Community Discussion: Can 10x content be short-form content?

[Christy-Correll]

In his (intentionally very short) post on Tuesday, Rand makes the case that long-form content isn't necessarily great content:

"Rather than applying a tactic like long-form content universally or setting length as the bar (or even a metric) for greatness, we instead match our content to our audience's needs and our business/personal goals. 700 more words will not help you reach your goals any more than 7 more words. Create content that helps people. Do it efficiently. Never write an ultimate guide where a single image could more powerfully convey the same value. Trust me; your audience and your bottom line will thank you."

I think this is something we all struggle with as online marketers, in one way or another.  As someone who casually consumes online content on a regular basis, this also resonates with me on a personal level.

I'm curious, what are your hesitations with focusing on shorter-form content that packs a wallop, and what excites you about it? Can you think of any examples of content you've come across that you consider 10x short-form content?

[MoosaHemani]

If one is creating content that is addressing to the target audience and answer their questions, clearing their confusing it’s a good content, and we have several great examples of it. Let’s say if someone is new to the SEO, Moz’s beginners guide to SEO will answer all their questions and clearing all the possible confusions that a person will have in his head with regards to SEO.

To me, 10X content is something that not only answers the questions or clearing the confusions but also nurtures the reader to go a step further. For instance, if someone is looking for live chat software… the content that shows you the list of tools to choose from (with pros and cons of each tool) is a good content… it’s answering the question.

But, 10X content is when you move further and tell them wherever software you use, this is how you should be using it to get the maximum out of it. This way you are not only answering the question but you are also educating them further…this according to me is a 10X content.

Ideally, I think 10X content has nothing to do with the length of content. I don’t really have to give the examples of “ultimate guides” that offer nothing new to the audience. On the other hand, Rand’s post is kinda example of 10X content that actually motivate people to get out of the long-form short-form content formula…

In my opinion, length of the content has nothing to do with 10X content. As far as you are answering your audience’s question, clearing their confusions and nurturing them to think and act further you are creating 10X content and you should be proud of it.

I may be wrong but this is what I think about 10X content.

[EGOL]

I have been a "long form" and "beat their content" kinda guy for a long time.  I am sure that my competitors and my visitors expect that out of me.  It's what I expect out of myself.  Attitude is really important in most competitive endeavors.

Before I start working on content, I look at what's out there and make a judgement on my abilities to beat it.  If I don't have the resources and abilities to compete, I don't compete.   Don't step into the ring with the heavyweights and expect  things will turn out pretty.  AI lot of people are not honest with themselves or are fooled that 10X length is 10X quality.

I am not going to say that my site is full of 10x content.  If I can produce 2x, I think that I have killer stuff.  1.5X is fantastic.  There is some stiff competition out there.  Honestly, 10x against the rest of the world is going to be waayyyy too expensive, extremely rare, honestly, impossible for me to produce.  I'd rather spend the same money on five 2x articles or nine 1.1X articles.   Most of them will be at or near the top of Google a year or so later.

Some sites are defined by their long form content.  These sites are often built around encyclopedia-type articles.  If your goal is to beat Wikipeidia for a one-word query, you better have good stuff and a lot of it.   I have not seen any brilliant stubs up there for a long time - not even on wikipedia.org.

One of the major values of long form content is its word diversity which qualifies it to rank for lots of long tail keywords.  You start making money from the long tail before the head brings in anything.  The long tail funds the sustained attack and might make you a profit even if the head attack fails.

I will admit that I don't read to the end of most articles that I click into.  I start reading at the top and then scan when I've got the gist.  The solution was described by Dan Petrovic, who presented on inverted pyramid writing in a recent Whiteboard Friday.  Begin with a defining paragraph and then add deeper content and surprises below.  II believe in what he said about hypotext and subheadings, but I wouldn't use any "click to view" formatting.  I would put all of the text out into the open because I believe that "click to view" content does poorly in longtail.

I think that your audience is really important.   If you run a popular news site and your audience comes straight to you daily then you can really kick ass with short form content that is big on panache.  That kind of content will also be shared like crazy.  Here 10X content can be short.

(ADDED:  If you read today's post on the Moz Blog by Eric Eng, you will see how much traffic The Atlantic and other sites can immediately receive from Facebook.  If you have an audience that will share your content socially a short viral article can be kickass.  So, this is a way that a site without much SERP presence or a direct audience can win with 10X short form.  However, it is really hard for most authors - even professional viral writers - to produce that type of article - even if they are intentionally trying to produce it.)

However, if yours is a site that has an audience that arrives from search, from one word queries or multi-word queries, then you better have a strategy to please Google first or you will get no traffic.  From my experience, Google likes long form content with a diversity of keywords, written with precision and accuracy.  I have been betting my money on that for a long time.  I enjoy panache but I don't think it will work when the reader wants deep nitty gritty or are looking for specific facts that are not in the quick presentation.

[RobertFisher]

Good points Erica. "We should be building content (and our sites) around what people want to know."

I think that statement is 10x content. If you are answering the query and providing the info you have nailed it. You do not need a ton of words or interactivity, etc. I do think that terms like this (10X content) become overused and then misunderstood as the result. Frankly, if I hear of one more firm that does "content management" as a sub specialty or specialty I will hurl.

If you look at what I wrote, "Who is the audience, what do they want to know, how are we going to surprise them or move them, etc.," it doesn't require more than one person to pull that off. But, even if you are a one-person shop, you can't just write a bunch of stuff and assume you are giving the reader what they wanted unless, IMO, it is in a fairly narrow band vertical of some sort.

Good points, though.

[EricaMcGillivray]

I'm pretty tired of the term "10x" whether it's applied to content, marketers, or hell engineers. There's a huge toxic idea that in order to have 10x content, you must have the team and other resources to pull this off. In fact, in many cases and many of Rand's examples, there are big teams with lots of resources putting it together, and this actively discourages those who struggle to get the basics implemented due to bandwidth and other resources. (Which I think the examples misalign with the quote, which I generally agree with that sentiment.)

To me, 10x content is just getting your community/customers/visitors to the information they actually want to know about. Think about how many badly put together sites rank in the Google Knowledge Box. Google isn't (necessarily) putting big value on how gorgeous the execution is, but how useful it is for what people actually want to know. We should be building content (and our sites) around what people want to know. The crap content out there serves no actual person, and it never has.

[RobertFisher]

Christy,

First thank you as you made me go look at Rand's examples of 10X content and there are some good ones there. (Though I loved #4). 
The most important question you raise to me is:  "what are your hesitations with focusing on shorter-form content that packs a wallop, and what excites you about it?" The hesitations are that for us as an agency with copywriters and others responsible for content that we will not do the creative work to truly create 10X content. Then, there is no length to go with no POW! ZAP!! BOOM!!! Even though I know length works for little or nothing, something about not creating something quality when you have no true length requirements bugs me more.

What excites me about 10X content are two things: First, as a reader or consumer of content I know how annoyed I get when I read a catchy title or a title about something that interests me and I start to read but when I am two paragraphs in I realize there is nothing yet that inspires or provides information that is relevant or new. Second, I know that clients are time starved business people and if you create something for them that is quality they are blown away by it. I love being in a client meeting when the client says to the strategist something like: "I have had three different people comment on this; it was great!"

The key IMO is in the planning. Who is the audience, what do they want to know, how are we going to surprise them or move them, etc. As they used to say in the print world long ago and far away... "What's the hook?" etc.

Really good discussion point to get all thinking about whether or not we are contributing to web spam or web renaissance.

Thanks