Our Blog
On Monday, Altimer Group Partner Jeremiah Owyang published an article titled:
Make Your Corporate Websites Relevant by Integrating Facebook, Google, MySpace, Linked In, or Twitter
The post provides a detailed list of "feature attribute benefits of social integration," as well as "who offers what" for "social networking integration features." It’s a beautifully constructed post, the kind of post thousands of marketers will likely print and refer to as a daily resource when planning their social media initiatives.
Now. I am a reasonable person. I fully recognize that Owyang is one of the leading, most well-respected social media analysts in the world. He blogs for the Forbes CMO Network, he speaks internationally about social media, and is an all-around highly influential guy. This reputation is likely well-deserved.
However. When one wields such powerful influence over powerful people, one must wield said influence responsibly. And, in my opinion, this is one irresponsible article.
Three years ago…
Monday’s post is presented in the context of an article Owyang wrote three years ago, titled "How To Evolve Your Irrelevant Corporate Website." Why did Owyang think our websites were irrelvant? Because most of the content on those websites was "an unbelievable collection of hyperbole, artificial branding, and pro-corporate content" that utterly failed to support any part of the customer sales lifecycle. Especially from the customers’ perspective.
Owyang’s position at the time was that the corporate website, as we knew it, was a lost cause. In fact, Owyang suggested that the only way we could ensure our websites remained relevant was to collaborate with our customers as equals in planning and producing content.
I remember this post well, because his "disruptive" ideas struck me as ridiculous. If we apparently still hadn’t figured out how to effectively plan for, create, deliver, and govern our own website content, how the hell were we going to incorporate user-generated content into the mix?
Obviously, I was in the skeptical minority. And skeptics are never sexy.
And then the world blew up.
Of course, conversations about social media exploded. Our customers were talking, and, if we were going to survive over the coming years, we needed to listen. So we rushed to find out where our customers were, what they were saying, and to engage them in conversation about our products and services. Simultaneously, CMOs demanded brand presence on YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter. Never mind why. Just get us there.
Now, look. It’s not my intention to downplay the importance and omnipresence of social media. Like anyone else who has a pulse, I believe in the power and potential of well-planned, well-executed, corporate social media initiatives. I believe it is our responsibility (and an unprecedented business opportunity) to meet our customers where they are, to listen, and to engage.
Social media, itself, is not the problem.
Here’s the problem, and it’s a doozy: to support our social media initiatives, we churned out content. Meanwhile, our marketing teams continued to publish content. Corporate communications, advertising partners, public relations, product and service managers… the flood of content continued.
And it continues today. Unchecked. Unmonitored. Unable to be measured. Inconsistent. Outdated. Out of control. More of the "hyperbole, artifical branding, and pro-corporate content" Owyang rightfully criticized as "irrelevant."
Content that no one cares about.
And now, this. As of Monday, Owyang appears to have forgotten about the content part of things altogether. Because now what he is proposing is that website "relevance" can be achieved by using "products that allow thriving communities of buyers and prospects to connect with static corporate sites."
The same static corporate websites that, for all intents and purposes, likely still suck.
Now we come to the irresponsible part.
CMOs and their counterparts looooove this kind of post. It’s well-researched, more or less comprehensive, concise, and well-constructed. I’m sure this has already been circulated (634 retweets to date!), printed, and discussed in meetings all over the country, if not the world. It’s an attractive post because it more or less sums up what we need to consider when choosing social media features for our websites. As Owyang puts it, the matrix is a resource to "fast forward research activies." It’s a matrix that, if referenced judiciously, Owyang promises will help us to make our corporate websites relevant.
He’s wrong.
By focusing solely on social media’s features, Owyang continues to perpetuate the pervasive illusion that, if we choose the right tools, our customers will converse with us, talk about us, and share our content.
You know. The "hyperbole, artifical branding, and pro-corporate content" most of our websites still feature.
The relevancy of our corporate websites is not dependent whatsoever on which social media widgets have been deployed throughout the site. Its relevancy is driven by our site content, no matter who is creating it. And that content requires as much, if not more, strategic planning and consistent oversight as do our social media initiatives.
Hey, CMOs: I’m talking to you.
