Or: What’s all the clutter on Facebook?
I recently came across a post from my esteemed colleague Sven Wiesner, who briefly but pointedly commented that it was a joke that sparked the most reach (and probably interaction) in his “Made in Hamburg” of 13,000 people.
The opposite conclusion is logical: painstakingly researched pieces with quasi-journalistic pretension, which are disproportionately more expensive to produce, are obviously worth less than this joke image.
Boring but true.
The question facing our industry (I’m talking about all digital marketers here) is whether it’s even worth investing in content on the terms of Facebook (and all other social networks) .
If you only look at the range, definitely not. If you want reach, make the mess! That’s how it is – and it won’t change.
What does Facebook want?
In Facebook’s transition phase from kindergarten to business lounge, company representatives, if they spoke at all, preached the three Rs that make up good content: relevance, relevance, relevance.
They still do it today, although less aggressively.
If you reduce the “If you post something relevant, it will trigger an interaction” argument to its core, it’s no longer a scope argument. Because real relevance can only be achieved in small segments. It’s been like that forever. The species that actually read all of a newspaper’s articles may always have been smaller than those that read only those articles that matched their personal interests.
The newspapers could only be proud of having more or less integrated broad mentalities into all of their articles. The taz was (is) left, the time was (is) sort of social democratic but also a bit mainstream intellectual. The conservative-bourgeois FAZ and a little more intellectual.
This does not fit into social networks at all, even if one would like to counter the “filter bubble” here. Yes, everyone builds their feeds in such a way that their own view of the world stays alive. Some notice it, some don’t. However, humor, for example, is so universal that it breaks filter bubbles and is somehow accepted by most. The same goes for emotions as global as sadness or pity.
Everything else is only perceived in the long term if it triggers the individual consciousness. And the frame of the subject of the individual.
My view of “good” – in relation to marketing – therefore has nothing to do with “reach” in the first place. But by reaching contacts of which I shake the conscience with a subject so that he or she thanks me at best for an interaction.
Why Range Doesn’t Matter
I would like to put forward two arguments to support my definition of Good justify something. The first is the “92:1 dilemma” that I recently had the privilege of learning about. It says that for every $1 million used to drive traffic (i.e. reach), only about $11,000 is spent on conversion optimization at one time.
A glaring discrepancy. I think a lot of money is wasted here. Conversion rate is much more important than reach.
One of my favorite questions in seminars is, “How many unique visitors does your business need per month?” If there is an answer, it is usually “a lot” or “each month more than the previous month”. None of these answers are good for me.
Theoretically, 100 website visitors are enough. If they’re all new customers and they’re all dutifully calling (or filling their carts), most businesses are already helped. 100 new customers per month would make the majority of German companies almost euphoric.
But I know from my own painful experience that the gray theory remains.
Nevertheless, the underlying basic idea is fundamentally correct: in fact, I only want people on my homepage who could become customers and who are very close to a purchase. Incidentally, it is significant that the word “conversion” almost does not appear exactly in this study of B2B online shopping behavior.
The second argument I would like to make is goldfish. This one already has a longer attention span than the Web Boomer. That understood, attention: joke of stairs, the company Microsoft.
If so, then the scope is no longer of any use to me. Even if a consumer sees my advertisement, after three seconds he has already forgotten who brought him the good news of the product information. Maybe even what was the good news.
My friends, it cannot go on like this. Forget the range.
Even though Sven’s post was the starting point for me to write my thoughts on the subject, I don’t want this blog post to be taken as “diss”. We, too, sometimes despair (professionally) of people who treat our awesome content with contempt. That’s why I understand all too well his small frustration speaking from the post.