Clickbaity vs Boring Subject Lines - What do you think? (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

Also asked this in Shark Pool but wanted to get thoughts here as I know not everyone visits both.

I sent last night's Footballguys Daily Email Update Newsletter https://www.footballguys.com/updates?view=1332 with this subject line:

"Rico Dowdle or Chuba Hubbard?"

I chose that subject line because ... the main story was from our @FootballDiehard Bob Harris and it was about trying to forecast Dowdle and Hubbard.

In the intro, I wrote:

Y’all. Can we talk?

You probably saw the subject line: “Rico Dowdle or Chuba Hubbard?”

Snoozer, right?

I know what the marketing gurus would say: “More Clickbaity. Be Vague. Gotta juice the open rates.”

No thanks. That’s not us.

Twenty-five years ago, I made a promise to keep this thing simple with real football talk, real fantasy insight, and real connection. I don't think we need clickbait subject lines. If we keep bringing value, people open our emails. It’s not complicated.

So yeah, today’s main story is about Carolina’s backfield, and our own Bob Harris breaks it down in his weekly must-read feature: The Fantasy Notebook. Smart GMs have decisions to make. And Bob’s got you covered.

Beyond that, we’ve stacked up a ton of fresh content to help you win this week. And of course, Cecil Lammey has the News and Notes you need.

Thanks for being here. We’re in this together.

Let’s go,

J

My question for you, how much, if any, do you care about the subject line for an email newsletter and do you care if it's more clickbaity and vague vs something more boring but factual.

Examples:
Clickbaity and vague: The 3 RBs You Have To Grab!"
Boring but factual: "Rico Dowdle or Chuba Hubbard?"

Throw up a vote but also please elaborate in the thread.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'd also ask - for people who don't like the vague subject lines, why not?

I'll also say, a subject line isn't really clickbaity if the content delivers on the subject line.

If you have a subject line that is "3 RBs you must grab!" and when you open the email, the first thing is listing the 3 RBs, that's not clickbait.

BUT, you may be disappointed if the 3 RBs dont fit for your situation. That kind of thing.

 

[Don Quixote]

I get why people who get paid by the click do it (even if I don’t like it). But when I’m already subscribing for information, give me the information. Pressed for time and digesting/prioritizing a lot of content. I’d rather see in the e-mail something like “Bob Harris explains why you must grab Elijah Mitchell” rather than “Here is the RB that Bob Harris says you must grab.” I’m mostly in deeper dynasty leagues, where Mitchell is already rostered. Waste of time for me to click on something just to find out talking about Mitchell.

 

[Ilov80s]

I can't stand the click bait stuff. Most of the time you go through the article and there's nothing even remotely about what was proposed in the headline. When that happens it makes me want to unfollow or ignore the source moving forward.

 

[Ilov80s]

I recently saw on USA Today's website what I thought was just one of the worst articles and headlines I've seen in awhile.

​

The truth about seltzer water​

Which of course makes you think you're going to discover some kind of surprising risk or downside to it. I drink a lot of sparkling water so I was ofc like "oh no, is this causing cancer or something?" Then the whole article is basically like, it's just water with bubbles so it's hydrating just like water is

Wow some article there.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I recently saw on USA Today's website what I thought was just one of the worst articles and headlines I've seen in awhile.

​

The truth about seltzer water​

Which of course makes you think you're going to discover some kind of surprising risk or downside to it. I drink a lot of sparkling water so I was ofc like "oh no, is this causing cancer or something?" Then the whole article is basically like, it's just water with bubbles so it's hydrating just like water is

Wow some article there.

Agreed. That seems like such a short sighted play for them. Yes, they got the click. But the cost was trust from the reader.

I hope that click paid off for them because losing the trust of a reader has a HIGH cost.

 

[Mister CIA]

I'd also ask - for people who don't like the vague subject lines, why not?

I'll also say, a subject line isn't really clickbaity if the content delivers on the subject line.

