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.

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.

Squirrel?

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.

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 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.

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 ??

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

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.