The Case for Customer Communities

You're probably familiar with the concept of Dunbar's number. The Wikipedia entry defines it as a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person.

This number is set at 150 connections. Dunbar theorizes that "this limit is a direct function of relative neocortex size, and that this in turn limits group size ... the limit imposed by neocortical processing capacity is simply on the number of individuals with whom a stable inter-personal relationship can be maintained."

Not every company caps the number of customers at 150, however. Which means that if they indeed intend to have relationships with their customers (beyond the sales person closing the deal) they need to scale up the number of people who support customers. Each of those people counts personal relationships - family, friends, past colleagues, peers, etc. - in their Dunbar number.

Theoretically, there is a correlation between the customer relationships a company hopes to have, and the number of people dedicated to cultivating those relationships. However, as Doc Searls said so well a few years back, companies are not doing that. Because "Customer Relationship Management" is about management more than customers.

This is one data point.

Lee Rainie, the director of the Pew Internet & American Life Project, says: “People who are members of online social networks are not so much ‘networking’ as they are ‘broadcasting their lives to an outer tier of acquaintances who aren’t necessarily inside the Dunbar circle.’” 

Which means that since many more people are online these days, there are many more chances they will broadcast their experiences to others. People who are online can also be your customers. When people are introduced to a system where everyone has amplifiers, there may be less relationships, not more.

However, the weak ties in our network have a role and function.

As author Albert-Laszlo Barabasi explains in Linked: “Weak ties play a crucial role in our ability to communicate with the outside world ... [our friends] move in the same circles we do and are inevitably exposed to the same information. To get new information we have to activate our weak ties. The weak ties ... obtain their information from different sources than our immediate friends.”

This is a second data point.

Where is all this leading you? Perhaps you should organize your Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system around social. Today at Fast Company Expert blog we explore the question can you just add a "stay in touch" function to your customer relationships management (CRM) to make it social? Will that make it more about customers, thus social, than management?

While we consider and explore the possibility that technology could give us the ability to keep up with it all, I think there is a good alternative for companies that wish to be in service of their customers. It's called community. It takes care of Dunbar's number, and it comes with its own challenges.

First of which is the community size. You need to have critical mass in order to have enough member diversity - some will engage actively, some will watch on the sidelines, some will be somewhere in between.

From my on work with groups in school, I can tell you that between 5-7 per group is a good number. Conversations that help bridge across groups, or even help groups rotate should help with expanding relationships and broadening the trust base within the community.

For a community to sustain itself you want also to have good participation among members. That's why it's often smart to have a community facilitator. Because customers are the lifeblood of your business, this is potentially a c-role, as Connie Bensen explains.

Community shouldn't be just for the brand. It should be in service of its customers. 

I used to create the content for the speaking tracks at a yearly Rendez-vous we organized at a boutique consulting firm where I worked. I just came back from a customer conference - 300 were in attendance. I had the good fortune of meeting many for the first time in person, which still makes a tremendous difference in relationships.

The event was aptly named, the future is now. There has never been a better time to make the case for customer community. And yes, your company or business should have a Chief Customer Advocate. I'd go so far as saying that this position should be in the marketing group. Which may be interesting for companies that have sales and marketing reporting into the same person.

There's plenty to think about when it comes to community. Have you built or facilitated a community or a social network? Do you consider them the same thing? Why/why not?

[a graphical representation of the Dunbar's number. A group photo from The Future is Now]

Comments

[Rob van Alphen]

The problem with social media research is the lack of clear definitions & a way to categorize the tools.

To define an online community, I believe the one of Iriberri & Leroy (based on 9 of the most used definitions) is a great help.
They define it as: ... "cyberspaces supported by computer-based information technology, centered upon communication and interaction of participants to generate member-driven content, resulting in a relationship being built."

You could say communities and social networks are synonyms, but I think communities are more linked to 'participation' & co-creation, unlike social networks which I consider more as a collection of individuals with a mutual interest.

Much research has yet to be done, though, to paint a clear picture of the social media landscape.

[Stuart Foster]

Communities and social networks are two very different things. Mainly because many different communities can exist on the same social network. I look at social networks as the place where communities interesting to me, a company that I work for, or for other interests can exist.

Therefore, I advocate community building above all else when it comes to exploring/utilizing SM as a company. Why would you build the framework of a social network into your site when many free (and already populated)options exist?

Figure out where your customers are and go form a community to tie them together. It doesn't matter if they aren't directly under control within your own social network. Just utilize the community.

