I’m always interested in optimizing where people find my site (SEO, Social Media, etc.), why they are searching for it, and how long they stay. Getting readers to stay on your site is the first step to getting them to convert to whatever you are trying to achieve – sales, email list, products, etc.
I was browsing through Google Analytics the other day, and I thought it was interesting how different social media platforms translated into different amount of times readers stay on site.
While not scientific in the least, these are the findings from my sites (I checked them all, the they were all correlated), and I thought they would interest you.
Average Time on Site – Ranked Longest to Shortest
- Facebook: 2 minutes and 32 seconds
- Twitter: 1 minute and 37 seconds
- Reddit: 25 seconds
- LinkedIn: 22 seconds
- StumbleUpon: 18 seconds
I think the results above really speak to engagement of your audience. It has been documented several times that Facebook Fans are your most valuable readers. By the time spent on my sites, I would agree. However, it also has to do with the amount of engagement those readers have with your site. Reddit and StumbleUpon, for example, are random visitors coming to your site because of a catchy title – not because of your brand, reputation, or even your other content.
Whereas, both Facebook Fans and Twitter Followers have made the decision to follow you because of what you offer. They also may interact with you on both platforms.
Fast Traffic is not a Bad Thing
While the engagement factor is clearly not there for some of the social networks, it is important to remember that not all “fast traffic” is bad. In fact, it is this traffic that usually generates the most revenue via Pay-Per-Click advertising. So, next time you don’t think it is valuable to Stumble, Digg, or Reddit your article, keep that in mind.
Readers, what are your thoughts on social media traffic? Have you seen any different results on your sites? Any tricks to converting this traffic to followers or fans?