre,
Just great comments couldnt have said it better myself or I would have (but you did)! These are great reasons to go wide, but it always comes back to converting the contact to a connection and building that Raving Fan who sticks with you and promotes you to others.
Scot,
Great thoughts – Its simple multiplication. Find a bunch of people through one vs. trying to find many through many. No different than in sales would I rather sell $10 of product to 1,000 people or $10,000 to one? Gateopeners are huge for most businesses.
Ankesh,
Sounds like we just have a different view of social relationships. I have thousands of contacts via Twitter, LinkedIn, and a local weekly lunch Ive been doing for two years (800 alumni of this alone), but I would not characterize very many of them as social relationships. That is the overextension of the social networking that this blog is about.
I am very loyal to some bloggers and business experts who dont know I exist to me that is not a social relationship but an information or even commercial relationship. Social relationships (my definition) require ongoing, two-way communication, give-and-take and relationship building. These are the people who will be my Raving Fans and who will send me their tribes.
But as my blog post said build as big and wide a network as you can. Just know that the masses will buy one at a time (even if ongoing), and a gateopener can send me tens, hundreds or even thousands at once.
Case in point would an author rather build a following via Twitter or have Oprah spend 10 minutes with her in front of millions and plug her book? Again, both (but Oprah if I had to choose easy choice). But Im on Twitter not just because it casts a wide net and I might get clients from that wide net, but I also believe there are a few Oprahs for my business in the crowd and I can be their Oprah, too.
Oprah doesnt let you on the show because you chatted on Twitter a couple times, but because you have developed a true social relationship with her she knows you, she believes in you. That isnt a digital conversation or two, but an intentional ongoing relationship that creates a gate opener (strategic alliance) out of a contact.
Yellow Baron
11/18/08
The comments in this blog are very good. I admire the hob-nob inclined.
Funny how we have so much freedom that we can own our own business in the United States but with that freedom we pretty much lose the freedom to be an introvert.
Today, a business owner can live in a cabin in Alaska and succeed it is just a little different than one who participates in the big city. Mostly the difference is in income.
An excellent article on Introverts for those who’re interested:
http://www.mcdonaldwordsmith.com/Miss_Communications2.html
Debbie Fiskum
12/03/08
Thanks, Chuck. THis has made for some very iteresting reading and some good thoughts. As with anything, I think there has to be a balance. So, social networking should be a part of your plan, but not all of it. We’ve come a long way from the days when you had to have LOTS of money to advertise if you were going to make a presence.
I do believe that you can build trust, establish yourself as an expert and become a familiar name to many, many people. THink Coca-Cola. The more you become known (albeit superficially), the more people feel that they can trust you, recommend you and use your services if they need them. Which comes right back to your example of strategic alliances and raving fans!
THanks for a great post. See you on Tues at the meeting
sian
12/10/08
I too stumbled across you via Twitter. I’m new to Twitter and at the moment really just enjoying the game (it is in fact fun!) but am also more seriously exploring how all of this is shaping human relationships so thanks for your great post and to all the thoughtful commenters.
The discussion around 150 people shed some new light on Malcom Gladwell’s use of that “statistic” in The Tipping Point
Andreas Guibeb
02/03/09
Great post Chuck
I agree – in personal as well as the business sphere – it is the quality rather than the quantity of relationships that matters at the end of the day as ably summed up by Wilfredo Pareto through is 80/20 principle.
Regards
andreas
Chuck
02/09/09
Andreas,
Great thought on the Pareto rule! The principles of relationships are valid regardless of what medium we’re using – people buy from people the know; and they buy more from people the know and like. Best, C
Karen Highland
02/14/09
Chuck, lots of food for thought in this article and in the comments. I agree that you have to zero in on the relationships that are going to potentially bring a return when it comes to Social Networking. But that in itself is a learning experience, isn’t it? The trial and error of SN is not easy for some, who want difinitive solutions yesterday. It takes time to figure out how to make SN’s work for you…or am I a slow learner?:)
Chuck
02/15/09
Karen,
It does take time to figure out how to use social networking to make money vs. waste time. In the same way that someone can attend endless networking events on a local basis, collecting stacks of business cards and feeling really good because of all the networking and contacts made, online versions of the same thing can be just as useless.
So it’s always back to “stop networking and build a network instead.” and “stop collecting contacts and make connections instead.” Build relationships – it’s that simple. If we have a few people who believe in us, they will tell others who already believe in them, and the virus goes from there.
Best,
Chuck
Michelle Belaskie
03/01/09
Boy, do I disagree with this premise.
First of all, perhaps 148.7 is the maximum number of relationships someone could have in 1998, according to some anthropologist (and even that I disagree with). But a lot has changed in the interim 11 years.
Things just don’t work the way they did in 1998. We are an accelerated culture. Things are moving faster, our communication methods move faster, we get and lose friends (and social contacts) faster.
Perhaps you could argue that those few friends whom you could sit around the coffee table with, pouring out your soul are few and far between (as you do state later in the article), but I really don’t agree with that either.
The nature of our interaction has changed with this new technology too.
The model, as you state the case, used to be that we’d be uptight and bottled in around our business colleagues and the public at large, only “letting our hair down” with a “few people.” It isn’t that way anymore and I certainly don’t operate that way.
