There’s a rumor spreading around the internet right now…
Some say that people have a short attention span on the web. As short as a Goldfish, even. 9 seconds.
And you know what?
It’s true.
Attention spans are short… for BAD content… for slow websites … and anything else that’s sleep inducing or aggravating.
But when you know how to keep people at the edge of their seats, guess what? Those people… Are. Not. Going. Anywhere.
Hang on sec, Google chat.
Ok, I’m back.
What do you think? Do people have short attention spans on the web?
Leave a comment.
If you enjoyed this article, enter your email below to get free updates!
{ 66 comments }
Absolutely! I really thought that the web did two things.
A. It gave everybody the ability to publish to the web.
B. Because of this, there is bad and good content raising the noise ratio.
The old adage in Marketing is that if your service/product/message sucks, marketing is going to drop you to rock bottom faster. If your service/product/message is great, it will elevate it.
I KNOW they do, because I know I do!
Sree Sreenivasan, a social media EXPERT I have to assume you know, once said that attention span is the most valuable commodity on the web.
If you can’t hold someone’s attention, then what do you have?
You seem to manage to hold attention extremely well
Derek, I don’t think so, only 5 seconds!
It could be 2 seconds, too short.
It’s hard for me to say if your right or not. Speaking for myself, I really enjoy a well written and useful long article.
I just don’t learn anything much from a 400 word post. I mean, come on, what can you really tell me in a short space that I didn’t already know, unless it’s the news or something like that (or you are a master craftsman writer).
Quality content works.
My longer articles on WisdomWebsite are the better ones and get more traffic. Whenever I try to write shorter articles (still over 1000 words) my readers find less of interest. Less comments, less engagement, less of everything.
I’ll be interested to see what you write about the study results, Derek.
I’m more tolerate of long running content if I care about the topic than I am with slow loading websites.
Many people (though not all) have short attention spans, but what you say is true. They’ll stick around for long content if it’s interesting.
I can give you an example. Steven Pavlina has a successful blog, and he writes LOOOONG posts, and when I go to his site, I read every word of posts I like.
Check out this post of his to see what I mean: http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/07/10-reasons-you-should-never-get-a-job/
I think as long as you write well and provide value, people will stick around for long stuff.
Hey, Hilton
Thanks for this link – Steven Pavlina is great! So is his content.
Like you, if the content is of value and well-written, I definitely stick around and consume it. Long posts seem to fill this bill best.
Jon Morrow, Danny Iny always get my attention.
For the beauty of her writing, Nicole Rushin gets my attention.
I do think that people have short attention spans. But this applies to first time visitors only, so you have to work your magic on them and compel them to read. After they start that, quality content keeps people on your site, no doubt. And subscriptions keep them coming back. Long, detailed and mostly useful and actionable posts will always attract people, but it is important to understand that you also need an amazing headline, a good design tailored for readability and some testimonials or anything that adds credibility if you want to convert most traffic from being bouncers to being readers.
It will be interesting to read your conclusions on this matter, Derek. Can’t wait for that
I’m in agreement w/ A.Lynn and Tanya…
my attention span is about 4 sec… there’s a lot of noise on a lot of things some of which is not truly solving anything (for me that is).
your posts are #1 in my book. solidly good content. it took hours of sifting through a haystack to find your golden needle. for that I say THANKS : )
Depends on the target market. After 20 somethings? Sure. Where’s facebook mini chats? Aftter 40 something professionals? Then you need quality detailed posts.
There are several different types of personalities in each age range though.
I’m a twenty something, and believe me, I can read a long, detailed article. In fact, I prefer them if I’m actually going to learn something.
I also know 40-somethings who only use the web to login to Facebook and forward stupid chain emails… so there’s that.
See Nicholas Carr’s book called “The Shallows”. Would be great to see your poll results interwoven with themes from his book.
http://books.google.com/books?id=1KayoVl3OTMC&pg=PA249&lpg=PA249&dq=the+shallows+neil&source=bl&ots=3F43yRYp-M&sig=rTY_X1zhpW8FsYwSLPhPIpN6XlA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ye_IT9qkE5SK8QSN5qmTDw&ved=0CF0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false
When you are just browsing, yes. For someone who is just “hanging out” until someone updates Facebook or tweets something, it is hard to get their attention, since they aren’t looking for anything in particular.
