The 80/20 Principle: It’s just a rule of thumb

not one of the ten commandments… Read on.

Ade’s blog just recently posted about the 80/20 rule and how it applies to bloggers. In this post, I would like to point out some of the reasons why I think the 80/20 rule may be flawed, and you’d be wise to consider NOT applying it to your blog’s readers.

An introduction: What is 80/20?

Wikipedia has a great article on the 80/20 otherwise known as Pareto’s principle. The principle was greatly popularized by a recent book called: The 80/20 Principle by Richard Koch. Good book, good reading. In summary, 80/20 states that the majority of results will come from the minority of inputs. In particular, 80% of sales in a bookstore will come from 20% of customers. There are many examples that you can find. While the numbers 80/20 are approximate, other variations have been seen, too, including 90/10, 70/30, etc. It is now being treated as a rule of thumb in many industries, and being applied in a number of diverse situations.

It’s a rule of thumb, not a rule!

The recording companies, principally the big 4, have been adopting this principle over the last few years with their back catalogues which have shrunk somewhat as artists have been eliminated who don’t reach certain mass market metrics. Now I was thinking about the 80/20 rule and it may or may not be true in some circumstances, but I would argue that in some situations, esp. like the CD industry, it’s a bad idea for a number of reasons.

Let’s examine CD purchases: logic dictates that you should only stock the top 20% of CDs. In some situations this may be fine if there’s limited stock space or some other important limitation. BUT a significant number of purchasers would probably buy a top 20% CD AND another CD of a lesser known artist. You then lose the CD sale for BOTH CDs not just one. Why? Well, as the CD companies are discovering: shoppers tend to buy multiple CDs at one time, and may shop frequently. With the top 20% of CDs on sale, such frequent shoppers would quickly buy the top 20% and then not have any more to buy. Result: they begin to shop elsewhere, where they buy the CDs that they can’t get in the bigger shop, and at the same time they’ll buy the popular CDs too.

For the shop, this is bad business: they lose the top quality purchasers who buy multiple CDs at a time. They therefore have to start increasing their advertising to attract those shoppers who only buy the top 20% of CDs, and those shoppers may only shop occasionally, may be more price sensitive, and may not be loyal to any particular CD store or chain of stores. Worse comes when even the marginally popular CDs are dropped as the store further refines its stock of CDs. Previously when third-tier CDs were dropped, sales may have risen incrementally, as some customers bought more second- and first-tier CDs. This effect would have been temporary as regular purchasers would soon find not much new to buy as most new artists would start out as third-tier or lower before being ‘discovered’ by shoppers.

So the store decides that with deteriorating sales in its CDs it has to boost its margins by shifting more copies of the top tier artists. It increases promotions, cuts second-tier CDs, and lo and behold, the sales and margins rise magically again. But worse is to come: customers begin buying fewer CDs (they either already have the ones they want or they don’t care for some of the artists) and regular customers become scarce. After the promotions are over, it’s difficult to get regular customers to come back, and the top spenders are now going elsewhere for their CDs.

So, it looks like the CDs/music market is declining, and the management is left with little choice but to scale back the CDs even more or close the store.

Of course, downloading (legal and otherwise) came along at a time when the CD industry was already in bad shape. Downloading and alternative mediums for music (online radio, ringtones, etc.), not to mention alternative sources for entertainment, all coincided to make things really difficult for CD companies. But to cut your catalogues and reduce your roster of artists is now looking to be one of the ways in which the big four cut their own throats.

The 80/20 principle sounds like a logical way of thinking until you realize that if you start to pursue the top 20, you will quickly lose a lot more incidental sales. And some of the incidental sales MAY just turn out to be the top 20% of purchasers in the future…

And for bloggers: should you follow the lead?

While the principle may be in principle correct, ignoring the 80% of your readers may lead to erosion of your blog income. Why? Because when readers click away from your blog, it’s usually through an advertisement. Hence, to maximize your blog’s income, you need to encourage your readers to love it, enjoy it (briefly) then click away to a Google Ad, affiliate link or other advertising. It’s likely that if you just focus on the 20% of your readers, your expenses will rise as a result of increasing usage your server’s power power, and your income will go down as regular readers become ad/affiliate link blind.

