{"id":6701,"date":"2022-01-03T23:19:03","date_gmt":"2022-01-04T07:19:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sparktoro.com\/blog\/?p=6701"},"modified":"2022-01-03T23:19:05","modified_gmt":"2022-01-04T07:19:05","slug":"hook-line-and-sinker-a-model-for-crafting-successful-viral-content","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sparktoro.com\/blog\/hook-line-and-sinker-a-model-for-crafting-successful-viral-content\/","title":{"rendered":"Hook, Line, and Sinker: A Model for Crafting Successful, Viral Content"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Despite studying content that overachieves for years, it’s only in the past few months that I’ve stumbled into a mental model I’ve called: Hook, Line, and Sinker. My goal here is to broadly encapsulate *why*<\/strong> overachieving content pieces hit their mark, and why similar, but underperforming pieces miss.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First: <\/strong>when we talk about “content,” we’re talking about all kinds of content: short-form entertainment videos on TikTok, engaging B2B-focused posts on Twitter or LinkedIn, case studies, research reports, funny comics on Reddit, and everything in between.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second:<\/strong> Overachieving doesn’t mean “goes insanely viral,” “gets 10,000 retweets,” or “ranks #1 in Google for 100 high volume keywords” or any other singular metric for content success. It merely means that, when compared to pieces of similar quality and format, they dramatically exceed the average.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third:<\/strong> Content is art, not science. Content success relies on human behavior, not the laws of physics. Accordingly, this model is a subjective framework, not a precise formula.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What does the framework look like?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"The<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

My hypothesis: content which follows this simple, intuitive pattern generally outperforms content that doesn’t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As evidence, I’ll submit the Internet’s aggregators of high-engagement content:<\/p>\n\n\n\n