It’s time for executive leadership to stop being distracted by social media features, "disruptive technologies," and the like. These are bright, shiny objects that pull focus from what makes or breaks every corporate website: whether or not your customers can find, use, and act upon content they care about. The stuff they came for. The stuff they want. The stuff they need.
Make your corporate website relevant by having a well-founded, sustainable content strategy. Let that content strategy inform the kind of content you create and share, how you share it, how you engage, and how you react. Define process. Allocate resources to content creation and maintenance. Align on content governance policies and guidelines.
So, go ahead. Print up that article. But take a big Sharpie and cross out the title. In its place, write this:
Social Media Features To Consider… Once We Have a Content Strategy
Kristina Halvorson is the CEO/Founder of Brain Traffic and the author of Content Strategy for the Web. Follow her on Twitter.
Posted in Uncategorized
So your website is up and running, and your content is in good shape—in English. But when your company decides to enter the Indian or Nigerian markets, what gets lost in translation? Your website can become a cultural minefield, but here are some ways to avoid those “mines.”
Say the right thing, the right way, in the right language
Most people think that globalizing content means hiring a translation firm. But one thing we often miss is localization. It’s the magic spice that ensures your content is culturally acceptable, your brand remains consistent, and what you said in English stays relevant in Hindi or Cantonese.
We’ve all laughed at global companies’ faux pas. For example, KFC’s slogan “Finger Lickin’ Good” was translated literally as “Eat Your Fingers Off” in China. And the American Dairy Association was very successful with its “Got Milk?” campaign, but the literal translation, “Are You Lactating?” didn’t go over well in Mexico. They’re funny, sure. But you can bet those “mines” did some brand damage and cost a lot of time and money to correct.
Who’s doing it right? The most recent McDonald’s campaign featured the slang phrase “I’m lovin’ it.” In French Canada, it’s translated as “C’est ça que j’m,” meaning literally “It’s that which I love.” “J’m” is slang for “J’aime” or “I love,” so it’s not a literal translation. The catchphrase is made meaningful and relevant to the culture, thanks to localization.
A final warning about publishing your site in English in a non-English-speaking country. As a general rule of thumb: don’t do it! Sites that are not at least partially translated into the local language risk being dismissed as irrelevant and ethnocentric. Even in countries where English is a widely spoken second language, users may find it tedious to read a non-native language.
Show and tell (the RIGHT story)
Pictures and graphics can complement your copy and reinforce your message. But, on global websites, they can also be “mines” that can blow up in your face. In Indonesia, Iran, or Malaysia, that shot of a woman in a sundress won’t work. In many Muslim countries, it’s unacceptable for a woman to show skin besides the face and hands. In many areas of the world, it’s not appropriate to use only Caucasian models. It’s better to use models that reflect the ethnicity or diversity of the target culture. To take it one step further, photography using American models may not work for Europe, even if there’s appropriate diversity—certain types of clothing, style, and environments scream “American!” to a Dutch or Danish audience.
Symbols in photography and graphics can also cause problems. A thumbs up gesture might mean “Great!” or “OK!” in Western countries. But in the Middle East? It’s obscene. Animals can be risky, too. Cows are sacred in India and dogs are considered unclean in some parts of Asia. And using an animal that doesn’t live in the target geography, like a walrus in Ethiopia, may result in confusion and frustration.
Your brand’s perception can suffer from cultural missteps or gain from cultural sensitivity. So invest time and thought when selecting pictures for your global audiences.
It’s a Small World After All
Bottom line? Thanks in part to global brands, our world is shrinking. So why not protect your brand by ensuring that foreign language content is done right the first time? Even if your company is a startup entering only one foreign country, translation and localization are a worthy investment. By ensuring your content resonates with your audiences and conveys your brand’s tone accurately, you’re protecting your brand experience. Which if you’re Coca-Cola or Toyota, is worth billions of dollars. And even if yours isn’t, localization shows your customers that you take them seriously. So, say what you mean, and mean what you say … in Farsi, Taiwanese, and Swedish.
Posted in Brain Traffic, Content Strategy, Web Content
In January of 2009, I started telling people that content strategy would be the next big focus for organizations worldwide. I even went so far as to say, “Content strategy will soon be getting more attention than social media.”
