DISQUS

That's a terrific take on an important trend, Andrew. Your hypothetical meeting is one we've had with hundreds of companies over the time I've been with Lithium -- and it's an a-ha moment for companies every single time.

I appreciated your comments about knowledge workers too. Back in 2000 when Ruth Williams and I wrote about online communities for SMR, we used the term "discretionary energy" to describe the untapped potential that exists inside and outside every company, in customers and employees alike. You can't compel it -- even from those who work for you -- but you can claim it by providing a platform and environment that makes people want to contribute.

It's a fascinating topic for management science I think -- in addition to being an incredibly fun and satisfying area of emerging management practice.

I personally find tweeting that you found a dead zone to be kind of funny. That's like tweeting when you can't find a place to park in the Best Buy parking lot.:)

But seriously, it's seems true to me that these social media outreach efforts aren't aimed at addressing *every* customer with a problem out there -- otherwise, you wouldn't need 10 or 20 people (the largest outreach efforts I know of), you'd need something equivalent to a call center.

But I don't think that makes the efforts of these big brands "disingenuous." I just think it means, to Chris's point, that companies are still building out a process for doing this stuff sustainably. In my book, the Dells and Comcasts and Sprints of the world get a lot of credit for starting on this path. (Mind you that I think it's fair to apply a more rigorous standard to traditional channels like call centers.)

Thanks, Jake -- one of my favorite topics!

I'm with Scott and Scott on the labels -- Nielsen's are clear and accurate: heavy contributor, intermittent contributor, lurker. Creator, editor, and audience are clear but not accurate.

Here's the trouble: in your response to Scottd, you described Creators as the people who "start with a blank piece of paper," and Editors as those "who append something to something someone else has started." However, in communities I know -- those where users provide help and advice to other users -- it's exactly the opposite. The 1% almost never start a conversation. It's the 9% who ask, and the 1% who reply.

I also wonder about the label "audience." I'm no fan of "lurker" -- it's always seemed pejorative to me -- but "audience" suggests a relation similar to watching television or attending a concert. Lurker at least implies the possibility of "delurking." Audience seems more 1.0 -- or even 0.0 -- than 2.0.

So I think we'd have a more productive conversation if we began with Nielsen's model and explored that more thoroughly. There are a lot of interesting questions around that, including how the model applies to communities of different size, composition, purpose, or mode of interaction.

This site is a great idea, Jake - I don't think this formula is as widely known or as well understood as it should be.

I'll join the debate around labels for each of the three segments of the pyramid: Nielsen's labels are really very simple and very accurate -- heavy contributor, intermittent contributor, and lurker. In his model, the main difference between the top two segments is one of degree, not kind.

Are there differences in kind between what the 1% do and what the 9% do? Yes - but in my experience the difference is exactly the opposite of what you describe in your response to Scott. In your model, the Creator "sits down with a blank piece of paper," and the Editor "appends something to something someone else has started." In fact, in the communities I know, the 1% almost never initiate the conversation -- that work is done by the 9%. The contributions of the 1% are overwhelmingly in the form of replies to what others have created. I'd be very surprised if this isn't your experience as well. So your labels should actually be reversed -- though I'd prefer a return to Nielsen's more accurate ones.

The concept of "editing" in communities is actually a very interesting one. Only in wiki-based communities is editing a privilege generally extended to all members. The average user can't edit a blog post or comment (other than their own), and can't edit a post in a forum (other than their own). If you extend the definition of editing to include "appending" or "replying," then you end up with the problem I noted above -- the 9% mostly author and don't "edit."

My last observation relates to the label "audience." I've never been a huge fan of "lurker," for all the obvious reasons. But "audience" belongs more to a world of 1.0 (or even 0.0) than to Web 2.0. I sometimes use the word "target audience" when I'm talking to the companies about the communities they could create, but once a community is up and running it doesn't feel accurate to describe non-posters as if they are watching television or attending a concert. Among other things, it's desireable to have a label for this segment that suggests the potential of lurkers to "de-lurk" -- whereas audience members can't really step up on stage.

One thing we don't talk about enough re 90-9-1 is that it is a point-in-time snapshot and not a longitudinal view. The boundaries between the slices is fluid. The 10% who participate this month are not identical to the 10% who participated last month. So every time I cite this statistic I make sure I qualify it by stressing the fact that it does not mean that only 10% of your target audience will ever participate. It means simply that only 10% will participate at any one time.

Jake, you broke the pyramid! But seriously, Neilson's model is very hard to improve upon.

Here's just one way in which the "creator/editor" hierarchy breaks down: As you note in your audio comment, one way to think about creator v. editor is that the creator starts the conversation and the editor refines and improves it. But it's exactly the opposite of what happens in most forum-based communities. In most forums, the 1% hardly ever start a conversation. They reply, but the don't start. The 9% are the ones who start the conversations. It's almost universal for communities larger than a few hundred people. So your top two labels could be reversed.

But actually you've munged Neilson's hierarchy together with a Forrester/Gartner-style participation ladder, and I'd argue that they do different things.

Still, an excellent way to kick off the conversation ...

Joe

I just want to make it clear that I am not Kosmo Kramer.:) But seriously, thanks for the good words, guys!