It’s time to explore the flaws.  First the hierarchy, then the static view of an ever-evolving culture and last, the lacking concept of influence in the models.

Hierarchy — Both models, because of their structure, present a hierarchy of importance amongst the users.  The ladder suggests that conversationalists are more important than critics, critics are more important than collectors but ultimately creators are king.  The pyramid suggests that producing is more important than commenting, commenting is more important than sharing, but curating stands on top.

It is more likely that each user group within the models have (or will have) a niche where it is king.  For example, open source software sites are likely to reinforce that creators are king.  Whereas fashion and style related sites may be ruled by conversationalists.  Who decides which resides above the other on the ladder/pyramid? 

Static View — The Internet has proven to be the great equalizer.  It is a medium that creates a level playing field between hits and niches; as supported by Chris Anderson’s popular book The Long Tail.  Thus, it makes little sense to create a hierarchical model.  Also, it was born from counter-culture (suggested by Fred Turner’s book From Counter-Culture to Cyber-Culture), and by that definition will constantly fight against norms and hierarchy. 

Both of these factors will ensure any hierarchy remains in flux and will foster an evolving marketplace with emerging new and different user groups.  Forrester’s revision to the Technographic model (adding conversationalists in 2010) validates the point.  The model had to adapt.  A recent article at Radicalparenting.com suggests there are up to 10 categories describing teen internet users.  This is the generation that will define Web 2.0.  The models will have to adapt.

Influence — Both models do well to categorize users for segmentation and targeting purposes, however the models fail to provide insight into the influence of relevant user groups against the overall community.  How do you know if creators are influential on the site?  If they are, which groups are they influencing most?  What if they are influential to more than one other sub group?  With limited resources, which ones should be prioritized by marketing departments? 

The influence insight is not represented in either model.  As a result, money spent on marketing activities and time spent on elaborate campaigns could be wasted on a non-influential group.

So, what should the model look like?