Just a little bit can ruin your day

by Leave a Comment

Reading Time: < 1 minute

It’s amazing how little it can take to put us in a bad mood. This can come from other people, but it can also come from just a bit of negative news.

In his book “Big Potential“, author Shawn Achor shares this surprising bit of insight:

“Indeed, we found that just a few minutes spent consuming negative news in the morning can affect the entire emotional trajectory of your day; our study revealed that individuals who watched just three minutes of negative news in the morning were 27 percent more likely to report their day as unhappy six to eight hours later—it was like taking a poison pill each morning that made all of your efforts, energies, and interactions throughout the day more toxic.”

That’s a huge number! Just a few minutes consuming negative news will leave over 1/4 of all people unhappy much later in the day.

The solution could be to just avoid all negative news, but I’m not sure that’s the answer either. There can be tough news out there, but it’s often worth understanding so we can try to improve the world around us. This could be school shootings close to home, or poverty in distant countries, but knowing about those problems are the only way we can begin to solve them.

For me, I think the real solution is to save that until later in the day. Start your morning on a positive note with an enjoyable routine that doesn’t involve much news or social media. As Achor shares, just tweaking a few minutes in the morning can make a big difference throughout your entire day.

This entire book was fantastic, and I encourage you to check it out.

You can escape the algorithms, but you need to work for it

by Leave a Comment

Reading Time: 2 minutes

We all hear many people complaining about “the algorithms” on social media, and it’s often a legit complaint. At best, the algorithms show us a bunch of stuff we didn’t ask for. As worst, they could be affecting political outcomes.

Part of the problem is the algorithms themselves, but the other part is our overall apathy — simply using those systems is easier than building one for ourselves. However, taking the time to put together your own systems not only avoids the algorithms, but allows you to intentionally hear from a variety of sources to help avoid the filter bubble.

In a recent podcast from Seth Godin, he teed up the idea with this:

“So through deliberate action, some people, people who realize that having a variety of inputs makes them more effective, are finding ways to use the very tools that insulate us to connect us. They subscribe to blogs that they don’t agree with. They read newspapers, as long as there are newspapers, with other points of view.”

A bit later in the show, he addressed the point I’m trying to make, saying:

“And so we can wring our hands about it and complain about it, but we still have the ability to do something about it with our own mouse, with our own fingers, which is to intentionally seek out the ideas that might not be presented to us automatically. I wish I had a happier, easier automatic solution, but I don’t.”

As he points out, the “easier automatic solution” that we have today isn’t the answer. I see two paths to solving this, though.

  • For now, RSS is still likely the best way. It’s fading a bit as time goes on, but it’s still a major way that I get my news and information, and there is zero algorithm behind it. I choose what comes in, and I choose what to remove. The challenge is that it can be easy to build a filter bubble using this, so you need to be intentional about choosing from a variety of sources.
  • If things go well, the “fediverse” may take off and could be a fantastic solution. In short, it’s a way for multiple social networks to all tie together, and then you can choose how to filter the content. The idea behind it is fantastic, but it remains to be seen if enough networks (and therefore users) join in order to make it truly valuable.

There are solutions now, and more coming, but you have to work to make it happen. As Seth said in his first quote, this takes “deliberate action” and I encourage you to spend some time to set up a better way to get information for yourself.

A great place to start would be with a service like Readwise Reader (which I shared a few years ago), but there are a lot of great options to choose from.

How do you prefer to get your news and information?

Social media is an empty vessel

by Leave a Comment

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Many people complain about social media, and often rightfully so. While it can be an amazing tool, there are significant downsides to it. We can talk about the pros and cons of each, but I think TikTok is a unique case among all others. It’s the most vilified by politicians, but it’s also the most accurate reflection of what we really want.

In a recent podcast, Gary Vaynerchuk summarized it perfectly. He said:

“TikTok’s a super empty vessel. Their business is very simple: we are going to build an algorithm that only give you more of what you’ve shown us you want. Period.”