If you have a subject line that is "3 RBs you must grab!" and when you open the email, the first thing is listing the 3 RBs, that's not clickbait.

BUT, you may be disappointed if the 3 RBs dont fit for your situation. That kind of thing.

It's the boy who cried wolf syndrome with the vague subject lines. My expectation is set that I will be disappointed, so I probably don't even bother. Now if you've got something to say about a Jalen Royals type stashed deep on my bench - I'm clicking that immediately.

 

[Ilov80s]

I recently saw on USA Today's website what I thought was just one of the worst articles and headlines I've seen in awhile.

​

The truth about seltzer water​

Which of course makes you think you're going to discover some kind of surprising risk or downside to it. I drink a lot of sparkling water so I was ofc like "oh no, is this causing cancer or something?" Then the whole article is basically like, it's just water with bubbles so it's hydrating just like water is

Wow some article there.

Agreed. That seems like such a short sighted play for them. Yes, they got the click. But the cost was trust from the reader.

I hope that click paid off for them because losing the trust of a reader has a HIGH cost.

Exactly. I clicked on the author after to see was this a person or AI. I’m still not entirely sure based on awful it was written but YSA Today is at least trying to pass it off as a person. Needless to say I’ll just avoid any of their health or fitness stuff from now on.

 

[Ilov80s]

I wonder what role of AI is in this. I was yesterday we’ve crossed the 50% point where now the majority of online articles are written by AI and not a human.

Slop Central: More Than 50% of Articles Online Are Now AI-Generated

What will the future of the web look like?

www.pcmag.com

 

[mr. furley]

just the facts, Joe. just the facts.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I wonder what role of AI is in this. I was yesterday we’ve crossed the 50% point where now the majority of online articles are written by AI and not a human.

Slop Central: More Than 50% of Articles Online Are Now AI-Generated

What will the future of the web look like?

www.pcmag.com

Is an article steered by a human that uses AI as a tool a human or AI article?

 

[DA RAIDERS]

I don’t mind a little clickbait. As long as there is payoff in the article. Don’t need useless fluff like the “3 rbs you must have” and it’s the top 3 rbs

 

[Zow]

A couple of thoughts:

1. @Joe Bryant I actually opened the article because of the title. Why? I asked myself the exact question (Dowdle or Hubbard) as I'm trying to target RB depth for future draft picks in a keeper league where I have a strong team and I think I can get the lead back in CAR, which I think will provide a nice RB2 floor for the rest of the season. So I much preferred your title to something like, "Chuba back at full speed and ready to go EXTREME!!! on the league!!!111" because that doesn't really target my question as I'm equally interested in Dowdle. But, obviously, that article is written for a targeted audience, and you and your staff nailed it there.
2. Nothing worse than a catchy or inflammatory title (e.g. "All of the Epstein files have been exposed!!") where the article doesn't even discuss the topic raised in the title or the "answer" isn't all that interesting. See the good seltzer water example above.

 

[Joe Bryant]

A couple of thoughts:

1. @Joe Bryant I actually opened the article because of the title. Why? I asked myself the exact question (Dowdle or Hubbard) as I'm trying to target RB depth for future draft picks in a keeper league where I have a strong team and I think I can get the lead back in CAR, which I think will provide a nice RB2 floor for the rest of the season. So I much preferred your title to something like, "Chuba back at full speed and ready to god EXTREME!!! on the league!!!111" because that doesn't really target my question as I'm equally interested in Dowdle. But, obviously, that article is written for a targeted audience.
2. Nothing worse than a catchy title where the article doesn't even discuss the topic raised in the title. See the good seltzer water example above.

Thank you GB.

That was exactly my thought process.

I think I'd rather be seen as very useful and valuable to select audience instead of pretty good to a wider audience.

It's sort of a "if you know you know" type thing where we're not for everyone.

 

[shuke]

Clickbaity and vague: The 3 RBs You Have To Grab!"

