Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
Whenever I read a good Motley Fool article which I repost to Twitter, I also look to "follow" that writer. Unfortunately, Motley Fool not only doesn't publish a writer's @address on Twitter, you also DO NOT give us a Twitter icon to post the article with one-click of our cursor over a Twitter icon.

So, two failed marketing chances right off the bat at Motley Fool.

Writers here do not have the same exact names for a quick find with an ampersand "@" followed by their real name on Twitter. (In my case, I had to sign up with Twitter as @peregreine instead of @peregrine, the latter being the correct spelling for the swiftest bird of prey, simply because someone else already had @peregrine.)

John Rosevear (my fave car analyst on Twitter and Fool) is not @johnrosevear for an easy find on Twitter. There he is @john__rosevear.

The other day I posted the news that Dave Gardner is stepping down from active stock picking in the services:

I then wanted to congratulate Dave on Twitter for so many years of fine stock-picking. I still haven't found his handle on Twitter. Punch in Dave Gardner and Motley Fool in the search bar and no dice on being able to follow Dave Gardner. I've seen Dave Gardner's posts on Twitter a few times, let's say less than a half-dozen times. I may/may not be following him. I don't know. But the other day, I wanted to make sure his stuff was showing up in my Twitter feed and no dice.

To show you how Marketwatch does their writers a tiny bit better, let me just grab their top headline now:

The writer, a Jeremy C. Owens, has five icons below his name (scroll down to the body copy). Unfortunately, if I punch the Twitter icon, the article re-appears in a new Twitter window for ease of use re-posting the article; however, I still can't find Jeremy Owens on Twitter, the guy who wrote the article. So, Marketwatch wins points for getting their articles found outside Twitter re-posted on Twitter by simply putting a Twitter bird icon under the article's byline.

Here's the same bit of news from Motley Fool tonight, this time from Danny Vega, a writer I wanted to find on Twitter but gave up looking for after 15-minutes.

Vega from Fool is writing about the same news as Owens from Marketwatch is covering. However, when you stumble upon this link on Fool, notice what is missing: all icons which would allow you to post that article in one click to Twitter (in my case), LinkedIn, Facebook of Flipboard.

All the Motley Fool article has next to Danny Vega's name is his Fool handle(TMFLifeIsGood), and if you cut and paste that into the Twitter search bar, you will have no luck finding Danny Vega. Danny Vega is a Fool writer I've tried to find more than once on Twitter.

To see the impossibility of my search, take a second and type in Danny Vega's name into the Twitter search box. Ten Danny Vega's pop up, one of them Danny Vega 26, so, you get the idea, there are loads of Danny Vegas on twitter and none of them are our guy from Motley Fool in a cursory search.

There has got to be a way where your editors can use a template for every writer which provides two things:

1. Direct links via icons to re-post articles.

2. The social media handles for every social media where your writers are active.

I'm not just taking Motley Fool to task. Almost all business/market websites don't promote their writers with easy access to their social media accounts for readers to follow. Somebody should have figured this out years ago.

Motley Fool could do better than Marketwatch, CNBC, business week, seekingalpha, cnn business, businessinsider . . . and so on.

Let me stop there with businessinsider. At least if you punch their twitter icon on any article, it takes you to the businessinsider Twitter home page, not the article, not the writer. So, that's something, but it is very anti-specific.

What good is it for me to find the Motley Fool page on Twitter if none of the writers are listed in alphabetical order to a pinned tweet? (Hint, hint.)

How many people on Twitter don't know about Motley Fool? Millions. I get DMed about Motley Fool discussion boards by people from Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan. I'm like a goodwill ambassador with Southeast Asians to understand and find Motley Fool. To get here from there is a major task and huge letdown when they realize these boards still look like 1996. (That's a subject for another time.)But trying to explain Saul's Investing Board or your newsletters when your writers are not easily found on Twitter makes you look amateurish.