All of social media is like that to a degree, but TikTok is easily the best example. Other networks inject more of what they want you to see, whereas TikTok focuses exclusively on what they think you want to see. While this is the best thing about TikTok, it’s also the worst, as that approach is what’s leading to such unhealthy obsession among many people.

Is TikTok really to blame? Users are providing all of the content, and users are deciding what they want to see. TikTok is just an empty vessel, collecting content from users and spitting it back out.

The next few years should be interesting, as other social networks appear to be trying to follow suit. Instagram and Twitch are both moving to a “content > followers” model like TikTok, and others won’t be far behind.

Are these empty vessels dangerous and/or problematic? Or are they just a reflection of exactly what we want to see?

The algorithm can make social media really weird

by Leave a Comment

Reading Time: 2 minutes

While it seems the digital world is becoming more real-time, traditional social media is becoming more algorithm-driven and can lead to some weird posts. For example, here is a post from a friend that I saw earlier this year. The post appeared for me a few days after it was posted, and I have literally no idea what it was referring to.

More recently was this one from another friend. It feels Olympics-related, but it was from a few days prior to the games so I have no idea what it was about. There weren’t any comments or anything to add the necessary context.

Ultimately, it’s kind of sad. While I can appreciate why companies are shifting to a more algorithm-focused approach, it’d be nice to still be able to see the content from your friends in straight reverse-chronological order.

If anything, things are heading the other way where your list of friends or followers matters less and less every day. Maybe that’s an opening for a new social media platform that focuses just on those you follow? I tend to doubt it, as people are clearly more engaged with the algorithm versus the traditional feed.

At the end of the day it’s simply a little sad, and it’s a good reminder to add proper context to your posts because you never know when the social network might decide is a good time to show your post to others.

Creating “zero click” content

by Leave a Comment

Reading Time: 2 minutes

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, a growing problem with Google is the number of “zero click” searches on there — searches that don’t lead to another click, because Google answered the question for you. It’s generally a good thing for users, but it’s a bad thing for companies wanting to get more website traffic.

In the case of Google, there’s not much you can do. In other cases, though, it might be best to just lean into this trend. Most social media sites quietly penalize posts that have links in them (hence the silly and annoying “link in comments” that you see so often), so it might be best to simply forego the link and just let people see your content.

This video from the Content Marketing Institute (which I briefly shared last week) talks about this very subject about halfway through:
https://www.linkedin.com/events/7204588791657869312/comments/

No links?

For what I’m trying to accomplish with this blog, a lack of links is fine. I don’t care if you read this on LinkedIn or Medium or Substack or whatever, because I’m not trying to sell anything.

For many companies, it’s the same. If their content simply gets shared and viewed more often, it’s a win.

However, what about posts like this one? If you’re reading this on LinkedIn, I didn’t ever link back to my original blog post (trying to go “zero click”), but I still had to include some links to make the content more valuable. Telling you about that video and then making you go find it yourself would be frustrating, so I included a link to it. However, LinkedIn and other social platforms literally encourage content creators to make their content less valuable (with zero links) in order to get more exposure for it.

I get it, because their goal is to keep you on their site so they can make more ad revenue, but it’s frustrating nonetheless.

At the end of the day, the “zero click” content approach might be a solid idea. In the video above, Rand Fishkin tells a story of an agency owner that changed up their marketing, watching their digital metrics (website visits, etc) plummet, but saw their sales rise. While it feels kind of broken to do it that way, all of us would be happy to have a similar outcome.

Moving our clients to “zero click” will take some time and some testing, but it’s something worth trying out.

Attention spans aren’t getting shorter

by 1 Comment

Reading Time: < 1 minute

It’s popular to say that our attention spans are getting shorter (though not like a goldfish), but that may not be entirely true. Studies are mixed, but it’s not clear that they’re getting shorter.

