Is Dunbar’s number still relevant?

Is Dunbar’s number still relevant?

 

Throughout human evolution, we have existed in small groups, tribes and clans. Individuals have worked together for the common good of the small tribe, and often, perhaps most often, been at odds with the tribe across the river.

British anthropologist Robin Dunbar introduced his theory that humans can maintain stable social relationships with no more than 150 people. This is a theory now so well accepted that ‘Dunbar’s number‘ has almost become a cliché.

The phrase ‘Stable Social Relationships’ has particular relevance in the age of social media platforms. How many friends do you have on Facebook, connections on LinkedIn, followers on Instagram?? For many, it is way beyond 150.

Question: How do you maintain ‘Stable Social Relationships’ with that number of people?

Answer: You cannot.

Social media gets the blame for all sorts of things, rightly so, but it is not the fault of the platforms, it is the fault of evolution.

Our application of technology has run well ahead of our evolutionally capacity to manage it and retain the relationships that made us the most successful species ever.

It seems to me that the growth of private messaging, reversion to personalised even handwritten notes, and emotional engagement of ‘Local’ things is a response to the ‘platformisation’ of our social relationships.

I think it is a trend that will continue and grow.

Now we have the relative unknown of AI coming at us like a train, changing again the basis on which we interact.

Dr Dunbar has little advice on that score.

I wonder if ‘friends’ will ever include Robbie the Robot?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The marketing “C-word”

The marketing “C-word”

 

 

Context. The word is ‘Context’

Marketing is a fundamental contributor to our commercial lives.

It is about defining and leveraging the value you create for another, for which they are prepared to pay, while not being about the transaction.

The beach and Heineken experiment as told by behavioural psychologist Richard Thaler describes beautifully the importance of context.

Two blokes on a beach, very hot, and desperate for a beer.

If they are told there is a shack a kilometre down the beach from which they can buy a Heineken, how much would they pay for the beer?

Same situation exactly, except the shack becomes a 5-star hotel.

The price they are prepared to pay for a Heineken from the 5-star hotel is roughly double the price they expect to pay for the same product from the shack.

This is a classic case of context and expectation; people expect to pay more for the identical product from the 5-star hotel than from the shack.

The utility they get from the beer is identical, only the context of the purchase is different.

How do you leverage the context in which your product is presented to potential customers to maximise your revenue generation?

 

 

 

My website ‘Vegemite’ test

My website ‘Vegemite’ test

 

 

When my kids dropped a piece of toast, or bread on the floor (almost always spread side down) we used to invoke the ‘3 second test’. This was simply that the bugs took three seconds to wake up and realise there was a feed nearby, so if it was retrieved inside that time, it was OK to eat.

Same with a website, almost.

We are all busy, our attention is stretched beyond reasonable limits, and we have no time to waste. So, when your potential customer is researching, or just loitering on the web, you have perhaps 3 seconds to engage them, such that they have a closer look.

In those 3 seconds, you must communicate three things if you are to get them to pay you any of their scarce attention:

  • What problem you solve.
  • Who do you solve it for.  In effect, a written ‘elevator speech’, what you do and why they should listen.
  • Call to action. What you want them to do next.

Pretty obvious?

Give yourself 3 seconds to look at most websites, and ask yourself those three simple questions.

How does yours fare?

PS. For my readers outside Australia, ‘Vegemite’ is a spread for bread and toast we Aussies are brought up on, which the rest of the world thinks looks and tastes like old axle grease.

I bet every ‘Matilda’ has it almost every day!

 

 

When does a forecast become a prediction?

When does a forecast become a prediction?

 

 

Our corporate culture demands that we forecast outcomes in the early stages of almost any project.

Accountants feed on the IRR numbers, and these outcomes find themselves incorporated into all sorts of budgets for which people are held accountable. They change from being a forecast, an assessment of what might happen given a set of assumptions, to become a set of predictions, upon which people careers have become dependent.

Not a good outcome for building a culture that is supportive of innovation, which by its very nature is risky.

Prediction and forecast are often wrongly used as similes.

A prediction is a statement of what will happen.

The sun will rise tomorrow.

A forecast is a statement of what the forecaster believes will happen. It will be subject to all sorts of variables and new information, but it is the best guess given the circumstances.

I have written many business plans that included forecasts, my best guess at what the future would look like. Those best guess forecasts then tend to become the targets, against which performance was measured. This has usually resulted in a balancing act between the IRR numbers, and the forecasts being as low as possible to get a guernsey. Neither is a healthy way to make resource allocation choices.

If you want a prediction about the future, go to the local fair and pay somebody with a crystal ball to tell you. If you want a forecast, find someone who has records, and a routine that updates those records on a fixed timetable, adjusting as they go.

I strongly encourage all my clients to do a weekly 13 week rolling cash forecast. What always happens is that over time, the forecast of the weekly cash balances become increasingly accurate as the many variables become better defined and understood.

Often it is a matter of the choice of words.

Current governor of the Reserve Bank, Philip Lowe chose to set a specific time frame around his forecasts relating to interest rate rises when he said in March 2021 that ‘the cash rate is very likely to remain at its current level until at least 2024‘. This forecast  became a prediction upon which people based their decision to buy a house. After all he is the Reserve bank governor so should know.

Had he just altered his words a little to be more specific about the caveat contained in the term ‘very likely’ to something like: ‘the odds are that interest rates will hold steady for some time‘  it would have remained a forecast, and he might have retained his job when it come to the end of his current contract in September.

