A concept we've covered regularly is what we call flywheel marketing, where the organic traffic, shares, and links you get from publishing one piece of content makes it easier for later pieces to see some success. One of the key pieces of that flywheel is the ability to get those social shares, and based on a recent study, we're ready to admit it: We were completely wrong about that key piece.
In today's Whiteboard Friday, Rand explains why, and that the real value may lie in engagement.
Click on the whiteboard image above to open a high resolution version in a new tab!
Video transcription
Howdy, Moz fans, and welcome to another edition of Whiteboard Friday. This week we're talking about an assumption that I think many of us have made over the years. I know I have. In fact, I've amplified that. I might have even covered it on Whiteboard Friday. Thanks to some research that we've done together with BuzzSumo, as well as some research we've seen from our correlation study this summer, you know what? It's looking like we were just dead wrong on this very important aspect of how SEO and social media and content marketing fit together.
You've probably seen me present on this either here on Whiteboard Friday or in one of my slide decks or in a blog post. It's this idea of flywheel marketing, where you create some great content, you amplify that content via social media and your social channels, you attract visitors through that, you naturally earn links from some of those people who visit your site, and you grow your social following. Now, the next time your audience potential is bigger and your rankings potential is also bigger, because you have more links coming to your site, and that helps all the other pages on your site. You have a bigger social audience, so now there are more people to amplify to.
You know what? It actually looks like this is totally broken and wrong. The idea that you are naturally earning links from people who come via social looks to us like it was a bunk belief in its entirety. Let me show you.
First off, BuzzSumo did the vast majority of the work. I appreciate them including Moz as well. We did participate in some of our link metrics. The BuzzSumo crew did a bunch of this work. They looked at articles that received social shares, in fact a million articles that were taken from their database, and then they looked at the number of shares and the number of links those received.
The vast, vast majority received zero links. In fact, 75% plus of all articles they looked at received zero, not a single one, social shares. Same with links, by the way. I think it was 90% plus for links or maybe even more.
This is a like a power-law distribution. You're essentially seeing that a few articles get all the shares out there. Everything else really gets nothing. If you're not going to be in the top 10% of content that's created, don't even bother. You're not going to get shares. You're not going to get links. You're not going to get traffic. Forget it. A lot of content marketing is probably spent in vain. Granted, maybe a lot of that is learning what actually works and experimenting, and that's fine.
Then they looked at the correlation between links and shares.
As you can see from this crudely drawn scatter plot, no correlation whatsoever. If you were to draw the line here, it would probably be something like, "Oh look at that total crap correlation." Here are the numbers. Facebook, 0.0221. Twitter, 0.0281. Ooh, slightly better, but still in the realm of totally insignificant. Google+ 0.0058. You're just talking about numbers that suggest essentially that there is virtually no correlation between links and shares.
Now they did look at places where there were lots of shares and links, and those tended to be a few things. I'll let you read the report, and you should. I think it's one of the most important reports to come out in our industry in a while. Credit to BuzzSumo for putting it together.
We know from our research. We've done experiments looking at whether anchor text still moves things. We've done experiments looking at whether URL mentions move the needle. URL mentions don't, by the way. Once you turn them into live links, they do. We've looked at whether you can actually rank content without any links at all. It turns out almost impossible, so next to impossible that we couldn't find a single credible example of a page that ranked without any links unless it was on a site that had lots of links pointing to it.
We know we still need links to rank.
In fact, notably ranking correlations with links haven't dropped over the last few years. Even though we all feel like the algorithm's getting a little less link centric, and I think it is, links are still clearly very, very powerful. So we have to worry about things like outreach and link focused content and embeds and tools and badges and competitive link analysis and all the other many link building methods that the marketing industry has come up with over the years.
I have a theory about why this is.
I think Google is honest when they tell us, "We don't look at social shares to determine rankings." I think what Google sees is something Chartbeat showed a few years ago. This was another excellent study that I encourage you to check out. Chartbeat basically analyzed engagement on socially shared content. What they saw was a plot that looks like this. Very, very few social articles have high read time. Even the ones that have lots of social sharing have very little read time.
It turns out a ton of things that people share socially on the Web, they don't read at all. They may click Retweet. They may even include the URL. They might share it on Facebook. But they, themselves, may never have even visited that content. Sounds crazy, but I bet you've done it. I bet I've done it. I bet I've been like well, you know, it was probably a good edition of Whiteboard Friday, I'll go share it out, having not yet watched the video and seen whether I did a good job or not. That's just the way of the Web.
I think Google cares much more about the engagement than they do about the social share counts themselves.
So you can see lots of things with social shares not performing well. But once they start to get engagement and start to earn links from that engagement, now they're suddenly ranking.
Hopefully, with this knowledge in mind, you can go back to the drawing board a little bit if you've built up, like we have, this mental model of how the flywheel works. Look, I'm not saying that this works for no one. This actually works pretty well for Moz. It works pretty well for us in this industry, but I think, and clearly the data is showing, that across the vast majority of the Web it's statistically extremely unlikely this will work for you or for everyone else.
