The Problem with The Pareto Principle

“The Pareto principle … states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.”
– Pareto Principle

While this makes a great sound bite, it’s hard to pin down exactly where the Pareto Principle should be applied – and where it shouldn’t. The definition is loose enough (“for many events”) that it can be – and frequently is -applied to whatever situation a writer or speaker desires.

As with many “facts”, it’s easy for “experts” to trot it out as common knowledge, without providing any demonstration of how it relates to the case under discussion. If you’re trying to streamline your work-day and boost your income, you might have come across authors telling you “facts” like these:

  • 20% of your clients pay 80% of your income.
  • 20% of your output produces 80% of your income.
  • 20% of your time produces 80% of your income.

Whenever you see the Pareto principle cited, ask yourself “Is this true?” I’d argue that, “for many events”, it just isn’t – don’t believe everything you read. Examine your own history of similar situations to see if the 80/20 rule is contradicted by your experience – in my freelance work, I’ve often seen instances where the Pareto principle doesn’t hold.  I’ll give you the figures for each of these three claims in turn, so you can see how the clients/output/time to income ratio works for me.

80% of income from 20% of clients?

In my freelance writing, I currently have the following clients:

  • Client A pays me $420/month (blog)
  • Client B pays me $400/month (blog)
  • Client C pays me $80/month (blog)
  • Client D pays me $40/month (blog)
  • Client E pays me $284/month (magazine article)

Total monthly income from freelance writing: approx $1,224.

So, does the Pareto principle hold true for my freelance writing? Does 80% of my income come from 20% of my clients? There are indeed 3 main clients out of the 5 which make up 90% of my income from freelance writing, and just based on this information, we might conclude that we see the Pareto principle at work here.

If we accept the advice that we should focus our efforts on the clients that provide the most income and fire the rest, it may appear that I should focus my efforts on clients A, B and E and fire C and D.

This analysis however misses some important details:  client C and D require me to produce less, take up correspondingly less time, and may be in a position to take extra work from me in future.  Dropping the two of them because some expert told me “the Pareto principle says so” would be a bad idea, and close the door on potential future income.

It is possible, however, that even if Pareto shouldn’t be applied on a client level, perhaps some of the freelance work I do is more lucrative than the rest.

80% of income from 20% of output?

If I divide up my monthly writing income by what I’m paid per piece, the figures also appear, at first, to come close to fitting the 80/20 rule: My four blog clients pay an average of $40 per article, and I’m writing a total of 23 blog articles per month. I do have one “big” client, though, where my pay per article is seven times my average pay for a regular blog article: my magazine client, who pays $284 per article.

This means that 5% of my writing outputs produces 23% of my income. This definitely comes closer to what the Pareto principle predicts – especially as many people say that the 80/20 figures can be adjusted to suit.  The easy conclusion to draw from this analysis is if I could write five magazine articles per month, I could replace my other income streams entirely.

But now, I haven’t taken into account the fact that the magazine article takes at least four times as long to research and write as a blog article. Nor have I accounted for the time spent in acquiring new magazine clients (I sent out a lot of queries a month or two ago, and didn’t manage to get a single article commission).

Why chase new clients you ask, why not just write more articles for the client you already have?  My current magazine client doesn’t want five times as many articles from me.

Pareto might hold true on the surface, but looking at just the outputs ignores the time factor: how long I spend researching and writing each piece, how long I spend on administration, and the amount of time required to acquire the client.  It further ignores market considerations (how many articles I can sell to one publication).

As the above discussion shows, just looking at outputs is misleading because such an analysis ignores the amount of time spent to produce each output.  This then leads to the following question – if we are saying the Pareto principle is misapplied when judging solely by the quantity of writing outputs produced, does it hold for time to produce those outputs instead?

80% of income from 20% of time?

So perhaps I should be looking at whether I can produce 80% of my income in just 20% of my working day. Is 80% of my time wasted, and does the other 20% of my time produce most of my income?

