Buoni esempi

Giovanni Tufani

Carlo Pagliarini

Il miele di Stachys

L'acquaponica

Cashmere in Toscana

Fattoria della Piana

CASEIFICIO SOCIALE MANCIANO

Burraco News

How to Help Change the World

Think Outside In - Paul Adams

Which types of friendships are you targeting?

In their book on friendship, Liz Spencer and Ray Pahl identified 8 different types (based on their research).

Associates were people who only shared a common activity, like a hobby or a sport. Useful contacts were people who shared information and advice, typically related to work or advancing ones career. Favor friends were people who helped each other out in a functional manner, but not in an emotional manner. Fun friends were people who socialized together, but only for fun. They didn’t provide each other with a deep level of emotional support. Helpmates were a combination of favor friends and fun friends. They socialized together and helped each other out in a functional manner. Comforters were like helpmates, but they also provided emotional support. Confidants disclosed personal information to each other, enjoyed each other’s company, but weren’t always in a position to offer practical help, for example if they lived far away. Soulmates displayed all of the elements.

Which types of friendships are you targeting?

Selected comments

Anatoliy Milner

July 22, 2010 at 7:47 am

Paul, thank you. However, I think this classification of friends is a little bit uncompleted as well as your consideration of this problem in your slide-show. For example, what about relatives, coworkers, online friends moved from offline, etc. I research this issue a couple of years and write on “virtual friendship” in context of “social” Internet future at my blog (unfortunately, in Russian only). Last my post on this topic is “Social labyrinth, or What is a friend’s weight?” http://amilner.itechbridge.com/2010/07/20/social-labyrinth/ . It’s regarding your last posts and your future book. You could understand what I want to say if read attachment in English to the post.

Christopher S. Rollyson

September 13, 2010 at 9:24 pm

Paul, thanks for sharing; we need many more conversations like this! My hypothesis is that digital social networks give us unprecedented choice of people with whom to have relationships, but very few humans have EVER been good at choosing and managing complex relationship webs (“social networks”). Why? Because geo and social position largely dictated with whom we interacted. IOW, we aren’t supposed to be good at this. As an exec and long-time networker and coach, i have remarked on this but only recently it because obvious (after reading Dunbar). People aren’t good at offline networking, and online is even more difficult for them because they aren’t aware of how to do it face to face, so transferring to a digital process is even harder. Cheers

erancore | Pearltrees

January 21, 2012 at 10:21 am

[...] Eight types of friendship » THINK OUTSIDE IN Fun friends were people who socialized together, but only for fun. They didn’t provide each other with a deep level of emotional support. Helpmates were a combination of favor friends and fun friends. They socialized together and helped each other out in a functional manner. Favor friends were people who helped each other out in a functional manner, but not in an emotional manner. Comforters were like helpmates, but they also provided emotional support. [...]

My thoughts on Different type of Friends | Mentyzee's Blog October 12, 2012 at 10:55 am

[...] Hi readers, ( i really wanna know who actually read my blog posts), i am just curious ya know .hehehe it is 4:30 am , where maybe some people just woke up and getting ready to work or maybe there are people at the other side of the planet is working? taking nap? or more… and i am supposed to be on my bed and sleep tightly and cover myself with my warmiee winnie the pooh blanket … i tried to force myself to sleep since 2:30, i lied on my bed and played my tablets till 3:30 am .. and i still don’t feel tired at all. i have been thinking a lot. really a lot .or somehow my mind is wandering around and i could not focus at all … at some point, i am thinking about my parents, my future, my future husband, people around me, random faces and moreeee.. i was just over-thinking. think too much and sometimes is not necessary at all ..i should just stay focus on myself. what i should do and who i want to be …(is it sound selfish) okay, so what do i really want to talk about? okay look, i wanna talk about soul mates, real friends and real buddy so i went to google and typed “different type of friends” so the first webpage shown me this http://www.thinkoutsidein.com/blog/2010/04/eight-types-of-friendship/ [...]

Wisdom Wednesday | Pathway to Spiritual Rebirth

May 21, 2014 at 5:05 pm

[…] Associates were people who only shared a common activity, like a hobby or a sport. Useful contacts were people who shared information and advice, typically related to work or advancing ones career.Favor friends were people who helped each other out in a functional manner, but not in an emotional manner. Fun friends were people who socialized together, but only for fun. They didn’t provide each other with a deep level of emotional support. Helpmates were a combination of favor friends and fun friends. They socialized together and helped each other out in a functional manner. Comforters were like helpmates, but they also provided emotional support. Confidants disclosed personal information to each other, enjoyed each other’s company, but weren’t always in a position to offer practical help, for example if they lived far away. Soulmates displayed all of the elements.http://www.thinkoutsidein.com/blog/2010/04/eight-types-of-friendship/ […]

HOW AND WHY WE COMMUNICATE WITH OTHERS

WHY WE TALK

We talk to survive

The desire to communicate is hard-wired into all of us. It was an effective survival mechanism for our ancestors, who shared information about food supplies, dangerous animals, and weather patterns, and it continues to help us understand our world, including what behavior is appropriate and how to act in certain situations. People talk because sharing information makes life easier.

