After much speculation, Facebook’s Instant Articles are here. Instant Articles gives publishers the opportunity to post their content direct to Facebook, in a move that some are proclaiming as ‘selling their soul’ to the social giant. The concern, given Facebook’s history of changing the ground rules, is that while the initial offering from Facebook on Instant Articles is good, the other shoe will eventually drop once the process has become embedded and publishers are reliant on the new practice. Like Darth Vader, the expectation is that Facebook will alter the deal, and once it’s become a key part of publishers’ overall strategy, they’ll be left with no choice but to simply pray that Facebook doesn’t alter it any further.
How does it work?
Instant Articles translates publisher content via HTML and RSS into good looking, easy to consume content, available direct on Facebook. There’s also a range of additional publishing options exclusive to the new platform to boost the presentation of content in the News Feed, things like auto-play video and interactive maps, all of which will function smoothly within Facebook’s mobile news feed. It’s worth noting that Instant Articles are only available via the mobile app right now – trying to access the same content on your desktop PC will take you to the normal, mobile web version of the article (though Facebook specifically notes ‘for the moment’ as a qualifier on this).
Instant Article posts load much faster than normal links, which is one of the major pain points Facebook is seeking to resolve with this option. The average mobile load time for an external link from Facebook is around eight seconds. Now, that seems like nothing, right? Eight seconds isn’t long to wait for an article to come up, but on a wider scale, when you consider how many people are using Facebook each day, that time is significant. Facebook has 936 million daily active users, if each of those users opens just one link per session, that eight seconds load time equates to more than two million total hours that people around the world are waiting, each day, for posts to load – time those people could be spending doing other things. Like reading more content on Facebook. From that perspective alone, Facebook’s move has a significant pay-off, even if they maintain the current ad revenue split, which, at present, looks pretty appealing for publishers.
How do publishers make money?
One of the biggest concerns about publishers posting first-run content direct to Facebook was that they’d be surrendering their own audience in favour of Facebook’s. If people no longer need to visit your site to view content, that’s going to result in less traffic, and by extension, less opportunity to monetize your audience. Facebook’s worked to alleviate this by offering publishers the ability to display their own ads within their Instant Articles, with all revenues from any such ads going back to the publishers. Facebook will then fill any unsold ad spots, and will take a 30 per cent cut from any revenues generated by those ads, with the rest going back to the publishers.
Facebook has also worked with comScore to ensure Instant Article views within Facebook’s app will count as traffic for the original publisher, not Facebook. So while publishers are ceding control to The Social Network, they’re getting a pretty good deal on advertising and losing nothing in audience stats. Facebook will also provide performance data on Instant Articles, better enabling publishers to work out what’s resonating best with their Facebook audience and make improvements.
Sounds like a pretty good deal, right? And considering many publishers are already significantly reliant on Facebook referral traffic anyway, partnering with the network via Instant Articles makes sense, as it’s likely (despite Facebook saying this is not the case) that Facebook’s algorithm will give preferential treatment to Instant Articles over other posting options. Though that, too, is where publishers hesitate in shaking Facebook’s outstretched hand and look down at the feet to see if their standing on the trap door.
What’s The Issue with Instant Articles?
The problem with Facebook’s new option is not what Instant Articles are now, but what they may become. Major players posting direct to Facebook is a fundamental shift in the publishing process. While, right now, the deal looks good, and it seems as though Facebook has done a lot of negotiating with their launch partners to ensure the deal beneficial for all, as with the many changes to the News Feed algorithm, Facebook has the right to change the game whenever it sees fit.
If publishers don’t sign up to Instant Articles, will that see eventually their content de-emphasised by the algorithm, making it harder to reach potential audience on the platform? If Instant Articles are given preferential placement in the News Feed, will that further reduce the reach of all other content as there’ll be less News Feed real estate remaining as a result? If Instant Articles are a big hit, and publishers become reliant on that as a new source of revenue, will Facebook re-configure the advertising split, leaving publishers with no choice but to take the hit and give over more money to the social giant?
Obviously, there’s no way of knowing how it will play out, but it’s generally agreed that building a reliance on ‘rented land’, in social networks or any other platform of which you don’t control the back-end, isn’t sustainable practice in the long-term. But maybe Facebook is, as they say, only seeking to improve user experience. Maybe eliminating that load time results in more people spending more time visiting other areas of Facebook or direct posted articles further enhance Facebook’s status as a key source of information, increasing time spent on platform, and thus, opportunities for Facebook to serve ads, and that, in itself, is enough reason for Facebook to maintain the system as is. It seems unlikely, in the long term. The initial deal being offered seems a little too good to be what it will in its final configuration. But it sure is appealing. You can imagine many publishers would be willing to sign-up to get better reach to Facebook’s 1.4 billion users.
Instant Articles is definitely an interesting development, and one everyone in the content, media and publishing space will want to keep a close eye on.
The new battleground of combined social and search is going to become a significant storyline in the world of social media marketing this year. Last week, we saw the first examples of what tweets might look like in Google search results as part of Twitter’s new deal with the search giant. It’s now being reported that Facebook is testing a newsearch feature – not quite on the same path, but more significant than it may, initially, seem.
Facebook is testing out a new functionality for iOS users which enables people to search for links while composing a status update, in-app. Just like adding a picture, the function would enable users to click on a link icon, then do a keyword search for articles related to that topic in order to share that content with your update.
At a glance, this seems relatively minor, adding in links is no major upgrade, it’s just streamlining that process – and really, it may be slightly restrictive, most people like to be able to share the exact links to the exact posts they want, and searching via this method might not necessarily help you locate the right content any more efficiently than searching outside of the app and cutting and pasting the link yourself. But then again, it might. And considering the massive amount of mobile sharing Facebook hosts, this process could prove hugely popular, effectively cutting Google out of the equation and keeping users on Facebook longer. And what’s more, it would also grant Facebook more control over more information, in the form of search data, which it could use to entice more publishers to its publisher platform. And that might just be the start.
Mo’ Data, Mo’ Options
So, let’s say this becomes a popular practice, that people are finding the links they want via this search process, Facebook learns your favourite websites and can better provide contextual searches, based on your previous sharing behaviour. That being the case, couldn’t Facebook then use that in building its case for publishers to post first-run content direct to Facebook? What if, as part of their pitch, they could say that “people use this new in-app search functionality 35% of the time, and we control the search results they get – we could ensure your content appears high in those results, significantly increasing the chances that users will link to your posts, thereby increasing your overall audience.” That’s interesting, right? What, too, does that increase in searches on Facebook do for Google traffic and Google’s share of audience? We know that Facebook leads social referral traffic by a significant margin (and that’s not even counting dark social shares) – if this addition were to catch on, it could be a significant concern for The Big G’s hold on search traffic.
