What’s Better : Long Copy Versus Several Related Short Copies?

July 4th, 2008 by Ann Smarty | 6 Comments

Many webmasters come across one common dilemma: is it worth focusing efforts on one huge brilliant copy or is it wiser to split it into several related copies.

Like with many topics we discuss here, there is no definitive answer to that. I’ve compiled all pros and cons in one table for us to consider:

One Long Copy	Several Short Copies
-	Allow to optimize for more keyword (long-tail) phrases.
Is easier for link building, as all links should point to one page.	(With smart internal link structure) can get enough link juice to rank for long-tail.
Is more likely to be a success at social media and link baiting campaigns (people tend to love and link to all-in-one huge well-structured guides).	-
-	Are better for both contextual advertising (better targeting and more relevant ads) and CPM Ad Driven Websites (allows for more page views).
Saves the user from extra clicks (the disputable one as many people - me being one of them - prefer short concise articles).	Offer the user more focused information.

Of course, each case is unique and as you can see it also depends on your initial goals and content type. Besides, it’s the matter of your individual style preferences - what can you do better?

WebmasterWorld thread also lists some more points to consider before making any decision:

make sure you have enough content and unique original ideas for several copies;
make sure your content “naturally” falls into several related subcategories;
think what’s better for your visitors;
think how difficult the internal architecture will be managed with multiple related copies (make sure to interlink your copies effectively);
make sure to avoid duplicate content issue with several closely related pages.

Comments

6 responses so far ↓

Gidseo on Jul 4, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Hi Ann
I hope you’re well and having fun.
Do you think above the fold / below the fold should be a consideration as well?
Seo Positive on Jul 5, 2008 at 5:48 am

Anne, I agree with you when you say it depends on your individual style. I believe both methods work (well tht is proven throughout the whole internet). It would be interesting to consider above and below the fold too.
Jason Lancaster on Jul 5, 2008 at 4:41 pm

First, let me say that I look forward to every one of your posts. I’d say that reading your articles is some of the best time spent learning search strategies. Thank you.

However, I think I have to disagree. Long copy is bad. As long as you provide your reader a nice and clear “roadmap” - such as links to the previous and next article in the series - short is much better than long. Since we know the internet is all about “skimming”, short articles are more likely to be read. If they read it, they’re more likely to comment, link, etc.

I think there are probably a couple of occasions where long copy is OK, but I can’t think of too many. Wikipedia might be the best example of useful long content, but it seems a little to exceptional to recommend for normal use.

Still, I hate to disagree with the master. Keep up the great work.
Jack on Jul 6, 2008 at 5:56 am

I am loving reading your posts, they are excellent and always very helpful. Thank you.
Dejan SEO on Jul 6, 2008 at 8:04 am

Is this several copies on the same site or distributed on different sites?
Houston SEO Services on Jul 7, 2008 at 6:04 am

Hi Ann,

You make some nice points here. For SEO I think smaller laser focused pages would allow you to rank easier. Having said that, many of the old-school copywriters still use a very long sales copy.

You have to keep in mind what the call-to-action is, is it an opt-in to a newsletter? Capturing an email would require less copy/persuasion than someone who is selling a $50,000 widget. To see which sales better, long vs. short copy, one would need to do some spilt testing.

Good luck!