Time and time again I say this ...
you should have a goal, and different goals will be better served by specific audiences.
In some cases, it's prospects,
in others, existing consumers,
other times, it's peers,
etc.
Produce for them!
.
: Consistency is key :
Believe it or not - it's not really about platform algorithms.
They are based on actual human behaviour and preferences (it's not just ad views/engagement).
Think Pavlov.
You can condition your audience(s) and their expectations!
.
: Quantity means less without Quality :
Okay - it's not a 100% vanity metric,
esp. when looking at things like Awareness, Reach, Recognition and Influence etc.
But - you really want a higher % of interactive followers.
You want a % that engage/comment, and a % that share.
.
Now, there's tons of things you can do to do better on Twitter ...
... and in the majority of cases,
those things work across other platforms and even channels,
because they utilise fundamental aspects of marketing,
which tap into core human behaviours.
You can also take (legitimate) "short cuts",
and do things to lighten the load,
or speed up traction etc.
(such as going "niche", hyper-focusing, staying within a particular domain, or using a specific style, utilising images, or using hashtags (even creating your own!) etc.)
But ... I can't go into too much detail,
else @myriamjessier will slap me round the back of the head,
as that's the primary topic of our submittal to @brightonseo ... and if I dole out the insights now,
I'll never hear the end of it :D
But ... you can start paying attention.
Ignore the specific numbers (followers, shares, likes etc.),
and instead,
look at things from a different angle.
What topics, when are they posted, how often,
what's the ratio of followers to likes/shares,
prominent/active follower count
Start looking at the patterns,
and you'll see what works on you ...
... and that means you're part of the way to
understanding what works on everyone else!
And you'll see a fair % apply across different platforms,
and even channels (not just Social Media).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2. Different mediums (text, image, video, audio),
tend not to count.
So you can create 1 of each, for each target term/query (that's 3+)
3. Indeed, Intent makes a difference.
But it's not just Nav -vs- Trans -vs- Comms -vs- Info!
There's Edu vs Opinion, News etc.
>>>
3/?
4. In some cases, there are also SERP SubListings.
If G sees multiple relevant pages (for term+intent),
and that there is a structure/flow between those pages,
you might get nested listings (so not exactly competing!)
(tends to require a "match" and "deeper match").
... (relevance) ... and G does seem to associate "topic" with "site" (both loosely used terms).
Which means you have topical-authority derived from content.
(JM has said about having a site that talks about X, it will struggle to rank for Y (if unrelated).)
>>>
So we end up with some confusion - due to the same word,
with what are similar concepts,
but via different methods.
Then we have the "accepted language" issue.
If you ask a detailed question,
you may see a Googler side step the question,
because you said "rank" not "rerank"
Unfortunately, digital has kind of treated some of us a little too well.
It's lead to a (somewhat false!) belief that we can tag and track everything,
and attribute appropriately etc.
.
:: *sigh* - someone found the cookie-cutters! ::
*checks calendar*
@NicheSiteLady & @NicheDown
It's called "cookie-cutter content";
when you basically copy a piece of content, change a tiny % of it, to rank for n+ terms.
Now, I know it says "affiliate",
but it applies for just about any type of site,
be it's monetisation via
* direct sales
* ad-rev
* affiliate payments
* referral fees
(The term MFA used to be applied (made for ads (affiliates))
So, the problem is - though it can (does!) work,
(bad Google, bad!),
it's possible that G will catch it at some point,
and may hammer a site for it
(so please - at least give people a warning!).
There are ways to handle it "better",
with reduced risk.
Good content design is grounded in knowing what the user wants, and how they want it.
(I know the general rule is stuff like "write for an 8th grader" or "16yo" etc. - but that doesn't work when your audience is literally brain surgeons!)
The audiences language and knowledge "levels"
defines things like whether you can include:
* abbreviations
* topic/industry terms/jargon
* sentence length
* sentences per paragraph
* distance between references
* overall length of content
etc.