When is a Friend with Benefits Better Than a Devoted Spouse?

This is actually a rant. I know I said I would limit those. As rants go, this one is pretty tame. In fact, maybe it's just a lark. 

Heck, it might be both. Whatever. 

Thing #1: The importance of titles in content. 

As is so often the case, someone else’s post inspired this one. Bjorn Lomborg wrote a post titled, “Is Climate Change to Blame for ISIS?”  

In the last day or so, the post has generated 6759 views, 142 likes, and 60 comments. Buzzsumo says it has had 441 interactions.

Bjorn is an Influencer, so rollovers count as views. The poor engagement is more illusion than reality. Engagement was actually quite ferocious.

Reading the comments also proves David Ogilvy’s assertion that 80% of readers only read the headline.

As if it needed further proof.

Many commenters assumed that the premise was that a terrorist group’s raison d’être is due to climate change. That's so ludicrous that people just responded without bothering to read it..

The post was actually saying something different.  In essence, it said that blaming climate change for terrorism is stupid. It also said, that recent media quotes suggesting this may be so, detract from the validity of the climate change issue.

The majority of the comments give Bjorn heck while agreeing with him.

Strange.

On Titles

A title needs to attract attention, yes. A title needs to draw the reader in, yes. But, a title is like an implied contract with your reader. It asks your audience to read your content based on what you say it’s about.

We expect a certain amount of headline-speak. You gotta force a reaction. You only have forty to seventy words to do that in. Most writers spend as much time on the title as on the post.

Click-bait and other misleading titles (like mine here) are not the smartest way to build a following. Trying to build a relationship, any relationship, on a lie is an exercise in futility.

I hope you forgive me for using a misleading title to illustrate my point. Would you have read a post titled, "Read Posts before Commenting, Please?" 

I didn't think so.

I am not saying Bjorn resorted to click-bait tactics! 

He might have given his title more thought. Or maybe he did, 6759 views are nothing to sneeze at on LinkedIn. Here on beBee, it's pretty good.

I am saying it might be a good idea to read a post before commenting on it. 

I do not aim this rant at Bjorn. I aim it at all those who blasted him without reading his post. Every one of them paraded their ignorance and/or narrow-mindedness to everyone who actually read the post.

Maybe they should be more pitied than ranted at. Too late, oops.

Which brings me to Thing #2: SEO

When is a "friend with benefits" better than a "devoted spouse?" Only as SEO keywords and nowhere else, as far as I’m concerned.

The search term, “friends with benefits,” was not super-popular. But, it actually registered on several dozen searches. 

That might have something to do with a popular movie of the same name. "Friends with Benefits" is a romantic comedy starring Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake.

At least, I hope the movie was the reason.

I don't know if this means anything, but most "friends with benefits" searches came from Australia, India, and my own Canada. Canada and Australia combined for most of the searches. 

Canada and Australia have about 60 million population between them. India has 1.25 billion. Talk about things that make you say, "Hmmm!"

Do us Canucks and Aussies have something we need to get off our chests? Naahh, I'll just go with the theory that we like romantic comedies.

“Finding a devoted spouse” did not generate enough interest to have data at all. Talk about another thing that makes you say, "Hmmm!"

You may be saying that this section does nothing more than giving me a quasi-legitimate reason to use the weird, misleading title.

You'd be right.

I mean, on LinkedIn I tagged this post under "Fish,", "Garbage Collection", and "Trash Removal."

What did you expect? 

I’m looking forward to reading the comments, if any, on this post.

I wonder how many will have taken the time to actually read it.

How many will flag this as inappropriate content?

How many will blast me for this “assault on the sanctity of marriage?”

How many will call me a “cheating son of a bitch,” or worse?

Will I finally earn my first troll(s) on my sixtieth post? 

Let's see.

(Note about Trolls: This is a reprint, it was originally posted on LinkedIn. It's now been 149 posts between LinkedIn and beBee. Add in another 57 for clients, that makes 306. Still no troll, unless you want to count Phil. I don't. I just love Grumpy Cat. Not that I want to go furniture shopping with him or anything...)

(signed) Paul, a guy in a strictly monogamous, heterosexual relationship

 PS: "Monogamy" is not a type of wood.

• Follow me on 

  beBee