Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd word it like: "Join the 4,615 people following me on twitter _here_."
Maybe... "You should join my 4,615 followers on Twitter _here_."
'twitter' seems to be more effective than 'Twitter'. ;o)
You should follow me on Twitter
61–70 of 75 posts
Re: You should follow me on Twitter
#62How about: "People who follow me on Twitter live longer, happier lives and have three times as much sex as the average citizen! Follow me now!"
Re: You should follow me on Twitter
#63Are these numbers correlated with numbers of visitors to your blog? If your visitors went up by 10% during a month and the amount of your followers went up by 10%, it doesn't necessarily mean it was because of wording...
Re: You should follow me on Twitter
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd word it like: "Join the 4,615 people following me on twitter _here_."
Maybe... "You should join my 4,615 followers on Twitter _here_."
Why not just go all out ;).
"You should join my 4,615 followers on Twitter _here_. Everybody uses it. All the interesting people follow me. You really need to follow me now. I can't believe you're reading this when you could already be following me. DO IT DO IT DO IT. Fine. Enjoy your miserable life without me and die alone. Don't you want to be popular and interesting?"
Re: You should follow me on Twitter
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
how about "Follow me on twitter here. I have x followers."?
Similarly, I wonder how some automated text like "11,399 people follow me on Twitter, you should too" would work.
Probably not as well as notaddicted's suggestion below/above. People don't like being told they "should" do something, and it also presents a statement they can answer "No, I shouldn't" too. Ideally you'd need to ask an obvious "yes" question or just direct them to do something without allow them to think about it.
Re: You should follow me on Twitter
#66Pardon me for the blasphemy, but if I wasn't already following your writing and didn't know better, this whole post would strike me as a little "mail order sleezy". Instead of spending valuable resources tweaking the wording of your links, why not just channel that same energy into providing excellent content, and let the rest take its course. That's why I follow you in the first place.
There are a lot of good books, good content, good products, good Web sites, good Twitter accounts, good whatever, out there that don't get the attention they deserve. Covering strategies and tactics for getting people engaging with you and your content is not a waste of time.
Adopting strategies like these can result in a higher mean quality of content being popular since smarter, more cynical people can learn marketing isn't all stupid and that the way to defeat the dumbing down of society is to market quality stuff better.
Re: You should follow me on Twitter
#67Pardon me for the blasphemy, but if I wasn't already following your writing and didn't know better, this whole post would strike me as a little "mail order sleezy". Instead of spending valuable resources tweaking the wording of your links, why not just channel that same energy into providing excellent content, and let the rest take its course. That's why I follow you in the first place.
Tweaking the wording of your links is time well spent. Imagine if the same testing methodology was applied to the Sign Up button on a B2B app. You could drastically increase conversions with just a few small modifications!
Precisely. It's so sad some people focus only on getting traffic to their sites and then don't focus on the conversions. If people focused on conversions and experience more than traffic, the Web would be a lot more pleasant.
Re: You should follow me on Twitter
#68Why did you link the word "Twitter?" My impression upon seeing that is that the link would take me to twitter.com, not perform a follow action. I would wager that the third message would fare better than the fourth (of the examples you gave) if you rephrased: You should follow me on Twitter to: You should follow me on Twitter
I tried exactly what you describe. The conversion for "follow me" as the link during my one test was 9.22% compared to the "twitter" link, which was 10.09%. I'm not sure why it performed (very slightly) worse. It might have to do with the link being in the middle of the sentence (you have to go back and click the link) rather than at the end, where you finish the sentence and click the link.
Out of how many clicks and visitors? The difference of 0.87% could easily be within measurement error.
Re: You should follow me on Twitter
#69Anybody else feel like you should get a reason for following someone's twitter? "You should follow me because I'll make you pancakes every morning."
Re: You should follow me on Twitter
#70I've read in the past that telling people to do something isn't as effective as telling them that everyone else is doing it. I wonder how a phrase like "most people who like my blog follow me on twitter" would fare?
Here are the other 49 tricks, briefly summarized: http://www.moskalyuk.com/blog/yes-50-scientifically-proven-w... (This link is via HN, naturally: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=613402 )
I wonder how to best apply this to job-seeking.. Hmm...