Today I received an unsolicited email from a well-known marketing firm. The email stated that 67% of companies who blog get more leads. Appropriately, an asterisk was next to the number 67% indicating a footnote below. I thought, how perfectly done to indicate that 67% was not a SWAG.
I went down to the asterisk and clicked on the word ‘Source’, indicating a hyperlink. Driven by an endless desire for quantitative details, I anxiously awaited the results. With that one click I was taken to an interesting and insightful article about B2B Content Marketing.
After reading the entire article, I realized that the number 67, or even a reference to a survey about blogs, was not mentioned. I thought I didn't have enough coffee, so I reread the article again. I even enlarged the font, but could not find a 6 or a 7, or a survey of any kind.
Perplexed, I sent the email to my colleague for his perusal. With the tenacity of a Georgia hound dog he failed to nose out the number 67. “It’s not there,” he said. Befuddled, confused, and frustrated we concluded that blogging might create more leads, just not sure if it happens 67% of the time.
Was the reference a typo? Was it an honest oversight? Was it an intentional insertion to feign quantitative substance? Don't know and probably never will. One thing for sure, that author lost my trust.
I'm busy working on my blog posts. Watch this space!