The myth of ‘quality content’ on social media

I’m sorry to break this to you, but people are exactly as shallow as you think they are.

If you’ve ever spent time in the vibrant Israeli city of Tel Aviv, you must have noticed that it has quite liberal, artsy, LGBTQ-friendly vibes to it.

Its gay parade is one of the most applauded in the world, more often than not cafes are open 24/7, beaches are packed with tourists from across the globe, and the general feeling is that you have arrived in a left-wing haven.

Only that somehow, even if you don’t get a sense of it while strolling around the city that never sleeps, Israel has elected strictly right-wing, conservative, many a time religious governments for the past 20 years and counting.

That’s because Tel Aviv is what many Israelis like to call ‘the bubble’ (some even add ‘of espresso drinkers’), and much to its residents’ pain and sorrow, the critics are not entirely wrong.

What does this have to do with social media, though? Too much, unfortunately.

The lowest common denominator

Repeating the claim that most people consume content via social media nowadays is all too trite, so let’s just accept this as fact for the purpose of this article. They do, and so do you.

Which is why you may have found yourself wondering why even the most respectful media outlets — those you happily follow and consume — seem to persistently turn to the lowest common denominator and bring you the latest on the Kardashians, as if anyone cares.

Problem is, you’re wrong. Everybody cares — and the numbers prove it time and again, with hardly any exceptions.

Much like the utter shock of few when Israel miraculously end up electing Netanyahu, the somewhat-pretentious assumption that many out there do want excellent, uncompromising reporting simply doesn’t hold water.

‘No,’ you may insist, ‘news outlets just have to stop treating us like total dumbfucks.’ Well, trust me on that one, no one would like to treat you with respect more than those who actually curate the content for you.

But the people have spoken, and they beg to differ.

Whether the Kardashians are worthy of press coverage is a different question, and so is what counts as ‘quality,’ who is to decide, and under which authority exactly. All true.

But it’s also safe to assume that journalists are more into revealing the next Watergate rather than follow Kim’s change in butt shape over the years.

Are all media outlets click whores?

I have been managing social media accounts with millions of followers for more than five years. I’m also lucky enough to work as a reporter, writing mainly about Middle East politics, as well as current affairs in Germany — where I live.

That junction of knowing both the writer’s perspective and the social media management angle has led me to a rather grim conclusion: You — or at least the person sitting right next to you — are far ‘dumber’ than you’d like to admit.

Otherwise, there’s no explanation for why superficial content repeatedly performs better than thorough reporting, with only a handful of exceptions throughout the years, in all media outlets I’ve worked for.

This doesn’t mean that ‘quality’ reporting can’t be measurably successful, but it does mean that it pays off for media outlets to invest in ‘light’ content, because it almost always generates better numbers with lesser work. Win.

‘Are you doing stuff only for the clicks then?’ you can legitimately ask. No, we’re not, but there’s also a limit to how much we can shove content we believe is worthy down the throats of users who are simply not interested.

I mean, what’s more condescending and paternalistic than that?

OK, so now what?

Humans on social media can be so funny sometimes. They don’t understand that even the worst possible comment you’d leave under a Facebook post is better than not leaving a comment at all. Control your fingers, peeps.

That’s right, do not open that link. That piece of advice your mother gave you in kindergarten? ‘Simply ignore, they’re only seeking attention. If you don’t give them that attention, they’ll stop.’ Yup, exactly.

The only way to stop media outlets from producing a certain type of content is to ignore it altogether, continuously and systematically.

But if you end up secretly clicking that link you’d later claim was ‘shallow’ or ‘superficial’ — know that it’s you who’s boosting more production of the very same content, and don’t complain afterwards.

Now don’t get me wrong, being interested in the Kardashians in and of its own is totally legit. The problem starts only if and when you want to see less of it, scratching your head trying to figure out why you’re only seeing more.

Just like the simple model of supply and demand — nothing will be manufactured if there’s no demand for it. And in this case, you express your demand by clicking. No clicks = no demand.

You have no clue how precious a resource your click is. Media outlets — not to mention other revenue-based businesses — will pay millions to get one from you. Don’t give it away recklessly without clearly expressing your needs.

It’s in your hands, quite literally. But if your mouth screams ‘standards’ while your fingers click ‘trash’ — don’t be surprised if trash is what you get.