I was thinking about frequency the other day whilst catching up with my RSS feeds. Particularly how some feeds have different frequencies to others. Seth's blog for example comes at you thick and fast and I don't always have time to keep up with it. Which is a shame as I'm missing some good thinking (that's my fault not his though).
It made me wonder if frequency is ever considered as an objective for a communications brief, and if not should it be? 'What's the best frequency for this messaging?' type of stuff. For example at innocent we try to stick to making one blog post per day as a rule, we won't post stuff for the sake of it to just meet the rule but that's our blog's general frequency. Stuff like twitter has a much higher frequency but can also be very sporadic.
I'm kind of noticing that the people I'm following are turning down their blogging frequencies and upping their twittering frequencies. Kind of a sign of the times I imagine but I miss reading blog posts with pictures and longer formed thoughts and stuff.
It's also been making me think about sustainable frequencies. I've spoken about wearing stuff in and not out before, and long term 'always on' type communications. These also take long term resource commitments though particularly suited to in-house teams. What about stuff like the compare the meerkat twitter feed? Is this a sustainable frequency? I kind of assume it's being maintained by a copy writer in an agency so unless the client is prepared to keep funding it it's going to have to be turned off one day. But if it's continuing to get engagement why would they? I suppose the question is where is the line drawn when it's no longer worth the investment and you let the followers go. The vast majority for campaigns are time specific these days, so by their very nature have to come on an end. Or perhaps this is changing?
Anyway my own frequency for this blog tends to be once a week at the minute. Until next week.