Shared publicly  - 
 
Did you know businesses that blog average 55% more website visitors than those that don't? Or that 91% of online adults use social media regularly? Read more here:
4
3
Scott Bartell's profile photoChris Dowell's profile photoMax Minzer's profile photoPaul Schlegel's profile photo
5 comments
 
'55% more website visitors' is a pretty meaningless metric. Just having more traffic isn't always a better thing.. and why doesn't HubSpot provide any sources for the statistics that are posted in the article? How do we know you didn't just make up these numbers?
 
The statistic is based on their study "The State of Inbound Marketing" where companies surveyed reported that they had an average 55% improvement in website traffic directly related to their blog. I also completely disagree with you when you it's a meaningless metric and generating more traffic is not a better thing. If you're converting traffic to leads at a 5% ratio, a company that increases their traffic from 5000 to 7750 (55% higher) will generate 137 more leads. And further, companies that blog correctly generate better qualified traffic. That means that these 137 new leads have a much better chance of being sales-ready leads. To me, that's pretty important and impressive. 
 
+Bob Ruffolo I never said "generating more traffic is not a better thing". I said just having more traffic isn't ALWAYS better. Your example makes a couple serious assumptions. Assumption #1: the 55% more traffic has at least a 5% conversion rate. Assumption #2: companies that blog "correctly" generate better qualified traffic.

I can understand why these assumptions are made.. and I might agree with them. However, I would really like to see some solid research behind them before I truly believe that they are true in most cases.

Regardless, my entire point was that the statement "55% more visitors" is useless by itself because it doesn't tell the whole story. It actually forces readers to make assumptions which may or may not be correct.
 
Also the page says "Businesses that blog average 55% more website visitors than those that don't"

Apparently this is just some simple correlation data. So the real reason for the increase in traffic is unknown. For example, a business who has a website that gets a more than average amount of visitors could simply just have the time and money to write a blog. On the other hand it could mean that by simply having a blog a business attracts more visitors. Or that businesses who have a blog tend to put more effort into their website and therefore get more traffic (not necessarily because they have a blog). Or it could mean a million other things.. There's really no way to tell which is correct. It's the old correlation does not prove causation dilemma.
Add a comment...