When we are children, we know no-one more than those in our immediate circle – such as our family and their friends. After this we are plopped into a crèche where we are subjected to non-family acquaintances for the very first time. If we are to call this group of non-family acquaintances ‘friends’ (whether we can truly grasp the notion of friendship at this point is another matter) then these, as per Ustinov’s quote, would be my friends by default because they got there first. When we then go to primary school another set of peers appear before us, at which point, if we are to embark on a relationship with them, which we would call friendship, this new group of people have become our friends but they did not get there first. Empirical evidence here shows that, considering our friends are not all a part of this initial crèche-circle of non-family acquaintances, friends are not those who simply got there first.
Here I will show that we have a numerical limitation on how many friends we can have, and that the importance of friends is not about how many you have, but the quality of that relationship. This is the mistake that businesses are making at the moment, and it is this real-world observation that businesses should be mirroring.
Dunbar’s Number: Limitation on Friendship
The capacity of our brains is such that we can grasp the concept of only so many relationships; there is a finite number to the amounts of names, faces and past histories we can store. Dunbar’s number is a theory that puts this number at approximately 150 people, as due to the size of our neocortex we cannot hold any more stable relationships than that in our mind. But we meet far more than 150 people in our lives – which I can see when I look at my 500+ friends on my facebook page. It is not the case that the 150 group is always only ever the same people, or that once you’re in you won’t be pushed out and replaced. There are many friends we lose along the way – friends with whom we lose contact because you left school or thought they were idiots (of which both factors are not mutually exclusive). This interestingly has led to the ‘facebook de-friending’ phenomenon – deleting the excess friends from facebook who you realise you don’t know well enough any more.
If we take Dunbar’s theory and accept this approximate limitation of our friendship groups at 150, then there must be several factors that lead to an acquaintance being in our 150 group or not. Examples of these qualities may be:
- Frequency of contact
- Like-mindedness
Size doesn’t matter, it’s what you do with them that counts
It is quality of this friendship and not the quantity of friends that is valuable and important here. As a consequence of this you are far more likely to take advice from your closest friends, which is why being advocated by word of mouth is so valuable. This is the kind of quality friendship that brands should want to have with their consumers. But the market at the moment measures itself quantifiably, which is not how we measure good relationships in the real world.
So listen, brands
The advertising world has become obsessed with these quantifiable numbers; how many likes or fans a facebook page has, how many followers a twitter-er has or how many subscribers a feed has. Yes, these numbers have their place – they show a specific and genuine reaction to that content which shows an expressed interest in that brand. This is real-time, honest, measurable data and is by no means inconsequential. But it needs to go further than quantity of numbers. It needs to be valuable because of the quality of the relationship that you have with that brand, just as you need this with your closest friends. This is the type of conversation that brands should be having with their fans, ones that mirror our friendship in the real world, taking into consideration qualities such as like-mindedness and frequency of contact. I will briefly show how real life friendship is comparable to brand interaction.
You need to keep in touch
A conversation between brand and fan must be upheld once interest has been initiated, not forgotten about. Many brands make the mistake of not keeping consumers engaged once they have gathered all these willing and interested brand interactors. It’s all well saying you have a zillion fans – but they won’t be your fans for long if you forget about them, and you will no longer be top of mind.
But at the other end of the spectrum we can’t over contact people – or we will bombard them and the brand will be seen as annoying, which dependent on your objectives could really tarnish a brand’s name. There needs to be a considered balance drawn between over and under contact.
… And to understand their situation
We must know the people we are talking to, and make the conversation relevant. Consumers are overly aware about impersonal carpet messages or cold calls that are sent simply to achieve coverage. This is no longer good enough – they expect you to tailor the message to you to make it relevant to their lives. But you also can’t be seen to know too much about them. There is also a fine line here that has to be drawn between being inattentive and being over-attentive – we don’t want to be seen as creepy overseers of their every move.
= loyal friend and advocate of your brand
Real life relationships should be mirrored in the business world, as from qualities such as this come consumer trust and loyalty, the characteristics every brand wants in their customers. These are your long time purchasers who become true advocates of your brand. They may not have got there first, but they may be the last to leave.
Comments (0) 
Themocracy