I think we need to revisit this. We probably need to revisit our link building. We need to think about social in a different context of how and whether it's earning people who will actually come to our site and want to link to us and people who will come to our site and want to engage, or whether it's just a vanity metric.
All right, everyone, I look forward to your comments. We'll see you again next week for another edition of Whiteboard Friday. Take care.
Just a very fast comment to reply to everybody talking shit about "Content Marketing" :-).
I am the one of whom since a long time is bored by the "Content is King" mantra, but that mantra and the study done by Moz and Buzzsumo should not be considered a reason to throw Content Marketing as a discipline in the garbage :D.
Why? Because I suspect that SEOs has a misguided idea of what is Content Marketing and what is its main purpose:
Content Marketing is using very targeted content in order to obtain leads, just that simple.
It does not have as main objective earning links or increasing the social media audience of a brand... those are all by-products that Content Marketing considers instrumental, but not essential on a single level.
That's why Content Marketers tend to dislike SEOs. They want leads when we want links; they want über targetization when we want increased visibility. And that's why it is better not talking about things like "SEO Copywriting" to Content Marketers (if it even really exists something like SEO Copywriting).
The idea SEOs have of Content Marketing is a distorted idea they themselves created after Panda and Penguin.
So, sure "Content is King" does mean nothing... as well as "Links are King", "Social is King"... "My mom is king" :D.
The users are the only kings, if we really must find one.
Hey Gianluca, I'd take that one step further because I believe a KEY ingredient to a success Content Marketing program is a focus on building an actual audience! The audience is what allows you to monetize your content.
I'd submit for your consideration that "Content Marketing" is a tool organizations can be use throughout the marketing funnel and the sales pipeline. It is not limited to serving a sole obective. It's interesting you mention building an audience; this is the top layer of my own marketing funnel model. https://bit.ly/marketing-generation-funnel
Gianluca, "Content is King" predates the popularity of "content marketing." It goes back to the roots of SEO and Bret Tabke's 2001 content pyramid. https://bit.ly/1MOTxQ4 Heck, it even predates "marketing conversations." BTW, while dated, that thread is still an awesome read. It offers a peek into the rich history of SEO.
Good reminder and I beg you pardon for your precise comment.
Mine was somehow a radical definition meant to target the (and mine) SEO audience here, pointing a distinctive "money metric". Creating an audience is a purpose common to all digital marketing disciplines.
And thanks for the link
Ricky's comment right here is 100%.
When was the last time you bought a product after reading a single blog post from that company? Never, right? Content is not generally a great driver of sales, especially when we are working on a 'last click' model (though I'm not saying it doesn't happen).
What content marketing really does is build and maintain an audience that can influence how can you market your products or develop future products.
A case in point, what is the point of Red Bull spending millions of dollars on creating free content on YouTube when the vast majority of their YouTube subscribers (myself included) will never buy a can of Red Bull? I consume hundreds of their content videos, but not their product. Or why does Tesla create content for an audience that will never be able to afford the $75,000+ price-tag of their cars?
The answer is that their content marketing gives other value, namely data from both customers and non-customers. This data returns valuable insight about how people see their brand and products through monitoring engagements, rather than sales. At the same time, the content is also nurturing this non-customer base into loyal content advocates, not necessarily purchasers for future products.
For Red Bull this could mean they can potentially grow their 'customers' by surveying their YouTube subscribers and developing a new product this audience wants. This content audience respects the brand but needs a suitable product for them to become a customer. For Tesla, the content's purpose is to demonstrate to a petrol and diesel driving audience just how similar and 'cool' an electric car can really be. This creates advocates, so that when Tesla releases a more affordable model, they already have a potential customer base nurtured by content marketing.
This type of thinking takes some foresight from a marketing team as, in most cases, the ROI from content marketing is not short term.
TL/DR: The value of content marketing is building an audience of customers and non-customers and pulling data from this audience to make smart business decisions for the future.
If content isn't king, then it's meant to serve the king - the audience. And that's us. I for one, at least believe in this.
Nice concept. Audience is king. This is my new mantra :-)
Bitte schön
Good summary!
Like you thoughts Gianluca, thanks for sharing
Exactly Gianluca. And though cliche to say, finding the intersection between these and making them work as one is what essentially improves them tenfold.
Not sure why anyone would talk shit about content marketing. We clearly still need to the content to earn the links that contribute to ranking.
Very well said Gianluca, users are the king because at the end of the day, if you're able to provide a good UX, you'll automatically get more users, links, good time spent on your website etc. which is nothing but a win-win from experience and SEO perspective.
"That's why Content Marketers tend to dislike SEOs. They want leads when we want links"
Absolutely spot on.
I'm happy to see you confess that you have been wrong and made mistakes. Most people would just ignore mentioning anything from their past and just report this data alone as it is, without connecting it to what you've said in the past.
Respect. Keep it up!
And so, Rand, you proved once again why I respect you so much as a professional (not talking about the friend here, because we all know that friendship sometimes tends to a positive blindness). Not everyone has your ability to recognize their own mistakes, even if yours - let's say the whole truth - it was something that many others (and I include myself) was generally believing and, by the way, probably your assumption was also affected by the special nature of Moz, so that we may see some degree of correlation between the number of raw number of social shares and earned backlinks in its specific case.
