Monthly Archives: March 2012

I Need To Call Dunbar – What’s His Number?

How many people do have in your Rolodex? Actually, do you even have a Rolodex or is the contact list on your phone your go-to list? How many friends on Facebook? How many LinkedIn connections? How many Twitter followers? How many folks do you know from the golf club or the gym or the playground where you take your kids who don’t fall into any of the above categories?

English: present model of Rolodex card file, c...

Image via Wikipedia

For me, the answer is a lot, as in thousands, and I don’t even consider myself to be as socially connected as many folks I know. I also do have a Rolodex – actually four of them – that’s filled with business cards of people who, for the most part are not in the other databases.  Obviously, I am not trying to maintain on-going social relationships with each and every one of them.  That’s where my buddy Dunbar comes in.

Dunbar’s number is an estimation of the number of people with whom one can maintain a stable social relationship.  This theorem was developed way back in the digital dark age of 1992, before interacting with hundreds of your high school friends, and chatting to another hundred college buddies was something you did every five or ten years, not daily.  Dunbar set the number around 150.  Other studies have set comparable numbers at 231 and 290, a fraction of what any college kid has as Facebook friends alone.

Since this is a business blog, I’ll throw out the obvious question.  If we’re trying to engage our customers in conversation as we would friends, are we limited to the Dunbar number with respect to having those sorts of relationships?  Are we kidding ourselves if we believe that an individual will use one of their 150 or even 300 relationship slots for a business entity instead of a cousin?  Or maybe there needs to be another study on how businesses fit into the social ecosystem.

I think Dunbar was right.  When I think about it, the folks to whom I’m truly connected is a small fraction of those connections I have.  I know a network like Path is trying to create that subset by limiting your connections to 150.  What’s your take on that?  Is there an opportunity for a business to create a 150 person VIP network?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media, Thinking Aloud

Blind Tasting

Friday at last and while you might be expecting a lengthy piece on the history of corned beef for our Foodie Friday Fun approaching St. Patrick’s Day, I couldn’t really find any great business points buried in there.  Oh sure, we could have a chat about multiculturalism since corned beef is a food staple in many cultures (and strangely it came late to the Irish culture and it’s really more American Irish than it is native to the Old Sod) but that seems a bit forced.

LOS ANGELES, CA - JANUARY 24:  Wine made by Dr...

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

So for today’s Foodie Fun I want to think about blind tastings, specifically wine tastings.  There have been many examples of unexpected results when all the trappings of a wine are taken away (big name, fancy bottle, vintage year, even what grape).  The most famous of these if the Judgement of Paris which one could claim was the birth of the modern California wine industry and was commemorated in the movie Bottle Shock.  In 1976, California wines were rated higher than many top French wines in a blind tasting held in Paris and judged by mostly French wine experts.  Of course, these same judges believed it would be easy to spot the “inferior” California wines and had any one of them conducted the tasting and written the results on their own, they might have been laughed out of their profession.  Which is, of course, the business point.

There is an old saying that no one ever got fired for buying (pick one – IBM, AT&T, Microsoft, etc.).  It means no one gets fired for making the safe pick and choosing an industry leader. While there are other companies out there with better products or offer similar quality as the market leaders at lower prices, they come with the risk of ridicule should there be a problem.  Speaking as an independent consultant I can tell you that bigger companies, where decision-making is often a group matter, seem to feel most comfortable hiring other big companies – you all know the top consulting firms.  It’s an easy decision to justify.  Too bad – if they were to taste us blind – have a telephone conversation with the people doing their work as well as to look at our fees – the might get the same or better outcomes at better rates.  That’s not just in my field of consulting – many businesses overspend and get inferior results because they don’t do a blind taste test.

If you’ve got concerns about using companies other than the big guys in any field, raise those concerns directly with the firm that rated more highly even thought they’re not the brand name.  Build the answers – service levels, delivery dates, etc. – into the contract.  Ignoring your business palate when it’s telling you something is better – even if it’s a brand with which you’re unfamiliar – is silly.  Who knows – you just might find a $10 bottle that puts the $50 swill to shame.

Enhanced by Zemanta

1 Comment

Filed under Helpful Hints

Planning For Perfect

Anyone who has ever dealt with large numbers knows that near perfection still gives a few exceptions to a standard. If you deal with 100,000 customers in a year and 99.999% of them are happy, there’s still one guy who is dissatisfied. The problem is this: we don’t think about that one guy often enough – we plan for perfect. In an extreme case, some folks won’t even acknowledge that imperfect is possible. That sort of thinking precipitates crises like the oil rig problem in the Gulf.  Workers didn’t raise safety issues out of fear.  The Italian cruise ship didn’t take the safety drills seriously.
What got me thinking about this is the discussion over the Keystone Pipeline as well as some of the reporting on the Japanese nuclear problem.  Putting aside politics (maybe an impossible request, but let’s try), it seems to me that the people involved had been (or are) planning for perfect.  Emergency plans were paid lip-service but not much more and the true impact of a problem is exacerbated by the lack of preparation.

We don’t ask what can go wrong often enough, and when we do we sometimes fall into the “but that will never happen” trap.  If something can go wrong, we should assume it will.  Servers fail.  So does power, including back-up units.  Things get lost in the mail, inclusive of private shippers with full package tracking.  We arrive on business trips without luggage.  No one plans to screw things up and yet things very often end up that way.People don’t always behave honorably even though we might always try to do so ourselves.

If we always plan for perfect, we’re not optimists.  We’re idiots.

Enhanced by Zemanta

1 Comment

Filed under Reality checks