90-9-1 Rule Skews the New Web

June 10th, 2009 34 Comments

Photo by powerbooktrance on Flickr used under Creative Commons

Photo by powerbooktrance on Flickr used under Creative Commons

You’ve probably heard of the 90-9-1 rule of communities, outlined here by Jakob Nielsen.

If not, here’s the summary:

In most online communities, 90% of users are lurkers who never contribute, 9% of users contribute a little, and 1% of users account for almost all the action.

News over the past couple weeks underscores this theory. First, we hear from the Harvard Business School that “the top 10% of prolific Twitter users accounted for over 90% of tweets.” Further, “a typical Twitter user contributes very rarely. Among Twitter users, the median number of lifetime tweets per user is one. This translates into over half of Twitter users tweeting less than once every 74 days.”

Not all that surprising. If you use Twitter, think about your usage. Generally, people join, plant the obligatory “checking out this twitter thing” flag and then disappear, frequently forever.TechCrunch then adds metrics from Purewire to the pile. From their research:

So, 80% of users follow fewer than ten others, 70% are followed by fewer than ten others, and 78% have tweeted less then ten times.

Makes you wonder what the big deal is with Twitter. Twitter isn’t for everyone, and you may never find it valuable. I’ve been saying that for years.

Then, this NYT article (h/t Slashdot) references data from Technorati citing a 2008 survey that found only 7.4 million of the 133 million blogs they track had been updated in the past 120 days, or put more directly, 95 percent of blogs are essentially abandoned.

All these data run counter to the hype around the New Web. All that talk about user-generated content and crowdsourcing intelligence seems wildly optimistic in the face of the actual numbers.

From my experience blogging and tweeting, I can’t say I’m surprised. Most people don’t have the time to keep a blog running regularly or to build a following on Twitter. Even if you dedicate yourself to these activities, you’re bound to hit patches of boredom and frustration.

As much as New Web tools are compared to cocktail parties, I often wonder if the party is being held in the Grand Canyon, and I’m having one of those dream where I’m talking and then yelling without making any actual sound.

Insert the “these things take time” adage.

It’s true here, with the caveat that time could be infinite.

Seriously though, New Web and the technology supporting it are racing way ahead of human adoption. Most people just aren’t ready to jump out of the lurking crowd and into the 10% participating.

The Harvard Business School study added one interesting gem that alludes to the way to get people to jump.

“On a typical online social network, the top 10% of users account for 30% of all production.”

They don’t cite any other statistics, which is a bit maddening, but extrapolating, the numbers suggest that social networks have the potential to break through the 90-9-1 barrier. If 70% of the content is created by the remaining 90% of users, why not? This is a much more even distribution.

I think we all know why. Trust.

Whether it’s based in reality or not, the majority of people trust social networks that use the symmetric follow model, i.e. we’re friends or we ain’t. I can’t think of any other reason why participation is higher on “typical” social networks.

This is a good lesson for broadcast-friendly services like Twitter and blogs. If you want engagement and participation, you need trust.

What do you think? Do these numbers jibe with your behavior?

Sound off in the comments.


Possibly Related Posts

  • http://friendfeed.com/bhc3 Hutch Carpenter

    "As much as New Web tools are compared to cocktail parties, I often wonder if the party is being held in the Grand Canyon, and I’m having one of those dream where I’m talking and then yelling without making any actual sound."

    This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed

  • http://empoprise-bi.blogspot.com/ John E. Bredehoft (Empoprises)

    One minor comment on the Technorati stat. In some cases (including my own), blogs were abandoned because new blogs were started. I've changed my blogging strategy a few times since 2003, going from multiple blogs to a single blog and back to multiple blogs again. And with these new blogs, my last visit to Technorati revealed that Technorati hadn't pinged them in some time, so my near-daily updates to the blogs were unknown to Technorati.

    This doesn't invalidate your premise – there clearly is a steep curve when you graph members' interactions – but it's worth a mention.

  • http://friendfeed.com/miniman Stuart Miniman

    Great analogy – so much of the time you hear nothing back or maybe an echo (RT). One of the reasons we like FriendFeed is for the potential for greater dialogue.

    This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed

  • http://friendfeed.com/jkuramot Jake Kuramoto

    @Stuart Thanks and happily Disqus’ Reactions feature magically started working this week so I can see comments over here. I need motivation to return to FF.

