Most of it is sourced from the official websites. Some of it is sourced from reputable news sources. The rest is from communication with the manufacturer/developer.
I've seen Upworthy work from up close and from my experience this post misses out of a few keys.
1) The process that drives Upworthy' success is the way they write and TEST headlines. Sure their current title types won't work forever, but they are incredibly good and testing and improving on processes. I would expect this to continue.
2) The majority of sharing (and thus traffic from) facebook is done on individual profiles (and not the organization's facebook page). One video I worked on was shared by 90,000 individuals. Accessing the profiles of that many people is the key to making FB work for any organization. This focus on the page is misguided.
Sure the reduction in reach from their fanpage will impact their ability to spark initial interest, but that's just one of the channels they use.
First, you sound like a real champ, so thanks for making it hard for me to reply and support your point.
But I will,
Test, Test, Test and don't be a noob is the key to making any paid channel work. The deck is stacked against anyone who doesn't.
The problem I see is that Facebook is banking naiveté and unsophisticated users to bolster their short term revenue.
Is that right or wrong? Maybe. Will it have long ranging impacts on the platform and the small businesses that could really be benefiting from social channels, probably.
>The problem I see is that Facebook is banking naiveté and unsophisticated users to bolster their short term revenue.
This, exactly. It's perfectly okay that marketing is hard and return on investment is also difficult. The problem is Facebook actively pursues unsophisticated advertisers while running a platform that's actively harmful to them.
I see it analogous to SEO. Good SEO being hard is fine. There are noob mistakes you can make that will hurt your SERP placing. That's okay, too.
But if AdWords worked such that paying for AdWords actively hurt your SERP positioning, I think people would have the same kind of problem with it that they do with this.
I agree with your point and yet still think posts like this are worth while. Many, many, people and businesses are so funnel focused these days, they've lost sight of the bigger picture.
Godin has been talking about this stuff for years, he's a master of hyperbole, and has had a big impact on many people because of it.
I guess if they're good noise makers that get conversations started then maybe that's a net positive.
I just start to wonder if hyperbole is the most effective long term way to communicate - tho to use my own argument against me, i suppose deciding "most" is not the point ;)
The thing is, hyperbole is more likely to provoke reactions than a seemingly "objective" and rational utterance. Hyperbole might annoy you or you might agree and find it funny, either way, it is more likely to touch you in some way.
Hyperbole enables both people who agree and who disagree to more pointedly argue their particular side. If you think funnels are good, then seeing them compared to a meat grinder will probably annoy you enough to take to the comments and voice your concern or dissent. At the same time, if you find funnels not quite as good, you are equally stimulated to comment based on the apt description of your feelings.
Either way, hyperbole is a way to facilitate communication, especially in cases where the subject itself might not be the most enticing.
The process the author describe still uses "funnels" so I don't think you're mistaken.
What we do have to realize, however, is that the intention and language used to describe and execute "marketing", matters a lot.
The author outlines the difference (in his post, and the one's he links to)
-Content focused on teaching (adding value) vs Content focused on converting
- Politely asking for emails/subscribers vs requiring an email
- referred prospects vs captured leads
One post he links to has a great comment by Gregory Ciotti:
"It humors me how aggressive certain terms can be in this regard: "campaigns," "email blasts," it's like the marketing team is waging war with their prospects."
Language matters, it impacts our actions. From how we create strategies to how we interact with customers or prospects.
Everyone is in the funnel game right now, smart money positions against "everyone".
The closest I've found is the subreddit r/WeAreTheMusicMakers . Totally not as technically focused as you've outlined above, but I've seen some interesting threads.
Woah, woah woah. So by entering my username into snapgraph to "explore my snap chat network" aka see an animation of my top friends, I'm opting into your bullshit spam contest app, and anything else you plan on making?
Not a smart move dudes. My trust in anything you else make = Zero.
In case anyone is wondering, the deleted comment that thattallguy replied to explained how they built something along the lines of a "friends network visualizer" and abused their users' trust.
Yes. It is time to chase names rather than institutions.
We already do it most other professions. (Entrepreneurs, artists, Doctors, Lawyers etc)
One's personal brand can have credibility added to it by association with a large publication, but that association does not outweigh the value the individual brings. Especially if the costs associated with that publication no longer make sense.
As newspapers and online publishers continue to degrade their reputation through sponsored content (both off and online) and silly page view chasing slide shows and posts, the value they bring to the reader is also decreasing.
These institutions are failing. The individual or collaborative group of individuals is what will rise from the ashes.
Just want to say that this is super useful for me. Pinboard is a great bookmarking site to do this with since it's a paid service I find I trust the pin-er more than, say, the average StumbleUpon user. Kudos.
What are you plans for the future / Why won't you give me a way to sign up for future updates and news!?!
