Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers
Posted on February 17, 2006
Filed Under user-generated content, web 2.0, yahoo | Comments
As Yahoo! has been gobbling up many social media sites over the past year (Flickr, upcoming, del.icio.us) I often get asked about how (or whether) we believe these communities will scale.
The question led me to draw the following pyramid on a nearby whiteboard:
The levels in the pyramid represent phases of value creation. As an example take Yahoo! Groups.
- 1% of the user population might start a group (or a thread within a group)
- 10% of the user population might participate actively, and actually author content whether starting a thread or responding to a thread-in-progress
- 100% of the user population benefits from the activities of the above groups (lurkers)
There are a couple of interesting points worth noting. The first is that we don’t need to convert 100% of the audience into “active” participants to have a thriving product that benefits tens of millions of users. In fact, there are many reasons why you wouldn’t want to do this. The hurdles that users cross as they transition from lurkers to synthesizers to creators are also filters that can eliminate noise from signal. Another point is that the levels of the pyramid are containing - the creators are also consumers.
While not quite a “natural law” this order-of-magnitude relationship is found across many sites that solicit user contribution. Even for Wikipedia (the gold standard of the genre) half of all edits are made by just 2.5% of all users. And note that in this context user means “logged in user”, not accounting for the millions of lurkers directed to Wikipedia via search engine traffic for instance.
Mostly this is just an observation, and a simple statement: social software sites don’t require 100% active participation to generate great value.
That being said, I’m a huge believer in removing obstacles and barriers to entry that preclude participation. One of the reasons I think Flickr is so compelling is that both the production and consumption is so damn easy. I can (and do) snap photos and upload them in about 15s on my Treo 650. And I can, literally in a moment, digest what my friends did this weekend on my Flickr “Photos from Your Contacts” page. Contrast this with the production/consumption ratio of something like video or audio or even text. There is something instantly gratifying about photos because the investment required for both production/consumption is so small and the return is so great.
One direction we (i.e. both Yahoo and the industry) are moving is implicit creation. A great example is Yahoo! Music’s LaunchCast service, an internet radio station. I am selfishly motivated to rate artists, songs and music as they stream by… the more I do this, the better the service gets at predicting what I might like. What’s interesting is that the self-same radio station can be published as a public artifact. The act of consumption was itself an act of creation, no additional effort expended… I am what I play - I am the DJ (with props to Bowie.) Very cool.
I spoke a lot more about this in the Wired article. In the new paradigm of “programming” where there are a million things on at any instant, we’re going to need some new and different models of directing our attention. In the transition from atoms-to-bits, scarcity-to-plenty, etc. instead of some cigar-puffing fat-cat at a studio or label “stoking the star-maker machinery behind the popular songs” we’re going to have the ability to create dynamic affinity based “channels”. Instead of NBC, ABC, CBS, HBO, etc. which control scarce distribution across a throttled pipe… we’re going to have WMFAWC, WMNAWC, TNYJLC and a whole lot more. (The what my friends are watching channel, The what my neighbors are watching channel, The New York Jewish Lesbian Channel, etc.) I expect we’ll also have QTC (the Quentin Tarantino channel) but this won’t be media he made (necessarily) but rather media he recommends or has watched / is watching. Everyone becomes a programmer without even trying, and that programming can be socialized, shared, distributed, etc.
Another example of implicit creation is Flickr interestingness. The obvious (and broken) way to determine the most interesting pictures on Flickr would have been to ask users to cast votes on the matter. This would have been an explicit means of determining what’s interesting. It also would have required explicit investment from users, the “rating” of pictures. Knowing the Flickr community, this would have led to a lot of discussion about how/why/whether pictures should be rated, the meaning of ratings, etc. It also would have led to a lot of “gaming” and unnatural activity as people tried to boost the ratings of their pictures.
Instead, interestingness relies on the natural activity on and traversal through the Flickr site. It’s implementation is subtle, and Stewart has hinted that a photos interestingness score depends on putting a number of factors in a blender: the number of views, the number of times a photo has been favorited (and by whom), the number of comments on a photo, etc. I would guess that Flickr activity the day after interestingness launched didn’t change much from the day before, i.e. the cryptic nature of the algorithm (”interestingness” is the perfect, albeit arcane term) didn’t lead to a lot of deliberate gaming. But dammit, it works great.
Without anyone explicitly voting, and without disrupting the natural activity on the site, Flickr surfaces fantastic content in a way that constantly delights and astounds. In this case lurkers are gently and transparently nudged toward remixers, adding value to others’ content.
Comments
146 Responses to “Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers”
Leave a Reply
Neat chart! Yahoo’s doing a fine job of bringing a LOT of creativity to the top of the pyramid, though for me a really important question these days is “where is the most fertile ground for all this 2.0 creativity?”. Maybe Yahoo has the answer, which is to see what blossoms organically and then … buy it.
This is a great analysis of how some community sites operate. I’m buying Yahoo stock because of the companies commitment to building great community. Perhaps another aspect to the minority creating the majority of value is related to the fact that not all participants are equal. There are a small number of people on flickr that are waaaay better than most others at finding and producing great photos, for example. If a community can focus on engaging those key individuals, the results will be that much better.
Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers…
Bradley Horowitz, head of the Technology Development Group at Yahoo! Search Marketplace, has posted a great analysis of what it takes to make an online social networking community work, entitled Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers. (Thanks to the soc…
[…] Elatable » Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers […]
Do you make money on Flickr? I’m not denying its a success, but I notice you run text ads on it and I don’t recall ever clicking a text ad on an image site.
Maybe you should rethink the adverts for that? Something more graphical in keeping with the theme of the site?
[…] Found this great article by Bradley Horowitz of Yahoo!. He talks about the structure of social software services, and dynamics of the community that comes out of it. What struck me is how a small set of users feed and lead the membership. So instead of getting every sign-up to use your service, you should simply focus on your power users. Eventually they will motivate the casual user to become a more active contributor to community. […]
[…] You people are lucky. Bradley Horowitz is now blogging… He starts off with a great post on Social Media sites. If you are in this space, which is most of you, this should be the hot read of the day. Like I said, you people are lucky to get this kind of info for free. […]
[…] Bradley Horowitz of Yahoo has put up an excellent post on social software. As most of my consulting work is concerned with peer production, social software, tagging and rating systems, I found it fascinating. He gets it exactly right when he talks about the importance of “implicit creation” - instead of having explicit Digg-like rating systems, we gain more efficiency by gathering implicit data. This is one definition of attention. Fatal error: Call to undefined function: votio_ballot_box() in /home/content/m/a/s/masher/html/mini/wp-content/themes/regulus_wordpress_theme_2/single.php on line 22 […]
Dear Mr Horowitz.
Great post! And I wonder wether I am allowed to reproduce your chart on my blog (in France), with due mention, of course, of your name, url, trackback, permalink, etc…I am always wondering if this is “right”, or “wrong” and bothering blogger about permission. Old fashioned…
First you say that just 1%-10% are involved, and then later you talk about “everyone” involved in programming. That doesn’t add up, because:
1. Most people can’t be bothered.
2. Most people won’t know.
3. Most people are incapable.
great analysis, thanks for sharing it.
i’ll split the creator chunk in two :
#creator with large audience
#creators with audience only within their friends/relatives.
converting consumers to creators with a large audience (quality content) is a very hard job, but converting them to creators with small audience is one of our main preoccupation.
user-generated content is not just about 1% users creating high quality content to be viewed by 100%. but about a lot of 0,001% viewing content of a lot of 0.001%
act of creation is somewhere holy and what is noise for the majority is most of the time music for a few..