Obviously, these are extrapolations, we have no idea how this is going to go till we see it in the wild and we get some stats on how users view this addition. But it could be something. It could be more significant than it may seem, at this early stage.
The first examples of the new Twitter/Google partnership are staring to filter through, with Search Engine Land providing screenshots of confirmed Google tests of tweets in search results:
As you can see from this example, a search for ‘#maythe4thbewithyou’ on Google has provided results from Twitter, where the topic was trending. You can see too, the option to click through for more tweets. This example is via mobile, where the current testing is taking place, but it provides our first insight into how Google may be looking to incorporate real-time tweets.
The first question I had about the new Google/Twitter partnership was whether this would provide SEO value. If Google opted to show tweets high in search results, then definitely, there’d be SEO interest there – showing up at the top of the SERPs, in any form, is a big win for brands – and these early examples show that there is, indeed, clear SEO value. Twitter results may only appear for trending issues or maybe there’ll be a recognition value placed on Twitter activity to determine whether listing the Twitter results is likely relevant to the user query, but these screenshots show that it may be possible to reach high-visibility areas of Google’s SERPs via your Twitter presence.
This will invariably mean more brands will be investing more into their Twitter presence, as it significantly increases the audience reach potential of tweets. The change also underlines the fact that social search is going to be a significant battleground, and one that organisations will need to take into account.
A likely element of Google calculations on when and where to display tweets in search results will be the relevance of the person or people tweeting about the topic. In the example above, #maythe4thbewithyou was a trending hashtag (and the search is specifically for that hashtag), so it makes contextual sense that Google consider this relevant to the users’ search, and thus, would show the user tweets relevant to the topic. But in one of the other examples provided by Search Engine Land, the logic behind why the tweet was shown seems slightly different.
As you can see, beneath the first result, the search conducted was ‘mayweather pacquiao’ and a tweet from Gary Valenciano has appeared in the results. Gary Valenciano is a verified account with 2.43 million followers, so while the correlation between the tweet itself and the search term isn’t as clear as the first example, it does seem that a profile’s social clout will play a part in Google’s logic on what tweets to show and when. The first contention is supported again in the third example shown in Search Engine Land’s post:
Steve Benfey has 286 followers and isn’t verified, but #CarlyFiorina is a trending topic, so just like #maythe4thbewithyou, it’s the popularity of the topic that’s dictated its relevance in the SERPs, not the tweet originator. This would suggest there’s at least two different logicalities that will dictate the appearance of tweets in search results – there’s a ‘Popular on Twitter’ break-out, which’ll show tending tweets related to the search query, and another option which shows related tweets based on the social standing of the tweeter (or possibly the engagement levels on the individual tweet).
In the case of trending topics, this is effectively word-of-mouth SEO. You’re getting a display of real-time discussion – the more discussion about the topic, the more likely the searcher will be shown tweet results in the SERPs. From a marketing perspective, this addition will likely increase the rate of newsjacking and brands trying to tag onto trending topics, as, if successful, they’ll get the double-benefit of appearing not only in the trending discussion on Twitter, but also in related Google search results. It’ll also highlight the importance of brand awareness efforts in regards to trending topics – imagine if you were searching for ‘Nike basketball shoes’ and a trending topic was how an NBA players’ Nikes fell apart on him during a game. That sort of discussion would be hard to ignore for a prospective customer – it’ll be more important than ever for brands to be monitoring Twitter trends to manage or remain aware of such occurrences in order to mitigate potential negative associations.
Of more marketing value, however, is option number two presented here – appearing in the search results based on tweet mentions from prominent users. This will amplify the importance of influencer marketing on Twitter – using the same example as above, what if you were searching for ‘Nike basketball shoes’ and a tweet from NBA star Kobe Bryant appeared high in the results, thanking Nike for making him such great sneakers? That could play a part in your decision making process, right? Of course, as with everything, staged responses or canned endorsements will be obvious to the searcher, and it’s likely people will filter out any such tweets that are overly promotional. But real responses, from real influencers on Twitter, might just have a whole new value proposition for brands, depending on how these tests play out.
The Sleeping Giant
Social search, elaborating on the context of your search results with the real-time discussion from social media platforms, is fast becoming a big deal. People are placing less trust in brand messaging these days, and a significant impetus for that change may be that they simply no longer have to. In times past, brands had more control over the flow of information, they told consumers what they wanted them to hear and managed the message according to their own strategic goals. But in the connected era, in which people have access to all the information, all the time, consumers can inform themselves. Studies have shown that people are already more than halfway along the purchase cycle before they even get in touch with brands, they’re not coming to your sales reps looking for more info the way they used to do. The value is in relationships, in having a higher value proposition than the product itself. In this context, social search is more important than ever – because what’s more valuable than a recommendation from the people you know and trust?
The Google/Twitter partnership only underlines the rising importance of social search and of adding that additional context to the search process. But Facebook knows this too, and you can bet, they’ll be planning their own response.
Graph Search 2.0
Facebook Graph Search was largely seen as a failure. Or not a failure, as such, but a glitchy system that never quite delivered on its massive potential. Facebook acknowledged this – Mark Zuckerberg himself has noted that the results weren’t consistent. But just as Google and Twitter move to stake their claim on social search, Facebook will be looking to roll out Graph Search 2.0, and it will be a massive improvement on the first iteration.
Facebook’s been quite overt in its efforts to keep its audience within its own walls – most specifically with its push to get major publishers to post first-run content direct to Facebook. A big part of holding audience attention and maintaining user experience is search, giving users the ability to easily find what they want within the Facebook eco-system. Facebook has been cautious about how they roll out Graph Search due to privacy concerns and the need to protect the value of their treasured user data, but a new version of Graph Search will be coming soon. The Google/Twitter partnership will only hasten its arrival.
Whatever comes, it’s going to be interesting to see how the digital marketing world responds to having real-time tweets in Google search results. These first examples show that the new partnership could have significant implications, and will likely raise the value of Twitter as a marketing and brand-relevance platform. It’s an exciting development to watch, and I’m looking forward to seeing how it all comes together.
Earlier this week, Facebook updated their News Feed algorithm again, in what many are seeing as the next move towards ‘Facebook Zero’ – i.e. 0% organic reach for pages. Facebook announced three updates – the first is around users who don’t have a lot of content to see. Previously, the algorithm ensured people were not shown multiple posts from the same source in a row, they’re relaxing this measure for people who run out of content to view and are seeking to view more. Nothing major there, the impacts should be minimal.
