For more than 11 years, Hannah’s been tasked with coming up with content ideas that people will share and journalists will write about. Here she shares some of the most important lessons she’s learned along the way. This talk was originally given at MozCon in July 2022.

1. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
myths,
misconceptions,
& mistakes
(lessons learned from a decade in digital PR)

2. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
hello there :)

3. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I previously worked
at both Distilled
& Verve Search,
on teams that
collectively secured
22,000+ pieces
of linked coverage
on sites like this:

4. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
We created things
like this:

5. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
How some of
the world’s
most loved
artists
structured
their days…
2,000+
pieces of linked
coverage

6. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
We revealed the
films with the
highest
on-screen death
counts…
500+ pieces of
linked coverage

7. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
A panoramic
gigapixel time
lapse of
London’s
skyline…
150+ pieces of
linked
coverage

8. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Now I work with
companies &
in-house teams
that are making
similar things

9. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
this puts me in a very
privileged position
I have distance &
perspective

10. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I’m no longer trapped in
the grind of:
new business pitches
trying to retain existing clients
training, developing, managing
& retaining my team
dealing with demanding clients
& more…

11. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
rather than just seeing the
challenges in a single
company
I get to see
the challenges across
many companies

12. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
& this allows me
to see things more clearly
than I did before

13. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
but of course, there’s
a downside…

14. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I’ve realised some things
which make me
uncomfortable

15. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I’ve been doing this for
over a decade…
& have given many talks at
conferences like this

16. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Some of the things I’ve said
I stand by
Other things?
Yeah, not so much

17. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I wish there was a
real-life disavow file
for some of the things
I’ve said in the past
But there isn’t :(

18. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
But I can speak about some
of those things…
& that’s what
today’s talk
is about…

19. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
a myth I’ve perpetuated
a pretty huge mistake
I’ve made
& a misconception
I’ve helped fuel

20. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Part One:
a myth I’ve perpetuated

21. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
In 2018 I gave
this talk:

22. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Towards the end
of the talk I said this:
You don’t need
to be lucky,
all you actually
need to do is
work *really* hard

23. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
It’s a lovely message…
The trouble is,
it’s not really true

24. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Here’s the problem:
Luck played a bigger part
in my own successes
than I’ve ever been
comfortable with
admitting

25. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
What do I mean by luck?

26. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Remember this?
We revealed the
films with the
highest
on-screen death
counts…
500+ pieces of
linked coverage

27. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I’d like to tell you a little
bit more about how
those 500+ pieces of
linked coverage
came about

28. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Some of this
coverage was
directly secured
by us:
It centred on the
“winner”
being surprising
& controversial

29. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
But a huge chunk of
the coverage this
piece received
wasn’t directly
generated by us…

30. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Shortly after the piece launched:
Director James Gunn shared
a piece of the early coverage,
& then spent 2 hours
arguing with people
about it on twitter…

31. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Most of the
subsequent
coverage the piece
received was
just journalists
reporting on
James Gunn’s
tweets

32. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
We got lucky…

33. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I suspect that the piece
still would have achieved
reasonable levels
of coverage
without
James Gunn’s tweets
I’m not saying
our success
was 100%
down to luck…

34. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
But nevertheless,
luck played a huge role

35. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
& this is not an
isolated example

36. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
When did I start
downplaying,
or outright ignoring
the role of luck
in successful campaigns?
As I was putting this deck
together, it got me
thinking:

37. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I think it was
pretty early on in my
speaking career…

38. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Someone gave me
this feedback:
When you talk about
things like luck,
I feel like
you’re doing yourself
a disservice:
you’re making it sound
like you don’t know what
you’re doing

39. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
The truth is:
I didn’t really know
what I was doing

40. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
& so, the thing I think I
absorbed from this
feedback was:
letting other
people know that
I don’t really know
what I’m doing
is a *very* bad idea

41. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
& so I began to
present sanitised versions
of how campaigns
went down

42. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
stories which either
skipped over the parts
where we got lucky
and/or
reframed this luck
as some combination of
good judgement
& hard work

43. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
What’s the problem
with this?

44. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
When I fail to acknowledge
the part luck played,
I also fail to gain
a deep understanding of
why a piece
was successful
& this lack of
understanding
impedes my ability to
effectively judge ideas for
future pieces

45. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Myth:
“You don’t need
to be lucky,
you just need to work
*really* hard”

46. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Truth:
“You need to work
*really* hard
AND recognise
when, where, and how
luck contributed
to the success of a piece”

47. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
More on this in part two…

48. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Part Two:
a mistake I’ve made
over & over again

49. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
At various times,
on various stages,
I have said things like:

50. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
~ me in 2016,
How to Build a Time Machine
“study successful content
& try to figure out
why it worked”

51. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
What’s the problem?

52. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
“study successful content
& try to figure out
why it worked”
This isn’t necessarily
bad advice, it’s just
woefully incomplete:

53. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
people struggle
to follow it
& because it’s incomplete…

54. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
“study successful content
& try to figure out
why it worked”
What does this
really mean?

55. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
“study successful content
& try to figure out
why it worked”
How do you actually
do this?

56. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Let’s travel back
to 2015…
A bunch of us at
Distilled were
fascinated by the
success of this
piece:

57. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Here’s what Will
had to say
about it:

58. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I don’t think that “BEER”
was the reason
that piece was
successful...
& Will doesn’t think
that either :)

59. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
then every piece
about beer
would be successful
& that’s definitely
not the case
If “beer”
was the reason:

60. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
The trouble is,
we often unknowingly
absorb thinking like this...

61. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Sensemaking is the
process by which people
give meaning to their
collective experiences
~an idea introduced by
Karl Weick in 1979
This happens due to
something called
“sensemaking”

62. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
People favour plausibility
over accuracy
in accounts of events
and contexts

63. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
We’re often quick to
accept explanations that
seem reasonable
without questioning
how valid those
explanations are
I think this is an academic
way of saying that
most of the time,
we don’t think that deeply:

64. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
When thinking about
why a piece was
successful:
we often jump quickly
to an explanation
that sounds plausible,
but actually
isn’t accurate
& then we move on

65. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
But one person,
getting one thing,
a bit wrong
shouldn’t be
a problem, right?

66. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Actually, it can be
a problem:

67. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
sensemaking is
how organisations
or groups of people
make sense of things
Sensemaking is not
just how individuals
make sense of things…

68. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
& because sensemaking is
a social activity:
plausible stories are
preserved, retained,
& shared

69. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
& this affects the way we
interpret future events
The problem is that we
unknowingly absorb
these plausible
(but inaccurate) stories

70. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
If we accept
that “beer” is the
reason this piece
is successful...

71. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
What happens
when we see
another
successful piece
about beer?

72. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
We see a
successful
piece
We conclude
“beer” is the
reason it’s
successful
We see
another
successful
piece
We notice it’s
about beer too
THERE’S
A PATTERN!
All future successful pieces we encounter
about beer add “evidence” to support this
explanation

73. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I see this happening in a
lot of directions at once

74. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
What else
do those two pieces
have in common?

75. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna

76. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna

77. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
They’re both maps

78. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
We see a
successful
piece
We conclude
it’s successful
because it’s a
map
We see
another
successful
piece
We notice it’s
a map too
THERE’S
A PATTERN!
All future successful pieces we encounter
which are maps add “evidence” to
support this explanation

79. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
But again,
if that was true:
then every map-based
piece would be successful
& that’s definitely not
the case

80. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Humans are programmed
to spot patterns
& we’re pretty great at
spotting them…

81. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
But we find it much
harder to distinguish
whether or not those
patterns are meaningful

82. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
& as a result,
our ability to spot patterns
doesn’t always
serve us well

83. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I’m sure that no one in this
room really thinks
“beer” or “map”
is the reason those
pieces were successful

84. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
“they offer journalists
something that they don’t
have the time or resource
to create themselves”
In the past, if you’d asked
me why those pieces were
successful, I’d likely have
said something like:

85. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I’ve made several pieces
about resonant topics,
which offered
journalists something
they don’t have the time or
resource to create
themselves,
& they weren’t all
successful
Which is true,
however…

86. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
but it’s not
a meaningful one
That’s just another pattern
I’ve spotted…

87. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
despite saying this a
bunch of times,
I wasn’t great at
figuring out
why a piece
was successful
“study successful content
& try to figure out
why it worked”

88. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
“study successful content
& try to figure out
why it worked”
This bit is part of the
problem:

89. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
“study successful content
& try to figure out
why it worked”
We don’t need
to study the content,
we need to study
the coverage it generated

90. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
“study successful content
& try to figure out
why it worked”
I think that when
we study the content
we automatically
switch into
pattern recognition mode

91. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I spent a lot of time
looking at
successful pieces,
& not nearly enough time
looking at the coverage
they generated
I was very
guilty of this

92. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
It was a low-effort &
pretty comforting way of
feeling like I understood
this stuff
Often all I’d actually be
doing is looking at a
successful piece
& trying to slot it neatly
into one of the patterns
I’d previously recognised

93. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
But those patterns were
not meaningful

94. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Because it wasn’t just me,
getting something a bit
wrong, on my own
& of course I wasn’t just
hurting myself…

95. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
& because sensemaking is
a social activity where
plausible stories are
preserved, retained,
& shared
I was part of a team,
& we were sensemaking…

96. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Were often being
accepted,
& were believed
to be “true”
Those patterns
I was spotting,
which were not meaningful

97. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
“study successful content
& try to figure out
why it worked”
I still think there’s merit in
this advice:

98. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
We need to avoid
our tendency
to slip into pattern
recognition mode
But we need to somehow
make sure we’re
arriving at a better answer
than “beer” or “map”
or “something journalists
don’t have the resource to
create themselves”

99. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
One way to do that, is to
ask better questions...

100. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Now, rather than
asking myself
“Why was this piece
successful?”
I try to answer these six
questions instead:

101. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
1) What stories did
journalists write
when they covered
this piece?

102. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
You could still answer this
in a pretty shallow way:

103. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
When journalists
covered this
piece they wrote
stories about
beer…

104. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Read the stories
Try not to fall into
this trap…

105. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Actually, there
were a bunch of
different types of
stories written:

106. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Coverage designed
to provoke outrage
at the most
popular beers

107. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Analysis on the 2
major brewers,
InBev & SABMiller
who own most of
these beers

108. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
& nostalgic
travel stories
“I discovered that Skol was
still going strong in Brazil...
Of course it tasted somewhat
more pleasant at sunset on
Ipanema beach than it did in
rainy West London.”

109. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
2) Did the coverage of this
piece feed into something
else which was going on in
the newscycle?
another news story,
an event, a trend…

110. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
If one of those things
hadn’t happened, would it
still have been a success?
3) Were there waves of
coverage that led to the
ultimate success
of this piece?

111. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
How did readers react?
What emotions do these
stories provoke in you?
4) What emotions did this
coverage provoke?

112. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I have a friend
who’s a journalist.
She told me this is largely
how she determines which
stories she’ll write
& which she won’t
While we’re talking about
emotions…

113. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I’m always thinking about
what emotions a story is
likely to evoke...
Strong emotional
reactions = page views
& my page view targets are
really challenging
She said:

114. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Did the story get picked up
in different ways by
different verticals?
5) Which verticals
(or types of publication)
covered this?

115. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
If so, why and how did that
coverage come about?
6) Did this piece get
coverage in multiple
regions or countries?

116. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Quick recap:
Stories
What stories did journalists write when they covered this piece?
Breaking news
Did the piece feed into something else which was going on in the newscycle?
Waves
Were there waves of coverage? What caused those waves?
Emotions
What emotions did the coverage provoke?
Verticals
Which verticals or types of publication covered this?
Countries
Did the piece get coverage in multiple countries?

117. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Answering these questions
gives me a much
clearer understanding
of why a piece
really worked
& it snaps me out of
pattern recognition mode

118. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Because I’m not looking
for patterns at all

119. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
do you really need
to do all that?
Of course, answering all
those questions is way
more work,
& some of you might
be thinking:

120. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Actually,
there are other
benefits too…

121. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
This piece got a bunch of
coverage a few years ago -
could we remake it?
This is a question I’m
asked pretty frequently:

122. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
How do you figure out
whether or not
remaking something is a
good idea?

123. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
has enough time gone by?
In the past, if you’d asked
me this question,
I’d have probably said
something like:

124. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I used to think that this
was important,
because if someone else
had done
something similar,
fairly recently,
I figured our chances
of landing coverage
might diminish
This sounds reasonable,
but it isn’t always the case

125. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I noticed that in some
instances, even when I
considered that
sufficient time had passed,
the remakes we made
didn’t always land the
levels of coverage
we expected

126. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
& I’ve also noticed the
opposite…
in some verticals:
very similar pieces seemed
to get coverage
even though I thought
insufficient time
had passed

127. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
&
“has enough time
gone by?”
wasn’t the question
I should have been asking

128. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
What were the conditions
which led to the success of
the original piece?
AND
What are our chances of
replicating those
conditions?
I should have been asking
these questions instead:

129. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Remakes fail when we’re
unable to recreate the
conditions which led to
the success of the original
Remakes don’t fail because
insufficient time
has passed

130. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Answering
these questions
will give you a
clearer picture
of what those
conditions
were:
Stories
What stories did journalists write when they covered this piece?
Breaking news
Did the piece feed into something else which was going on in the newscycle?
Waves
Were there waves of coverage? What caused those waves?
Emotions
What emotions did the coverage provoke?
Verticals
Which verticals or types of publication covered this?
Countries
Did the piece get coverage in multiple countries?

131. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Then you need to get a feel
for your chances
of replicating those
conditions

132. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
This is best explained
with examples…

133. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
This is a mash-up
of publicly
available data
sources on the
most congested
roads…
Should we
remake it?

134. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
What were the conditions
which led to the success of
the original piece?
AND
What are our chances of
replicating those
conditions?

135. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
First we
answer these
questions:
Stories
What stories did journalists write when they covered this piece?
Breaking news
Did the piece feed into something else which was going on in the newscycle?
Waves
Were there waves of coverage? What caused those waves?
Emotions
What emotions did the coverage provoke?
Verticals
Which verticals or types of publication covered this?
Countries
Did the piece get coverage in multiple countries?

136. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Back then:
The original piece was
covered by automotive
sections of the nationals &
regional news journalists

137. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Those journalists continue
to write stories
about these types of
studies & they don’t seem
to mind that the
worst places don’t
change much
What about now?

138. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
This isn’t unique to
automotive journalists:
Often we care more about
how well specific types of
stories are performing in
terms of page views,
whether or not a story is
“new” isn’t always that
important
Another quick side note
from my friend
who’s a journalist

139. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Let’s imagine I covered a
study last week,
& someone pitches me a
very similar study
this week…
If my first story generated
a lot of page views,
I’d probably write up the
second study too
Another quick side note
from my friend
who’s a journalist

140. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
However, this isn’t the
case in all verticals
& there are limits!
Another quick side note
from my friend
who’s a journalist

141. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
But back to our
example piece…
Should we
remake this?

142. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
the conditions that led to
the success of the piece
are alive & well today
In this instance,
it seems that:

143. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
If we remake this piece
with a refreshed dataset,
we’ll probably achieve
similar levels of coverage
even if the worst places
don’t change
& we can be reasonably
confident that:

144. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Remaking this
is probably
a reasonably
safe bet

145. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
A quick caveat:
We can never be
100% certain of success
I can’t guarantee that if
you remake that piece it
will succeed

146. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Let’s look at another
example…

147. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Should we
remake this one?
I’m hoping you
already know the
answer to this…

148. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
As you know, the
early coverage
(which was
directly secured
by us) centred on
the “winner”
being surprising
& controversial

149. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Then this happened…
& most of the subsequent
coverage was
just journalists reporting on
James Gunn’s tweets

150. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
What are our chances of
replicating those
conditions?

151. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Could we be that
lucky again?

152. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Possibly they chose to
cover it because the
“winner”
was surprising &
controversial
Studies about on-screen
death counts
are not something
entertainment journalists
perpetually cover

153. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Because the result won’t
be a surprise &
James Gunn’s
probably not
going to spend another
2 hours on twitter
As such, if you fail to find a
new “winner”
I think you’ll almost
certainly struggle
to get coverage

154. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
your new winner needs to
be surprising &
controversial enough
that it’ll stand out…
these journalists have
plenty of controversial
stories to cover
But even if you do find a
new winner,
I think that you
still might struggle,
because to achieve similar
levels of success:

155. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
You’ll then need someone
high profile to
see this coverage,
take to social media,
& create a storm
about your piece
AND also…

156. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I’m just saying that
on balance, I think
they’re unlikely to happen
I’m not saying that those
things can’t or won’t
happen…

157. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
& as such,
remaking this
piece might not
be such a safe bet

158. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
while we’re here -
this is why I think it’s so
important that
we recognise:
when, where, and how
luck contributed
to the success
of a piece

159. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Because when we fail to
acknowledge
the part luck played,
we also fail to gain
a deep understanding of
why a piece
was successful

160. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Ok, that was a lot!
Let’s quickly
recap this section…

161. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
The advice I previously
gave was woefully
incomplete:
“study successful content
& try to figure out
why it worked”

162. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I think this
is better
advice:
To understand why a piece was successful try to answer these questions:
Stories
What stories did journalists write when they covered this piece?
Breaking news
Did the piece feed into something else which was going on in the newscycle?
Waves
Were there waves of coverage? What caused those waves?
Emotions
What emotions did the coverage provoke?
Verticals
Which verticals or types of publication covered this?
Countries
Did the piece get coverage in multiple countries?

163. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Answering these questions
will give you a much
clearer understanding
of why a piece
really worked
& you’ll be
less likely to fall into
pattern recognition mode

164. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Which is important
because patterns like this
aren’t meaningful:

165. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
We see a
successful
piece
We conclude
“beer” is the
reason it’s
successful
We see
another
successful
piece
We notice it’s
about beer too
THERE’S
A PATTERN!
All future successful pieces we encounter
about beer add “evidence” to support this
explanation

166. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
We see a
successful
piece
We conclude
it’s successful
because it’s a
map
We see
another
successful
piece
We notice it’s
a map too
THERE’S
A PATTERN!
All future successful pieces we encounter
which are maps add “evidence” to
support this explanation

167. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
rather than asking:
has enough time gone by?
& next time you’re
considering remaking
a piece…

168. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
What were the conditions
which led to the success of
the original piece?
AND
What are my chances of
replicating those
conditions?
Ask yourself these
questions instead:

169. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Let’s move on to
Part Three

170. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Part Three:
a misconception I’ve
helped fuel

171. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
At the beginning of this
talk I showed you
three successful pieces

172. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
How some of
the world’s
most loved
artists
structured
their days…
2,000+
pieces of linked
coverage

173. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
We revealed the
films with the
highest
on-screen death
counts…
500+ pieces of
linked coverage

174. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
A panoramic
gigapixel time
lapse of
London’s
skyline…
150+ pieces of
linked
coverage

175. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
But there’s something
really important
which I failed to tell you
Those pieces are
all outliers

176. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Less than
10% of the pieces
I’ve been involved with
performed like this

177. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
It was not my intention to
mislead anyone
Or to give the impression
that these sorts of results
are “normal”

178. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
But nevertheless, that’s
what I’ve been doing

179. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Here’s another question
I’m frequently asked:
My last piece generated no
linked coverage at all…
Am I terrible at this?

180. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Because, as an industry we
largely focus on sharing
our successes;
our barometer for the
actual success-rate of
Digital PR is broken

181. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Today, I want to try
to help fix that

182. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I got in touch with a bunch
of agencies and
inhouse teams,
& asked them to share
their data with me

183. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I have combined data
on over 2,000
digital PR pieces
from 11 agencies &
inhouse teams
As datasets go, it’s
reasonably robust:

184. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Your own results
may, or may not compare
favourably to these results
However…

185. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
The number of pieces
you’ve launched
The niche or language market
you work in
The resources or budget you have
available to devote to this activity
The speed at which
you execute
Luck (as we’ve already talked about)
Etc.
There are likely to be good
reasons for this:

186. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I would like people to be
mindful of how they
interpret & use this data
As such:

187. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I do not want this data to
be used as yet another
stick to beat
Digital PR people with

188. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
But if you do want
to compare your
performance,
I feel strongly that
this is a better
barometer to use
Comparison is a
dangerous game…

189. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Ok, let’s do this:

190. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
First up,
we’ll look at
the results
from asset-led
pieces

191. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
.
Asset-led
pieces:
Data from
1,398 pieces
No. of pieces of linked
coverage
% of pieces
0 5 %
1 - 9 35 %
10 - 29 31 %
30 - 49 11 %
50 - 99 10 %
100+ 8 %

192. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I also collated
stats on digital
PR pieces
without assets
(No landing page,
only a press release
was created)

193. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
.
Pieces without
assets:
Data from
730 pieces
No. of pieces of linked
coverage
% of
campaigns
0 31 %
1 - 9 49 %
10 - 29 13 %
30 - 49 5 %
50 - 99 1 %
100+ 1 %

194. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
.
This is the
comparison I
don’t think we
should be
making, but
inevitably will:
No. of pieces of linked
coverage
% of
asset-led
pieces
% of pieces
without
assets
0 5 % 31 %
1 - 9 35 % 49 %
10 - 29 31 % 13 %
30 - 49 11 % 5 %
50 - 99 10 % 1 %
100+ 8 % 1 %

195. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Just for the record:
I don’t think this means
asset-led pieces are
“better” or “worse”
than pieces
without assets

196. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I just think they
perform differently

197. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Pieces without assets seem
to “fail” at
a higher rate:
5 % of asset-led pieces
generated zero pieces of
linked coverage
vs
31 % of pieces without
assets generated zero
pieces of linked coverage

198. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
& they are seemingly less
likely to generate 100+
pieces of linked coverage:
8 % of asset-led pieces
generated 100+ pieces of
linked coverage
vs
1 % of pieces without
assets generated 100+
pieces of linked coverage

199. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
But pieces without assets
are also typically quicker
(& therefore cheaper)
to produce.
As such, I don’t think this
is a sensible comparison
to make.

200. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I think both have
their place :)
If at all possible,
I would recommend
launching both
asset-led pieces & pieces
without assets

201. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
But let’s flip back to
this question:
My last piece generated no
linked coverage at all…
Am I terrible at this?

202. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
My last piece generated no
linked coverage at all…
Am I terrible at this?
Unequivocally no.

203. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Misconception:
No one else is creating
pieces which generate no
linked coverage at all Truth:
Everyone is,
& they’re probably doing
so more often
than you realise

204. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
While we’re here,
Believing stuff like:
“You’re only as good as
your last piece”

205. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Because if you tie your
own self-worth
to the results you
achieve…
Really isn’t a great idea…

206. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Performance of 40 Digital PR pieces I was responsible for
launching over a 4 month period at Verve…
It was a bumpy ride, huh?
Your confidence &
self-esteem will be
all over the place

207. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I’d like to leave you
with a couple of
final thoughts…

208. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
The truth is,
only 8 % of pieces
perform like this:
I said that our barometer
for the actual success-rate
of Digital PR is broken

209. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
How some of
the world’s
most loved
artists
structured their
days…
2,000+
pieces of linked
coverage

210. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
The films with
the highest
on-screen death
counts…
500+ pieces of
linked coverage

211. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
A panoramic
gigapixel time
lapse of
London’s
skyline…
150+ pieces of
linked
coverage

212. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
If we’re launching pieces
with the expectation that
they’ll achieve 100+ pieces
of linked coverage
We’re going to be
disappointed
a lot of the time

213. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
But that’s not the only
direction in which our
expectations are
unrealistic
In most of the
organisations I’ve worked
with, something like this
has been the goal:

214. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Every piece
should generate a
minimum of 10 pieces of
linked coverage

215. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Possibly you think this
sounds reasonable…

216. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
But it really isn’t

217. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Is the most pernicious
misconception
of all
The notion that this goal is
achievable:
Every piece
should generate a
minimum of 10 pieces of
linked coverage

218. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
.
Asset-led
pieces:
Data from
1,398 pieces
No. of pieces of linked
coverage
% of pieces
0 5 %
1 - 9 35 %
10 - 29 31 %
30 - 49 11 %
50 - 99 10 %
100+ 8 %

219. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Only 60% of pieces
generate 10+ pieces of
linked coverage

220. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Our goal is 100%

221. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Effectively, our goal is
never to fail
which is utterly unrealistic

222. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Why are we setting these
impossible standards?

223. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Please raise your hands if
you’ve ever implemented a
technical change
which had no impact
Technical SEO folks:

224. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Actually, it happens
all the time
It’s not unusual…

225. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Tricky question, huh?
What proportion of
technical SEO changes
you’ve made
delivered an impact?

226. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
What proportion of the
technical SEO changes
you’ve made
delivered an impact?
I asked a friend,
who is a very experienced
technical SEO
this question:

227. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
About 60% of what I
implement now
delivers a
measurable impact
Here’s how they responded:

228. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
About 30% of what I
implement is
future-proofing
I don't expect it to deliver a
measurable impact,
I’m doing it to reduce the
risk of losing visibility
in the future

229. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
About 10%
of what I implement
I expect to work,
but actually
fails to deliver a
measurable impact

230. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
This is what I’m
experiencing now,
earlier in my career
probably only 40% of the
changes I implemented
delivered a
measurable impact
This person also asked me
to highlight:

231. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
60% of tech SEO
implementations
have an impact
30% are future-proofing
(no expected impact)
10% of tech SEO
implementations
I expect to work
have no impact
This may or may not square
with your experience:

232. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
It depends
on the types of sites
you’re working on

233. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
The site I’m working on
right now is
technically sound & so
most of the tech changes
I implement are
future-proofing
I focus more on content
projects because that’s
what delivers an impact
Another friend said:

234. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
The technical changes
I implement,
which I expect
to work,
don’t always deliver
an impact
I asked a bunch of people
this question,
& everyone said:

235. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
All technical SEOs
experience failure
So I think it’s fair to say:

236. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Just like digital PRs

237. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Sometimes,
but not always
But a single technical
SEO change is cheaper
to implement
than a single
digital PR piece!

238. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
& the entire program
of activity is likely to incur
significant costs
A single technical SEO
change might
incur a negligible cost,
(but not always)

239. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Obviously they aren’t
the same
I’m not suggesting a single
digital PR piece,
or single technical
SEO change are
strictly comparable

240. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
They do have one thing in
common though:

241. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Single technical
SEO change
Single digital PR piece
They both have a
reasonably high chance
of failure:

242. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
We expect some level
of failure…
The difference is, we don’t
expect every technical SEO
change we implement to
have an impact:

243. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Why aren’t we expecting
some level of failure for
digital PR too?

244. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Just like it would be
unrealistic to expect
that every technical SEO
change we make will have
a positive impact
It’s unrealistic to expect
that every digital PR piece
we launch will generate 10+
pieces of linked coverage

245. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
it’s fueling unrealistic
expectations
& causing unrealistic
goals to be set
We need to end our
obsession with
the results of
individual pieces

246. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
& it’s incredibly
difficult to tie
meaningful business
results to a single piece
(even those pieces which generate 100+
pieces of linked coverage)

247. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Much like technical SEO
teams, we should be
assessing the
results we generate
over a number
of pieces
(or a program of activity)
Rather than focusing on
the results of
individual pieces…

248. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Every digital PR piece we
launch should
generate 10+ pieces of
linked coverage
Most of all, we need to stop
setting goals like this:

249. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
If a digital PR piece we
create generates 10+
pieces of linked coverage
we’ll consider it a success
I’m not saying you can’t use
something like this
as a metric:

250. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
xx% of the digital PR
pieces we create will
generate 10+ pieces of
linked coverage
& have a goal like:

251. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
100% of the digital PR
pieces we create will
generate 10+ pieces of
linked coverage
I’m just saying that this
absolutely shouldn’t
be your goal:

252. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I’ve been doing this stuff
for more than a decade & I
still launch pieces that get
no linked coverage

253. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
& I’m ok with that

254. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Because it’s not possible to
eradicate failure

255. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Or implement a
technical SEO change that
doesn’t deliver the uplift
you were expecting
Next time you launch a
digital PR piece that
generates no linked
coverage

256. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
I’m hoping that you’ll
remember that this stuff
happens to everyone
&
also that it happens
more often than you
probably think

257. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Thank you to the agencies
and inhouse teams who
generously shared their
data with me:
Aira,
iTech Media,
Kaizen,
MacNaught Digital,
NeoMam Studios,
Propellernet,
Search Intelligence,
Seeker Digital,
Shout Bravo,
Verve Search,
& Yard

258. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Thanks also to wonderful
humans who helped me put
this talk together:
Areej AbuAli,
Gisele Navarro,
Kirsty Hulse,
Laura Crimmons,
Lidia Infante,
Sean Fitzsimons,
Shannon McGuirk,
Stacey MacNaught,
Surena Chande,
& Will Critchlow

259. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
& thank you!

260. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Got questions, thoughts, or feelings?
Or want to share your data with me?
drop me an email:
hannah@worderist.com

261. worderist.com
|
@hannah_bo_banna
Daily Routines: https://podio.com/site/creative-routines
Directors Cut: https://www.gocompare.com/life-insurance/directors-cut/
24hr London: https://www.lenstore.co.uk/vc/24-hour-london/
Every Country’s Most Popular Beer: https://vinepair.com/wine-blog/most-popular-beer-every-country-map/
Brewery Road Trip: https://flowingdata.com/2015/10/26/top-brewery-road-trip-routed-algorithmically/
Highways to Hell: https://www.gocompare.com/new-interactives-content/highways-to-hell/
Search Pilot Case Studies:
https://www.searchpilot.com/resources/case-studies/seo-split-test-lessons-removing-numbers-from-article-titles/
https://www.searchpilot.com/resources/case-studies/seo-testing-lessons-emoji-title-tags/
https://www.searchpilot.com/resources/case-studies/seo-testing-lessons-emoji-title-tags/
Danbo: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nomadic_lass/6889892777/in/set-72157629144987013
Unicorn: http://queenofheartsonthesleeve.tumblr.com/post/58736423727/ok-not-much-but-here-it-is-3
Credits: