Desperate networking

Two billion monarch butterflies (pictured) hib...
Image via Wikipedia

As we know, networking butterflies are rarely successful. I wonder whether some of them are driven by desperation that their networking has never worked even when they started and took it more slowly.

We know that if our marketing isn’t working we have to change it. Networking is a sort of marketing in which we give without expectation of getting business from anyone in particular but in the knowledge that those we know may think of us when it counts and they think they know someone who needs us.

Of course networking is a long game, but sooner or later it should dawn that if no business is coming in, it’s not being done properly. Then perhaps a more measured approach is needed with regular attendance of fewer networking groups is called for.

If that doesn’t work then maybe as with marketing failure, our failed networker is simply in the wrong business selling a product or service nobody wants. Or, if what she offers is normally popular, her demeanour doesn’t convince anyone she can deliver it and she should re-think her strategy from the ground up.

Related posts:

Networking butterflies

Networking, hunting and butterflies

Networking really is a long game

Enhanced by Zemanta

Referral networking and Dunbar’s number

Six degrees of separation.
Image via Wikipedia

I have been thinking more about the networking butterflies and why I believe there is a need to concentrate on just a couple or so referral groups. We know that it is important to see our network contacts, who are of course people, on a regular basis. It is only because we see them often enough that we can be comfortable with them and trust them with our reputation when we refer them.

I think we can only have so many people in our trusted social networking community and beyond that we may have contacts we could suggest and but probably not have the certainty to recommend. Our close referral group is probably restricted to Dunbar’s number. Robin Dunbar, who came up with this number is a British Anthropologist and Wikipedia explains “Dunbar’s number is 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”. It is best you read the Wiki article, but many of you will have come across this theory before. The number is 148, rounded up to 150 and I can buy into that.

I don’t think we need to get confused with having large numbers of contacts on-line. Thomas Power, chairman of Ecademy, believes we should have as many as we can. That does of course give rise to the “you never know” factor based on the theory that we all have only six degrees of separation from anyone else on the planet. I don’t really buy that one, but we can get lucky, and it allows the random possibility which recently found me a client in Australia via Twitter, from where I am certainly separated by a considerable distance. Thomas has an exceptional memory for people, has met more than nearly all of us, and the random process gives rise to great connections. However, my more modest but large number of network connections would not allow me to recommend without checking the provenance of any offer and ability of any person or company to deliver.

So, back to off-line referral networking, and into my special area which is breakfast networking. I am not comfortable in trusting and recommending huge numbers of people because I am still rooted in the tribe or village size of about 150. Furthermore, in any village there are going to be a few villagers we are not so keen on and don’t like to be with. Of course, some people leave our network village, and some join, but if I go to too many networking communities I feel I will get confused as to who to refer to whom.

What do you think?

© Jon Stow 2010

Related post: Networking, hunting and butterflies

Enhanced by Zemanta