If you’ve read this blog before you’ll know that I have a propensity to talk crap. Call it verbal diarrhoea if you will… I don’t mind because there’s no doubt my articles are lengthy. In fact, most online marketers will tell you I consistently break one of the golden rules of writing for the web, which is to keep content short, punchy and concise. But to them I say – screw your rules! I’m writing content for my audience, so you can take your rules and shove them.

Who says short is good anyway?

Well… pretty much everyone. While the web has a short history, it didn’t take long for webmasters and marketers to discover that very few people took the time to read content online. As far back as 1997, respected user behaviour analyst Jakob Nielsen declared that people don’t read on the web. A range of findings to come from Jakob’s early research included:

• 79% of users scanned a page when they first came across it
• Only 16% read online content word-for-word
• Implementing a concise and scannable content structure improved usability by 124%

In a more contemporary research project (May 2008), Nielsen analysed data from an academic study on web usage to find that:

• Users dedicate 4.4 seconds to every 100 words on the web
• On average, dedicated users have time to read 28% of the words on a page
• Most users will read around 20% of the content on a page

Our friend Nielsen isn’t the only one to advocate content brevity on the web. Here’s just a small sample of articles from respected industry sources that concur:

• Michael Gray – Blogging in a sound bite world
• Search Engine Journal – Four surefire ways to write magnetic web content
• Problogger – Ten tips for writing a blog post

So who the hell am I to argue with them?

Well I’m not really arguing to be honest. I generally agree that short content is a good thing, particularly on consumer facing web sites that have average web users. My point is that the rule is far from universal. These studies are typically conducted with the average web consumer in mind. But what if your audience isn’t average…?

I wouldn’t consider my audience average. My audience is far from average in a number of ways:

1. They aren’t consumers… at least in a purchasing sense. The only thing they’re looking to consume is information.
2. I suspect many of them are professionals or at least people looking for professional advice/opinion and are therefore committed to reading lengthier content pieces if it benefits them.
3. Many are likely to be highly entrenched in the web and its technologies. I would expect them to be in the upper end of online capabilities (not to mention offline).

The point is that if my audeince have a higher capability level, why apply rules that are aimed to make content accessible for average Joe? As a professional blogger information is my product. If I reduce the amount of information I produce, I am in fact giving my audience less (presuming I am cutting out half decent content and not just drivel/waffle). How many companies do you know that are trying to get their customers to consume less of their product/service? Not many. Of course, content needs to remain high quality, relevant, engaging & informative to maintain value to the audience. But if it is meeting these requirements, why should it be diluted to adhere to ‘best practice in web copywriting’?

Industry leaders don’t mince words

I subscribe to a range of blogs as a professional content consumer. I subscribe because the authors are recognised thought leaders within the online marketing industry. And guess what… they’re not too concerned about the length of their work either. Here’s a sample of the average article length from some of the highest profile SEO blogs on the web (taken as an average of their last 5 articles):

If you run a google search for the query ‘ideal blog post length’ you’ll find a range of posts dedicated to the issue. Most recommend a length of somewhere between 200-500 words. As you can see, our SEO friends are well above that ‘ideal’ threshold. Yet some have subscriber bases of 25,000+. Content length hasn’t scared their readers away. Why? Because they’re writing for a professional audience. SEO is a professional field with huge financial benefits for businesses that are able to achieve top rankings. Is it any wonder people are willing to invest some time to read their (lengthier) content?

Shock… horror… study finds people really do read content online!

In 2007, the Poynter Institute released an eyetracking study with findings that directly contradict the belief that people do not read content online. Some of the key findings include:

1. Reading effort does decrease as the length of the article increases… BUT
2. Online participants read 77% of the content for stories they deliberately choose to read, which is significantly higher than offline publications
3. 63% of online participants read stories from start to finish

The key takeaway from this research for me is that people who choose to read a story typically read most, if not all of the content. The key word is choose. People will read an article if it interests or benefits them in some way. Length is irrelevant when the content is engaging, informative or valuable. If you’re dumbing down your content for the average Joe, you may well be dumbing down your audience.

Crikey… so which one is it then… short or long content…?

It depends. The point I’m trying to convey is that you need to think about your audience before making that decision. My audience is predominantly professional, so I have no hesitations in publishing lengthier articles. I let them decide whether they choose to read the article. If my content is valuable and engaging enough, they will. In the meantime, I do everything possible to make the content more consumable for them by implementing a clear structure, short paragraphs, sub headings, bullet points and lists.

On the other hand… if you’re trying to sell mullet wigs it’s probably best that you keep your content short and simple!