I just spent a bit of time making almost exactly this same point in a presentation I gave yesterday. If you had published this entry a day or two sooner I would have been more of a consumer, and re-used the content you created :-). I’ll still find it useful to point to later, great post.
It would be nice to have some primary sources of published data to reference, too (nudge, nudge: a Yahoo paper?).
[…] He also points to this useful graphic from Bradley Horowitz: […]
at Second Life (user created virtual world), i used the hierarchy of creators > customizers > personalizers to describe what you list here.
I liked personalize more than consume because everyone wants something unique and tailored to them, the trick is to deliver it to them with minimal effort on their part.
e.g I’m a customizer if I have to maintain an interest list in order to get news directed towards my interests. But if you do it for me based upon an understanding of my interests, it’s personalized.
Excellent post !
Love the statement “The act of consumption was itself an act of creation, no additional effort expended… I am what I play”
Yahoo! perhaps has it right when it is making these investments in the Social Web space … in the medium terms, a concoction of the Social Web with a steady dose of Algorithmic personalisation is what is going to win the day rather than just put 1000s of machines to personalise content (or search results) specific user profiles
[…] Bradley Horowitz of yahoo has an insightful piece on social media and user value. […]
excellent post.
The success of Flickr is a testament of what you speak.
On another note, I’d be interested to know the breakdown of users for answers.yahoo. This site would pose some interesting data, questions posted vs. questions answered.
Great post.
I am not sure whether you have read a similar piece by Nivi on his blog - http://www.nivi.com/blog/article/the-web-20-customers.
His October 30th piece takes a stab at Web 2.0 customers and breaks them into Creators, Linkers, Commentators and Surfers!
There’s a lot of whining about so-called A-listers right now. Guess which triangle A-listers would be in?
[…] Elatable | Bradley Horowitz » Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers A good piece of what makes the Social Web run … del.icio.us, Flickr etc (tags: Tags Tagging Collaboration SocialWeb Yahoo Flickr del.icio.us Web2.0) tags : […]
with all due respect, the pareto rule avails itself not only to web communities, but any collaborative effort with significant degrees of freedom (precluding low-degree environments like a military unit etc). certainly in a loosely defined environment like a software development team, this has been the rule since brooks, and at yahoo it has been observed behavior since the first message board.
[…] Bradley Horowitz of Yahoo! makes a great point about how particpatory media allows audiences to cluster around shared tastes, essentially supplanting the professional programmers of traditional media: In the transition from atoms-to-bits, scarcity-to-plenty, etc. instead of some cigar-puffing fat-cat at a studio or label “stoking the star-maker machinery behind the popular songs” we’re going to have the ability to create dynamic affinity based “channels”. Instead of NBC, ABC, CBS, HBO, etc. which control scarce distribution across a throttled pipe… we’re going to have WMFAWC, WMNAWC, TNYJLC and a whole lot more. (The what my friends are watching channel, The what my neighbors are watching channel, The New York Jewish Lesbian Channel, etc.) I expect we’ll also have QTC (the Quentin Tarantino channel) but this won’t be media he made (necessarily) but rather media he recommends or has watched / is watching. Everyone becomes a programmer without even trying, and that programming can be socialized, shared, distributed, etc. […]
[…] Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers February 19, 2006 In the new paradigm of “programming” where there are a million things on at any instant, we’re going to need some new and different models of directing our attention. In the transition from atoms-to-bits, scarcity-to-plenty, etc. instead of some cigar-puffing fat-cat at a studio or label “stoking the star-maker machinery behind the popular songs” we’re going to have the ability to create dynamic affinity based “channels”. Instead of NBC, ABC, CBS, HBO, etc. which control scarce distribution across a throttled pipe… we’re going to have WMFAWC, WMNAWC, TNYJLC and a whole lot more. (The what my friends are watching channel, The what my neighbors are watching channel, The New York Jewish Lesbian Channel, etc.) I expect we’ll also have QTC (the Quentin Tarantino channel) but this won’t be media he made (necessarily) but rather media he recommends or has watched / is watching. Everyone becomes a programmer without even trying, and that programming can be socialized, shared, distributed, etc. Instead, interestingness relies on the natural activity on and traversal through the Flickr site. It’s implementation is subtle, and Stewart has hinted that a photos interestingness score depends on putting a number of factors in a blender: the number of views, the number of times a photo has been favorited (and by whom), the number of comments on a photo, etc. I would guess that Flickr activity the day after interestingness launched didn’t change much from the day before, i.e. the cryptic nature of the algorithm (”interestingness” is the perfect, albeit arcane term) didn’t lead to a lot of deliberate gaming. But dammit, it works great. § […]
I think Flickr was a great call, although Yahoo! has its own photo albums and community it is a smart way of bringing in consumers who are also creators themselves - move them towards ur product and eventually integrating all of this into the community. Also, Yahoo! sees what others have not. Consumerism is so dynamic that sticking with upgrading your own products (which perform much the same way) does not bring in the clicks :D.
Nice blog
La pyramide d’Horowitz…
Bradley Horowitz qui dirige le Technology Development Group de Yahoo! Search & Marketplace a ouvert son blog en postant un bel article sur la participation aux communautés et il défend le modèle pyramidal suivant:
1% d’une population……
[…] Creators, Syntheziers and consumers: talks about communities and groups effect in yahoo. […]
Good piece. Encouraging viewers into content creation has to be a core issue for social sites, especially as the audience numbers decrease. It’s new material that maintains the sites attraction, and like any conversation long pauses tend to signal the end.
While I really like Flicker’s ‘Interestingness’ concept I think it’s a stretch to suggest that it gently movers lurkers towards being contributors. Personally I see it as a way to increase view time and exploration. Contributing is an active process.
What sites need to do is to understand the barriers that create a reluctance to contribute and introduce mechanisms for users to actively interact just below those points. That’s I like voting and rating – like submitting pictures, everyone knows how and it’s easy. The very act though moves one from being a lurker into something more.
What’s happening is behavior is being shaped. Sure it can be gamed but, as long as techniques are used to eliminate bots, you know there’s an actively engaged user there.
And the first step towards content creation is some level of active participation.
[…] Elatable | Bradley Horowitz » Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers […]
[…] Бредли Хоровиц, шефот за технолошки развој на Јаху, на својот блог објави одлична анализа за тоа што е потребно да се направи за да се формира функционална и одржлива он-лајн заедница (social networking community). […]
[…] I’m behind as usual - I just read Bradley Horowitz’s article on ‘creators, synthesizers, and consumers‘ which was written days ago. It’s got a nice little pyramid up at the top which shows how Yahoo thinks of social media and community - for every one creator there’s ten synthesizers and one hundred consumers. […]
[…] Die Beiträge lesen sich schon einmal prima und sind auch sehr aufschlussreich (Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers zu Flickr). […]
[…] I’ve been meaning to comment on this post by Bradley Horowitz about participatory media. He contends that in “participatory media,” like Yahoo! Groups, there is a trend that 1% of the audience actually creates media, 10% are “synthesizers” who participate by leaving comments or whatever, and 100% read the media. (The numbers wouldn’t be pretty, but I think would make more sense if he said 89% were lurkers.) He diagrams this relationship by putting content creators at the top of a pyramid, suggesting a hierarchy of media users. […]
Very interesting post. I’m much more interested in the face-to-face community in which we eat, sleep and breath (and what all this expanding media consumption/production is doing to those “real world” communities, but it is certainly fascinating to learn how Yahoo views their mission — and their definition of community (which, of course, is a community that can be switched off like a light switch by someone who opts out…something you can’t do when your neighbor’s kid is knocking on your door selling cookies.)
