Marketers who've heard the term "zero-click content" know they need more of it in their
content strategy,
but might not really understand why.
Some see it strictly as a way to increase your
social media reach, but not all zero-click content
is social.
Even if it were, viewing it solely as an amplifier of views or impressions leaves money
on the table.
What Is Zero-Click Content?
This term arose when "link in the first comment" was becoming a thing, so many marketers view
zero-click content simply as
social media posts without a link.
But we don't call it "zero-click social content," do we?
Zero-Click Content Is Native
Zero-click content is meant to be consumed natively wherever people hang out online, not just
social media. And "native" means native to that channel, not merely present on a website somewhere.
LinkedIn is a website and a channel, but the channel is social media (and direct messaging if you
want to get technical), which is why a LinkedIn blog article cannot be zero click (blog articles
aren't social) but a LinkedIn newsletter can be (since newsletters are native to email).
However, a newsletter full of links to other content and nothing else substantive is not zero click,
because it doesn't stand alone.
Zero-Click Content Stands Alone
Go onto Google and you'll find top definitions for zero-click content congeal around "content that
provides immediate standalone value without requiring users to click a link or otherwise leave the
platform."
This is a more expansive definition that allows for non-social outbound content, but it's still wrong
and I find this definition too vague to be useful.
A social media link post that links to an article might include an interesting statistic from that
article in the post copy, providing immediate standalone value, but no one would consider this
zero-click content because the stat is just bait and the goal of such a post is to be clicked, with
the source article read.
Which is why I think intent must be considered in any zero-click content definition.
And value is a dangerous rabbit hole to go down, because content can be valueless to an audience
and still be
content.
All these reasons are why I prefer another definition.
Zero-Click Content Offers Without Asking
Zero-click content is digital content published externally of the source's or author's website where
the primary goal is for it to be consumed natively on that platform, without requiring or explicitly
asking the audience to click a link, or implicitly offering a link intended to be clicked.
If you're not sure how to apply this definition, ask yourself a question: is clicking a link a
primary goal of a piece of content?
If the answer is yes, it's not zero click.
If the answer is no, it's zero click, even if there are links present (we don't call it "zero-link
content").
Live hashtags are technically links. So are live social media handles. So is any link text in the
body copy of an email or newsletter. But this is not the primary reason why they exist.
Hashtags are a filing system. Live handles are alerts upon posting to the person or organization
being referenced. Link text usually leads to supplemental content or the source of a quote or
statistic, should the audience have questions or wish to learn more.
None need to be clicked for the audience to appreciate the content they're currently reading.
It's the Thought That Counts
I'm not going to expend pixels on listing examples of what content is and isn't zero click, because
this isn't important. Zero-click content can be almost anything and any length (
a whitepaper in a
LinkedIn post can be zero click).
What is important is your intent with the content, because audiences can sense it.
Zero-click content meets prospects where they are by removing the inconvenience of leaving where
they are (which they're fully aware is an inconvenience for you).
In other words, zero-click content is something audiences know is made especially for them, without
asking them for anything extra, such as surrendering their
contact details or visiting
your website to potentially endure an ambient or explicit sales pitch.
When a brand asks customers for something, it expends
brand equity, because strong brands attract
interest and customers without asking.
Good Zero-Click Content Builds Brands
Many forms of zero-click content from brands qualify as
assets, and this is where the real gold is.
Videos, infographics, carousels, done in the brand's colors and with the brand's logo, are what
every brand needs more of, because it does that
brand building stuff B2B marketers are
always talking about.
Luring or tricking people into visiting your website, to consume unbranded information while giving
the gods of search a handjob at the same time, may build SEO/GEO careers and meet some definitions of
content marketing, but good quality branded content created for people, not for Google, delivered
to people where they are, builds brands.
And this is what zero-click content is all about.
One Other Thing
Brands should never do the "link in the first comment" thing on social media for a few eyeballs more.
People can get away with this, but not brands.
Brands look like fucking weasels when they hide the link in a comment, because it makes you look
like they need to bend the rules to get laid, damaging your brand more than that extra bit of
enhanced reach might have helped, which will be tiny anyway for
most brands since their
following and reach are also tiny.
So don't do it. It ain't worth it.