The second update has a bit more to it – as noted in Facebook’s announcement, this update:
…tries to ensure that content posted directly by the friends you care about, such as photos, videos, status updates or links, will be higher up in News Feed so you are less likely to miss it. If you like to read news or interact with posts from pages you care about, you will still see that content in News Feed. This update tries to make the balance of content the right one for each individual person.”
So the focus of this one is on those friends who you regularly interact with, on showing you more content from those users and ensuring those posts appear more prominently in your feeds. This is based on your interaction history – Facebook will use past behaviour as a guide to add weight to the prominence of friends’ posts and ensure they appear higher in your results. This will impact page posts because it will be adding increased preference metrics to content posted from certain profiles – most probably, the impact of this will be minimal, but if a person is more likely to be shown content from friends, they’re conversely less likely to see posts from pages in their daily News Feed allocation.
The third update relates to posts that friends have liked or commented on:
…many people have told us they don’t enjoy seeing stories about their friends liking or commenting on a post. This update will make these stories appear lower down in News Feed or not at all, so you are more likely to see the stuff you care about directly from friends and the pages you have liked.”
Again, the precise impact of this change is hard to predict, but it underlines the fact that ‘likes’, in themselves, are becoming little more than an aesthetic measure – and worse, that even interactions like comments are not necessarily going to increase your post reach. This change inadvertently puts more emphasis on shares and on prompting users to take direct action to explicitly promote their support of your page.
So what’s that mean for Facebook marketing? This change further underlines the need for brands to move from a broadcast focus to making themselves part of the conversation. With this update, Facebook is essentially saying that their users want to use the platform to interact with friends and the content they’re individually interested in, and the only way to effectively promote your pages without moving to paid ads is to generate conversation amongst people independent of your properties. That’s obviously easier said than done, but the principle for Facebook marketing remains that you need to create great content, you need to listen to what your audience wants and is responding to, and you need to become part of those conversations in order to attract more direct interactions with individuals and ensure your brand is part of any relevant conversations.
This also underlines the need to work with individual advocates – I’ve already seen it suggested by some that maybe brands should create personal profiles to help get better reach amongst their communities, but that won’t work, as it’s in violation of Facebook’s terms. Having people speak on your brand’s behalf is the best way to ensure you’re maximising Facebook reach – this is why employee advocacy is becoming a big focus, because who better to speak on behalf of your brand than those who live it everyday? Happy, engaged, socially-empowered employees can play a big part in brand awareness, and this update only reinforces the need to consider ways to facilitate authentic conversations across Facebook’s social graph.
This also sets the stage for updates to Facebook’s own search capabilities – Facebook recently announced changes to their API, effective April 30, which will reduce the capabilities for third party apps, particularly in relation to personal profiles, groups and search functionality. These changes seem relatively small, but for Facebook to be restricting them, my guess is that they’re close to releasing improved search functionality within their own walls, hence, these changes are designed to keep people on Facebook, as opposed to managing their Facebook presence via other platforms. This News Feed update somewhat supports this, in that it puts more emphasis on search to find content, as opposed to tangential organic reach.
Whatever the outcome, it’s clear that this update doesn’t help Facebook marketers and further supports the looming dawn of Facebook Zero. So should you just move on and forget about Facebook marketing? Depends on your audience, depends on how this changes your engagement levels – depends on many individual factors that can’t be answered in a generic sense. The fact is that Facebook has 1.44 billion active users, and many of them are likely interested in your products and services. Reaching them might not be as easy as it once was, but it is still totally possible, and totally viable when done in a considered way.
Back in early 2014, I came across a content discovery tool called BuzzSumo. Steve Rayson, who regularly writes for Social Media Today, had referenced BuzzSumo data in one of his posts, so I clicked through, checked it out – and honestly, I was awed by the many varied applications I could immediately use this data for.
In basic form, BuzzSumo shows you the social share stats for any URL, website or topic. In itself, this is pretty helpful, but one of the more impressive elements of BuzzSumo is the developers’ awareness of how this data will be used, and what data will be useful. As such, over time they’ve added a range of additional features: you can filter the results by language or region; you can narrow the listing down to content type – infographics, videos, interviews; they added the ability to search for influencers on any given topic, reports to compare domains or examine backlinks, by URL or domain. As more new functions have been added, I’ve found myself using and recommending the app ever more frequently.
If you’ve not taken the time to check out BuzzSumo, you should, it really is a great app. And now they’ve got another addition – Steve recently got in touch to give me a look at their latest feature.
BuzzSumo’s latest trick is monitoring trending content. The new feature enables you to set up a dashboard of trending or most shared content based on whatever keywords and topics you’d like to keep tabs on.
In this example, the dashboard is set to show the most shared content under the topic of ‘social media’ over the last 24 hours. You can see the keywords I’ve used to track this in the listing just above the posts:
The dashboard is tracking the terms ‘social media’, ‘LinkedIn’, ‘Facebook’, etc. Any topic that mentions those terms is included in this dashboard, which is sorted by most shared to least. There’s a range of additional filters you can apply to the results – you can include results from the last 24 hours, or the last 2 hours, and anything in between. You can also narrow the listing down by country and by either ‘Most Shared’ or ‘Trending Now’.
If you choose ‘Trending Now’, the results will be listed based on each item’s trending score, which measures the velocity of shares within a specified time period. This is a great way to stay on top of the content attracting the most interest in specific niches or based on your target keywords – you can also include hashtags in your search terms to capture all relevant discussion.
What’s more, you can share your dashboards with anyone – logged out users can view the content, so you could make a dashboard capturing all mentions of, say, an event and the BuzzSumo trending log will form a comprehensive overview of the most discussed and trending content related to it – this one, for example, is looking at the UK General Election campaign:
Now, if you’re mind’s not already floating off with the various possibilities of this new function, here are a few ways in which the feature could be useful:
- Content curation – The most obvious benefit of this new functionality is for content curation. Being able to identify the most popular and trending content, based on your specified keywords – in your specific region – is great insight into what’s resonating, and what’s likely to be of relevance to your audience. Not only does this enable you to stay on top of developing discussion points and issues in your niche, it can also act as a guide when considering what to share with your community to keep them up to date
- Content creation – So, if you have a trending dashboard set up and you can see that a certain issue is running hot, and you have your own perspective to add to the discussion, that’s probably a good cue for you to get writing. Adding your personal insight to a trending issue can go a long way towards reinforcing your position as a leader in your field – having the list of trending topics, right there in front of you, could save you a heap of time in searching and locating relevant content by other methods
- Insight – Not only are you getting valuable insight into what content is trending, BuzzSumo’s listings also show you where that content is reaching an audience. You can see below the preview images for each post that there’s also a listing of how many shares each story has generated on the five major social platforms. This effectively highlights the platforms you need to be active on in order to reach the audience discussing those topics – locating and tapping into those conversations could prove extremely valuable, as, targeted with your specific keywords, it’s leading you directly to your where your target audience is at. There’s obviously a bit more to it than just logging on and jumping into a trending conversation, but it’s a guide, an indicator of where to look. And maybe it’ll show you opportunities you’d not have previously considered
These are the three main uses for the trending dashboard from a straight marketing and research perspective. But as noted in the event example above, there are a heap more ways you could consider using this. There’s also an RSS feature that you can use to stay informed with the most up-to-date info on trending topics in your industry – and the terms you use to create the board are defined by you, so you can make it as specific or broad-matched as you like.
