Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Adjacent User Theory

andrewchen.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 33 posts

Re: The Adjacent User Theory

#11

Post by yetihehe »

throwaway744678 wrote: post #9

Nice work on that 'sign-up for my newsletter', fullscreen, non-closable modal screen that pops up after reading a few paragraphs! Nice way to capture your adjacent users and convert them to whatever-core-something-engaged power customer.

Customers have been immunized to full screen modal dialogs, don't read them and close immediately, this represents obstacle to subscribe to their newsletter. In order to remove that obstacle, they bravely decided to remove close button, so that potential customers have no other way than "The Right Way", are not distracted by close buttons anymore and can successfully subscribe to their newsletter, which helps with growth and widens funnels (that's good, right?).

Re: The Adjacent User Theory

#12

Post by grawprog »

scribu wrote: post #7
ggambetta wrote: post #5

The tone of the article rubs me the wrong way for some reason. Consider these two paragraphs: The Adjacent Users are aware of a product and possibly tried using the it, but are not able to successfully become an engaged user. This is typically because the current product positioning or experience has too many barriers to adoption for them. While Instagram had product-market fit for 400+ million people, we discovered…

> No question about whether potential users are interested in the product in the first place? They do show interest, tho. From the article: > There are a set of users who show intent for your product but are not quite able to get over the hump. Those are your adjacent users.

I've never found 'the hump' to be the issue with most things i've shown intent for then decided against. Typically it's because I discover the product does not in fact suit my needs. This is the primary reason. I'm not an adjacent user of said product and I never will be unless the product changes to suit my needs in some way.

Re: The Adjacent User Theory

#13

Post by lmeyerov »

In sociological studies of innovation adoption, a general finding here is that different niche communities often have different needs, so a successful innovation adapts to fit it, generally through involvement of the niche members. Growth in turn often follows those niches. I like to think of this kind of growth as where the product is a circle in the middle of a bunch of niche communities, and growing the product surface moves it through adjacent niche communities. There are different levers here via different people once you think that through.

So, it's good to map out those niches and help them one-by-one. Likewise, studies like this became a research field soon after gmo corn became a thing, and worth understanding the many kinds of innovation adoption if your job is here. (Broad area is called the Diffusion of Innovation.)

Re: The Adjacent User Theory

#14

Post by scribu »

grawprog wrote: post #12
scribu wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No question about whether potential users are interested in the product in the first place? They do show interest, tho. From the article: > There are a set of users who show intent for your product but are not quite able to get over the hump. Those are your adjacent users.

I've never found 'the hump' to be the issue with most things i've shown intent for then decided against. Typically it's because I discover the product does not in fact suit my needs. This is the primary reason. I'm not an adjacent user of said product and I never will be unless the product changes to suit my needs in some way.

> unless the product changes to suit my needs in some way

But isn't that the point of the article? To figure out how to change the product so that it meets more people's needs.

Re: The Adjacent User Theory

#16

Post by alexpetralia »

jbob2000 wrote: post #6
ggambetta wrote: post #5

The tone of the article rubs me the wrong way for some reason. Consider these two paragraphs: The Adjacent Users are aware of a product and possibly tried using the it, but are not able to successfully become an engaged user. This is typically because the current product positioning or experience has too many barriers to adoption for them. While Instagram had product-market fit for 400+ million people, we discovered…

The article completely dehumanizes Instagram users, it's a window into the lack of empathy social media companies have for other human beings.

Anything at scale does this.

Re: The Adjacent User Theory

#17

Post by nine_k »

jpab wrote: post #8
scribu wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it pathological?

Why is cancer pathological? Because cancerous cells prioritize their own growth over the health of the wider system in which they exist. Companies with this mindset do not reach a point at which they say "ok, we're big enough now". There is no target size they're trying to reach, there is only a target year-over-year multiplicative growth rate. They prioritize growth over providing value to the users they have. They…

There is, of course, the target size: it's the entire Earth's population with Internet access.

Several companies / communities came rather close to that goal, say Google or Facebook or Wikipedia.

Re: The Adjacent User Theory

#18

Post by debaserab2 »

scribu wrote: post #14
grawprog wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never found 'the hump' to be the issue with most things i've shown intent for then decided against. Typically it's because I discover the product does not in fact suit my needs. This is the primary reason. I'm not an adjacent user of said product and I never will be unless the product changes to suit my needs in some way.

> unless the product changes to suit my needs in some way But isn't that the point of the article? To figure out how to change the product so that it meets more people's needs.

Meeting people’s needs or tapping into human social behaviors and instincts?

I guess it’s all a matter of perspective.

Re: The Adjacent User Theory

#19

Post by csunbird »

nine_k wrote: post #17
jpab wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is cancer pathological? Because cancerous cells prioritize their own growth over the health of the wider system in which they exist. Companies with this mindset do not reach a point at which they say "ok, we're big enough now". There is no target size they're trying to reach, there is only a target year-over-year multiplicative growth rate. They prioritize growth over providing value to the users they have. They…

There is, of course, the target size: it's the entire Earth's population with Internet access. Several companies / communities came rather close to that goal, say Google or Facebook or Wikipedia.

I think, at this point, the target size is, entire Earth's population with Internet access and their future children.
Post reply on HN