Roses May Be Red, But Are Views Really True Blue?

THE DYNAMIC DUO OF DISSENSION EATS EYEBALLS FOR BREAKFAST...

Preface: When Jim Murray and I first agreed to co-author this series, we saw it as a literary experiment. We thought it might be fun but didn't know for sure. As our first online exchange had ended with Jim telling me to go f$#k myself.

Well, little did we know. We're now in our third year and this is our 29th installment. And if we do say so ourselves, we've developed a rep for not pussyfooting around touchy subjects. For "politically correct" is not to be found in our conceptual framework.

However, in our view, these exchanges are not about us, but about engagement with our readers. Which is why we invite you to join the conversation.

PHIL: Jimbo, you and I have been bickering back and forth for a while now about the relative merits of LinkedIn and beBee. And speaking bluntly, it seems to me these days you’re carrying around a rather large wrench in your front pocket for LI.

Not that I blame you in the least. Fact is LinkedIn used us independent writers shamelessly to help build its user base in 2013 to 2016, made promises to support us in our efforts to build our individual networks of readers, then shat all over us by reneging on those promises.

But be that as it may, your unbridled enthusiasm for beBee seems to me to cross over, at times, into Hyperbolic Boosterism ― otherwise known as Rose-Garden Marketing. So much so that, IMO, you’ve earned the title of Grand Poohbah of beBee Brand Ambassadoring. [Bronx cheer, here.]

As you’ll remember, the last time you and I had a verbal punch-up about beBee versus LinkedIn, we agreed that, when we published HE SAID HE SAID installment #28, you’d do so on beBee and I’d follow suit, in parallel fashion, on LinkedIn. And that we’d then see how each respectively performed in terms of Reach and Engagement.

https://www.bebee.com/producer/@jim-murray/volume-28-wherein-grumpy-grouchy-ponder-whether-or-not-the-personal-brand-is-really-a-thing

https://www.bebee.com/producer/@jim-murray/volume-28-wherein-grumpy-grouchy-ponder-whether-or-not-the-personal-brand-is-really-a-thingttps://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/personal-branding-clarity-confusion-phil-friedman

Well, here are the results, as of today:

Now, I anticipate you will point triumphantly to the 2,700 “nominal” views shown for beBee versus the 210 nominal views shown for the same article on LinkedIn.

But, I submit that we have to take the adjective “nominal” seriously because neither you nor I nor anyone outside of beBee and LinkedIn has the slightest idea of how a “view” is calculated. Consequently, I believe we’re forced treat the raw stats on views as is, without making any direct comparison between the two platforms on their basis.

What we can do, is compare the indicators of “engagement”, namely, the Likes (Relevants), Comments, and Shares across the two platforms. And we can compare those indicators intra-platform to the nominal exposure of the piece to the potential audience ― that is, compare the number of Likes, Comments, and Shares on a given platform to the nominal number of views or Reach indicated.

As you can see, the absolute numbers in terms of the Engagement indicators are slightly in favor of beBee in this case, although if measured respectively against the claimed “views”, LinkedIn kicks butt for level of response. Sorry about that, Mr. Poohbah.

JIM: No need to apologize, my humble plebian friend. But you are as experienced as I am in the ways and means of research, and what you have done is rather thoroughly analyze a sample of one.

I cannot disagree with your findings and the methodology you have employed to determine these values.

But what I can do is point to both of our accumulated stats on beBee and LinkedIn and state unequivocally that, regardless of any relative whatchamacallits, we both have managed to build a much more solid following overall here on beBee than there in the Lumpy Kingdom.

I point to some of the posts you have done that have created astronomical levels of engagement in terms of comments and discussion. Myself, not so much. But then, as individuals, we both have different approaches to blogging. Your style is much more confrontational (a good thing), whereas mine is more expository or didactic (also a good thing, I think) when I am not being the raging editorialist.

