Long-Form Content Vs Short-Form Content

[pinchyfingers]

Definitely read long content if I trust the writer not to waste my time. If I have a purpose for reading something and it needs to be long to be done right, then no big deal. However, if the content sucks or the writing sucks, I can't waste my time on it.

 

[gamn13]

I think its all about urgency..."How bad someone really needs whatever the article is giving them" doesnt matter if its driving a pain or pleasure response...

If Im having a tech issue, Ill read the entire documentation if I have too to find my solution doesnt matter how painful it is to read through all the jargon.

If Im trying to find a great vacation place, Ill sit back and read all the news and attraction blogs about the location, and be excited, doesnt matter how long the articles are...

But if I come across something that doesnt really apply to what im focused on at the moment and I dont have a sense of urgency to read it, I might save it for later, or just completely blow it off, and move on.

So for me, word count means nothing...

But to bring it full circle, when Im reading to solve a business problem the shorter the better.

When Im reading for pleasure, dont care if its long or not, just needs to be fulfilling.

 

[Deckerd]

I would say not just topic, but also mindset/former knowledge on the topic.

If I'm searching a broad question, like "Hair on my eyeballs, what does it mean"
I probably just want to know what diseases cause it, a tl;dr.

If I get more specific, "limbal dermoid information" then I already know the basics and am looking for a free textbook on the topic.

Research and time wasting on the internet is usually done in steps. A how-to article will gauge some interest. Which leads to a wiki page. Which leads to a crazy long study.

 

[Jon]

2015 is the year the old internet finally died - Vox

This is a deep topic and we are absolutely going to be discussing it and dissecting it in the private members area at some point soon. There is A LOT that this doesn't cover but I do think it's a pretty solid and informative.

However, the internet, and it's communities were still not fact based but opinionated, speculative and assumption based on randoms and not the finite definitive magical wonderland the writer is giving us feels about. People were just as irresponsible then as they are now. The only major difference is that media firms, both in advertising and content publishing have blurred the lines between what is real and accepted as fact based information versus what is entertainment based. All geared towards making the monies and saving time.

Fact checking was one of the first things to be tossed out the window. I know this because I gamed journalists from a very serious and trusted news publication, specifically during an intense crisis management/mass persuasion black ops campaign for a defense contracting client. I've hinted at this one for a while now. It worked TOO well, and the reason it did, was because if you set out with a goal and purpose, to use content and context as a weapon or tool, it can do more harm or cause more damage than forcing someone to take LSD and control their minds or whatever crazy shit people think is done on others to make them do shit. This stuff should be classified imo. I still don't understand why it's not.

Oh well. Great topic for a different time.

Alas, I have zero sympathy for Gawker. I don't see how they have a place in any of this. The shit they continually churn out is rarely fact checked. Hell, look what they did to Mike Arrington when his bat shit crazy ex-gf of long ago accused him of rape. Not only did they immediately jump on that shit and publicize it before hearing the full story (you know, the other side as well -- or maybe ask for real proof.. from more than one source!) but all these big wigs there and in the VC realm that had a bone to pick with him got up over there, and called for his arrest. Well, turns out she was lying. Do they apologize? No. Reputation tarnished for some cpm's. No one ever remembers or holds anyone accountable. However, Gawker is constantly getting sued and settling for this brand of publishing bullshit in a hit and run manner and everyone is totally cool with it. Hell, they've become this whole credible source of journalism too now.. lol! FFS.

 

[rusvik]

Gawker will probably fold soon enough if Hulk Hogan wins his day in court as I understand it.

Then some other shit slinging site will take over until they're sued into the ground and so on.

The biggest difference I've noted is that even more 'serious' online magazines and newspapers are using the same structure as amateur hour sites. They even add those Taboola links and similar below their serious journalism. I can't believe that is going to last, makes it look really unprofessional.

I can't help but think the social bubble has to burst. This is like berries or Adsense farms all over again.

 

[kyescontent]

This is a deep topic and we are absolutely going to be discussing it and dissecting it in the private members area at some point soon. There is A LOT that this doesn't cover but I do think it's a pretty solid and informative.

I'd be really interested in any thoughts/insights you have to share concerning the changes sweeping over the world of IM and content marketing. It seems like we're looking at a whole new game ever since Hummingbird last year, especially with mobile technology overtaking desktops and laptops. It's knocked a lot of marketers right out of the game altogether (just look at how much less activity we're seeing here on WF). I actually think a lot of the ground rules never changed - it's just that the consequences of trying to short-cut around them are starting to catch up with a lot of people.