I have become my brand, and those who know my brand know me. I’m a podcaster and an author, I blog frequently and am active in nearly every social network. And anyone who knows me in any of those places knows me, complete and unvarnished. There isn’t anything I hide from anyone.
Anyone in the blogosphere who cares to knows everything about me, from the fact that coffee ice cream is my favorite to the fact that I was sad about losing my job recently as newspapers dissolve.
I have a large listening audience (which I’m contractually obligated not to disclose), 17,000+ friends on MySpace, 1,100+ friends on Facebook, 2,900+ following on Twitter. Which of those would I be sitting down to have coffee with? Well, any of them that ask. Who am I going to glean information from? Build business relationships with? Advance strategic partnerships with? All of them.
Instead of parceling out morsels of information to my close associates, I can now share what I know with anyone who needs to know, and they share theirs with me. Who knows what types of questions I will ask my audience on Twitter? or they ask of me?
It’s become an ebb and flow of constant information, and constant relationships. I expect and hope that these people trust me, as I trust them, because that’s how it works now. I am honest and open and real with everyone in the blogosphere, to the best of my ability.
My connections are WIDE AND DEEP. And no, having 73,000 followers on Twitter isn’t meaningless. It increases the chances that whatever I ask will get answered by someone. That’s huge. It also says to me that those people think that what I have to say has some value. That’s important to me, whether it’s 73,000 or 7 who are really listening.
But, as much as I do consider myself to be a brand, who hopefully one day will make money by my presence and my insight, I sure don’t look at those 73,000 followers as people who can help me “make more money in less time.” For heaven’s sake.
And, frankly, someone like you who was just talking to me because he was looking for a business opportunity “to make more money in less time” would be someone I bounce immediately from my Twitter connections list. Cause that person just doesn’t get it.
Chuck
03/02/09
Michelle – thank you for disagreeing and taking the time to say so! That builds relationship.
Got some questions and thoughts on your post.
First, your interpretation of the model as you state it. Here’s your quote:
“The model, as you state the case, used to be that wed be uptight and bottled in around our business colleagues and the public at large, only letting our hair down with a few people. It isnt that way anymore and I certainly dont operate that way.”
Nothing in my post supports this I hope, nor was it the basis for anything I said. I’m not addressing transparency here (letting your hair down), which I assumed as obvious via Twitter and all the digital media. So we both believe transparency is a good thing and wasn’t available in the dark ages of analog media.
2nd – you seem to think I’m saying 73,000 followers on Twitter is meaningless, yet I spend 2/3rds of the post talking about how valuable that is and what powerful potential it has, and how to take advantage of it. And I end with this – “Continue to develop a following. Get it as big as you can”. It’s WHY we have 73,000 followers that is the key, not WHETHER we have 73,000 followers. Motivation and intent are everything here.
3rd – good for you for not looking at people as a way to make money. That is one of the main points of the post – you’ll make a lot more money if you stop looking at those 73,000 people as a meal ticket (there’s a lot of people on Twitter using it that way).
Yet you clearly see the monetary value of having 73,000 followers by your statement I “hopefully one day will make money by my presence and my insight.”
If you look at those 73,000 as a meal ticket it won’t happen. which is the whole point of my blog post that I believe you missed. But if you don’t have those 73,000, you won’t have “presence” from which to monetize your “insight.” I want 73,000 followers, not because I’m trying to sell them something, but because I want to serve them and push them ahead.
So the key here is to truly serve people, as I believe you are proposing, and down the road you’ll likely make money if people are served (you may not make it from those you served, but from others who saw you serve them, etc.) Nobody wants to be sold anything, and people smell that coming. So I think we’re in agreement here. You’ll make a lot more money by NOT treating people like a meal ticket, but by simply serving them with your insight.
Lastly – we might just have different definitions of what “relationship” is. I can certainly bare my soul and become completely transparent with 73,000 people, and they can have a sense of identity with me as I do that. That’s what writing a book can do as well – create thousands of fans and followers.
But information about me is not necessarily relationship with me. Relationships are two-way conversations that create unique history between two people – you and I have something in common now that no one else in the world shares because we traded comments like this – that’s the beginning of a relationship at a whole different level than someone reading my tweets. It’s not humanly possible do this with 73,000 people and then carry it to the next level and keep developing a two-way unique relationship. So the best we can do is develop unique relationships with a few hundred and have great passing exchanges with many others who hopefully will be served by those passing comments.
The bottom line of this post was never that 73,000 contacts is a waste of time. The point was that collecting 73,000 contacts so you can say you have 73,000 contacts is a giant waste of time and energy.
The point is BUILD RELATIONSHIPS, NOT NUMBERS OF FOLLOWERS; dive into those contacts and see how many two-way connections you can make with unique conversations that build relationship. You might be able to have more than I can – great – I wish I could do what you do. And with the thousands who follow you who you can barely find time to say hello to, I would hope they follow you because there is a sense of connection made from your openness and honesty, and because what you share serves them. I hope for the same on my way to 73,000 followers.
Best,
Chuck
Mirjam
10/15/09
Hi Charles
Great or read, really very good. I’ve wondered the same myself :)How you can build relationships with soemtiems fleeting followers ;) it’s indeed about the deep versus the wide aka not ‘scoring’ but building.
Thanks for that!
cheers
Mirjam
Chuck
10/15/09
Mirjam,
Good pont – it’s not about “scoring” (how many followers do I have), but “building” – thanks!
C