Unfortunately, the answer here is again a clear “no”. I kept a detailed time log for a couple of weeks last month, and found that I averaged:

  • 40 minutes to write a post (pay varies slightly from $35 to $50 per post, but the time spent varied correspondingly)
  • 5-10 minutes to edit each post
  • 5-20 minutes to format, upload and “administrate” each post (includes tasks like HTML code, finding images, answering comments, emails)

The figures were fairly consistent across the different blogs, and though some activities do not directly produce income (such as answering comments), I consider them a part of the job of producing a blog post, and further recognize that good communication with a blog editor and readers is a point in my favor when an editor is considering keeping me on.

Of course, some of my day was spent in activities like checking and answering emails and reading RSS feeds, but these sorts of tasks typically take up 20 – 30% of my work day – not 80%. On the whole, based on these three examples, the Pareto principle does not hold true, in any meaningful way, for my freelancing.

Why Pareto Doesn’t Work For Effective People

The Pareto principle often gets cited as a convenient shorthand for cutting down on time-wasting activity, spending, or unproven marketing, and for focusing on what’s truly important. This is good advice, but it doesn’t need to be tied to particular numbers. It’s also not very useful if you’re already working effectively.

For example, if you’ve outsourced your time-consuming administrative tasks in order to focus on what you can excel at, then you’ll probably find that 20% of your work time produces 20% of your income and 80% of your work time produces 80% of your income… which you can’t improve on!  In cases when a system (and that system could just be “you going about your workday”) is working effectively, it could be actively harmful to start trying to obsessively tweak it.

If you start searching for that mythical 20% that should be delivering 80% of your results, then you might find yourself cutting out activities which are actually essential to your success. Some of these may seem insignificant if you’re just looking at how much money is coming in, but are important in the long-term:

  • Effective support for customers – it may cost you time/money but builds up repeat business and good word-of-mouth marketing.  Good support will help to keep your churn rate down and avoid losing customers.
  • Taking the time to be friendly and helpful towards clients – maybe sending holiday or birthday greetings, forwarding them articles they would find interesting, and providing a professional opinion when asked.  In situations where a client can choose from multiple equally competent service providers, this sort of relationship often makes the difference.
  • Reading journals, books, blogs and articles in your niche.  While such metawork should not be used as an excuse to avoid real work (such as writing articles), to stay on top in your profession you’ll need to keep up with the direction the field is taking, and continuously honing your skills.

I’m sure you can think of dozens more examples. In certain cases, it’s very hard to pin down exactly which actions may result in a sale, a new client, or a “eureka” moment down the road – so don’t become focused on optimizing everything at all costs.

Rather than using the Pareto principle as a hard-and-fast rule, use it as a reminder to take stock once in a while. Look at what you’re doing over the course of a day – keeping a time log can help you to do this accurately – and consider where your time is being spent ineffectively.

Your Experience With the Pareto Principle

Do you have a great example of the Pareto principle in action, in your own life or business?  Did you really discover that 20% of your clients provided 80% of your income?  Or do you find in certain situations you are working effectively enough that Pareto doesn’t apply?

P.S. This post is by Ali Hale. I promise we’ll have a better Author box up soon ;) – Sid

Get On The List and Get Your Free Course and Ebook!

Personal Development 101 Cover
  • Your free personal development course, Personal Development 101
  • Instant updates when new articles get published
  • Your free copy of The Little Book Of Big Motivational Quotes

Enter Your Email Address Now:


Did you know ... this list of articles is custom generated for you? If you enjoyed this article, you may enjoy these similar articles:

  1. What Is Analysis Driven Personal Development?
  2. The Best Personal Development Books Reading List
  3. Strategies for Dealing With Email Overload – How To Get To And Maintain Inbox Zero
Please review the Comment Policy.
  • Another excellent article, Ali! Thanks for sharing her with us again, Sid.