One of the very Interesting blog post I have ever read… That’s really wonderful thoughts!!… I like the pyramids of analysis… I just want to be in the 1% level
!!
I found this post to be absolutely fascinating. It puts into words a lot of the troubles I’ve had in getting online projects going, including both simple forums to what I suppose should be called “social network-related” ones. I suppose this line is what got me the most:
Now I see there is a deeper metric I can at least attempt to look at. More importantly, a projects impact or benefit to a community is not limited solely to “active” participants. Looks like more logfile parsing for me…;)
Can anyone recommend more information on this subject?
[…] While browsing around at work today, I came across an interesting post on Bradley Horowitz’s blog describing his take on the relative distribution on the “phases of value creation”. I found this post via another post on Jeremy Zawodny’s blog, which I linked to from the links listed at the Google Blog. Rather appropriate for a post regarding social networking & online projects, eh? […]
Thanks everyone for your comments. Regarding the 89% being not as “pretty” of a number… Note that the pyramid is not actually stratified, but the 1% lives inside the 10% which lives inside the 100%. That’s the explanation behind the numbers… The “lurkers” category includes the others…
Also, found this post that challenged the concept interesting: http://www.yardley.ca/blog/index.php/archives/2006/02/21/yahoos-counterproductive-pyramid
My comments reproduced here:
Thanks for the feedback.
To be clear, “The Pyramid” isn’t Yahoo’s strategy. “The Pyramid” is an empirical observation.
Insight into our strategy in fact is better gleaned from this remark: “I’m a huge believer in removing obstacles and barriers to entry that preclude participation.” The comments regarding “implicit creation” are intended to illustrate one method we’re using to tear down this pyramid and move to a model where the distinction between these levels is moot.
When I give presentations the pyramid actually dissolves into a concentric circles where the three categories are actually 99% overlapping and indistinguishable.
We may in fact be in “violent agreement.”
Regarding “It’s becoming obvious to me that Yahoo hasn’t changed del.icio.us and Flickr much since their acquisition because they just don’t understand them.” The truth is that Flickr and del.icio.us haven’t changed themselves much since their acquisition because they are not broken.
[…] Elatable | Bradley Horowitz » Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers […]
[…] Bradley Horowith of Yahoo reflects on the distribution of users in their social spaces (ex. below based on YahooGroups). […]
[…] Elatable | Bradley Horowitz » Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers He’s talking about Yahoo groups but I suspect a similar thing applies in Flickr. Or for that matter on the Classroom Displays Blog * 1% of the user population might start a group (or a thread within a group) * 10% of the user population might participate actively, and actually author content whether starting a thread or responding to a thread-in-progress * 100% of the user population benefits from the activities of the above groups (lurkers) […]
[. . .] This division reminds me of Malcolm Gladwell’s Mavens/Connectors distinction in “the Tipping Point.” Mavens provide the information (similar to Bradley’s Creators) while Connectors share and distribute the Maven’s content (i.e. Synthesizers).
I believe the key group in this mix are the synthesizers. If the synthesizers are able to spread the word broadly enough (and attract enough attention), there will be enough positive feedback for the creator to continue her work. If the positive cycle continues, many synthesizers with creative inclinations will graduate to generating content, and the cycle continues and expands [. . .]
[…] The fact that we’re doing this to intrigue this small percentage of people might surprise some of you, but when you think about it, it shouldn’t. If you follow Umair Hague, and more recently Bradley Horowitz’ piece on the content creation pyramid you’d understand that most content is produced by the minority, but enjoyed by the majority. The examples they reference are all what I would refer to as easily identifiable content, whereas with Seekum, it is more of an intangible content this same group is contributing to. It is this whole user defined search that I’m talking about, the simple actions of voting things up and down are in fact a participatory content that the group is contributing to. The other way to look at it is that the search results are the content, and the users are contributing to it and helping create/recreate it. […]
That 2.5% of wikipedia users make half the edits is plausible. The same percentage of the US can name all 50 states.
While appreciating the argument, I wouldn’t like to see the conclusion reached that the majority of Internet participants are apathetic consumers.
The ratio may hold per site, per Open Source project, and so on, but the creator (and lets not imbue that with too much status, cows make milk, doesn’t make them better than drinkers of same) on one site may be the “mere” consumer elsewhere. The “consumer” may be a contributor in other contexts.
If I’ve mistakenly attributed status to one’s height up the pyramid, please forgive me, but the Internet aids democratisation, not the creation of new “upper” classes.
Finally, I don’t think it ever wise to under-estimate the impact of the audiences decision to consume, it both guides and justifies the existence of creators and synthesists.
[…] Fast forward a couple of decades, and that notion is rapidly becoming a business model. I really need to pay more attention to my bad ideas. I could be running Yahoo by now, I think. […]
[…] Muy interesante el post de Bradley Horowitz sobre como ve Yahoo la expansión de sus servicios de software social como Flickr y Del.icio.us. […]
[…] Original posting on Yahoo’s pyramid Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers […]
Motivation to Skill-Time Barrier Ratio…
A Bradley Horowitz post about the unbalance between those who lurk outnumbering those who create content got a good bit of attention last week. More interesting is Nat’s post on O’Reilly Radar zooming in on the issues surrounding why someone would ev…
[…] Finally, I followed Ben’s reference to Bradley Horowitz’s post on “Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers.” The model Horowitz drew on the 1/10/100 model for “groups” is the same model we are all very familiar with in the trade association world. It’s how most of us work: small number of leaders and active volunteers, slightly larger (but still comparatively small) number of members, producing resources that benefit the entire community of members and non-members alike. Interesting to see the “online social community” folks realizing it. Technorati Tags: associations, communities, long tail […]
[…] Greg Yardley had a blazing insight on this problem in his response to Bradley Horowitz’s media pyramid: I’d call the ‘creator-community’ the primary lesson of Web 2.0, but in fact creation-demanding services have been around for ages. Think about e-mail. Think about instant messaging. These huge applications are just frameworks for delivering user-created content to other users. While it’s possible to just passively receive e-mails or instant messages the vast bulk of people add their own content to the system, which in turn acts as an incentive for others to participate. A virtuous circle sucks everyone in, and e-mail and IM are now near-universal. […]
[…] Bradley Horowitz has a nice post on emerging social aspects on the Web. He says something really important: In the new paradigm of “programming” where there are a million things on at any instant, we’re going to need some new and different models of directing our attention. In the transition from atoms-to-bits, scarcity-to-plenty, etc. instead of some cigar-puffing fat-cat at a studio or label “stoking the star-maker machinery behind the popular songs” we’re going to have the ability to create dynamic affinity based “channels”. […]
I think it’s funny how so many people, in their citation of this blog post, are making it out to be an implicit attack on “lurkers” for the fact that they don’t contribute anything directly. It seems like they’re all jumping to the defense of those that many not be contributors. I know that’s not what was meant, but it’s interesting nonetheless. Now you’ll be archived and forever remembered as the malefactor of the masses. :-p
[…] Wikipedia has crossed the 1,000,000 article mark. Most of the content on Wikipedia is produced by a small group, the Horowitz’s Pyramid phenomenon. Thankfully, a lot of few are producing exellent articles, as I mentioned on my post on chemistry articles in Wikipedia. I see a lot of promise in Wikipedia, and I’m happy to see such prodigious work happening at the wiki.read more | digg story […]
DOES SEARCH ENGINES UNDERSTAND THIS ?