 

[Muad'dib]

I'd be really interested in any thoughts/insights you have to share concerning the changes sweeping over the world of IM and content marketing. It seems like we're looking at a whole new game ever since Hummingbird last year, especially with mobile technology overtaking desktops and laptops. It's knocked a lot of marketers right out of the game altogether (just look at how much less activity we're seeing here on WF). I actually think a lot of the ground rules never changed - it's just that the consequences of trying to short-cut around them are starting to catch up with a lot of people.

Definitely agree there, the most basic rules of getting people interested or to buy things haven't changed but I feel as though they've begun to require more and more complex methods or at least ways of appearing natural. I don't know that it's something that those who short-cut lose out on, but more those who just aren't intelligent enough to keep up.

Especially with all of this news coming out about astro-turfing for Bernie Sanders and paid shills being used for corporations and other organizations to gain support, it's almost as if the whole idea of content marketing is just based around a false consensus or just an appeal to authority. Bernays would be proud though, and thanks to CCarter whenever I see a link posted anywhere I automatically assume it's a traffic leak.

If I go onto Gawker or another clickbait sites, so many of those articles are extremely thinly veiled corporate ploys. And those are just the ones I notice!

It gets to the point wherein you need to be some sort of chameleon that blends in with its surroundings and people don't even realize they're being sold but they want that item because it makes them feel a certain way. One of my favorite marketing stories of all time is when Jon mentioned being contracted to make a certain armor piercing ammunition popular by making it look "badass".

That went totally off the rails but it's such an interesting topic, I couldn't resist.

 

[vladthegod]

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.

I completely agree with what you are saying. The amount of content I am likely to consume depends on whether i want to be entertained, taught, or if I actually want to learn something.

 

[kyescontent]

Definitely agree there, the most basic rules of getting people interested or to buy things haven't changed but I feel as though they've begun to require more and more complex methods or at least ways of appearing natural. I don't know that it's something that those who short-cut lose out on, but more those who just aren't intelligent enough to keep up.

I do think a lot of consumers are starting to recognize the thinly failed corporate ploys, and are starting to get impatient with them.

At the same time, consumers do need products and services--just like they need information (content). In both cases, what they are seeking is value. And perhaps now more than ever. As someone pointed out in an article I read, the web is saturated with crappy content right now ... but it is not saturated with useful content. I suspect people are more desperate to find it than ever amid the morass of shit.

As to short-cuts and complexity, the shape of the landscape is changing as search engines catch onto shortcuts and also learn to interpret intent in user queries, not just strings of words. To add to that, we have AI virtual assistants (Siri, Cortana, etc.) now fetching pages for users and bypassing the systems we are familiar with.

This is why I say that content needs to help users to solve their problems--by means of providing solid information and selling them products they really need. But that's always been the case. It's just that now the illusions are falling away and we're seeing how hard that's always been.

Btw, your username is awesome. Always great to see another Dune fan.

 

[Muad'dib]

I do think a lot of consumers are starting to recognize the thinly failed corporate ploys, and are starting to get impatient with them.

At the same time, consumers do need products and services--just like they need information (content). In both cases, what they are seeking is value. And perhaps now more than ever. As someone pointed out in an article I read, the web is saturated with crappy content right now ... but it is not saturated with useful content. I suspect people are more desperate to find it than ever amid the morass of shit.

Oooofff...that's the most accurate description I think that I've read about the state of the internet and content marketing in general right now. In the niches I'm in, the content is so maddeningly stupid and 99% of it fails to impart any true learning.

It's why I stopped using LinkedIn entirely - the content is retarded and the only thing worse is the comments on the articles.

As to short-cuts and complexity, the shape of the landscape is changing as search engines catch onto shortcuts and also learn to interpret intent in user queries, not just strings of words. To add to that, we have AI virtual assistants (Siri, Cortana, etc.) now fetching pages for users and bypassing the systems we are familiar with.

True that, the book Google Semantic Search totally changed the way I perceived the whole idea of "ranking" for certain terms. I credit that book (and Wickedfire) with helping me move beyond the shitty keyword stuffed copy I did in my early days. The whole LSI deal is really neat too and eventually I feel that search as we know it is going to be gone forever, especially with the way Apple has its new search feature.

Btw, your username is awesome. Always great to see another Dune fan.

Thank you! Just watched Jodorowsky's Dune the other day too, a fantastic documentary if you haven't had the chance to see it yet.

 

[EndCaptcha]

I completely agree with the information

 

[kyescontent]

Oooofff...that's the most accurate description I think that I've read about the state of the internet and content marketing in general right now. In the niches I'm in, the content is so maddeningly stupid and 99% of it fails to impart any true learning.

I credit that book (and Wickedfire) with helping me move beyond the shitty keyword stuffed copy I did in my early days. The whole LSI deal is really neat too and eventually I feel that search as we know it is going to be gone forever, especially with the way Apple has its new search feature.

