Jump to content

New User Archetypes


Recommended Posts

BrandArchetype_Graph_v2-830x550.png

When new users come to your community, they're attracted by different things and seeking different value propositions.  

I wanted to propose 3 archetypes for New Users:

  • Seeker: These new users are the most mercenary. They seek their information in the fastest, most efficient manner. Once they obtain their information, their knowledge gap is fulfilled, and they have no more use for your community.  Their values center around self-fulfillment, efficiency, and accuracy or speed of knowledge.  This is usually the 90% of a public-facing community.
  • Citizen: These new users are the quiet lurkers.  They may initially seek knowledge, but are curious - and soon become attracted to - the sense of community, freedom, or knowledge that the community sparks in them.  Their values center around  exploration, a sense of belonging, and curiosity. Oftentimes, these Citizens become superusers overtime but are the slow and quiet ones.  This is usually the 9%.
  • Creator: These are the ones that come in with a bang, and immediately start contributing and sharing their subject expertise.  They usually have confidence in their abilities or skills, go out of their way to share, and may feel a strong sense towards either service to others or power.  These are the superusers that can be shaped and molded into your biggest contributors.  This is usually the 1%. 

What do you think about these archetypes?  Have you seen these archetypes in your community? How do we thoughtfully approach and build pathways of success for each of these?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with these three categorization of new community users. I believe all community users fit into one of these categories. I also believe a seeker can be converted into citizen and citizen into creator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm less and less convinced that we should spend time trying to convert one archetype to another (eg. To push and notify and send newsletters to coerce a lurker into a superuser) and more convinced we should attempt to provide distinct user journeys to accelerate the users who can or want to contribute. 

To put it another way, do we try to push and force a user to become someone they're naturally not? Or do we meet users where they're most comfortable at? 

This second approach requires more thought and more individualization. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use online community for learning and sharing. I like forums where I can learn something new and where I can share what I know most. If I like the community, I remain active, therefore, I fit more into ccreator category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I tend to see creators within online communities the most I feel and I would also put myself into that category too. 

If I join a forum and I can discuss what interests me and also give my opinion or even expertise, then I am happy and I continue to stay and be an active contributor to that forum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never thought to separate different kinds of users into different categories before. I can see why some may do that though and it makes sense to do that in most communities. 

I too would put myself in the creator category. I love to share my opinions and discuss what interests me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Destiny said:

I never thought to separate different kinds of users into different categories before. I can see why some may do that though and it makes sense to do that in most communities. 

Most forums attempt to do that with our different membergroups, and we've been partitioning our users since the beginning of time.  

But HOW we've been partitioning our membergroups has no evolved at all.  We are still using legacy methods of promoting members based on very shallow factors:

  • Total activity - regardless of whether or not the activity is helpful, useful, informative, or expert.  
  • Total time - regardless of whether or not the member has actually contributed anything meaningful in that timeframe

While these were appropriate factors in the early days of forums (as the ONLY ways to separate members), I think we need to become better at offering pathways based on meaningful impact.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Share more information, add your insight, and reply to this topic. All users are welcome to post.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...