You must login or register!
Inbound.org uses Twitter to register and create accounts. Your Twitter handle will also be your username here on Inbound and registration/login will enable you to submit content, post comments and create/edit your Inbound profile. Use the button below to verify your Twitter account.
Login or Register
on Nov 29 2012 28 comments14 DISCUSSING
{paraphrasing part of my comments in the target article}
I think that Barry's smart to frame his post around the issues of pay and time since very, very few of us get paid to write blog posts or build good communities and conversations.
That said, for the folks that do get paid to write for and build the SEO/Inbound community, it might be interesting (and inspiring) for the rest of us if you could publicly share what you're trying to do: what are the "big rocks" you're trying to move? What are the long-term goals? What are your dependencies and what do you expect from us? What are the impediments standing in your way of writing great content and motivating your readers to create solid discussions?
I would argue that indirectly, you ARE getting paid for blogging as an SEO. While it's not billable hours, it's a lead-generating, reputation-building activity in an industry where success largely hinges on those two elements.
Long form, short form...just write something that has a defendable thesis and doesn't get lost in the echo chamber. I do worry long form content looks intimidating and has the added challenge of keeping the readers' attention (even I struggle with getting through long articles - thank god for instapaper + subway commutes).
The point, Jen, is that short articles - like short presentations - often struggle to convey deeper meaning. The superficiality of blog posts in general and SEO posts in particular is the real issue, and it's what Jonathan and I are addressing in our respective posts.
Long-form writing lends itself better to communicating complex ideas. It's why generally speaking books are better at communicating ideas than, say, brief articles.
I agree with you Jen, that there is payment in branding/recognition/authority, but the payment is not monetary like Barry pointed out. Though, I think we would all agree that a lot of times it's worth doing certain things for "free" that pay back in other ways (such as money) in the future. My blogging has done this for me many times over. I've made a total of $6 from affiliate revenue on my site, but I've made thousands from consulting gigs that come because of it.
In regards to the types of posts, I firmly believe that tactics never changed the world. And most SEO blogging is tactical, because people don't think about the big picture. They <strong>want</strong> the tactical because it's easy. It's hard to take a strategy, or big picture thinking, and apply it. That requires work. Tactics require plug-and-play, and most people are lazy.
This is why I've shifted my own site from tactics (look at my first 8-9 months of blogging. Tactics.) to bigger picture. My readership has increased exponentially, my engagement has increased exponentially, my respect in the industry has increased exponentially. I don't buy it that well written longform content doesn't work. I don't buy that a lot of bloggers are graded on the amount of content they put out. Look at Moz. They publish one, maybe 2 long posts per day. They're not an SEW, SEJ, SEL that pumps out content. Honestly, I only read content on those sites from authors that I trust. I don't read the rest. I read almost everything on Moz though, including most YOUmoz posts, because I know it's edited and vetted by the Moz team.
I agree with Barry that the attitude of SEO bloggers needs to change, but I don't think it will. Most want the easy thing. But the easy thing (article spinning, link spamming) doesn't work longterm. I think that's where Barry's article falls down, though I agree with the premise and the actions/takeaways at the end.
I've been sitting on a draft of a post called something like "Quit Blogging; You Suck At It" for quite a while. I may publish it some day, but I think most people need to stop blogging if they're just blogging to get content on the Internet.
I think you should finalise & publish that "Quit Blogging; You Suck At It" article, John - I suspect it'll be ace. :)
I partially agree with you re: SEOmoz - yes they tend to publish more long-form content than most other blogs, but I don't think the required depth and quality is there most of the time. The posts may be long, they're not necessarily particularly insightful or meaningful (with some exceptions, it has to be said). But I suppose that's a matter of taste and opinion more than anything else.
Maybe the latest Google updates has forced SEOs to truly abandon the 'easy' tactics, and the current drive for more meaningful blog content is a symptom of this slow and painful change in mentalities across the SEO industry. It was hard to argue against easy linkfarms when they still worked so spectacularly well, but in the modern search landscape a long-term perspective (and a commitment to content quality) is the default modus operandi rather than a theoretical aspiration.