For an email, that I'm signed up to receive, I don't see this as clickbait. It's a summary of what is going to be in the email or linked story. It's perfectly acceptable.

Clickbait would be more something like "You can't afford to miss this hot fantasy football tip!". That's clickbait but it gives no indication of what the article is about.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Just the facts. I block the clickbait stuff such as twitter accounts of Chris O'Brien, Joe Orrico, Sal Vetri, and similar. All come off as total clowns with the clickbait stuff.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Clickbaity and vague: The 3 RBs You Have To Grab!"

For an email, that I'm signed up to receive, I don't see this as clickbait. It's a summary of what is going to be in the email or linked story. It's perfectly acceptable.

Clickbait would be more something like "You can't afford to miss this hot fantasy football tip!". That's clickbait but it gives no indication of what the article is about.

Understood. That's why I included "Vague" in the options.

Marketing experts would say my subject line last night of Dowdle or Hubbard is bad. They'd say I reduce the potential open rates because if someone doesn't care about Dowdle or Hubbard, they wont open.

They would say do something more vague like, "Your season could depend on getting these 2 RBs right". Way more people will open. Including those who don't care, or have already decided about Dowdle and Hubbard.

So even if I delivered on the vague subject line by providing a Dowdle - Hubbard article, some people will feel frustrated as they maybe wouldn't have opened if they knew it was about the Carolina RBs.

But the marketer gets to and say, "we delivered on the headline"

 

[Hastur]

Nope, don't do it. No need to. That will just upset people.

 

[Mitchie]

Saw that email and deleted it b/c don't own either guy so don't really care, didn't realize was the intro to Bob's article, I'll get to article anyway on the site but if knew was Bob's article I would've opened the email.

 

[Dickies]

My only real issue with "clickbait" is when they do not address the headline in the article, or make the headline such that it outrages people reading the headline, but the article itself refutes the headline. I think this is one of the core reasons we have the political divide that we do in this country.

 

[Captain Cranks]

One of the Youtube channels I subscribe to constantly labels their videos with "DISASTER" and "MELTDOWN". After a while I realized not to expect anything close to that and ultimately it's cost them credibility in my eyes.

 

[Ron Swanson]

No clickbait, please.

The worst offenders for me these days are the articles that show up in my Google News feed that pretend to announce a trade but it winds up being a trade proposal. I used to be able to catch them and avoid clicking on them but now they've learned to disguise it even further with intentionally incorrect tense, etc. All it earns them from me is blocking their site from my feed. But there seems to be an endless supply.

 

[Capella]

you should write funny satirical ones

 

[titusbramble]

I asked if people liked clickbaity headlines and you'll NEVER BELIEVE what happened next!

 

[kupcho1]

I've used an aggregator (Flipboard) for, I think, as long as I've had a smartphone. Unfortunately, it's been enshitified to the point where it is just about useless. Click-baity stories are almost all I get now. For example, the NFL topic recently gifted me with "Horrible Aaron Rodgers news confirmed." I know enough by now to pass this crap by, but in the spirit of this thread, I read it.

The horrible news? His preferred helmet was phased out by the league and he can't find one he likes.


But believe it or not, that's not the worst of Flipboard. They now push sponsored "articles" with click-baity titles (usually from some outfit called Factinate) that take around 1000 scroll-downs to get to the point (I'm guessing here, after the first 2 times I encountered this garbage I started reporting the articles for offensive content to block them from my feed, otherwise, they show up repeatedly).

On a very related note, does anyone have a free aggregator they'd recommend?

 

[Joe Bryant]

I've used an aggregator (Flipboard) for, I think, as long as I've had a smartphone. Unfortunately, it's been enshitified to the point where it is just about useless. Click-baity stories are almost all I get now. For example, the NFL topic recently gifted me with "Horrible Aaron Rodgers news confirmed." I know enough by now to pass this crap by, but in the spirit of this thread, I read it.

The horrible news? His preferred helmet was phased out by the league and he can't find one he likes.