    This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed

  • http://friendfeed.com/bhc3 Hutch Carpenter

    Glad to see you here Jake

    This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed

  • http://friendfeed.com/jkuramot Jake Kuramoto

    @Hutch Thanks. I’ve been on FF since the invite-only beta, but it got really noisy due to the Scoble effect. Trying to use it more.

    This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed

  • http://theappslab.com Jake

    Good point. The NYT piece focuses on pie-in-the-sky bloggers who had dreams of getting rich, which, as we all know, doesn't happen. If that's the motivation, quitting is pretty easy.

    Besides, blogging is harder than it sounds, and it takes time and dedication, even if you're building an audience vs. trying to make money.

    Unless you strike gold with UCG + pithy captions, providing a never-ending supply of content w/very little of your own effort :) I should focus on the ICHC network; that's a crazy business model.

  • joel garry

    Time to move on to the next technology when mainstream politics get involved.

  • http://theappslab.com Jake

    You're on Twitter? IMO getting local news and government on Twitter, assuming they're paying attention, is a good thing.

    Big assumption though.

  • http://theappslab.com Jake

    BTW thanks for your other comment ;)

  • joel garry

    I signed up for it when Oracle people started doing it, never got into it. I just thought those particular articles were interesting, marketing people have a, er, “different” view of the social technologies. Combine marketing with government and politics and, voila, it's 1984 (the book) all over again. Paying attention? Shoot, don't get me started on that. These people don't pay attention, they only are in it for the money or manipulation. The marketing people are just in it for the money, write a blog, make a tweet, they've done “work.” I don't begrudge people getting gummint contracts, but they often are putting out drivel rather than content. And that is not a good thing for social media, as you noted, trust is the differentiator for usefulness. How long would you follow a blog that is just Oracle press releases? Would you hang on its every word in case they bought some other company? Isn't that even less interesting than some stranger saying they don't want to clean their toilet? Good blogs are interesting because they analyse, tell you things you don't already know. Can tweets say the same?

    An interesting point came out of an article about Flo TV: “I think that says there is clearly a demand from people who have the service, and we see a really big spike when things are happening that people care about, whether that's a Lakers-Magic game, a plane landing in the Hudson River, swine flu outbreaks, the inauguration… When things are happening in my life, I want to view them on the best screen available. If the Lakers' game was on now, but I'm on an airplane, I'm between classes, I'm on a road trip in a vehicle and I have my netbook with me, that's the best screen available. So people are living their lives, and their expectation is whatever is happening can be integrated into their lives where they're at.” – Bill Stone

    You can only watch so many videos of people getting hit in the nuts by eight-balls. You can only read so many useless tweets. At some point, the Grand Canyon gets a little too quiet. Then the bots come.

  • http://theappslab.com Jake

    Feeling honored that you continue to read here and enjoy your contrarian viewpoint.

    Interesting point from Bill Stone. I have used Twitter frequently to find news reported as it happens, and for me, the 'tubes provides the best screen, mainly b/c it's, you know, online and all. The best screen probably applies to your thoughts on mobile as well, incidentally.

    I can't do Twitter w/o groups for filtering, which is the only reason I cling to TweetDeck, despite its memory consumption. You don't hear much complaining about native Twitter groups anymore, but that's definitely a gap I'd like to see filled.

    There's that trust thing again.

  • http://www.oracle.com/ JordanOAtOracle

    I think the 90-9-1 rule is not about trust but more about two things: cultural conditioning, and time. From our first visit to Romper Room/Barney/Sesame Street/Teletubbies/etc. we are conditioned to be lurkers and watch to learn/be entertained/be contained but *not* participate. So, it takes a lot of emotional inertia to fight years of conditioning to be willing to give one’s opinion; even when it is requested without qualification. And secondly, for me at least, I am using the web’s resources to help me solve problems in a fairly transactional mode. I really have to carve out and dedicate specific time to participate in the networks that I use to help me in my day-to-day job. Perhaps if our employers, from the top down (as in corporate culture) sanctioned some percentage of everyone’s work-life to include social networking than we may see a shift in the 90-9-1 effect; at least in the enterprise.

    This comment was originally posted on Oracle AppsLab

  • http://theappslab.com/ Jake

    I’ve observed that shift over the last two years on Connect, as people begin to find real ways to get work done. Connect exists without top-down mandate, which I think has helped it grow virally, uncovering the good use cases.

