Forrester research is one of the most well respected names in digital marketing. They are unbelievably savvy and between Groundswell and their social ladder (below), they illustrated the importance of the social web to millions. So thanks. Now that I’ve said my thank yous, I have some beef with you:

1) Your ladder implies that the web has a hierarchy, that content trickles down from creators to conversationalists and on down the ladder.

2) Your ladder implies that the web is static, and that people act in a similar fashion on all websites. I may be a joiner on one site, a creator on one and a conversationalist on the other.

3) Your ladder implies that spectators read everything, but are afraid, or don’t want to comment. I have a feeling that most spectators are spectators rather than conversationalists or commenters, because they lack the time neccessary to do so.

4) You fail to account for different internet entry points. Am I checking the same sites on my phone as I am on my laptop or work computer?

There are absolutely more reasons why this ladder is imperfect and feel free to share you thoughts on why in the comments, but i’ll stop here, as I am ready to ask new questions:

Why do people share content?

What does it mean when someone shares a piece of content on one network and not on another?

What kind of content or connections transform the spectators into commenters or creators?

Thank you Forrester for showing how content spreads on the internet if it were in a vaccum, but now let’s start to see the bigger picture, it’s time to understand how people, not content navigate the web. How do online connections mimic or differ from psychological, anthropological, and sociological “real world” findings?

After writing this post, I also see why Forrester wrote out the logistics of how content spreads, rather than what motivates people to interact and share online. Well played.

Please share your thoughts on the Forrester ladder in the comments, is it antiquated? Accurate? A good tool?

Popularity: 2% [?]