Earlier this month, The Harvard Business Review Blog Network ran the blog, Marketing Is Dead. It made me think of a recent blog of mine that revealed the one thing headlines must do. After reading this HBR blog, I feel like I need to add a big old “BUT” to my statement.
Your headline must do exactly one thing – get people to keep reading – BUT, don’t say something ridiculous that will create a negative backlash.
There’s nothing wrong with being controversial and having strong opinions. But saying marketing is dead – a black and white statement with no qualifier – is just factually inaccurate. I won’t waste my time or yours explaining why. Okay, I’ll take 20 seconds…
Marketing is changing. Evolving. So are people’s buying habits and decision-making processes. But to suggest we should tag the toe and shut the door on traditional marketing is just plain ludicrous and close-minded. And I don’t think all those poor suckers who make millions of dollars every year from marketing are losing any sleep because of this author’s declaration.
Now, back to the headline. I can’t say for sure what the author’s motives were, but he obviously wanted to get people to keep reading. I’m sure people did just that. I did.
But when I started reading, I read with the mindset that the blog was total BS, not because I expected to find something of value.
As for the content itself, the author clearly has a big-time crush on social media. I picture Facebook, Pinterest and Google+ logos with hearts drawn around them, kind of like what adolescent girls from my generation did with pictures of the greasers from the movie The Outsiders. If you don’t get that reference, ask someone over 35.
The author advocates “peer influence-based, community-oriented marketing” that social media can provide. Valid concept.
Much of the information in the blog is valuable, but absolutely none of it supports the headline or comes even close to proving it.
This could explain the 450-plus comments in response to the blog. Most of these comments came from people who clearly felt disrespected and insulted. Some questioned his motives and the credibility of his firm. Some admonished Harvard Business Review for running the blog.
This is what’s known as backlash. Not that the headline was offensive or anything, but I’m sure the response would have been much more positive if the blog was titled more accurately. Would it have gotten as much attention with a different headline? Probably not.
But is that kind of attention a business owner wants? Is it worth it?
This kind of approach might work for talk show hosts whose job it is to stir the pot and get a rise out of people (emphasis on “might” because even talk show hosts go too far and create a backlash). For business owners like you and me, the potential damage to our credibility and integrity can be devastating.
When it comes to headlines, be bold and clever. Rattle some cages. Just be smart about it. Like Ralph Macchio said in The Outsiders, “Stay gold, Ponyboy. Stay gold.”
The temptation to use a catchy title or a title with a double entendre is counter to everything an experienced, SEO-savvy blogger knows. These are common tactics used to add sizzle to printed media, where the audience already has the publication in their hands when they read the title, and are consequently committed to giving the article a paragraph to earn their continued attention.
But the Internet doesn’t work that way. The Internet gives an article 9 seconds to earn your click, then another 15-30 seconds to earn your continued attention.
In the case you site, it’s arguable that you would never have read the piece if the title hadn’t been a liitle bit incendiary. You said yourself it was worth reading once you got past the obvious “gaming” of the title, so while Marketing obviously isn’t dead, and PR is also alive and well, I guess some things never change, like, “even bad publicity is good publicity”. But in the end, title notwithstanding, it’s all about quality content.
Don, the content had value, but I’ll never read content from this author again. His premise was ridiculous and if he actually believes his misleading headline, that gives him even less credibility in my book. That’s the risk you run with a sketchy headline or any less than honest approach. For this author, maybe it was worth it. Not to sound holier than thou, but for me, it ain’t worth it.
Scott
Scott – Enjoyed your comments…and concur. BTW I am old enough to understand the heart-drawing reference. (sigh)
Thanks, Yvonne. And thanks for being pat of my generation. It’s a little sad when I can quote 30-year-old movies because I saw them when they first came out and not because I saw them years later on cable.
Scott
There was a post a few weeks ago entitled “Why PR is Doomed” that had a similar effect.
I can see why. Blanket statements like that are just silly. That said, it’s one thing to predict doom and other thing to declare death in a headline, especially when the alleged corpse is very much alive. Then, you just make it worse when your content does nothing to validate that claim. I just don’t get it.