There are many people who do not seek to make any money out of their blogs at all. Power to them! Well done! There are bloggers like me who started before making money on a blog was possible, but have found the dollar signs an additional benefit. However, for both kinds, increasing readers is a great benefit, if the blogger can afford to pay for the hosting costs. If you cut into your revenue streams, then you’ll find that you will be paying the costs for your regular readers. If you are doing it as a hobby, perhaps that is appropriate for you. But perhaps not.

Overall, I am becoming a very anti-80/20 activist. I think focusing on such goals really doesn’t help much. I can cite several examples in Taiwan, where such short-term thinking led to very poor short-term results, muddied business plans, and withdrawal from the local market with a sullied reputation.

So I believe that the principle as a business principle is flawed, in many instances. I do recognize instances where it is a valuable ‘rule of thumb’ but it should not be treated as a law or rule in the absolute sense of the word. For the business world, which seems to be focused on the next quarter or next business year, it may seem to be a ‘golden rule’. In reality, it’s likely to prove to be fool’s gold. Unfortunately the 80/20 principle is fast becoming one of the canons of western business principles.

What would you do if… (some bad news)

streams book

(ed. Backed date post to January 30th. Written February 2nd.)

We’re often told that we need to diversify our investments to protect them. We’re given that advice to ensure we don’t put ALL our money in just a few stocks or mutual funds or bonds or options or whatever. Why? To reduce the risk that we will lose everything in a downward turn of the stock or market or economy.

Conventional Wisdom

To my amazement, this is what most people do EVERYDAY (not with their stocks, though) but with their CAREERS. They rely on these careers to provide 100% of their personal income, whether they are high-flying lawyers, multiply-skilled engineers, or teachers in elementary schools.

To offset the risk of being injured, sick or dying, employees of all income levels are encouraged by employers, government and private industry to purchase insurance to cover these risks. Of course, these policies require that the employee shoulder the lion’s share of the premium (whether or not the companies contribute). To reduce the consequences of unemployment which in our World 2.0 seems to happen with increasing regularity, employees are required to take out unemployment insurance with the government agency tasked with employee welfare. In most cases, injury, sickness, death or unemployment means a reduced income for an indefinite or permanent period.

Dumb and Dumber

Given these risks, and the single source of income philosophy most employees share, you’d think people would be willing to look after their money sensibly. Well, it doesn’t happen. How? Because these self-same individuals then go borrow money at multiples to their current annual or monthly salary to buy houses, higher interest personal loans for cars, and usurious rates for credit card purchases. The items they then buy are then used, used up, consumed or thrown out even before the payments are finished. In nearly every case, the item’s value is depreciated considerably by time, such that hi-fi, TV, washing machines, etc which may last more than five years are often replaced before or just after the personal loan that financed their purchase expires. It still shocks me, once I realized how we were encouraged to play the game, that we all fall into this trap without so much as a look over our shoulder.

It can’t happen to me!

Given the risks employees hold to themselves and their jobs, and given the lifestyles that their jobs and careers finance, when misfortune happens (and it does), it comes as a shock. It is a shock that causes a lot of immediate distress IN ADDITION TO any emotional distress that are directly caused by the misfortune itself. An example:

John Smith works in a car assembly plant in Michigan (for one of the ‘Big Three’). It’s just after Christmas in 2008, and there’s news of closures across the US. The company is losing market share, has the wrong products in its showrooms, and is losing money by the truckload. Massive closures come. For John Smith, who has worked there 15 years since high school, it’s a personal disaster.

He is informed that he’ll lose his job in three weeks. Of course, he’ll get compensation. But still he loses his entire career at once; he’ll lose his teammates (similarly fired); and he’s going to face an uncertain future until he retrains or finds new work at the Toyota plant (where rates are 30% lower for the same work).

Worse, he just bought his own new 4×4 on a car loan; his family owe $17500 dollars on credit card; the house is 100% financed (and the realty market is also suffering); and his bank balance shows $400. Tuition payments, taxes, cable bills, etc. are also eating into his already reduced income. And there is NO emergency money. In addition to his personal worries, he’s a period of difficult financial uncertainty, too. (This is a fictitious example).