However, I beleive the attention span for someone who “takes the bait” (whatever you consider “bait” to be) for some content is the same as with books or magazines: you pay attention until you find what you are looking for or get bored.
It could be seconds or even hours. Valuable, emotional or simply entertaining content will always get the someones attention. As they say, “time flyes whe you are having a good time”
Before 1440, when Gutenberg introduced the printing press, information was very scarce, and so the quality of the ‘content’ hardly mattered. But in today’s Google era, information as such is not scarce at all: it is only the *quality* of it that is scarce and valuable.
And yes, I don’t know the official research data about it, but personally I’m very impatient with bad content and quite patient with good.
Derek,
First, I appreciate the tips and insights you share on the blog and I like getting the email versions in my inbox–they are easy to skim and link to the post if I have time. Which brings me to comment on your question about short attention spans. I think we’re all really busy and there is so much information flying past our eyeballs and brains. Sadly, much of it is just noise anyway so it’s easy to call that short attention span syndrome, but it’s really not. I think readers are smarter than that.
Take a look back at the basic principles of journalism and you’ll find what works. First, a good hook will get them to the content and then once there the opening paragraph needs to cover the essentials of what the rest of the post is going to tell them. Readers need to know what the benefit will be in order to invest their valuable time to read further. Then, the post should have call-outs, sub-headings and other attention grabbing devices to pull the eye across and down the page. An authoritative voice often helps win the reader’s attention as does a good story. These are all classic tactics and they work.
But, you’re right. None of this will make up for bad content, or for me, bad grammar. The promise of good content, by way of the title, hook, or opening paragraph can not off-set the disappointment I feel when there is nothing to chew on and the post is merely self-promotion. It will stop me in my tracks and never go back.
I think bloggers should be students of the art of editing and of classic journalism. Not because of short attention spans, but because it is a proven formula. You can modernize it all you want but qualified readers will appreciate it and show their appreciation by returning time and again to your content.
Classic journalism is a proven formula for what, to keep people reading or taking action?
Merv Block might be great at writing news stories but how well is he at direct response copy?
Yes, having decent spelling and grammar in the copy is good, but it isn’t always the case nor should it be. Write conversational; is what I was trained for in producing news copy. Conversational writing isn’t always the most grammatically correct way of saying things.
As you said, For you grammar is a big thing, but is it for your readers? The true test is to check the analytics and see if anyone is taking the action you are guiding them to.
That’s exactly how I am. I have a very low tolerance for the things I don’t like on the internet.
I went to read an article covering a simple subject a few days ago. The write was so caught up using big words and massive amounts of fluff in his writing that I didn’t make it passed the first 3 sentences. Not because I can’t read, but there’s no reason to make something so simple seem so complex.
I left… just like that.
I love this topic Derek! People hear that web attention spans are short and then they want to design their site and marketing around that.
Every time I hear people say things like “my pages and posts need to be really short because no one really reads anything online and I don’t want to annoy them” a little piece of me dies!
It’s true that people are brutal with their attention online – if you don’t grab them, they’re gone pretty quick – but if you have great content they’ll eat it up and come back hungry for more.
I personally believe that people are bored and they’re crying out for someone to grab their attention and tell the truth about something that wakes them up.
If no one is reading my content, attention spans aren’t the problem, I am!
I think sometimes people do, sometimes they don’t!
On a a day where I feel busy and overwhelmed, I will take a quick look at my social media stuff, do what I need to do and move on.
On other days I may have time for a longer read so I visit my favorite blogs and sites. Hopefully others do the same with my site.
I agree fully. While reading the article I had to jump over to youtube to change my next song.
Without good content I would of never came back to post this, so good job!
-Mark R
Hi Derek,
I agree, bad content don’t deserve more than 9 sec of attention. If your content delivers value, it’ll increase the attention span.
If your content have a huge value, attention will skyrocket. That’s it.
For example, people stays more than 6 minutes on one of my blogs, that’s not magic. That’s because the content is extremely valuable.
