[Estimated read time: 2 minutes]
Yes. I've read the studies. I know the correlations. Long-form content, on average, earns more engagement, higher rankings, and more shares than their more concise brethren.
Not sure where the idea that "great content" = "really, really long content" came from, but we need to dispel that myth.
— Rand Fishkin (@randfish) March 30, 2016
But, that does not make long-form content the same as great content.
It does not make long-form content the goal of every content effort.
It certainly does not mean that longer content is better content.
Confounding variables are, in my opinion, behind many of these correlations. Long-form content, at least the good stuff, intentionally targets searchers and browsers seeking lengthier, more comprehensive information. If you want to challenge those "longer content performs better on average" statistics with equally unapplicable numbers, check the data on diminishing attention spans, ever-increasing abandonment rates, and what percent of visitors actually read long content to its end.
The right content:
- Serves visitors' intent by answering their questions and helping them complete their goals
- Delivers an easy, pleasurable, accessible experience on every device and every browser
- Gets the right information and experience to visitors FAST
- Does all of the above better than any of the competitors in the space
The phrase "great content" doesn't mean "long-form" content. In fact, as Ronell Smith recently pointed out, "great content" doesn't, universally, mean anything at all. Its definition is subjective and sometimes mythical when what we need are pragmatic, clear boxes to check to determine whether our content efforts are on track.
My proposal: rather than applying a tactic like long-form content universally or setting length as the bar (or even a metric) for greatness, we instead match our content to our audience's needs and our business/personal goals. 700 more words will not help you reach your goals any more than 7 more words. Create content that helps people. Do it efficiently. Never write an ultimate guide where a single image could more powerfully convey the same value. Trust me; your audience and your bottom line will thank you.
P.S. If you're seeking some examples of long-form, short-form, interactive, visual, and even single-blog-post content that I think fits with the philosophy above, check out my list of 10X Content and Ross Hudgens' recent list of content marketing examples. Both have lots of short-form excellence included.
p.p.s Buzzsumo put out this superb piece on how IFL Science does masterful short-form content. They showed that IFL actually does far better with their short, <1,000 word posts, than with their longer ones.
Hi Rand!!
In Spain we have a saying that goes like "The good, if brief, 2 times good ..." often confuse quantity with quality and we strive to bore the reader
Totally agree Carlos, in special when the shorter content resolves the user problem quiclkly. :) That's the better content.
Hahahaha ¡y nunca un refrán fué mejor dicho! Totally agree, sometimes we try to write as much as we can about something just to try to fit the biggest amount of keywords, or explain an issue the best we can without even realizing that it may exceed our readers willing to understand what we're talking about.
In fact, what would usually a reader preffer? Something that will entertain and educate them, or just something that will be like a lot of written, nothing explained?
Of course some issues have to be really well explained, no doubt. Some issues need more details, but it's not always the case, and sometimes it's good to have them wanting for more :D
I think this is not really something new.
Yes, now long-forms are considered the new saint grial of SEO, because of the studies showing a correlation between them and engagement and - especially - big links.
However it's all the concept of "big content" that people (SEO in particular) is misunderstanding, confusing "content" with "container" (or "format").
Once the hype were infographics, then guest posts, and now long forms... when, in reality, what really makes an infographic, a guest post and now a long form successful is the content presented in those containers. Hence if the content is crap, no matter its format... still is crap, and won't be able to offer those results its creator was expecting.
Corollaries to your list of things a content must fulfill in order to be "10X Content" are:
The problem is that very few do this kind of strategic thinking, and simply go for exploiting the new gold shiny format.
I was really hoping you were going to leave a super-short comment on this post, just to help prove the point :-)
I think your last sentence sums things up nicely. Shiny new gold is hard to resist.
ahahah... Rand, for being me this is a short comment indeed :-
Indeed.
Ginaluca, That's great!
I think that writing habits should be taught differently in schools and universities (at least here in Ireland anyway) in order to make sure that great content takes preference over long-form content - whether that great content be long or short.
What I mean is, we're always told to meet a certain word count when writing essays or research papers which inevitably leads to at least some sort of needless waffle. Rather than being expected to get to the point, we're expected to get to the specified word count which seems to be a habit that lingers..
