Long-Form Content Vs Short-Form Content

[JakeStratham]

I have a simple question for you: how do you consume long and short-form content?

I'm not asking whether Google likes it long. Nor am I asking whether long is better than short for social engagement.

I'm asking how you, personally, consume it.

When you're reading your favorite blog and find a 3,000-word article, do you read it in its entirety? Or do you read the first few paragraphs, scan the rest and bookmark it for later? Or upon seeing how long it is, do you immediately move on ("Ain't nobody got time for that!")

When you see a short article (e.g. 300 words), are you inclined to read it immediately? Or do you assume it contains minimal value given its short length and move on?

Folks have recommended for years that we create long-form content. And to that end, a 3,000-word article tightly written is an impressive thing.

But unless I'm really interested in the specific topic it addresses, I won't read it. I don't want to spend the time.

Here's an example:

I read a lot of food-based content and immediately start drooling when someone mentions steak. But I won't read something like this...

The Food Lab's Complete Guide To Pan-Seared Steaks | Serious Eats

It's too long. And that perception is surely not in the author's interest.

So back to my question for you. Search visibility and social engagement aside, how do you consume long-form and short-form content?

 

[Fraggler]

It totally depends on context. If I have a problem I need solved then I want to read an article that gets to the point to solve that problem - I'm not reading to be entertained. Word efficiency is key. That steak article I think is inefficient and I love to eat and cook steak, I've seen the same content covered so much better elsewhere.

A News article needs to be to the point as well. Cover the facts without wastage and give your opinion without waffling.

If I'm reading a story for entertainment and the author is doing a great job then I'll happily sit and read it no matter the length. I usually bookmark to read these later and read from an iPad when just chilling. I can't 'turn-off' to read these longer articles while at the desktop.

In both cases it comes down to how well the content is written and why I'm reading it to begin with.

 

[knownerror]

I will favor the website that can answer my question the quickest.

 

[pfgannon]

It's unlikely I'll read something 3,000+ words long unless it's something I'm REALLY into. If it's a comprehensive guide to something I NEED, I'll probably scan and revisit later as I need it.

~300 words and I'll probably read it right away.

 

[Staccs]

~500 words or less I will read right away.

If longer I'll send to Evernote to read later in the week.

 

[contract]

Depends, since this is being asked on an IM forum..

Anything under 1-2K words is 97% of the time trash. Usually, most IM/growth/online/business/whatever type of content is to begin with, word count aside.

I'll read a good 10K+ word article during lunch on my iPhone, or while waiting to get food at a restaurant, waiting in line, etc. Article length doesn't even matter.

A good example was the article on Fab.com's rise and fall. Long read, but gave me an understanding on how not to fuck up/fail better in the future.

...

Unless you're listicle has gold in it, I'm bouncing after reading straight to #1.

I don't read intros/exits, only data and lessons learned. Too much fluff.

Ex:

Dean makes his tone interesting, he warms you into it. (Good for learners)

Patel, does the same, but he's cocky as fuck about himself and his accomplishments. (Good for mostly dreamers)

I don't read either of them, and do IM/AM.. Another point..

But here's the thing..

BOTH know how to work their audience/market.

With that said:

Word. Count. Doesn't. Mean. Shit.

 

[Meatytreats]

Depends on what I am consuming... If it's knowledge based, then the word count doesn't really matter. If it's for leisure, it better be short.

To me it's all about value. If you can deliver it in 300 words, do it. No need to write a dissertation on every fucking subject known to man.

 

[andrewkar]

Short articles = no meat = can't trust. If someone is going to interrupt me while I'm doing my browsing, it better be a good stuff. Otherwise that person just wasted 3 seconds of my life (depending on load speed...), and I will hate them for that forever. You want me to trust and like you, you give me some reasons...

 

[JakeStratham]

Thanks for your input folks. I appreciate it.

Guys like Patel write long and their audiences eat it up. Conversely, guys like Godin write short and enjoy the same effect.

The purpose of this thread was to dig under the macro advice and learn how you, on a personal level, consume and perceive long and short content.

Thanks again. Likes delivered.

