????圖片分享網(wǎng)站Pinterest要慢得多。人們其實(shí)是利用Pinterest給某些東西設(shè)定電子書簽——為他們打算以后從事的DIY項(xiàng)目制作布告板。訊息的傳播速度較慢，但如果你正在制作一個(gè)烹飪配方，一個(gè)梳妝臺(tái)，或者你打算做一件必須等到周末、有足夠時(shí)間來做的事情，那么你就會(huì)更加深入地接觸這家社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)。

????這樣的例子不勝枚舉。你如何調(diào)整BuzzFeed的業(yè)務(wù)或內(nèi)容，以適應(yīng)每家社交平臺(tái)的需要？

????怎么說呢，措施之一是內(nèi)容的類型。我們是從人的層面來思考這個(gè)問題的——我們不會(huì)說，“瞧瞧人家Pinterest，讓我們打造一個(gè)更完美的Pinterest，讓我們模仿Pinterest的算法。”我們的反應(yīng)是，“讓我們創(chuàng)作人們非常樂意分享的內(nèi)容。讓我們創(chuàng)作人們一看到就說，‘跟人分享會(huì)更有樂趣’的內(nèi)容。”所以，我們主要?jiǎng)?chuàng)作幽默、可愛的動(dòng)物、突發(fā)新聞，以及那些你一看到內(nèi)容馬上就想跟人分享，從而把其他人帶進(jìn)談話的東西。

????一方面，你是一位數(shù)據(jù)驅(qū)動(dòng)型企業(yè)家，但你同時(shí)也依賴直覺，對(duì)嗎？你如何平衡這兩件事情？直覺驅(qū)動(dòng)與數(shù)據(jù)驅(qū)動(dòng)各占多大比重？

????人們常常說，“跟著感覺走，”但他們忘了，所謂直覺建立在大量的數(shù)據(jù)和過去的經(jīng)驗(yàn)之上。比方說，如果你創(chuàng)辦過5本最終失敗的雜志，而有人打算推出相似的第6本雜志，你會(huì)說，“直覺告訴我，這不是一個(gè)好主意。”這并不意味著你具備某種深刻的洞察力。你其實(shí)擁有5個(gè)已經(jīng)滲入你的直覺，非常強(qiáng)有力且痛苦的數(shù)據(jù)點(diǎn)。這就是為什么當(dāng)你觀察任何一位公司的資深人士時(shí)，他們的直覺幾乎總是做他們已經(jīng)獲得成功的事情。他們想一遍又一遍地做這件事。

????不要總是相信自己的直覺，最好保持一定的質(zhì)疑，不斷吸收新數(shù)據(jù)，不斷質(zhì)疑自己已有的知識(shí)。在BuzzFeed，我們經(jīng)常給每位員工發(fā)送各種儀表板，讓他們觀察人們對(duì)他們創(chuàng)造的內(nèi)容作何反應(yīng)：共享次數(shù)是在上升，還是在下降？他們可以測(cè)試假說和理論，說：“好吧，這樣做過去很奏效。我可以讓它再次產(chǎn)生影響嗎？我還能做出類似的內(nèi)容嗎？我能不能從中抽取一部分，讓它傳播開來？”通過這種有益的質(zhì)疑，同時(shí)獲取大量新數(shù)據(jù)，人就會(huì)開始學(xué)習(xí)新知。

????你總是聽到人們說：“是的，我們不能成為網(wǎng)絡(luò)數(shù)字的奴隸，因?yàn)槿绻覀冎皇顷P(guān)注這些數(shù)字，它就會(huì)帶領(lǐng)我們走進(jìn)死胡同。”你完全不存在這個(gè)問題，對(duì)不對(duì)？難道你不是只關(guān)注數(shù)字嗎？

????沒錯(cuò)。只關(guān)注數(shù)字是非常危險(xiǎn)的。我認(rèn)為，網(wǎng)絡(luò)上存在許多過度優(yōu)化的問題。你經(jīng)常看到這種“乳溝”陷阱，你在網(wǎng)站首頁發(fā)布某個(gè)名人的照片，她的裙子可以讓人們看到她的乳溝，你說，“哇！這張照片的點(diǎn)擊率可真高啊。”如果你是數(shù)字的奴隸，你就會(huì)開始持續(xù)不斷地發(fā)布類似這樣的東西。于是，你的網(wǎng)站很快就會(huì)充滿色情垃圾。你會(huì)說：“我只是始終在關(guān)注數(shù)字而已。”但你正在突破一個(gè)局部最大值，很多人再也不想瀏覽你的網(wǎng)站。因?yàn)閮H僅只有10%的讀者看見圖片就點(diǎn)個(gè)不停的色情狂或者喜歡窺視名人隱私的女性。

????And then something like Pinterest is much slower. People are actually bookmarking things in Pinterest—making boards of DIY projects they want to do later. Things spread at a slower rate, but there's a lot deeper engagement where you're actually cooking a recipe or you're building a dresser or you're doing something that you have to wait for the weekend to have enough time to do.

????And the list goes on. How do you tailor your business or your content to each one of these social platforms?

????Well, part of it is the type of content. We think about that on a human level—we're not like, "Look at Pinterest. Let's make the perfect Pinterest. Let's game Pinterest's algorithm." It's more, "Let's make something that people are proud to share. Let's make something that people see and say, 'This is going to be more fun with someone else.' " So things like humor, things like cute animals, things like breaking news, things where when you engage with the content, you immediately want to share it and bring other people into the conversation.

????On one hand, you are incredibly data-driven. But you also rely on your gut, right? How do you balance those two things? How much is gut-driven and how much is data-driven?

????People often say, "I go with my gut," and they forget that their gut is informed by huge amounts of data and past experience. It's like if you've launched five magazines that have failed, and then someone wants to launch a similar one, a sixth one. You're like, "I'm going to go with my gut. This isn't a good idea." That doesn't mean that you have some deep insight. You actually have these five very strong, painful data points that have informed your gut. That's why when you look at someone senior in any company, almost always their gut is to do the thing that they had success previously in their career doing. They want to do that thing again and again.

????It's good to not always trust your gut, to have some skepticism about it, and to constantly have new data coming in and constantly question what you actually know. A lot of what we do at BuzzFeed is give dashboards to every person who works at BuzzFeed where they're seeing how people are engaging with the content they're producing: Is it going up? Is it going down? They can test hypotheses and theories and say, "All right, this worked in the past. Can I make it work again? Can I do something similar? Can I take one part of it and make that work?" And you start to learn through having a healthy skepticism and lots of access to new data.

????You always hear people who say, "Well, we can't be a slave to the numbers on the web because if we only follow the numbers, it will lead us down some path." You don't have that problem at all, do you? Don't you only follow the numbers?

????No. It's dangerous to only follow the numbers. I think there's a lot of over-optimization on the web. You see this sort of "side boob" trap or something, where you put some picture of a celebrity whose dress lets you see the side of her boob on the front of your website, and you say, "Wow! That gets a really high click-through rate." If you were a slave to the numbers, you'd start putting more stuff like that and more stuff like that and more stuff like that. And pretty soon you would have a site full of trashy, salacious garbage, and you would say, "Oh, I'm just looking at the numbers," but you would be hitting a local maximum, where lots of people would never want to read your site just because 10 percent of your readers are horny guys who can't resist clicking, or women who can't resist gawking at celebrities.