Personas 99% Bad?
Posted on | January 17, 2008 | 25 Comments
Over the last few days, I’ve taken part in (and facilitated parts of) an intense workshop meant to define the user experience of a new product. In the room we had representatives from pretty much the entire team — software engineers, hardware engineers, industrial designers, interaction designers, marketing, brand, and even the CEO.
At the end of the first day, we found ourselves a little unmoored — even though we had talked about our presumed users (this project is to launch a brand new product into the market, so there are no existing users), the discussion was nebulous. We needed an anchor.
So on the morning of the second day we dove into a discussion of personas — those archetypal users of the product. We had three personas (Casey, Jessica, and Eric), and we talked about (and occasionally argued about) them for quite a while, until we arrived at a shared understanding of who they are, and what they would get out of the product.
This discussion proved enormously valuable — it lead to some coherence around who the product was for, and it helped focus our discussion of desired experiences, and, in turn, functional requirements. We referred to these personas for the remainder of the workshop, and they came in handy for resolving conversations that got stuck in “Well, I think…”
So, I was a bit surprised last night to read Steve Portigal’s article in the latest Interactions magazine, “Persona Non Grata.” (The first element of surprise was how it had the exact same title as Dan’s Adaptive Path essay from over two years ago). What most surprised me was the vitriol Steve cast at the practice of persona development — he essentially derides it as a waste of time, an exercise that purports to build empathy but in reality distances us from our users.
The thing is, when you read the article, it becomes clear that Steve is talking not about personas, but poorly conceived personas. Like any tool, personas can be wielded effectively or not. Steve is right in that the bulk of personas out there don’t serve their desired purpose, because they get too cutesy with alliterative names, or label people as types as opposed to individuals, or become cliched. But that’s not the fault of personas, that’s the fault of bad personas.
In our practice, we haven’t seen a tool for building empathy as effective as a well-constructed persona. We’ve used it numerous times to great success.
My frustration with the article is two-fold. First, because so many personas are bad doesn’t mean that we should throw out the practice. That’s like saying we should stop making movies because most movies suck. Steve commits Jakob’s Fallacy, perhaps most famous in his “Flash 99% bad“, wherein you dismiss a whole category of activity because the bulk of its practice is poor.
Second, no constructive alternative is presented. Steve could have taken two paths — either delineate what it takes to create a truly productive persona, or present other tools that successfully accomplish the objectives that personas fail to meet. However, he does neither, so at the end of the article, you’re simply left wondering, “Well, if personas suck, how do I make sense of my user research? How do I build empathy across a product team?”
Comments
25 Responses to “Personas 99% Bad?”
Leave a Reply
Hello
Archives
- January 2012 (9)
- December 2011 (7)
- September 2011 (1)
- June 2011 (4)
- May 2011 (8)
- April 2011 (5)
- March 2011 (1)
- February 2011 (2)
- January 2011 (3)
- December 2010 (4)
- October 2010 (2)
- September 2010 (1)
- July 2010 (1)
- June 2010 (2)
- May 2010 (7)
- April 2010 (4)
- March 2010 (4)
- February 2010 (16)
- January 2010 (35)
- December 2009 (4)
- October 2009 (1)
- September 2009 (4)
- August 2009 (4)
- July 2009 (7)
- June 2009 (7)
- May 2009 (3)
- April 2009 (2)
- March 2009 (5)
- February 2009 (6)
- January 2009 (7)
- December 2008 (5)
- November 2008 (7)
- October 2008 (5)
- September 2008 (8)
- August 2008 (5)
- July 2008 (15)
- June 2008 (8)
- May 2008 (7)
- April 2008 (4)
- March 2008 (14)
- February 2008 (6)
- January 2008 (8)
- December 2007 (14)
- November 2007 (3)
- October 2007 (9)
- September 2007 (6)
- August 2007 (8)
- July 2007 (11)
- June 2007 (8)
- May 2007 (8)
- April 2007 (9)
- March 2007 (12)
- February 2007 (10)
- January 2007 (9)
- December 2006 (8)
- November 2006 (17)
- October 2006 (9)
- September 2006 (12)
- August 2006 (8)
- July 2006 (12)
- June 2006 (12)
- May 2006 (8)
- April 2006 (18)
- March 2006 (12)
- February 2006 (14)
- January 2006 (9)
- December 2005 (19)
- November 2005 (10)
- October 2005 (10)
- September 2005 (18)
- August 2005 (21)
- July 2005 (12)
- June 2005 (9)
- May 2005 (16)
- April 2005 (11)
- March 2005 (12)
- February 2005 (7)
- January 2005 (8)
- December 2004 (15)
- November 2004 (12)
- October 2004 (13)
- September 2004 (3)
- August 2004 (13)
- July 2004 (9)
- June 2004 (11)
- May 2004 (6)
- April 2004 (9)
- March 2004 (8)
- February 2004 (7)
- January 2004 (9)
- December 2003 (7)
- November 2003 (6)
- October 2003 (19)
- September 2003 (12)
- August 2003 (16)
- July 2003 (10)
- June 2003 (6)
- May 2003 (7)
- April 2003 (7)
- March 2003 (4)
January 17th, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
Amen, brother. (It’s probably not very surprising that I’m right there with you.)
