The Science of Social Networks #3: Copycats

"To each his own." Everyone has their own unique preferences, right? We're in complete control of what we like and what we don't like, right? No one can tell us what to think or do except ourselves, right? Well... what if I told you that, in the context of our social networks, we are all actually "copycats" - imitating our friends, conforming to expectations, and pining for what other people desire?

The Science of Social Networks Series will cover some of the more interesting insights and findings from the Nicholas A. Christakis and James H. Fowler book "Connected" and discuss how they might apply to marketers attempting to build closer connections with their consumers. In the final post in this series, Part 3, "Copycats", we'll take a look at how the actions and expectations of our social network influences what we do.


People Imitate Each Other

"No man is an island." It's true, don't you think? We're never truly alone: our social networks surround us both online and off. One of the consequences of always being a small part within a larger group is that many of the decisions that we make - what to eat, where to go, what to buy - are influenced by those around us. We imitate each other. And guess what, we choose to imitate each other. As social critic Eric Hoffer puts it, "When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other." Iain Couzin of Princeton University looks at group dynamics from a different angle in his comments about shoals of fish from an article in The Economist, "If the models are anything to go by, the best outcome for the group—in this case, not being eaten—seems to depend on most members being blissfully unaware of the world outside the shoal and simply taking their cue from others."

Think back a few months, to the beginning of January. It's a time of New Years resolutions. One resolution that many people have is the desire to lose weight - by eating better, exercising more, and perhaps even going for a run (or aiming to go for a run) every day. You may have had one or more friends who made this proclamation and went about trying to lose weight. You yourself might have even been that friend. According to the authors of Connected, hearing that people are going for a run - just the thought of it - dramatically increases the odds that you or one of your friends will soon try running as well: "If you start a running program, then your friend might copy you and start-running; or you might invite your friend to go running with you."

"We are all capable of thinking with our heads, but our hearts keep in touch with the crowd."

Knowing this has a huge influence on how marketers might go about attempting to spread an idea, product, or behaviour. As the authors state, "Social networks generate behaviour that is not consistent with the simplified, idealized image of a rational buyer and seller picking a price to transact the sale of goods." But that, indeed, is how most marketers think of their consumers: as rationally-minded people plotting the pros and cons of their brand and its price while deciding whether to buy it or not. In fact, making activities, transactions, and "Likes" as visible as possible seems to be a more intuitive way of making a sale - of leading a sheep to the slaughter, to put it bluntly. Think about "Liking" brands and products via Facebook's ubiquitous "Like" button. It's not hard to fathom a future in which every single action or decision can result in a "Like" being broadcast to our network. Another way to allow people to publicize their behaviour is by allowing them to "Check-in" to places and retailers (ie. FourSquare), content like TV shows and books (ie. GetGlue) and even individual products (ie. ???). Making their actions public is key - because it increases the odds that their friends will copy them.


People Want to Conform to Expectations

Another somewhat surprising, somewhat not-so-surprising insight from Connected: people will genuinely prefer to do what is expected of them, or what has been set out as the social norm, even if that action conflicts with their own individual preferences and beliefs. The authors illustrate this phenomenon with the story of Stanley Milgram's social psychology experiments at Yale University in 1963. In the experiment, a subject was placed in the role of the "teacher", with the job of helping another, unseen subject (the "student") learn. The "teacher" was instructed by one of the experiment's "researchers" to give the "student" a powerful electric shock every time they answered a test question incorrectly.

The reality is that this entire set-up was a charade: the "researcher" and the "student" were actors meant to test the "teacher's" tendency to conform to expectations and authority. As the "student" continued to answer the "teacher's" questions incorrectly, the electric shocks seemed to get worse and worse (the "student's" screams were, in actuality, faked). Many of the subjects who played the role of the "teacher" began to become increasingly distressed as the experiment went on and the screams from the "student" got louder. The reason that most "teachers" continued to shock the "students" is simple: the "researcher" would continually tell them that they were expected to continue or that the experiment required them to continue. To read more about Milgram's experiments, click here.

"[People] have a tendency to relinquish their decision-making to a group and to its hierarchy, especially when they are under stress."

Does this mean that we, as marketers, should be telling people that they must buy our products? Of course not! :) But the lesson from Milgram's experiment is that when behavioural expectations are set by an expert or authority figure - there's an increased chance that people will follow, regardless of their own desires. One area where this insight may be particularly useful is social marketing - attempting to shift social behaviour, like preventing teens from doing drugs or convincing people to recognize mental health as an illness. By setting expectations and letting people know how they should be acting, they may just follow suit.


