by Skellie
Photo by DownTown Photography.
“…in an information-rich world, the wealth of information means a dearth of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients.”
– (Herbert Simon 1971, p. 40-41)
You’ll never read every good, relevant post in the blogosphere on any given day. You’ll never be able to view all the websites you’d be likely to enjoy.
As web users working in a Web 2.0 environment, we’re offered a proliferation of choices every time we jump online. What to read (or what to scan), where to go, what updates to check, what news to follow, how long to spend in our email accounts, whether to search for new content from new sources or stick with the sources we trust.
As much as this dilemma applies to us, this is also the kind of environment our blog or website’s visitors are trying to manage. Among such a proliferation of choices, how can we ensure that we make the cut?
In this post, I want to explain how the Attention Economy must change the kind of content you produce and how you should market it.
I’ll also explain why I believe providing ‘concentrated value’ is the best way to get attention in this climate.
The rules of the game
In mid-2006, Technorati published a graph showing that the blogosphere was then 100 times bigger than in 2003.
If you’re competing for attention in this environment, you have a whole lot of competitors.
If you’re viewing the situation through the lens of your average web user, certain coping mechanisms have been developed to make the proliferation of choices manageable:
- A tendency to scan all but the best and most relevant content.
- A willingness to make decisions about the worth of content before every word in a headline has been read.
- A desire for social media to take the burden of choice away from us by allowing a crowd of (somewhat) like-minded people to choose on our behalf, or at least, provide a short-list of choices — ala the Digg front page.
Another central development, something that will be difficult to explain in bullet point form, has been the de-emphasizing of the whole.
Websites and blogs receive attention-share based on the worth and performance of each individual article, rather than the collected product.
There isn’t enough attention available to consider the collective value of a blog or website if that value is spread thinly. We divide our attention one headline and one post at a time.
Why value reigns supreme
Web users will pay attention to something based on its perceived value. There’s no other metric, and no other currency you can use to gain attention. Of course, there are many different types of value: entertainment value, knowledge value, and so on.
If attention is generally divided between specific content items, rather than whole blogs or websites (unless the whole has a very simple premise), the next step in optimizing for attention is to concentrate value within specific content items.
If we accept that, a few important revelations follow:
- Among the proliferation of choices, the decision to read or discard is primarily made within the headline of a single content item. The primary function of a headline is now to promise value — and more value than everybody else.
- Social media ranks and rewards articles based around perceptions of value.
One really big revelation is that, in most cases, posting often can be a handicap. In fact, by spreading value thinly rather than concentrating it, you may be shooting yourself in the foot. (News is the exception for which the opposite is the case.)
CC License / Photo by gadl.
Why grassroots growth is no longer enough
1,000 links from small blogs will probably bring you about as much traffic as one moderately successful article on StumbleUpon. The first route could take a year or more. The second route could take just a few hours.
Bottom-up growth is still possible in a Web 2.0 environment — it just can’t compare with top-down events. Social media, popular websites and A-list blogs can control and direct the flow of huge swarms of traffic. If you want to reach the upper echelons of growth, you need to capture some of those swarms.
Not everyone wants that. But if you do, once again, concentrating value is the only way to get it.
How do I concentrate value?
That’s the question implicit throughout the article and one I have every intention of answering.
Take a day or two to mull over the ideas in this post, if they interest you. You’re also encouraged to clear up any uncertainties you have in the comments section (I’ll answer any questions you have there).
In my next post, I’ll be explaining how you can create the kind of content that dominates in the attention economy.
Skelliewag features daily discussions on content creation, great ideas you can use, and design tips. Join the community by subscribing!
rss feed
35 Comments, Comment or Ping
Mark
Hi Skellie ~ I agree with most of your post (as always!).
However, I still feel strongly that grassroots growth has tremendous value because those are the readers that WILL come back to your site day after day.
One big article on Stumble Upon wil bring a massive traffic rush but then (like a hurricane) it’s over…
I believe there has to be a happy medium between social media and organic growth.
Thanks for the read.
Mark
Dec 12th, 2007
skellie
Hey Mark,
Thanks for your comment. By grassroots growth, I’m talking more about lots of links that provide just a few hits. That’s the way most of us do grow, and it does have value, but in terms of growing at the maximum rate, you need to compliment that with some top down events: big links, social media success, and so on.