Great content doesn’t mean long or short content, this only relates with the purpose of the content. All we have to focus on user experience, how to create content that engage people and ultimately increase in traffic. Anyone can’t say in respect of length that which content is good, in fact the debate of short and long content is just as waste of time.
Yeah Rand, I agreed with you that visitors only want the solution/answer of their questions that are a resource of them. In case of short content we already have a great example of Seth Godin, he knows well how to approach and whom to approach. This example doesn’t mean shorter is always better. It totally depends on the situations and cases for which you are going to write. All you have to do is to think like a user, for this content strategy is must, you have to find out how to deliver a content that will help and fits best for the visitor question.
Short/long content may work on some specific cases, but it can’t be taken as the GREAT CONTENT. Nowadays people mostly prefer infographics and visuals rather than lengthy content because that became easy for them to understand and memorize that for a long time.
Anyways thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts Rand.
I completely agree with Shalu's comment. Well said.
100 % True.
I need to get better at brevity. Allow me to explain though: We're in an industry where people like to nitpick and rip apart everything everyone else writes or says. Every time I write I have those trolls in the back of my head, which causes me to elaborate probably more than need be.
But you are absolutely right. At some point we have to be fine with getting the idea across in the main content, and perhaps layout out the nuances in a different format for those who wish to learn more. Visuals and interactive content are key here. Even simple things like drop-down divs or 15 minutes in Photoshop can do wonders.
Great post! A little long though.
Value is such a subjective phenomenon that it can be really difficult to use it as a yardstick to measure a piece of content regardless of its length. Seth Godin can offer value to his audience using few words while start-ups fail to get even a few likes or RT's on their long-form content.
In the SEO industry, every piece of content is bound to be measured in terms of traction it generates across the social web and the number of inbound links it naturally attracts. Some SEO's also tend to measure the effectiveness of a content piece based on whether (and how quickly) it's able to rank on Google Search.
Value is a complex phenomenon. In a competitive online marketing landscape, "great content" will always be subjective - it will always be open to debate.
Don't worry about long-form/short-form, just write to your heart's content. Sooner or later, Karma will catch up :)
I agree but GENERALLY when trying to get the best piece of content out there on a topic it will be "long form". Why? it just happens that the more words we have the more we can explain things, add studies/references, make a more comprehensive piece of work.
it does depend, maybe an infographic or just a list is the best for a certain search term but for me longer is USUALLY better.
When I do searches like:
- Intermittent fasting guide
- Flexible dieting guide
- Best outreach tools
- Link building tactics
- Iphone 6 vs Samsung s7
I expect detailed and in-depth content. I want as much information as possible. I want it written without waffle but detailed. This will usually mean long form content.
As for the iphone vs samsung I probably would actually prefer a video but the next best thing is detailed content. I wouldn't be satisfied with some bullet points and a small "versus" box. I want expert opinion, explained.
I do agree though with you that it does need to stop with long = better. I've come across a load of guides recently that are just waffles with loads of content just there to boost the word count.
My hope is that we can get away from the mentality that word count or document length ties directly to content value. Sometimes a long piece provides more value because it delivers depth and usefulness in every extra sentence and paragraph included. But, I'd argue that almost every lengthy piece of content could be at least a little better if it were shorter, more succinct, and delivered the same value in fewer words. Much of the best content doesn't just tell; it shows.
E.g. You could write 10,000 words describing the reasons to rent vs. buy in various cities across the US, but I don't think they'd ever compare to the value delivered in this short, interactive piece: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy...
I have preached that good content needs to be as long as it takes to cover all the questions that the reader might ask about the topic you are addressing to my writers. I've have rock star pieces that were 500 words long and other rockstar pieces that were 1,500 words long. Cover the topics as best as you can concisely and easily understood as possible by the reader and the length takes care of itself.
Where I have struggled was with the notion that Google is somehow not giving me authority status in our niche on highly sought after topics, even though everyone in our industry considers us the authority. I'm sure we're lacking in SEO in places and there are other problems, but you start to question things like length of content, keyword stuffing, etc., that other competitors with less valuable information seem to do just to "game the system" that go against the best writing practices you've learned over decades.
Your piece was refreshing to say the least.