For what it is worth, in my view, he should retain his job. He is a talented, experienced and highly qualified economist, not a political wordsmith.

Addendum. Within an hour of publishing this post, it was annpounced that Philip Lowe was to be gone. No extension, pick up your money and go. Nice words all round about how great he was, but piss off, here is the gold watch, go away.

The irony, at least it is to me, is that the current deputy has been appointed in his place. Irrespective of the qualities of the deputy, the job description calls for a culture change in the reserve. Appointing someone to lead that change who is now top cocky because they were able to leverage the existing culture to their benefit is an utter nonsence. A failure of any understanding of the basics of leadership and culture change.

For me, it evokes visions of deck-chairs and icebergs.

 

The SME marketers 3 card marketing budget optimisation trick

The SME marketers 3 card marketing budget optimisation trick

 

No business I have ever seen has enough in their marketing budgets to do all they would like to do. Therefore, they often start cutting bits off ‘willy nilly’ to reach a budget that can be managed.

There is a better way: Basic marketing 101, which most SME’s ignore to their detriment.

What problem do you solve.

The more specific the problem you solve better than anyone else, and the more specific you can be about those who are likely to have that problem, the more able you will be to focus your limited resources productively.

It appears easy at first glance to articulate the problem, often it is way harder than it seems. The key is to articulate it the way a customer would, rather than the way you speak about it internally. That way you have a chance to avoid the drill or the hole confusion.

Your brand.

Those who have the problem and may be inclined to pay someone to solve it for them, need to be aware of your brand, and the offer you make that will solve the problem for them. You must figure out the best way to reach these people in such a way that you may be able to at least add your brand to the list of options they have for consideration. Preferably of course, your brand is the only one they consider.

Trust.

There must be a reason for someone to pick your solution in preference to others that may be available. If that reason is price, then in most cases you have already lost by winning that race to the bottom.

Trust is hard won, and easily lost, but plays a crucial role in any sales process.

For most SME’s doing more than one thing at a time is challenging, so they tend to throw money at all three without adequate consideration of the best options they have to leverage their small budgets. There are many service providers out there who have all sorts of creative and verbally attractive ways to spend your money, but very few will go to the trouble of walking through this minefield with you.

It is easy to be overwhelmed, most are.

However, thinking about the process in these three buckets offers the opportunity to weed out a lot of the ‘noise’, although it is not easy.

The line that trips many up, even those who spend the time to deeply consider these three buckets, is the breakup of the budget between the two very different types of expenditure inherent in the whole process.

First. The resources you spend to build the brand, such that when someone is aware of the problem and is in a mind to consider solving it, your name comes to mind.

Second. ‘Activation’. The tactical means you use to swing the choice your way at the point of the transaction.

The first is long term, and very hard to measure except with hindsight, by which time the horse has bolted. The second is more immediate and subject to at least a modicum of quantitative measures.

The starting point should always be your objective.

Is it to generate leads, is it to build brand awareness, is it to build trust, and where do all these, and other points in the customers decision processes overlap?

Playing cards by yourself is usually a way to win, but it does not translate into a real game. For that you need a real appreciation of the barriers to winning, and often partners.

Call me when you need a partner who inderstands the game.

 

 

How to grab attention in an AI world

How to grab attention in an AI world

 

 

On first glance, the only purpose of a blog post, or indeed any sort of content that comes into your inbox, is to provide some impetus to encourage you towards a transaction.

That remains the case, but if that is the only reason, we have arrived at the point where AI can spit out posts by the dozen that purport to serve that purpose.

Not a good place to spend your time if you are on the receiving end, and it serves to degrade the expected standard of all posts.

By contrast, a post that evolves from an idea, problem, or situation faced by a real business, which is intended to offer some level of insight into the way forward can be of immense value, when the right people find it.

Therein lies the attention challenge of those writing posts intended for the latter reason. How do you get the attention the effort reasonably deserves?

If, like me, you do not care much for the attention, or the lead generation potential of posts, you can then produce them with an entirely different objective.

That objective is to clarify your own thinking sufficiently to be able to articulate it to others. That clarification and articulation is what makes the research, thinking and writing of a post valuable. Whether others see it, think about it, and take some sort of action as a result, is an entirely different challenge.

Posts on StrategyAudit are all of the latter type.

Ideas come from anywhere, and have been the fodder for posts on StrategyAudit for 15 years. There are ideas everywhere. The most useful are those that come from the challenges being faced by those I interact with in some way. These always force creative thinking, the application of one of many ‘mental models’ I have accumulated over 50 years. They often stimulate a creative perspective on what are often mundane and common problems faced in varying ways by all businesses, so are ‘grounded’ by those real situations.

It seems to come back to the thought expressed by Kevin Kelly in an essay in 2008 thinking of the same challenge, as yet not powered by AI, that all you need is 1000 true fans.

Social platforms set out to prevent you doing that by favouring ‘on platform’ communication, while penalising posts that take a reader away. LinkedIn is very explicit about this. Put in a link to an outside site, and you get stuck in ‘LinkedIn Gaol’, just an algorithmic means of severely limiting the number of feeds your posts are fed to. I have been in LinkedIn gaol for years, the only way to see all I write about is to subscribe on the website.

The only way to grab attention is to deserve it, and have those few who find you to refer to others who might benefit. It is a long game, built one by one.

No AI here, guaranteed organic!!