Though the top down events don’t last long, with each event, there’s a group of people that do stick around. This blog has grown quickest in the period just after being Dugg or Stumbled significantly. So I do think that the idea that social media traffic is fleeting hasn’t been the case for me. Most of it is fleeting, but retaining even a small portion of the traffic can be more powerful than grassroots growth.
I’m not trying to devalue grassroots growth, but I do want to suggest that it’s not the best strategy alone for generating traffic. That being said, a lot of bloggers simply prefer to grow that way, even if it’s not the most powerful route to growth.
Dec 12th, 2007
Mark Dykeman
Hey Skellie.
“Concentrated value” seems similar to the ideas espoused by a few other prominent bloggers (i.e. Maki at DoshDosh).
I’ll be very interested to see where you take this topic, because some bloggers with what I consider to be “concentrated value” don’t always lend themselves to a casual or easy read. I know there’s extremely valuable content out there, but I find that readability (ease of reading, for want of a better term) may suffer because you really have to concentrate to take it all in. Does that make any sense?
Dec 12th, 2007
Patrick
Skellie, you have definitely converted me to focusing on high-quality, value-packed posts. I quit volume blogging just a few weeks ago, and already I’m seeing the benefits of quality over quantity. Quality, for me, usually means a longer than average entry. I don’t know how I could create as much value with shorter posts. Seth Godin seems to do so, but he is commenting on a much broader topic I think.
Dec 12th, 2007
Blaine
Very interesting article Skellie! About the following quote: “One really big revelation is that, in most cases, posting often can be a handicap.”
I think this is perhaps the first time I’ve ever heard a top blogger say this, and I think it’s incredibly refreshing. The old dogma of “more content!” seems to be repeated so often that people follow it because they’re afraid not to. To be honest, I usually feel like “more content” is the only road to go because that’s what has been beaten into my brain. Are 10 poor articles really better than 1 good one? On the other hand, is 1 good article really better than 10 poor ones?
I’m very glad you’re addressing this controversial topic - I can’t wait to read the second part!
Dec 12th, 2007
Anthony Lawrence
Yeah, I’m not sure I agree with the “concentration” approach when it leads to dense articles. This is the age of the sound bite, not of reasoned dissertation.
I think you are also forgetting that large groups of people do not rely on Digg or any other social media to decide what to read. We use Google primarily, and only use Digg, StumbleUpon etc. as secondary sources.
I’m going to disagree with the idea that the big tidal waves leave much water on the beach also. I’ve had a couple of those waves, and about all the gave me was hundreds of truly ignorant comments and no noticeable residual readership. Frankly, I’d have been happier without them.
Your blog may have grown for other reasons, or perhaps this particular type of blog can grow from such inundations. But that doesn’t mean it works for all sites.
Dec 12th, 2007
Warren
Value is definitely important. So many “Make Money” Bloggers focus on advertising amounts and marketing. All of that doesn’t matter if no one returns to your site after the first visit!
Dec 12th, 2007
Sonia Simone
I think my stuff would be better served by the 1000 little links–I do get some nice Stumble traffic, but I don’t see significant surges in subscribers afterwards.
I find Brian Clark a fantastic role model for incredibly high-quality, focused content that overdelivers on value. He’s said that he built Copyblogger on the strength of 2 really great posts a week.
Seth is a different bird–he isn’t brilliant every day, but he’s worth reading every day. I hesitate to model myself on Seth because a lot of what he does depends on being just smarter than everyone else.
I do think he can be a good model in one way, though–he gets right to the heart of his ideas. If it’s a three-screen idea, he gives it three screens. If it’s a three-line idea, that’s all he devotes to it. He has a very strong sense of the weight of any given point.
Dec 12th, 2007
AL
Superb thought-provoking post. That’s what I love about your writing Skellie.
Dec 12th, 2007
Bente Lilja Bye
Value is more important than volume. If I get the impression that the author(s) is just writing to write I do not bother to stay and definitely not come back.
I think the trick in this media is to communicate high value in a fraction of second. It’s a tough one. Skellie has discussed headlines before…
To get noticed in whatever niche you are, you have to catch the readers attention in the brutal scanning process.
This mix between a serious, value packed, high quality article AND the snappy tone of the entertainment industry is what I feel I have to master here on the internet.
Traffic drivers: If I go somewhere for useful information it is not necessary to find new material very often - every two weeks or so is acceptable. If its more than a month I start to wonder if it is all over. It depends though on who the owner of the site is.
If you really want me to visit often I think three to four posts a week will suffice.
But this is just one consumers point of view.