In other words, popularity of any web element (page or pic or video) cannot be solely determined on number of people linking to it (actively).
So search ratings based on links is not accurate representation of the popularity. It represents at best 10% of the population who view the content.
BUT WILL GOOGLE AND YAHOO CARE ?
[…] Recently Bradley Horowitz from Yahoo published a pyramid model of social media that generated a lot of comments. (see his blog Elatable) Essentially it’s a classic pyramid with creative production and participation descending from the apex - as the peak is the most creative/productive of content, followed by tiers of lesser ‘productivity’ and participation, until you arrive at the base which is passive and just ‘consumes’ the content created or manipulated (content that has been ‘participated’?) from above. Seem sort of common sense (”for every one creator there’s ten synthesizers and one hundred consumers” and that big broad base looks nice and stable!). […]
[…] Geeks think about creating, as shown in this blog post responding to a model of user-generated content. […]
[…] Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers (Via elearnspace.) I found this idea intriguing… and gsiemens’ reaction as well… particularly in the context of a classroom as a studio: [In] Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers the author states that for every creator, there are 10 synthesizers, and 100 consumers. I’m not convinced that this is entirely true in an educational environment. I would expect an equal number of creators and synthesizers during the learning process (with obviously varying levels of quality). […]
Interesting post. The numbers on wikipedia are fairly surprising, but also quite illuminating. I had been thinking about a similar theory for value creation based on experiences with my own site, but this summarizes it much more nicely. At first I was wondering why you put the lurkers on the “value” pyramid, but the example of flickr interestingness being influenced by lurker page views/behavior and ultimately adding value is a good one. Any more insights on how to attract the synthesizers?
[…] אדון הורוביץ היקר כתב פוסט שהולך להקל עלי על החיים בשיחות (שלא לומר ויכוחים) על אופיין של קהילות ועל social media באופן כללי. […]
[…] In face, Bradley Horowitz has a bit different take on how communities run, though what I’ve described above is similar (if you turn his pyramid into a center-based diagram). He’s using his model in the context of running/designing communities. I think I might expand his idea there and say that within each of these levels, there will tend be “local clusters” of topics/memes that surface, emerge, coalesce (insert trendy community word here . J Wynia is trying to peer through the fog and make sense of it all… […]
[…] Following a post and interesting graphic about community participation in blogs, wiki’s and internet communities, which divided people in three groups: 1% creators, 10% synthesizers of other people’s material, and the rest being passive Consumers, there has been a lot of debate on the internet. […]
Brandley, I really think your pyramid needs to be inverted and have the platform that creators are developing on top of at the tip. The platform is the fragile bit that holds up the whole inter-related community on top of it.
I have been using a similar pyramid for a couple years to help the platform companies understand who was most important to focus their attention upon (the creators/developers) and how to best keep them happy and draw their interest. Once I flipped the pyramid the platform companies/organizations got their importance.
There is getting to be a competition between the platforms for the creators/developers, which are a limited number (particularly when thinking of building widgets and tools for others). Understanding the importance of the community of developers from a framework or scarcity will help drive to make things easier for those just outside the normal class of developer that could build tools or build upon others tools. It also helps focus on reward systems (exposure, jobs, payments, etc.) that will draw in the needed creators/developers. I think Yahoo is doing well to support this path of understanding.
[…] I have taken to quoting Bradely Horowitz’s observation that “the act of consumption is itself an act of creation”. The iTunes/iPod UI team should be well positioned to exploit this phenomena. […]
[…] […]
[…] Perhaps that’s why this interesting post by Bradley Horowitz of Yahoo was no surprise to us! His view of Yahoo community content properties (including del.icio.us) is that their potential for success lies in their ability to leverage the work of a small percentage of users (the “creators”) to provide benefit to the rest (the “consumers”). He even claims approximately the same relative participation proportions that we observed, that one in ten users take the next step towards becoming creators. Note that this is not exactly the same as the del.icio.us lesson, but it can be assumed that the users have to first find personal value before they make the effort to advance through the pipeline. […]
[…] Y tan sólo el 1% de los usuarios de Yahoo! ha iniciado algún grupo y el 10% ha participado (independientemente del nivel de profundidad) en alguno de ellos según Bradley Horowitz. […]
[…] The community pyramid published by Bradley Horowitz very nicely depicts this asymmetry wherein you can find very large networks sustained by just a few creators at the top. In these types of applications, you really need to ease the barriers to adoption for consumers. […]
Kenya Tanzania Safaris,Lodge Safaris Kenya,Kenya Camping Tours, Incentive Group Safaris, weddings and honeymoon, Hotels, Car Hire and Mountain Climbing.
[…] Let’s compare to a different industry for a second. A similar pyramid created by Bradley Horowitz of Yahoo! was the subject of some controversy a couple of months ago. The stats literally match the way Yahoo! Groups seem to work: […]
[…] An interesting post entitled Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers, from Bradley Horowitz of Yahoo, with a nicely expressive graphic: […]
[…] ( Source. I wonder if Flickr intended those hurdles.) […]
Fantastic article. Okay, so you don’t want to disrupt the signal with noise, but what ratio exactly would be ideal? For instance, focussing on a shopping site you’d want to have as many as possible interacting. Would there be something you could do to tip the balance?
[…] Bradley Horowitz of Yahoo points out that much the same applies at Yahoo: in Yahoo Groups, the discussion lists, “1% of the user population might start a group; 10% of the user population might participate actively, and actually author content, whether starting a thread or responding to a thread-in-progress; 100% of the user population benefits from the activities of the above groups,” he noted on his blog (www.elatable.com/blog/?p=5) in February. […]
[…] 雅虎的Bradley Horowitz指出雅虎存在着相同的问题：在雅虎社区（Yahoo Group）里，1％的用户创建了讨论组；10％的用户活跃在互相讨论、发起新主题中；100％的用户从以上这批活跃用户那里获取信息。 […]
[…] According to Charles Arthur from Guardian Unlimited, there is a general “rule” that out of 100 people, 1 person will create content, 10 will interact with it, and the rest will just read the content. Charles points out a few important cases including YouTube which currently has a .5% creator/reader ratio. Bradley Horowitz wrote a very interesting article regarding the 1% rule for Yahoo! Groups. When you think about it, this rule holds to be very true in most cases. This rule holds fairly true in regards to forums, discussion boards, blogs, and even Digg.com! […]
I really believe in the concept of “implied interaction” mentioned here which measures the activity of users without them really needing to do anything extra. The fact someone could view an asset or add a friend - all implies something and can be used to show extra value to other users.