The conclusion that I took at home with me once I read - and reread - the study done by Moz and Buzzsumo is that, eventually, all the talks that many (and I include you, Rand, but also - albeit with a smaller voice and influence - myself) are doing about the importance of designing an SEO and Web Marketing strategy, which really is able to meet the goals SEO must fulfil in order to be considered a winning one.
In fact, if from one side we still see how the influence of backlinks is so strong in order to earn visibility in the SERPs, from the other we also see how creating an engaged and loyal audience seems acquiring a stronger weight in how Google may consider popular a brand and the website(s) associated to that brand.
What I saw confirmed by the Moz/Buzzsumo research is that we must work on both fronts, being very conscious that we must try to obtain both kind of signals at the same time:
This need, which somehow reflects the dual nature of SEO (targeting both the algo and the "humans"), reveals clearly how doing SEO and Web Marketing in general is not easy as just creating something and clicking the publish button. It reveals - though never forgetting and underestimating the technical facets - that now Marketing is essential in SEO.
Audience first, that should be the first step of every SEO strategy. And then designing, in cooperation with all the other disciplines - an integrated brand storytelling able to develop itself throughout the different channels but not just with a mecanicist "crossmedia" strategy, but - as I tried to explained few times when talking about Transmedia - telling part of the same story in a apparently dispersed way.
Doing so, it will be easier to understand how we should go for a multivariate content strategy, which see the use of different formats that will deliver their own messages under a common "branded vision of the world":
Finally, what the Moz/Buzzsumo study demonstrated, even if indirectly, is how complicated is web marketing and how all channels must integrate one each other on a parity level in order to obtain the most by their actions (because 1+1=3).
The study, therefore, proved how the broader Inbound philosophy has a real meaning and it is not a simple buzzword, and that SEO plays a fundamental role in it.
P.S.: an interesting field for experiments and investigation surely is going to be everything related to "how Google can effectively measure users' engagement" of shared content.
Love this - growing tired of seeing people putting all of their eggs in one basket. Success is best found via a diverse marketing strategy which utilises social AND all other relevant channels.
Great as always, Rand!
Beautifully said! I was wondering why no one said this out loud before now. It is never so automatic as it is expected to be. Always have to put in extra work to earn those links but everyone else kept saying "content marketing"... Atleast now people will stop wondering why their content don't get links when all they do is share on Social Media.
Massive +1 for the part where you pointed out people do share links to content even they have never visited. I have definitely done this before.... Many times. And I'm sure a lot of other people have, Even if they wont admit it.
I also love that this has been said plain and simple.
It's never been about links shared, it's always about shares driving people to a site, increase brand awareness or a CTA. If the site has a bad ux, of course rankings won't change.
Great WBF!
I think there is no substitute for sweat equity through direct outreach. Even if we should replace social with "engagement" on the fly-wheel, there is another more important amplification factor which is direct outreach. Moreover, I think that direct-outreach angle needs to be considered early in the content creation process - what is the pitch and to whom - so that content which is produced is not only engaging but link producing. This is why techniques like broken link building and ego/vanity baiting are so effective - they answer the direct outreach question early on, knowing that there is a group of webmasters who will care enough to link.
The sad reality is people just aren't linking like they used to. Whether that's Google's fault for scaring people or blogger's "fault" for being a bit more lazy in backing up their work with citations & sources for what they're saying, I'm not sure.
Very few websites (relatively) get the sort of "press" that gives you a link. You don't have to be top 10% in a lot of cases you have to be #1. Whenever someone asks about "getting started with SEO" someone undoubtedly links them to the Moz Beginner's Guide. It's never whatever the 2nd, 3rd or 4th best resource is. They could be 3rd in the ENTIRE WORLD but they're not getting nearly the links the Guide is because it's #1.
I assume this would work something like the click through rate on page 1 where whoever is top of brain #1 gets X% of the links, #2 gets Y, #3-10 get a combined almost-nothing.
If you want links, get bloggers to know who you are and see what you write. They'll link to you because when they're linking to something in their post, you're who they think of. That's it. Outreach works but it's hard to sustain and is time-consuming. PR works but it's one-off for each piece of content. Create a brand that people know in your space and you don't have to do that. Even if your "brand" is one post (Jon Cooper's Link Building Strategies has more links than the rest of his website including homepage put together last I checked.)
Comment deleted.
Enjoy the discussion folks..
doh! why deleting your own comment
I am not SEO by profession, but I am a Moz fan..Thanks Rand for unlocking a mystery that always puzzled me for a long time about traffic vs. shares on my blog. In my personal experience Facebook shares have led to some increase in traffic but others not so much. Thanks for another excellent Whiteboard Friday.
I don't think the sky is falling. If companies are blogging and engaging via social as a means of communicating with their key prospects, they'll attract eyes and leads. If they just spew out useless content with great headlines or cool images, they'll get shares. The ones who blog to communicate may very likely attract fewer eyes, but they'll be significantly better qualified.