Dec 12th, 2007
Anthony Lawrence
I was thinking more about this last night, and I believe I know why we disagree in this area: it’s a matter of the type of site.
Diggers are (as you noted) mostly hit and run folks. Their “job” is to pass quick judgment on as many sites as they can, as quickly as possible. That motivation is not conducive to careful reading, of course.
So, let’s say this article got “dug”. It’s easy enough to understand, you don’t need any deep background to grasp your points and quickly decide if it’s a worthy post.. I’d assume the reaction would be overwhelmingly positive, of course.
Now let’s take a techy site like mine. Some articles may be as easy to grok as this, but most probably require some specialized knowledge and background that only a small percentage of the diggers will have. They’ll come pouring in, reading as quickly as they can, and probably won’t understand enough to have any opinion.
But it can get worse, and that’s what happened to me once. The very first digger of a post completely misunderstood what I was saying and thought I was attacking something I was actually defending. He put a nasty comment on Digg, and that unleashed an onslaught of diggers who, having read his short and pithy comment, charged in to add their condemnation.
At http://aplawrence.com/Opinion/digg_lessons.html I summed it up:
“I doubt that this article will be Dugg, but if it were, I wonder how many readers would think I am casting doubt on their intelligence. I’m not. I do think Diggers could read a little more slowly and take note of other folks comments before adding effective duplicates, but that’s just the way it is.
The question is, what to do about it? I do think I have to be more explicit, but on the other hand, pedantic writing can be pretty boring. As an intelligent reader, I don’t like to be beat about the head by an author who wants to be certain I catch his meaning. Maybe there isn’t a perfect answer for this: no matter what the level of writing, there will be problems for some readers.”
Dec 12th, 2007
plonkee
I don’t think that the amount of content, in and of itself, is a problem if you’re looking for social media hits or linkages. As long as each discrete post (or whatever) is equally as good, and an equal amount of effort is spent promoting it, then how will it make that much difference.
I think the issue is that each person only has so much time to produce valuable content and promote it. Which means that there is probably a point beyond which you can’t add more content.
I think it’s still the case that more content is better, it’s just that it really has to be more quality content well promoted. Which means that there are fewer shortcuts in the time it takes to grow your blog - you can’t just concentrate your efforts into a shorter space of time as easily.
Dec 12th, 2007
Elliott
Skellie,
Interesting thoughts! I can’t wait to see exactly where you are going with this one.
I agree with some of the other comments about Digg and Stumbleupon traffic as it does tend to bring a big rush of traffic at times, but one thing I have noticed with the social sites is that people tend to just Digg it, StumbleIt, etc without ever visiting the site and reading the article.
I have experienced this first-hand with a few articles of mine, and the social sites can be of great benefit to one’s site. However, if the article that draws a lot of traffic is the only good or great article on your site, or your niche is too wide, you won’t really reap the benefits of drawing long term readers.
As for concentrating value in your posts, this is key. If your posts are just ramblings (sometimes thats ok), then it can lead to quick scans, less interaction and fewer readers.
If I understand correctly what you are saying and where you are heading with this topic, then by concentrating value in your posts will increase your readers and site community. Much like you have done here!
Thanks for another great thought provoking post!
Dec 12th, 2007
Making Sales Making Money
Blogging since September I have noticed one thing in particular that potentially id harmful to all of us. Bloggers seem content with posting articles; getting Stumbled and moving on tot the next post in hopes that will happen again and again. The result is bloggers feeding bloggers. Bloggers develop their own community and the rest of the world is not participating. So you have the attention of a few bloggers or blogs, but is that what you are really after. And will that be successful long term. I think not.
Writing catchy headlines becomes more of the focus than high value content. Case in point. I posted a silly little article about Barry Bonds and the Big Blogs being on steroids. Just a tongue in cheek post that poked a fun at some of the big boys. As of today it is still the mostly widely read/viewed post I have made. Additionally it had nothing to do with my niche. So what is it we are looking for? Are we looking to be entertained? It certainly seems that way to me. Perhaps I am a bit naive in desiring a little more. I want to provide answers to someone’s problems and those problems exist for more people outside the blogosphere than those that are in it.
Truthfully those are the people I want the attention of.
Dec 13th, 2007
Anthony Lawrence
@Elliot
Well, yes: I certainly do not disagree with the idea of concentrating value. That should be your first thought with every post.