As noted previously, I’ve been pretty impressed by BuzzSumo’s progression – their features always add a new level of depth, and they’ve really thought through the functionality and user-friendliness of the process when putting together these features. Trending topics again adds another level, and there’s a wide range of possible applications and uses for this option. No doubt you’re already considering using it for your own purposes, beyond what I’ve noted here. If you aren’t using BuzzSumo, you definitely check it out, and if you are, you’ll no doubt love the new feature – another solid addition from the BuzzSumo team.
So Meerkating is now a thing. The immensely popular live-streaming app Meerkat has timed it’s rise to prominence in alignment with the annual South by Southwest Festival, leading to a perfect storm of Meerkats streaming from every talk, launch and dinner event. And it’s fun – it’s amazing to have such a level of access to the festival and it’s participants – the closest many of us, particularly those of us in other parts of the world, will ever get to actually being there and experiencing the event as it happens. I’ve loved jumping onto a Meerkat stream and getting Brian Fanzo’s perspective or Gary Vaynerchuck’s insight, all happening right there, as I watch. There’s a lot to like about Meerkat – but it’s time in the sun may be short-lived.
In January, Twitter purchased Periscope, a video-streaming service that offers the exact same capabilities as Meerkat, and then some. Twitter’s been working with Periscope since November 2014, and was reportedly polishing the beta version when Meerkat – which was built in just 8 weeks – was released into the social sphere. Reports thus far have indicated that Periscope operates in much the same way as Meerkat – it will function as a separate app and enable Twitter users to create live streams, the links to which are tweeted out to your Twitter followers (or to selected users). Periscope will also give users the chance to view live streams or watch previously recorded ones, something not on offer via Meerkat. Another point of difference is that comments posted on Periscope won’t show up in your Twitter stream – not sure if this is a positive or negative at this stage. While it is odd seeing half messages or seemingly random interactions show up in your Twitter stream – which are actually responses to a Meerkat that user is watching – those conversation fragments can also spark interest in checking out the link yourself – time will tell if this has any effect on viewers.
Reports have suggested that Periscope is a far more polished and functional affair – which makes sense, given the short dev time for Meerkat – but has Periscope missed the boat and enabled Meerkat to establish a following?
Riding the Blue Bird
There is one other thing working against Meerkat – it’s been built on the back of Twitter’s network. As stated in the Meerkat documentation ‘everything that happens on Meerkat happens on Twitter’, and this could work against them as, effectively, a competing service. Already, Twitter’s moved to restrict Meerkat’s access to it’s social graph. While it’s unlikely Twitter would cut Meerkat off completely, building their network on Twitter’s land could prove problematic when Periscope does, eventually, get released – though some have also noted that this strategy may end up working in Meerkat’s favour.
The Race or the Service?
There was a question posted in a SXSW event over the weekend – an event I was watching via Meerkat – and it somewhat gets to the heart of the questions over the future of Meerkat and whether the app will exist long-term. The question, posed by Bryan Kramer, was:
My response to this is that the functionality of Meerkat is an extension of social connectivity – it brings everything another step closer. That’s really the ultimate goal of social media, to facilitate connections between people and groups and enable everyone to be part of the wider conversation. That’s the ethos that Mark Zuckerberg stands by, the mission to connect everyone and harness the power of collaboration to bring about real connection and, ideally, real change. In this vein, Meerkat is a perfect extension of such capacity – it’s the next step, allowing anyone to broadcast easily and in real-time to the rest of the world. And in that sense, the platform itself isn’t really the thing.
Whether it’s Periscope or Meerkat – or something else we haven’t even heard of, Meerkat’s live-streaming functionality is exciting and innovative – and it’s already got of the world’s best social media minds enamoured and thinking about how to utilise it in new ways. While I anticipate Periscope being being a great product, even if it does succeed Meerkat, time spent learning and seeing what you can do via Meerkat won’t be wasted. And maybe there’s room for both apps in the market – maybe some people will better align to the DIY-feel of Meerkat and refuse to use Periscope even if it is better. It’s likely that this window of opportunity Meerkat’s been afforded will enable it to establish a loyal audience of some kind – but regardless of how it pans out, the important element to note here is the functionality, the new capability and capacity being offered by live-streaming video. Network capacity of the past would’ve meant such innovation was simply impossible. But now, you might get the opportunity to experience celebrity events from the front row, live streamed by your favourite celebrity him or herself, access you’d never have dreamed of – and a powerful vehicle for engagement and building community.
Rather than worrying about who’ll win the race, take a moment to take in the spectacle of the event. It’s a fun ride that’s worth getting onto.
Do you ever come across a business profile or page and think ‘what the…? How did they get 3,000 followers?’ As with most things in life, if something seems fishy, there’s a good likelihood that it probably is, and with the fake social media profile industry worth hundreds of millions of dollars per annum, it’s not hugely surprising to find out many individuals and brands have taken this route. Like, a heap of them have – just take a look at the results from the recent Instagram fake profile purge, where a whole range of celebrities took big hits in their follower counts.
And it makes sense, having more followers and likes can definitely improve your brand position – if you’re looking for a service online and find two similar providers, one with 38 likes and another with 3,000, the latter one’s gonna’ stand out – but with the practice of buying followers and likes so widespread, it’d be great to also have a way to work out who’s telling the truth, right? Here’s a couple of ways to work out if they’re telling you the fibs.
How to work out is someone’s Twitter followers are fake
Twitter is the open network, the one where people go to broadcast their thoughts and voice their opinions on the happenings of the world. As such, the biggest advantage of Twitter is that most of their data is publicly accessible, which makes it easier to work out what brands are doing, what strategies their employing – and also, whether they’re faking. It’s actually pretty easy to spot on Twitter, even without any significant investigation.
When looking through Twitter, it’s not uncommon for a celebrity to have a follower to following ratio that looks something like this:
Gotye’s not a prolific tweeter, and as such, he’s not following a heap of people. But he’s Gotye, he’s a world-renowned musician, and his fans are keen to hear whatever it is he has to say – hence, despite him not following back many folk, he still has 414,000 followers. That makes sense for a public figure with a large fan base, but when you come across a non-public figure, someone you’ve never heard of, with a similar follower/following ratio, that’s a pretty clear indicator that something’s amiss.