Tools like TikTok help play into this idea, where users are fed an endless stream of very short videos to help keep themselves entertained. On the flip side, many people still read books and watch movies, both of which take a great deal of focused attention.

Gary Vaynerchuk recently put it this way (in this interview):

“People are binge watching eight episodes of Netflix for seven hours on a Saturday afternoon. And then people are not watching a six second video after one second because it’s a piece of crap.”

I think what’s really happening is that we’re more discerning about what we’re willing to spend time watching because we have so much out there. 40 years ago, you’d be more likely to watch whatever was on TV (even if it wasn’t very good) because you didn’t have a lot of other options. Now, if whatever you’re consuming doesn’t interest you, you can immediately find something else.

If people aren’t consuming your content to the extent that you’d like, it’s easy to blame short attention spans. In reality, though, Gary is likely correct that this issue is that your content is “crap” and you should spend more time making it compelling to encourage people to stick around.

Theoretically altruistic journalism

by Leave a Comment

Reading Time: 2 minutes

The latest episode of the “You’re Wrong About” podcast focuses on phones, and makes the argument that phones are generally a good thing for people to have — even teens.

Included in the show was a discussion on the potential ban of TikTok, where they shared:

And it’s not about improving these systems or improving the world and improving the things that young people, when you actually pull young people and you say, what are you concerned about? And they bring up things like climate change, gun control, covid, you know, Palestine, Israel, like foreign wars that we’re spending billions of dollars on that. Those are the things that they’re bringing up. They’re not like, actually yeah, if you could just block TikTok, that would be great. No young people are against all of this. This is a movement driven by boomers.

The challenge they raise is that when articles come up that want to make things “better” (like banning TikTok), even if they’re wrong it can feel good to share them because you think you’re doing something good. The episode talks a lot about “moral panics” from the past; things that sound scary but are completely untrue, like making sure your Halloween candy doesn’t have razors in it, or worries about kids eating Tide Pods. It feels good to help, but it’s completely worthless.

Or, as host Sarah Marshall says, it’s “theoretically altruistic journalism”.

We see it from our friends on social media, too, and it’s a big source of scams. A popular one are the “lost pet” scams that are going around. Someone will share a story of a lost pet, and it will be shared thousands of times. After a few days, the original post will turn into an actual scam and will already be out on those thousands of feeds.

People sharing those are coming from a place of good. They’re trying to do the right thing, and it’s theoretically altruistic sharing. It can be easy to get sucked into sharing a story to try to help others out, but it’s even better to share stories that you know are true.

As for the original bit of theoretically altruistic journalism, check out the full episode of their show to dig further into why phones might not be the menace that many are portraying them as.

If your goal is to bring people to your website, don’t immediately ask them to leave

by Leave a Comment

Reading Time: 2 minutes

An interesting trend I’ve noticed over the last few years is for websites to include links to their social media platforms at the very top of the site. It seems counter-productive to work hard to bring users to your website, only to immediately ask them to go off to Facebook or Instagram instead.

There are some cases where this makes sense. An example is a client of ours that is in the early planning stages of building a community of homes, so they’re trying to generate interest. Getting people to the site is great, but just getting them to follow on social media is awesome as well.

For the most part, though, including those links at the very top of your site is foolish.

If you’re writing content for SEO purposes, you’re trying to attract people to your site.

If you’re sharing great content on social media, you’re trying to attract people to your site.

If you put out a great email campaign, you’re trying to attract people to your site.

If you’re paying for ads on Google or via social media, you’re trying to attract people to your site.

When they arrive, don’t encourage them to leave right away!

We share this image with our clients to show our overall approach — build a fantastic site, and then work to attract people to visit and eventually convert.

The last sentence was key; with a “fantastic” website. If your website is subpar, then perhaps letting people dance around the edges is ok for now. When you really get serious, though, driving people to your site is often the best way to get them to become a new customer, so you should work to keep them there to discover how perfectly your services will fit their needs.