I'll publish it at some point I'm sure, Barry. Just need to figure out how I can be TAGFEE about it :-)
I agree that there is a lot of tactical stuff, and stuff that is not so deep, on the Moz blog from time to time, but that is also part of who the audience is and what they want (and are conditioned to receive, I'm sure). I can say this as it is often what I struggle through when writing a post for Moz every month or two. I know I need to be tactical for the post to go over well. Maybe I should stop doing that.
I do think that the latest updates are driving SEOs towards better marketing and the mentalities are changing, but you are right that it is a slow and painful shift. I'm hopeful that as people see that the deeper/better content works better, and that it increases engagement/branded mindshare/links/shares/other KPIs, that it will continue to change. And it also means that employees need to stand up and tell their bosses what they think they should be graded on. Sure, this is much harder in a large organization, but I would argue it's *even more important* in those areas.
Here are three blog posts that I think could help those people:
http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2010/02/be-the-ceo-of-your-job.html
http://www.ousbey.com/blog/make-yourself-redundant
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/be-the-ceo-of-more-than-just-your-job
And, more importantly, that we get clients on board as well when we create and produce content strategies for them...
THIS
$6? You're buying coffee during SearchFest. :)
Seriously, I like where this conversation is going around the intangible forms of payment or the leading metrics that indicate payment is coming later (rather than lag metrics, like the payment itself). It would be interesting to see if there were some way of quantifying these metrics, reporting out on them, and then (you knew this was coming) optimizing for them. :)
And I totally agree that Moz has built a great community, but that their strength is in content curation. The marketers and content team are second to none and the Global Associates are amazing!
Coffee is on me! But just one; I can't afford more than that :-)
Re: "the internet as a medium encourages short attention spans. That means long-form content is at a high risk of not being read properly. Short articles and short videos tend to work better online than lengthy tomes and in-depth analysis."
Recently, we've found the opposite to be true on our blog. The longer the content, the better our metrics across the board. More views, more shares, more links, more comments, more time on page, etc. Luckily, we have a dedicated content creator so we don't consider this unpaid work.
Yes but you have Elisa Gabbert, and she's a poet (i.e. a gifted crafter of the written word), so I consider that cheating. :)
Ha ha!
Interesting article. I think that long form content is a tough sell and I actually agree with Carr that the internet is favorable to short interesting pieces. I think that for a piece to be long and effective on the internet it has to be exceptional, whereas a short piece can be successful just by being interesting and informative.
This is an honest question to open with, is there an actual word count on what denotes long form content? Has anyone done any studies around different buckets e.g. <500, 500 - 2500, >2500. I just wonder how you know a post falls into the long form category.
One important factor that's missing from this post is the readers time. I am finding it increasingly difficult to keep abreast of all the information being thrown at me. I do pick through the best content each week, and read WAY less than I used to, but when I am presented with a longform article, I am going to be a lot more picky about what I read vs a short article. I think that's why personal brand is so important. I am more likely to read a piece of content from someone I know to produce quality (e.g. ViperChill) vs just any writer.
In general, I've found staying clear of most tactical posts a good use of my time e.g. 5 ways to do this, or 6 ways this could happen. That's just because of the situation I am in now, I am not really in need of these posts. No doubt when I get ready to launch a new project, or need some new information, these posts will serve a purpose and for me that's what's important.
Your content generally maps to those readers who need that specific content and have the time to consume it. There are always going to be a portion of readers who just try to consume everything, because they feel they will be out of the loop of they don't. It's really about who your audience is. There is so much content produced within SEO, I like there are so few long form posts as when they are presented, it's usually good content. If someone has gone to the effort of spending 7 or 8 hours writing a post, the quality is usually better. I would hate it if everyone started to produce these kind of posts as it would make it way more difficult to separate the drivel from the quality (not to say short form articles are not quality, lots of them are). I thought people where going to start churning out more rubbish in long form style when SEOMoz showed their longer posts attracted more links.
