Creative Essence: Getting Clicks for My Long-Form Article

I didn’t always know my creative essence. Creativity has been a center in my life for as long as I can remember, but it’s been a long journey for me to know why I make what I do. Using this as a premise, I wrote a long-form article on understanding your creative essence, based on what I’ve done to understand my own. 

Now that I’ve completed my long-form article, I realized that I need to consider how I’ll make it known and read by audience members. Social media! 

In another blog post, I visually displayed that writing for each platform is necessary to gain the right reaction. So, below I did it again, but with my own social media accounts and a real article that I want to get out into the world. 

Here’s what I wrote for three different platforms, meant to gain traction for my article. 


For Twitter, I wanted to keep it short and simple – relating to its signature 280 character limit. While this post is notably lower than that limit, Twitter is also a platform known for its ease in retweeting and fast scrolling. Choosing to focus on the five different creative types, this post should gain quick interest and result in a higher click rate. 


LinkedIn’s purpose is for professional career development and networking, so I needed this post to market towards that. Luckily, my long-form article has roots in one of those main subjects – development. I wanted to keep this post personal and get to the point that reflecting on yourself will help build confidence and identity with the always fast-changing creative fields. The image is a hand written visual of finding my values, that relates to the self-reflection noted in the first sentence. This shows the audience that I actively used my noted exercises to find my creative essence, and that they could easily do the same.


This post was the easiest to write since I imagined how I would want to write to my friends on Facebook. I focused a fair amount on myself (since, you know, I did write the article) but also related it to how it can help the readers. At the end of the post, I thought it was necessary to point out that there’s a bonus to finding out your creative type, ideally engaging more members out of their curious nature. 

Using different approaches for the same long-form article and staying native to each platform should help result in higher clicks – making my article known to the digital world! I’m excited to see the result, hoping that my audience members will understand their creative essence through my writing.

You can read my article here.

Context Over Content

It’s 6 p.m. on a Tuesday. You just got home after a long day of work and decide to sit on the couch and scroll through Instagram as a mental release. There, you see a post made by your friend Dave, who briefly expressed his day at the golf course with a celebration beer. 

Moving on, you hop over to Facebook, where you see another post of Dave’s about the same thing, but the context is entirely different; now you know that he was there for business, and not just taking a ‘lax day away from work. 

That same evening, you’re curious about what’s on Linkedin. There Dave is again! And again, Dave posted the same content about his workday at the golf course, but this time, you know that he worked hard to earn a client’s sale and that he loves his job. 

How interesting… On these different platforms, you had the chance to encounter the same Dave, but three different ways. You wonder why Dave described his day so differently with each post and realize that it’s because the context he used was developed specifically for that platform’s audience. 

Context – what follows a subject, event, or idea and gives it the utmost understanding for a group of people. 

“Content is king, but context is God.” – Gary Vaynerchuck in Jab, Jab, Jab, Right Hook. Context is meant for how a story gets told, native to the platform it’s for. While what we create has strong potential as long as the guidelines are set in place, the content may require change based on where it gets posted and who sees it. 

Vaynerchuk uses this analogy for marketing on social media, though, it is possible to use this approach with any non-fictional story, like our friend Dave did. As we saw above, a photo and description for Instagram won’t have the same effect if posted to Facebook. The audience per platform changes and responds differently, and altering your voice can strongly influence a greater result with a responsive audience.

A Writing Paradox Worth Considering

Have you ever written something that you genuinely didn’t enjoy? Think back to when that was and try to dissect why you struggled with it. Was it the way you wrote, the mood, the subject, the intended audience?

Ironically enough, this post you’re reading now is one that I grappled with. While what I wrote initially answered all the necessary questions, I didn’t get the concept out how I wanted to. As I thought deeply about this, I realized that I didn’t think about how I’d like to tell this subject’s story and instead went at it how I thought my audience would understand it. The result was a reasonably well-written piece that made its points; however, it was bland. The irony is that this post’s content is about writing for yourself and the audience; so, let’s dive in together to better understand why this can be troubling.

