Most groups would designate anyone outside as Others. In this case, because hackers seem to enjoy thinking of themselves as the outsiders, we're calling anyone else Normals. All well and good for us, but within the Normals there are incredible numbers of groups with their own preferences. To target the Normal is to disregard that it only exists from your perspective.
Technologists enjoy new things even if they don't work, early adopters are trying to solve a problem but don't mind going first as long as it works. Pragmatics (early majority) want to solve a problem using tools that other pragmatics are also using because they want the comforts of a whole product. Conservatives (late majority) are very cost conscious and want it dead simple. Laggards make do with pre-existing solutions until they are no longer available at a reasonable price.
By the way, it's extremely difficult to build simple products that work reliably. They always come later. It's much easier to build an innovative productive that is partially reliable but provides functionality or performance that is not available.
Oh. There's certainly room for building products/services for technical users. A lot of people do that well and make a lot of money doing just that. It's just a lot more difficult to penetrate the market and there's less room for massive scale. Your users are inherently more tech savvy, will voice their opinion far more often, and be a lot more critical of your service.
I think all this labelling as "normal" / "other" is unhealthy, because it leads to unexamined associations about the group, and thoughts like "the 'normal' people are morally better, anyone with different preferences is wrong and evil" or the way some people treat the "normal" as the only kind of people that exist, and try to deny the existence of any group that has a different preference.
There are certainly different groups with different preferences and abilities, but I think it's important to avoid value-laden terms when thinking about them. (except possibly "value" in the strictly commercial sense").
Comments
Most groups would designate anyone outside as Others. In this case, because hackers seem to enjoy thinking of themselves as the outsiders, we're calling anyone else Normals. All well and good for us, but within the Normals there are incredible numbers of groups with their own preferences. To target the Normal is to disregard that it only exists from your perspective.
I think you're missing my point. Find a large group of less Internet savvy folks to target and build a product for them. Pulled from my article:
1. Normals stick around a lot longer and are far more loyal than early adopters.
2. Normals are friends with other Normals, which propagates the cycle.
3. The Normals group is a larger market than the early adopters and techies group.
4. Normals appreciate simple, so it's easier and less time consuming to build a product for them.
Further reading on Chris Dixon's blog:
http://cdixon.org/2010/01/22/techies-and-normals/
It's not a one bit encoding of "Hacker vs. Normal" and early adopters are different from technologists. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_chasm
Technologists enjoy new things even if they don't work, early adopters are trying to solve a problem but don't mind going first as long as it works. Pragmatics (early majority) want to solve a problem using tools that other pragmatics are also using because they want the comforts of a whole product. Conservatives (late majority) are very cost conscious and want it dead simple. Laggards make do with pre-existing solutions until they are no longer available at a reasonable price.
By the way, it's extremely difficult to build simple products that work reliably. They always come later. It's much easier to build an innovative productive that is partially reliable but provides functionality or performance that is not available.
I agree with you in that it could be a good market segment to go for, but I think there's a lot of potential value in other market segments.
For example, the ISP I use targets technical users, and they seem to be doing quite nicely.
Oh. There's certainly room for building products/services for technical users. A lot of people do that well and make a lot of money doing just that. It's just a lot more difficult to penetrate the market and there's less room for massive scale. Your users are inherently more tech savvy, will voice their opinion far more often, and be a lot more critical of your service.
True, true, I was just reacting to the "this is the only market segment anyone is ever allowed to go for" tone.
I came here to say something similar.
I think all this labelling as "normal" / "other" is unhealthy, because it leads to unexamined associations about the group, and thoughts like "the 'normal' people are morally better, anyone with different preferences is wrong and evil" or the way some people treat the "normal" as the only kind of people that exist, and try to deny the existence of any group that has a different preference.
There are certainly different groups with different preferences and abilities, but I think it's important to avoid value-laden terms when thinking about them. (except possibly "value" in the strictly commercial sense").
I like to use "neurotypicals" when referring to "normals". Slightly more condescending, but not quite as hair-ruffling as "troglodytes".
Plus, the /euro/ syllables can be stressed for extra condescension points!
The fact of the matter is the phase, "normals" used in the article is just a way of referring to a large group of average consumers in a succinct way.