Thinkers and Doers

Can Companies Fit into the Dunbar 150?

Posted on February 1, 2010 by Matt Whiting — 7 Comments

Ever since I joined Facebook in 2004 (and MySpace at some forgettable moment likely before then), I’ve been interested to see how social networking impacts an individual’s social structure. When one of my more outgoing friends reached the 1,000-friends mark during Facebook’s first year, my interest in that question intensified. Would this friend truly be able to maintain meaningful relationships with such a large group of people?

Friend Request Accepted (Dentyne)

The short, predictable answer is no, and countless numbers of people have been interested in this very question, including, most famously, Robin Dunbar, professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at Oxford University. Though the results of his study will be published later this year,  the Times Online has the early scoop on Dunbar’s latest findings. Some key excerpts below.

Dunbar is now studying social networking websites to see if the “Facebook effect” has stretched the size of social groupings. Preliminary results suggest it has not.

“The interesting thing is that you can have 1,500 friends but when you actually look at traffic on sites, you see people maintain the same inner circle of around 150 people that we observe in the real world,” said Dunbar.

“People obviously like the kudos of having hundreds of friends but the reality is that they’re unlikely to be bigger than anyone else’s.”

Having some scientific proof of this constraint, how will this affect how companies attempt to become a part of their customers’ online life?

Image by acordova

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Posterous
  • Tumblr
  • email

Tags: , , ,

7 Comments

CurmudgIan on February 1, 2010

Companies, like people I suspect, will try and develop as many loose connections as possible but will only really focus on having deep relationships or engaging with the 20% of them that hold will account for 80% of their interactions/transactions.

Jeremy Meyers on February 1, 2010

I think the thing that people tend to miss in this debate is that while the upper limit (according to dunbar) is 150, the people/brands contained in that 150 can shift.

Also, I dont need to dedicate nearly as much attention to, say, Nutella (who i am a fan of on facebook), as i would to a close friend that i’m keeping up with. Companies would do well to keep this in mind in terms of the amount and quality of information they choose to share via social networks. More isn’t necessarily better.

Matt Whiting on February 1, 2010

The more time people spend on social networks, the less patience they will have for corporate interests that are just looking to take without exchanging anything of value in return. As people become more aware of their finite ability to stay connected, they will become thoughtful about which groups/fan pages they join. It will be increasingly important for companies to give their customers a reason to want them to be a part of their lives. Being seen as an over-communicative nuisance won’t be good for anyone.

Geekgiant on February 1, 2010

A few caveats with Dunbar’s number. Note the phrase “meaningful relationship.” This is largely a subjective definition and as such can shift with the individual.

If we define it as both parties in a relationship extracting some sort of value, then that number at any given time a) can contain a brand and b) is probably much smaller than 150.

Just my $.02

Matt Whiting on February 1, 2010

Dunbar’s number certainly refers to people but it’s interesting (at least to me) to think about this observed social limit and how it will affect other parts of an individual’s online life.

Besides, if the Supreme Court’s giving corporations the same rights as humans, perhaps we should start thinking about them differently as well…

CurmudgIan on February 2, 2010

Upon deeper reflection and reading the discussion above, I think the real answer lies in whether people will allow companies into their 150. That’s a lot of trust to muster and promises to keep for a corporation.

Micheal Foley on February 3, 2010

I don’t need to have a “meaningful relationship” with a company. That’s why branding was invented.

Because my relationship with Coca-Cola doesn’t have to be deep or meaningful, the soda company can get away with just portraying a superficial version of itself (a brand, an ad, a motto or mantra, etc.).

The key is, of course, to be able to offer a “meaningful relationship” with some of your top customers who do make room for you in their 150.

How can companies do both well?

Leave a Reply

← Back to WaggenerEdstrom.com