Lots of folks smiled encouragingly, patted my shoulder, and told me to get back to my style guides. Some people just laughed at me. And that’s when I hit them over the head with my content inventory. Bam!
Well. Guess what.
Numbers don’t lie.
Here’s a look at Google search returns for “social media” over the past few years:
2005: 9,150,000
2006: 41,600,000
2007: 165,000,000
2008: 359,000,000
2009: 1,230,000,000
And now, here’s a look at Google search returns for “content strategy":
2006: 5,930,000
2007: 8,340,000
2008: 137,000,000
2009: 337,000,000
I’ll refrain from saying "I told you so." I’m classy like that.
Content strategy is more or less on the same trajectory as social media was three years ago. Why?
I think it’s because the reality of social media initiatives—that they’re internal commitments, not advertising campaigns—has derailed more than a few organizations from really implementing effective, measurable programs. Most companies can’t sustain social media engagement because they lack the internal editorial infrastructure to support it.
They don’t have a content strategy.
It’s not that this hasn’t been a problem for years. It’s simply that social media has made the problem more obvious (and more public) than ever before.
“Everything starts with a mission, and is fortified by the content we create.”
Social media rockstar Brian Solis recently published a landmark article that finally begins to identify social media for what it is: a component of content strategy.
One of the greatest challenges I encounter today is not the willingness of a brand to engage, but its ability to create. When blueprinting a social media strategy, enthusiasm and support typically derails when examining the resources and commitment required to produce regular content.
He goes on to say:
In the near future, brands and organizations will create new or augment existing roles for editors and publishers to create timely, relevant, and captivating content on all social media channels. This work is in addition to the other reactive and proactive social media campaigns that are already in progress.
Solis discusses the need for publishing calendars, editorial oversight, content performance analysis, and cross-discipline collaboration:
New media necessitates a collaboration between all teams involved in creating and distributing content, including advertising, interactive, communications, brand, and marketing — with an editorial role connecting the dots.
Is this sounding at all familiar?
This is enterprise content strategy in action. And it’s not just going to help us get social media right. It’s going to fix our content.
I’m not just talkin’ style guides, here.
Last year, I wrote a book called
Content Strategy for the Web. It offers a pretty straightforward approach to planning for content in your web initiatives. The good news: I’m starting to get daily emails from people telling me how radically it’s changing their project processes and outcomes (in a good way, thank you very much).
And so, obviously, I’m a big fan of content strategy at the web-project level. It brings happiness and joy to all who practice it. (It makes us so happy here at Brain Traffic, it’s all we do.)
But content strategy isn’t only about projects, and it’s certainly not just for websites.
That said, web projects are a terrific place to see content strategy in action. At the project level, we see almost immediately how content strategy’s tools and methods can literally transform how we consider and care for our content, how they can streamline processes and conserve resources. We can quickly measure our customers’ reactions to finally getting useful, usable, engaging, actionable content.
But once we’ve witnessed content strategy’s effectiveness at the project level, it’s time to take several steps back and examine our organizations. Because content strategy can’t be truly effective over the long term without an internal editorial infrastructure to support it. And that means widespread organizational change.
The proof is in the practice.
At its core, content strategy isn’t really about content inventories, or messaging, or publishing calendars, or governance policies. It’s a way of thinking that has direct impact on the way we do business. And the way we do business must include a clear focus on how we create, deliver, and govern our content. Because more than ever before in the history of commerce, content has become one of our most valuable business assets.
It’s here. It’s real. Content strategy is the next big thing. But, people, let’s not do what we’ve been doing for so many years with the trends the pundits sell us. Let’s not gloss over content strategy by focusing solely on what we should be doing; let’s also focus on the why and how. Let’s work together to dive into the mechanics of it, the driving philosophies, the real-world resource requirements. Let’s share success stories from brands both big and small. Let’s not confuse tactics for an achievable, measurable plan.
Let’s start considering content at the strategic level so we can start to deliver the right stuff: content that matters, both to our audiences and to our bottom line.
Posted in Content Strategy
For anyone who works with content, knowing how to format a web content document—or simply how to read it—is a crucial step in successful content creation.
Why? Because without a clearly structured web content document, you run the risk of confusing your content reviewers, designers, and developers. And that confusion can lead to mistakes and frustration—stuff that could end up manifesting itself on your website.