Yes, it can. Yes, it does. It might just happen to YOU!

In May 2005, I caught bronchitis, and that was the start of a journey that took a number of weird turns. I was forced to stay home for over 10 days as I was sick and feeble. Bronchitis isn’t pleasant by any means, unfortunately, I didn’t get it treated properly the first few days meaning that my recovery time was longer than it should have been. However, it allowed me a chance to think about Multiple Sources of Income in a very personal way. I had just leafed my way through the book by Robert Allen’s book of the same name.

Read Wednesday’s post “A Man WITH A Plan” to find out what that plan was.

Goodbye Adsense, it’s been sweet’n’sour…

raw deal AdsensGoodbye Adsense, it’s been sweet’n’sour…

I’ve had an Adsense Account for a very long time, but it hasn’t really generated much in the way of additional revenue though the nearly annual check for $100 has been a nice supplement in some ways. Oddly, it had been performing better on InvestorBlogger than in a long time with the addition of the Shylock Plugin. But this week brought an opportunity disguised as a challenge; and a challenge disguised as an opportunity.

First, the opportunity was wrought by none other than the Google machine, which not content with reducing clickable areas on Google Ads, reducing PRs on many blogs, now acted to cut payout terms for referrals for those who were lucky enough to be in a primary country (currently, the US, Canada and Japan). For those of the rest of the world, referrals were cut to zero (and that’s backdated to July of 2007!)

The Eleventh Hour for Adsense

Too many changes for me, and just added an eleventh reason to my list of why Adsense is now bad for bloggers. Shoemoney has already weighed in on the debate, citing it as a slap in the face of foreign webmasters with the words: “They are terminating your referral program completely. That’s right! If you are not in the Americas, or Japan, your done.” The discussion on his blog has already gone to 123 comments.

Problogger who hails from the land downunder is also mightily chagrined, and in an update to his posts points out that the rule is retrospective: “So for “international” publishers – every person that you and I have sent to AdSense since the end of July last year that reaches a conversion point in the coming months will earn us nothing at all.” His discussion has already merited 95 responses at this point.

Goodbye, Adios, Ciao, Adsense…

So, with a heavy heart I cleared out the last of my Adsense on InvestorBlogger. But at the same point, I was boyed by a challenge. An advertiser had been contacting me looking for advertising space on my blog. I had just themed for Christmas, and didn’t see the point when I’d be doing a new theme in the New Year.

New Year: New Opportunities

Persistent, though, and I was finally able to match his requirements with spots for five advertisements or banners on the blog, with two long 728×90 slots and three traditional banners. This was timely as I didn’t want to load my site up with more than a few basic banners. I’ve also installed another plugin that will facilitate additional advertising opportunities. More later…. So, really a silver lining. And I’ll be retaining Adsense on my other websites as its far too difficult to remove them all at this point. But performance isn’t improving.

In the meantime do take a look at the banners on this site, and check out the investing products that are on offer. Since these aren’t Adsense ads, I can encourage clicks to them all. In the meantime, let’s see how Google’s stockprice fares… Mmm.

Hubris Revisited: Google’s Role Model – the Big 4 Music Companies!

I can’t help thinking though that I’m beginning to see a rerun of the problems that are afflicting the CD companies not just a few years ago, but still to this day. Raise prices, offer limited selections, cut your backlists of offerings, screw your artists royally, promote only those bland enough artists that can survive the global markets, and rail against the technology of the day as illegal.

Then worse, start suing your ‘former’ customers, watch your stocks stumble and sales drop by double digit percentages year after year… Could this be what happens to Google? But on Internet time?

Google is already cutting back on the websites payouts via Adsense, cropping rankings, dropping referrals, soon they will be deleting listings from their catalogue… all the time trying to promote the 20% of websites that make up the 80% of their traffic.

But what mostly they forget is that those 20% of websites are only part of a web-o-sphere that is vast. And many websites get truckloads of traffic from sites that aren’t even ranked properly … all those ones and twos begin to add up.

So, Google, I guess you won’t listen to me, but my readers will, and they will form their own opinions, regardless of what you do. Let’s hear it here!

(ed. added graphic and some additional comments.)