Learn to use sociology techniques to derive a clear, precise and quantifiable definition for relationships, then apply the resulting concepts to brand-customer relationship. We will explore the metrics and potential ways to measure and quantify relationship and address the question of whether we can beat the Dunbar Limit of 150 friends.
We will also revisit the Dunbar Limit and its implication for brands under the concept of attention economy. How can brands can leverage various components of a relationship to build stronger customer relationship to bring ROI through loyalty and influence?
Transcript: #StandardsGoals for 2024: What’s new for BISAC - Tech Forum 2024
Social: Session 5: The Science of Relationship
1. Track: Social
The Science of Relationship
Michael Wu, PhD (mich8elwu)
Principal Scientist of Analytics @ Lithium
April 24th, 2012
2. agenda
▪ Introduction: CRM data
▪ Development and maintenance of relationship
• Anthropology: complementarity between social network and community
▪ Interpersonal relationship and the Dunbar limit
• Sociology: the attention economy
▪ Customers relationship (with brands)
• Application: dealing with the Facebook irony
▪ Future work
twitter: mich8elwu
#scon12 linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD
3. what’s the “R” in social CRM
▪ What data do CRM system store?
• Contact record
• email, phone, address
• twitter, facebook, linkedin?
• Transaction record
• purchase/sales history
• order/fulfillment data
• Support record
• support case history
• service delivery data
▪ Where’s the “r”elationship data in CRM system?
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 3
4. Today’s CRM system
“R” ≈ record
≠ relationship
#scon12 twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 4
5. where do we find relationship data?
▪ On social media
• Facebook
• Linkedin
▪ It’s a huge
ecosystem of
tools+services
▪ There are too
many places to
look!
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 5
6. where do we find relationship data?
▪ On social media
• Facebook
• Linkedin
▪ It’s a huge
ecosystem of
tools+services
▪ There are too
many places to
look!
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 5
7. Social is not new!
Human have been
social since they
were caveman
#scon12 twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 6
8. Social anthropology
perspective of social
Tech relationship
1. Social network
2. Community
#scon12 twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 7
9. Social anthropology
perspective of social
Tech relationship
1. Social network
2. Community
#scon12 twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 7
10. how do social networks form?
A story of how Bob’s social Emeryville
network was built = community
weak ties
Bob strong ties
old members
new / casual
members
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 8
11. how do social networks form?
Emeryville
college = community
Social networks form
naturally within
communities as people
establishes relationships
Social network
maintains relationships
as people move
work between communities
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 9
12. what do real social network data look like?
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 10
13. communities vs. social networks (on/offline)
▪ Social Network ▪ Community
• Held together by pre-existing • Held together by some common
interpersonal relationships interests of a large group of
between individuals people
• You know everyone in your • Most people, especially new
network (ego-network), people members, do not know majority of
who are connected to you directly the members in the community
• Each person has only one social • Any one person may be part of
network, despite there are many many communities at any given
social network platforms time
• Structure: Network • Structure: Hierarchical,
overlapping & nested
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 11
14. communities vs. social networks (on/offline)
▪ Social Networks ▪ Community
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 12
15. lifecycle of relationships
disconnected Easy!
do
1. creating All it takes is
something a weak tie an “hello”
bad
weak tie
2. building
do tie strength
nothing
strong tie 3. maintaining
relationship
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 13
16. But what is
relationship?
#scon12 twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 14
17. the components of a relationship
▪ Relationship: sociology perspective
• A tie or a connection between two entities (e.g.
people, companies, cities, or even nations)
• Tie strength = strength of the relationship
▪ Granovetter: components of tie strength
• Time: amount of time spent together
• Intensity: emotional intensity & sense of closeness
• Trust: intimacy or mutual confiding (transparency)
• Reciprocity: amount of reciprocal services
▪ Strong relationships requires more time & attention
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 15
18. the attention economy
▪ We only have 24 hours a
day
▪ We only have fixed amount
of attention
▪ How many meaningful
relationship can we have?
via nielsen
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 16
19. ~150: the Dunbar number (or Dunbar limit)
▪ Prof. Robin Dunbar found a
relationship between brain
size of primate species and
their group size 148
▪ Extrapolate data from 38
primate species to human
neocortex ratio Dunbar
number = 148 (~150)
▪ Verified by surveying pre- we know the human neocortical ratio
industrial villages/tribes
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 17
20. does Dunbar limit still applies in modern society?
▪ Order our relationship from wife
children
the strongest (immediate parents
family) to the weakest
(acquaintance) siblings
tie strength
▪ This creates a relationship close friends
profiles for each person
acquaintance
▪ In pre-industrial villages &
tribes, people only know …………
~150 people on average 16 ~150
# of relationships
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 18
21. does Dunbar limit still applies in modern society?