Social media is important for most businesses, and you shouldn’t hide your links. In fact, we include prominent links to social media in the footers of most websites that we build. If someone is intentionally trying to find your company on social media, by all means let them find you as it can be a great way to connect.

Just don’t start by pushing them off your site before they’ve had to chance to even dig in.

Viral posts versus 1-on-1

by Leave a Comment

Reading Time: < 1 minute

I’m finding Threads to be an excellent social media platform right now. It’s grown large enough to have great conversations, but not too large (yet) that it invites in all of the chaos. It’ll be interesting to see how it continues to grow, but right now it’s an excellent space to spend time in.

Rand Fishkin, who I’ve written about a handful of times on here before, had an excellent take on the contrast of trying to “go viral” versus just making connections. He shared:

Too many folks believe social media’s all about reach. They optimize for posts that can earn thousands or millions of engagements.

But there’s another way to view these networks – as 1:1 connectors.

Like anyone, I think it’s cool when one of my posts here “does well.” But 99% of my activity is the opposite. I read & reply to people when I like their work or want to support/amplify them. I post things that are valuable for 100 people but not of much interest to millions. And it works great 🥰

His activity on Threads, as I’ve witnessed on mine, has been one with some great connections. None of my posts on there have gone viral, and I doubt any ever will, but it’s a fantastic platform simply to be able to connect with others.

Connect with me on there (@mickmel) if you’re active over there yet.

There’s still a world outside these walls

by Leave a Comment

Reading Time: 3 minutes

For those of you over 40, you can likely still remember the “good old days” on the internet, back when people set up their own places to visit, rather than relying on a handful of huge companies trying to lock your attention inside of their walls (which is very likely how you found this post).

Molly White recently wrote an amazing piece about the history of the web, but she’s not giving up hope that we can return there. Here is some of what she said:

Social networks have become “the web” for many people who rarely venture outside of their tall and increasingly reinforced walls. As Tom Eastman once put it, the web has rotted into “five giant websites, each filled with screenshots of the other four”.

She goes on to explain how things have changed, but then offered some encouragement:

The thing is: none of this is gone. Nothing about the web has changed that prevents us from going back. If anything, it’s become a lot easier. We can return. Better, yet: we can restore the things we loved about the old web while incorporating the wonderful things that have emerged since, developing even better things as we go forward, and leaving behind some things from the early web days we all too often forget when we put on our rose-colored glasses.

The challenge is that the more time people spend inside of the “tall and increasingly reinforced walls” (social media networks), the harder is it to be willing to venture outside of them. For businesses, working inside of these walls makes life easier, but also can choke you out. You’re limited in what you’re able to do and you can’t take that stuff with you if you decide to leave:

If a tenant decided they were sick of their spot within a walled garden, well, they could leave — but it meant they abandoned what they had built, and the path for friends or admirers of their work to come visit them became a lot more arduous to traverse.

The great thing is that while it feels arduous to venture outside of the walls and set up your own space on the internet, it’s literally never been easier to do.

And if anything, it is easier now to do all of this than it ever was. In the early days, people had to fight to enter the expanse at all, and those who did were starting with little. Now, the expanse feels ubiquitous in some countries, and is becoming ever more accessible in the others. Sophisticated tools and techniques are available even to novices. Where once the walled gardens were the only viable option for novice gardeners or those without many resources, that is no longer so much the case — and the skills and resources required to establish one’s own sovereign plot become more accessible by the day.

While it’s easier than ever to set up your own space on the internet, many people simply feel less inclined to do so. This is in part due to how easy it is to set up an Instagram account versus building your own site, and the other challenge is that the majority of people spend their time inside of those big walls.

The web doesn’t have to exist entirely within those walls, and it’s completely up to us to make the web the way we want it.

Do you have any kind of website or presence outside of social media? If so, drop a link here so we can check it out and then take a few minutes to read Molly’s full, amazing post.