[Manila Austin]

I couldn’t agree more that communities are an important form of social networks. At Communispace (http://www.communispace.com) we define community as “any group of people who share common interests, interact with one another and form ongoing, reciprocal relationships over time.” Companies wishing to utilize communities need to interact with people, not necessarily as suppliers of goods or services, but as relationship partners—authentic, transparent, and “real”.

In our research we have explored why people engage in various types of networks and communities and believe that different SM approaches deliver against specific social needs—some networking sites (like Facebook.com) clearly provide a means for identity expression (as well as a way to maintain strong—or weak—ties); others, such as FlyerTalk.com provide ways to elevate our status (e.g., becoming “moderators” if we are influential enough within the network). Communities are special, because more than other forms of SM, they can ground people in reciprocal relationships and can provide a sense of continuity and connection that is pretty rare today.

Why should companies care about all this? Being more human with people (or interacting with them more "humanly", if you will, through SM) builds relationships, uncovers insights, and reveals the "whys" behind people's attitudes and behavior.

[Rebecca]

Great post. Alice will be based on a community and we hope we will thrive as a result.

Although I disagree with Stuart a bit above. I used to strongly believe that there was so much duplication (for instance, in the "real world" nonprofits pop up like popcorn), and that people should plug into the existing efforts, initiatives or social networks in this case.

But the more I am involved in social networks and building community, I see that there are good reasons to create new networks for communities to sprout from. It's kind of like if I go to the same coffee shop with my friends and have the same conversations. Simply going to a sushi bar instead might change everything.

[Stuart Foster]

True Rebecca, but I was thinking for more established business models when I was thinking about developing widgets. Would you design a new social network for one that already existed? I do tend to see this...

It's obviously community/product dependent you just have to make a judgment call on which one will work best for you.

[Frank Strong]

Interestingly enough the military has used that 150 number throughout history. Military units are typically organized into a unit called a "company" which has roughly 150 people. It's typically the first "command" authority (which holds special authority by commission) in a larger structure -- i.e. a battalion, brigade, regiment, division, corps, etc.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Rob - thank you for giving us a definition. Growing up with group work and collaboration among people, sometimes I forget that tools want definitions. I agree with you on the difference between social network and community. There is a purpose to community in wanting to build something together.

@Stuart - I tend to agree more with Rebecca's extension to your comment. There are instances where a community is best seeded from the ground up, so to speak. While you read control over growing something, I read care to curate and help develop something. Hey, I built a community with a subset of the social network of Fast Company, from scratch. One could have argued that I should have sought to find like-minded individuals in existing professional associations I belonged to. They didn't meet the needs of the broader business community, so I endeavored to offer something different. We were fully engaged for almost nine years - that's a long time.

@Manila - I think I read about Communispace in Gorundswell. Thank you for adding to the conversation.

@Rebecca - interesting take on why. I had a slightly different philosophy for thinking developing a community is also good. See above in response to Stuart.

@Frank - excellent addition to the discussion. Every year, for four years in a row, I met the leaders of the military academies at the Wharton Leadership Forum and indeed, they have utilized Dunbar's number well.

[Steve Hershberger]

Excellent post. Recently, there have been a number of discussions around Dunbar's Number and an idea has floated to the surface called Dunbar's Mass (a working name, I suppose).

Essentially the idea behind this is because of the efficiency of social networking and community tools, that our ability to influence and interface effectively beyond our strong ties, that the glass ceiling of 150 connections might not apply as Dunbar had in mind...Instead, (and maybe) an individual might have a variety of places that do not independently violate Dunbar's principal. Most people spend their time shuttling back and forth between community hubs and various nodes (places of strong and weak ties that align with their areas of interest and/or needs), having a NUMBER of defined places to interact allows for a broader, more organized and richer personal experience rather might otherwise be possible. The way it was described in a recent conversation I had was like living in one small town where you lived and worked but having friends and relatives in other small towns you also visited and were comfortable in. Each was independent but still part of your personal (larger social network structure). Whether this is right or wrong is still debatable but an interesting concept to try and prove out.

[Heather Rast]

Hi, Valeria. This post got me thinking about professional and personal relationships in a new way. I've more to noodle about this, and I'll thank you for bringing this idea to the forefront.

Yes, I've been part of a community that might be interesting to share. At one former employer, we created an annual event that spanned 3-4 business days. The event had both social activities (dining, organized games, entertainment) and brain-feeding activities (speakers, product demo's, guest keynotes, etc.). It was a great opportunity for our clients to network, discuss common issues, and get to know their project managers on a personal level. Our client extranet also supported cross-client sourcing and messaging, and I found that clients frequently asked their peers about problem-solving.

A couple of tactics. To your point, I believe a more comprehensive review and plan could be even more effective and help drive a cultural shift.