[…] The 1% Rule is important to help set expectations for the appropriate role of user-generated content within your information architecture. As I read this, I thought of: […]
Interesting theory but it’s a bit broken:
1) in the yahoo groups example, the 100% are not lurkers, thay are users who find the desired content without having to repeat previous threads or responses - it’s actually a sign of the efficiency of naked conversations, not the laziness of their audience.
2) this model doesn’t fit the most vibrant communities i.e. social networks (like myspace) - in a social network, 100% of members create profile pages, not just 10%.
While the pareto principle does apply to some facets of social production, the far more interesting cases are where it does not.
David G - if you’ve got a moment, please read this post…
I think you’ll find it actually captures some of the points you’re trying to raise…
del.icio.us: it’s not just the bookmarks ……
I won’t have been the only blogger surprised by TechCrunch’s two-part story about del.icio.us: first this, then this. In the latter, Yahoo’s own figures:Page views, usage and new registrations have been increasing at least 10% month over month this …
[…] Är “enprocentregeln” inget mer än en anekdotisk observation som spritts och nått status av etablerat faktum? Eller är den ett faktum? Är den en “Internets fysiklag” som man får lov att leva med när man skapar webbappar?Det som har kommit att kallas “enprocentregeln” härrör från observationer av användningsmönster på Yahoo! Groups (av Bradley Horovitz) och Wikipedia (av Darius Cuplinskas; i kommentarerna). […]
[…] Bradley Horowitz of Yahoo points out that much the same applies at Yahoo: in Yahoo Groups, the discussion lists, “1% of the user population might start a group; 10% of the user population might participate actively, and actually author content, whether starting a thread or responding to a thread-in-progress; 100% of the user population benefits from the activities of the above groups,“ he noted on his blog (www.elatable.com/blog/?p=5) in February. […]
[…] Yahoo Groups - the discussion lists, “1% of the user population might start a group; 10% of the user population might participate actively, and actually author content, whether starting a thread or responding to a thread-in-progress; 100% of the user population benefits from the activities of the above groups,” he noted on his blog (www.elatable.com/blog/?p=5) in February. […]
[…] And I fire up a slideshow of the 100 most interesting photos on Flickr. It’s hard to describe the unfailing impact that these photos have… they are alternately moving, funny, disturbing, provocative… I go on, “What’s cool about these is that they are not only user-generated… They are also implicitly ‘user-discovered’… It’s not as if I spent a couple hours finding the ‘good stuff’ myself. The Flickr interestingness metric percolated the ‘cream’ to the top of the pile. By ‘implicitly’ I mean that there’s no explicit ‘rating system’. [I talk more about the value of implicit v. explicit means of deriving value here…] To be clear, Flickr is filled with plenty of junk. In fact, we like it that way. There’s not just a low barrier to entry, there’s virtually no barrier to entry. Got a camera? Bam! You’re a ‘photographer!’” […]
[…] All of these aspects make Flickr nearly the quintessential Web 2.0 app. However, one feature somewhat diverges from the community-orientation of the rest of Flickr while still leveraging community, and I find this somewhat ironic. Horowitz spent some time talking about “Interestingness”, and showed a portion of the 100 most interesting pictures. Interestingness is also the subject of the O’Reilly post that precipitated the post by Horowitz. Interestingness seems to be a darling among the features of Flickr according to many users. Here’s a brief except from Horowitz: It’s hard to describe the unfailing impact that these photos have… they are alternately moving, funny, disturbing, provocative… I go on, “What’s cool about these is that they are not only user-generated… They are also implicitly ‘user-discovered’… It’s not as if I spent a couple hours finding the ‘good stuff’ myself. The Flickr interestingness metric percolated the ‘cream’ to the top of the pile. By ‘implicitly’ I mean that there’s no explicit ‘rating system’. [I talk more about the value of implicit v. explicit means of deriving value here…] To be clear, Flickr is filled with plenty of junk. In fact, we like it that way. There’s not just a low barrier to entry, there’s virtually no barrier to entry. Got a camera? Bam! You’re a ‘photographer!’” […]
[…] Good discussion on Designing for Social Sharing I’ve always found Rashmi’s work top notch. This presentation delivered at Webvisions calls out some good rules of thumb for the design of social software systems. The following hit home for me: The first generation social networks such as LinkedIn and Friendster versus “object mediated social networks (attributed to Katrin-Knorr Cetina) “Design for emergent architecture” (which sounds to me like my own “Design for Possibility”). “Make systems personally useful” (the best way to get someone into a social system is to give them a “social” tool that delivers value to them in a completely selfish way — oh yeah, and then there’s the social aspect). “Bite-sized self-expression” (one of the cornerstones to my team’s approach to community is to understand the players as individuals — and the best way to do that is to let them express themselves in as many ways as possible). “Allow for levels of participation” (in our environment we’re likely to have far more consumers than synthesizers or creators than the Bradley believes is the norm — and that’s fine — the key will be to gradually introduce the benefits of higher levels of participation and to simplify the way there). “Let poeple feel the presence of others” (so birds flock, fish school, dogs pack, and humans associate in communities — we’re hard wired for association — we’ll gravitate to the group if we’re given a chance). And last but not least — at least in my view: “Allow for alternative viewpoints — Social sharing can lead to tyranny of dominant view” and “Enable Serendipity” (All praise the long tail and the serendipitous discovery that is the hallmark of its presence — we’ve only barely scratched the surface here). I appreciate Rashmi’s saving the long tail discussion for (almost) last. In my view it’s a point to take to heart. As the pioneers evolve into citizens, the temptation will be to view social sharing through reference-focused glasses. The effect will be temporary, but people are going to make a lot of mistakes, and miss a lot of opportunities, until they get past it. Published Wednesday, August 30, 2006 8:45 PM by bobreb […]
[…] A few years later people discover that user generated content on many sites is created by ~1% of users. A (slightly younger) guy realizes an opportunity and tries to capitalize on it. […]
I would like to wish you much luck. And a lot of money. Thank you.
[…] Bradley Horowitz de la Yahoo precizeaza ca aproape la fel se aplica si la Yahoo: in Yahoo Groups, lista de discutii, “1% din populatia userilor e posibil sa creeze un grup; 10% din populatia useriolor e posibil sa participle activ; 100% din populatie beneficiaza de pe urma grupurilor mai sus mentionate,” a notat pe blogul lui (www.elatable.com/blog/?p=5) in februarie. […]
[…] Democracy 0.9 es una plataforma abierta de televisión por internet desarrollada con tecnologías Open Source. Siendo un experimento, tiene todo para enganchar a los públicos más activos de la web y a su vez generar valor para aquellos que adoptan un rol pasivo, sea permanente u ocasional, siguiendo la pirámide de Bradley Horovitz, una de las cabezas pensantes del Yahoo 2.0: […]
Very many thanks for a good work. Nice and useful. Like it!