There are a couple of options for testing this on Twitter – Status People’s ‘Fake Follower Check’ is one, Social Bakers, too, has a free fake followers test you can use – but my favourite is Twitter Audit, also free, very quick and very easy to use. The difference between each of these, and why I prefer TwitterAudit, is the number of records they check to get an indication of how many fake followers each profile has.
Of course, the accuracy of each is relative to the amount of followers the subject has – the percentage of followers you’re testing decreases in-line with increases in follower count – but generally this data has been found to be indicative, when compared with tests on a more comprehensive scale.
To conduct a Twitter Audit, you just enter the handle you wanna’ check, sign-in with your Twitter credentials, and away you go. How the test works is, it takes a look at that random sample of up to 5,000 of the person’s followers and it looks at a range of factors for each – number of tweets sent, date of last tweet, follower/following ratio, etc. From this, the system determines which of those tested profiles are likely fake, then gives you a percentage and pie chart based on those findings:
There is, of course, a margin of error in this data, but it’s normally a fairly accurate indicator, particularly when analysing profiles with less than 5k followers.
To clarify and confirm the data further, you can conduct a manual check – paid tools like Followerwonk or Socialbro provide in-depth reports on follower growth over time. If you look up a profile and find a big drops or jumps in their follower numbers, like this:
Pretty safe to assume those followers didn’t all randomly switch off in the same week (unless, of course, there was an offending tweet or similar logical connection).
Using the available apps, it’s pretty easy to work out Twitter fakes. Twitter’s always working to eliminate illegitimate profiles, so we might one day see an Instagram style purge with a heap of celebrities taking hits. But till then, if you ever need confirmation, just run ‘em through a Twitter Audit, then sit back and scoff at their vanity.
How to work out is someone’s Facebook likes are fake
Facebook fakers are a little harder to pin down. Unlike Twitter, most of Facebook’s data is locked up or hidden behind privacy settings, making it a bit more difficult to determine, definitively, if someone’s cheating. There’s a few ways to go about it and while none of them will provide as clear a result as the Twitter audit options, they will give you some idea as to what’s going on with any given page.
Find out where their fans are from
So, let’s say that the Facebook page you’re looking at is a local business – they work within your local region, they not a subsidiary of a larger international corporation – the people they work with are, logically, going to be based in the local area. The people who sell Facebook likes tend to be from third world nations – as noted in this piece from Copyblogger. Most of the fake likes you’ll come across originate from Bangladesh, India, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria and Indonesia. Now, that’s not to point the finger and say all of the ‘click farms’ in the world are based in these regions, but if our local business has a heap of likers from these nations, that’s a likely indication that their faking it. So how do work this out?
Facebook’s graph search enables you to search for a heap of different parameters. The one we can use in this case is:
You insert the name of the business page at the end and it’ll give you a display of all the hometowns of people who like that page. The problem with this is that Graph Search results are sorted based on affinity – how they’re connected to you – not by total number, so you can’t necessarily determine where the majority of this page’s likes come from, but if it’s a local business and they have a range of the above mentioned nations among the hometowns of their followers, you may have reason to question why they’re showing up there.
Extra note: In this piece by Miguel Bravo, Bravo also suggests that the results of Graph Search queries like:
‘Pages likes by people who like [insert page name]’
‘Countries of people who like [insert page name]’
‘Languages of people who like [insert page name]’
Can also produce telling results (and they definitely do in the example he’s provided).
Check their interaction versus their Likes
This is a more tenuous linkage, but it can provide some insight. So, if the page you’re looking at has 3,000 likes, you’d expect them to have a reasonable level of interaction on their posts, some discussion about their brand, right? You can do a quick assessment of their posts to see what sort of engagement they’re getting on each – fake profiles are not going to interact with posts, so if they’ve got a crazy amount of page likes but are getting no action on their updates, they may have bought likes. Or they’re not very good at understanding their audience.
By clicking on the actual ‘Like’ number on the page, you get a graph like this:
Now, dependent on other factors, this could be telling – a huge jump in likes on any given day indicates either a really popular post or promotion, or that the page has bought likes, you’ll only be able to determine this by cross-checking the data against the posts. The other metric to consider is ‘People Talking About This’ – so, in this case, I’d be a little suspect, given they have 3.7k total page likes, a big boost in likes in the last week, yet only one person ‘talking about this’. Again, these are not definitive measures – they can often end up being fuel for your own conspiracy theories, where you’re really seeing what you want to see. But having a look at the numbers can be revealing on a page that’s clearly purchased fake likes.
Extra tip: Fake profiles tend to have no profile image, or odd-looking, copied images – this is another element to check to further your investigation.
Really find out where their fans are from
If you’re really serious about finding Facebook fakers, paid app Fanpage Karma will give you a breakdown of the location of any page’s likers.
This is one of the clearest indicators you can use to determine if the page has purchased likes – if the top countries are nations where the brand doesn’t even operate, that’s a fairly large red flag waving in your face.
On one hand, it’s frustrating that there’s not an easier way to determine Facebook fakers, as there is with Twitter, but on the other hand, it doesn’t really matter either way – if they’ve purchased fake likes, there’s not a heap you can do. I mean, you could, theoretically, go through their list of fans and report each fake profile one-by-one (which you can also do on Twitter) but obviously, that’s pretty time consuming and with Facebook already dealing with thousands of reports per hour, it’s hard to know if those efforts will actually cause any effect – that, and the fact that some like sellers offer a ‘guarantee’, where they’ll replace removed spam accounts, lessens the potential impact of conducting your own faker crackdown. The ongoing updates to Facebook’s news feed algorithm mean that purchasing likes will hurt pages more than help in the end, and Facebook’s always working to eliminate fakes where they can. While a higher number of likes is better looking, as with most measurements in social, it’s only one part of the larger picture, one indicator of potential success. You might have ten total likes and that could be more effective than a thousand, if those ten fans are engaged, paying clients, responsive to your messaging.
Quality Vs Quantity
And this is the key element in the popularity contest – the metrics only tell a part of the story. While I can understand why businesses might consider boosting their numbers, metrics are only one element of the social marketing puzzle. What’s more, fake likes and followers hurt the core product of social platforms – there’s already been questions about Twitter’s actual user numbers with reports suggesting that 9% of profiles are fake. That sort of speculation hurts their brand sentiment and turns off potential investors – the fake profile industry is bad for social media business, and you best believe the platforms are doing all they can to identify and eradicate imposter accounts. As with Instagram, at any time you could see a similar cull on any platform – buying popularity could end up very embarrassing if you get caught out.