To me, it all comes down to impressions and comments from the people in my audience that I respect. I get almost nothing in terms of commentary from LI when I post the exact same article as I do on beBee. And my page views there fluctuate like the proverbial toilet seat,

My feeling, and it is a bit of a wrench, is that the LinkedIn audience has become worn down from all the effort it takes to read and comment and still have time to get out there and eke out a living.

On beBee, the feeling I get is that the audience is much more willing to be engaged and it shows in the numbers, regardless of the alchemy used to calculate how they actually turn into success rates

This may have to do with the reality that many of the people who followed me over in the Lumpy Kingdom are now here and the ones who are still there, don’t really like the idea of leaving the site to read a blog post, which posting a beBee link on my feed does. (I steadfastly refuse to spend one-minute posting on Pulse. It is a dead zone as far as I am concerned).

Or maybe I’m just doing a better job of cultivating my following here. After all for about a year or so I was a lot more cynical than usual on LI.

The other influencing factor could be that there is, I believe, more influence gained through sharing here on beBee than there is on LI. And more people willing to share posts that they like or find useful.

As usual, it’s never any one thing, but a combination of things working together that make things happen.

If you would like to take issue with any or all of the aforementioned, please have at it. I personally don’t think you have a leg to stand on, but then you have proven me wrong many times in the past.

PHIL: Granted, one cannot generalize reliably from a single instance. However, I’d point out that it was you who threw down the gauntlet on this particular issue and suggested that we publish our next He Said He Said simultaneously, but separately on beBee and LinkedIn and “see what happens.” So don’t now join the ranks of WhineMeisters International ? now.

Seriously, Jim-Bob, I’m not saying that we can draw any general conclusion from the results tabulated in this single instance. What I am saying, though, is that the obvious anomaly of the beBee and LinkedIn posts having roughly equal reader “engagement”, but such radically differing claims as to “views” leads me to suspect the validity of the beBee “view” count or, at least, the methodology for counting “views”.

Doesn’t it strike you as odd that the posting of HSHS No. 28 on LinkedIn tallied almost as many expressions of reader response as did its posting on beBee, yet the reported “views” on beBee were more than 12 times those on LinkedIn?

To my mind, there are only two alternative conclusions to be drawn from this anomaly: 

1) the vast bulk of readers on beBee are either indifferent or inactive, or

2) the nominal view counts that seem to make you and others feel so good are just a version of MMJ (Medical Mary Jane).

To move on to your frustration with dwindling reach on LinkedIn, let me say for the record I am certainly not an apologist for LinkedIn. In fact, for years, I’ve roundly criticized LI’s algorithmic control of the distribution of long-form posts. See, for example, my LI piece, “Take Your Algorithm and Shove It!” .

Moreover, I’m a staunch supporter of the kind of organic distribution to which beBee is nominally committed ― namely, distribution of 100% of a writer’s posted articles to 100% of that writers self-elected “followers” 100% of the time. For me it’s a matter of #LETTHEAUDIENCEDECIDE.

However, you need to understand, Jim-Bud, that your frustration with LinkedIn is self-fulfilling because the LI algorithm rewards those who are more active with wider distribution and punishes those who are less active by choking down their distribution.

Consequently, the more pissed off you become, the more you withdraw from activity on LI and the less exposure the platform gives you… and the less exposure you receive, the more you withdraw from being active and the even less exposure you receive, so the… well, you get the idea ― I think.

A few months ago, having been given the boot from the ranks of beBee Brand Ambassadors (because I “wasn’t doing enough for beBee”), I began increasing my activity on LinkedIn, where I have somewhat over 3,500 connections and followers.

The result is that my posts on LI are once again consistently pulling exposure numbers in the high hundreds, with several business-related posts reaching above a thousand “views”, and with one of my recent business-related updates reaching nearly 7,000 views on LinkedIn against only 500 on beBee. ( https://tinyurl.com/y8uu7bw9 )

So, why is my current experience on LinkedIn so different from yours, Jimmy-Gee? I can’t say for sure, but I suspect it’s because:

1) I’m more active on LI than you are these days, posting in native format, commenting, liking, and sharing content. Which, no doubt, strokes the algorithm.