    Trust is a key component to pushing the 10% (who create content on blogs, Twitter) up to 30% on social networks. I agree consumption is the default behavior for many, but not so much in younger people, who are no longer as used to it as we are/were.

    This comment was originally posted on Oracle AppsLab

  • http://empoprise-bi.blogspot.com/ John E. Bredehoft (Empoprises)

    Jake, both you and Jordan seem to have an underlying assumption that people are traditionally consumers, and that participation is now more prevalent than it was in the past. But if we go back to pre-industrial times, there was more participation (with some well-defined limits), such as New England town meetings, Greek democracy, etc.

    I wonder if the consumption culture is more a product of the modern age; it’s notable that Jordan cited television as the initial example (ironically, Sesame Street was theoretically supposed to elicit participation in its viewers). If this is the case, then trusted social media environments, rather than being something bold and new, would be a return to our roots.

    This comment was originally posted on Oracle AppsLab

  • http://www.oracle.com/ JordanOAtOracle

    John, thanks for the perspective. I definitely see how many aspects of social networking could help us in this regard. The fact that network bandwidth and laptop/desktop hardware have reached the zenith required to do ad-hoc collaborative knowledge sharing may allow us to direct MMU style groups to the enterprise; especially in the context of large distributed companies.
    I also think that sites like elance, odesk, and mechanical turk are great ideas from an organizational perspective to help enterprises find best-of-breed ad-hoc talent using social media; but here is where I think the trust issue really hits home. No matter how well we integrate social media technologies with enterprise players; if they don’t inherently trust the resources or infrastructure (not my cloud, I didn’t vet the people personally, etc.) the resources will only be niche players in the long run.
    So, I guess it really does come down to trust when it comes to participation between the enterprise and the great unwashed masses (in either direction). Perhaps this is where the SEO and Brand Loyalty folks will really make their money? Helping enterprises engender the kind of trust that’s required to elicit ad-hoc/spontaneous participation between a customer/prospect and the organization… regardless of whether that customer is a retailer, partner, supplier, etc.

    This comment was originally posted on Oracle AppsLab

  • http://theappslab.com/ Jake

    Good point, and yes, I’ve been referring to old media in the modern age.

    I watch the advance of government bodies (federal, state and local) with interest, since I think some of them have begun to see the benefits of participation through New Web. This gets at your point about a return to the way it was, on a larger scale.

    This comment was originally posted on Oracle AppsLab

  • http://empoprise-bi.blogspot.com/ John E. Bredehoft (Empoprises)

    Your comment reminded me of one of the first examples of online participation that I ever encountered.

    I graduated from Reed College in 1983 in the midst of a recession, which made it hard to find a job in Portland (and which is why I eventually came to southern California). When I wasn’t working temp jobs, I spent time watching cable TV (go Cubs!). One day the cable channel was airing some type of public affairs show, where people could provide feedback via their cable remotes. However, this was an idea that was ahead of its time; hardly anyone used the remotes to provide the feedback they were requesting. I don’t even think that 10% of the viewers responded; perhaps it was more like 1%.

    This comment was originally posted on Oracle AppsLab

  • http://theappslab.com/ Jake

    Interesting. Wow, definitely way ahead of the curve. I wonder if that model would succeed today, i.e. w/the remote.

    This comment was originally posted on Oracle AppsLab

  • http://laurelpapworth.com LaurelPapworth

    Hmmm. Dr Jakob Nielsen's work is from Oct 2006 and based on studies even earlier than that. Wouldn't it be more useful to compare the two Forrester studies 13% are Creators in 2007 up to 26% Creators in 2009? We are learning to contribute. We will learn Twitter. We find blogs lonely (media created in isolation) and hard to build an audience and time consuming but we learnt Facebook very well. Twitter offers nothing to a first time user (not much of a profile to fill in, no apps to play with). But they eventually come back…

  • http://theappslab.com Jake

    Sure. The Forrest study that Charlene and Josh did break the types of users down into much more granular categories, which is good. I'm not sure of the sample sizes, but my guess is, when applied to the 'tubes, the numbers are probably still closer to 90-10 for blogs and Twitter.

    As you say, blogs are hard, and frankly, so is Twitter. The value of community is tough to quantify.

    Agreed that participation takes time, and you allude to the main reason why when you mention Facebook. It's trust.

    I don't actually find blogs lonely. It just takes time to build a community.

  • Pingback: Here comes Clay Shirky’s ‘Cognitive Surplus’