But I'll come back to the point I made on Jonathons post. A section of the SEO industry is always going to take a tactic and approach it like a small child addicted to crack. They will go 100 miles an hour, repeating the process until it's totally saturated. You attend a conference, you hear "content marketing", you report back to your director, you get a new team of students (content writers), you hit the button "CRANK THAT SHIT" - and away you go. That's never going to change. Something else will come along soon.
The problem isn't with embracing the long form. The problem is doing the short ones wrong - to the point where it feels like we're reading spun articles.
The solution will always be about creating the right type of content for the type of audience you want to expand on - or nurture them into.
I used to think that short form content was great. We could crank out some simple content and rank for mid-tail terms. it was so easy!
More recently as Google changed the algo to value more things like social shares. I’ve done some analysis on the WordStream blog's thousand or so articles and found that the long form stuff does way better in terms of editorial pick-ups, lower bounce rates, organic seo traffic, etc. For example, Barry’s article is over 1300 words and seems to be generating a decent amount of shares and discussions. It has original insight, asks questions and has a point of view – stuff that which is generally absent in the short form list posts.
The data was so compelling that this past summer, the WordStream marketing / content creation team decided to pretty much abandon short-form content, in favor of more detailed case studies, insightful analysis, and unique point of view, etc. Quality over quantity / just be awesome kind of thing.
Larry, I would be really interested if moving to long form content meant to published less content?
Not Larry, but generally, yes.
sorry, that should of been "you published less content"
yes, we used to have some dumb goal to publish a blog post every day. we now will not publish something unless it is awesome. we have an actual checklist of things to check posts for to figure out if a post has potential for awesomeness or not. like: does it offer insightful analysis or detailed case study? does it have a point of view? (i won't reveal all of them here but you get the idea). today i'd rather publish nothing at all than to publish something that isn't awesome. The result in the last few months is that we're doing about half as many articles as before, and driving about 2x more traffic to the wordstream blog!
Wait, you mean content marketing works? Who knew :-D
I think I might have to re-add Wordstream to my RSS reader... :)
Love it, thanks Larry, I ran a content marketing strategy for a large brand and we had a checklist as well. It had to check 5 out of the 8 things to go live.
Great example of how less is more.
I'm of two very different minds on that the issue of long form content.
Against Long Form Content: Many people do long form content wrong. They try to stuff too much in and it becomes confusing for the beginners. And, the beginners are the primary readers of blogs. Regardless of length my posts that were directed at people who literally need to be told exactly what to do have had the most traffic and links. It is hard to create compelling long form content that inspires reader subscription; in part because it usually dictates either inconsistent voice or inconsistent publication. Inconsistent publication makes it way to easy to just not blog at all.
For Long Form Content: Sometimes when I read a round-up post I want to slap the person person who wrote it, unless it is so comprehensive that it can serve as a reference library. As a non-beginner it sometimes takes a lot of content before there is any kind of insight, or really advanced concepts sometimes take a lot of intertwined smaller concepts that need to be included for the full impact to come through.
Either way, I think that if you are going to blog you need to take risks and put out the stuff you really believe in even if you change your mind a week or so later. Be transparent with YOUR views and YOUR perspectives so you aren't just adding to the god-damn-echo-chamber-of-fluff!
I don't think long-form vs. short-form content is necessarily as big a deal as just having solid content that is well written.
I had exactly this issue when writing my most recent blog post (ironically about content strategy), sometimes you just cannot say anything of worth without writing long form. One of the issues I had when approaching the SEO industry a couple of years ago is that whilst there is a lot of writing about what's going on, a lot of what is written doesn't actually say anything. This is not to slam those who are really helping the industry move forward, however people tend to write because they feel they should, not because they've got anything interesting to tell us.
To chime in with what Carlos has said though, long form content does require a far greater hand at writing (or an awesome editor) so the post stays on topic and does what it says it will from the start. But I don't always agree that summary posts are worthless; not everyone is writing blogs for their peers, so a library of content can work as reference (or even marketing/PR resources!).
I had a dream this week that I wrote a long SEO blog entirely in rhyming couplets. Sadly it wasn't well received.