“You are writing primarily to please yourself, and if you go about it with enjoyment, you will also entertain the readers who are worth writing for,” William Zinsser explains in his book, On Writing Well: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction. While Zinsser talks about writing for yourself, he isn’t implying that the audience is not important. The audience is essential because it builds a relationship between the writer and the reader. So, why is he declaring to think about yourself before the audience? Well, if we look closer to what Zinsser’s paradox is, we’ll understand that the purpose of this isn’t to disregard the readers but to look inward to achieve the ideal audience.

According to Zinsser’s paradox, writing well is required to achieve readers, but the author’s voice needs to be authentic to attain readers. 

Technical writing is the first of the paradox: to achieve readers. Writing well can become a skill over time, but if the final blog, article, book, etc., doesn’t flow, has grammar errors, or doesn’t keep to the point, it will not gain an audience. Writing doesn’t come naturally, as Zinsser puts it. To write well enough to gain viewers requires cleaning the mess several times before a piece is published or posted. Only when writing has been ruthlessly dissected to its most understandable form can style and voice enter the room. 

Following the second point of the paradox, the author must genuinely write for themselves to have the ideal audience. Just like how self-confidence and willpower resides in the mind, the practice of writing for yourself will bring more satisfaction, and in turn, will award you with a meaningful audience. “The more of yourself you put into your writing, the more human and engaging your work will be.” Mark Bernstein, in “10 Tips on Writing The Living Web”. 

Writing authentic, technical craft for an audience is doable, as long as it’s completely understood. However, this dichotomy is meant for nonfiction, as said in the title of Zinsser’s book. So, do these contrasting goals work for all other kinds of writings? Think about it this way: while a teen fiction novel has the voice that makes it so, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the audience will only be teenagers. J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series, managed to gain audience members of all ranges because of the content and voice she used that was authentic to herself and her interests. So yes, while there are differences in writing approaches to nonfiction versus fiction, the paradox process should remain the same for both writing types.

Let’s go back to the problem I had when writing this post. The issue wasn’t so much the technical aspect of the paradox as it was the voice that I used to approach the subject. My writing wasn’t engaging enough, meaning readers would likely not get to this point in my post. The paradox is quite simple, but we may need to remind ourselves of it with each piece of writing to ensure we’re meeting the needs of both ourselves and the audience. To write technically is to write honestly for yourself, while the attitude used to attain readers will help you reach a loyal audience.

A Writer Am I


As a young child, I had already begun the search for my creative identity. My love for art trumped all other subjects, despite that early grade school was heavily visual-based for all anyway. Still, I learned to thrive with creative art activities and quickly identified that I like to communicate visually, only advancing as I grew older. 

There was a time when I thought I could proceed my creativity into writing. I live in my head with almost constant flows of ideas that have the potential for a win, and writing appeared like a good way to bring that out. However, my sudden interest in writing quickly faded into nothing, and I returned to the visuals that I knew and loved so well. 

Besides the required writings through continued schooling, It wasn’t until I began my professional career that I started writing again. Creating blogs and product descriptions for a retail website was new to me, but I adapted quickly. Writing for these purposes was simple, realizing that the information only required skimmability, and it didn’t need much meaningful content. I realize now that this writing style was not very valuable to myself as a writer or for the audience – though, it was an attempt to keep the retailer as up to date on the web as possible. My realization came from extensive studying on reading, writing, and creating content in the world of our distraction economy; I’ve learned quickly that script for digital platforms has transformed to become easier to read


Because of what’s said above, I’ve come up with a few conclusions for myself:

  1. Coming up with the ideas to write about is the easy part. 
  2. Writing non-valuable web-based content is simple.
  3. Writing meaningful content is difficult.