[…] […]
Matt McAlister » Challenging why (and how) people tag things…
Link: Matt McAlister » Challenging why (and how) people tag things. Matt McAlister writes about Bradley Horowitz’s influencer pyramid:…[it] is a great visualization of how tagging can add value for the rest of us. At the top is the person…
[…] Where Epinions point system is complicated and opaque, Yahoo! Answers point system is simple and transparent - earn points by answering questions, earn more by being the best answer. For every There are a couple of twists, however. First, you get a point for just showing up. At first glance, this seems odd. Why give points for not doing anything? Having been an active lurker on many community websites, I suspect this is to give the vast majority of users, ie the lurkers, a sense that they belong to the community. [Editors note it seems that Yahoo! understands the lurker phenom quite well]. […]
[…] As technology lifestyle commentators go Bradley Horowitz is pretty famous, at least in the ‘blogspehere’. He proposed the widely debated model for contribution to social software sites such as wikipedia. It goes something like this: 1 in 100 create new original content e.g. write a new posting on a blog; 1 in 10 contribute to the discussion, e.g. comment to the posting; everybody gets to read. […]
[…] Good discussion on Designing for Social Sharing I’ve always found Rashmi’s work top notch. This presentation delivered at Webvisions calls out some good rules of thumb for the design of social software systems. The following hit home for me: The first generation social networks such as LinkedIn and Friendster versus “object mediated social networks (attributed to Katrin-Knorr Cetina) “Design for emergent architecture” (which sounds to me like my own “Design for Possibility”). “Make systems personally useful” (the best way to get someone into a social system is to give them a “social” tool that delivers value to them in a completely selfish way — oh yeah, and then there’s the social aspect). “Bite-sized self-expression” (one of the cornerstones to my team’s approach to community is to understand the players as individuals — and the best way to do that is to let them express themselves in as many ways as possible). “Allow for levels of participation” (in our environment we’re likely to have far more consumers than synthesizers or creators than the Bradley believes is the norm — and that’s fine — the key will be to gradually introduce the benefits of higher levels of participation and to simplify the way there). “Let poeple feel the presence of others” (so birds flock, fish school, dogs pack, and humans associate in communities — we’re hard wired for association — we’ll gravitate to the group if we’re given a chance). And last but not least — at least in my view: “Allow for alternative viewpoints — Social sharing can lead to tyranny of dominant view” and “Enable Serendipity” (All praise the long tail and the serendipitous discovery that is the hallmark of its presence — we’ve only barely scratched the surface here). I appreciate Rashmi’s saving the long tail discussion for (almost) last. In my view it’s a point to take to heart. As the pioneers evolve into citizens, the temptation will be to view social sharing through reference-focused glasses. The effect will be temporary, but people are going to make a lot of mistakes, and miss a lot of opportunities, until they get past it. Published Wednesday, August 30, 2006 8:45 PM by bobreb Filed under: socialsoftware design […]
Talking about community activity, Yahoo Answers is a real winner. We all have unanswered questions (who doesn’t anyway). While some have answers to such queries and don’t mind the recognition on the web for the same. Perfect match between demand and supply. And, yes, it follows the creators-synthesisers-consumers pyramid.
Good post, Bradley.
Indian Yogi
What percent of users contribute content?…
…
I agree “social software sites don’t require 100% active participation to generate great value”. but we are talking about a system with not more than 4-5% actives!
I am concerned that the norm for non-contribution might increase. I do think our web 2.0 can be better and smarter if more will think they are critical. I try to dedicate my own contribution and efforts to this issue.
[…] Bradley Horowitz of Yahoo! discusses how web communities scale. Yahoo! should know after all, as they’ve spent a fortune creating and buying a plenty of social sites. Found via Subtraction. […]
[…] This is just a start. The point is that the participatory nature of digitial communication will increasingly demand new valuation metrics. This is an undeveloped thought — but worthy to mull over. A very old post (Khoi Vinh’s interesting link archive system directed me there) from Bradley Horowitz sparked this line of questions. […]
[…] Lisez d’abord ce billet de Bradley Horowitz qui introduit le concept des type de blogueurs (Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers). Puis, lisez ce billet de Sean Moffitt sur BuzzCanuck qui suggère cette liste des 150-quelques blogueurs d’influence au Canada. À lire aussi, son billet qui démontre la règle du 20-10-1 du monde du bouche-à-oreille. […]
Community Systems…
Yesterday afternoon, I went to the OII to hear Ricardo Baeza-Yates, Director of Yahoo! Research Barcelona and Yahoo! Research Latin America in Santiago, Chile: In this talk we explore the current impact of social media or social networks, commonly call…
[…] But if the Web is the inspiration for Enterprise 2.0, then perhaps we should redefine the objective. The blogosphere constantly hums with excitement that “everyone” is setting up blogs, uploading videos and recording podcasts. It’s the year of ‘You‘. But take a look at who is the You in YouTube, for example, and you’ll find that 90% are passive participants. Only 10% upload content, and most of that is just copied from elsewhere. Less than 1% contribute truly original video. It’s the same split between creators, synthesizers and consumers that Bradley Horowitz previously observed among Yahoo! Groups users. […]
[…] Bradley Horowitz escribía sobre como ve Yahoo la expansión de sus servicios de software social como Flickr y Del.icio.us. y se inventaba una pirámide para graficar lo que dicen las estadisticas sobre la participación de los usuarios: […]
[…] Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers “The first is that we don’t need to convert 100% of the audience into “active” participants to have a thriving product that benefits tens of millions of users.” (tags: socialnetworks socialsoftware community) […]
[…] I have taken to quoting Bradely Horowitz’s observation that “the act of consumption is itself an act of creation”. The iTunes/iPod UI team should be well positioned to exploit this phenomena. […]
Hello
G’night
[…] I’m actually quite surprised at how active the online population (creators & critics) is portrayed in this study. I would have expected the data to more closely resemble Bradley Horowitz’s Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers model . In it he hypothesizes that 1% of people are Creators, 10% Synthesizers, and the remainder Consumers. […]
[…] Ein interessanter Hinweis auf die Macht des consumer-edited content im Gegensatz zum consumer-generated content findet sich in diesem Artikel des AdvertisingLab. source: elatable So wie ich jetzt keinen Content produziere, sondern diesen nur aufgreife und in einen anderen Kontext werfe, so laden (nach einer Studie von Hitwise) nur 0,16% aller YouTube-Besucher/innen und 0,2% aller FlickR-Besucher/innen Material auf die Plattform. An dieser Stelle der kurze Verweis auf den Vortrag von Prof. Dr. Karsten D. Wolf von der Uni Bremen, der einen sehr anschaulichen Foliensatz zum Thema “You” Learning: Impact of User Generated Content on Education bereit stellt. […]
[…] Quem quer fazer, quem quer… 27 04 2007 Em Julho de 2006 um artigo no Guardian já nos dizia que, “como na vida”, também na web os criadores eram uma parte muito reduzida do número total de frequentadores. Usando como indicador o crescimento do espaço YouTube - onde os que disponibilizavam conteúdos representavam cerca de 0,5 por cento do total de visitantes - adiantava-se, porém, a possibilidade de esse fraco número poder vir a crescer com o (já) previsível sucesso da ferramenta. A regra do 1% (à qual Bradley Horowitz, do Yahoo, deu um aspecto gráfico) seria, talvez, um objectivo a atingir por estes dias. Um estudo recente da Hitwise diz-nos, porém, que esse número está ainda mais distante. Os que carregam videos no YouTube são apenas 0,16 por cento de todos os visitantes e com o Flickr esse valor sobe para 0,20 por cento (A Wikipedia é, neste enquadramento, a excepção - os seus conteúdos são editados por 4,5 por cento dos visitantes). Uma observação atenta destes dados é fundamental sempre que nos sentimos tentados a falar, de forma generalizadora, do uso e potencial das ditas ferramentas da web2.0. Elas existem, estão lá, disponíveis e prontinhas…mas. O mesmo poderia ser dito da distância que separa o potencial de participação dos cidadãos na produção jornalística do seu efectivo desejo de assim agir. […]
[…] Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers: Yahoo! 직원. […]
Bradley,
I found the posting of your pyramid interesting, in the early 1990’s, while at CompuServe, we saw the same statistics related to the online communities in our Forums. This dynamic range true when I was at AOL also. And in the mid 1990’s when I was at GeoCities VP General Manager and head of community, I preached the One-Nine-Ninety rule, until many were tired of hearing about it
Intuitively, this One-Nine-Ninety rule seems, to be an element of our social network, be it online or offline. Look at clubs, associations, or almost any group. Isn’t it always the same people who rise up as leaders, the one percent, and the same people who put energy behind them, the 9 percent?
