Since our first interview with Steve Rayson in June 2015 – just two years after he and James Blackwell and co -directors Henley Wing launched BuzzSumo – SaaS company grew to become quantum Leaps content data and primary analysis platform. And it shows no signs of slowing.
Just as Steve, for that matter. We caught up with question him on his last sharing his knowledge in viral titers article, which closely approximates its analysis of year-end 2015. The most shared content (If you read everything Steve researched and published during the last year, you will appreciate how it was busy). Have fun!
In your recent article BuzzSumo reporting on the results of your research on viral titles, you break the viral titer structure in five common elements: Is there a which is absolutely essential to a “” clickable title ?
( Read more : How to register a publisher account on adkode.com ? For online advertising agency )
I do not think there’s one element. I think if I had to point to the most important element, I would probably say the clarity of the promise is the key 😕 What am I if I click with your content
I think one of the interesting things was how the performance of securities varies so much between networks. See the first three sentences of words (as trigrams) through FB and Twitter as an example. So you must develop a different text when promoting content on various social networks.
search results BuzzSumo just out of his joint study with HubSpot on B2B vs. B2C content performance across all major social networks. Did you find any surprises that relate to your viral titer study?
Not that relate to viral titers in itself, but I think it is interesting to see the importance of Facebook for sharing B2B. While I understand the emphasis on LinkedIn, I think the B2B marketing should not ignore Facebook as seems to be increasingly important.
In discussing how the list and “how to” content formats perform on all social networks, you are expressing reluctance to share your results by fear that the web is saturated with them – especially in B2B marketing. Why are you particularly concerned B2B?
One concern is simply that we will see the same songs again and again that people are lazy. My other concern is appallingly poor quality of many items in the list. – I mean really poor
For example, today I clicked to read a post on ’10 Tips for a successful product launch. The post was one of the short list of items that add zero. The recommended advice is that you have:
- measurable objectives Set
- Launch a product your customers need
- Set your key message
- Beta test your product
You get the idea. It’s just a list almost everyone could sit down and write, but it is actually not helpful.
In fact, it’s worse than not useful because it wasted my time. I get frustrated when I click through these positions. So much so that I’m actually developing an application that uses a combination of algorithms and human filtering suggest useful or valuable content so you do not waste time on these types of messages list.
This seems similar to what Google does with its Panda algorithm and Search Quality Raters guidelines. Is that the case? the application will be integrated with the existing BuzzSumo platform or will autonomously as its own set of research reports?
is called Anders pink (B2B Marketing) and is separated from BuzzSumo. Essentially, you configure a pink Anders flow and our content filters algorithm for your team.
You can add RSS feeds, content shared by influencers or published by specific sites. For each one, you can filter by keywords; eg, “show that the content shared by these 10 influencers on marketing influencers”. Then your team can evaluate flag and comment on new content, so you can also filter by the highest score your team and ignore the rest.
Thus, in the larger scheme of things marketing, which as strategies for creating and sharing global content you suggest?
Headlines material and you can increase the share by adopting elements of viral content and structure in your way as I pointed out in my blog.
That said, I think you have to research and test what works in your area. As I always say, you must be clear on your amplification strategy before you write the content: who will share or link to the content, and why
You also need to spend as much time amplifying your content to create it.
Finally, the results of a study of 3 million paid link headline CTR conducted by HubSpot and Outbrain ( Data Driven Strategies for writing effective titles and Headlines ) seem to contradict BuzzSumo of. Specifically, they report that the headlines with the words “how” and “incredible” all CTRs wounded by as much as 59 percent. What do you think about this? Is it simply a difference between “clicks” and “actions”? Or does it with the nature of studied titles?
This study Outbrain 2013-14 was very different and was on clicks through securities Outbrain promoted content. So it was not about the content of newspapers in itself, but the commercials that promote the content.
I think that explains some of the differences, but it is mainly a different context. The study is Outbrain Outbrain the promoted content and titles they use to get people to click on a promoted item. His titles are featured posts you see at the bottom of an article on say “Time” or a great editor, as shown in the image below. This example is typical -. The ’round the web of stories 4 are Outbrain
Thus headlines Outbrain-promoted occur in the context of an article that someone is reading on a major publisher.
What are people looking at the end of an article on say that time? I think it is very unlikely to be a peak or how to write. So you would not be surprised to see “how” the poor results of messages in this context. However, if you were on LinkedIn or a social site and browsing for ideas on how to improve performance, you’ll probably be more interested in a “how to” after.
So me context plays an important role and explains the differences, I think. If you look at the article from Time to the Federal Reserve for example, at the bottom Outbrain are promoting a series of articles that are not relevant for the job.
I personally do not like these items investments, but people say they are working as you can get your content presentation on the main publications.
So the Outbrain inquiry is very specific; It is not the titles of articles, but the titles used in these articles promotions. I do not think this is generally how people find content, especially when it comes to B2B conten t . I can see how entertaining content can work better.
And yes, the investigation was Outbrain click-through articles so that our goal of course on items common people, ie, they were engaged with the content or felt he had enough value share for the position. There is a big difference between what motivates me to click on an item advertised on time and what motivates me to share with my audience. So you can not really compare.
That said, Outbrain actually found “when used in the title of amazing ‘and’ photo ‘increase in page views per session the words.” This is consistent with our findings about these words regarding commitment and actions.
Outbrain said “any ‘amazing’ can not attract a small audience, this is a public that continues to be very involved.” So I think this is consistent, that very engaged public is more likely to share the content.
I hope this explains my point.
Abundantly, thank you! And thank you for sharing your time with us, Steve. 🙂
Connect with Steve on Twitter and LinkedIn
Photo by: Phoebus87 to English Wikipedia, CC bY-SA 3.0, Wikimedia.org