Click-bait. Clever or lazy marketing?

[StevieBee]

Take a look at this.



The story relates to first practice where it's common for up and coming drivers to be given a shot but the inference is that Lewis is being swapped out for the whole GP. I knew this of course, but had to check and am then bombarded with a website cluttered with ads so Talk Sport get an additional click-through stat to add to their offer to advertisers whilst I've wasted 30 seconds of my day having not recalled a single ad that I saw.

I get it - I work in the ad sector - but haven't made my mind up whether it's clever or lazy or annoying. Or even dangerous.

[Spare tyre]

I try to avoid anywhere that uses this sort of tactic

I also try and avoid places that have click bait prices, or you are after some shoes find a pair your want after filling a link for £50

Turns out only size 4 in sparkle colours is that cost and not available, the rest are 200

[Adenauer]

I unfollowed LadBible exactly because of this sort of thing.

I can understand it but they have to find a balance, and that seems very difficult for some companies as soon as they see the clicks and revenue go up, surely it must drop at some stage when people get pissed off by it and leave?

[mmm-five]

StevieBee said:

I get it - I work in the ad sector - but haven't made my mind up whether it's clever or lazy or annoying. Or even dangerous.

They're only clever if the punter keeps clicking them...if the punters start ignoring them completely then they're pointless...or will drive punters away from that platform/content.

[YorkshireStu]

It's lazy, annoying and deliberately misleading.

Sadly it works because there are a lot of folks out there who can't recognise it. Today we live in a 'fake news' World where everywhere you look there is an air of deceit for gain.

We have to side-step it all. Happily, it is becoming more and more obvious as so many more are doing it so even the most gullible will hopefully cotton on at some point and the Marketers bounce rates lead to the opposite of what they intended.

[NDA]

StevieBee said:

I get it - I work in the ad sector - but haven't made my mind up whether it's clever or lazy or annoying. Or even dangerous.

I'm in the same industry.

I am also old enough to remember when publishers could (and would) be held accountable for fraudulent edit and ad copy. Social media manages to essentially claim that they are merely the delivery mechanism and not the publisher - which is how this kind of cr@p is allowed. I realise not in all cases - but as a vast generalisation they do.

It's lazy, annoying, dangerous, fraudulent and moronic.

Social media, particularly X/Twitter is a cesspit.

[MitchT]

I ended up blocking at least one sport page on Facebook because, as an experienced F1 supporter, I could tell immediately that sensationalist headlines they were posting were clickbait.

[Mr Penguin]

It's definitely annoying and in some cases can be dangerous because people don't always click but do share the sentiment in the headline.

[Spare tyre]

Mr Penguin said:

It's definitely annoying and in some cases can be dangerous because people don't always click but do share the sentiment in the headline.

Yes numerous times our local paper has had something like court roundup - pedo Thrown in jail

Then a stock picture of some fella who was in court for stealing a McFlurry 4 years ago, exiting the court


You could imagine the locals getting a bit excited over that without reading the detail

[Panamax]

When I find I've been tricked by that sort of rubbish I never return to the site again.

But then it's not often I buy the Daily Starr either. (sic)
https://www.inpublishing.co.uk/articles/e28098fred...

[Gigamoons]

The comedian Russel Howard did an entertaining but very accurate sketch about modern media / clickbait tactics.
3m50s to 5m50s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U26-D-7Ey2w

Edited by Gigamoons on Thursday 23 November 10:55

[OldSkoolRS]

I sometimes see links at the side of Facebook saying things like 'It's a sad day as we say goodbye to <insert celebrity name here>' though I never click on them, sometimes I'll search on Google to see if their name brings anything up.

I wouldn't say I'm immune to falling for clickbait, but I'm pretty cynical so I'm maybe not their target audience, but if I do find something has tricked me to click, then once bitten, twice shy as they say. It works once, then never again for me, so it's not very clever, especially examples like the shoes one above that turns out the only deal available is priced much higher than the clickbait headline.

[Gigamoons]

I'm always staggered by how many "Hot women in their 40's" are not only in my town but apparently cannot wait to me!

[Herbs]

Both lazy and clever, however incredibly short-sighted as you are taking your customers as mugs.

People wise up to it and start voting with their feet. I actively refuse to click on any article link set up this way now regardless of how interesting it may appear as I know 90% of it will be bks, and if it is real, it'll get picked up by the more traditional sources that don't act that way.

[Hoofy]

Outright misleading will annoy the consumer and if you keep doing it, train your fans to feel annoyed at your brand.

Clickbait is fine if it actually leads to a story relevant to the title. The title draws people in and the copy gives them what they want. You create a relationship of trust.

FREE PUPPIES leading to an article about how you need to think about your pension in your 20s will have people exiting the page very quickly. Google doesn't just record visits but also the length of time people stay on a page. Same goes for video. Views and average view duration.

It's a stupid strategy for the noob or incompetent marketer.

[Lo-Fi]

"swapped out"

Just 'swapped'. We're not Americans.