At one time I thought frequency was very important - I’d post every day, even if I didn’t have much to say. I realized later that was silly, and now I have been slowly hunting down those little posts and either expanding them to something worthwhile or marking them so that I can minimize their importance in listings of related posts, etc.
Quality is definitely more important than quantity.
Dec 13th, 2007
Keira Peney
I do agree that having value-packed posts is important. But the kind of value you’re offering will affect how different markets take to it. If you’re primarily information-focused, then search engines and other links are still your best friend. If you’re entertaining, amusing, quirky or pretty then social media sites can be incredibly useful. If you’re philosophizing on the state of the world - well, then you need to be involved with forums and such.
Dec 13th, 2007
Heidi
I think you’re right on. I really apprecate the quality of content you’re putting out - as a new blogger I am still trying to figure out the quality/quantity equation and this have given me some new perspective.
Dec 13th, 2007
Ritu
I agree with what you are trying to say when it comes to posting too often.
A lot of times we as bloggers tend to post just for the sake of updating and keeping it current. But we do need to realize that the readers come for value and something worth to read. Although, quantity of articles can be a major plus it can also be a draeback if there is no quality or value provided by these articles.
Content isn’t said to be the king in Blogosphere for no reason. I started out with the same notion , update everyday, but I am going to focus more on quality rather than quantity. it’s better to have 50 people come on one given day and spend time reading than to have 100 coming everyday just to peek. The main objective is to turn visitors into readers and if we do not provide quality it is just impossible to gain them as readers.
Dec 13th, 2007
Michael Martine
I wouldn’t get too hung up on value vs. volume, as some folks seem to be. They’re not always at odds. Some blogs seem to have both, although on most others it seems you’ll find one more than the other. If we can continuously produce high-value content, then whatever our post rate it’s probably good enough. Slower doesn’t necessarily mean more value and faster doesn’t necessarily mean less.
Dec 13th, 2007
Anne
Interesting article and interesting discussion in comments. Has anyone done any investigation into frequency of posts vs. attention paid to site? Is there such a thing as optimal posting freqency? Maybe it depends on your individual level of creativity, experience and technical expertise as much as posting depends on an interested audience.
I look forward to part 2.
Dec 13th, 2007
Evan Hadkins
Hi Skellie,
The problem as I see it with the social media ratings is that they presume all value is the same. In fact different people value different things - so entertainment sites and techie sites and news sites and how-to sites all get rated highly.
Edward de Bono has done a book distinguishing different kinds of value - he calls them value medals.
My worry with the ‘grab attention’ idea is that it leads to ‘tabloid blogs’. I want to write with some depth.
It can also lead to grandiose nonsense: eliminate stress from your life, now! Solve all your financial problems in the next five seconds . . . You know the kind of thing.
So I’ll be interested to see if you address my concerns. I think value is at the heart of blogging. So I think you are dealing with what is the most important topic for any blogger. Looking forward to what you have to say.
Dec 13th, 2007
Michael
My site got stumbled last week with about 20 x the usual visits, but using Google analytics, only about 50% were “quality” visits (based on the bounce back rates) and there were only 2 reviews - one positive and one not so positive. This could be due to my comprehensive tabled design, or also too many site content links, which I think most visitors would have known about those sites anyway. So being stumbled with hits is one thing, but the quality of those hits and any beneficial after effects is another.
So though a site can have relevant interesting content that appeals to the reader, so do so many other sites. This means then that you may have to better present or enhance your content - such as case examples, links of interest, adding additional enhancement components, etc.
An example - I found yet another well researched web site about blog optimization with a stack of articles that I’m familiar with. I bookmarked the site though, not primarily because of the content, but because of additional components - which has 50 or so programs to calculate a site’s inbound links, page ranks, and many other informative technical information for a given web site. Not sure having such information is inherently beneficial, but the program is easily available within that site for reference.
Dec 13th, 2007
skellie
@ Mark Dykeman: This might sound cynical, but I suspect that people are more interested in how valuable they think something will be, more so than how valuable it really is. I do suspect a lot of people vote and link without necessarily reading a post in its entirety. They’re mainly interested in plucking out ideas and concepts. With that in mind, mammoth posts aren’t really an obstacle ;-).
@ Anthony Lawrence: I think there’s a problem with dense articles, in terms of their potential for success, when the density makes it hard for people to gauge how valuable it will be.
I agree, I perhaps overstated the power of social media in taking away the burden of choice. Most people still rely on Google. I suppose I should have said that social media is one coping mechanism, but emphasized that it’s not the be all and end all.
