2025 has been quite a research (rather than testing) heavy year so far for Experience UX. Much of this has been helping clients to better understand their customers as users, with the objective often focused on User Personas. But as I write the word Persona, I want to write the word Profile.
User Personas or User Profiles
When we started EUX in 2007 we always referred to User Profiles, but I rarely hear others taking about profiles, with User Personas having become the default descriptor. Recently, I have been guilty of simply switching between the two words without consideration. Shame on me.
Other terminology which is often referenced within this context during conversations with our clients includes ‘Archetypes’ and ‘Segments’. Does this add to the confusion, or are there different roles to play?
Whatever the context, the underlying intention of these tools is to help businesses align to their customers, and they provide a great tool for ensuring that users remain at the heart of the business when it comes to planning and delivery, with everyone in the team ‘singing from the same hymn sheet’.
Marketing or User
One important differentiator sits between marketing and user personas. Organisations will often already have what we refer to as Marketing Personas, which are ultimately focused on reaching the right people with messaging relevant to them.
However, issues can arise when designing websites using these same marketing personas. The challenge exists because marketing personas are shaped around an outbound perspective, but when you design your website (or any service) we need to represent the audience based on their needs when using the website. i.e. why are they here?
Importantly, marketing and user personas are not describing different people – they’re describing the same customers through different lenses. Marketing personas group people by demographics and messaging needs, while user personas group them by functional needs and behaviours when using your website. The key is ensuring teams understand which lens serves their specific project goals.
And this has always been my way to differentiate Personas (Marketing) and Profiles (User). I’d personally find this much easier, being able to talk with clients about Personas and Profiles, knowing both are valid but have different roles, but the word ‘Persona’ seems to be the default terminology for it all.
A hierarchy of customer grouping
I turned to Perplexity.ai to see what the Internet thinks and how it might help, and our conversation resulted in a hierarchy (below). This does make some sense and helps to provide roles for the varying levels of customer grouping, including Personas and Profiles.
| Category | Description | Detail Level |
| Segment | Broad groups based on demographics or behaviours | Low (data-driven) |
| Archetype | Generalized user types based on behaviours and goals | Medium (behaviour-focused) |
| User Profile | Summary or snapshot of user traits | Medium (summary) |
| User Persona | Detailed fictional characters with background | High (rich detail) |
I quite like this, and I suddenly found myself exploring this further. However, scratch beneath the surface, and you will soon noticed the overlap across the different terminology, depending on what you read. There is no one size fits all approach here, but I feel we can draw a hierarchy line between Segments/Archetypes (broader) and Profiles/Personas (narrower).
Inbound or Outbound
The terminology (User Persona, User Profile) is important as it will reduce confusion and increase adoption, but what is critical for any organisation or team is to create personas that support a given requirement. This loops me back to the common conversations I have with clients when discussing the grouping of users:
The first common conversation that I regularly have with our clients is all around the difference between the ‘Marketing’ need and the ‘User’ need.
The second common conversation that I regularly have with our clients is around the role of the eventual user profiles, which I believe are most useful when project specific. They should be created to support a specific design need, be that a new system integration, website, or a landing page.
And the third common conversation I have with clients regarding user groups is that they are evolving assets. Behaviours and expectations can change quickly, especially in the digital space, so the user personas are open to adaption. As new research is undertaken you can ask, “Does this change our personas in any way?”.
I therefore surmise three questions to help shape what type of personas you might need:
1/. Micro or macro
Does the whole business need to use these or just a dedicated team? The varying departments in the business will likely find it easier to align to segments and archetypes, where specific teams with an understanding of the project will be able to use personas and profiles.
2/. Tactic or strategy
Are you looking at long-term positioning or short-term activity? Long-term strategic needs will point to segmentation and marketing personas, whereas shorter term more specific needs will likely look to archetypes and user personas.
3/. Inbound or outbound
Are you trying to reach your audience, or create something for them to use? If both, work on them separately. Begin with the outbound, then shape the inbound.
Sub-personas
Ultimately, your personas need to include the information that you are your team need to make progress confidently. Some projects will need both layers. If you are creating a new product for example, the higher level Archetypes will be needed for planning, strategic conversations, and sharing across the business.
However, you still need the detail of personas for individual design projects. If you have multiple design teams, you don’t want each team creating their own personas! In these scenarios you might create sub-Personas from each archetype, which have the same foundations but include information (needs, expectations, behaviours, etc.) specific to your project.
Finding your approach
The reality is that there’s no perfect terminology or process that works for every organisation. The teams I work with range from marketing teams trying to juggle multiple digital roles, to established tech businesses with dedicated research functions. What matters isn’t having the “right” structure but creating user/customer understanding that actually helps your team make better decisions.
Some organisations will thrive with simple archetypes that everyone can remember and use. Others will need the detailed richness of full personas with sub-variations. Many will find themselves somewhere in between, and that’s absolutely fine.
The three questions I’ve outlined – micro or macro, tactic or strategy, inbound or outbound – are designed to help you navigate these choices regardless of your team size or structure. Start there, adapt the concepts to fit your reality, and don’t get caught up in achieving textbook perfection.
What I’ve learned over the years is that the best user personas are the ones that actually get used. Whether you call them profiles, personas, archetypes, or something else entirely, the terminology matters less than ensuring your team has a shared understanding of who you’re serving and why they matter.
You might also be interested in:
