< Have you tried building super-detailed personas?

Note: This article is from 2017.

‟I’ve spent a lot of time trying to be right… But the opportunity to be wrong is really underrated.
– via Twitter

I've been trying a new technique lately. I've been calling it super-detailed personas, but I call it "super personas" to be pithier.

You can find plenty of problems with personas. In fact, if you Google the specific term "the problem with personas," you'll find dozens of articles with this exact title. The first hit is from Maggie Peterson and is worth reading.

Another prominent examples is from Basecamp founder Jason Fried. In an Ask 37signals post he wrote: "I believe personas lead to a false sense of understanding at the deepest, most critical levels."

Ouch. Fried puts forward the thesis that he's his own persona: "Every product we build is a product we build for ourselves to solve our own problems."

This is a convincing use-case, and it shows in their execution. Personally, I find myself building for people other than myself. In fact, I prefer this.

Fried and his contemporaries argue that personas are a sham. Shallow and distracting. They'll argue that you should be talking to real people. I don't entirely disagree. I've seen plenty of poorly executed personas, just as I've seen more than a few poorly executed user stories. But it also doesn't mean personas aren't useful.

Personas are a device. It's a way of externalizing a whole bunch of assumptions and presumptions. For me, the most overlooked use in a person is a chance to be wrong.

In fact, when I assumed that I was building something wrong, that's when I started to find personas useful. To do this, I've started using "Super Personas." In this exercise, you put down everything you assume about a particular type of user. Everything you can think of, even if outlandish. What college they attended. Their favorite e-commerce store. The way they organize their closet. Anything.

Our models of the world are always flawed. But flawed models still have utility, if used right.

It's easy to underrate having a baseline, even a wrong one. As long as you accept it's wrong. Without a baseline, you're exploring a domain without any frame of reference. When it's just you that might be possible. With a team or group, it gets difficult.

What you're saying is here is this persona is a guess. Ideally a somewhat informed one, but halfway realistic is fine too. Then you use this guess to triangulate some level of reality.

With a Super Persona you want to consider a few things:

Some people will prefer to do this organically. And they're great at it. For me, I find that having a baseline to thumbs up or down gives me something grounded.

That's what I've been trying, and it's been useful so far. Give it a shot.

Discuss and share via the meta page or subscribe to the newsletter.

Filed under Entrepreneurs and UX.

See my privacy policy or contact details.