Our motivations for sharing online are the same as the motivations of our ancestors. We often update our status because we need information. Research has shown that the majority of tweets that mention brands are seeking information rather than expressing sentiment, and one in five tweets is about a product or service.

We talk to form social bonds

Decades of research in social psychology has shown that people talk to form and grow social bonds. Conversations ensure that we understand one another. One key aspect of this is communal laughter. Research has shown that if people laugh together with strangers, they are as generous to them as they are to their friends.

Talking to someone sends out strong social signals. It shows people that we consider them important enough to spend time together. This is also true online. People update their status to produce a feeling of connectedness, even when people are geographically distant.

Status updates often contain social gestures and people often respond by liking or commenting on the content, not because they actually like the content but because they want to send out a social signal to build the relationship. In many cases, the conversation that follows a status update is much more important than the status update itself. More than the act of sharing content, marketing campaigns need to support conversations.

Research has shown that social bonds are central to our happiness. The deeper the relationships someone has, the happier they will be. Women talk to form social bonds more often than men. Many of their conversations are aimed at building and maintaining their social network. Men more often talk about themselves or things they claim to be knowledgeable about, often because they are trying to impress the people around them.

We talk to help others

When researchers have studied why people share, they have consistently found that many do it to help others. This is an altruistic act with no expected reciprocity. For many, it is important to them to be perceived as helpful, and so they try to share content that they think other people will find valuable. This is especially clear when we see people share information that may not reflect positively on themselves.

We talk to manage how others perceive us

While people talk to make their lives easier, to form social bonds, and to help others, most of our conversations are a form of reputation management. Research has shown that most conversations are recounting personal experiences, or gossiping about who is doing what with whom. Only 5 percent is criticism or negative gossip. The vast majority of these conversations are positive, as we are driven to preserve a positive reputation.

Our identities are constantly shaped and refined by the conversations we have. Our values were passed on from conversations with our family, community, society, country, church, and through our profession, and are continually refined by the people we spend time with.

[......]

WHAT WE TALK ABOUT

Many of our conversations are about other people

One study on what people talk about found that about two thirds of conversations revolve around social issues. Another study found that social relationships and recounting personal experiences account for about 70 percent of conversations. Of the conversations about social relationships, about half are about people not present. The anthropologist Robin Dunbar described these conversations as “Who is doing what with whom, and whether it’s a good or bad thing, who is in and who is out, and why.” Conversations about other people and their behavior help us understand what is socially acceptable in different situations by revealing how the people we’re talking to react to the behavior of the person not present.

Understanding how others have acted, as well as how the people we care about and trust react to those actions, shapes our behavior. It shapes what ideas we agree with, and how we may behave in the future. Supporting conversations about other people is critical for social products and for marketing campaigns based on social behavior.

We share feelings, not facts

Creative agencies the world over try to create content that people will spread. In order to do so, they need to understand what people share, and why. The vast majority of “viral” campaigns don’t spread at all, and this is often because the content is factual. Many research studies have shown that people don’t share facts, they share feelings.

Jonah Berger and Katherine Milkman studied the most-emailed articles on the New York Times over more than a six-month period, totaling 7,500 items. They expected to find content that included factual information that might help others, such as diets or gadgets, but instead found that people shared the content that triggered the most arousing emotions. This included positive emotions such as awe, and negative emotions such as anger and anxiety. Emotions that were not arousing, for example sadness, did not trigger sharing of content.

Content that is positive, informative, surprising, or interesting is shared more often than content that is not, and content that is prominently featured is shared more often than content that is not, but these factors are minor compared to how arousing the content is.

These findings have important implications for advertising. BMW ran a successful campaign called “The Hire,” which induced feelings of anxiety through elaborate car chases and generated millions of views. Content that is non-arousing, for example, content that makes people feel comfortable and relaxed, is unlikely to be shared. Public health information may spread more effectively if it induces feelings of anxiety rather than sadness.

We talk about the things that surround us

Our everyday offline conversations tend to be about whatever comes to mind, independent of how interesting it is. And what usually comes to mind first is what is in our current environment (we’ll see later how this works for brands). If we’re talking to good friends, even our desire to appear interesting takes a backseat to environmental cues. Although we do craft our conversations in order to shape others’ perceptions of us,6 most day-to-day conversations with people we know well are about everyday things and are cued by our environment.