Any measurement is an indicator – Likes, followers, Klout, Kred – each, in itself, is something to consider, but the only way to confirm the true social credentials of a person or brand is to investigate them yourself. Look at their posts, their content, assess what they’re doing. There may be a logical reason why their numbers are the way they are. Or there may not. ‘Influence’ is relative – conducting your own analysis will show you whose earned it and whose bought something resembling what influence should be.
Ever since my early teens I’ve been a big basketball fan. I played football when I was young, but a playground accident (in which I broke both my arms at the same time) meant full-contact sports were off the cards for an extended period. During my recovery, I found basketball, and I never looked back. This was also right in the midst of the Michael Jordan-era – Charlotte Hornets jerseys were everywhere, Shaquille O’Neal was smashing backboards on TV. Basketball was blowing up in the early nineties, and like many passions of our formative years, it took hold and has stayed with me ever since.
One aspect that really captured my imagination was statistics. I collected NBA cards, poured over the numbers and info on each one. I developed an encyclopedic knowledge of useless facts about players and their outputs – you wanna’ know who had the best three-point field goal percentage in the 1992-93 season – I got you. Need to know the career averages of Bill Wennington? Right here. I wasn’t alone in this, there were a heap of people more informed and more detail-oriented than I, but what I didn’t know was that that very passion, that interest in obscure details and numbers, would one day change the very way the game was played.
Evolution Through Analysis
At the 2012 Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, cartographer Kirk Goldsberry gave a presentation on what he called CourtVision, an advanced basketball analytics system he’d put together in his spare time. Goldsberry had worked out how to extract data from ESPN’s shot charts – which showed where each player had made and missed shots from during each game – and he’d put all that data into a comprehensive set for each individual. He’d mapped every shot taken in every NBA game from 2006 to 2011, a huge data bank which, when filtered down to specific players, highlighted tendencies, weaknesses and strengths.
Basic field goal percentage data was nothing new – as noted earlier, any kid intoxicated by the smell of a freshly opened pack of basketball cards had some level of similar insight, but Goldsberry had taken it to the next level. He’d sought to show why this data was important, how it could be actioned. And as he presented, an audience full of NBA owners all sat forward in their seats.
Data analytics in sports has become the “in” thing in recent times. Growing from the success of Billy Beane’s “Moneyball”, analytics is now big business – virtually every major sports team now employs some level of data analysis in their preparation and evaluation process. And it makes sense – winning is everything in professional sports. More than pride or showmanship, it’s winning that makes money for pro athletes. Careers depend on it, clubs rely on the ability to perform. Winning teams get better attendances, more TV coverage, more success as a business overall. And it is just that – business. While it’s sports and it may not seem so different from your local leagues, where participation in itself is seen as a level of success, professional sport is a massive industry, and winning is a fundamental requirement. You’re either winning now or you have a plan to win in future. Or you’re done. With so much riding on the result, every little bit matters, every advantage you can get helps – if deflating the ball by one p.s.i can provide some tiny advantage, you best believe someone will try it.
With every detail under so much scrutiny, professional sports teams need to get things right. You could fly blind, stick with the way things have always been done – rely on your gut instinct, as many traditionalists still uphold. But the fact of the matter is data has become a critical part of modern pro sports. Numbers don’t lie, statistics are fact, and while it takes more than mere numbers to build any actionable insights from the info, used well, data can unlock the secrets that lead to that one goal – winning.
Data vs Instinct
Goldsberry’s formulas, or variations of them, have been adopted by players and coaches all across the NBA. The actual results of this are difficult to definitvely pin down, fuelling critics of the advanced statistics and data approach. Some, like TNT commentator and NBA Hall of Famer Charles Barkley, have come out strong with their opposition:
All these guys who run these organizations who talk about analytics, they have one thing in common — they’re a bunch of guys who have never played the game, and they never got the girls in high school, and they just want to get in the game.”
Barkley’s view is simple – all the numbers and all the data have not yet lead to a team winning a championship. And he’s right, but still, many clear winners have emerged.
Shane Battier defined his career by being a defensive specialist, someone who’s sole aim was taking on unglamorous task of shutting down opposition scoring threats. Battier was also an analytics advocate, someone who’d seen the power of numbers and had been using similar statistical correlations for some time. Battier became renowned for his success in stopping or slowing the game’s biggest stars, most notably Kobe Bryant. What Battier had determined with Bryant was that he was no where near as efficient when he shot from particular sections of the floor – so rather than work to stop Bryant, as such, Battier tried to keep Bryant out of his hot spots and shepherd him into taking bad shots. The tactic was a success, but one which isn’t necessarily quantified in the box score.
This sort of basic extrapolation of the data highlights the subtleties of utilising performance statistics as a predictor of successful behaviour. The data itself was never going to alter the nature of the game, but the accumulation of those subtle complexities, when used and applied in the right way, can sway the outcome and deliver results. The problem is that you a) need to know the right data to analyse and action, and b) need the right personnel to action it. Those two variables are what leads to data being seen as an inexact science – generally, it’s not a case of 1 + 1 = 2 – it’s more like 1 (in the right scenario with the right preparation) + 1 (with the correct understanding of the specifics of the moment) = 2. This is where there’s some truth to the old ‘go with your gut’ way of thinking – you need people who can ‘go with their gut’, but that gut needs to be informed and to understand the variables of overall success.
For instance, let’s say you have the ball and your team’s down by one with only seconds remaining and you’re rushing up court for the last play when you spot your teammate open for a shot on your left. An informed, analytical, mind will know how good that shot is, how good a shooter that player is at this stage of the game. Through understanding the shot charts, like Goldsberry’s CourtVision stats, the informed player can make a smarter decision and either execute or switch the play, and that quick thinking can win or lose the game. Such interpretation is both gut and analytics, and that’s more likely where you’ll see success in the world of data – human interpretation layered over informed insights. One without the other is an inferior approach.
New Ways of Working Require New Ways of Thinking
This is an important distinction in the intersection of big data and human analysis. Right now, the business world is trying to understand the implications of all this new data we’ve been given access to. The proliferation of social media has fed an explosion of online tracking and data systems and most business haven’t yet been able to get a grasp on what all this new information means, where it might lead. We know it’s important – if professional sports teams are effectively entrusting their success to the numbers, then it’s surely valuable – but because there are so many variables, because it isn’t so black and white, many are opting to stick with the ‘go with your gut’ approach, the ‘we’ve done it this way for years’ ethos.
So a heap of people on Facebook click ‘Like’ – so what?”