I see what you did here, Rand...you made a rather short blog post about how long-form content isn't necessary to have for "great content." Talk about getting "the right information and experience to visitors FAST." :)
Great content is whatever you make it, large or small, 200 words or 2500 words.
In any given post, there is a point someone is trying to make. If you can make your point in 150 words and it is clear, educational and compelling... great. If not... keep writing!
There's also a third option:
don't write anything at all...
Gianluca Fiorelli,
That's right! I forgot about option 3. I love option 3 : )
"he who says nothing speaks loudest" - Said Someone Important
Also something short could be a very good post! Anyway I'm eith the ones who thinks that if it's brief it's 2 times good! Nice post!
I'm Totally agree with you Rand. But I think long content may be great(not always). but short content is never a great content. In short, great content means Quality content and quality content means, whole content relevent to your topic,subjects or business. nothing else.
Nice article posted related to content marketing.I also like to share my views related to Marketing Strategy.Digital Marketing is one of several Aspects of Marketing discussed in the SMStudy Guide series. Other Aspects discussed in this series include Marketing Research (MR), Corporate Sales (CS), Branding and Advertising (BA), and Retail Marketing (RM). The strategies for each of the Aspects of Marketing are derived from the outputs of the Marketing Strategy (MS), which are described in the SMStudy Guide series on Marketing Strategy.See more details at https://smstudy.com/whySMstudy/Digital-Marketing
This post has given me a lot to think about (and in under two minutes, no less).
A good deal of our content runs long because we want to be comprehensive (meaning, we don't want to tell people to do something without also showing them how to do it). This tends to mean going into deep detail on the nuts and bolts of how to instruct our audience on how to get things done.
However, if we can't get to the point within a manageable word count, that could mean the topics we're targeting are too broad. Or, what's equally likely is we need to work on being more concise, in order to deliver a better reading experience.
Certainly worth keeping in mind as we plan and create content in the future.
One of my favourite quotes on content length comes from user Hutch42 on Moz:
"Write as much copy as you need to convey the information that is needed for your visitor on that page. If you can create a good user experience on one page with 100 words (by answering the pain that they would be going to that page to solve) and then you need 1,000 words for your next page, then do that to. Don't make arbitrary copy limits or goals based on SEO, make your pages user friendly and your copy useful and your pages will rank well for the appropriate content."
Originally posted in Moz Q&A here.
I agree, we even "force" our bloggers to keep it short - often condensing an entire book worth of content into an informative and applicable blog post of 1200-1500 words :)
We focus on short and dense posts for the professional marketer, and it really works. We just started out, but people share our posts like I have never seen it before on a new blog :)
Yes, i agree with @randfish and carlos, "The good, if brief, 2 times good ..."
"Content is important factor in SEO but not more than meaning of content"
Thanks
It is true that long, verbose content doesn't automatically mean that it is great content to read. I can't stand reading a really long article, or, "shudder", e-books, that are filled to the brim with fluff and are a waste of time to read. Everyone wants to read killer content but no one wants to be bored to death reading it either. It is far better for the person reading it the length of the article is "just right".
I wish more blogs listed at the top the time commitment required to read the article, like how Moz does. Everyone is so pressed for time these days, that if it is a moderately interesting topic, and I can determine right away how much time I can commit to it, I will read it. If I think it is going to take me 15 minutes to read about the difference between an H1 tag and an H2 tag, I am going to skip it. But if you have a 30 minute article on something that is timely and involves an in-depth case study then I am more likely to stick around.
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time." Blaise Pascal. Producing great short content can be much harder work than long form content but worth the effort.
Thanks for writing this Rand. This has frustrated me as a reader for awhile now. The reason you're seeing this is because every blogging, SEO, and content marketing expert (that I've seen anyway) says you should write long form content. They show the stats, share their own experiences, and then say you should do it. They never mention if it applies to all topics and posts. So naturally bloggers assume it means that everything they write should be really long, no matter what the topic is.
I also don't understand why some bloggers brag about how long their posts are. "This epic guide comes in at a whopping 24,123 words..." So? Yes, your guide could be awesome, but it could also be useless to me.
I think Panda could indirectly be a reason why the correlation has increased. In the past, you might have several pages covering the same topic but different keywords. After Panda, it is better to have a single page covering the whole topic. As a result, the word-count on a ranking page is naturally going to increase.
