BuzzFeed創始人的網絡傳播心經

????圖片分享網站Pinterest要慢得多。人們其實是利用Pinterest給某些東西設定電子書簽——為他們打算以后從事的DIY項目制作布告板。訊息的傳播速度較慢，但如果你正在制作一個烹飪配方，一個梳妝臺，或者你打算做一件必須等到周末、有足夠時間來做的事情，那么你就會更加深入地接觸這家社交網絡。

????這樣的例子不勝枚舉。你如何調整BuzzFeed的業務或內容，以適應每家社交平臺的需要？

????怎么說呢，措施之一是內容的類型。我們是從人的層面來思考這個問題的——我們不會說，“瞧瞧人家Pinterest，讓我們打造一個更完美的Pinterest，讓我們模仿Pinterest的算法。”我們的反應是，“讓我們創作人們非常樂意分享的內容。讓我們創作人們一看到就說，‘跟人分享會更有樂趣’的內容?！彼裕覀冎饕獎撟饔哪⒖蓯鄣膭游铩⑼话l新聞，以及那些你一看到內容馬上就想跟人分享，從而把其他人帶進談話的東西。

????一方面，你是一位數據驅動型企業家，但你同時也依賴直覺，對嗎？你如何平衡這兩件事情？直覺驅動與數據驅動各占多大比重？

????人們常常說，“跟著感覺走，”但他們忘了，所謂直覺建立在大量的數據和過去的經驗之上。比方說，如果你創辦過5本最終失敗的雜志，而有人打算推出相似的第6本雜志，你會說，“直覺告訴我，這不是一個好主意。”這并不意味著你具備某種深刻的洞察力。你其實擁有5個已經滲入你的直覺，非常強有力且痛苦的數據點。這就是為什么當你觀察任何一位公司的資深人士時，他們的直覺幾乎總是做他們已經獲得成功的事情。他們想一遍又一遍地做這件事。

????不要總是相信自己的直覺，最好保持一定的質疑，不斷吸收新數據，不斷質疑自己已有的知識。在BuzzFeed，我們經常給每位員工發送各種儀表板，讓他們觀察人們對他們創造的內容作何反應：共享次數是在上升，還是在下降？他們可以測試假說和理論，說：“好吧，這樣做過去很奏效。我可以讓它再次產生影響嗎？我還能做出類似的內容嗎？我能不能從中抽取一部分，讓它傳播開來？”通過這種有益的質疑，同時獲取大量新數據，人就會開始學習新知。

????你總是聽到人們說：“是的，我們不能成為網絡數字的奴隸，因為如果我們只是關注這些數字，它就會帶領我們走進死胡同。”你完全不存在這個問題，對不對？難道你不是只關注數字嗎？

????沒錯。只關注數字是非常危險的。我認為，網絡上存在許多過度優化的問題。你經常看到這種“乳溝”陷阱，你在網站首頁發布某個名人的照片，她的裙子可以讓人們看到她的乳溝，你說，“哇！這張照片的點擊率可真高啊。”如果你是數字的奴隸，你就會開始持續不斷地發布類似這樣的東西。于是，你的網站很快就會充滿色情垃圾。你會說：“我只是始終在關注數字而已。”但你正在突破一個局部最大值，很多人再也不想瀏覽你的網站。因為僅僅只有10%的讀者看見圖片就點個不停的色情狂或者喜歡窺視名人隱私的女性。

????And then something like Pinterest is much slower. People are actually bookmarking things in Pinterest—making boards of DIY projects they want to do later. Things spread at a slower rate, but there's a lot deeper engagement where you're actually cooking a recipe or you're building a dresser or you're doing something that you have to wait for the weekend to have enough time to do.

????And the list goes on. How do you tailor your business or your content to each one of these social platforms?

????Well, part of it is the type of content. We think about that on a human level—we're not like, "Look at Pinterest. Let's make the perfect Pinterest. Let's game Pinterest's algorithm." It's more, "Let's make something that people are proud to share. Let's make something that people see and say, 'This is going to be more fun with someone else.' " So things like humor, things like cute animals, things like breaking news, things where when you engage with the content, you immediately want to share it and bring other people into the conversation.

????On one hand, you are incredibly data-driven. But you also rely on your gut, right? How do you balance those two things? How much is gut-driven and how much is data-driven?

????People often say, "I go with my gut," and they forget that their gut is informed by huge amounts of data and past experience. It's like if you've launched five magazines that have failed, and then someone wants to launch a similar one, a sixth one. You're like, "I'm going to go with my gut. This isn't a good idea." That doesn't mean that you have some deep insight. You actually have these five very strong, painful data points that have informed your gut. That's why when you look at someone senior in any company, almost always their gut is to do the thing that they had success previously in their career doing. They want to do that thing again and again.

????It's good to not always trust your gut, to have some skepticism about it, and to constantly have new data coming in and constantly question what you actually know. A lot of what we do at BuzzFeed is give dashboards to every person who works at BuzzFeed where they're seeing how people are engaging with the content they're producing: Is it going up? Is it going down? They can test hypotheses and theories and say, "All right, this worked in the past. Can I make it work again? Can I do something similar? Can I take one part of it and make that work?" And you start to learn through having a healthy skepticism and lots of access to new data.

????You always hear people who say, "Well, we can't be a slave to the numbers on the web because if we only follow the numbers, it will lead us down some path." You don't have that problem at all, do you? Don't you only follow the numbers?

????No. It's dangerous to only follow the numbers. I think there's a lot of over-optimization on the web. You see this sort of "side boob" trap or something, where you put some picture of a celebrity whose dress lets you see the side of her boob on the front of your website, and you say, "Wow! That gets a really high click-through rate." If you were a slave to the numbers, you'd start putting more stuff like that and more stuff like that and more stuff like that. And pretty soon you would have a site full of trashy, salacious garbage, and you would say, "Oh, I'm just looking at the numbers," but you would be hitting a local maximum, where lots of people would never want to read your site just because 10 percent of your readers are horny guys who can't resist clicking, or women who can't resist gawking at celebrities.