I’ve written six posts about franchising on LinkedIn. Here are my early reactions:
As part of an expanded marketing effort to make FranchiseHelp more visible around different parts of the web, I began publishing a series of LinkedIn articles about franchise lead generation. Over the course of the last 45 days, I have published 6 separate articles.
I’ve done my best to publish a variety of topics, so as to see the effects of different topics on engagement.
Here are the stats so far (as of 12/3/2014):
|Date Posted||Post Title||Views||Likes|
|10/15/14||What’s the deal with this “Social, Local, Mobile” thing? And what should franchises do about it?||211||19|
|10/20/14||Why franchises hate the Dallas Cowboys||139||5|
|10/27/14||What We’ve Learned Sending 6,636 Text Messages in the Past 4 Months||44||6|
|10/30/14||Why did you click on my ad? A franchise advertiser’s Google lament.||36||1|
|11/18/14||Chip Kelly Wouldn't Like Average Time on Site Either||79||7|
|12/01/14||What sitting in a hallway, real estate, & Facebook ads have in common||20||1|
Additionally, we included a link to this Franchise Lead Generation Resource Center in every article. A grand total of six people have clicked on those links.
I figured I’d pass along a few thoughts on how this initiative has worked so far:
LinkedIn’s sharing algorithm assumes you’re amazing, until you’re not - When I published my first article, on how SoLoMo related to franchising, the immediate returns were insane. The views and likes were coming out of nowhere. We thought that we had uncovered some sort of amazing new channel. However, based on what has happened since that first publication, it looks like LinkedIn has gotten smarter about where franchise lead generation articles fit in the grand schema. With the exception of the article about Chip Kelly (see below), every article has seen lower engagement than the last. It makes sense. LinkedIn has to assume that you might be Bill Gates writing something, so they go hog wild on your first post. If you ever need a quick pick-me-up, publish your first LinkedIn post.
Football references resonate with my audience – Alrighty, this one isn’t as serious, but it’s true. The Cowboys article worked pretty well and the Chip Kelly article was the only post to break the trend of declining engagement. I know that most of my connections like football, so if they’re the one being notified of my new articles, it makes sense that those article do well. However, there’s probably a bigger point that more relatable messages are bound to work better.
It’s the wrong audience, so far – Since I started this 45 days ago, I’ve been in a number of social situations where people have mentioned off hand that they’ve been reading my articles. On one hand, this is incredibly encouraging as it’s feedback that my content is in fact being read. However, will all due respect to my friends, it’s the wrong audience. We’re trying to educate the franchisors of the world on the intricacies of lead generation.
The post editor is pretty shoddy – This one is very tactical, but I really do not enjoy editing posts within LinkedIn. If it were easier to make changes within the editor they provide, I’d probably post more frequently. Since it’s very difficult to use, I’m discouraged to post.
I’m not sure where the growth is, unless you’re an InFluencer – LinkedIn has this new designation called an inFluencer. It appears that they have the ability to entitle you to a broader audience by attaching this label to you. The aforementioned Bill Gates is one. I think that means that I’m unlikely to be endowed with that distinction. So what am I supposed to do now? Keep posting? Wait until a new version? Pay for people to read it? (Clearly the answer LinkedIn is rooting for.) I don’t know yet.
So there we go. 45 days and 6 LinkedIn posts later, we’ve gotten six clicks. Is it a gangbusters success? No. Am I ready to call it a failure? Also no. Just means we have to keep tweaking and experimenting.