There seems to be some order in the chaos of relationships.

Most of you know Dunbar’s Number. It’s the idea that each and everyone of us has a limited social bandwidth:

“Dunbar’s number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. […] No precise value has been proposed for Dunbar’s number. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 230, with a commonly used value of 150. Dunbar’s number states the number of people one knows and keeps social contact with, and it does not include the number of people known personally with a ceased social relationship, nor people just generally known with a lack of persistent social relationship, a number which might be much higher and likely depends on long-term memory size.”

As we entered industrial society, family- and tribe sizes decreased. Paired with the acceleration of mass media, celebrities started to play an even more significant role in our lives. The strange mass media phenomenon is that certain individuals tends to be included in many people’s tribes, but without reciprocity, of course.

However, in a social media world where you can walk with individuals who you haven’t physically met or spoken to in decades, while still knowing what they had for breakfast, the dynamics of groups are put to the test.

Moreover, I would say I do know 150 people that I’ve spent time with over the years. But I also know 150 colleagues that I’ve had. I would say I know 150 people from the PR industry, for sure. And I know at least 150 social media naturals., and so on. How does this work? I appreciate this model by Viil Lid, PhD candidate in Communication & Information Sciences at University of Hawaii:

The Interest Group Model: How we as individual shift between roles and communities.

When I’m asked what makes the “social media revolution” so special, I always say that never before in human history have we seen human groups forming at such speeds, almost totally independent of demographic factors. It’s the amplification of Dunbar’s Number at interest group level — not due to any sudden increase in our capability to sustain more than 150 relationships.

What makes the effects of digital spread show likeness to viral infections are the fact that there are boundary spanners, individual nodes who has existing relationships in several different types of interest networks. For each of these networks, Liid once again shows us a model that I’ve been using on several of the seminars I’ve given:

The Social Layers Model: We are able to sustain larger networks as ties go weaker.
  • Inner core (3-5 people)
  • Semi-private layer (<150 people)
  • Superficial layer (>150 people)

How many “Dunbar number interest tribes” can a single individual sustain? If we dig deeper into this question, we must also determine the strength of the bindings between individuals. Interestingly enough, we see Dunbar’s number in action once again:

The Group Size Model: How we form groups based on layers.
  • Support clique (3-5 people)
  • Sympathy group (12-20 people)
  • Band (30-50 people)
  • Clan (150 people)
  • Megaband (500 people)
  • Tribe (1,000-2,000 people)

For social media marketing, this explains:

  • Social doesn’t scale, but tapping into several different and pre-existing interest groups does (see also The Engagement Pyramid).
  • Spread is dependent not primarily on volume exposure, but on niches social sharing incentives (see also The Secret Sauce for Social Media Sharing).
  • What you expect from an individual depends primarily on their situational context and communicative behaviour (see also The Publics in Public Relations), not their demographic characteristics.

To build trust is a journey from the periphery to the center. You start any relationship, whether to an individual or a brand, by being a stranger. Not every stranger becomes a friend and the deeper the relationship, the bigger the gravitational effort is required. If you’re creating a campaign, it’s important to cater to the inner circles for sure, but don’t forget the outer circles.

The smart digital strategist will understand this new landscape; not primarily by scaling for clicks or opting for viral content, but by understanding the fascinating dynamics of social psychology in a wired world.

Why passion and authenticity serves as shortcuts to success, and also why sharing is caring and good for business at the same time.

Photo by Pablo Merchán Montes on Unsplash.

avatar
6 Comment threads
13 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
Denise IordacheDoctor SpinKlMattias ÖstmarViil Lid Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
Notify of
Denise Iordache
Guest
Denise Iordache

Thank you for the post and great description of today’s Dunbar’s number. It’s a great reading. I have a question though, regarding the ‘sharing is carrying’ piece you mention in your article. How much should we share with the different layers? Should you say the message should be consistent throughout all 3 of them (inner, semi-private and superficial)? Or perhaps some differentiation should be in order? Cheers!

Denise Iordache
Guest
Denise Iordache

Hey Jerry! Thanks for the reply. Great input. I was actually thinking of something very similar, but was not sure if this would be the way to go, due to the lack of resources. I believe differentiation is very important, but I can’t seem to see it put to work in an online community setting, like Facebook for example.

I think it is more important to focus on one core message/engagement technique that can relate to everyone in the community and to outsiders of course, rather than creating different levels of engagement. I mean, at the end of the day all members will have access to the same message and they don’t like to be differentiated.

Of course, you can argue that some specific involvement/co-creation could be achieved through 1 on 1 communication, but that’s hard to achieve in my opinion, not to mention all the resources that will be consumed doing so. Maybe there is a why of having the best out of the two worlds?!

Viil Lid
Guest

Thanks for the shout out Jerry :) This is all related to my current PhD research.

Mattias Östmar
Guest
Mattias Östmar

Very interesting, Jerry! I’d love to read more on this topic, especially an elaboration on what you think might happen from a business perspective when attracting the wrong interest groups into the funnel. From where I look that is most likely the case when a lot of companies are entering social media for the wrong reasons (everyone else is doing it, we need to in order for anyone to know we exist etc). What’s your general advice for businesses defining right and wrong audiences for them, where is a good place to start, so to say?

Mattias Östmar
Guest
Mattias Östmar

That would be great fun – let’s have a cup together and see where we get!

Mats Adamczak
Guest

Thxs for a great post! I will refer to it in the future. I don’t know what kind of experience you have from small sociatis and how they use social medias mostly Facebook. Where I live (Åland islands) we have already used networking like that you mentioned long time before social media. Now with Facebook it has been amplified and I can see signs that it has started to change our communication behavior.

I have written about it here, unfortunate is it in Swedish.

mediasres
Guest
mediasres

There are some great things going on here, especially getting firm on the notion of scaling. What I most take from here are the two lower numbers (support clique and sympathy group). From my experiences these two zones aren’t paid attention to enough, and they spin out of my essential notions of trianglization as a social media form (always speaking to the invisible 3rd). These are the gestation groups and require specific nourishing I believe. Great article. Lots to be sifted through.

Nick Kellet
Guest
Nick Kellet

I loved Kevin’s Invisible 3rd notion from the moment he mentioned it. I use the term Lurkers a lot – We’d been into a conversation on G+ about dunbar, which was why I flipped Kevin and Ric the link.

Thanks for the nudge @mediasres:disqus – Did you ever write a post on the invisible 3rd?

mediasres
Guest
mediasres

Nick, I’ve never written explicitly about the invisible 3rd, as per Social Marketing or Media, but I do believe this forms what I would call “a social molecule”, a fundamental way of expressing oneself such that molecular bonds can be made between yourself, your possible interlocutor, and the 3rd. I would love to write about this though. I’ve written about it only in Philosophical contexts as it relates to Epistemology and also in consulting contexts for instance in training people how to community manage.

Kl
Guest
Kl

Great Idea. Sounds like a very valuable tool. 

Nick Kellet
Guest
Nick Kellet

Ah. I tried to comment before when I read this via @zite:disqus except it failed.

I was meaning to write a similar post. You saved me from doing all the thinking!

How many groups am I in with 150+ people. 

Wow. That’s quite a list

I love jumping spaces from Fashion to CRM to B2B / BI software to board games to consumer web / social media apps.

I’ve always felt Dunbar was flawed and that Social Media was raising the (dun)bar!

Thanks for the Tweet. That made it easy to find my way back! You can’t beat a digital footprint.

Looking forward to reading more of you posts

Nick Kellet
Guest
Nick Kellet

Livefyre’s support is second to none. Just @ mention them with your problem. I use them for me and for listly.