People Want What Other People Want

The final insight into how our social networks influence our behaviour: people tend to desire what other people desire. When an object or situation is coveted by a certain group of people, it inherently puts pressure on other groups of people to covet it as well. As the authors put it: "Our judgement about the value and desirability of goods is thus similar to our judgement about the value and desirability of sexual partners: it depends on how others perceive the object of affection in question. Social pressures can drive demand."

In the same respect, being able to see what others thought of something can be a guide to how desirable that something is - and may thus influence what the succeeding people think about it. According to the authors, scientists found that in an experiment that asked the subjects to rate a given song, the first person's rating tended to influence the whole trajectory of ratings for particular songs. If the first reviewer rated a song relatively highly (and so, desireable), those reviewing the song after were more likely to also rate it highly. "Because of our tendency to want what others want, and because of our inclination to see the choices of others as an efficient way to understand the world, our social networks can magnify what starts as essentially random variation."

"Groups of animals often make what look like wise decisions, even when most of the members of those groups are ignorant of what is going on." -The Economist, Feb. 24, 2011

The lesson in this case is clear: one way for marketers to make their brands and products desirable is to make it clear that many people desire them - to make this desirability public. This need not only apply to brands and products, but deals and offers, too. Take Groupon, for example. Not only does passing on a daily deal to one's friends show that an offer is good - it shows that it's desirable. That, in turn, makes you want to get it, too. Shweet is an up and coming build on the Groupon model that aims to spread contests rather than deals. In order to be entered into a marketer's specified contest, one must tweet or share it (called "shweeting" it) with one's friends and followers. When the set number of "shweets" is met, the contest is activated. A meter below each contest shows the relative number of "shweets" - representing a contest's relative desirability.


Still believe in "to each his own"? As we've seen, we may be giving people too much individual credit when it comes to choosing how to behave and what to like or do. People tend to imitate each other. They'll tend to conform to the expectations and norms that are set upon them. They'll also tend to want the things that others want. And so, by making actions, behaviours, and desires as public as possible, marketers can tap into the power of... copycats.

The Science of Social Networks #2: The Mating Game

"Your friends’ friends’ friends affect everything you feel, think, and do." That may be true when it comes to behaviour like eating habits and leisure activities - but what about the influence that our friends have over us in the realm of relationships? Do the same rules apply to the mating game, and if so, how can marketers tap into them in order to "meet" potential lovers?

The Science of Social Networks Series will cover some of the more interesting insights and findings from the Nicholas A. Christakis and James H. Fowler book "Connected" and discuss how they might apply to marketers attempting to build closer connections with their consumers. Part 2, "The Mating Game", will explore how our social networks can influence our relationships with both lovers and brands.


Birds of a Feather...

The first insight about what people are looking for in a potential mate has less to do with our friends and more to do with ourselves - how we view ourselves, to be more exact. How we view ourselves seems to have a direct influence on who we end up connecting with. In a nutshell: we look for those who are a lot like us. Christakis and Fowler call this "Homophily", the tendency of like to befriend like.

"People search for - or in any case, find - partners they resemble [in terms of their attributes] and partners who are of comparable 'quality'."

You might be thinking, "What about the saying, 'Opposites Attract'?" That saying may be true, but homophily seems to apply to a certain type of relationship - the long-term. "We expect more homophily in long-term relationships and less in short-term ones," say the authors. In fact, according to their research, 72% of marriages exhibit homophily - couples that are alike.

"The surprising power of social networks is that they bring likes together and serve up soul mates in the same room."

What can marketers take away from the idea of homophily? Before attempting to attract potential mates (ie. new users or "friends"), they must look inward, so to speak, and truly understand what kind of person - or personality - their brand has. What are its characteristics, values, and beliefs? How would the brand think, act, and behave if it were a real person? How would it talk? What would it say? For example, the Apple brand is about thinking differently, is focused on design and simplicity, and is always on the cutting edge, and it attracts users who are like that, too. Only after understanding and agreeing on the personality of their brand can marketers truly understand what type of mates would be suitable for long-term relationships.


"Arranged" Marriages

Now that you know who you are as a brand - how about an introduction? The funny thing is, most brands are going about fishing for potential mates in the wrong way - the "self-introduction". Any advertisement that you see on traditional media like TV and OOH and most new media like banner advertising and Google AdWords is a self-introduction from a brand to a potential mate. The environment may be a bit different - you're not in a bar, but on your couch, you're not on a dating site, but doing a Google search - but the behaviour is the same: "Hey, look at me. I'm interesting and might be good for you. Want to meet?"

In the real world, however, the real mating game, only one-third of people in a relationship met through self-introductions. One-third! Only one-third of relationships begin between complete strangers. How then, are people meeting each other? Easy: through their friends. According to the authors, over one-third of relationships begin with an introduction by a mutual friend. When moving beyond close friends, the percentage grows even higher: 68% of people met their spouses after being introduced to each other via someone they knew.