Established mindsets pose the biggest challenge to the possibilities of data, because it’s hard to see the logic when we’ve never been asked to look at things from a wider view. As with the quote above, a single person clicking ‘Like’ on your Facebook business page is virtually meaningless in the larger scheme. But we’re not talking about one thing. Often we go looking for simplicity because it’s what makes us comfortable, it’s logic we’re familiar with. But new ways of working require new ways of thinking, and we need to break out of what we know in order to break through.
Here’s an example in practise:
- Person A has 500,000 followers on Twitter. Person B has only 5,000.
- Person A has followed a heap of people and gained these followers over time by collecting as many people as possible, following whoever will follow back, actively seeking to up their follower count at every opportunity. Person B has never focussed on followers, but has instead focussed on community and having genuine interactions with the people to whom she’s connected.
- Person A has a Klout score of 55. Klout score, whether you agree with it or not, is an indicative measure of how many interactions a person has within their community, how many times they’re mentioned, the impact of their actual conversations. Person B has a Klout score of 75. This would suggest that despite Person B only having 1% of Person A’s following, Person B is actually more influential in their community and more likely to have her message reach a wider audience.
Knowing the above details, I’d be willing to be large sums of money that most people would still pick Person A and his 500,000 followers to be their brand ambassador over Person B. Because Person A has the biggest reach. The fact that they’re not listening to him is largely irrelevant – because we’re used to seeing things as we know them. What we know is that reaching more people is better – years of marketing and advertising theory has taught us this. We know that the chance of reaching 500,000 is better than reaching 5,000, because the audience is so much bigger. So what if not all of them are listening to Person A – even if you can reach 1% you’re still beating Person B, right? Even though, through the logic detailed above, we can see that partnering with Person B is probably more likely to generate better results, the majority of people will still go with what they know. The unknown is exactly that, and despite our data getting more informed, our approach isn’t quite there yet.
Data Analysis and the Evolution of Expectation
So going back to Goldsberry’s CourtVision stats – what if there was a way to correlate that same info, but for people who are buying or are interested in your products? What if, rather than shots made and attempted, you were looking at actions taken online – pages liked, interests listed, relationships. One of those things in isolation is nothing – someone who buys your stuff also happens to like Nirvana, so what? But what if, like Goldsberry, you could collect a wide set of data, a range of actions and preferences and map those on a chart which suggested that a person who undertakes certain, specific actions is highly likely to be interested in your stuff? You can do this. You can do this right now with Facebook data and Twitter info – you can correlate all the info from your pages and fans and you can build your own data sets that will map out the people most likely to be interested in buying from you. The trick is in finding the right data, the data you need.
For instance, correlating all the data from all the people who’ve liked your page might not be beneficial, because many people like pages for different reasons – they might be friends or family, they might have done so to enter a competition. Those people are going to skew your data, because they’re not the people who are most likely to buy. But you can narrow it down, specifically, to people who’ve made a purchase, to people who’ve interacted with your content. You can choose the specific info, most indicative of your typical customers, then build your datasets based on that. As noted recently, Facebook likes can very accurately indicate a person’s personality or leanings, when applied on a wide enough scale – those findings are the perfect business-case for conducting your own analysis and working out your own most relevant audience. Once you know this, you can target your marketing accordingly, you can focus your questions based on the queries amongst this sub-set, you can calibrate your focus around expanding your reach to people similar to this, people with the highest probability of being actual paying customers.
But that’s not broadcast reach, right? That’s not hitting the widest audience possible, which, as we know – as we’ve learned – is how to succeed and sell more stuff. And of course, that may well be the case – focus your dataset wrong or too narrow and you could miss out on an entire market of other buyer personas you’re not catering for by honing in on one group. Narrowing focus is a risk, and that risk is going to enflame oppositional forces, the old-school chiefs who know how things are done. This is the challenge of being an innovator, and has always been the challenge. You’re presenting a new way of thinking, and people aren’t necessarily going to like it. When you’ve achieved success by doing things a certain way, do you appreciate it when someone new comes in and suggests something different? No. Because you’ve done it, you’ve got the runs on the board, you have the experience, and experience is concrete. You know what works. Social media and big data are new, they’re different, and they’ve got a lot to prove – this means you, by extension, digital marketers have a lot to prove also.
But it can be done. The stats and figures can be located and correlated, you can work out the most minute and specific details about your target customers, and those details will inform the future of your audience approach. As communications become more individual, as more and more people grow-up online and develop their interactive and communicative skills via social media platforms, people are also growing to expect their voices will be heard. This is what social media is about, empowering people by giving everyone a voice – the brands respect and listen to those individual voices will advance and move ahead, in-line with customer expectation. Targeted advertising, for example, is becoming so specific that it’s scary – but to the next generation it won’t be scary, it’ll be how it’s always been. Brands responding in real-time will be standard, individual preferences will orchestrate the detail of each person’s media experience. What we know and have always known is evolving, whether we like it or not.
The possibilities of big data are amazing, the breadth of social media is hard to get your head around. But what we can say for sure is that people’s experiences and expectations are moving away from what we’ve always known. The businesses that can move with it, will.
Here’s a question: are plaudits for advertising and marketing campaigns awarded under a similar scale of merit as we apply to film and literature? Should they be?
Miranda Ward posted an interesting piece on mUmBRELLA recently which looked at the effectiveness of Metro Trains’ much awarded ‘Dumb Ways to Die’ campaign. While no one can debate the virality of the campaign and its success, in terms of gaining attention, Ward’s piece puts a spotlight on the actual effectiveness of the campaign, as matched against its core objectives, and putting those results into hard numbers is slightly more elusive. That’s not to say it wasn’t successful, but there’s no clear argument to suggest it was either, despite it being the “most awarded campaign in the history of Cannes (with 28 Lions, including five Grands Prix)” (source).
This reminded me of the Oreo’s ‘Dunk in the Dark’ tweet from the 2013 Super Bowl, which was a topic of discussion recently in the lead-up to its 2015 equivalent. It’s a similar situation – ‘Dunk in the Dark’ was also very creative and garnered a heap of attention and awards, but in terms of actual effectiveness, in getting more people to buy more biscuits, the correlation isn’t clear. That gap, between awarding great work, as opposed to awarding effectiveness, reminded me a little of the way we praise movies and film – the films that earn the most money tend to also be among those most hated by critics (i.e. Transformers 3). Film awards, meanwhile, go to more creative and innovative works that, for the most part, don’t produce the same financial results. But then again, that’s not really the point of making a film – an advertisement does have a definitive objective.
