Fast Company discusses Duncan Watts’ theory that peers and other non-experts influence us far more effectively than “experts,” supporting his point with several experiments showing the effect of social proof on how people judge music. Seth Godin agrees with Watts, saying that if you want to influence someone, you must win over their friends. Experts don’t matter, A-lister or not. Guy Kawasaki stresses in his blog post that the determinant of success is “societal acceptance” rather than a small sub-segment of technical illuminati. He points out that the success of the Mac was due to a mass of true believers in graphic arts, hobbyists and others who would have been impossible to find ahead of time.
Reflecting on the social psychology of influence and Dr. Robert Cialdini’s Principles of Persuasion, this comes down to the applications of “authority” and “consensus,” both of which come into play under conditions of uncertainty. When we don’t have personal experience to guide us in a complex decision, we look to a recognized “authority” when the decision is objective, or fact-based. Which medical procedure should I get? What are my options? Sure, talk to your neighbor, but your doctor is the one who will sway you more effectively. In matters of taste, we look to “consensus,” typically many, similar others who have demonstrated their preference for a particular choice. What music do my friends like?
There is little question that in the world of complex decisions, when we’re faced with a difficult question relating to objective fact, we turn to experts. The definition of “fact,” on the other hand, might be what’s changing. If we looked at the world of technology …. with rapid product obsolescence, a maturing industry with established brand preferences, and myriad choices, I’d suggest that we’re swimming in very subjective waters. And if you buy this argument, then I’d agree completely that “experts” carry little weight. Look at Hollywood: the approval of a movie critic has no bearing on box office results. Subjectivity and points of taste have no need of self-proclaimed “experts,” who become nothing but quasi-celebrity spokespeople.
Given the Watts discussion, above, let’s dive into consensus a bit deeper. The Gladwell Tipping Point theory states that there are connectors who act as socially amplifiers, propelling trends on their way past a Tipping Point into popular consciousness. The Watts counter-argument says that “these people” don’t matter …. that your peers do. The research shows that when faced with uncertainty in cases of subjectivity …. in matters of taste, for example …. we are influenced not by “experts” but by many, similar others to ourselves. And within this may be the whole point. I may not be influenced by you when it comes to music, but I’d definitely be swayed if you waxed poetic on food; not on fashion, yes on technology; not on diets, yes on politics. Well, probably not on politics. But you get my point.
Our changing definition of “we” …. which shifts depending on the social group and the context, as we’ve discussed before — may be the missing link between the two arguments.
If we assume that “experts” are a homogenous group of super-influencers that sway us in all matters, then we will likely be disappointed in the demise of the Tipping Point theory; but if we see the nuance between “objective” versus “subjective” cases of uncertainty, our information sources change, and with them change our definition of “influencer.”

No surprise to anyone, some upscale retailers and hotels are looking for visual cues to determine the service level they should provide to customers. According to a WSJ article, “The Gatekeeper: How Posh Hotel Sizes Up Guests”, May 10, 2007, some hotels are sizing up guests based on what car they park in valet, or what they’re wearing when they walk in the door.

In addition to keeping a record of the spending of hotel guests, the staff of the Peninsula Beverly Hills looks for signs of wealth and sophistication in guests. The article notes,

“The hotel’s managing director, Ali Kasikci, is something of an anthropologist of status signals. He is highly aware of the delicate hierarchy of fashion and symbols of influence, and he looks for small details to tell him what a pair of jeans and a T-shirt can’t.”

In the article, Mr. Kasicki spots a Hermes tie and a Charvet shirt among his wealthy guests and says, “It’s like a skunk. There’s enough scent being sprayed around that you can connect the dots.”

Mr. Kasicki is thin-slicing; segmenting and treating his customer’s differently based on his seasoned observations and intuition.
It’s also a dangerous strategy.

Malcolm Gladwell, in his best seller, Blink, defines the concept of thin-slicing as, “the ability of our unconscious to find patterns in situations and behavior based on very narrow slices of experience.” Essentially, it’s the ability to see patterns based on extensive experience in a particular field or discipline. In the case of Mr. Kasicki, his years of hotel experience are giving him visual cues and “distinctive signatures” of which guests can afford his services.

Solely relying on “at a glance” decision making, or decision making based on gut instinct can be very costly to our business and careers. For Mr. Kasicki to make better decisions on which guests should receive special attention, both observational data (visual cues) and hard numerical data are necessary.

It’s probably challenging in a service business like high-end hoteling, to not consciously or unconsciously segment and then treat customers differently based on how they dress or what they drive. However, even Mr. Kasicki admits that sometimes he gets it wrong when it comes to sizing up his guests. For example, the article notes a poorly dressed retired pharmaceutical executive is one of Mr. Kasicki’s wealthy guests!

It often makes sense to build loyalty programs, marketing campaigns and service/product offers to keep valuable customers spending money with your company. A good segmentation strategy, based on quantitative data, can help a company determine what customers to keep and which ones to let go to the competition.

For example, a data-driven customer profitability and life time value analysis could show that while an individual is a frequent guest to Mr. Kasicki’s hotel, they also tend to bargain for the lowest rates, berate the service staff, tip poorly, steal towels and swipe hotel fixtures.

In the case of Peninsula hotel, the best dressed customers might be the least valuable customers! Just because someone is wearing a Hermes suit doesn’t mean they won’t abscond with the light fixtures and conversely, the guest who is dressed like a slob might have a very large bank account!

The article mentions that Peninsula hotel tracks guest spend, but doesn’t say if it’s a manual or technology based approach. There are many solutions both custom and off the shelf that can help Peninsula hotel track customer interactions and provide analysis to help make sense of mountains of collected data. The Ritz-Carlton provides a great case study of service and technology happily married to each other in the hospitality business.

In an era of fierce competition, taking care of your most profitable and valuable customers has never been more important. Just don’t base your definition of a valuable customer on criteria such as he or she “looks the part.” Even Gladwell admits, “We are often careless with our powers of rapid cognition.”

Providing better levels of service to your top customers is a good strategy, but close your eyes for a moment and let your data speak to you for a comprehensive picture of who is “valuable.”