According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, here is the definition of reciprocation:
1a: a mutual exchange.
1b: a return in kind or of like value.
What I don’t like about this definition is that it implies that reciprocation has a “price”—that is, the exchange between two parties needs to be “mutual” and even “a return in kind or like value.”
So, I went in search of another interpretation and found something closer to what I was looking for—that adds an additional dimension to this very powerful word (from the Cambridge Dictionary):
The fact of feeling or behaving toward someone else in the same way as they feel or behave toward you
That’s more like it.
This Cambridge definition doesn’t presume a “matching party” (i.e. I give to you in the exact amount you gave to me).
This definition also leaves room for overdelivering (or even underdelivering) …if your heart is in the right place…and you are delivering in the same way (regardless of the price).
That’s the way I interpret it (for the purposes of this blog).
Thanks for indulging me.
But wait…there’s more.
I will add, in the spirit of Dr. Robert Cialdini, author of the masterpiece Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion:
“Reciprocation [is about] you, then me, then you, then me…be the first to give service, information, concessions.”
But I will also add (and this is not in anyone’s definition of reciprocation):
You need to give first but it’s OK to get nothing in return.
At least right away.
But maybe never too.
Why I went through this exercise in search of a better definition:
Lesson #1: If you don’t like the definition of a word that you have a different meaning for, keep Googling until you find one that suits you. 🙂
Lesson #2: This Cambridge definition is the only one I want to use because reciprocation, for me, is not about meeting someone halfway or “matching” them tit for tat (which is implied in the Merriam-Webster definition).
Lesson #3: The Cambridge definition is closer to something I can easily change to add other dimensions—which I will explain shortly.
Why is it important to make this distinction?
Back to Cialdini: In his chapter on “Reciprocation” (one of his six principles of “Ethical Influence”), he talks at length about the power of reciprocation because it’s human nature to respond “in kind” to a gesture of generosity (or anything of value).
And I agree with Cialdini to always be the first to give.
I would simply add that you shouldn’t have an expectation of a return every time.
And that over a long period of time, by lowering your short-term expectations, you get more in return in the long term.
That’s been my experience—I can’t calculate it favor by favor, deal by deal or in any other form. I just know it’s true.
By viewing it this way, I also know I never have to keep score.
And I am by no means knocking Cialdini’s scientific research.
I’m just making this up as I go along.
And wondering if you agree with any of it. 🙂
The other thing this kind of behavior does—being the first to give concessions, value, your time, products or services for free etc.—with no expectation of a return—it makes it a “pure gift” (i.e. unconditional) which doesn’t have to get paid back with a defined reciprocal “payment” in the same amount or value.
Or during any specified period of time.
Therefore, with this alternative definition, it’s either nothing or something in return…and if it’s something, it’s not necessarily something of equal or more value…and it’s not necessarily something in return immediately.
Reciprocation in the affiliate world of online marketing not only doesn’t follow this rule, it also doesn’t follow the “Cambridge rule” …and is much more in the Merriam-Webster school of thought.
For example, if one party gets 100 leads or orders (or whatever the criteria) and the other party gets 50, how often will the party that got half the amount ask for another mailing (or compensation) for those additional leads or orders they “didn’t get?”
I assume no one in my online family would do that.
But if you would, is it worth it?
Another example:
I’ve done email swaps with other folks who have an audience like mine.
Some are much larger lists and some are much smaller…and in either case, it’s irrelevant to me.
Relevance trumps size.
We each mailed our online families with an “offer” to opt in to the other’s online family, bragging about each other with emails that were a “mutual admiration society lovefest” (for each other).
Like any good affiliate mailing I suppose.
If you’ve been on my list for a while, you may remember instances when I did this.
I would do it again with audiences like mine, regardless of size.
And did it matter how many names each of us added to our online families?
No.
What mattered was that we each got appropriate value—not necessarily equal.
I will maintain, under my definition of reciprocity, appropriate equals equal.
Whether I leave money (or buyers, leads, whatever) on the table is of no consequence.
I guess one reason it doesn’t matter is that in 75 years, both of us will surely be dead.
Sounds a bit morbid–but you can’t argue that it’s true.
And by looking at it this way, what are a few more names or compensation vs. a simple, clean reciprocal deal?
It’s abundance thinking over scarcity thinking.
What ultimately matters: That we end up true reciprocal partners (under my definition); and I am behaving with integrity and transparency that no one can ever question…and never with pettiness.
And what do I have to show for it?
After over four decades of living my life this way, I probably have hundreds of people in my various circles who can ask me for anything–and I will say “yes” every time—and usually before I know what the question is.
Am I a sucker?
A chump?
Or something even more terrible?
I don’t think so (in my reality).
I shared in a previous post that you never want to make “an ask from nowhere.”
To make an ask from somewhere emphasizes the relationship, not the transaction.
I can also ask anyone in my circles for almost anything (anytime) and get an unconditional yes…which is much better than a reciprocal yes.
And if I get a “No,” that’s OK too.
I’m never keeping score.
And neither are they.
Warmly,
Brian
P.S. After sharing the story last week of how I outran (and beat) Covid (you can read it here)…and while doing so, I made a deal in Italy to publish my book Overdeliver in Italian…I stumbled on an email from a year ago from “Simon in New Zealand” regarding the book:
Wow. Just wow.
I’ve quickly read what is in “The Overdeliver Collection” and it’s phenomenal.
I can’t believe my luck.
Having paid a little over $20 for the book, I feel like I’ve ripped you off!
So, thank you very much for releasing this material.
For marketers and copywriters who have or get your book, Christmas has come early this year.
And the neat thing is that the book had not been translated into “New Zealand-ese.”
Yet. 🙂
I get this a lot…multiple times a week…and I always respond the same way:
“If I have the gall to title a book “Overdeliver,” I better overdeliver on the bonuses.”
Which I do.
Go to OverdeliverBook.com and check out the book (in English and New Zealand-ese…Australian too!) …and access all the bonuses that Simon was giddy about.
And does the fact that Overdeliver has been translated into Japanese, German, and French (in addition to Italian) add to its street cred for you?
If you don’t have a copy–and you’ve ever enjoyed any of my Sunday posts–I encourage you to pick up a copy.