A user research initiative that identified four existing user types, surfaced a fifth overlooked archetype, and introduced Georgia-Pacific to online communities and forums as a new lens for understanding real user behavior.
GP already recognized Installers, Maintainers, Buyers, and Regular Users as part of their product ecosystem. But their understanding stopped there. No one had mapped a fifth, disruptive archetype — users who intentionally misuse or tamper with dispensers — and GP had not yet tapped into online communities, forums, or product reviews as a research channel.
My contribution was two-fold: I identified the Mischief User as a distinct fifth archetype with real downstream impact on maintainers, and I introduced Georgia-Pacific to online communities and public product forums as a scalable, low-cost research method to understand user behavior beyond what in-person interviews alone could surface.
Georgia-Pacific had already identified four archetypes: Installers, Maintainers, Buyers, and Regular Users. During my research, I identified a fifth — Users causing Mischief — whose behavior was creating real, unattributed burden on Maintainers. Naming and documenting this archetype filled a gap in how GP understood its product's full use lifecycle.
I conducted in-person interviews across commercial building settings with all five user types. I also introduced Georgia-Pacific to a research method they hadn't previously used: mining online forums, product reviews, and support communities to surface behavioral patterns at scale. Nearly 1,000 reviews on a single dispenser SKU proved the signal was active and rich.
Raw research was translated into detailed, actionable personas. Each persona captured demographics, motivations, behavioral traits, and — critically — the specific pain points that create friction in real-world use. These became the foundation for downstream design decisions.
GP entered the project with four established user types. My research surfaced a fifth: the Mischief User, an overlooked archetype whose disruptive behavior was creating untracked downstream cost for Maintainers.
Responsible for mounting and setting up dispensers in new or renovated spaces. Focused on speed and compatibility.
FieldBuilding technicians who refill, repair, and troubleshoot dispensers daily across large commercial spaces.
InterviewedProcurement managers who evaluate cost, compatibility, and vendor terms. Often never touch the product physically.
Decision-MakerThe everyday public using dispensers in restrooms, kitchens, and common areas. Habitual and largely unconscious interactions.
End UserIndividuals who tamper with or misuse dispensers — creating downstream maintenance burden and product stress that was previously unattributed.
Newly IdentifiedGP's four user types captured installation, maintenance, procurement, and daily use — but no one had named the disruptive user. Mischief Users who tamper with dispensers were creating untracked maintenance burden. Making this a formal archetype gave the team language and data to address it directly in design.
Shirley's persona crystallized a pattern seen across Maintainer interviews: high turnover, minimal training, language barriers, and a strong reluctance to ask for help. This user needs onboarding that works privately, visually, and immediately — not a wall of text or a colleague's availability.
GP was not using online forums or product reviews as research inputs. I introduced this approach during the project — and the data validated it immediately. Nearly 1,000 reviews on a single SKU showed users actively documenting their frustrations in public. This is now a replicable channel for ongoing research.
GP already built empathy through focus groups and in-person testing — but those methods don't scale to diverse custodian profiles across language, tech comfort, and experience level. The combination of field interviews and online synthesis I introduced creates a richer, more representative picture of who is actually using the product.
Georgia-Pacific already used focus groups and in-person testing to build empathy with users. My contribution was extending that foundation — identifying a missing user archetype through field research, and introducing online forums, product reviews, and support communities as a complementary channel the team had not previously leveraged.