Think about it this way, probably close to 100% of people who watch WBF and read Moz, have the ability to go link to an article or website because they work in the industry, operate websites, etc. That's why it "works for Moz". But in the rest of the world not revolving around SEO, people just consume the content, maybe share it with friends and colleagues. But they don't operate websites and "link". So great content is really valuable to drive leads and you need to get it out there, but don't do it for the links.
Hi Rand. Moz test are always so useful... shares and ranking are not correlated OK this is clear, BUT I would love to know if there is any direct correlation (proven by test) between NO FOLLOW links and ranking.
Thank you for this article
Hi utku,
What do you thing about my theory above. In our previous lesson i have mentioned the same thing remember.
Very good post. So I think that in the SEM strategy would be a mistake, try to attract traffic to your website using the Ads platforms of social networks.
No... that is a great tactic if well done.
Hello! Great job with this post!
He's right, because many people do not even read content , so you have to crush it , "content is king" . As for the social commitment is still a long way.
Hello community!,
First of all excuse me for my poor English :-) I am from Spain but I would try to explain myself properly.
I am completely agree with Gianluca in the sense that we need to change the paradigm in marketing: "Content is king" by "people-Centered marketing is king", content marketing strategy included :-)
In that sense, I Think it would be interesting (if it is possible :-P) to do the same study doing a differentiation between targeted content Vs untargeted content. As you already know, targeted content would be content aligned with "business goals" and the target audience defined by those business goal ("buyer personas"), creating a people-centered marketing strategy. I think that targeted content is able to generate targeted attraction to your website and create engagement (the kind of engagement that google loves. How does google measure that engagement? Good question Gianluca).
Usually when you do the right segmentation in a study you obtain even more interesting results.
What do you think?
Congratulations for the study!
I think a lot of people have realized that the better their social posts, the less click-backs they may get. If a picture says a thousand words, why do I need to click over to your 500 or 750? If you've already included a good summary of your content in the social text, why click to your website?
Having optimized and intriguing social posts can be a double-edged sword. They attract interest, but don't necessarily create click-through to your site. Strategies might have to change. Just like many music lovers are going back to vinyl for its simplicity, many will go with text-only tweets or social shares to promote their link. Might work.
That's a great point!
Basically the main intention of social share is quick index of content, 2nd is our content will reach to more users, 3rd It will increase more user engagement & finally more user engagement improve your ranking & quality of site. Both SEO & Social Media very useful online marketing tactics for future of a business. Where more new user will find you and if you are touch there heart, they will came to you read your content again & again.... Thanks Rand...Very Good #WBF
Interesting post.
One question. For the million or so links chosen, was there a threshold of quality that these links had to have hit? I know this would be very hard to ensure, but I'd be very interested in a smaller and more confined study, but with consistency in the quality of the content. Maybe even try to control and scope down the content down to similar topics and industry.
Brilliant and quite obvious really. Why would Google provide rewards for sharing content when its not being engaged, or read? Hence why bounce rate on sites is important, Google knowing if the content is relevant. Good observation and testing.
I guess if your Social Media audience consists of people that have their own blog, you might get a few links with this strategy (like MOZ does).
If your audience does not have a blog, it's pretty darn difficult to get links from them.
The vast majority of internet users that share posts of cute kitties don't have a blog and your posts won't get any links.
Very good point
VERY insightful whiteboard. i.e. I have about 2000 shares on my initial blog post, and 28 comments. I place more value on those comments than all those shares for the very reason you've outlined: "Engagement."
Doesn't it make sense that Google would verify the value of links with engagement as a confirming metric? Certainly some links, such as those from hard core vaults of integrity can be trusted without confirmation. However, those coming from places where they can be "built" or "bought" would need engagement confirmation to be viable.
Perhaps links and engagement alone are additive in the algo but where they play in concert their weight becomes multiplicative.
You really see very little rubbish content at the top of a Google SERP for a competitive query. So, I think that the take away from this WBF is really that rubbish (defined as unengaging) content has little value and that the most undervalued asset of a company is an employee who produces engaging content.
Google now must make content ownership and attribution a priority, because content theft and infringement is now where they are having a problem with their algo. They think that they are "good at it" but they are not. The importance of this increases as the use of engagement as a ranking factor increases.
ADDED: Maybe that's why they are bringing Authorship back.
Don't believe too much in everything Googlers say, which 9 of 10 are words of empty meaning...
Great video! :)
Thanks for the insight and the report.
This is basically something that has to cross every SEO mind when building links/authority via SM. I believe SEOs all around the world knew this somewhere deep but had big issues expressing it. And, I would argue, its actually quite logical. It majorly resides in your theory: I think Google is honest when they tell us, "We don't look at social shares to determine rankings.".
Think about it - Google does not know what goes inside Facebook, Twitter or any other SM. Google can see if something came from Facebook - but thats just referral traffic. Furthermore it does not give it value because it will underpin their entire relevancy and authority system - as anyone can create and share content on FB. Also, what is reasonable is the fact that Google does not have authority over users who share/create content. The SM authority and user metrics are irrelevant as they can be easily hacked and irrelevant (anyone can create multiple accounts, click + share)...