▪ Dunbar’s limit may not wife
children
apply in modern society b/c parents
• necessity for social cohesion is
substantially lower
• communication (an important part siblings
tie strength
of socializing) is much more close friends
efficient
acquaintance
▪ But our brain hasn’t …………
changed for millennia…
16 ~150
# of relationships
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 19
22. we can have more than 150 friends
if have fewer strong ties
tie strength
attention shift from
stronger ties to weaker ties
strong ties ~150 weak ties
# of relationships
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 20
23. we can have more than 150 friends
We can shift our time/attention around, but the total
amount of time/attention remain roughly the same
if have weaker strong ties
area under the area under the
tie strength
yellow relationship profile = blue relationship profile
attention shift from
stronger ties to weaker ties
strong ties ~150 weak ties
# of relationships
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 21
24. What about the
relationship between
customers & brands?
customer relationship < personal relationship
(with brands) (with people)
always weaker
#scon12 twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 22
25. the Facebook irony
▪ Facebook contains a lot of our strong ties
• By definition, these stronger ties will demand more attention, and will win more
of your limited time/attention
▪ Irony: because Facebook is “too good” at maintaining our
strong ties, it created problems for itself:
• In the presence of strong ties, weaker ties
are harder to develop into strong ones but it’s too fast for your dog
• If you already have strong relationship with
your customers. Great! maintain them
with Facebook is the way to go
• Otherwise, the strong ties on Facebook will
hinder the development of weak ties
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 23
26. How can brands
build stronger
relationships with
their customers?
#scon12 twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 24
27. component #1: time
▪ “time” = time spent together desire = mutual
≠ duration of relationship
▪ “time” increases tie strength trust
if the desires to spend time
together is mutual time
LOVE
reciprocity
intensity
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 25
28. component #1: time
▪ “time” = time spent together desire = non-mutual
≠ duration of relationship
▪ “time” increases tie strength trust
if the desires to spend time
together is mutual time
▪ Key: know when your reciprocity
customers want to spend
time with you, and be there intensity
HATE
for them
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 26
29. component #2: intensity
▪ Customers’ intensity for
brands is much lower than
their intensity for friends
trust
▪ It is genetic! We have no
control over it
time
▪ Tactic: appeal to greater reciprocity
causes that customers
have strong emotions for
intensity
▪ Key: don’t try too hard on
this component
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 27
30. component #3: trust
▪ Transparency creates an
environment that’s more
conducive for building trust
trust
▪ 2 types of transparency
• brand–customer time
• blog, twitter, etc
reciprocity
• customer–customer
• community discussion forum
intensity
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 28
31. component #3: trust
▪ People trust themselves, so trust
they tend to trust brands
that co-create with them
▪ 2 types of co-creation
• passive: listening + collect customer input time
• active: crowdsourced ideation + filtering reciprocity
▪ Key:
1. Create transparent & authentic intensity
communication channels to
customers & among customers
2. Co-create with your customers
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 29
32. component #4: reciprocity
▪ Reciprocity = 2 way
reciprocal services
▪ Customer Brands trust
• Make it easy for them to help other
customers of yours
• Reward them properly and serve time
right
reciprocity
▪ Create a sustainable cycle
of reciprocity by co-creation
intensity
▪ Key: don’t forget to let your
customer help you
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 30
33. building customer relationship
▪ Customer community
• Opt-in: it’s there when the
customers want it
• May have a great cause trust
• Transparent channel
• Platform for co-creation
time
• Enables reciprocity
reciprocity
▪ Customer relationship are
build the same way as intensity
inter-personal relationships,
in a community
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 31
34. Now we know how
relationships are built,
can we measure it?
#scon12 twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 32
35. not yet, but each pillar is ~quantifiable~
how transparent is your
how deep are the at what rate are
how much time spent in engagements brand to your customers?
reciprocal and
your brand community? with your brand?
how responsive you are mutual services
how much time spent sentiment ratio, to your customers? being carried
engaging & participating emotions out?
how many inter-customer
on your fan page,
discussion do you enable?
youtube channel, etc.? hard to measure. But
that’s OK, b/c it’s hard at what rate are content
to influence too being co-created w/ your
customers?
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 33
36. future CRM
Big challenges:
Combining the metrics for the 4 pillars
into a single metric that quantifies the
strength of relationship.
There are nonlinear dependencies
between the 4 pillars of a relationship, so
a simple linear model, such a weighted
average, won’t be sufficient.
Hopefully, future CRM will not only have
data on your customers’ relationship with
your brand, but also the strength of
relationships among your customers.
#scon12
twitter: mich8elwu
linkedin.com/in/MichaelWuPhD 34