Remember, a web content document isn’t just used by web writers, even though they are often the people who create and manage it.
Content reviewers use it to make copy edits and review messaging/tone. Designers use it to get the right copy into their design mock-ups. Developers use it to determine which copy appears as links on the actual website, and when to display dynamic content—for example, content that goes live on a specific date.
Here are a few of the formatting essentials you’ll need to cover to make sure your web content document (commonly called a “copy deck”) works for everyone on your marketing and/or creative team(s):
Links and buttons
You can count on link and/or button copy to be in just about every web content document you work with. As you probably know, this is the content that takes the user to a new page, cross-references relevant information, or helps a user complete a task.
You’ll need to choose a style for representing links and buttons in your document. Our standard is to format this copy as blue, underlined text. This tends to be the industry standard, too.
Examples:
Read the Brain Traffic blog
Submit your request
If you do decide to format the links and buttons in your document in a different style, make sure it’s clear—and that everyone on your team knows what it is. Keep in mind that straying from the norm might confuse reviewers, designers, and developers used to working with the standard blue, underlined text style convention.
Regardless of the style you choose, follow the link and button text in your content document with its destination, which will likely be based on a site map or an external URL.
Examples:
Site map page ID:
Submit your request <link to 2.2>
External URL:
Read the Brain Traffic blog <link to http://blog.braintraffic.com/>
Descriptive content labels
If your copy isn’t properly labeled within your content document, designers and developers working with the document can have a difficult time figuring out which copy goes where.
So, make sure to identify all the content pieces on each page. For example, put the label "Heading" above your page headline, "Body copy" above the main content, and "Right column copy" above content that lives on this part of the web page. Or use whatever labeling convention your agency or organization may already have established.
Example:
The key is making sure the labels are clear and easy to understand for everyone referencing your document.
Dynamic content
Content that may change or is dependent on functionality conditions is often referred to as "dynamic" content. For instance, if you’re working on a project that includes content that launches on different dates or should only be displayed based on certain requirements (maybe after a user logs in, for example), your document will need to specifically state when to display that content.
I recommend writing a short note to the developer above the specific piece of dynamic content. Describe the rule for displaying it—for example, "only display this content for California residents."
I write these notes in gray text, so it’s easy for developers to skim and find them throughout the content document.
Example:
<Note to developers: Display this link on 1/1/2010>
See our 2010 plans<link to 3.4>
Meta data
Those of you well-versed in web content know what meta data is, but let’s do a quick review. It refers to specific information developers need to make your content searchable.
Meta data includes:
· Meta title (the title of the content page, which appears in your internet browser)
· Meta description (a keyword-loaded description of the content page)
· Meta keywords (words that refer to specific topics on the content page and make it easily findable)
A web writer or SEO expert is usually responsible for creating this information. Whether or not you create ityourself, you’ll need to include meta data in your content document. Which means you might also need to format this content, especially if you receive the meta data in a different type of document, like Microsoft Excel.
It’s a good idea to place the meta data in a separate section of your content document—say, at the top of each page—so it’s clearly distinguished from the actual web copy.
Example:
Remember, the web content document you create isn’t just black-and-white. Sometimes it’s blue. And underlined. With notes. Because that’s what works.
Posted in Content Strategy, Style Guides and Such, Uncategorized, Web Content, Web Writing
We web writers like talking about bulleted lists. And keeping things short. And cake.
But for whatever reason, we don’t talk much about source content. We should. Because no matter how short our paragraphs, or how bulleted our lists, or how cake-filled our mouths, if we don’t start with good source content, we’re screwed.
Back up. Why’s source content so important?
Source content is to web content as marble is to the Venus de Milo. Or, more deliciously, as batter is to cake (mmm, cake). It’s the material you shape into your final product. If you want to create worthwhile content, you need to start with worthwhile source content.
What is “worthwhile” source content, exactly?
Source content comes in many forms—from your client’s current web content to print brochures to testimonials. Worthwhile source content gives you accurate facts and ideas relevant to your client and their users. Now, that’s not to say it doesn’t also contain outdated facts and irrelevant ideas. It probably does. That’s why you’re there—to separate the wheat from the chaff.
