1-9-90... Does it exist?

1-9-90 is an internet community thumb rule... this weekend, I set out to explore the maths and behavioural science behind engagement with my own linkedin community. A quick analysis of my posts (created/shared write-ups and videos) had some interesting insights, of which I have listed some below.

1. Yes! There's a thumb rule but is it 1-9-90? For our purposes, let's state this as 1% engaged, 9% avid followers, and 90% occassional followers- I now know this is more dependent on the type of content and to some extent this also correlates with the background/interests of my linkedin network. Although in the picture above, I have used the traditional terms like contributor, lurker and unknown, I thought of modifying them later to engaged, avid followers and ocassional followers. In my case, the last quarter reveals that this rule was 0.8- 28.2 and 71.
2. During the last quarter, there was a huge variance in the proportion of contributor (usually comments) between posts, and this was largely dependent on the content/ format of the content- ranging from 0.4- 1.8% . The vlogs did attract the highest engagement- interestingly, the contributors had watched almost till the end ( average watch time being 7.5 mins) as reflected from their comments on the points I made at different time periods in a video.
3. Now, let's turn to some non data related findings, I noted that when a post was received well by a person with high reputation/aura in the industry, the engagement was very high...
4. The contributors and avid followers did not largely move into occasional followers category but the occassional followers possibly did -given that the last quarter saw only a small reach beyond the network.
5. To verify these findings, I tested this with a small whatsapp group- I am a contributor in this group. Hardly, 10% did engage as contributors of the group, and did say something. Thanks to the group settings, I could notice that more than 10% remained always inactive .
6. Interestingly, when I quit the group without an annoucment during a holiday season for more than four weeks, hardly anyone noticed- don't ask me how I know this? The second time I quit, I did make an annoucment which created bit of a discussion, again it was the contributors... rest remained occasional or inactive. (??There are no permanent TL's to follow?? or is there a fatigue/ competing content??)

Two questions you may want me to answer

1.Why did I do this analysis?

Well, most companies do spend dollars on improving engagement by spending on influencers, etc- my qualitiative research does indicate there's a merit in doing so provided they are part of a group in which they actively contribute and have avid/occassional followers. However, care is required as to what content/ content format, and who's the target- don't we need these engagements to convert into meaningful impacts (for businesses this would mean sales or saved dollars right?)- this has huge IMPACT IN DEVELOPING IMPACTFUL WELLNESS PROGRAMS FOR ONLINE COMMUNITIES..

2. Why am I not telling much about behavioral side?

Well! that would let the cats out of the bag, and I need my insights to NUDGE them... However, you are welcome to write to me with your thoughts or even ask for a discussion..