Is Clickbaiting Bad Practice?

[Bacton]

Do you think getting views on your website through enticing titles that hint at something large but don't give it away is a bad practice? I mean, I can see why it might be annoying if the actual content is very poor, but do you think it's acceptable if the content itself is of a high quality?

 

[Zarostulus]

Admittedly, it is extremely annoying as a user. However, it is also very effective if your content is of a high enough quality. From my own observations, a Facebook page for example with thousands of likes will have a much higher click through percentage with clickbaity titles than a newly created page.

 

[MapleTree]

I agree with @Zarostulus . It is extremely annoying from the user prospective, but can be a great way to get more traffic to your website. I think as long as the actual content is good, then the occasional clickbait isn't too bad.

 

[St Rhenium]

Ugh, I hate clickbait so much. As far as I'm concerned it's exploitation and I don't like it, so I wouldn't ever utilise it for my business.

 

[MarkB]

I am not sure about clickbait as it does not give a good first impression to a visitor?

 

[Businessman]

It's a dishonest and duplicitous practice... As such it screams 'con merchant'. - Often used, I note, to encourage people to click-through sites filed with irrelevant ads; the display of which generates revenue. - In which case you're not only conning the viewer, but robbing the advertiser. It's the online equivalent of robbing the tips off a cafe table, or standing on a demolition site in a hi-viz jacket with the words 'car park £1' scribbled on a bit of cardboard.

 

[selfemployed]

If this was a form of link building it would be outlawed by the likes of Google - of that I have no doubt. In the same bracket as "fake news".

 

[Businessman]

Google only outlaw things when it starts to hit them in the pocket. I can't really imagine they're too concerned how and where they serve ads - only when there's a chance of big advertisers pulling their money away do they throw up some moral outrage.

 

[selfemployed]

Fair point - they only became concerned about "fake news" when it threatened to impact their bottom line - FB was even worse!

 

[Canary Dwarf]

I've thought about this in relation to 'old' media. When I used to write headlines for newspapers, the purpose of the headline was to get the reader to read on. In the case of the front page headline, it often meant the difference between the user buying a newspaper or not.

I wrote the best headline without distorting the truth, but the more enticing I could make it the better. In that respect, I don't think clickbait is any different. However, clickbait has come to indicate that the content doesn't live up to the value suggested. It got so bad that Facebook penalised purveyors of clickbait.

Also don't forget that a click can have many purposes. In my world, I would like to think that I provide value behind my clicks, but others could quite easily just be generating traffic, for which they can charge advertisers.

 

[Businessman]

And if you think about that Marc, the quality of the 'paper is often indicated by the quality/relevance of the headline; with some definitely being purveyors of piffle... You may well have stayed on the right side of the line, but other's definitely didn't and still don't.