Digg will have different pay-offs for different people, but it’s worth remembering that it’s not the only top down event. Surely you’d appreciate a link from an A-list blogger, or if one of your articles went viral on StumbleUpon?
@ Sonia: Love your words on Seth — I couldn’t hope to say it better.
@ Michael Martine: Not in theory, but in practice, it’s all-too-often the case. I don’t think it’s possible to work full time and write value packed content daily, unless you neglect everything else.
So I do agree with you, that there’s nothing that necessarily means frequency will lead to less value. But in reality, it always almost seems to be the case.
@ Evan: I don’t think providing value should be confused with pandering to the whims of social media without integrity. For example, my main strategy in building this blog has been to try and concentrate value. It’s been on the front page of Digg three times, and none of the posts were what I created to be tabloid content. They were about ideas, creativity, and usability.
One thing to remember is that, as much as some dodgy stuff makes it on social media, the services are populated by real people who do occasionally enjoy a meaty article. I don’t think social media success requires selling out, so to speak. At least, it hasn’t been my experience.
Dec 13th, 2007
skellie
Evan, just an addendum to my last comment:
I got pitched this article from Bootstrapper today — 101 Quick Fixes: Solve All Your Problems in 5 Minutes or Less.
A perfect example of the “tabloidization” of blogging in its worst form. In other words, I can totally see where you’re coming from. I just don’t want anyone to think that’s what I’m encouraging, or what I believe is required for success.
Dec 13th, 2007
André Galhardo
Now that i’ve become blog addicted - as a reader, not as blogger yet - I see that successful experiences are those who not only provide “great value”, but some level of, let’s say, excitement for their readers.
News? Blah.
We can’t wait to read new posts, new opinions, new critics, to understand this crazy-fast-changing world.
After adding feeds… completely forgot to use my other bookmarks - it’s just easier to google them.
And when we create a comment like this… hell, we can’t wait to see if Skellie and/or someone here will write about it.
The Attention Economy is becoming the Anxiety Economy.
So our theme here is not just Value, but Seduction.
Dec 13th, 2007
Alfa King
Agree with the value concentration concept argument. Quality definetely has it over quantity. But I’m curious to read your second part.
Dec 14th, 2007
Sonia Simone
@Skellie, aw thanks.
@Evan, I totally hear you–and what you’re saying is important to think about. Then again, if you have incredible quality but no one finds you, have you served your audience well? I truly believe (in fact I’ve based my entire career on this) that you can capture attention without cheapening yourself or your ideas.
An effective headline doesn’t have to be dumb, in other words. It just has be remarkable.
Dec 14th, 2007
turtie
great website. I came here from Ritu’s interview with you that he conducted over at his website. Will take some time now to browse your site!
Dec 14th, 2007
Evan Hadkins
I guess to put my comment more clearly - I’ve realised this from reading the responses to it - what get’s attention isn’t always valuable.
My hope is that in the long run it is value that will sustain attention.
Dec 14th, 2007
paidtwice
I’m coming to this late - been a busy few days - but I wanted to add this.
there is what adds value to your blog, is value is readers (and often, it is), and then, there is what you intrinsically value. For example - I have had great luck with stumbleupon and a lot of visitors from it. I’d say I have had thousands of visits this month from stumbleupon alone. My subscriber number is steadily growing and I know some of that is from stumbleupon and I appreciate it completely. I love when I have a little stumble rush.
However, this morning I noticed a forum listed in my referrers, and I went to check it out. On this forum, someone had asked about debt reduction and another person responded linking my blog and saying it was one of the best debt reduction blogs they had ever read. I’ve only had 24 hits from that forum, but seriously, reading that off the cuff review of my blog has made me smile all morning and resolve to write even better stuff than I do already. I don’t know if those 24 people will be sticking around (I hope so!) but I internally got more satisfaction out of that post than most of the stumble rushes I have had combined.
This may make no sense. I guess I am advocating for the grassroots approach as being more satisfying for the creator
Dec 15th, 2007
plonkee
@paidtwice:
I agree that it’s much nicer to have validation for what you’ve already done - which is why grassroots growth feels nicer.
Social networking sites, are much more from the other side though - that’s you trying to lure in potential readers. They aren’t going to praise you for what you’ve done because they don’t know about you yet. Give them the opportunity, and they might become some of your biggest fans, you just need to capitalise on their attention.
Dec 16th, 2007
Reply to “Why Value Rules the Attention Economy”