Brian Clark is a tremendous blogger and copyblogger is a tremendous blog. You’d hope so, really — the guy is a copywriter and devotes his blog to passing on the tips of the trade. Really valuable information for anyone involved in writing at any level.
This week, he’s been holding a poll on whether or not he should use the term ‘linkbait’ any more. This post is my vote. The gist of the argument is that if we agree that ‘linkbait’ is simply compelling content, then we shouldn’t be using what sounds like a disparaging term for it. The new word for this stuff is ‘viral copywriting’, which would have sounded even worse a couple of years ago, but now sounds very cool.
My vote on the issue is to continue to call “linkbait” what it is. Linkbait-y blog posts are not ‘compelling content’. They are deliberately written to get people to strongly agree or disagree, and then write about them on their own blogs or submit them to social news engines like digg and reddit. They have titles like ’10 Reasons Why Microsoft Vista Will Ruin The Company’ or ‘iPhone Heralds End of Humanity’. That’s the sort of thing you see on digg’s front page every day. It gets people excited.
But in my view, it’s not at all good news for the quality of writing on the web. It makes people want to write an article people will link to, rather than the article they were really able to put together. Probably these would have titles like ‘4 Reasons I Don’t Fancy Upgrading to Vista’ and ‘Why I Probably Won’t Buy an iPhone’. The truth is normally banal; deal with it. Linkbaiting, on the other hand, drives people to extremes and it gets in the way of the truth.
Getting linked to is generally a good thing from a Google and a profile perspective; hitting the digg front page feels very nice (I expect). However, when someone forces themselves to write something they probably wouldn’t do otherwise solely in order to achieve these aims, they’re probably not being true to themselves. I think that’s more important. It’s the difference between writing and copywriting.
Technorati: blogging, blogs, writing
Share this post:
Every once in a way something comes along on digg that makes me think for a moment (it’s rare, but it happens) this was one of those moments.
thank you.
*Thank you* for such a kind comment.
Linkbait reminds me of tabloids; there might some truth involved but most of it is S$#T! :)
You most welcome!
Just realized that my comment really looks like linkbait (positive linkbait? ).
Oh the irony.
But I really meant what I said. On a good day, digg has 1 link which makes you think a bit and learn something new. This was that link.
Want irony? This post currently has 13 diggs.
To be fair, I reckon there’s a substantial portion of users like yourself, who are sick of this nonsense.
Oh, by the way, I like the picture of “links” for this post!
Hi Bob. Great stuff. Was worried it might be a bit of a leap for readers. Good to know it’s not
I agree — there is a definite difference between link bait and other forms of content. The clearest analogy is an article that essentially reports the news (who won the Super Bowl) vs. something that is totally sensationalist as in Katie Holmes Topless that you’d find in some tabloid.
While it’s true, all sites want people to link to them and have as many viewers as possible, there’s no question link bait could at worst be seen as a form of “gaming” for increased traffic, links, and readership.
Just as we differentiate a “blog” from a “splog” one between “link bait” is useful.
How about simply ‘viral copy’? ‘linkbait’ is bad, but ‘viral copywriting’ doesn’t sound all that friendly either.
Good tips! Thanks for sharing these. I got some ideas too. But yours are more exciting.
given the fact that linkbaiting creates a network of sorts, does google have any actions against linkbaiting?
Good point. I’d like to think so. As you’ll have gathered, I think the techmeme pile-ons and the 10-top lists are the lowest common denominator.