'Drop social media buttons' call
Leading designer argues buttons can impact negatively on sites
These days, most websites include buttons for sharing content via social media services. Bucking the trend, designer Oliver Reichenstein has, in a piece called Sweep the Sleaze, said such buttons should be eradicated. He states that buttons do more to promote social network brands than your site, can make you look desperate and that there’s really no need to remind social network users about the likes of Facebook and Twitter. “We find content through Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Pinterest and so on, not the other way around,” he said, and cited a recent Smashing Mag tweet, where the publication noted its Facebook traffic went up after removing social media buttons.
Designer Hilton Lipschitz told us he had much the same experience. Buttons were slowing his site by over a second, which made him concerned some potential visitors would leave, and many were rarely used: "One article got 22,000 page views, but there were no Google+ or Facebook Likes and no Tweet shares." He said people are probably used to seeing these buttons but blank them out like adverts, and added that his traffic – which mostly arrives from Twitter, Reddit and Hacker News, has not been negatively affected.
Wanting to find out more about this subject, we spoke to Reichenstein (OR) about the thinking behind his article, possible dangers of social networking buttons and also the ramifications of removing them.
.net: Why did you decide to write this article?
OR: I think as users we all agree most websites are too noisy. Buy this! Read that! Click here! The user is treated like a stupid tourist. When I work with clients, I strive to reduce noise, which usually involves fighting a marketing department. With advertising funding sites, marketing holds the power and can suffocate sites with monetisation options.
So it’s not just about social media buttons. After five years of being ‘forced’ to design news sites in a certain predefined way, I’m convinced ‘related links’, Google ads and social media buttons are, to say the least, overused. I’m not the first to complain, yet a lot of people moan about noise, but hope their own related links and social media buttons will help spread their complaints about the noise!
With this article, I decided to sit down for an hour or two, pick just one aspect of website noise, and think it through. Why, really, are these buttons bothering me? Why am I so sure that they are conceptually wrong?
.net: So is there a danger of industry figures creating sites getting obsessed with social networking buttons when they should be concentrating on other things?
OR: I don’t care what people get obsessed with. Passion is not necessarily a bad force. But I do care when bullshit is sold as wisdom. And when bullshit becomes a standard it’s time to take a stand.
A few years back, a newspaper we pitched for chose a different agency with the reasoning that we had no social media integration in our concept. We wondered for months what that social media strategy could be – to discover that, after the redesign went live, the site was plastered with dozens of social media buttons!
If you consider our own suggestion for social media integration, you will also notice that the argument doesn't come from a blind conservative social network hate. We advocate integrating intelligent response from social media. With that, you have everything a button does, and more, without the downsides. But, yes, it's harder and requires more care and attention than just posting a code snippet into the CMS template.
.net: With people increasingly ‘trained’ to Like and Retweet, is there not a danger in removing existing social media buttons?
OR: Reduction always has pros and cons. What matters are results. So far, I can see no lack in social media presence [for us]. The reason is we posted two articles with meat and bones.
The pro of these buttons is you don’t take a risk in being different. That's a very weak pro, which, with a simple one-week test, can be ignored without too many consequences. The contra is a long list of embarrassing, performance-slowing and even politically dubious arguments of which each needs careful consideration. In my case, this reduction, once thought through, is a clear case. The reason why no-one puts it in these clear terms is that it's easier to complain and continue than to think things through and act.




22 comments
Comment: 1
Y U NO practice what you preach, .net?
Comment: 2
Comment: 3
Comment: 4
Comment: 5
Comment: 6
Comment: 7
marketingovercoffee.com
Comment: 8
Even the author admits that he could very well be wrong.
Comment: 9
Comment: 10
I'm undecided on the buttons. I think on a lot of sites the "Tweet this" and similar will never get clicked, but it's hard to imagine some would-be sharers might not bother if they had to do it manually.