Have a great day
Alexandre
Derek,
What you alluded to is also what I tend to observe with people’s content consumption behaviors. If a person finds a topic interesting, they will probably have more of an attention span for it. If, however, they are in “mindless surf mode”, stumbling away brainlessly, their state of consciousness at that moment does not allow for too much of an attention span.
So the real issue here is that people are all different. But that has been common knowledge now for about 100,0oo+ years. All one can do is produce what they believe to be valuable content, make it engaging using basic psychological trends and a bit of artistry, and do so persistently.
I think this is a key quote to keep in mind:
“Attention spans are short… for BAD content… for slow websites … and anything else that’s sleep inducing or aggravating.”
And this sentiment extends to reputation. If you launch your blogging career committing one of the egregious sins outlined above, even if you manage to improve upon these issues, you must work twice as hard to overcome the reputation your failings have built.
When the stories ‘look’ short my readers stay longer and read other stories more often. I now put longer stories on the weekend, when I hope folks have more time.
People don’t attend to anything that’s not interesting or anything that doesn’t make them impressive to themselves or others. Topic closed.
Hey Derek. Yep. I’m a believer! I do believe we have short attention spans, only when looking at things for the first time. When we dig stuff, we can lose ourselves in them. For example, I landed on your social triggers outfit, and immediately found myself indulging in your back content. Whatever answers I needed, you provided them immediately, and because your insights were deep and on a whole next level, I knew for sure that I could glean more knowledge from you through your blog. Trust and believe, I took steps because of it and have become an avid reader of your work.
But those initial seconds are crucial.
I think blogs and other web content are competing for attention against the overwhelming amount of STUFF the internet, TV and the world sends our way, every nano-second of the day.
People will read what interests or benefits them. Its that simple.
The Internet is a giant publishing machine.
It is a very evolved version of the Good old Newspaper.
The Newspaper in its simplicity perfected the way to connect
a messagge to its readers/users.
Catchy Hook or Headline intentionally designed to activate psychological triggers of the reader – graspable in a split second.
Function of a head or hookline is to capture the attention
of the reader and invite him to dive deeper into the subject.
This is the basic principle.
And yes nothing has changed the attention span is short, at first.
I think so too, because I’m guilty of it. But if you can learn the art of writing to capture a person’s attention to have them read your message from beginning to end and persuade them to take the action that you want them to take, then you have a valuable skill.
You’re right on the mark, Derek. Engage them quickly and they’re hooked.
My personal #1 reason NOT to check out a site? Slow load time.
Attention span is predicated by the actual depth of the persons pain, need, want or desire.
If it’s an urgent matter that requires a deep dive, you’d be surprised by how many hoops someone will jump through to get what they are looking for.
On the other hand, if you are trying to hit a mass audience with something that don’t yet know they have a need for, you better get to it quick…
At the end of the day it all depends on who they are, what they need and where they are in the process.
Very well-said!
There is definitely an issue with short attention spans but I also think people are conditioned to “scan” because the sheer amount of information out there is staggering. I keep finding more and more people want to talk over the phone than read text on a Website.
I bounce the second I get bad design thrown my way. Infuriating, really.
What is the point of it?
There is just no excuse anymore. It just shows laziness. And if you are lazy with design, then you are going to be lazy with my time.
Do people have long or short attention spans online? Both!
I’m a big fan of Drayton Bird, who’s a direct and digital marketing expert. In his book he talks about the internet’s “convenience paradox” – some people use the internet to save time, while others use it to waste time.
Many people, me included do both of these at one time or another. If I’m doing something boring like buying insurance I’m impatient and quick. I’ve recently been looking at new cars and have spent hours over that, following links in all directions and ending up with 12 tabs open on my browser before I know it!
As others have alluded to here, I think the mode you go in to depends on how genuinely excited you are by what you’re looking at. If it’s a necessary chore, you’ll be quick, if it’s something you’re interested in, that could be your evening gone!
Thank God for the internet for saving us enough time to waste on other, more interesting stuff!
I wish I had the 9 seconds back that it took to read your post.
Congratulations, you’re banned.
