Daniel Palay

My views on competitive positioning are largely stolen from Andy Raskin. Rather than repeat that which I've "adopted" from his writing, I'd suggest looking them up (LinkedIn great place to find a lot of it, and links to the rest). The persona framework is pretty simple: consider the relevant stakeholders, determine what incentives they are responding to and implicitly discuss your product in the context of those incentives.

This isn't about avoidance or red flags, but what I consider the single most important behavioral question to ask, whether you are the one interviewing or the one being interviewed: When you're in the kitchen, do you like to cook or do you like to bake? The answer is so incredibly telling about what aspects of product marketing someone will be good at, and how you can best work with them (depending on whether you have the same answer they do, or a different one).

Mary's answer is very good, and comprehensive, and many would do well to simply follow it. For those who enjoy a slightly more spirited debate on the nuances of persona development, I'm going to disagree on a few finer points (in the spirit of sparking a robust discussion!). First, where I absolutely, 100%, agree: Most personas SUCK. They typically come off as a hybrid of an emoji and a Pixar character and tell us NOTHING. I also couldn't agree more that understanding motivations should be the keystone of any persona. 25 also seems like a pretty good number, assuming you have anywhere between four and six different stakeholders you're looking to profile and want to figure out what is "typical" of each. Now, here's where my views and approach depart from hers (and something we'll hopefully discuss further on here): First, I don't care one iota between current, prospective, former and non customers. What I care about is a representative sample that will give me the most unbias view of what "typical" looks like for each stakeholder. Second, I think we differ in how we define "motivations." To me, it's less about what draws them to one product or another, and more about what incentives they respond to. Any good profile will account for this, because in the marketplace, the product most aligned with buyers' incentives will win. Finally, I want to talk to them about every except my client's product. Why? I don't want to immediately bias the conversation towards the importance of that product/category, since I have no idea how often/intensely they think about it. I want to know what they do think most about, because that can inform product positioning.

The best structure and format may not, in fact, be a "persona" at all. You have to ask the question: What should each internal stakeholder be using the persona to accomplish, and what does that look like? Not everyone across the organization knows what to do when handed a buyer persona profile (regardless of format) and that needs to be taken into account. Rather, consider what a "next step" might look like that would be readily understood, and immediately useful to, each constituency. If we're talking about economic buyer personas being distributed to sales teams, I find that a business case, or series of business cases, is often the way to go, but that's just one example.

In the "real world" this is a function of whose responsibility sales collateral is. If it's product marketing, the answer is simple: Supply new collateral when it's time for an update. However, if product marketing is responsible for informing, and letting sales create its own materials, then it becomes more complicated. For me, it all starts with the buyer personas (or, as I like to refer to them, stakeholder profiles). I have a particular way of approaching these, leveraging psychographic, rather than demographic, inputs and structuring outputs as stakeholder-specific business cases. They answer the question: "What does this person care about, and how can my product be related to that?" Whenever the relevant inputs change, so too does the output, and when that happens it's time to circulate to sales. These incorporate elements of competitive and market research, too, but in a way that is immediately actionable by sales (rather than a pile of information that a salesperson then has to figure out what to do with). 

Very straightforward question, with anything but a straightforward answer. They are each distinct... with roughly an 80% overlap with one another. The biggest differences are whether they are buyer-specific or general and whether one must precede the other. You need a value proposition to create a pitch, and these are typically developed for a particular persona. Similarly, you need messaging to have a coherent story, both of which can be for a broader audience. The main takeaway is that they are all different, but don't be surprised/discouraged/frustrated when they end up looking very similar to one another. I could probably come up with detailed definitions of each, but I think we're best off channeling Justice Potter Stewart's opinion on pornography: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..." Applies quite well to the four items in the question. 

Well, the way you have it broke down, you seem to be describing a great researcher, a great engineer and a great writer. Three very different, equally important skillsets. This is just my opinion, but there is another significant difference between the three, and one that is probably overlooked wayyyyy too often when hiring: how process-oriented one must be to succeed. Launches, for example, are probably best handled by someone who thrives on process. Insights is likely somewhere in the middle, as good research requires a methodical thinker, but it doesn't have to be someone entirely process-driven. Enablement, if talking about creation of materials, needs someone who, again, is somewhat methodical, but likes to iterate in real time. Now, take this with a grain of salt (since I'm a solo practitioner consultant...) but it would seem to make sense to structure the roles around the skillsets with consideration for each incumbent's relationship with process. Yes, I realize this may be the most confusing answer of the day, so happy to elaborate if you want to PM me through email/LinkedIn (see profile).

The part I am most experienced with is the business case justification. Indeed, I tend to build business case justifications and personas into a single narrative in order to make my story lines speak to the issues most important to each stakeholder. Primary market research (1:1 interviews) is the best way to build personas (that inform what stakeholders think about most/most often, and the incentives they're responding to). The resulting personas/profiles are by far the greatest driver of the ultimate business case. The information in those personas can also inform my colleagues in Content and Growth about what to write/produce and where to distribute it. 

I take a three-dimensional approach to customer segmentation. Within any given "traditional" segment (industry, size, geography, etc.) I look at three things: What problems my client's product solves, the stakeholders involved, and what incentives those stakeholders are responding to. @Greg Hollander is absolutely right that these often fall flat, but I would expand upon the reasons for that happening. With personas, what I often see is an incorrect assumption that the interests of the customer as a whole, and those of individual stakeholders, are in alignment. On the segmentation side, I think there is too much bias towards segmenting by traditional metrics, instead of segmenting by problem. Greg is also 100% right in his assertion that information must be gathered internally and externally. I learn sooooo much talking to my clients' sales/marketing/product teams AND their customers. Combining what I'm hearing in both arenas really helps develop a picture of "what's really happening" from an observer's standpoint. 

I always segment in three dimensions: One traditional segmentation metric (size, industry, geography, etc.); the problems experienced (that create a need for the product); the different stakeholders (how they experience the problem and what incentives each responds to). That's often difficult to represent visually, but conceptually, I think it helps create a framework for what information is needed, and how to go about gathering it. To me, stakeholder segmentation is by far the most important because it is far too often the most overlooked. People talk about a product's value proposition in the context of the "customer" (usually a company) but don't consider that what's "best" for the customer probably isn't "best" for each stakeholder, and the two may in fact directly conflict. Recognizing, and reconciling, those situations in the context of messaging and positioning is crucial.