The new social technographics ladder

by Robin Grant in News on 19 January 2010 at 14:46 Google+

Forrester have just released a new version of their famous Social Technographics ladder, which looks at how people use social media:

Forrester's Social Technographics ladder

As you can see it now includes ‘Conversationalists’:

Conversationalists reflects two changes. First, it includes not just Twitter members, but also people who update social network status to converse (since this activity in Facebook is actually more prevalent than tweeting). And second, we include only people who update at least weekly, since anything less than this isn’t much of a conversation.

For now this just includes US data, and is not reflected in their consumer profile tool but I’m sure it’s just a matter of time before this changes. And for those of you wondering why the figures don’t add up to 100%:

That’s because the actual data told me that people participate in multiple behaviors, and not everyone at a higher level on the ladder actually does everything in the lower rungs.

Update: Mike Arauz has created a different and useful view of the data.

If you liked this post, why not subscribe to We Are Social by or ?


  • http://www.i-boy.com/weblog/ George Nimeh

    Given the level of effort and value created, I find it really surprising that Forrester puts “Conversationalists” above “Critics” … It takes far more effort to write a review, comment on a blog, contribute to a forum or wiki than it does to do a status update on Twitter. And it creates far more value.

    Value creation should sit at the heart of how we (individuals and organizations) measure things, both qualitatively and quantitatively. I don't see how this adds up.

    @iboy

  • http://twitter.com/camelglasses Dan Moss

    Yes, I'm also surprised in that many of the characteristics of 'Spectators' require them to be in some way connected to social media, therefore surely placing them below 'Joiners' doesn't make a great deal of sense?

    Generally, I don't think a ladder is the best way of going about describing these relationships. Yes, content creation is the pinnacle of social media engagement, but as George points out, Conversationalists are necessary in the ecosystem but hardly higher up on any kind of symbolic ladder.

  • http://wearesocial.net Robin Grant

    Hey George

    I can see your point – I'd say 'Conversationalists' should be placed above 'Joiners' and below 'Collectors' on the ladder, which would properly reflect their level of engagement.

    However, to say it doesn't add up is a little extreme…

  • Pingback: youthink's me2DAY

  • Pingback: Being Blonde » Blog Archive » First thoughts on Forrester’s “Conversationalists”

  • http://twitter.com/Phil_Adams Phil_Adams

    As frequent users of the Technographics model for comms planning, this was big news for our agency. The new behaviour category could actually make the model less easy to use because its description is less precise than the existing behaviours and because it overlaps with existing behaviours too.

    Hope you don't mind me posting a link to a fuller discussion of these points – http://blonde.net/blog/2010/01/20/first-thought…

  • http://www.tempero.co.uk/ Dom

    Hi Phil,
    I'm really interested in how well the Technographics models works for your planning within social activity. Would you say they strongly influence your decisions, are part of the mix or are a safety blanket to validate traditional thinking? I sometimes feel these models can be over thought so interested so see what other folks think.
    Cheers,
    @domsparkes / http://www.tempero.co.uk

  • http://twitter.com/Phil_Adams Phil_Adams

    Hi Dom

    The broad demographic brushstrokes provided by the Technographics profiling tool on the Groundswell blog, plus the regularly updated profile information that is available to Forrester subscribers, are useful as far as they go.

    But allying the Forrester model to primary research amongst specific audiences can be really powerful.

    A lot of digital campaigns are underpinned by wishful thinking – “it would be great to do an iPhone app”, “let's do a UGC campaign on Facebook”.

    Bespoke Technographics profiles based on primary data replace wishful thinking with something closer to the truth in terms of how your clients' audiences do or don't engage with (or in) various channels, technologies or behaviours.

    So yes, when used like that, the model can be highly influential.

    Hope this helps.

  • checkingthetable

    Yet another dimension to hierarchical/on-line/behavioural/technology dependent segmentation. Will wonders never cease ;) I'm yet to use frameworks like this in any capacity but I like the idea of tying it up with primary research like you say Phil. That sounds very appealing – are you in any position to elaborate?

  • http://www.checkingthetable.com/ checkingthetable.com

    Yet another dimension to hierarchical/on-line/behavioural/technology dependent segmentation. Will wonders never cease ;) I'm yet to use frameworks like this in any capacity but I like the idea of tying it up with primary research like you say Phil. That sounds very appealing – are you in any position to elaborate?

  • Pingback: Understand customers’ social behaviours / we are social

  • Pingback: Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-01-24 | aldissandmore - a technology and digital meme curation blog from Tim Aldiss

  • Pingback: A mildly popular blog’s stats laid bare / we are social

  • Pingback: Planner Reads » Blog Archive » Understand customers’ social behaviours

  • http://www.theuniuni.com/ Payton_vege

    Amazing write-up! This could aid plenty of people find out more about this particular issue. Are you keen to integrate video clips coupled with these? It would absolutely help out. Your conclusion was spot on and thanks to you; I probably won’t have to describe everything to my pals. I can simply direct them here!