An immediately the interview takes a dark turn! Well, we could both rant on and on about US gun politics, and trauma involving children... or we can try to spin this to a happy place. *Takes deep breath and reaches for zen*
You've done a lot of charitable work, like founding 12for12k and cofounding The Friendship Bench, what would you say is your biggest accomplishment?
First would have to be my granddad, who taught me a lot without me even realizing it. It's only years later that I can really see what he meant to me, and how he shaped a lot of who I am today, whatever that may be.
From being the rock I need, and supportive in what I do, to how many things she has on the go (family, kids, job, entrepreneurship, etc.), she gets on with it all and excels at it, she never complains. Well, not much... ;-)
So, yes, that'd be my two. I'm allowed two, right? :)
A4. I'm glad you raised the metrics of BuzzFeed, David. Amy and I both commented on a recent blog post, that shared a case study of mobile geo-fencing by Dunkin Donuts, and how it was exciting to see the success.
Yet its "success" was 3.6% conversion - less, actually, when you realize that 3.6% was in itself a percentage of a secondary action. So, the click-through rate was actually something like 1.9% - and this campaign was being lauded as a major success story.
If we're celebrating snack-sized content in the same way, and looking at the cover metrics versus the deeper dive metrics, then is it any wonder so many sites are trying to emulate the BuzzFeed approach?
Everyone is applying all the same conversion metrics to these new methods. But I thought everyone's been crying out all this time saying how amazing social media and blogs are, how the engagement and conversions are so high and so much better than the old ways, and how we can measure it all!
Then they get excited about 1.9% conversion.
Look - if 1.9% is good, then great! I guess it was a success. But if that's good, doesn't that still mean that someone's doing something wrong? Aren't we supposed to be able to laser-focus our efforts instead of throwing spaghetti against the wall?
As I mentioned in my intro, you've spent quite a bit of time thinking about the future of social conversation, comments sections and the blogosphere in general. The last few years have seen much of the conversation about the content move off of the page and onto other platforms e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc.
For those who haven't read your posts -- why is this a meaningful problem?
Ha, okay, first of all, thanks for the very kind intro - way to go on putting the pressure on to try and be interesting with the replies. ;-)
I'm not sure if it's as much a problem as something content creators need to be aware of, and think about how they tackle it.
For brands, it's another channel they have to be aware of. If they were already worried about "losing control" on social, and hoping to keep their content and subsequent discussions on their own platforms, that's been continuously eroded.
For indie publishers, they need to assess if they should perhaps be creating content for these alternative channels, or trying to build from their own home-base and see how they can partner or implement these other channels, without losing the traffic that comes with keeping content on your owned platform.