Social traffic drives the least engagement

Advertisement

Social media might be a growing source of traffic for many content providers ― but social doesn't deliver the most engaged readers, according to a new study of large publishers. Users coming from other content sites or search engines are more likely to consume more pages per session. 

Outbrain, a content discovery platform, looked at publishers using its platform to determine where readers are accessing, finding and engaging with content. The study pulled data from a random sample of 100 million sessions across more than 100 premium publishers. 
 
The largest slice of traffic for this group of publishers is still direct or in-site traffic (61 percent), but the study delves into the slices coming from other sources. 
 
 
 
Social traffic has undeniably blown up in the last few years, but it's still a sliver of the pie. Search is the largest driver of known external traffic sources (41 percent), followed by other content sites (31 percent); content portals, such as AOL and Yahoo (17 percent); and social (11 percent). 
 

Hyper-engaged users

Engagement metrics are different across these sources ― which is important to note as publishers shift metrics to engagement rather than page views. A hyper-engaged reader ― one who views five or more pages per session ― is most likely to come in from another content sites out of all other traffic sources, the study found.
Visitors who come from a search engine or other content sites tend  to have the highest page views per session. However, the study notes that the engagement levels for search are skewed by Yahoo users, who tend to be twice as likely to be hyper-engaged than the average referrer.
 
Traffic from other content sites has the lowest bounce rates, which makes sense because the audience is already engaged and in “content consumption mode,” the study notes. On the other hand, social media traffic has the highest tendency to bounce. 
 
It's interesting that social doesn't seem to bring in engaged users, considering “promoting engagement” is such a big mantra behind social media campaigns. Even when looking at Facebook and Twitter separately, the study found them both to drive similarly engaged audiences. Except Facebook drives more unique visitors, whereas Twitter's audience is made up of more repeat visitors.
 
So what does this mean? I wouldn't say that social doesn't promote engagement, but it doesn't look like it promotes engaged traffic (at least among big, consumer-focused media brands). Social media is more likely useful to foster users who are already engaged ― providing a community to keep them loyal to a media brand. 

Sponsored Resources


Join the discussion

Reality99 on December 31, 1969
As a B2B marketer it is a refreshing to read an article that uses FACTS and research in an article discussing social media. I've grown tired of social media discussions claiming ROI doesn't matter anymore...just use your gut... the future is now...blah, blah, blah. Again, for a B2B marketer, these realistic data points help me combat the internal overexuberance to steal from our effective marketing programs to instead Tweet away.
Anonymous on December 31, 1969
I think it's good to skeptical of any study by a vendor, but to me this study still holds it's purpose: looking at external traffic referrals among the large publishers (I'll stop with the "premium") using Outbrain's service. However, that is a great point about Twitter traffic. That could be a big reason why the direct slice of the pie is so high. Thanks, Michael, for pointing out that for many publishers (particularly with niche focuses, I find), social traffic is much, much higher than the numbers in this study. I tried to point out in this post that traffic isn't the only thing that matters in social -- I couldn't agree more. This study only tells me that social media might not always promote sticky users among a certain group of publishers -- but that doesn't mean it doesn't hold a significant brand value.
Anonymous on December 31, 1969
Personally I am a little skeptical of this study. Outbrain, the company that created the study is all about services for your website, not social sites. In this study they are measuring engagement by page views which is of course different than measuring interaction in Facebook which is measured by likes, comments, shares and tags. And they are completely eliminating the power of branding on Facebook and simply looking at site traffic to the brand’s website! There is a reason Facebook made almost one and a half billion in advertising dollars last year. In my industry (Musical Instruments) the site traffic from social is closer to 30%, not 3%. No one is arguing direct site traffic is greater. That only makes sense since websites have been around a lot longer than social sites. But smart companies have micro sites on their Facebook pages now because they know it works to keep people engaged. Michael Newman http://www.michaelnewmanconsulting.com
Prescott Shibles on December 31, 1969
Michael, I'm a bit skeptical of this study as well. The study states that it measures "incoming traffic" yet lumps internal referrers in with direct navigation. That skews the results significantly. Also, Twitter traffic is often lumped in with direct traffic because there is no referrer data. So, how does that affect the quality of the study. Finally, can we please stop using the words "premium content sites?" It has lost all value. If you want to talk about Neilsen 1,000 sites or comScore 1,000 sites, then I know what we're talking about. Not all of those would qualify as premium sites to me, but at least I'd know what we were talking about.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Don't SPAM our Comments!

Any commercial link will be deleted and reported to Mollom as SPAM. As such, we highly recommend against including commercial links in comments. Even comments with a reasonable amount of relevancy to the subject will be deleted and reported as SPAM.