Thank you! Just watched Jodorowsky's Dune the other day too, a fantastic documentary if you haven't had the chance to see it yet.

That keyword stuffed copy ... yeah. Sometimes people ask me to write that stuff. Occasionally I try to talk them out of it. Content needs to be user-friendly first. And the reality is, search engines have always looked for synonyms and context more than repetition. LSI is tied to that. The thing is, while writing useful content for humans, I've noticed that a lot of LSI phrases end up in my copy without even trying. That's how you know an SEO "trick" holds some water--when it shows up by coincidence while following good practices.

This is an interesting read on Apple's search engine. So ... asking as someone who isn't an Apple user, their new search engine is going to index both apps and webpages, right? From the article above, I was particularly interested in this:

"When users search directly from their device, the operating system has access to engagement data, which means that it can and will use this information to rank search results. Apple’s new search algorithm will consider factors like how long and how often you spend engaging with a piece of content. In fact, engagement is one of Apple’s most important ranking factors and will only become more important with time. For example, if a user searches for a poutine recipe, Apple can not only track which recipes are clicked the most but which recipes people actually use the most. These changes will mean that the best content will win."

That development above is something we can all be optimistic about--those of us who are willing to do the hard work to provide value. It also may tie back into the question OP posed. While long form content may scare a lot of TLDR people off, longer content which offers serious value may actually create the highest engagement levels (measured in terms of time spent) and may very well rise regularly to the top.

You know, I think the whole phrase "content marketing" is somewhat meaningless. It's like saying "information marketing." Whether we're talking about words, videos, images, these are all components of human language and basic communication. Content marketing is changing, not because content itself is somehow more or less effective or necessary (people need to get information), but simply because the ways in which people discover content are changing. Content is eternal, because information is eternal.

I need to watch that Dune documentary! I'm familiar with the aborted film it concerns because I love those H.R. Giger Harkonnen chairs. Fascinating the people who were involved on that project.

 

[andrewkar]

I would say create for both worlds.
Get those fast and emotion driven guys using fast and catchy content. But in the same time give them one or two, three, four or five opportunities to get some "real" information, and make them your subscribers, clients, customers etc. Give them occasion to become your fans first. Don't just sent them to Fb or other SM site without gathering their email first (or send them to closed FB groups. Make them feel special... nothing new).

On the other hand, give them a very fast (and easy) way to exit if they don't want that "real content" at first occasion. Funnel them to another BS story, if they want to "click" let them do it and make some $.

I can't agree with a statement that brands are getting less important. Ultimately, "surfers" need to trust and like someone (people will always go after strong and confident). If there is no strong and confident that can catch them, they will behave like a ping pong ball in this game https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StXuu48IpE4

What's all those BS sites are not doing these days? They are not challenging users effectively. They are just counting "clicks". And that's fine, it's all just about fast clicks right? No, not really. At the end of the day CLV always win.

Web is over saturated with BS. Especially when it comes to specific niches. That's why while everyone around is talikng bulishit, it's a good time to standout. and say "Hey! Wake the fuck Up! We have something special for you, you Lunatic".

In general, web lacks strong personalities. Almost everyone behaves like a pussy. Where are the leaders? Fuck knows. Probably they are counting "clicks" right now.

TOP 10 results in almost every niche out there, same bullshit. All the time, no matter niche (of course some exceptions exists, but these are like 3% of entire SERPs). Or social media sources, even bigger fucks all around the place.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McqCf1MsM-A[/ame]

 

[CPR_dummy]

I like seth godins content.

You can read it in 30 seconds and it leaves you with one specific thought.

It makes you focus or take action in one direction.

I have a problem with writing longer content, when it would be more beneficial for me to be a surgeon with it. Splicing it up into multiple highly laser targeted articles.

Which is what I am working on incorporating into my workflow at the moment.

And andrewkar I really like that advice.

For now I am going to use my blog in the way I mentioned above, short targeted articles but if they want more, they can download more indepth articles / resources.

 

[andrewkar]

CPR_dummy well, it's not advice really. It's just the way I see things going on. Downgrading everything just to "clicks" is leaving money on the table. And I agree with you 100%, short targeted articles just to catch them is a way to go. But, there always should be some funnel in place to convert them into loyal customers, clients etc. most likely by providing more insightful content.

Even people who want to watch Britney Spears vomiting can be converted into clients.

 

[erifdekciw]

You can do both.

Write long copy, but using sub-headlines as short copy for the skimmers to find what they are looking for.

But I don't think it comes down to short vs long. If your content does the job of catching someones attention and delivers on what they are looking for, then most people will read every word of your content... But it's your job to make that content interesting and compelling enough to keep their attention. And the length of your content should only be as long as it takes to get your point across.