But in the same time I would urge everyone not to think this is the end of content marketing or SM sharing. Not at least - as when you create something good, and people share it, there is a good chance you will be shared and valued outside SM - where it truly matters for the SEO.
I like to see SM shares, likes, clicks and stuff as a sort of PR-evaulation-elements at its latest phase. And looking at it like that could be easier to differentiate between content marketing, SEO and SM engagement. Creating, top shared content is hard, it goes in those 10% Rand was mentioning, but still, every effort should not be noted as useless and destined for rejections.
One thing that has always struck me about you, Rand, is that you're accountable and transparent. Just need to take a look at your yearly predictions to see that.
So the fact that you come out and admit that you got this wrong is almost a non-event for me - not because you're always wrong! (That's my job.) But because it's the kind of standard we can expect from you - and that's awesome.
And yeah, to a degree your earlier thoughts might have been wrong, but that's the benefit of hindsight.
Not going to jump into the whole "content is king" meme, but I think we can all agree that better content = better links.
It's funny, but more and more I think of social as actually counter-intuitive for SEO and link building. I'm trying to remember the last time I socially shared a page AND linked to it. I'm drawing a blank.
Right now, for me, and from what I'm seeing, the social share has supplanted the link and - that's a pretty bad thing.
Which is why I think a lot of time and attention should be focused on producing great resources specifically, not just great content. Look at Brian Dean's recent 131 SEO Tools Review as an example. Tons of shares already - but where are the links? Pretty slim so far. Well, you just know with something like this, which is so useful, the links will trickle in over the weeks, months and years, because it's almost the be all and end all resource. Just like how Moz's Beginner Guide to SEO has done. Look at this link graph and see how the links have smoothly accumulated over time, rather than spiked (Ahrefs graph, sorry OSE!)
https://i.imgur.com/KUPfEGj.png
Topical or even cultural 'great content', I don't think, carries this same effect.
Great WBF - enjoyed this one a lot. And keep doing you, Rand.
I know many cases of horrendous content that earns gazillions links because of its huglyness..
Hi Rand,
I think there should be a part two of this Whiteboard. I am kind of confused about all this link building in a natural way so I am waiting for some truly useful tips for us who are not in the Moz industry. Although I've seen it for myself that people just share more than actual reading the articles. But this maybe has to do something with the subject or domain or even the day of the week. I am curious the way this discussion will continue in the future. Can you send me the link to your study?
Thanks.
Yes! Check out the study here: https://moz.com/blog/content-shares-and-links-insi...
And regarding your question about natural link building, see https://moz.com/blog/category/link-building for a huge list of white-hat link building tactics and strategies that work.
Thank you for the links and I am waiting for the part 2 of this Whiteboard. Seriously, I mean it does need some continuation. Thanks. :
Thanks Rand for sharing this study.
This is an awesome findings! and yeah it is true that often maybe people just click those re-share, re-tweets whatever, without even watching nor reading the article!
I remember the youtube video of matt cutts where he said that they don't really count social signals as part of their rankings!
Good job with this post!
Yeah, Matt was a little cagey about it years ago (as he always was when giving information on how Google worked), but I think when I read between the lines, what Google's often said about social could very well line up with their use of engagement/visitor/searcher-happiness types of data. It's only a theory, but one that nicely fits the facts for now :-)
I am not a big User of Facebook, Why? I looked what people are doing here. Every day I am in a train for 2 hours. hundrets of people with me, a lot of them on Facebook. Thy scroll down the feed and like or dont like shares.
Why do they like? Because the Image is great. Did they click on a post - no, a lot of people dont leave Facebook to read something. They are liking images and headlines, Not great, readable posts.
And me? The same!
My social behavior: Went to FB, Twitter, G+ - Retweet thinks with good images or headlines, Fav what I may want to read later (and often I dont). Like posts with great images or headlines, without clicking it. Dont think about reading, I share for a "read later" reminder (and often I dont). Equal in Google Plus.
Ive done my social job - shared or liked or ignored.
I linked to pages I found on social Networks - but that was the goal. I wanted to write a post in a blog, searched everywhere to great stuff wich is related and linked to it. I searched on google and Google Plus, Twitter and Facebook. I linked to stuff I found - but the reason was not: Hey thats great, I write about and link to it. The reason was: I have written, are there some related Posts I can link to - lets search.
I never left one Social Network and thought: Wow! I have to link to that stuff. And that in our business... Why should other people think that???
Social Media links are just a signal of popular discussions. They have no big Juice to pass on.
so much time thinking that the content is king, not now. Sorry I do not agree
I am a Regular reader of moz blog and mostly i read Rand Fishkin blogs. Rand's blog is really different and interesting in research with information.like this one also .Thanks to shared awesome thoughts on Using Social Media and Link Building Tactic.and like this blog "theory about why this is " Nice graph on this.