For example, if your client’s current print brochure says they work with Adobe, Apple, and Hall and Oates, that’s a fact. Arguably, a notable and powerful one. If your client’s current print brochure says they “work with many premier clients” that’s not really a fact. And it’s not a very powerful statement. Wheat. Chaff. See the difference?
Now, I know what you’re thinking …
But what if your client’s source content is all chaff? In that case, you’re going to have to do some digging. In other words, you’re going to have to ask for more source content. Or …
Interview ‘em!
Okay, so. You asked the client for more source content. Turns out, they don’t have any. Now it’s time to dust off the ol’ notepad, hop in your Dodge Stratus, and conduct interviews!
That’s right. You’re gonna have to put on your reporter hat. Before you do, read up on how to do so effectively and efficiently:
1. Exhaust your resources.
The great thing about being a web writer these days? We have a handy tool called the Internet. Not like when our great-grandmothers were web writers. Back then, web writers didn’t HAVE the Internet.
Not funny? Let’s move on. My point is, the Internet obviously contains a lot of information. So, if you have holes in your source content, it can pay to do a quick Google search or two before approaching subject matter experts. If you get information from third-party sources, be sure to verify it with the client.
2. Prepare yourself.
Don’t go in to interview clients without a basic idea of what you’re looking for. If you’re working with a content strategy, refer to that.
If you’re not working with a content strategy, make a list of common questions users will likely ask when they come to a website that the source content didn’t answer. Such as, “How do I contact the company?” Or, “What, exactly, does this company do?” Write these questions down.
Then, when you interview stakeholders and subject matter experts, you can be very specific about what information you need from them. By being prepared, you save yourself and your client time. And you increase the likelihood you’ll get exactly the source content you need.
3. If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.
Source content is a sensitive area for a lot of clients. Because, at some point—maybe even now—it wasn’t just their source content. It was their content. Their home page. Their brochure. They approved it. Maybe (though they might not cop to it) they even wrote it.
So, instead of saying, “Holy corn fritters your content’s horrendous!” say, “I’m SO thrilled to work with you. We’re gonna make your website super awesome.” When you show clients you’re on their side, they’ll open up. They’ll trust you. Which means they’ll be in a better position to answer your questions. And they are more likely to clearly, fairly judge your work once you start writing.
4. Don’t be afraid to ask dumb questions.
My kindergarten teacher used to say, “There’s no such thing as a dumb question.” What a liar!
But as a web writer—and, OK, just as a regular human—I ask dumb questions all the time. Questions like, “So, what do your customers do with your toasters after they buy them?” Or, “What do you mean by ‘good,’ exactly?”
Dumb questions can get you really far for two big reasons. First, dumb questions loosen clients up. They’re so blown away by your sheer stupidity, they forget to be self-conscious. Instead of saying, “We’re an experienced team of technologists,” they say, “We fix computers. We’re computer fixers. You do know what a computer is, right?” They break things down in plain, direct, unmistakable terms—the same thing you’re trying to do for users.
Dumb questions also shake things up. They make people really think. By doing this, they open up all kinds of potential avenues. “Hey, do we need an FAQ section?” And, “Why exactly do we have fourteen paragraphs about our CEO on the About Us page?”
You ask dumb questions. They start asking dumb questions. The content gods smile.
And there you have it, chief. You’re now a source content rock star. Please, use your skills for good. And to score free cake for yourself and your loved ones (hint: me).
Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, Uncategorized, Web Content, Web Writing
Every time I give a content strategy workshop, there are two things I hear from participants.
The first is this:
We’re still doing content wrong in our company, and I’m really embarrassed about it.
Even if these aren’t the exact words attendees use, it’s the message they’re sending loud and clear every time they raise their hand to ask a question. “Sorry my company is so behind the curve, but…” or “I realize everyone else knows what they’re doing, but…”
Let me tell you something: There are very, very few organizations that actually have their acts together when it comes to content. Furthermore, no one knows where to start fixing their content. Tools? People? Time? Nonexistent.
Yet.
You’re not late to the party. The conversation has only begun.
Here’s the second thing I hear:
This is hard.