It’s true.
Just check your Google Analytics and see how long people are on your site and on each page.
What are the latest ideas on speeding up sites?
Sorry… I saw something cool over there. What were you saying?
Yup! Gotta go now.
While quality content is essential… many overlook the layout and styling of the blog post. Adding more than one image or a video and image to break up the content is a great way to not overwhelm the reader. Captivating images sell big content better than catchy phrases IMHO. Look at wolf-howl.com. Running a pretty bland Thesis… but uses badass images that really have no relation at all to the content. They just look cool.
Using special text boxes or other short code plugins gives you an easy way to breakup your long content into easier to digest chunks. The attention span is not just related to the quality of content, but also the visual presentation of that content. if it looks like 1000 words all in one bunch… readers will run away. If it looks visually interesting, they’ll start reading.. then you hope your is worth the read.
I agree that there are short attention spans but only for bad content. Even if you have a long article, and most of the articles on my blog are long, you can make the reading process easier for the reader. You’ve written about some of these things on DIY Themes and Social Triggers such as using a short sentence for the first sentence, using large font, lots of white space, use of headings to break up the text, images etc.
I don’t mind reading a long article if it’s quality but I won’t bother to read it if the font is too small, there are no paragraph breaks and it looks too cluttered.
And the thing is that article or page could be really valuable.
So the appearance and layout, in my opinion, make a huge difference to whether I will continue to read or not.
I’m not so sure it’s people’s actual attention spans, as much as the expectations that are laid out by the author, what it is they seek, and the ACTUAL returns they are seeing with their time as they progress through the piece.
I can count on you and other SEOs and marketers to pop out short one sentence paragraphs, bottom-line it, use the ‘correct’ typography, and all the rest of the very valuable items you present here.
But for a lot of everything else on the web, readers may be prepared to endure several pages of slop to get to the value. And as you regularly point out, there better be value, and it needs to be made apparent quickly.
An example comes to mind.
I was just thinking of this topic when I signed up for another guy’s free e-book yesterday, promising all sorts of great ideas and practices within, as you do with your (much more reasonable) 33 pager.
He made a big deal about his e-book being 241 pages. (You are actually a contributor in his book, incidentally). On the web as a free e-book, I’m not sure that’s a selling point. Someone buying it for a read on a plane may be different, however.
After weighing the pros and cons of signing up and reluctantly handing over my email to another stranger, I joined up. I was sent a monster pdf with 240+ pages all right. But as I scrolled, and scrolled, and scrolled, and scrolled, I found myself getting annoyed with all the blank pages, fluff, tables of contents, thank-yous etc… to where I just finally closed out and put it into the very long and dusty “read it later” bookmark, and moved on to my next task.
I’m sure there is good stuff inside (as I said you are in it) but it becomes an ROI factor, not an attention span issue.
Gotta go! Love your work!
I agree with everyone else on that short span is for low quality content but if the content is useful people will spend time on it. Is the short span the reason that this post is surprisingly “short”?!
Short is not the word, ultra short is. People want quick, move fast, look at images and voila disappear.
The issue of attention span can be seen in blogs like Viperchill.com which publishes lots of blog post. People who like the content usually spend hours going through the posts and perhaps more hours re-reading and taking notes. So yes awesome content gets people to read no matter how short their attention span is – but that this is not the case for every great content out there.
Two thoughts: (1) I read a feature article about a year ago where the tech writer said we are ‘losing the middle ground.’ He pointed out the explosion of tweets, posts, comments, and other brief yet frequent updates. He also pointed out the hunger for longer feature articles in monthly magazines, blog posts, novels, etc. But what is disappearing is the middle ground of weekly news magazines, medium length blog posts, etc. Interesting observation on his part, but I couldn’t find a link to that article…my apologies. (2) We are becoming birds of prey rather than grazing animals…eagles versus cows if you will. We used to ‘chow down’ on a consistent diet of offline books, newspapers, magazines, and TV-Internet era. We ate and digested content at a steady pace…no feast or famine for the cow! But as Internet era eagles we spend A LOT more time soaring at ‘scanning altitude’ looking for content to prey on. And with our picky palette, we glance quickly at a 100 things for every single time that we dive and dine on a feast of meaty richness. Green grazing has been replaced by blood red tasting!