Wow. As someone coming from social media into link building & SEO... it looks like I've moved in the right direction. :) I wonder if the flywheel model works well for Moz because you're a powerhouse brand who also shares useful content. Powerhouse gets you the likes and shares, but it's the useful content that gets you links. And in the B2B marketing space, it makes perfect sense that the biggest brands are also the ones with the most and best info to share. But in other verticals, that model doesn't work as well. Funny or Die and Buzzfeed have cracked the formula on sharable content for the general consumer, but I can think of very few situations in which you'd link to a Funny or Die video or Buzzfeed article from a website. Their content is enjoyable, but it's not useful.
And I'd agree that engagement works, but I also wonder if Google isn't optimizing for links because they're still an indicator of useful, informative content. I'm not nearly as likely to search Google for "funny video" as I am to search for "advice on traveling alone in CITY" or "how to bill fairly as a freelancer." People go to Google primarily because they want to learn, not because they want to be entertained. So Google still optimizes for indicators that a piece of content teaches something.
I have been writing posts and only depending on social sharing and likes, but this article opened my eyes regarding content and its value in search rankings.
Nice post Rand, you are my mentor. This is the reason, i have placed your name in my post Top 10 SEO gurus of the world
Can you define the specific metrics that would be considered a "social share" in this context and thus ignored as a relevant link for SEO benefit?
So bottom line, getting visibility and traffic from social maybe good, but has no bearing on where your website may rank in Google's search engine?
Thumbs Up Rand!! Shares only represents voting.. Building links is different.
Ni article Rand. Its nice to hear some truth of sharing.....
It's hard to get shares after create content. May be high quality content for long time can acquire follows,shares or even links. We can use social media as link building tools.
For the Italian audience, here is the the video transcription on IdeaWebItalia.it: https://bit.ly/1IiRRL6
This is definitely an interesting post with great insights into the disparity between the three similar fields.
While reaching out via social media can be great for getting links, good old fashion relationship building and email tend to have the highest conversion rates. Even give them a call sometimes too!
I agree that Social Media should not be the primary vehicle for link building however, it does seem to add some value. I noticed that the links from sites such as Google+, Pinterest, Stubleupon, etc. do show up in Google Search Console. Some are "follow" while others are "no-follow". This seems to imply that Google cares about them in some way or another.
great job with your excellent presentation!
An outstanding article, A few points (red pill warning), sometimes I'm sorry I didn't take the blue one.
First some useful links listed above and 2 additional ones at the end (all direct links).
https://moz.com/beginners-guide-to-seo
https://backlinko.com/seo-tools
https://moz.com/blog/content-shares-and-links-insi...
https://moz.com/blog/category/link-building
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlgVN...
https://saijogeorge.com/best-marketing-tools/
Comments
2 October 2015 - Blog: Social media as your primary link building tactic.
"We've looked at whether you can actually rank content without any links at all. It turns out almost impossible, so next to impossible that we couldn't find a single credible example of a page that ranked without any links unless it was on a site that had lots of links pointing to it."
29 September 2015 - Blog: Million dollar content.
"Only 34% of the content studied has at least 1 link in OSE. That's right - there are tons of pages getting $1,000,000+ worth of organic search traffic yearly that have few if any external links. A lack of links does not necessarily demonstrate a lack of linkability."
I'm puzzled by the discrepancy in the above blog posts. Can someone please explain this contradiction?
thanks for sharing this article with which we are just beginning or those who were outdated
I have no doubt that Rand is right here, and appreciate that he is able to admit when he's made a mistake, after all what is good advice in our industry rarely stays the same over the passing of time. Content marketing and social media sharing is critically important, but of course it can never be your ONLY method of earning links.
However, I would like to draw the community's attention to a blog post I recently read by Neil Patel over on Search Engine Land which clearly states that widely shared content naturally obtains links. He too uses BuzzSumo data to illustrate his point, but it contrasts greatly with the numbers Rand was using. Check it out (point 3) :
"When I get active in social media, my articles are shared, distributed, tweeted, mentioned, retweeted, talked about. As a result of this social buzz, I get links."
..
"This is an indirect way of gaining links. Social signals are not links, and they do not possess the same ranking impact as links. However, as you share your content, other people will read it, notice it, and start linking to it, too."
Who do you guys think of his reasoning?
Aaron, my opinion is that Rand is speaking in broad terms about "most" content. Neil Patel doesn't produce just every-day content. His stuff is well researched and fortified with substantial and verifiable evidence. it is high quality, widely read, shared, and as you pointed out, linked to. I don't know that it happens just naturally though. I think he has actively promoted his content in a large number of well-respected, frequently visited and continuously referenced venues for years. He earned that, and that's the piece that is missing from "most" content. You can't just post. You have to find the "right" places to publish and promote your content too. You have to be persistent and prolific with your writing. You have to do your homework and earn a following that will advocate for you and be constantly hungry for more.
That's my two cents.
Hello Rand,
I agreed with you. To focus on link building from social sharing does not make any sense. In Flywheel marketing (New term for me) flow chart the 4rth point, Naturally earn links and social share is make sense because people do not open the links or engage with them. They just click on fav, like, share without click on the detail links for engaged with that post. So those kind of earned links are insignificant.
Well New Terms today I have found ie Flywheel marketing.
