I just completed a highly scientific research experiment. I mean this thing was designed by eight genius researchers on three continents. There were control groups, independent variables,and guys wearing goggles. Also, my findings have been properly adjusted for age, gender, geography, and even unseen environmental factors.
When various and interesting links are offered, the most popular will be that one which offers readers the opportunity to see a little skin. This will hold true even if…
- the subject of the page linked to is far from sexual in nature.
- the description of said page promises only an immodestly dressed woman — and not actual nudity.
In this past week’s morning blend feature here on aliens and strangers, I provided a number of links — not unlike any other morning blend (except this one was posted on a Wednesday rather than the usual Tuesday, due to Auburn having won the national championship). There were a total of six links, which covered a random assortment of topics. One of these links — the one leading to The Everyday Minimalist blog– was described (in passing) as possessing a picture of a nearly naked woman. The woman in the photo was reported to be not only as scantily clad, but also in the act of performing yoga exercises.
At the end of five days, the “(nearly) naked woman link” outperformed the average of all other links at a ratio of 4:1. Yep, for every click leading to one of the other (less saucy) sites, there were four clicks to the peep show at The Minimalist. I’m calling this evidence conclusive. My readers like to look at sexy women dressed sexily.
Other Possible Contributing Factors
I will admit there could have been other factors at work. Here’s a list:
- Perhaps many of my readers are just really into yoga? And probably didn’t even notice that I’d written something about a “picture of a nearly naked woman doing yoga.” They actually read it this way: “a very non-sexual picture of a modestly dressed woman doing yoga, that is not suggestive in any way.” Or maybe they even read it this way: “a picture of a woman — or quite possibly a man (I’m not sure which, because the individual is so very unattractive and unexceptionally dressed) — doing yoga.” This is entirely possible.*
- Maybe this would have been the favorite link of the day no matter what? It was indeed about advertisements for fast food restaurants, and how the real-life burgers never look like their steroid-injected photos. It’s very interesting subject matter. And we all like fast food. It’s at least possible this was simply the favorite link of the day, and nothing more. [But at a ratio of 4:1, come on?!]
- There were two separate links on the page that went to the Minimalist website — one to the fast food post and one to the blog itself. It would make sense, then, that two links could double the likelihood of people clicking. [But quadruple? Probably not.]
- We do have to consider, also, that 50% of my readers (a completely made up figure for which I have no documentation) are of the female persuasion. It’s unlikely that the promise of a sultry exerciser is going to send these women over to a particular site. Call me naive, but I just don’t think the ladies are that into bare midriffs and tight pants. [I suppose they may have wanted to see their competition; women are, by nature, competitive.]
- However, what I was getting at is that, in order to see the numbers we did, it’s likely that men were visiting the risque site at a ratio of 13:1. That’s right, if women clicked the naughty at a ratio of 1:1, men favored it by a multiple of 13. Those vulgar boys.
So, it’s settled:
- Sex sells.
- And the guys who read my blog are a little bit gross.**
Oh, and the picture of the nearly naked woman doing yoga… She’s a cartoon lady. I suppose you could call her an attractive cartoon lady, but she’s no Jessica Rabbit.
* cough, cough