2) I have more than 3,500 established connections and followers there, people who, for the most part, know me and many of whom I know offline as well as online (certainly, the nearly 1,000 who are colleagues of mine in the marine industry).

And, perhaps most importantly…

3) Because a high proportion of my writing and posting activity is heavily business- and professionally-oriented, and as I have come to believe that there are more genuine business people on LinkedIn than on beBee ― by a multiple of at least three digits.

That is not a swipe at beBee, but only what I believe is a non-judgmental, factual observation. And one, BTW, which is supported by the fusillade of averse reactions you received recently when you posted a piece on beBee about your and Charlene Norman’s new “Bullet Proof” marketing venture and partnership.

https://www.bebee.com/producer/@jim-murray/bullet-proof-the-ideal-alignment-of-business-organization-communication-91371

So, how da ya like dem pickled pork rinds, Jimmy-John?

JIM: Well, first of all, I would not call a couple of disgruntled postal workers’ comments anything close to a fusillade, more like the Tempest In A Teapot as Anne Thornley-Brown so aptly described it.

Secondly, you’re right about my attitude towards LinkedIn. They tell you they have half a billion users, but, come on. How many of those users have just created a profile there as a condition of their employment? How many of those users are scammers, and MLM-ers, how many of them are avatars and how many of them are once a year whether they need to be there or not visitors?

Bottom line is that while we share a lot as writers, we are in quite different businesses. We both have our reasons for fishing where we think the fish are, and they are probably valid. If you’re getting the kind of views and engagement you are looking for over in the Lumpy Kingdom, more power to you.

I don’t really have the time, nor do I have the inclination to do what needs to be done on two sites, so I have chosen beBee.

I like the newness of it. I like that I feel a lot freer to range in my subject matter because of the way things are set up here. I like the idea of being an Ambassador and feeling like an integral, albeit it, small part of the marketing of the site. I like the attitude of a lot of people I have met here. In short, I like the quality of user experience I have, as opposed to what I used to have on LI even when I was firing on all cylinders there.

Now maybe what you are saying about how page views are figured out is right. But maybe it’s not. I don’t know, and frankly neither do you. And maybe, if you started monitoring it regularly you would find that the page view to engagement ratio is higher for you over on LI. Or maybe you wouldn’t. I think there might be too many variables to establish a genuine pattern.

But, to me personally, none of that shit matters, because my reason for publishing on beBee has less to do with getting business or the response calculus of the site than it does with simply developing relationships and a following as a writer. Which I believe is happening.

So for me, beBee is a decided preference to LI.

But at the end of the day, you make your bed and sleep in it, my dear fellow. You evidently have made yours in the Lumpy Kingdom, me in the hives of beBee. Higher mathematics and predictive analysis are riding very much in the rumble seat of my old jalopy. But they may very well be the horse that’s dragging your chuck-wagon around.

Vive la difference, amigo.

PHIL: Well, Jim, you know that I can live with that.

To be clear, I think you are echoing one of my main points ― which is different strokes for different folks or… choose whatever MMJ rocks your cradle.

I’m not so sure, however, that the difference in how we see this has to do with, as you suggest, being in different businesses. Rather, I tend to think it has more to do with having different objectives in writing and publishing.

As I see it, your objectives focus around, in your words, “… simply developing relationships and a following as a writer.” With which I have absolutely no argument. After all, it is solely your prerogative to see your writing and publishing activity on social media as an end in itself.

Naturally, I am somewhat skeptical of your claim to that being your only objective, since you manage pretty consistently to include in your “content” a very healthy dose of self-promotional marketing. Which marketing has all the earmarks of seeking to generate marketing business ― witness your new Bullet Proof marketing venture with Charlene Norman.

Now, I can comfortably grant you would likely be just as happy writing and publishing on social media even if you never sold anything as a result of doing it. I get that, I really do.