"The majority of people find spouses and partners by meeting friends of friends and other people to whom they are loosely connected."

The application to marketers, in this case, is clear. People are more likely to be introduced to a potential long-term mate through direct recommendations from their social network. How easy is it, right now, to directly recommend a brand or product to a friend? When it comes to close friends, it's not that difficult: we talk to them face to face and spread the word organically "I just started using this new product, and it's really great - you should try it." We might even send them a quick email with a link to the product's website. But this relies completely on the willingness of the consumer to do that, and only really impacts their close friends. In order to facilitate quicker, easier, more direct recommendations of products among one's greater social network, brands will have to do a better job of integrating "recommendation engines" into every interaction and touchpoint with their consumers.


She said what about him?

The final lesson from the mating game: reviews matter. This is especially true when it comes to marketing to women. As Christakis and Fowler put it, "Copying the preferences of other women may be an efficient strategy for deciding who is a desirable man when there is a cost (in terms of time or energy) in making this assessment or when it is otherwise hard to decide." So when it comes to choosing potential mates, women find it extremely helpful to hear what other women have to say about them. Funnily enough, reviews don't seem to have as much of an influence on men: "When selecting mates, males tend to be less choosy than females and so are less concerned with the opinions of anyone else to begin with."

Reviews are, however, especially impactful when they come from those who have previously been in a relationship with the mate in question, and would know the inside scoop on whether or not they were worth the time and effort. Psychologist Daniel Gilbert has shown that woman can do a better job of predicting how much she will enjoy a date with a man by asking the previous woman who dated him what he was like than by knowing all about the man. According to the authors:

"While a woman can, with a glass, assess for herself various attributes of a man that might be associated with his genetic fitness (his appearance, his height, his dancing ability), other traits related to his suitability as a reproductive partner (his parenting ability, his likelihood of being sweet to his kids) can require more time and effort to evaluate. In those cases, the assessment of another woman can be very helpful."

Marketers should be encouraged to facilitate the reviews of their brands and products by consumers as much as possible. This can mean following up with a consumer a few weeks after their purchase, asking them to share their thoughts, feelings, and experiences about a product with others - perhaps for a small incentive. It can also mean encouraging instant reviews at the point-of-purchase, using kiosks or tablets, capturing the excitement and adrenaline of a new purchase and siphoning that energy off to one's friends. Finally, it can mean asking consumers for a review at the point when the product or service has had the most impact on their lives. For example, imagine if an insurance company's customer was asked to write a review right after a major accident, when they were most likely to be grateful that they have the coverage and the help from the brand that they're with.


And so, we've learned that there is definitely a lesson or two (or three...) on how to start relationships with potential consumers that we can learn by observing the real-life mating game. There's only one more question to ask: do you know anyone who might be interested?

The Science of Social Networks #1: What's in a Friend?

"We are all connected."

We've heard this line many times before, in many different contexts. Call it "The Butterfly Effect" or "Six Degrees of Separation", read about it in "The Tipping Point", experience it when meeting someone for the first time and realizing that... hmmm, it's a "small world" after all.

The fact is, our social networks - the bonds that hold us all together - permeate and influence every part of our lives. With social media, these networks have been pushed to the forefront of society - bonds that were once invisible are now omnipresent, ties that were once intimate are now available for all to see.

But is there a science behind these networks, a science that can help explain both the influence that they have over us and the power that they can provide?

Nicholas A. Christakis and James H. Fowler both attempt to answer this question in their book "Connected" - a riveting exploration of the "exciting new science of social networks". Their thesis is, in a nutshell, that "Your friends’ friends’ friends affect everything you feel, think, and do."

The Science of Social Networks Series will cover some of the more interesting insights and findings from "Connected" and discuss how they might apply to marketers attempting to build closer connections with their consumers. Part 1, "What's in a Friend?" will explore the meaning and the various degrees of friendship.

It's the ultimate prize that every marketer, every brand, strives for: becoming their consumer's "friend". The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a friend as "a favoured companion", one that is "attached to another by affection or esteem", and "one that favours or promotes something". When a user "Likes" a brand on Facebook or "follows" one on Twitter, it is usually a cause for celebration. "We've got a new FRIEND!" the marketing team might cry as they give themselves high-fives. But there's one important detail that they forgot to consider: what type of "friend" are they?


Too Many Friends, Too Little Time

The first thing we need to be aware of will be painfully obvious to heavy users of social networking sites: we've got too many friends. Steven Levy sums up this sentiment in this hilarious article from WIRED Magazine titled "The Great Facebook Reset": "Our friend lists have become bloated and awkward. It’s time to start over. I propose that Facebook grant us a friend-list do-over. Like most people, I desperately need one: At this point, my collection resembles the contents of a house occupied by a hoarder.”

