What are the search risks and rewards of imitation and experimentation?

Imitating content that already ranks means adopting formats with an existing search performance record. This may help secure rankings, but it does not necessarily build brand recognition or attract customers. Experimentation, by contrast, uses original data, new angles, or different formats. Its results are harder to predict from existing search results, but it offers a chance to stand out from similar content. In a 2019 article, Animalz author Ryan Law argued that imitation does not necessarily remain low-risk over the long term, nor is experimentation always high-risk. This was a content strategy analysis at the time, not a statement of current search engine rules or a guarantee of results.

Imitating formats that already rank may come at the cost of distinctiveness

Here, “imitation” means using articles that already rank for a target keyword as a reference, adopting their content format, and repackaging existing information into another article. For example, if most search results are list articles, this approach means producing a similar list rather than adding new data or perspectives.

The appeal is having examples of ranking content to draw on, rather than starting with an entirely untested format. However, Law’s description of this approach as “low-risk, low-reward” should not be interpreted as a promise of stable rankings or guaranteed conversions:

• Even useful information may fail to make readers remember the brand providing it if it lacks context and a distinctive perspective.
• Ranking for a keyword does not mean readers will become customers; these are separate outcomes.
• The author argues that as imitative content proliferates, readers may grow tired of it and brands may become less distinguishable, gradually increasing the risks of this approach.

Experimentation means offering a different answer, not just changing the headline

In this material, “experimentation” mainly means trying new content formats or positions, rather than conducting scientific experiments with control groups. In practice, this includes using a company’s unique data, expertise, and perspectives to change how a familiar topic is addressed. The article gives three examples:

• AdEspresso analyzed more than 750,000 Facebook ads, using original data to provide new information.
• Hiten Shah used a specific business case study of Trello to offer a perspective that differed from conventional growth advice.
• Amplitude reframed the topic of monthly growth rates, moving from a standard how-to guide to an analysis of common mistakes.

According to the article, each of these examples received hundreds of thousands of organic search visits. However, the material provides no controlled tests, so it cannot establish that the traffic was entirely attributable to the new angles or be used to estimate the success rate for other websites adopting the same approach.

Search results are a reference, not the limit of what is possible

Law notes that results pages show strategies that have already been tried and performed well. A predominance of list articles may indicate that they meet searchers’ needs, or it may simply mean that better formats have not yet been tried. The popularity of a format alone is not enough to conclude that other approaches are ineffective.

When comparing the two approaches, rankings, traffic, brand recognition, and customer conversions therefore need to be assessed separately. The author argues that as formulaic articles become more common, distinctive content has more opportunities to demonstrate its value. He also warns that search engines displaying information directly from articles may reduce website traffic. These are analyses and expectations from 2019, not a basis for directly ranking the risks of different types of content today.