 

[rusvik]

Depends, I read long stuff in two cases, one is if it's a real passion of mine, usually hobbies where it can't get long enough, but in those cases I also like different use of media, like video, illustration, podcast. On the other hand, I hate to have 'sort of interesting' content delivered in long text. For 'sort of interesting', I prefer a long text, but with clear navigation, put some links at top, so I can skip to the part I need and give me some other options for media.

The second instance is when I read something I really need to make money. In that case, as long as possible, give me a book if it exists.

I suppose a lot of shareable content fall into the 'sort of interesting' content, where I think too much turns people off.

For my own content, I do what I prefer, I make it long to give impression of trust and knowledge, but I cram the conclusion at the top and then allow the reader to take me at face value or read the rest of the article for the 'proof'. I also put in some funny/engaging video and image bits along with lists along the way, to let people do the quick scroll and not be turned off by wall of text. It's a rather common newspaper tactic I've been told.

 

[chatmasta]

how I read articles on "my favorite blog" is entirely different than how I read articles on a shitty spam blog

 

[Midas Touch]

Ummm....Steak...Porn....

I skimmed the article in your link and then followed a "Steak Porn" link and read ALL of this. lol

The Best Way to Cook a Thick Steak - Cooking - eGullet Forums

It's OK Baby, I'll treat you right...

Aww...yeah....look at your FINE self in my pan....

Let's get a little closer here.....Ummmm..

That's it....oh yeess....you are looking sooo goood....Uhmmm

Ok....time to take you to a nice private place so I can RAVISH you in all of your Juicy Glory!! Ahh.....:rasta:

Wait, what was this thread asking? loolz


I really prefer a Short Form myself when I have a basic curiosity. But if I am really interested I will read a Long Form so long as it has substance and not a bunch of filler crap to make it longer than it needs to be.

If it is instructional and really seems to be of benefit I will read it no matter how long it is.

That is just me though. Remember, I am the guy who has over 1k tabs open if FF while researching and gets pissed when the browser crashes. LMAO

 

[blogspotter]

2015 is the year the old internet finally died - Vox

 

[guruji]

Read it somewhere and I go by it always.
Only 8 out of 10 people will read your headings.
Only 2 out of 10 people will read your content.

So always make sure that you choose your heading carefully.

 

[boatBurner]

If it's entertainment content (interviews, opinion articles), I'll usually read most of it skipping sections only if they start to feel dry.

If it's technical content (how-tos, documentation), I'll skim for subheaders or indicators of sections that apply to the specific piece of information I'm looking for.

If it's informative content (product descriptions, company blogs), I'll skim paragraphs looking for usefulness that stands out.

All of the above is assuming I'm already sitting in front of the content because I have an interest in it.

 

[JakeStratham]

2015 is the year the old internet finally died - Vox

That is a thought-provoking article.

 

[blogspotter]

That is a thought-provoking article.

I have been thinking of this a long time. I luckily got into the social spam bandwagon too, but I wish I had the forsight and dare of delong. I still own multiple multi-million fans pages. But even that is on the dead end. I could not replicate on Twitter Pinterest etc though I tried. Need to spend te next few months trying to maximize my profit and exit those as well.

Now trying Video.

But it has to be Mobile web for the next few years, and I am not sure how. Still dabbling and I know maybe until too late.

Back in 2009 ASE, I only spoke with the Mobile Guys, but they were as clueless than.

But I thing that IM taught me was to soak up information, and always ride with the tide, and you will do just fine even if you are not a Pioneer.

And it is not too late to "Mobile First" some of the proven online businesses of 2005-2012 ish.

More to come soon...

 

[kyescontent]

Whether it's long or short, I skim first, determine whether it interests me, and if it does, I usually will read it through regardless of length. If it doesn't, I'll skip it at any length.

 

[kyescontent]

Btw, I think it's worth adding that the way the content is organized is arguably as important or more important than the length. Whether it's a lot of small articles or one large one (or videos, infographics, etc. with the text), there needs to be a flow of information telling a story or solving a problem. People looking up information are trying to get from A to B. If you can funnel them through the info they need, you can get them through your sales funnel too, whatever it may be.

 

[kyescontent]

2015 is the year the old internet finally died - Vox

Fascinating and insightful article. The point about reading on a mobile screen being a pain is interesting, although the popularity of mobile e-readers and the rise of e-books makes me question how true it actually is. Very interesting point too about how users share articles not so much to share what they say as to say something about themselves.