Todd McDonald's comments on Inbound.org

It seems to me that it takes a certain amount of space/time/words/whatever to fully discuss a topic.

Content that has more "meat" to it provides more opportunities for users to form their own opinion, react to something in the post, find something that specifically peaks their interest about it, etc. In other words, by fully discussing a subject, you're simply providing more opportunity for people to connect with the content. Longer content will discourage passers by from bothering with it, and leave those truly interested in the subject happily digesting and likely motivated to take an action.

I'd also say that most subjects, content developers, and readers all NEED a certain amount of time to establish healthy depth. Without the appropriate depth, those engaging with the content don't form opinions, don't connect with the writer/content producer, and just don't have much reason to engage or react. This is not true for all subjects, but true for many. It takes substance to establish value and generate interest, substance (most of the time) takes time to develop.

This to me is a big part of why long-form content "works" - although I'd prefer to have a definition of what "works" actually means :).

The question I'd like to hear discussed is how valuable or effective is long-form content at achieving strategic business objectives?

Again, what is "works"?

I realize it's fairly high on the conversion funnel and is usually tied to goals that are multiple steps removed from a conversion, but is it really the most efficient way to achieve the goals that its success is often measured against?

I'd love to see hard $data around that. My guess is, it probably is.

2 Flag

Todd McDonald

Flag Comment

Unflag Comment

Remove Comment

Flag Article