Sniply: a (Not So) New Model in Content Sharing

New tech expands the use of a common system.

Sniply is different. Yes, it’s is a link shortener. But it’s a link shortener with a twist.

When people click a Sniply link they not only see the content they were expecting, but also a small bar at the bottom of the browser with a call-to-action from the sharer. This incentivizes the sharer to share because a small portion of the traffic they drive for others will make its way back to them.

Some squirm when they first see this in action. Other rejoice. But the difference in reactions may simply be a matter of perspective.

THE MODEL

Let me explain by first talking about the model because, while it seems new on the surface, it’s actually as old as the internet itself. Instead of:

“I’ll create value for you by driving traffic to your content with nothing in return.”

Some form of technology enables the sharer to get value as well.

“I’ll create value for you by driving traffic to your content, but do it in a way that returns some of the value to me as well.”

If this balance is struck, sharers are motivated to share more and creators receive extra page or video views. A very quantifiable example of this is an affiliate program. Affiliates are rewarded for the traffic they generate with a portion of sales as a result of that traffic.

In other, less-direct cases, the key priority is to maintain as much of the original content’s form and it’s value to the creator while still rewarding the sharer. After all, the content is what makes the system go.

WEB VIDEO

This model is enabled for web video through embed codes.

Think of a site like UpWorthy. Without the value they get from being able to place someone else’s video on their own site, there wouldn’t be enough reason for them to share that video in the first place. Posting a link to YouTube does very little for them. Placing a YouTube video on their own domain (next to their sponsor’s ads) does.

Some might say that embedding a YouTube video on UpWorthy detracts from the consumption experience, and they may be right. But the vast majority of the content’s value for the creator is maintained.

NON-VIDEO CONTENT

While this model has long been enabled for rich media, Sniply is one of the first to enable it for all types of web content.

But because most web pages aren’t as portable as videos, Sniply keeps the original content as is, placing the value-add for the sharer at the bottom of the browser window. As we’ve seen with the ever changing use of video embeds, I have no doubt this approach will evolve over time.

Like YouTube, placing the sharer’s content alongside the creator’s may detract from the original consumption experience. But, again, the vast majority of the content’s value for the creator is maintained.

THE MATH

Comparing these two approaches and the possibility of detracting from the original experience, we find ourselves asking a simple question:

“Does any increase in total consumption as a result of rewarding sharers make up for any decrease in the consumption experience?”

In YouTube’s case I think we can safely say that the answer is a resounding YES. Only occasionally is there a significant detriment to the experience while the sharer and creator both benefit from each visitor.

In Sniply’s case, I believe the answer is identical in the affirmative. If these calls-to-action detract from the experience, the effect is small. Meanwhile both the sharer and the creator get additional value with each click.

Will it take time to be adopted and understood? Of course. But YouTube has proven that the model can work and, if it does, everyone involved wins.