I'm currently experimenting with ecommerce category pages. A client has REALLY long content on them with "Read more" expanding buttons (eugh!). I'm seeing if either reducing the content or changing how it is presented will have a positive impact. With ecommerce pages, the word count correlation will still occur because a category with lots of products (which will still count towards the word count) will be more likely to rank than a category with few products. However, clients often think they need MASSIVE category descriptions when a few lines should be enough (or so my test will hopefully show).
Write concise, clear and understandable content for readers , more content does not equal better, it's best just better
Hey Rand, I am agree with you. Great content is important. If you can write an article which is short (not more than 5 mins reading) and able to answer reader's question or curiosity. I will say that it's an excellent content
P.S. I would skip reading any content more than 5 mins in a page because it's too lengthy. If human loves to read an article less than 5 mins, would Search Engine Bot do the same too?
This article once again confirms the truth about content relevance importance.. and number of words in the article is not the point.. all of us are not only webmasters but users too and as for me I dont like reading meaningless long form stories but simply want learn the answer to the query Ive entered..of course there is range of themes that require additional explanations and text.. but in other cases use of long form content is unjustified. Thanks for the article)
My formal background of computer, I have learned that development of computer projects the term creation of value is very important. The creation of value is a compilation of elements that together produce a product or service for comparative advantages that distinguish or distance themselves from their competition. Taking this concept to the creation of content on the web or to the web, my impression that this paradigm can also be used as a parameter in the development of quality content on the web. When you create content for your audience, your thinking as editor should be focused on providing information with your readers is a distinctive value, enriching propose issues or experiences that can generate debate, discussion, comments. Propose questions that have already been topics of countless previous post, it contributes nothing to your blog or website, or your name as a leading thematics your category where you get on promoter. Articles offer valuable content to the website indisputably granted a relevance that will not have a website that only thinks keywords position as its ultimate goal.
Hi Rand,
I love that your article is actually short and to the point. You said what you needed to say and you dropped the microphone. I think that it is clear that great content doesn't mean it has to be a novel, but do you really think search engines still give them as much ranking? All the articles I see lately only seem to be getting longer, and I don't have all day to read these articles to get a few points. I prefer your method, I would just like to know if it really does or doesn't make a difference in the SERPs.
Thank you!
Maria
Hi Maria - thanks! What we see is correlation, but not causation. The search engines love content that solves people's problems and queries, not content that is just really, really long. It is the case that sometimes, more content means more depth, but the correlation is actually pretty low (in our last study, it was something like 0.11 with higher rankings, which is not very big).
As a copywriter, I still follow the KISS principle. I think there's a time and place for longer articles but I know which one my attention span likes!
Why we will make long things? Our time is also worth money. And your readers' time is worth money. And your customers also make it simple and easy ..
Hey Rand,
I think this argument is a bit of a strawman... All crappy content is ineffective.
But, said another way:
Assuming the same level of quality, longer-form content is more effective than short-form.
It is more effective because it is more rare than short form and it requires much more work to create comprehensive, high quality long-form content. Generally speaking, the longer the content, the more concepts the writer is exploring AND connecting them in a way that makes both writing and thinking more complex.
I personally don't think using images or infographics as an example as effective short content works... while they may take less screen space, the same concept holds true - the more comprehensive the graphic, the longer it takes to consume - for the same reasons (more concepts in a graphic and how they're connected takes longer to "read").
So, quality being equal, I think there is a good argument to be made for more comprehensive content...
***** !
Yes, it is not required long content every time. If we supplement our content with image, video embeds and being real, then short content make great impact.
Hi Rand
Thank you for this valuable article.
Does content plays an important role in transaction-based sites or good meta should suffice the purpose.
Regards,
Ruban
[Link removed by editor.]
Yes..Absolutely correct..Great content is not long-form content. Content should be meaningful.
Content which solve problem through single visual is better then instead of the content which have 2000 words but problem is that we just see one side of picture if any industry expert says that long form content perform well we start producing long form content without measuring the industry in which we are working if we are writing a simple post on Recipe to make a cup cake and trying to putting words in it to make it long form I think its not good practice and its just a crappy piece of content which is not adding any value for the users.