As I learn to become a better creator through the master’s program Interactive Media and Communications, I’ve discovered that writing a blog post every week, which requires purpose and reaching my intended audience, is challenging. I always knew that writing was demanding – it takes a long time to develop the ideas into words, write in a way that makes sense, and revise, revise, revise. However, to be a knowledgeable source for my intended audience has been well worth it in the end, though it doesn’t always feel like it in the middle of the creative process.

The Process:

Something that assists me in getting through the creative process is a writing process. If I ever retained an exercise for writing, I didn’t perceive it until now, where I’ve needed to make my writing more worthy. I begin my writing with something I like to call idea sentences. After identifying a topic, I’ll write down all of my propositions in the form of sentences as if those sentences belong in the blog or article, similar to a brainstorming session. Sometimes, as I write down words, new thoughts come to mind, and I move on quickly. Once I have several idea sentences written down, I decipher which ones are worth keeping and revising, re-locating, re-wording, and continued to form valid paragraphs. 

After idea sentences are revised and shifted into separate paragraphs, I typically take leave to give my brain a break and return to writing with a fresh mind. Essentially, my entire writing process is revising. I write quickly, leave, return and revise, take a break, add and revise, and so on. Through this writing process, I’ve advanced my ability to write well for meaningful content.

So, am I a writer? It seems that even if I don’t feel it at times… A writer am I.

Carr, N. (2008). Is Google Making Us Stupid? [Web log post]. Retrieved from

A Reading Experience

There are many ways to become a stronger writer, although an often overlooked tool is by analyzing what you read. While learning to become a better writer, I’ve taken this approach by finding examples of what makes for good writing versus poor writing and examining why. As I advance in my ever-changing design profession, my curiosity for learning more about others’ experiences continues, so I used my interest in this subject for this reading exploration. 

Screenshot of Expect Change in Your Design Career. Choose Growth.

Expect Change in Your Design Career. Choose Growth. by Tim Van Damme is an excellent blog post relating to the advancements in design, the positions, and the people themselves. The author and speaker segues his blog by introducing a “future-proof” way to approach design and career change. He then moves to five elements that have a high potential of evolving, then to four things that should likely remain consistent, all while providing hyperlinks to related text to advance his credibility and research in his writing. In addition to the writing, the blog post supplies a fair amount of white space, original illustrations, and call-to-actions that help keep the audience interested. Overall, the read was pleasing and left me feeling like I received necessary information on the subject.

“As Dr. Daniel Gilbert of Harvard points out, “Your future self will be a different person regardless of effort and intention.” Because change is inevitable and growth is optional, my advice is to design your life and your career wisely.”

– Tim Van Damme in Expect Changes in Your Design Career. Choose Growth.
Screenshot of “The Evolution of The Fashion Designer

Another article, written by Sarah S. on Linkedin, “The Evolution of The Fashion Designer,” talks about the changes that she’s experienced over several years in the fashion industry and gives her two-cents on what should improve. The article begins with a strong note that fashion designer positions need to adapt to treat designers better, which pulled me in to read more. However, as my read went on, I quickly realized that the statements appeared opinion-based and didn’t have any links within the text. I often found myself desiring to reference more evidence of what the author was writing about and felt that opinions alone weren’t reliable enough to keep me captivated. In addition to the questioned reliability, the article’s layout left me re-reading sentences with difficulty understanding where the transitions happen. The read conclusively left me less interested in the subject than when I began.

“For those companies who think it’s OK paying a Design Director $75K or an associate $15/hour you should reconsider. You certainly aren’t paying for the talent and experience that these candidates have.”

– Sarah S. inThe Evolution of the Fashion Designer

While both writings make valid points about the changes in the design field, Van Damme used more reliable research, a layout that was easy and engaging, and helpful suggestions used from both his experience and findings. Sarah S’s article, however issued a few flaws in achieving the presumed goal. The article could use some revision to reach a more meaningful conclusion by using Van Damme’s blog’s similar features. Ultimately, I learned great insight from product design and fashion design experts and helped advance my knowledge of what makes for good writing and writing that needs improvement.