Expectation transfer + retention by tie strength — strong-tie referrals carry expectation specificity + active social-enrichment retention; weak-tie referrals churn at near-baseline rates
Claim: Strong-tie referrals carry expectation transfer: "When I worked with Candid, here is what they did, and here is what they didn't do." Weak-tie referrals carry expectation gaps: the buyer arrives with a vague sense of credibility but no specific operational expectations, and Candid must do the expectation-set in the sales conversation.
The retention consequence (from [[schmitt-skiera-van-den-bulte-2011-16pct-ltv-premium]] and [[van-den-bulte-2018-better-matching-social-enrichment]]): strong-tie referrals churn less because the referring relationship continues; weak-tie referrals churn at rates closer to non-referred clients once the initial referral glow fades.
Confidence: Verified at the mechanism level cross-domain; Directional in trades.
For Candid — the strategic implication: The high-value motion is not maximizing referral volume but maximizing referral depth. Two referrals from peer-coaching cohort members will outperform ten referrals from trade-show acquaintances on lifetime value. This inverts the standard "build a referral program to get more volume" instinct: the depth bet is on cultivating fewer, deeper referrer relationships, not on incentivizing broad weak-tie referrals.
Operationalized as: [[rule-network-membership-precedes-referral-program-design]] (referral programs are an incentive layer on top of an existing network; network depth is the prerequisite).
Depends on
- reference Schmitt, Skiera, Van den Bulte 2011 (JoM) — referred customers ≥16% higher LTV than matched non-referred; retention persists, margin decays
- reference Van den Bulte, Bayer, Skiera, Schmitt 2018 (JMR) — referred-customer LTV decomposes into "better matching" (temporary) + "social enrichment" (persistent)