I think unique content with low keyword density is high quality content Thanks @rand for share cool tips!
Thank you so much for this. I'm tired of explaining myself.
Yes, my article is only 700 words long.
No, I'm not going to add "something" to it. It already has graphs and other visual material and the exact amount of words I want it to have, if you want 1500 words you can add Lorem Ipsum in the end.
Well said - I think each website needs to experiment with all forms of content within their industry and see what works best for them. There are not blanket statements that fix everyone's problems!
!
I just saw I received 5 negative thumbs on this comment. I think those who did may have not actually read the post..... "!" serves the purpose of expressing admiration for something in a very reduced manner. Not being lazy...
Luis... if you need to explain it, that means that its meaning was - at least - cryptic :-)
I got it! Thumbs up for your brevity Luis
I loved the response too! Try not to worry about those thumbs :)
Now I feel like a jerk, Luis Lechuga.
I was thinking "who writes a simple explanation mark"...
I totally missed the ball on that one...
Rand, this is an interesting theory, but it seems like a chicken vs. the egg causality dilemma. In theory, the site with the best content wins in SERP ranking no matter how long or short ("the best" being defined as relevant, informative, to-the-point, easy to read and understand, etc). However, short, concise, or distilled (whiskey reference?) content doesn't seem to have the same advantage in SERP rankings as the long, somewhat repetitive, keyword-heavy content that Google's algorithms enjoy (and that readers loathe). If the long content gets the reader there (i.e. the egg), but the efficient content gets them to stick around and leave happy (i.e. the chicken), what is an author to do?
Good post Rand! Do you know what gets on my nerves? Those annoying how to guides that you come across when you want or need to understand the functionality of a particular app. I've noticed a trend in these sorts of articles where the writer actually uses the first 4 steps to instruct you on :
Drives me crazy!
Excellent point there, Rand. I've always been confused too. I feel the best content is that which adds value to those who consume it.
I am actually a bit annoyed (with myself) right now. Last week I started drafting an article that covers the exact same topic. Unfortunately I did not have the time to finish it and now you published it. You won the race this time, Rand ;)
I can see some people may now fall into the trap of thinking shorter is better when the real point is that length, in an absolute sense, is irrelevant in terms of quality or usefulness because it depends on context.
I remember my English literature school teacher told me to aim for the "ABC of writing" which stood for Accuracy, Brevity and Clarity. The point about length or brevity is not that writing should be short but that it should be as short as possible whilst still best conveying the required meaning. That must be even more the case in today's world where nobody has spare time or head space.
Personally if I see a very long article on a topic that interests or is important to me, I'll save it sometimes for months until I find time to read it. I usually read them right to the end. I never share an article on social media unless I've read it all.
I thought this was a good article on the subject of long form content. It discusses the trade-off between the additional investment in time required to create long form content and the concomitant additional benefits compared with the multiple pieces of short form content that could be created with an equal investment.
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/debunking-myth...
It's long ... but it's worth reading.
Yay, I got my first thumbs down. I've been angling for one for over 5 years! The nightmare ends.
Ha! Hilarious. I suspect someone was thumb manipulating a bit on this post. Looks like almost everyone who posted here got one... We usually take action against that type of behavior, so your thumbs down might disappear.
Cruel! I worked so hard for it. I want it.
I completely agree with you Rand.
I am in favor of writing my articles putting the reader first then optimize the content for search engines. Content stuffed with keywords and useless information is worth nothing in the eyes of the reader. if the reader doesn´t find your content interesting he won´t come back to your website for sure and you wouldn´t want to loose more readers publishing long articles that do not offer anything engaging or useful.
Correlation does not imply causation!
This is an important concept, especially because so many of the SEO studies you see are based on correlations. In fact many scientific studies will use correlations to give statistical precedence of one hypothesis or another. But it does not mean the variable in question is the cause. Just a correlation. Very important.
An example:
"As ice cream sales increase, the rate of drowning deaths increases sharply. Therefore, ice cream consumption causes drowning."
Of course Ice cream sales don't cause an increase in drowning rates. Just because there is a correlation, doesn't mean there is causation.
I believe too that people should produce content based on the metric of value, rather than the arbitrary metric of length.
