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?