What this debate highlights is that there may not be a perfect way to judge such pursuits. It’s art vs. science – we all want to support creativity and innovation, but in doing so, we may, at times, lose some balance with overall effectiveness. Really, the awards for advertising and marketing should go to the campaign that gained the most attention whilst also producing the best results, in alignment with the campaign objectives – the more concrete those results, the better. But ad reach has always been somewhat subjective – tying exact results to metrics like ‘reach’ isn’t an exact science. So what do we do? I want to see better ads, I can see from the numbers that ‘Dumb Ways to Die’ has successfully gained attention – that type of creative work should be encouraged. But if I can’t link it back to definitive figures…
This is a debate that’ll always exist – awareness is something that’s tough to quantify, but the onus is on brands to produce work that’s both engaging and in-line with overall mission. In that sense, Dumb Ways to Die has succeeded, but would it have been more effective if they went for a TAC-style, hard-hitting campaign? It likely wouldn’t have got the reach, and it wouldn’t have got the awards, but it might have been better at delivering the actual message and raising awareness. Maybe. But the question, really, is around how we award advertising and marketing effectiveness, how we align the metrics we can account for back to the overall goals. This is getting easier, or at least, we’re getting access to more comprehensive data based on conversion tracking and data analytics, but it’s still some way off.
And the real question that stems from this is ‘are we establishing the right expectations for marketers and advertisers by awarding works not anchored to objective results?’ The important thing is for marketers to analyse their own campaigns and build an understanding of what they’re trying to achieve. Getting attention is one thing, but keeping it is another – you might be able to get more click-throughs by posting a video of your cat, but is that then leading to more people buying your handmade soaps? If it is, that’s what you should be doing, but amidst the emphasis on Followers and Likes and Pins and re-grams, it’s important to understand how that behaviour relates to the actual results you’re seeking to achieve. This is made more difficult when Facebook strangles organic reach and puts increased emphasis on brands getting more likes. More likes means more reach, and more people looking at your content – and those likes also increase the chance of your content appearing in more news feeds next time you post. The trick is in balancing the imperative need for attention with the fundamental requirement for audience action. There’s no perfect way to measure this, but it’s worth considering the balance when thinking on how you can ‘go viral’.
Reading through a heap of blogs each morning, one thing that stands out is the quality of the writing. Don’t get me wrong, many of them are excellent, but there are some that are well-researched and written by a professional who clearly knows his/her field, yet their writing is flat. It’s like reading an academic paper – very informative and valuable, but a slog, and most of the time I just move on, there’s other content to get through. Some of these posts would be significantly improved if the author noted a few simple changes, language economics, if you will, that can greatly improve the fluidity of your content.
Next time you write a blog post, try applying some of these to your work, test whether they might improve the flow of your piece. These are minor, simple changes that can make a significant difference to your content, and, by extension, it’s reach.
1. Remove all mentions of the word ‘just’. There are, of course, some places where ‘just’ is still necessary, but more often than not, ‘just’ just holds up the sentence flow. When writing a blog post you want to be authoritative, state what you believe. ‘It just won’t work’. ‘It just doesn’t add up’. Anytime you write the word ‘just’, go back and review the sentence and see if it might read better, stronger, without it. If you can say the same thing in fewer words, you should, always. And quite often ‘just’ ends up being just unnecessary.
2. Remove weakening ‘I’ statements. ‘I think…’, ‘I doubt…’ You’re the author of the piece, anything you say is your opinion. There’s really no need to state this again in your article.
‘I think a better way to do things is…’
You have to stand by your words and state them as fact. If you don’t believe they are fact, don’t say them, but if you’ve done your research and you’re making a point, that statement will be more powerful if you take out the self attribution.
‘A better way to do things is…’
Much stronger, that’s a voice readers will pay attention to. ‘I’ statements can be very strong in some contexts, so you shouldn’t remove them wholesale, but it is worth reviewing each to test if the sentence reads stronger without it.
3. Use definitive language. This somewhat reinforces the first two points, but it’s crucial that your statements be definitive when necessary. In my previous job, I remember seeing an e-mail where a salesperson had asked someone from my team whether a job could be done by a certain time. The response the salesperson got was ‘Should be fine.’ ‘Should be fine’ is not good enough – the sales team are dealing with clients, they need to know whether this will or won’t happen, and they shouldn’t have to waste time sending a clarifying e-mail because of this person’s weak response. ‘I think that’s right’ bears significantly different meaning to ‘That’s right’ – the second one gives you the answer, that’s how it is. That person knows what they’re talking about and you can have faith in what they say (so long as they are, in fact, right). You need to be definitive in your language and give clear, authoritative answers. If you’re reviewing your work and you find uncertain statements, clarify them or cut them out.
4. Be mindful of the over-use of adverbs like quickly, rapidly, slowly, etc. Sometimes these are already implied by the surrounding context and only serve to slow up your sentences. ‘He ran quickly’ – well, yeah, he ran, I’d assume he’d do so ‘quickly’. ‘It fell rapidly’. Yeah, gravity’ll do that. Sometimes that secondary adverb is not adding anything to the sentence and can be taken out to better suit the flow of the piece.
5. Try to frame things in the form of questions. This is one that will become more relevant in future, but worth considering now to try and get your head around how it’s going to work. In their most recent algorithm changes, Google made note of the move towards ‘conversational search’ – people speaking their search terms instead of typing them, then using follow-on questions based on the preceding search. When people do this, they won’t phrase things as formally as they would when writing. The functionality of speech based search relies on the text being conversational, how you would speak normally. You should be able to say ‘Where are the best beaches near me?’ and Google should come back with the relevant listings. In future, you’re going to get better search results for your content if you ensure questions like this are built into your blog posts. If you can match likely user questions, you improve your chances of showing up as a relevant item. It can be difficult to do, putting questions in doesn’t always gel with story flow (and the quality of the content should always come first), but keep it in mind. Can you build relevant questions into the piece that will work for both the flow of the content and for future search requirements?
And one other last note – where possible, always let your posts sit for at least twenty-four hours before publishing. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve written something that I thought was brilliant, only to re-read it the next day and be totally deflated. You’ll always find errors and things you want to change if you give yourself some distance from it and clear your head.
These rules are not prescriptive, there are, of course, places where they won’t apply, but it’s worth keeping them in mind as you go, testing your sentence structures and statements and looking for ways to make your work stronger, more bold. Using definitive language will help establish your authority on a topic and make it a more compelling reader experience, improving your content quality and performance overall.
Now read this alternate last sentence and see if you agree:
These rules are not prescriptive, there are, of course, places where they don’t apply, but I think it’s worth keeping them in mind as you go, testing your sentence structures and statements and looking for ways to make your work stronger, more bold. I believe using definitive language can help establish your authority on a topic and make it a more compelling reader experience, improving your content quality and performance overall.
Makes a difference, right?