COMMENTS
You may have the cause and effect backwards. If a Facebook page uses these buzzwords, it's because the company posting it doesn't really care to speak to its customers, choosing internal marketingspeak instead.
The buzzwords are a symptom, not a cause.
Claudio is right. This is another casual observation of some characteristics. There is (apparently) no statistical rigor or control group to make any conclusions. This stuff drives me batty, so I had to write I post (
Statistics: I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means) a month ago.
Here is an excerpt which describes some of the reasons why this sort of stuff can sometimes/frequently/usually/almost-always be wrong:
1) Reverse causality: Most basketball players are tall. Therefore, playing basketball makes you tall.
Or, if you prefer a marketing example: Most shared posts on Facebook contain word “x.” Therefore, word “x” makes your post more sharable.
2) Spurious relationship: Vodka and water gets you drunk. Scotch and water gets you drunk. Gin and water gets you drunk. Therefore, water causes intoxication, since it is the only common factor (alcohol is the hidden variable).
Or, if you prefer a marketing example: Most Twitter re-tweets occur around 4PM. Therefore, people create better content in the afternoon.
3) Coincidence: Sales of ice cream increase in direct correlation with increases in drowning deaths. Therefore, ice cream causes drowning.
Or, if you prefer a marketing example: The number of Facebook users has increased sharply during the same period iPod sales have exploded. Therefore, Facebook is responsible for the success of the iPod.
Much more statistical rigor and analysis is required in order to avoid these pitfalls.
Thank you, Jon! I often see nuggets of information pulled from data sets presented as "fact" or "proof". As you've shown, this is rarely the case.
I also agree with Claudio. I think the relationship might be that people are attracted to pages that have pertinent, interesting, valuable, and fun content -- not page posts filled with marketing keywords or information that's inwardly focused to the business (that's outbound marketing all over again).
Jon is a little harsh: I didn't experience your post as coming to a specific conclusion, just relaying an observation... Perhaps the communication seems a bit slanted, but there's plenty of room for interpretation ;)
Thanks for in info! Stimulates good thinking around what might work and what might not...
Having spent a great deal of time with marketing statistics, I kind of chafe at situations where we draw pat assumptions from one chart. In fact, I see quite a few "holes" in this:
First, it fundamentally assumes more is better and quantity over quality is desired. I'm not sure that's true. Personally, I'd sooner have 100 "real" likers who have some ongoing interest and relationship with the page than 1,000 click-and-go folks.
I also agree with Jon's point about drawing correlations that may not be statistically justified:
For example, many of these terms strike me as more B2B focused than B2C. I would typically expect a B2B entity/page targeting a numerically smaller subset of the entire population (business owners/leaders/decision makers) to have fewer followers when compared to an average covering pages focused on individuals, artists, music, sports, B2C entities, causes, amusements, jokes, etc.
In fact, couldn't we use the exact same chart here to argue "Keywords targeting B2B audience achieve more focus?"... I think that would just just as legitimate (i.e. not very).
And I'm not entirely sure that the majority of these terms deserve the derogatory tone of "marketingspeak" or the accusation of being "internally focused"..
Take "consultancy" for example: If, for example, you are creating a page and you are a consultant, isn't that simply the best most accurate way to convey what you do? How is that "internal marketingspeak" and if it is, what would be the more "consumer friendly" or "externally focused" way of expressing it. Does that mean "insurance agency" or "law firm" are internal marketingspeak terms too?
An "infographic" about avoiding buzzwords. How ironic.