It’s not the tool, but what you do with it.
January 17th, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
To Be Or Not To Be: Personas in Design Research…
Amongst others I’ve also come across personas as a tool to ‘uncover’ possible dimensions of a set of archetypical attributes of (possible) customers.
Therefore with great interest I’m watching the current conversation between blog/web veteran…
January 18th, 2008 @ 8:27 am
[...] peterme.com :: Personas 99% Bad? So on the morning of the second day we dove into a discussion of personas — those archetypal users of the product. We had three personas (Casey, Jessica, and Eric), and we talked about (and occasionally argued about) them for quite a while, until we arr (tags: design archetypes personas petermerholtz) [...]
January 18th, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
I believe the conversation you want to have went like this:
“90% of science fiction is crap.”
“Yes, 90% of everything is crap.”
January 18th, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
[...] In the newest issue of Interactions magazine, Steve Portigal laments the use of personas. His point essentially is that personas “invite misuse” and therefore they should be avoided. Peter has responded, pointing out that Steve has thrown a baby or two out with the bath water by conflating personas with poorly conceived personas. To some degree it becomes a war of analogies, with Steve saying personas are like guns (i.e. inviting misuse and dire consequences) and Peter saying they are like movies (i.e. just because most are bad doesn’t mean that we should dismiss the activity of movie-making). [...]
January 19th, 2008 @ 8:40 am
[...] Personas 99% Bad? (peterme.com) Peter Merholz’s response to Steve Portigal’s article in Interactions. (tags: personas design technique interactions) [...]
January 20th, 2008 @ 4:09 am
[...] Steve Portigal schreef onlangs een kort stukje op de website Interactions Magazine dat de discussie weer deed oplaaien. Volgens Portigal kun je persona’s maar beter mijden, vanwege het grote risico dat je ze verkeerd gebruikt. Peter Merholz reageerde daarop dat dat nog niet betekent dat persona’s daarom geen geschikt middel zijn. [...]
January 22nd, 2008 @ 10:27 pm
[...] peterme.com :: Personas 99% Bad? “Steve [Portigal] is talking not about personas, but poorly conceived personas. Like any tool, personas can be wielded effectively or not.” (tags: personas userexperience ux ixd interactiondesign) [...]
January 23rd, 2008 @ 1:56 am
Reminds me of 37signals’ post on the topic of last year (Something that we – Etre – responded to here).
January 24th, 2008 @ 9:04 am
Personas for the most part are bad because they are synthetically manufactured composites that are not real people. What kind of “empathy” are you building across product teams with “replicants”?
What you do with your user data is your analyze it, you look for underlying meaning and you share that with your product teams.
January 28th, 2008 @ 7:56 am
I think that one of the points Steve is trying to get across is that the temptation to synthesize together a set of behaviours into a single “meta-person” causes a disconnect and this unreality allows clients to pretend to connect with “real” consumers whilst actually ignoring them.
