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?).

Oh good, I thought there was something wrong with my browser that was hiding a close button. That's a very strange design decision.

Very strange, and a bad idea to boot! It is distracts from whatever point they are making in the article. The medium is the message!

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.)

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 new groups of users who didn’t quite understand Instagram and how it fit into their lives.

There's so much assumption there. "not able to successfully become an engaged user"; "too many barriers to adoption"; "didn't quite understand [...] how it fit into their lives". No question about whether potential users are interested in the product in the first place? It's so life-changing that if someone decides not to use the thing, it's because they failed at becoming engaged, or just don't understand that it's life-changing?

I'm confused. Maybe this is the level of delusions of grandeur you need to succeed at that scale with that kind of product, and I'm just hopelessly naive :(

> 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.

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

I guess it’s all a matter of perspective.

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.

I don't think that's true. An entity (corporation, government, etc.) continuously decides whether to humanize or dehumanize its citizens/customers. Which way it leans in any (every) decision is a matter of goals and values, not a matter of scale.

E.g. a government may not know all its citizens in a personal sense, but it can establish charters of rights and freedoms, it can design humane and accessible services, etc. Scale doesn't prevent these things, rather it necessitates them.

Humane and accessible services are still designed at scale, rather than on an individual level.

Of course. In context, I read "anything at scale does this" to mean "anything at scale dehumanizes its users" which is the point that I disagree with. A scaled-up service can still honour the client -- it takes intention and good design, but it's certainly possible.

I stopped reading when a giant modal newsletter popup filled the screen and there was no way to close it. So much for exponential growth.

This sounds like a blog-form re-write of Geoffrey Moore's "Crossing the Chasm", a book from 1991.

There seems to be a rash of people blogging up with 'new' ideas and theories that have existed for a long time.

This isn't new by the way. Many people talked about it. Off the top of my head, Patrick Collison mentions the importance of reviewing and expanding your product-market fit on Tim Ferris's podcast.

My snake oil detector perked up here. It seems like this guy is attempting to take credit for Instagrams success while simultaneously trying to apply a hand-wavy growth 'theory'. Seems like he is attempting to market a startup in incubation.

i can't read this seriously with an over complicated term from "adjacent" combined with "theory"

This is the kind of pathological “growth mindset” that brought our social media troubles upon us.

Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.

How is this unsubstantive? I am adding an opinion re the article. I find your comment quite unsubstantive though even though you’re the top dog around here.

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 grow without regard for the effect it has on social dynamics within the system (changing what the product is good for and what it's bad for), or the effect it has on social dynamics beyond the system.

It's the Paperclip Maximizer approach to business. And, of course, it's the stock market approach to business too.

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.

They want exponential growth purely because it is exponential. They aren't chasing anything other than that metric, they didn't ask how they could make it better, they didn't ask their current users what could make it better, they aren't asking if they are creating value, they simply said "huh, 400mil isn't enough, give me more". It's the obsession that makes it pathological.

> they didn't ask their current users what could make it better

They often do, this is part of the innovators dilemma in that early adopters aren't often mainstream customers, so the feel unheard, when in fact the company is listening to its more mainstream users (once they arrive) - which often causes the early adopters to lament and chase the next thing.

> They aren't chasing anything other than that metric

It isn't that these companies aren't listening users, or aren't creating value. They would fail if that was the case. The metric is profit and a big presumption is that with free-trade and free-markets any transaction is mutually beneficial. If they don't provide value to the customers, the customers don't pay. If they keep providing value for more people, enough value that people will pay, then value really is being created.

I think the concerns more have to do with with:

* Hidden costs - such as giving up your data or privacy aren't usually clear (and if they are, in the sense you are giving your data, the implications and risks aren't clear) * The value might only be "on-net" better. For example, network effects have "value" in the context of the data, even if better platform might exists that don't the enough critical mass participation. * A related problem to the above, the product might be on-net better but still not optimal for your country, demographic, social group etc ... (non-bay-area-based-white-affulate-males) * Markets aren't always free (enough) so disparities and distortions cause real issues. All sorts of externalities abound. * Indirect user/purchaser models like advertising will optimize for things that while they may maximize overall profit (if done well) are NOT optimal from a purely user-centric view. * Change, of any kind for any reason, good or bad, is often lamented by users