And if you don’t give a damn whether the nominal view counts you’re racking up on beBee are real, who am I to say you should? All I’m saying is that, if it doesn’t matter, why not discontinue using the comparison of view counts as a reason for others to join beBee?

As you’ve amply pointed out, there is a plethora of good reasons to be on beBee, so why inject a questionable one into the mix?

Now me, I’m different. I distinguish between my business/marketing-related writing from that which I do purely as self-expression and an invitation to intellectual exchange. And when it comes to my business-related writing, what I’m doing fits fairly well with an enlightened definition of “content and inbound marketing.”

Which is why I am personally concerned to understand the relative merits of the different major social media platforms, as they relate to the generation of both offline and online business, which is why it vexes me that social media moguls continue to refuse to explain how view counts are calculated on their respective platforms.

And why I continue to poke them in the eye about it.

JIM: Just a short rebuttal here, Phil, and then you can wrap up this session.

A) A big part of the blogging I do here has to do with how to help people get better at it. And because a lot of people, (not necessarily me included), do use their writing as a way to attract business, I tell them not to be afraid to promote themselves. So I do it myself, mostly to show them the various ways it can be done.

Whether this is a benefit to my business personally remains to be seen. But I do believe in the principle of self-promotion through blogging if only to solidify relationships with my audience. To me, anything over and above that is icing on the cake, as it were.

B) I promote page views because they are, to many people, an indication of forward progress in their blogging. They may or may not mean much in the absolute sense, but if they are building over time, it's one of those "encouragement" factors that people use to gauge their progress.

PHIL: “Short” rebuttal, Jimmy-Bee? Short is a line or two… not a dozen or more. Although I guess I should be the last one to pass judgment on being long-winded.

Anyway, I take absolutely no exception to your encouragement of people to self-promote. I think you and I are agreed that the core of “content marketing” is the offering of original, independent value to the reader and that whatever self-promotion one elects to do should be layered on top of that base.

Beyond that, there are many different potential objectives in people blogging or writing online in general and on social media in particular. And who is to say which are “valid” and which are not? Certainly not you or I.

I’m simply saying that, whatever one’s objectives are, it’s best to be clear on how and whether those objectives are being accomplished.

― Phil Friedman and Jim Murray

Postscript:  Please keep in mind that JimMurray can, and always will speak for himself. He has also published his own parallel version of this HE SAID HE SAID No.29 on beBee. So, you are free to post comments directed to either Jim or me, on either his post or mine here. You will always get an answer one way or the other.

Author's Notes: If you found this interesting and would like to receive notifications of my writings on a regular basis, click the [FOLLOW] button on my LinkedIn profile. Better yet, you can arrange on this page to follow my "blog" by email. As a writer-friend of mine says, you can always change your mind later.

Feel free to "like" and "share" this post and my other articles — whether on LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, beBee, or Google+, provided only that you credit me (and in the case of "He Said He Said", Jim as well) properly as the author(s), and include a live link to the original post.

About me, Phil Friedman: With 30 some years background in the marine industry, I've worn numerous hats — as a yacht designer, boat builder, marine operations and business manager, marine industry consultant, marine marketing and communications specialist, yachting magazine writer and editor, yacht surveyor, and marine industry educator. I am also trained and experienced in interest-based negotiation and mediation. In a previous life, I was formally trained as an academic philosopher and taught logic and philosophy at university.

Before writing comes thinking (the optional-to-read pitch): 

As a professional writer, editor, university educator, and speaker, with more than 1,000 print and digital publications, I've recently launched an online program for enhancing your expository writing: learn2engage — With Confidence. My mission is to help writers and would-be writers improve their thought and writing, master the logic of discussion, and strengthen their ability to deal with disagreement.

For more information, click on the image immediately above. Or to schedule an appointment for a free 1/2-hour consult or to sit in on one of our online group sessions, email: [email protected]. I look forward to speaking with you soon.