For us a common problem is that many clients have already created things that look very similar to “personas”. But they call them “target market segments” or something similar. Ad agencies and clients have been doing this for years if not decades – they were often characterised by alliterative names and pseudo-real moodboards and so on. Clients are understandably confused when we wander in and suggest creating personas.
One way we are combating this is by actually using real people as our personas, and essentially documenting a real person, using their name (or very similar) and their actual habits and likes, rather than shaping them in any way. This a purist approach, I admit, but it also pretty powerful.
At the other extreme we have recently had clients ask us to create personas based on their existing segmentations. This is a level of abstraction too far…
January 29th, 2008 @ 6:02 am
Hi,I enjoyed your response in response to that article. It is the fault of some bad personas that they in general have a bad rap going around. I believe that you have to ground them first in some actual data (so you aren’t disconnected) and then build in things that help shape them. I love how you talk about empathy as that is a particular focus for me right now in studying theater education for the purpose of using the techniques to drive organizational development and process. In particular focusing on how to lend that more empathetic layer to personas and scenarios by instilling exercises centered around character development and building narrative into the traditional processes. I strongly believe when built and used effectively personas can serve a great purpose in design and communication.
January 31st, 2008 @ 8:08 am
[...] When I first tried to write today’s blog post, I read the volumes of criticism and commentary from user experience heavyweights like Peter Merholz at Adaptive Path, and Jared Spool at User Interface Engineering. Then I tried to write my own clever and finely tuned rebuttal. After all, we’re proud to be recognized for creating and using excellent personas (at least, according to one source). I mean, if I believe in them, I have to defend some turf here, right? [...]
February 2nd, 2008 @ 1:57 am
klfewkjfiwe
February 2nd, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
[...] Peter Merholz, in describing a recent project, found personas quite valuable: ‘So on the morning of the second day we dove into a discussion of personas — those archetypal users of the product. We had three personas (Casey, Jessica, and Eric), and we talked about (and occasionally argued about) them for quite a while, until we arrived at a shared understanding of who they are, and what they would get out of the product. [...]
February 3rd, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
[...] A follow up thought to the user personas discussion among Steve, Jared, Joshua, me, countless other people, and in particular to Peter Merholz’s thoughts about the value of personas created through design team conversations. [...]
February 13th, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
Forex fibanocci training….
Currency forex learn online trading. Forex books. Learn to trade forex….
February 14th, 2008 @ 7:13 am
intellectual property insurance…
columnize lazed,schedulable:…
February 22nd, 2008 @ 3:54 am
[...] Both Steve Portigal and Peter Merholz’s sides of the persona argument have valid points. Of course personas can be bad, but a really good one is worth so much in terms of getting the product right. User stories are cheap and very effective. Having keyword research and web metrics will also give you a balanced view of exactly who the users are. [...]
February 25th, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
[...] Well, I think we’re doing a lot of stuff wrong when it comes to creating, using, and talking about personas. but, to quote Peter Merholz’s ‘Personas 99% bad?’ response: “The thing is, when you read the article, it becomes clear that Steve is talking not about personas, but poorly conceived personas.” ” Rather than create distancing caricatures, tell stories.” [...]
April 18th, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
ChittahChattah Quickies…
Peter Merholz’s strong and articulate response to Steve’s interactions article on personas
Some valid critique (yes, a longer article rather than a column would point to alternatives), some points missed (the tool makes it so easy to misu…
November 17th, 2008 @ 11:06 am
[...] often make the same mistake when making personas. Personas are tools to evoke empathy. But poorly created personas will simply regurgitate stereotypes instead of actually answering real [...]
February 23rd, 2009 @ 7:26 am
[...] Personas 99% bad? by Peter Merholz [...]
July 14th, 2010 @ 11:29 am
Well put.
“…wherein you dismiss a whole category of activity because the bulk of its practice is poor.” is especially fine. Gets right to it.
I don’t need to spend a lot of time defending personas, so your article helps me find the words and then get back to training and mentoring my staff.
Thanks.
August 28th, 2010 @ 3:52 pm
[...] user experience camp seems a bit divided about using personas as part of user experience design. There are a couple of charges [...]