BrandSavant

Gaining Insight From Social Media Data

Trust And Our Addiction To Link Shortening

by Tom Webster on June 23, 2010

When I publish this blog post, a plugin will dutifully tweet you all that I’ve written something new here on Brandsavant. You’ll get a tweet with the title of the post, and some kind of shortened link. Later, I’ll check my tracking dashboard, and see how many of you clicked on the URL. I’m partial to Argyle Social, but you might use Bit.ly, Hootsuite, even Google. In any case, you probably do the same thing, sometimes without even knowing it, all over the social web (not just on Twitter.)

It’s an ego thing, I admit. There isn’t much of a business reason for me to track this post, for instance. I like to see how I did. I bet you do, too. I surely didn’t need to, though. Yet I find myself looking at my link tracking dashboard every day, glancing over my “hits” and “misses,” the links you clicked on, and the links you didn’t. When you don’t click, I feel bad. When you do, I get a little charge. Same for you, maybe?

I wonder, though, if we are all tracking a little bit too much. When I share a URL with you, there are three components: the headline, my own credibility, and of course the link itself. Sometimes I write a catchy headline, and a post “does well.” Most of the time, I write a pretty average headline, and the clicks it generates are based largely on my own credibility – whoever clicked, probably did so because they trusted me to share something of value.

What’s interesting about our addiction to URL shortening, and all of the helpful social media clients we use to share our links that do the shortening for us, is that the third component – the link itself – no longer carries any inherent trust. If I share a link with you about the oil spill, and the link is clearly from cnn.com or the New Orleans Times-Picayune, the link itself is a visible clue that I’m passing along something potentially more trustworthy than if I passed along a link from funnyoilspilljokes.com. The actual link is a component of trust – one more clue that you should (or shouldn’t) click on something I share. But, because we are all addicted to tracking (and even if we aren’t, all the social media clients we use assume we are), all of our links look the same: http://crap.ly/crap.

Yes, I know that some Twitter clients will extrapolate the original link from a shortened one and show the full reference. I also know that most people don’t use these clients, and anyway we are using shortened links everywhere, not just on Twitter. I am also aware that Twitter’s new link shortening service will also show the original link, but again – if we are addicted to tracking – that link will also be a crap.ly/crap link. The real question is, can we give up our addiction to tracking, even for pithy little posts like this one, so that our status updates aren’t continual streams of dri.vl?

I’m going to continue using link shorteners to track some things for business reasons, but maybe lay off them a bit for all the personal/fun/purely social stuff I share. I guess where I am going with this is that if you see that the URL I am sharing is from a trustworthy source to you, then you don’t have to solely rely on my credibility to decide whether or not you click that link. And if you do click that link, and you do find it useful, then maybe you trust me a little bit more. But if you didn’t click on the link because its source was obscured (and thus not a trust component), have I lost a tiny opportunity to build trust with you for the next time I want to share something? What do you think?

Finally, if I’m being honest, I posted this on Twitter with a trackable link. I hope you clicked – it makes me feel good. No, I’m not an addict. Yes, I can quit anytime. This is the last one, I promise.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Trust And Our Addiction To Link Shortening | BrandSavant -- Topsy.com

  • http://argylesocial.com Eric

    Right on! Much like lust was the unspoken driving force behind the early web, vanity is the unspoken catalyst of the social web.

    PS – Thanks for the Argyle mention. But, we’re a marketing analytics platform, not a URL shortener. :)

  • http://www.vmdoh.com Brian Altenhofel

    For me, the use of URL shorteners is mostly out of convenience. The tracking offered by bit.ly is just a bonus; I can track my URLs good enough with Google Analytics.

    I think it shows enough trust for most people if they are seeing any link retweeted or shared by someone they know.

  • Tom Webster

    Well, of course you are – and one I use every day. :) Didn’t mean to imply Argyle was “just” a link shortener. Thanks for commenting, Eric!

  • Tom Webster

    Brian – that’s certainly true on symmetrical networks like Facebook. Twitter and other asymmetrical networks might be different here – dunno. It would be an interesting study, though, to send out a bunch of links that are shortened along with the originals and see if there is any differential in clicks.

    Hey, maybe I’ll do just that…

  • http://centerline.net John Lane

    Interesting take. Thinking of two extremes, I’m not sure that my dad even reads what a link actually says before he clicks it. I doubt he’s alone. He’s probably one of the majority of computer users who click links based on the description or instruction instead of the location of the URL you’ll be going to.

    On the other hand, I imagine the Twitter (and other social web power users) rely far more on the trust they have in their network than the location they’ll be going… whether they personally know the poster or not.

    This leads me to think that the text of the link has very little to do with the trust in it. And that probably disturbs orgs like CNN quite a bit. (Will they somehow figure a way to block shortening of links?)

    Have you thought about a little A/B testing to see if a real URL works better than a shortened one? (Or are you doing one right now? I clicked the shortened one.)

    And I wonder if Twitter’s new auto-shortening that will still expose the first 20 characters of the link (if I understand it correctly) will change people’s willingness to click links? Will we see a change in the number of clicks? And will that be attributable to “trust?”

    Regardless, this is good food for thought. Thanks.

    @johnvlane

  • http://www.benbennettinc.com Ben Bennett

    I’m completely addicted. I use it primarily to tell the story about how engaged our online audience is with our Country Music entertainment properties. There is a stereotype that I’m still working through that Country Music fans aren’t as tech-savvy as other types of music fans.

    While that is still partially true, i’ve built a great story showing that these fans are much much more tech-savvy AND younger than previously presumed.

    http://cmafest.com
    http://cmaawards.com

  • http://www.oneforty.com Janet Aronica

    Great post. I think Brian brings up a good point, many people (me included!) use URL shorteners out of convenience. I use CoTweet for 99% of my Tweeting and it’s just so tempting…the URL shortener is right there! My hope is that my personal brand and the description of what I’m Tweeting (which I have more characters to provide b/c of the shortened link) helps my followers decide if it’s click-worthy or pointless crap.

    Great post :)

    @Janet Aronica
    Community Manager @oneforty

  • http://snipr.com/sdr002 PudgyM29

    I agree. I feel compelled to tell people when I post a shortened URL that it is not hiding anything like a referrer or affiliate link. It is just that: My World-Wide Web pages would otherwise look like h**p://members.myownisp.net/myaccountid/thisblogpost01.html. Which would break in most text-based E-Mail programs, and gobble up most of my 140 characters in Twitter.
    I’m using one on the link to this response. Snipr.com is a real, verifiable website. Yes, I do sporadically check to view how many people have clicked on it.

Previous post:

Next post: