For the past three months, I have engaged in an experiment. The question I wanted to answer was this: What is the best way to drive traffic to one particular link. I used social media to accomplish this, including blogs, facebook, and twitter. I also used a particular set of events to answer this question. In June, during the Southern Baptist Convention, and last week after NAMB dismissed Geoff Hammond and the GCR task force held a meeting in Atlanta.
Over the three months, here is what I discovered.
First, provocative titles hook people. The two most visited links on my blog during this period were, “The GCR is all about politics”, and “Dismantling NAMB”. The first occurred shortly after the SBC convention meeting in Louisville toward the end of June. The second just last weekend. The first post almost tripled the amount of traffic I normally get. The second post tripled the amount of traffic I normally get on the weekends. The title got people to the link. What caused them to read it was the content.
Second, provocative content creates viral traffic. What I saw almost immediately from these two posts was traffic coming from web-based email systems. In addition, I saw traffic coming from Baptist state conventions. What really intrigued me was when I saw traffic coming from newspapers. I then knew the post had created a stir, good or bad, within a certain segment of the internet, and at particularly provocative points in time.
In one post, I saw these two principles expressed apart from a time element. I did a post entitled “Images, Pornography, and Ministry”. This drew a good bit of traffic and got some discussion on at least one other blog. The title was certainly provocative, combining pornography and ministry. The content was also interesting. There was nothing really time-oriented about the post, though I admit I wrote trying to draw traffic via search engine traffic about a sex tape that had just hit the internet and was at the top of Google trends. However, there was not really any traffic coming from those searches; it mainly came from twitter, facebook and a couple of other blogs.
Third, interesting titles and/or content will draw those who are window shopping. If it is not what they are interested in, they won’t stay. My main focus in this blog is to see how multiple disciplines can be integrated, along with theology, to develop missional thinking and a missional lifestyle. I generally write for myself; it’s a way to process what is in my head. Traffic I get through searches focus primarily on three themes: missional theology, depression in ministry, lonely pastor. Recently, with the posts I put up about the SBC, GCR task force was a major traffic draw as well. Some get the feed reader, some are looking for images, and some just go away. I really want to be known for the non-provocative, integrative material I write. Some people are interested. But certainly, it doesn’t get the traffic a provocative post will attract.
Finally, if you don’t post about what people are interested in, you get no traffic. You need to either write about what people are interested in, or get people interested in what you are writing about.
My conclusion, then is the following: The easiest way to draw blog traffic is to go provocative both in title and content.
If the two extremes are provocative and getting traffic or uninteresting content resulting in no traffic, then what is the middle? Interesting, non-provocative traffic and/or the ability to get people interested in what you are writing.
Does this have anything to do with our communication processes in the church? I think it does. First, you can go all provocative and draw a crowd. However, what happens when the titles and content aren’t as interesting? What happens when the creativity wains? This really does create a scenario where you have to continue to be provocative and über creative because you have conditioned the audience this way. Second, if you communicate something that is completely uninteresting to people, no one will show up. Another option is to communicate content some people are interested in, eventually communicating content that at some point has interested everyone at some point. Finally, you can work hard so that on most occasions, you can create interest in your content.
I saw a tweet over the weekend noting that someone popular said “Consumers don’t become disciples.” That is a big statement (an one right now I agree with). This is the real issue; it is one that even Jesus faced. When the discussion moved to taking up a cross and following Jesus, the crowd got thin. Only disciples followed that content, and as Peter said, “Where would we go if we did leave you Jesus?”
Here is the big question I hope to address in future post: How do you get people interested in what you are talking about? Jesus did. You too, I believe, can do it.
Popularity: 2% [?]
David is an entrepreneur, pastor, coach, and author. He has his doctorate from George Fox Seminary where he studied under Len Sweet, his M.Div. from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and has done post graduate work in communications from the University of Alabama and the University of South Florida. He lives with his wife Brenna Phillips in Smyrna, DE. 
I’ve been doing my own research as well and found similar things.
When I write provocative titles with IMB or SBC in them my hits go sky high.
When I write about subjects other than missions or missional…I get a decent amount of hits but very little if any comments. I tried a provocative sex title and got nothing.
So I guess my core audience is into missions and missional. And they like provocative titles and posts.
Provocative titles and content definitely drive traffic, and I think it fits with you thesis that communication is an emotional enterprise.
We need to be careful to not be provocateurs, however. At the risk of offending some – I think Rush Limbaugh is a provocateur – he just want’s to get people fired up, he’s not really interested in communicating for change.
Jesus carefully weighed his words so that the provocation was in balance with the emotions and the change. He didn’t have to push too hard to communicate with the sinners and tax collectors – they were engaged by the message that they might be forgiven. However, he pushed really hard with the religious establishment and provoked them to anger numerous times.
James, I would agree with you about how provocative we get. It really does become a fine line doesn’t it?