Conversely, our desire to appear a certain way to others is a bigger factor in what we talk about online than offline. Offline, many of our conversations are driven by a need to avoid awkward silences. While people most often talk about what is visible or cued by their environment offline, when online they don’t need to fill a conversation space so they can think more carefully about what might be interesting to others.

We talk about brands in passing

The research firm Keller Fay estimates that people talk about approximately 70 brands every week, an average of 10 a day. We might imagine that people talk at length about the pros and cons of competing brands, but most of the time this is not so. Most references to brands in conversations happen in passing. People are talking about something loosely related to the brand, the brand comes up for a few sentences, and then disappears, as the conversation continues about the core topic. When people talk about brands, they are usually not motivated by the brand but by the instinct to converse with others and fill conversation spaces. We need to understand the incidental nature of brand conversations when planning marketing campaigns.

Research has shown that around Halloween, when there are more environmental cues about the color orange, products that are orange (Reese’s Pieces, orange soda) are more top of mind. Other research found that products that are cued by the surrounding environment are talked about 22 percent of the time, versus 4 percent for products not cued by the environment. Products that are publicly visible are talked about 19 percent of the time, versus 2 percent for products that are not publicly visible. For example, in one research study, upcoming concerts were talked about much more often when there were CDs in the room. We talk about eating much more often than technology or media, yet many assume that the latter are objectively more interesting.

This has profound implications for understanding how people talk about brands. Products that are visible and accessible will be talked about more. Products that are not naturally in people’s environment need to build associations with things that are in people’s environments. Yet, samples are not a substitute for the actual thing. Coupons and samples do not drive more conversations, but giving people the full product to try, so that it is consistently in the person’s environment, can lead to a 20 percent increase in conversations about that product.

Interesting (arousing) products are talked about more initially, but once the novelty wears off, they are talked about less than things cued by people’s environments. Frequency of use also drives conversations, as products used frequently are easier to recall from memory and are therefore more top of mind. People talk about big brands far more often than smaller brands. This is not surprising, as bigger brands are more accessible—more visible and easier to recall from memory.

Because we communicate much more frequently with the small number of people we are emotionally closest to, about half of conversations that mention brands are with a partner or family member. Of these brand conversations, 71 percent are face to face, 17 percent are on the phone, and only 9 percent are online. When it comes to spreading ideas, we need to target people’s closest ties.

[......]

WHO WE TALK TO

Most of our communication is with the people closest to us

We like to think that we talk to a wide and diverse set of people, but the reality is that we talk to the same, small group of people again and again. Research shows that people have consistent communication with between 7 and 15 people, but that most conversations are with our five strongest ties. We communicate with the same 5 to 10 people 80 percent of the time. Keller Fay found that 27 percent of our conversations are with our spouse/partner, 25 percent are with a family member, and 10 percent are with a best friend. That’s 62 percent of our conversations with the people closest to us. Only 5 percent of our conversations are with acquaintances, and only 2 percent are with strangers. The remaining 31 percent is with the rest of the people in our social network.

Research shows that people use social networks primarily to strengthen the bonds with their strong ties, and secondarily to build relationships with weak ties. When we looked at how many different people members communicated with directly on Facebook every week, including private messages, chats, wall posts, and likes and comments on status updates, we saw that the average was just 4 people. When we looked at how many different people they communicated with every month, it was only 6 people. This is despite the fact that these people are checking Facebook almost every day. Other research has shown that the more people see each other in person or talk on the phone, the more they communicate online.

We can map how frequently we communicate with others onto our social network structure:

We communicate more with the people toward the center of our social network, the people we are emotionally closest to.

Who is listening to us changes what we talk about

Who we talk to online has a large impact on what we talk about. Many people think carefully before posting status updates. Sometimes they have an explicit audience in mind for the post and need to consider whether it will be interesting or offending to the rest of the people they are connected to.

People are very conscious of being seen to be communicating information others will find interesting, funny, or useful. As they usually see only positive feedback, for example “likes” or comments on Facebook posts, it’s hard for them to know what other people find valuable. For many people the only way is to look at posts that receive no feedback, assume people didn’t find it interesting, and factor the characteristics of that post into future decisions about whether to post something. Sometimes people post updates broadly, as receiving serendipitous replies outweighs any risk of communicating uninteresting information to others.

We communicate differently to explicit groups of friends compared with larger groups of people.

When we talk in public, we’re very careful about what we say. For example, online public ratings tend to be disproportionately positive when they’re linked to our real identity. This is especially true when the other party involved can reciprocate. When people post anonymously, their ratings tend to be almost 20 percent lower than when they use their real names. When ratings are not visible to the party being rated, people give negative reviews more frequently.

Fare del bene è il miglior modo per sentirsi bene

Dividere la propria casa con altri

Buoni esempi

Benvenuti in Fattoria