Thanks
But the Modus Operandi is not changing. If you want engagement from social at all you still need to focus on social. Maybe you are not earning links but you might earn engagement.
Very interesting Whiteboard Friday. I was surprised a lot while reading the BuzzSumo study, and then, the same thing you've said about engagement had occurred to me while sharing- I think it was some type of chart supporting flat rate taxes- without even reading a single line.
My thought is that this usually applies to thin content, thought not necessarily. It can apply to content that is short and easy to consume. Longer articles, studies and the like have a way of making people more reserved before sharing- you have to read what it is in case there is something that you totally don't agree with.
And while people preach (somehow I've gotten the impression that many in fact hope) that links will become less and less important, I kinda disagree. What I think will follow, is a very complex approach to link evaluation. Google's filters will become more and more refined.
For it makes sense- if nobody from your industry (especially the important publications and important authors) haven't heard of you and referenced to some of your work, nine out of ten you are probably not a big deal anyway. Social can serve to make people aware of your brand, but if that cannot give birth to some source taking notice of what you have created and what you have to say, then... Social could easily be translated into elbow grease for gaining the spotlight. Links determine whether or not you deserve it.
Amazing video and post,
It's a funny and greatest post, Rand Fishkin is better forever, he is a very important reference in marketing for my blog and web.
Thanks Rand!
Hi Rand,
Google does not use Social as a ranking system, however, they do have ways to track engagement with Chrome/Android as Dan Petrovic mentions in a recent Moz article https://moz.com/blog/user-behaviour-data-as-a-rank... (SEO's do tend to give out links easier). With Chrome/Android can't Google track & reward (Give trust/authority) more accurately from social engagement even if users have to be logged in?
IMO links are very similar to reviews, in some industries (ie restaurants) they come natural and in others they don't (ie pool supply store). Same goes for links, in many industries if you don't ask for them, outreach for them, you will not get them.
Hi Rand, thanks for sharing another white board Friday. Specially I like the duration of video not other like more than 30 minutes everyone has. Keep doing on. Thanks for sharing for free.
As search engines get better at understanding user intent, Search Engine Optimization begins to merge with User Experience Optimization.
Which is awesome for content creators, because we can spend more energy making good content and less energy on the technical aspects. Classic SEO sometimes feels like a high-school popularity contest; do all the things on this list in order to impress the cool kid Google and become more popular.
Smarter search engines leads to a focus on better content, and perhaps less but more useful content.
Hi Rand,
Like always, another great WBF, I am a big fan! I have a quick question/statement on the engagement part you were talking about. Do you think Google takes into consideration the engagement on the actual article/blog post in the comments section or are you referring to just social engagement?
I tend to think they do because my co-worker created a great case study on nofollow links and how they do matter in SEO and we've seen that post start to rank high for the phrase: Link Building Case Study with minimal promotion efforts. We did do some and plan on doing more, but the article had some good engagement in the comments section and I feel like it really started to rank higher as that engagement rose.
Also to your point that more engaged articles bring more backlinks, or at least a higher potential, I agree. Our favorite backlink we received from the case study was from someone who commented on it and that we engaged with. He decided to link to it in a post he wrote a week or 2 later and I just like how that brings it full circle. You create something compelling, promote it, get some eyes on it, engage with the readers who comment and share their thoughts on it and then without even having to ask, they link back to it in a future post they write.
Just wanted to share!
Hi Rand,
Still “Content Is King” for SEO, SMO? The first question rise in my mind after read your article. And Rand you give straight forward answer to me and all your readers. Thanks for educating us.
Content is still important and the fuel for everything marketing online. Simply we must not think in a simplistic way when we plan a content strategy for SEO and Social Media, because the Moz/Buzzsumo study seems demonstrating that - albeit having many things in common - they substantially need different kind of content.
Hi, Gianluca Fiorelli
Thanks for Reply. So, you’re thought for Content is that Content is still more important for SEO and SMO but its implementation is very important. If you know how to utilize your content for your SEO and SMO activity than you’re content definitely generate more real engagement like shares, likes, retweets, favorites, etc. From that your content definitely works for your websites ranking.
Fantastic WBF, I too thought that social shares etc meant something. However, in the UK automotive industry where I used to work I did notice that the pages that were shared the most ranked better (they had the same inbound links) so I believe it's either a coincidence or that your studies are not always the case (like you said). Either way, the study has definitely got me thinking about going back to my drawing board.
There was a really critical comment made right at the end of the video. I think the World's easiest industry to create content and spread content, is the industry of content marketing and SEO. It's the touchpoint industry that everybody wants to learn from. But if you have something like a law firm, how many social shares and how much viral content can you really create? You can create decent content....but if it's good content that answers people's questions, it's a tough ask to go viral with it.
The real question for a law firm should be:
do I really need to create viral content? or must I create content that answers my audience questions about the so many times not understandable mechanisms of law, and do it in plain English?
I would prioritize that last kind of content, which not necessarily need a "viral bust" in order earn visibility, but more the recognition of its validity by sites that my audience visits daily.
So you should work on targeting those site instead of targeting social media success.
