// you’re reading...

You are here: Home » Featured » Nielsen, Rogers and the lack of contribution

Nielsen, Rogers and the lack of contribution

If you are implementing anything that is related to collaboration most of you will know and have used the rule for participation inequality or the 90-9-1 rule. This rule shows that in an average group of people 90% are lurkers, 9% contributes from time to time and 1% of the group members participate a lot and account for most contributions.

On the other hand there is the theory of the Diffusion of Innovations of Rogers, which shows us of how, why, and at what rate new ideas and technology spread through cultures. He defines adopter categories of the members in a group, the categories are: innovators (2.5% of the group), early adopters (13.5%), early majority (34%), late majority (34%) and laggards (16%).

If you combine to these two rules, you’ll notice why it is important to start with a group that is big enough:

Just the participation inequality rule

When you start with a group of 100 people, 1 will actively contribute (sometimes up to 90% of the content), 9 will contribute from time to time, and 90 will read. As you notice, 1 person creating 90% of the content is not that exciting, and only 10 people that contribute in total is also not that many. They might get out of topics for conversation.

Combining the participating inequality rule and the adoption categories

If you start with a group of 100 people, you know that 16% will be laggards (they are likely not to  participate), leaving you with 84 people who might contribute to the collaboration platform. Taking into account the participation inequality rule, you will end up with maybe one person who will actively contribute, about 8 people will contribute from time to time and 75 people who will read the content.

Some even say that not only the 16% laggards aren’t participating but also about 50% of the late majority, which means that about 30% of the group will not be participating. Making the numbers to about 1 (if you are lucky) to contribute actively, 7 contributing from time to time and 62 people who will read the content.

Don’t despair

The group you’ll select will be not a standard group that will be a representation of your enterprise. Most often that group does not consist of any laggards and, but mostly of enthousiastic people who will help you driving adoption in later phases. However, always keep in mind that not everybody will contribute on your new platform, so be aware your group who will be using this platform is big enough.

Discussion

View Comments for “Nielsen, Rogers and the lack of contribution”

  • http://twitter.com/leeprovoost Lee Provoost

    Hi Rick. Good post! I've seen these stats myself while doing research on communities on large client communities at Headshift so yes they are not some vague myth ;-)

    I think your theory holds for the average community when you are using the usual community tactics and go for normal organic growth.

    However, depending on the use case you can steer that. Let's say you are setting up a pilot community with 50 users, but the purpose is to collaborate on cross-business unit innovation, well then you could select the “champions” or the early adopters amongst all those different business units. So you are basically defeating the theory by handpicking the early adopters and avoiding the laggards. True, even amongst those early adopters you will see a difference in rate of adoption but you have raised your stakes here.

    Even more, and that's where the juicy part comes in, you can design the community in such a way that it continuously triggers people to participate. That by the right UX and IA, alerts/invitations, good community manager that encourages participation and actively participates as well. Also things like starting with an “elite” group and then slowly spreading “by invitation only” etc all can help to help you defeating these rules.

    However, most likely you will have most control over this when you are talking about internal enterprise 2.0 communities because there you have a more homogeneous group of people and there is also some kind of social control when you start with small pilots. People notice when you are one of the few people that haven't contributed anything yet to the success of the company ;-) But it is more difficult in a public community thought not impossible.

    Thanks for the stats, will borrow them as well now ;-)

    Lee

blog comments powered by Disqus

Twitter Remote