But believe it or not, that's not the worst of Flipboard. They now push sponsored "articles" with click-baity titles (usually from some outfit called Factinate) that take around 1000 scroll-downs to get to the point (I'm guessing here, after the first 2 times I encountered this garbage I started reporting the articles for offensive content to block them from my feed, otherwise, they show up repeatedly).

On a very related note, does anyone have a free aggregator they'd recommend?

I vaguely remember hearing about flipboard.

When it works, what is the expected outcome?

When you say you're looking for a free aggregator, can you elaborate on specifically what you're looking for and how it would work?

What others are there besides Flipbord?

 

[titusbramble]

Are people wanting to reinvent Fark?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Are people wanting to reinvent Fark?

Not sure. What was it and what did it do?

 

[titusbramble]

Are people wanting to reinvent Fark?

Not sure. What was it and what did it do?

Aggregate news and take the piss out of Duke basketball, mostly

 

[kupcho1]

I've used an aggregator (Flipboard) for, I think, as long as I've had a smartphone. Unfortunately, it's been enshitified to the point where it is just about useless. Click-baity stories are almost all I get now. For example, the NFL topic recently gifted me with "Horrible Aaron Rodgers news confirmed." I know enough by now to pass this crap by, but in the spirit of this thread, I read it.

The horrible news? His preferred helmet was phased out by the league and he can't find one he likes.


But believe it or not, that's not the worst of Flipboard. They now push sponsored "articles" with click-baity titles (usually from some outfit called Factinate) that take around 1000 scroll-downs to get to the point (I'm guessing here, after the first 2 times I encountered this garbage I started reporting the articles for offensive content to block them from my feed, otherwise, they show up repeatedly).

On a very related note, does anyone have a free aggregator they'd recommend?

I vaguely remember hearing about flipboard.

When it works, what is the expected outcome?

When you say you're looking for a free aggregator, can you elaborate on specifically what you're looking for and how it would work?

What others are there besides Flipbord?

It's an app I use on my smartphone.
You pick topics (e.g., NFL, fantasy hockey, AI, books) and it pulls articles from various sources.

It used to be great. Now, it's barely tolerable.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I've used an aggregator (Flipboard) for, I think, as long as I've had a smartphone. Unfortunately, it's been enshitified to the point where it is just about useless. Click-baity stories are almost all I get now. For example, the NFL topic recently gifted me with "Horrible Aaron Rodgers news confirmed." I know enough by now to pass this crap by, but in the spirit of this thread, I read it.

The horrible news? His preferred helmet was phased out by the league and he can't find one he likes.


But believe it or not, that's not the worst of Flipboard. They now push sponsored "articles" with click-baity titles (usually from some outfit called Factinate) that take around 1000 scroll-downs to get to the point (I'm guessing here, after the first 2 times I encountered this garbage I started reporting the articles for offensive content to block them from my feed, otherwise, they show up repeatedly).

On a very related note, does anyone have a free aggregator they'd recommend?

I vaguely remember hearing about flipboard.

When it works, what is the expected outcome?

When you say you're looking for a free aggregator, can you elaborate on specifically what you're looking for and how it would work?

What others are there besides Flipbord?

It's an app I use on my smartphone.
You pick topics (e.g., NFL, fantasy hockey, AI, books) and it pulls articles from various sources.

It used to be great. Now, it's barely tolerable.

Do you receive our Footballguys Email Update? That's basically what we do for NFL / Fantasy.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I was offered Dowdle (& Brian Thomas) this week (for Jefferson). Declined. Did I do the right thing?

I’ve loved FBGs writing over the years, I’m serious about that. But as a guy who loves words if you’re doing this exercise I’d be even more succinct, like “Buy now on Dowdle” or “Go get Hubbard”. Every blurb has pros & cons. I need advice to win my league, like ‘get this guy’ or ‘look at this guy’s schedule, go get him!’

BLUF as they say in Intel.