“Do people have short attention spans on the web?”
Do birdies gotta sing and fishies gotta swim?
I know that the way your content is laid out makes it eaiser to read and absorb. For instance, I found myself not reading some of the comments because their pargraphs were just too much.
I respond to white space?
I also have to wonder if our being conditioned to a communication stlye of 140 characters makes things even worse?
I love to read the comments, but only the short ones.
Yep, I agree on the short attention span thing, but I don’t think it necessarily translates that good content is always immediately grabbing. It often takes some time to get into a good book, to reach the climax of a song, to catch the subtlety in something. I think a lot of great stuff is getting overlooked because of this, and it’s too bad. As a songwriter, I catch myself trying to adjust by writing tunes with a catchy intro instead of going for the buildup. I do think the people who are successful in this climate more often have quickly gratifying content, but to say that this is an accurate filter for good content is oversimplifying IMO.
Hey Derek,
Like some of the comments are saying, I think it all depends on the person, the blog, the subject, and, in my case (and probably other people, too), it depends on the situation.
Just now, for example, I sat down to start a project and then decided that I had to make some updates on a new blog instead. Then, since said blog is running Thesis, of course the first thing I saw on the dashboard was “The Myth of Short Attention Spans on the Web.” Click. And here I am.
Yes, short attention span for me just now.
Good title, by the way, and since this gets discussed a lot, I think about it a lot, and that’s why it grabbed my attention.
I think the topic can dictate it. When I’m buzzing around looking for good info on something techy or blog-related or a tutorial or something (with a short attention span because I’m trying to do something else), I want something that’s to the point. I want to scan and grab the gist of it, usually, not wade through anything I don’t need at that moment.
But when it’s something to think about and consider, then well-developed (possibly long) is more what I want. Jon Morrow’s recent post on Stephen King was around 3000 words or so, as are many of his posts, and while some people are probably scanning, others are reading the whole deal and thinking about it (I did because I have that book and I was fascinated with what he got from it).
Or thinking of JB Truant’s super-popular post on the universe not giving a flying fig about you–it grabbed me, pulled me in, and created a longer attention span for me than I might have had when I started reading. It was that good.
So I think it’s not so much that people have short attention spans in general (though some might), but that they do sometimes, and they might have (or choose to have) much longer attention spans in other situations with other topics. Or the quality of the writing can create a longer attention span, in a sense, if the person has time to read (or maybe might come back to read at their leisure later on).
So that’s my take, and clearly the subject matter held my attention long enough to write this though my own project didn’t
Yes, I believe people’s attention span is shorter than before.
I also believe some mass site designs have trained the people in short attention span and low level of involvement. They reward that and gather mostly types of people that don’t like going deep in a topic.
Also there are sites, where people spend time and are involved. I am on the opinion that the audiences are different. They may overlap, yet the reasons they visit the sites is completely different.
True, I myself have a varied span of attention depending on time of day/what I’m look at or for/how busy I am with other things at the same time.
The one thing that always makes a difference for me is images. No doubt somebody has already mentioned this but I have too short an attention span to read that many comments! Offer me a page of closely-worded text with no images, I’d be lucky to get past the first 5 lines. Offer me the same text split into chunks with images and I’ll get much further. Maybe even to the end…
Attention span is always tricky but I guess you have to find the common thread of interest and tweak it. You won’t get everybody, that’s not really possible, but a majority is always good news. If you can hook them in the first paragraph they’ll usually as least skim to the end. That’s a good start.
It’s a bit of a kindergarten mentality I think – pictures and bite-sized text – but it clearly works! It also makes a huge differnece to be using the right style/size of font and line spacing. After reading your article a while back on choosing the right font and size, I re-did our company website and it’s already made a HUGE difference! All it look for a bit of line spacing…
Attention span is a tricky one though. Even if you optimise your content it doesn’t necessarily people will listen to you. You have to write for your readers, offer them something they want and do it in a clear, concise manner. Don’t waste their time. Get to the point.