    I generally go with my gut when it comes to getting rid of clients. I can usually pretty quickly determine if a client is going to be a worthwhile recourse of income or just a waste of time. The 80/20 rule just tries to make this principle more concrete. But like you said, this can't be applied to everything, all the time. Eric.
  • Thanks Eric. Yep, I agree that most of us apply Pareto-like reasoning automatically. After all, it's just common sense not to take on a client who'll be a lot of hassle for not much money!
  • if clients C and D require you to produce less and so on, you can look at replacing them (unless they are just enough to fill the free time). When working with the 80/20 rule you should always look at the people that generate the low end of your income and try to find someone that will give more work so you can eventually get rid of the low performers.
  • Good point, Richard, but as you say, they fit nicely into the time available for me! I'd have to replace them both with a single client, and probably cut something else as well.
  • Hi Ali,

    I think the Pareto Principle is a just a good idea taken too far. And it should only apply to the macro level rather than the micro level. Great way to put it all together Ali!

    Cheers,
    Jeremy
  • Good point about the macro rather than micro level -- I agree that part of the problem with Pareto for very small businesses like my one-gal-and-a-laptop outfit is that it's actually quite easy to remove inefficiencies! It's only when you get into macro-economic situations that the 80/20 statistics work out.
  • hi there! just wanted to say thanks for your comment. and cinnamon oreo ice cream? TO DIE FOR. i HIGHLY recommend tracking some down - or crafting your own - or anything else necessary to get your hands on some of that goodness :)
  • I agree to what you're saying now. I'm facing the reverse-80/20 Paretto's law: 80% of time spent generate little income 20% ;P
  • Hey Ali,

    I am a believer of 80/20 rule but not to a extreme level. I do agree with you that the pareto principle can't be applied to everything that we do. But it does a good work in helping us to do more valuable task . Thanks for sharing.

    Cheers
    Vincent
    Personal Development Blogger
  • Hi Ali,

    I've never taken the figures terribly seriously.

    I rely on a different principle: work smarter, not harder.
  • Well, first of all, I commend you for questioning an idea that is often taken at face value.

    The way I understand it, the 80/20 rule is a means of prioritizing. The principle behind it is that all activities are not equally valuable and if you chart your activities, a smaller number will be more valuable. And that what establishes greater value of an activity is its long-term benefit.

    In terms of your freelance writing, we might state that the most valuable activity would be: to get paid the most amount of money for the shortest period of time with the greatest residual income. I did a quick chart of these three variables relating to your freelance business. After looking at the numbers, I simplified the activities into blogging and magazine article writing because the magazine article was the only variable. In terms of time, money and residual income all of the blog articles prioritize the same.

    The magazine article is in the middle of your income, at the bottom of your 'time spent', but it is at the top your residual income. The reason it is at the top is that one published article gains you credibility and notoriety which exponentially increase your clientele and income per article. So all that time writing queries is actually worth thousands of dollars more than any single article you could write.

    If you spent the majority of your time querying magazines instead of writing you would starve to death. But the effort you put into getting published increases the value of your writing over-all. It is this basic dynamic that the 80/20 rule points out.

    But, then, most of us do not give it this much consideration. I hadn't until I read your article. ;)
  • Sid:

    I found this self analysis to be very interesting because we all know how much the 80/20 rule has been hyper-marketed these days. You've taken this principle and truly tried it on your own to see if it applied to you or not. And it didn't.

    You just inspired me to think about whether the 80/20 rule applies to my life or not. Thanks for the inspiration!
  • Sid, In general I believe having a large sample of data tends to validate the 80/20 rule. I was first introduced to the concept when I developed a maintenance management system for a nuclear power plant. I looked at a lot of maintenance data and it held pretty true.

    Next when I was in sales for what became a very large software company the 80/20 played out in the sales organization as well; particularly as it grew. Twenty percent of the the people brought in 80% of the business. Which was pretty shocking when you think about it.