Comment: 11
Users who want it are given a simple, shortened and trackable URL to share on the social network of their choice - future-proofing for the latest new network - and the page load overhead of these buttons is dramatically reduced by 80%.
Comment: 12
Slow down, there's lots in there to understand, one thing being that he asks you to not take the inclusion of social buttons for granted and base the decision to use them on a considered strategy, analytical intelligence and quantifiable statistics. Why NOT create an A/B test to see if there is a difference?
Why not spend some time oin several social media environments to discover, not assume, how your content is being consumed in there and wether that contributes to your business goals?
Your business goals may be to have more page impressions that are better served in another capacity, thereby increasing follow on clicks instead of trying to entice clicks from facebook from people who view one page or less
Comment: 13
Comment: 14
Comment: 15
lolwut Craig? Did that make sense inside your head? Cause it didn't to anyone else.
Is it ok for The Times to write an article on News of The World exploitation of human rights if they themselves are doing the same thing too? If you're going to publish something it should be because you believe in it, and you stand by it. If you don't - stop commissioning bullshit articles which don't fit with what .net is about. Your choice.
Comment: 16
As for only publishing something 'we' believe in, what does that mean? Only things *I* believe in? Or what I and Oliver believe in? Or some kind of .net hivemind belief system? Publications don't work like that, because they are supposed to be balanced and are supposed to report on whatever field they cover. That's not to say we don't have opinions—and it's pretty clear to long-standing readers that our news reporting is far from straight reportage; but our aim is to find interesting and informative topics, not to say THIS IS HOW YOU MUST DO THINGS, BECAUSE WE SAY SO AND THIS IS WHAT WE BELIEVE AND HOW WE ACT.
In short: we're not Fox News.
Comment: 17
Everything in the original article is spot on for me. I just copy and paste the URL and add a comment of my own when I think something is really worth sharing.
And why some people can't understand this is an opinion piece and not some kind of commandment is beyond me :)
Comment: 18
I think of these sites as doors in. They are doors into the content we create about our University. So when people come to our side, I want them to see the other doors. Not because they didn't know there was such a thing as Twitter, but because they didn't know what we were doing on Twitter.
We assume too much when we just place a logo. So I agree. If all you're doing is putting a logo on your page, you look desperate and it looks like you lack a strategy.
Comment: 19
I used to love these buttons and twitter feeds, facebook friends displays etc but they really chew into your page load time.
One thought I've had to better leverage social networking, would be to hand write a byline selectively for each post.
We hope you've found this helpful: if you think it could help your friends please tweet (link) it now.
And just specify one channel per post, and mix it up.
I'd welcome feedback on this idea. Does it just sound desperate.
Until then, I wonder why these icons need to be connecte to FB etc anyway. It would be better to have your own icons as part of your CSS style sheet and only connect to FB etc when they are clicked. They are tiny so they should only take a few milliseconds to load, whereas they often take 0.1-1.0s to load most of the time.
SEO and traffic wise social media is massive now and only getting bigger so its a risk to ignore it all together.
Some tools let you use twitter, FB etc for comments, which may be a way forward but because it needs to poll the social network it slows the site down. One of the worst things is a lot of these plugins make your server wait for the social media site so it can generate a dynamic widget. These need to be cached or it can kill your server performance.
Just don't expect social buttons to go away: but I expect more and more they'll be part of our browser experience: the whole market place is evolving.
Comment: 20
Comment: 21
Email Beats Social Media in Business Value
The analytics company Monetate analyzed 100,000,000 visits to a range of e-commerce sites. Conversion rates differed dramatically, depending on where users came from:
Traffic Source / Conversion Rate
--------------------------------------------
Email / 3.9%
Google / 2.4%
Facebook / 0.5%
As I have said before, our user studies show that people use social media to be, uhm, social: to connect with family and friends, and not so much to connect with companies. This doesn't mean that you should avoid social media, just that you should focus your budget on SEO and email, since they offer much better returns.
--
Comment: 22