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.
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.
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.
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.
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!?!
Stories like this destroy the one major advantage established media, such as the Atlantic, has over new media. A trusted brand.
These types of ads (branded content, in feed ads or social ads, whatever we're going to call them) are just another step in the battle to outwit a readers BS detection system.
If I can easily tune out flashing banner ads, I can easily scan pass sponsored posts.
Not worth blowing valuable trust on a short term gain is it?