    Now I am involved with a leading direct sales company in the personal development industry. One of the reasons I decided to move forward was seeing the 80/20 play out here as well. Twenty percent of the people make 80% of the sales. To me it helped validate it as a viable opportunity. But since the commission structure is not multi-level marketing (MLM) that may play a part as well.

    What did surprise me though was looking at other MLM "business opportunity" income disclosure statements. They are often hard to find but the 80/20 is NOT common at all in the ones I have reviewed.

    Based on my own experiences, I believe someone should ask a lot more questions if they don't see 80/20 rule playing out. Not to say it's always true; but look for why it not. There may be something there that warrants further investigation.
  • Hi Jim,

    I agree that often the rule is held - I think the point Ali is making here,
    quite validly, is that the more efficient we are the less likely it is the
    80/20 rule holds true. For individuals, we may be searching for a mythical
    20% that just isn't there.

    Perhaps in larger groups, it is more pronounced also because individual
    differences and abilities are so large. I have read many times that the
    best software developers outperform their counterparts 10:1 or even 100:1.
    This seems remarkable, but I can remember working in college in groups as
    well as on software teams where I, one person was responsible for basically
    all the work that was completed.

    You make very valid points, and I think your presence here certainly adds to
    the discussion! I don't have experience with MLM, but intuitively I am
    surprised the 80/20 rule does not hold - I know many people on the lower
    levels don't always make a profit, and a few that work very very very hard
    seem to reap a large portion of the rewards. Perhaps that is just what I've
    seen however, and as you point out, may not be supported by the data.
  • Hi

    I work part-time as a researcher. The company is BIG into the 80/20 principle. For me, it just doesn't work. If I am researching a topic, I usually find that golden piece of information in the last 20% of my work. I think that my seniors frown somewhat on my style, but for me I simply can't produce something where I doubt that I have the full story.

    Juliet
  • Not to pick on you Juliet, but for research, don't you generally stop researching when you find that golden piece of information? That makes it always in the last 20% of the work. I'm not so sure the principle could apply here because of this.

    I would suggest however, that if you were able to find the best info in the first 20% of the work, you likely would be able to apply the principle. Problem is with research until you have more to compare to and understand, that other 80% of context is needed to recognize it.
  • Excellent article.... thank you!
  • There is a point to be made though. The Pareto Principle isn't necessarily something that holds true, although it often is (in varying proportions).

    But it can be used as something to seek for. Imagine that you use the Pareto principle as a goal as well as a measurement tool. You *want* 20% of your input to produce 80% of your output. You want one customer out of five to pay you 80% of your wage working one full day a week. Often, making these adjustments isn't as hard as you'd first think.

    Logically, if you follow this for some time, you'd end up incredibly effective (and also broke – cutting off your income in increments doesn't really help ;) ). But that's beside the point. You'd have to use the Pareto principle in seeking the Pareto principle in order to make it be efficient and not a time-waster :)
  • Hi Christoffer,

    Definitely can't argue with the logic of what you point out - it's a
    constant struggle I have myself, wondering if what I am doing is efficient
    or if I should be expending energy working in a different direction =)
  • Arun K
    This is just so true! I once got into big trouble in my office when I did not agree to the 80/20 principle and (worse) when I actually provided data to prove that my team's productivity was not in line with Paretto. Nett result - Was seen as some kind of a rebel. I did not learn anything from this excercise! A few months later I presented my case against the bell curve theory! Some people never learn.
    PS : Sid - I like the way u think.
  • Hi Arun,
    Thanks for your comment! I loved this article too. I just want to clarify
    that it was written by Ali Hale, a fantastic staff writer on SidSavara.com.
    I thoroughly enjoyed it and support everything she wrote in it, but I can't
    take credit for it being my own work =)
  • Arun K
    My apologies to Ali! Really good article.