Well said @Rand
Nicely put Rand, but I would still say if you are really looking to provide comprehensive information about any specific topic it would be lengthier than most. One more thing, if a newbie blogger really wants to challenge the authoritative websites in its industry then it would heavily depend on the content's length and of course the greatness it achieves later on, in the form of social shares, links and syndication.
Brief can be better!
of course long article without value is not Great content, Article that solve problems are most Great contents ever
As the internet grows, the way we display the information we want to attract users with changes.
It's just as fad prone it seems as the collective group we're all trying to target.
This year it's this and that, but next year with x technology release and x device release will be something else, maybe video note pop ups will be the next big way to target user's searches with or once augmented reality is available widespread, reading more than a paragraph while searching might be considered too " study like " and will be frowned upon for lack of time it saves.
This really gets into content marketing being a finger on the pulse of users kinda thing.
I am little confused about the forms of Content which we are dividing like Shorter Form or Longer Form. Search engines only sees what type of content you are producing, what's the message you are conveying to the users. They doesn't see how many words the content is. But, I read an article of Steve Rayson, in which he mention that content of over 1,000 words consistently receives more shares and links than shorter form content. So Rand, if we write shorter form content which evolves to better understand the context and intent of user behaviour, than we won't get more numbers of shares & links?
That's the point I'm making above - correlation between avg length and avg shares doesn't mean that adding words will make a piece of content better. It just means that some pieces of long content do very well in shares. My recommendation is to serve your audience, not to arbitrarily add words simply because you read that longer articles, on average, get more shares than short ones.
I really appreciate for your positive response, also I would like to add that folks are creating and publishing longer content because they feel they have to do as search engines loves longer content. But there should be some passion or tactics behind those.
I don't think anyone ever said great content equaled long-form content, but many correlation studies say that the longer the content the more shares and likes it gets on social media. And although correlation studies don't really tell us a whole lot, the one thing they do give us is an idea of is what is working.
First, I think it is important that we separate "content" from blogging or written content. "Content" can take many forms. We are talking about blog posts here, aren't we? I feel like most of the correlation studies I have read about are talking about written long-form blogging and the more words a blog post contains, the more likely it is to be shared. If it is blog posts we are talking about, why not make posts a bit verbose and reap the rewards?
My hypothesis on this is that the longer the content, the more it appears to have substance to it, and therefore it gets more shares. The majority of people most likely don't read through the whole thing, they just skim through, look at headlines perhaps or read a few lines here and there and then hit the share button. It's all about appearance. When it is shorter, I get the feeling people take one look and MAYBE skim through it quickly and go, "OK, there isn't much to this, is there?", and hit the back button.
Let's also not forget that it's also very easy for someone famous in a certain space or an "influencer" or some kind. They can write something in a few minutes and the second they hit the publish button or the tweet button, job done. It's another to be someone no one knows of - you have to take advantage of every little thing to make your post stand out.
Having said all that, for me the most important thing is creating content about something relevant in your space and creating a title that gets people to click. And if that is written content, that's where the long-form part comes into play. If you are writing about Christmas in July, you're post probably isn't going to do well no matter how long it is.
Hello Rand Fishkin,
I would agree to your pointers and to compliment i would say "query answering based content is better in terms of users point of view"
Informantary content is always long and intense. Many out of them might be worth for those who are doing some extensive research or are looking for some deep information.
SERP (Google) - fortunate or not but they tend to rank content which is big (taking posts that have huge engagement aside), I have seen this in my experiment, its just that you need to craft content in SEO manner.
My Preferance - according to me anything which is in form of pointers, easy going and with images explaining content is better content.
More than 500 to 700 words is beyond my reading capacity unless its some kind of research that interests me.
Tnx
Thanks @Rand for this short and vaulable content :-)
I think that a lot of users "intuited" a great content instead of know it is. A big percentage of shares, retweets and likes are of users that scanned the content, and the largest to scan has been given a greater sense of quality...
What do you think?
No... I personally consider that:
Exactly, total agree. Even it would be a great experiment publish a post without content or meaningless phrases, with a nice default image and then twit to analyze retweets and favs from that "smart people". :-)
I agree that "great content" doesn't mean "long-form" content. I checked it meny times.