There are millions of people on Twitter who've never engaged with any Motley Fool writer on Twitter, or, your home page there or here.

Let's make it easier for them. What we want is "Don't make me stop and think where to search" marketing.

Get the jump on all these other business news websites and go the extra mile enabling us to post articles directly to Twitter (or Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) with one click from your article's page. Make the Twitter icon prominent, right under the writer's name. And let's also list the writer's handles for each social media.

I'd like to see Motley Fool become a Tier 1 news source, such as Barron's or Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times. But then again, these old-line news sources are also lacking on their online efforts and the world-wide web is over 25 years old and they still haven't figured out to market their brands on the cheap?

Look at a WSJ link to this story tonight about cheating in school:

The writer's name is Tawnell D. Hobbs. If you click on Tawnell's name, you get a new box with 3 options: bio, Twitter address, and email address.

So, even the WSJ only takes you half the way thereby not giving you the icons listed directly under his name. You have to figure out, "What happens if I click the name of Tawnell D. Hobbs?" 99% of engaged readers are not going to click on that author's name, thinking, "Ahh, it will only show his older articles."

The Wall Street Journal hopes you will find them and Tawnell Hobbs on Twitter, and they want you to re-post that article where hopefully readers of the OP will re-tweet and extend the name of the WSJ. But to not have the icon for Twitter with the writer's handle on Twitter prominently displayed is a big FAIL. Making me stop reading the headline, and the body copy, to possibly think about clicking on the author's name is an extra step, an extra roadblock. Many people will not know to click on his name. WSJ should do the heavy lifting from the editor's keyboard. The icons should be printed directly under Hobbs' name. The Editors should have templates for all of their writers.
A golden rule for Internet Ease of Use is "Don't make me think," when it comes to surfing "where" to find a writer's social media handle. (There's even a book on internet layout titled "Don't Make Me Think.")

So, Fool, get the jump on everybody. From now on, every article you post on your home page should allow old-time Fools who post regularly on Twitter to find our fave writers OR to be able to post that same article with just one click. Don't make us cut and paste the URLs to an article. Don't make us punch in writer's names, Motley Fool handles, go to Motley Fool's page to see if maybe the writer is spotlighted there.

Make the small changes I've mentioned above, and you'll be going the extra mile to build a bigger audience on social media. If you make these changes, watch your engagement for articles and writers shoot up.

This is free marketing. Braindead marketing. And I hope someone at Fool reading this will surf the articles of Tier 1 and Tier 2 business news websites to see all of them could do better at expanding their audience.

Fool could lead on this. Fool will lead on this if they are first to make this easier on readers.

Just get it done so that I can follow Dave Gardner, Danny Vega, etc, without a whole bunch of Law and Order knocking on doors and guessing where you guys hide on Twitter.

Make it possible that I can post one of your articles directly to Twitter with one click from your article's page.

Do this for your writers and make them feel you have their backs. More and more writers for news services are quitting the business news websites to build their own substack brands because their old employers never promoted them. Get hip. Think outside the box. Increase your readership.

Get these two suggestions into play and then I'll contact Dave and Tom to tell them two BIG ideas Motley Fool should employ to become the 21st Century version of the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, etc.

But first, show your writers some love. Show the world you care. Promote from within. Make it easier for readers to find writers and to re-post articles.

Thank you for reading.

p.s. These two BIG ideas I have for Fool would turn social media on its head. In fact, people on Twitter would begin coming here first thing every morning to open a Motley Fool home page for EZ viewing all day. You guys have the answer for a huge source of revenue income which stares you in the face, but you don't know what questions to formulate on how to make this happen, because your thinking is carbonized in your 1990s startup brain. If you want to move Fool into the 21st Century and wow investors, there are two easy steps to make Fool the most prominent name in business news. More later.
Print the post  


Community Town Hall
Banter, potshots, and all the stuff we said you can't post on ITF. Why not try it?
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.