If you look at people, each of them have multiple different “personas” throughout the day/week/etc.[0]
Some of them, sometimes, are builders or content creators.
Some of them, sometimes, are conscientious consumers, looking to stretch their understanding or themselves and think hard about something that they are consuming.
But all of them, sometimes, are Marl.
There will always be a way to find more Marls to add to your user pool because Marl is the basest human need for a steady effortless dopamine drip. Just about everyone has some amount of time that they spend as Marl, so there is an almost limitless pool of Marl time to pull new users from.
I’m trying to find some way to say that this isn’t what you actually want, but I’m struggling. If you are making a product for everyone, Marl is the only persona that is in everyone, so you should probably target Marl.
However, if you are trying to build a product for a more constrained persona, you should probably be careful of using metrics that measure Marls. Because there are so many of them (even your users with other personas are sometimes Marls!) if you aren’t really careful, you will enshitify your product as you continue your A/B testing gradient descent into a user base of Marls, without anyone you were trying to get — even if you don’t loose your content creators and conscientious consumers, you have converted them into Marls, and lost what you were trying to achieve.
Enshitification is the conversion of your target user from any other kind of persona, to Marls.
[0] there are other personas, these were that the ones that immediately came to mind.
Absolutely. I think there are two business behaviors that underly this phenomenon: growth culture and fear of being outcompeted.
The culture of growth-at-all-costs has been condemned plenty in other threads here, I won't restate how/why. It's the problem that brings about, for example, "your A/B testing gradient descent" as the gravitational pull towards enshittification: the idea that robotically optimizing for greater growth/income/engagement is the right thing for a business to do. This ignores the huge range of ethical, profitable businesses that inhabit the space in the size/growth spectrum between "lifestyle boutique that pays the employees' bills and not much more" and "virally growing global superphenomenon". The presumption that those two extremes are the only inevitable outcomes for a business is poison. Unfortunately, sustainably inhabiting that middle ground requires a resistance to extreme greed on the part of a business's leadership/leadership culture--and again, the presence of some greed is just fine in non-hypergrowth businesses! There are loyal, lucrative, and sizable markets for carefully targeted products whose focus doesn't drift; "niche" is not a pejorative, and many niches are wide enough to be worth absolute shitloads of money! Unfortunately, continually resisting the extremity of greed is not something humans are good at.
There's also the fear of outcompetition: the idea that a Marl-serving competitor will grow so large that they extinguish your non-Marl-focused business. That's sometimes true, but not inevitably so--and enduring the risk of that "sometimes" is one of the grit-your-teeth-and-stick-to-your-ethics behaviors that distinguishes beloved minority members of a market from self-immolating enshittification chasers. Remember, Apple was a beloved minority player in personal computing, staying (and generally performing well) within a luxury/loyalist niche, for more than a decade. Enduring risk in the face of the fear of outcompetition does require bravery from leaders, but can yield benefits both in the form of profits/loyalty and--rarely--by converting Marls into non-Marls by showing an example of how much better things can be.
Short version is a cold take: the intersection of hypergrowth-legend-induced greed and outcompetition fear, applied across large groups of people with communication impedance, leads to crappy outcomes. As usual.
If you look at people, each of them have multiple different “personas” throughout the day/week/etc.[0]
Some of them, sometimes, are builders or content creators.
Some of them, sometimes, are conscientious consumers, looking to stretch their understanding or themselves and think hard about something that they are consuming.
But all of them, sometimes, are Marl.
There will always be a way to find more Marls to add to your user pool because Marl is the basest human need for a steady effortless dopamine drip. Just about everyone has some amount of time that they spend as Marl, so there is an almost limitless pool of Marl time to pull new users from.
I’m trying to find some way to say that this isn’t what you actually want, but I’m struggling. If you are making a product for everyone, Marl is the only persona that is in everyone, so you should probably target Marl.
However, if you are trying to build a product for a more constrained persona, you should probably be careful of using metrics that measure Marls. Because there are so many of them (even your users with other personas are sometimes Marls!) if you aren’t really careful, you will enshitify your product as you continue your A/B testing gradient descent into a user base of Marls, without anyone you were trying to get — even if you don’t loose your content creators and conscientious consumers, you have converted them into Marls, and lost what you were trying to achieve.
Enshitification is the conversion of your target user from any other kind of persona, to Marls.
[0] there are other personas, these were that the ones that immediately came to mind.