What Levy means is not necessarily that he's got too many friends, period. It's that he's got more friends than he's got time to keep track of and put energy into. To the authors of "Connected", that isn't surprising:

"While the human brain is designed to cope with large social networks, our capacity for friends is not, in fact, unlimited. [For example,] group size in modern armies hasn’t changed, even though modern telecommunications would seem to facilitate larger group coordination. This suggests that communication is not the crucial factor. More important is the human mind’s ability to track social relationships, to form mental rosters that identify who is connected to whom..."

The truth is, even with social media, our ability to maintain close friendships with large numbers of people is limited. As the authors put it, we only truly have a strong bond with a small number of close friends: "People have many interactions of varying intensities with all sorts of people. [But] while a person may know a few hundred people by sight and name, he will typically be truly close to only a few."


The Chosen Few

What makes this group of friends - this chosen few - so different than the rest? Social scientists identify who people deem close individuals by asking them questions like "Who do you discuss important matters with?" and "Who do you spend your free time with?" And so, a close friend is someone whom you enjoy spending time with, of your own free will, talking about matters that are important to you. They're people whom you can trust with important issues - those who you can pick up the phone and have a conversation with in a heartbeat. Sociologist Peter Marsden calls these people our "Core Discussion Network".

This core network is tiny compared to the network as a whole. According to the authors' study, the average American has just four close social contacts, with most having between two and six. In another study in which respondents were asked to name their "discussion partners", 70% reported fewer than five. This same pattern appeared to hold true whether or not one was online or off - we can only remain engaged with a very small number of people, which means we have to be selective when choosing who to "friend" and how much time to spend with each.

This finding is significant because it means that the pattern most likely holds true for brands as well - people can only truly be close to a few brands at a time. Think about it: how many brands do you really think of as your friend? How many brands would you say that you're engaged with, that you freely spend time with and enjoy their company? More likely than not, the number will range from 2 to 6: Apple, Second Cup, Google... maybe the SCENE card. Those are my friends. And so, marketers must ask themselves - do we want them to "Like" our brand, or do we want them to really like our brand?


You "Like" Me, You Really "Like" Me!

According to a recent 2011 study by Ad Age/Ipsos Observer, 75% of Facebook users have "Liked" at least one brand, while more than a third have "Liked" at least six or more. Don't celebrate just yet, though, the study also indicated that users were not "Liking" brands because they wanted to be their friends, they "Liked" them because they wanted something in return: nearly two-thirds of respondents said that in the online space, they wanted brands to offer them discounts, ahead of better customer service (42%), games/entertainment (28%), and company news (22%). In fact, the first reason for friending a brand was "I hoped to get discounts."

And who can blame them for thinking about brands in this way? Marketers have trained them to expect an online relationship that consists of discounts and deals. More often than not, it was a discount, deal, or coupon that was used to bribe a "Like" out of them in the first place. When the Kanye West/Jay-Z single H.A.M. debuted on Facebook, users were forced to "Like" the page before they were allowed to listen to the new track for free. Here's how Hannah Sung of The Globe and Mail felt about it, as quoted in her article "The Power of Facebook's 'Like' Button":

"After the last strains had faded away, I continued to think about that Like button. I had enjoyed the track, but I also felt manipulated, like a big bully had taken my hand, rendered weak by my overpowering curiosity, and forced it to click on Like."

Consumers shouldn't feel like they've been manipulated into allowing a brand into their social network, they should be encouraged to "Like" a brand - to become friends with them - because they really do think of it as a friend. For instance:

Kara Williams has been a loyal Cheerios eater as long as she's eaten solid foods - some 40 years or more. So when she saw the bright yellow logo float by on Facebook in a friend's news stream she was compelled to post on its wall. "Wow. Cheerios has a Facebook page. I eat them every day. Every. Day. Fave way to start the day!" - from Advertising Age (Feb. 28, 2011)

In order to be thought of as a true friend, to reach a new "social plane" of brand interaction, brands must move beyond what's expected of them - beyond just information, recommendations, deals, and discounts. They must move out of a friendship based on "utility" and into one based on a true "relationship" - a source of emotional bonding.

Not only will reaching this degree of friendship help brands build a strong level of engagement with their fans, it will prevent them from eventually getting the boot, too. According to a 2011 study by ExactTarget/CoTweet, 75% of consumers are being more selective about "Liking" a brand on Facebook compared to last year, while 40% don't believe that "Liking" a brand should automatically result in marketing communications from them. And when push comes to shove, they're not afraid to tell a friend to take a hike: 90% of consumers have "broken up" with at least one brand on Facebook, Twitter, or email because of irrelevant, too frequent, or boring marketing messages.

And as we all know, there is no worse feeling than losing a friend...