And if you start thinking this way, and you connect the dots between online and offline, than you can start seeing great ideas popping out. For instance, you could discover that something so "offline" like creating a collaboration between your lawyers studio and a local radio/tv channel, so that you are the "lawyers experts" when journalists need to analyze something related to law, that could lead to same grade of brand awareness that any improbable viral marketing attempt.
Completely agreed with the statement "Google cares about the engagement, not social shares" because most of the time we just share to show our activity on the social profiles but not even bothered about the content.
A quality time spend on some good article is better than sharing irrelevant article 10 times. If the article is worth you will be ending up with some good knowledege
Agree, But what about the Google Plus social channel? Getting +1's or re-shares from Google+, which is product of Google itself, does helps in the ranking?
Hi Kushal,
Sames theory must be applicable for Google plus as well. I also advice google that stop counting upon G+ since majority users are using G+ for SEO signals, not as a social platform.
I fee like santa does not exist anymore ! I should have watched this video ! :}
Great WBF Rand! Quick question, did you or the BuzzSumo team look at all at paid amplification? The reason I am asking is we have had really good success in this area when it was a piece that already had legs. More specifically, we recently promoted a piece of content to journalists that worked at top-tier sites (i.e. DailyMail, Yahoo, etc.) and landed several links on a shoe-string budget. I think that the super-relevant, psychographic targeting (i.e. what Marty talked about at MozCon) is the key to the success though. Any thoughts on the paid amplification side of things?
Same here, I'm just a blogger. And try to follow what the experts try to convey.
And from this video it's clearer that not ONLY social media sharing is going to generate high traffic. I too have experienced this. What I do is share my content (the good ones) on different social media websites. But what I get is some likes and a very few shares. And not a single comment. And I was thinking that my content is too DUMB.
Again, thanks a bunch Rand Fishkin.
Hi Rand ,
It feels like the experiments that you mentioned may not cover the genral case. is it possible that the results shown are specific to large websites with massive amount of content such as MOZ.com and high level of authority.
IMO, the affect of social sharing really depends on the size of market and competition. it sounds reasonable that 1 or 2k of social signals may not move a niddle for MOZ but what about a local shopping center or local store?
I would still try to use social strategies for small local sites, depending on competition scale and expected scale of traffic.
as traffic goes up, the relative weight of tge social signals becomes less significant to the algorithm.
please reply :)
PS - I managed to get some websites to first page without a single backlink and no social signals at all. the basic idea of the algorithm is about high quality content and it's probably not going to change any time soon.
Assaf Yariv
Interesting stuff here! I do agree with several of the other commenters that it would be nice to get a more focused study.
For example...I don't know specifically (unless I missed it) the type of content evaluated other than the content had high social engagement.
Was some of the highly-shared content evaluated more viral-based like a video on buzzfeed that is more likely to continue to get shared and viewed socially versus attracting 'links'?
Just something I was curious about. Great insight either way!
Nice one @Rand.
SEO and Social Media has certainly grown together, in which both practices are able to benefit businesses worldwide to be more visible to their target audience by simply applying and merging these two marketing strategies into a single powerful approach..
Thanks For your (Whiteboard).
Regards:
Ok. I am a huge fan of WBFs and this one is off the charts.
First, Rand's transparency is always so refreshing. In a web-sphere full of expert and sometimes contradictory opinions it is great to see revisions backed-up by data. Kudos to Moz for trying hard to keep the data straight-up.
On the topic, with social channels continually expanding and launching every year: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Google+, Vine … and on and on. We must ask ourselves, how much time do we want to spend creating, posting, sharing, tweeting, commenting, pinning, and following? It’s exhausting.
Instead, I think a better way is to fully understand which channels are dominant and a must-have for our business/industry and products. We need to spend our focus, our time, and money on optimizing against the competition in those targeted channels.
IMHO, it’s about quality, not quantity. Social media can be a great appetizer, but not to be confused with the main course :)
Keep these fabulous posts coming!
Thanks Rand. I have a little teory which might taken to the attention by google as i have sent this or somany related theories to them to take into the consideration.
Let me explain as follow
Person A
- Has 1000 Friends on facebook and Klout Score is more than 70.
Person B
- Has just 10 Friends on facebook and Klout Score is on bottom.
Person C
- Has average friends like 600 friends on facebook and Klout score is also average like 45-50.
So Person C shares a link on his facebook profile. If person A Clicks, likes and shares the link on his/her wall, This must be rewarding higher for the link or the website instead of the same response from person B.
Why? Because Person A is a Real active and impresive person and people take his/her advice or recomendations serious instead of the Person B, Because he/she might be a Fake profile and just created to build links.
@Rand this was one of the most mysterious and confusing topic till today that how Social Media Sharing helps to get ranking. I discussed it with almost all my Online Marketing colleagues and everyone was having their own philosophy, some said yes it helps to get stable ranking and some said it has nothing to get rank. It was like Doing something without thinking.
I just loved the post as it helped me to solve the confusion. Practically its very very effective post for all Online Marketing Professionals.
Today Digital marketing plays a vital role......content is king for seo and smo.......tanq for sharing ur graceful thoughts for us............it's really helpful
https://www.nillowpages.com