When we, GeoCities, were acquired by Yahoo!, we brought a tremendous amount of community expertise to the “Y”, unfortunately, much of it was quickly lost and squandered. Almost immediately, the 1,400 Community Leaders, our evangelists, were disbanded, and GeoCities started to decay.
Another interesting statistic from GeoCities, was the 2 1/2 % — Ninety Rule. Two and one half percent of the members created the websites which drove ninety percent of the traffic. Again, intuitively, I see this is reflected in our physical world. A small percentage of people generate the great amounts of things, be they wealth or ideas.
I preached of both of these rules, the One-Nine-Ninety rule, and the Two and One Half-Ninety Rule, when I joined Yahoo! back in 1998. I wonder if the seeds I planted made their way, through the years, within the corporate culture to you, of if you were able to simply see the same behavior repeated again, supporting very basic CompuServe and GeoCities beliefs from another decade.
–Rich Rygg
[…] Elatable | Bradley Horowitz » Blog Archive » Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers Useful mode that outlines the distribution of people’s roles in value creation online. Perhaps the most important point Horowitz makes is that implicit ‘voting’ on cool content (like Flickr’s interestingness) is often much more effective. (tags: web2.0 socialsoftware Yahoo! Flickr communities collaboration) […]
[…] Elatable | Bradley Horowitz » Blog Archive » Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers (tags: community collaboration socialnetwork) […]
[…] Yahoo的Bradley Horowitz指出相同的情况也适用于Yahoo：在Yahoo Groups（Yahoo的讨论组）上，“用户人口中的1%可能会创建一个讨论组；10%的用户可能会参与地比较活跃，同时实际创作新的内容——开启一个新的主题或者回复已有的主题；100%的用户可以从前面的用户的活动中受益，”他于二月份在其Blog上谈论了这一点。 […]
[…] They had a couple of interesting stats to show, though, on the growth of social media usage and on what people are doing and who participates by Forrester. On average participation still follows the 1% rule so the interesting question is how to incentivize participation in the right way. Some musings on that later. […]
Dear Mr Horowitz
I’m a desperate English housewife with a yahoo account that I have not been able to access reliably for 3 weeks. What is going on with yahoo please. My two techies cannot give me any answers. Very occasionally I can access, sometimes I get to the sign in page and cannot go further, sometimes I can fight my way in through a news site. Sometimes it seems to work by our broadband connection, sometimes by our dial up connection. For a few days I could access a version through us.wap.yahoo.com - how I cannot even do that. Today I was able to access my emails at 11am, but 5pm I could not. I can never access my address list. This is not the service I have come to expect from Yahoo. Please would someone from Yahoo contact me at delphiestockwell@yahoo.co.uk and my husband’s email, in case I am still locked out, LL49@dial.pipex.com. Thank you
I have bee with ebay for several years now,this is my problem!
over the last two yrars I have been collecting 19th/early pre-ban Ivory from America/UK /Chile/China/Japan and many places in europe.99% bid for and purchased on ebay auctions. Yesterday the 30th of June 07 ,I decided to sell my collection on ebay,so I put them on ebay.UK to auction internationally,
I listed over 7 items for sale (one purchased less than 3 weeks ago from the UK)and each one of my listings was “eBay Listing Removed: Animals, Plants and Wildlife ”
over the period of the day I was really listing and having my listings removed.
DOES THIS MEAN YOU CAN BUY OF EBAY
[…] Bradley Horowitz of yahoo has an insightful piece on social media and user value. […]
[…] The findings show that school students are far more creative than the majority of people online. It is sometimes postulated that the creation of online content follows a 1:10:100 rule. That for every content creator, there are ten people prepared to comment or otherwise interact with that content, and 100 more who merely consume. American school students appear to be creating content at more than ten times the normal rate: […]
I think a good example for this pyramid is this thread: You’ve written it, some have participated in the discussion and many others just set a trackback
[…] Do those application cross the chasm that separates early-adopters like me from the rest of the market? Will they encourage the majority of onliners to be creative and publish. We learned that roughly 10% of a community are creative in the traditional sense . Is that going to change? Will my sister now starts telling her stories for herself and/or other? Is the benefit of using that services already comprehensible. Is there enough individual benefit in it for the pragmatists and the conservatives. […]
[…] Można zauważyć tu analogię do statystyk zaproponowanych przez Bradleya Horowitza w odniesieniu do społeczności projektów UGC, gdzie uznaje się, że na 100% użytkowników korzystających z treści ok. 10% aktywnie uczestniczy w ich rozwijaniu, a tylko ok. 1% inicjuje nowe treści. Bradley zaznacza także, że nie jest celowe usilne angażowanie odbiorców treści do jej uzupełniania czy tworzenia, bo naturalny proces stawania się autorem jest swego rodzaju filtrem, pozwalającym oddzielić „szum od czystego sygnału”. […]
[…] After revisiting some posts/articles about users as authors, synthesizers, and consumers and the hierarchical structure of ‘Web 2.0′ users, I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around some changes that are occurring (rather quickly) in the geospatial landscape. Now before I delve into this post, I will shamelessly qualify my statements by saying that I am not attempting to make any definitive assertions or somehow trying to reinvent a wheel of knowledge that is out there, but rather I am trying to articulate some ideas and get a discussion going…any feedback on this diagram (first cut) or my thoughts would be greatly appreciated. […]
[…] 3) L’ineguaglianza partecipativa Da tempo in rete si parla di “regola dell’1%“: su 100 utenti solo uno contribuisce attivamente, dieci svolgono compiti a bassa intensità (commento, voto, tagging), i restanti 89 fruiscono passivamente. Dato confermato anche da Bradley Horowitz di Yahoo! La regola è un’estensione (che esaspera, però, di molto l’asimmetria) del famoso principio di Pareto secondo cui l’80% delle conseguenze dipende dal 20% delle cause. Qui ne ho parlato più diffusamente, con dati più precisi su digg, wikipedia, youtube. […]
[…] I have to say… it’s a “steep learning curve”… I thought that “in the user-generated content era” switching from consumer to producer would be easier, but it’s not. Now I understand why the 90% of consumer are still not active participants in the Internet community… […]
[…] forward a couple of decades, and that notion is rapidly becoming a business model. I really need to pay more attention to my bad ideas. I could be running Yahoo by now, I […]
[…] visit SlideShare.net) is just south of 1%. This fits in well with what Bradley Horowitz’s Content Production Pyramid described, with some […]
[…] Bradley Horowitz of Yahoo [in “Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers”] points out that [in Yahoo Groups] the discussion lists, “1% of the user population might start a group; 10% of the user population might participate actively”. […]
hello, please somebody help me .. i have a project to my university and i want the business model diagram for ebay.. please somebody hellp me .. send it to my email (dado-oo@hotmail.com) thank you very much .
