What B2C and B2B marketers can learn from a viral post

"Unforgettable, that's what you are." That line describes what all marketers should strive for in their content. But they don't achieve it because they play it safe, repeating the same stock phrases everyone else uses -- especially in B2B that some have said should stand for Business to Boring.  Instead of captivating and converting your target market with such content, you bore your reader. 

I first wrote this blog a day before I saw the infographics shared by MagnaGlobal on B2B ad effectiveness supports it. While this makes perfect sense,  do bear in mind that that the 1773 LinkedIn users surveyed represent an exceedingly small sample size. To put it in perspective, I have over 4X as many connections on Linkedin profile, and many of my connections have far more followers than that. Though I find the results credible, I would really like to see this corroborated with a sample size of 50K or more.

\

What does it take to fall into the minority percentage that doesn't bore the reader? 

It take something that is truly original and relatable. Mammoth Cave National Park pulled that off by veering off the well-worn path of describing attractions like that. See the post on that here: Uncommon Marketing Content

This refreshing break from hyperbolic language that repeats cliches andthe admission that not everyone is going to be wowed by what you offer can definitely be applied to both B2C and B2B marketing. For B2Cs, the deodorant  you're selling will not turn your whole life around.  A drink will not make you popular. The dinner mix will grow boring if you serve it every night for dinner. 

For B2Bs: Drop the jargon and stop calling everything a game-changer or a paradigm shift when it is really just an incremental improvement over what is available. People will likely be disappointed if they are expecting to be that impressed. If they are not expecting that much, they are much more inclined to be happy with the results. 

Yes, ads typically do  exaggerate all these things, and that's just why you should stop trying to be just like everyone else, which is to say, utterly forgettable.   

Oh, and if you want some help with that, it happens to be what I do. Check out my site. 

Related: 

Aim higher than SEO for your marketing content

Ouroboros, an apt symbol for AI model collapse

by Ariella Brown

AI hits the ouroboros (sometimes written uroboros) stage. You've likely seen it in the form of a snake in a circle, eating its own tail. The ancient symbol also sometimes showed dragons or a wyvern, so I chose this engraving by Lucas Jennis intended to represent mercury in the 1625 alchemical tract "De Lapide Philosophico," for my illustration instead of just going with something as prosaic as "model collapse"

To get a bit meta and bring generative AI into the picture (pun intended, I'm afraid) here's an ouroboros image
made with generative AI. ked Google

Model collapse is what the researchers who published their take on this in Nature called the phenomenon of large language models (LLMs) doing the equivalent of eating their own tails when ingesting LLM output for new generation. They insist that the models should be limited to"data collected about genuine human interactions."

From the abstract:
"Here we consider what may happen to GPT-{n} once LLMs contribute much of the text found online. We find that indiscriminate use of model-generated content in training causes irreversible defects in the resulting models, in which tails of the original content distribution disappear. We refer to this effect as ‘model collapse’ and show that it can occur in LLMs as well as in variational autoencoders (VAEs) and Gaussian mixture models (GMMs). We build theoretical intuition behind the phenomenon and portray its ubiquity among all learned generative models. We demonstrate that it must be taken seriously if we are to sustain the benefits of training from large-scale data scraped from the web. Indeed, the value of data collected about genuine human interactions with systems will be increasingly valuable in the presence of LLM-generated content in data crawled from the Internet."

Shumailov, I., Shumaylov, Z., Zhao, Y. et al. AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data. Nature 631, 755–759 (2024).

Let me know in the comments which illustration you like more. 

How to increase traffic 16,500%: clickbait vs. reality

 

by Ariella Brown

I just attended an event with the title " Information Gain Content: How to Increase Traffic 16,500% by Going Above & Beyond with Bernard Huang." Did the session live up to its clickbait title?

Not at all. 

This wasn't necessarily Bernard Huang's fault. The presentation was hosted by the Top of the Funnel group that favors these types of large numbers that sound just specific enough that people may believe they are real.

Earlier this month, it offered "Social Copywriting Secrets: Building an Audience of 114,985 with Eddie Shleyner" I attended that one, too, and there was nothing in it that justified that number as the guaranteed result of some tactic you could apply. Shleyner just emphasized sticking to good, authentic storytelling to keep your audience engaged.

There were no easy-to-apply tricks in this session. If anything, it was about the reason the old tricks no longer work.  Huang explained that Google is currently applying its stated standard of Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness (E-E-A-T) in the context of its AI overview.

My main takeaway from this session was not that it's easy to increase your traffic on Google but that it simply has switched one set of algorithmic rules for another, now including its own AI reads on content and that this is not necessarily a good thing.

What bad about this? 

The bottom line is that Google is relying very heavily on consensus as well as pre-established authority. That means that it is very easy for the sites that have already built up big audiences and strong rankings on Google to leverage that to put out proclamations that will be accepted as true, especially when they are -- inevitably -- echoed by the wannabee followers and all those who pretend to be thought leaders by parroting what influencers already say.


In other words, truly original thoughts by those who are not just reinforcing group think will likely be buried. I did raise this question and wasn't wholly reassured by the answer. It was that, yes, Google expects all points of consensus on a particular topic to be represented. If they are not present, your content will be an outcast. The only way you have a chance to be noted is if you play the contrarian game by refuting the consensus views point by point. Not giving it that nod is SEO suicide.

And so we the current state of search is one that aims to homogenize information according to preset parameters from those already granted expert status where those who are not in line with the consensus will be buried in the obscurity of high number page results. 

This is truly the opposite of a democratic platform in which understanding of history and current events is allowed to rise or fall based solely on its own merit rather than the pre-established narrative. George Patton would be appalled. He's the one who said: "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."

Google's algorithms are designed to reward those who follow in the paths preset by others rather than really thinking for themselves. 

P.S. For the story behind the illustration above, see my LinkedIn post. 

Related:

Aim higher than SEO for your marketing

The 6 step plan that fails

What Edison can teach us about SEO

Put SEO in the picture

Follow Write Way Pro on LinkedIn and on Facebook.

You can also follow Ariella Brown.