As David Ogilvy said:
“I don’t know the rules of grammar… If you’re trying to persuade people to do something, or buy something, it seems to me you should use their language, the language they use every day, the language in which they think. We try to write in the vernacular.”
I so agree. Personally, I move on if content does not grab me or is not something I am extremely interested in. There is just so much information available that it is easy to be on overload.
I’m anxious to read what you have to say about writing attention grabber and keeper content.
Thanks.
If a website is truly helpful, i.e. provides information that solves a problem, then it’s got my attention.
If the site provides great advice/ideas/insights etc, then I will come back and revisit. Some of those repeat visits will be longer than others, but that type of loyal traffic is what I’m after.
I want readers that will not only stay awhile, but that will also return often, and bring some friends along.
Derek,
There are so many variables that play into this, you can’t make a blanket statement (as you do in many of your posts) and come up with assumptions.
Good content is NOT the big reason for long attention spans.
Dave
It all depends on what we’re interested in.
On a personal note, sometimes content can be really badly written but if I, even slightly, GET the underlying message (the gist of it !!!) and I’ve learnt something new, then for me it was valuable.
Obviously if we just happen to land on a website as a result of someone posting some link on a Facebook page or just browsing, then the attention span might not be so great because that link was sort of random as apposed to going onto Google and LOOKING for something specific.
I like images in articles but if the article provides the information I am looking for I couldn’t care less about images either.
I think indivuality of content speaks louder than images and words together. What I mean is that if people can read your content and can sense your personality within the writing then ofcourse the attention spans are not so much of a problem. I mean when we read books, we read them in bits, so why is it different when a long blog article gets read in bits? It’s not really different is it?
Or is it ??
I think the point is that you just have to work harder to hold on to your audience because of the greater number of distractions. No one is saying it is impossible, but it is just so easy to click through to something else and never return!
I don’t think the problem is unique either, I suppose it’s a bit like TV, every time an ad break comes on and you start flicking through other channels there is a good chance you won’t return to that original program!
TV channels develop ways of encouraging the audience to keep watching (cliff hangers, what’s coming up next, etc) and web sites need to do the same.
Rather than this post, the comments driven by the community for this has got some really insightful views on the issue..
I think that it’s very easy to make the claim that short attention spans are a myth if you simply polarize good/bad and short/long content. But can you do this? No.
You can’t lump content into arbitrary no-value and has-value boxes, as value exists in a continuum and is also different for different readers. In much the same way, you can’t just say that an article is ‘bad’ or ‘short’ or ‘long’ or ‘amazing’ as these all exist along continuums too.
The value offered to the reader is what will keep them reading – if an absolutely insane level of value is provided, people will read on as long as you want them to. If the article doesn’t provide value, then they’ll skim over it or bounce. If the article provides some value, but isn’t necessarily ground-breaking, people may hang around and see what’s what.
If your content is shorter, it will keep more people reading regardless of how good/bad it is and how little/much value it provides – this is because people want a ROI (return on investment) on their time. This ROI can be neatly expressed as “value gained / time spent”. Think of it as a sliding scale, people will always read amazing content – but more people will definitely read shorter amazing content because the ratio of value gained over time will be better.
I hope you’re right, Derek.
If I was using me as an example I’d totally agree. I don’t have much experience yet to know for sure, but I do know this 9 sec thing seems to get banded about by some people because it sounds scary.
I really like how you used 1-sentence paragraphs in your …
Squirrel?
I think it depends on what the website is delivering.
I get very bored very fast when on Facebook or Twitter because it is mostly poorly written drivel; I really am not interested in what you have just had for lunch
.
I can be stuck on a website with material I find interesting for well over an hour. I found a new website the other day and must have read a good ten articles back-to-back. I just loved the author’s style and what he wrote interested me.
I have read many articles that claim a short piece is better, but I disagree; the length means nothing if the article is interesting.
Gawd, I have sucha man crush on you Derek!
I bought into the idea of short attention spans and told people to write for “Scanners”…
Then after some thought, after getting into copywriting and storytelling and even a few Black n Blues with you, I decided why not just create content that is more interestin’, more compellin’ and evokes curiosity… so the keep reading.