[…] is an interesting blog entry from Bradley Horowitz who is head of the Technology Development Group at Yahoo! Search Marketplace about levels of […]
[…] [2] *"Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers"* , ‘100% are consumers, 10% active synthesizers & 1% creators’~ www.elatable.com/blog/?p=5 […]
[…] Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers : Elatable | Bradley Horowitz (tags: behavior participation reference thesis crowdsourcing) […]
[…] the media and certainly helped in promoting an effort that was been made in a very public way. The 1/10/100 rule pulls […]
[…] the Sims ecosystem, Raph Koster made one mapping the levels to easy and hard fun and in web circles Bradley Horowitz’s 1% creators, 10% synthesisers, 100% consumers pyramid based on behaviour observed in Yahoo! […]
Lavish spending can be disastrous. Don’t buy any lavishes for a while.
—————————————————————————————————-
http://earlwatkinshe.easyjournal.com
anna nicole smith naked
nude teen pics
. .
Приветствую всех!
У меня такой вопрос,кто что интересное подскажет буду признателен.
Мы с друзьями собираемся поехать в круиз по просторам России и ближнего зарубежья месяца на два на своих машинах,но не как не можем согласовать маршрут,если у кого уже был опыт такого путешествия,может,что посоветуете.Девчонок с собой не берем,думаем,что во все городах России с этим не будет проблем,если у кого будут рекомендации и в вопросе отдыха с девушками тоже буду признателен.
С уважением Сеньчик
유학와서 자주가는곳.
※ 대한민국 내로는 절대 판매하지 않습니다.
안녕하세요..
저희회사는 해외에 거주하시는 유학생이나 교민들께
온라인쇼핑몰중 가장 저렴한 가격으로 담배를 판매하는 회사입니다.
ambak.com 입니다..
특히,, 저희 당사는 외산담배뿐만 아니라
해외에서 직접구입하기 어려운 한국담배를 저렴하게 판매,배송중입니다.
저희 홈페이지에 방문하셔서 보다 합리적인 가격에 쇼핑하셔서
가격적인 면에서 부담을 덜어드리고 싶습니다.
============================================
DUNHILL LIGHTS (1carton) <============ 25.5$
MILD SEVEN LIGHTS (1carton) <============ 25.5$
CAMEL (1carton) <============ 25.5$
RAISON (1carton) <============ 25.5$
ESSE LIGHTS (1carton) <============ 25.5$
============================================
(모든판매상품은 운송비가 포함된 금액입니다.)
현재 다양한 상품을 준비중이오니 ambak.com 을 방문해 주세요..
감사합니다.
글을올려 죄송합니다.
필요치 않으시면 삭제부탁드립니다.. (3312)
획기적인 기본료 월4,500원 최저요금제!!
치솟아만가는 물가, 힘든경제난속에서 휴대폰요금때문에 속썩으신 기억없으신가요?
거품투성이인 휴대폰요금제 불만많으셨죠?
저희 선불폰전문 암바(Amba.co.kr)로 오시면 휴대폰요금 걱정끝입니다.
어떻게 한달기본료가 5천원도 안돼나? 내가써왔던 휴대폰기본료는 2만원정도 하던데.. 혹시 사기이거나 통화품질이 떨어지지않을까..?
이런걱정은 하지마십시요.
LG텔레콤의 회선을 사용하는 서비스이기때문에 믿을 수 있습니다. 기존에 사용하시던 휴대폰 통화품질과 동일합니다.
기존에 사용하시던 타사 요금제는 고객입장에서 생각하지않은 회사위주의 요금제입니다.
매월 필요하지도않고 사용하지도않을 무선인터넷, 부가서비스, 컨텐츠 명목으로 고객님들의 주머니가 새나가고있습니다.
저희는 고객님들께 알뜰한 휴대폰사용을 제공해 드리고자 불필요한
무선인터넷 등을 없애고, 실질적인 서비스만을 제공함으로써 기본료의 거품을 확~ 빼버렸습니다.
획기적인 기본료 월4,500원 최저요금제!!
Amba.co.kr
▣ 이런분들께 추천합니다.
▣ 휴대폰 요금을 줄이고자 하는 모든사용자
▣ 신용불량자, 통신요금 연체자도 가입이 가능합니다.
▣ 외국인, 관광객, 바이어 등 단기간 사용자에게 적합합니다.
▣ 미성년자의 휴대폰요금이 걱정되는 부모님의 자녀에게 적합합니다.
▣ 업무상 수신위주로 이용하는 휴대폰 사용자에게 적합합니다.
고객을 위한 합리적인 요금제 암바
Amba.co.kr
글을올려 죄송합니다.
필요치 않으시면 삭제부탁드립니다.. (3312)
free hardcore porn
, , .
획기적인 기본료 월4,500원 최저요금제!!
치솟아만가는 물가, 힘든경제난속에서 휴대폰요금때문에 속썩으신 기억없으신가요?
거품투성이인 휴대폰요금제 불만많으셨죠?
저희 선불폰전문 암바(Amba.co.kr)로 오시면 휴대폰요금 걱정끝입니다.
어떻게 한달기본료가 5천원도 안돼나? 내가써왔던 휴대폰기본료는 2만원정도 하던데.. 혹시 사기이거나 통화품질이 떨어지지않을까..?
이런걱정은 하지마십시요.
LG텔레콤의 회선을 사용하는 서비스이기때문에 믿을 수 있습니다. 기존에 사용하시던 휴대폰 통화품질과 동일합니다.
기존에 사용하시던 타사 요금제는 고객입장에서 생각하지않은 회사위주의 요금제입니다.
매월 필요하지도않고 사용하지도않을 무선인터넷, 부가서비스, 컨텐츠 명목으로 고객님들의 주머니가 새나가고있습니다.
저희는 고객님들께 알뜰한 휴대폰사용을 제공해 드리고자 불필요한
무선인터넷 등을 없애고, 실질적인 서비스만을 제공함으로써 기본료의 거품을 확~ 빼버렸습니다.
획기적인 기본료 월4,500원 최저요금제!!
Amba.co.kr
▣ 이런분들께 추천합니다.
▣ 휴대폰 요금을 줄이고자 하는 모든사용자
▣ 신용불량자, 통신요금 연체자도 가입이 가능합니다.
▣ 외국인, 관광객, 바이어 등 단기간 사용자에게 적합합니다.
▣ 미성년자의 휴대폰요금이 걱정되는 부모님의 자녀에게 적합합니다.
▣ 업무상 수신위주로 이용하는 휴대폰 사용자에게 적합합니다.
고객을 위한 합리적인 요금제 암바
Amba.co.kr
글을올려 죄송합니다.
필요치 않으시면 삭제부탁드립니다.. 비번 (3312)