Well, HELL YES, it’s hard. You’re not going to leave a workshop or a one-hour talk and go back to your company and suddenly find yourself with funding and staff and group hugs. (If that were the case, I would charge a lot more. Booyah.)
There’s a reason content strategy is The Next Big Thing, and it’s not because it’s easy or cheap. It’s because content is a huge, pain-in-the-ass, expensive, out-of-control problem. And, as with any big messy problem, getting to a solution is going to take time. Creating a smart plan for the creation, delivery, and governance of your web content means research and reflection. Trial and error. And selling your plan to The Powers that Be—winning attention, approval, and resources—is going to take even longer.
Be. Patient.
Ask smart questions. Be brave about sharing your insights. Don’t hesitate to point out what’s broken, or how your competition is doing it better. Use SEO results (or lack thereof) and content inventories and workflow analyses and anything else you can think of to frame your content problem.
Remember: While content strategy isn’t new, the conversation is. And it’s early. Don’t be in a huge rush, and don’t lose hope.
Patience. Persistence. A sense of humor. You’ll need them all if you want content strategy. Now, get to it.
Posted in Content Strategy, Web Content, Web Writing
As I sit here sniffling and coughing, I’m thinking, how can I get rid of this cold?
Let’s ask Google!
“How to Cure a Cold” is at eHow.com. The author, ranked as an “Authority,” advises me to inhale a lot of steam and avoid dairy products. Her credentials? “I have an English degree and love to write for fun, but I’ve never made a profit yet!”
“How to Cure a Common Cold Naturally” also appears on eHow.com. This piece advises me to wash my hands a lot: “Studies show by doing this step once you have a cold will shorten the cold’s duration.” Drink water, drink green tea, rest, exercise (?), cut out sugar, add garlic tablets … Huh. The author’s background? Apparently she’s a freelance writer and certified Pilates instructor.
Another “How to Cure the Common Cold,” anonymously written, counsels me to become an infectious-disease expert and secure a massive research grant. There’s a raging flame war in the comments section, but the article got 2 stars out of 5 in their ratings system … so somebody liked it.
“Cure for Common Colds” is brought to you by essortment.com. They list the symptoms of the common cold and observe that a cold lasts from 2-7 days “depending upon the virility of the strain.” (Oh my.) They admit, “there is no real fast cure for this condition,” recommend a bunch of OTC meds, and end with a butt-covering admonition to “contact your doctor.”
“How to Get Rid of a Cold Without Using Medications” on wikiHow.com says:
- Don’t take medications.
- “Keep your resting area clean and sanitary.”
- Suck on zinc lozenges.
- Take regular baths…
Right.
Seriously?
- ezinearticles.com recommends hypnosis
- associatedcontent.com says “cut all dairy out of your diet”
- bukisa.com (tagline: “Share your Knowledge, Earn Money”) says to put peroxide on a Q-tip and stick it up my nose
- answers.yahoo.com provides off-the-cuff remarks from random people with no credentials whatsoever
All is not lost
If I know where to look, there’s reputable, scientifically supported advice out there. Luckily, I’ve heard of the Mayo Clinic (where an actual doctor neatly debunks the anti-dairy angle). I know I can trust WebMD or the Merck Manual. Otherwise, I might be wondering how to tell the reliable information from the opinions of random passersby.
Turn on your BS detector
I’ve started ignoring all search results pointing to eHow.com and its ilk.
A simple guideline: If the whole idea behind the site is “We know all sorts of stuff about everything,” beware. (Except for Wikipedia, which has enough critical mass to make its own rules much the way Amazon does.)
The content farms have learned to game the system, and dubious content is clogging up the works. If you do internet research and don’t know any better, you can wind up relying on content that’s based on somebody’s vague recollections or urban legends. Come on, Google. Find a way to make expert-written content float to the top. Otherwise, using your search engine will be the equivalent of polling the checkout line at the supermarket.
Posted in Content Strategy, Uncategorized, Web Content, Web Writing
I know this will likely come as a shock to many of you, but I have a Twitter alert set up for “content strategy.”
It’s really extraordinary how the tweets about content strategy have EXPLODED over the past few months. A year ago, maybe I’d see one or two a day. Now, hourly, it’s mentioned dozens of times.
The thing that fascinates me is that it’s being used in about a hundred different contexts to mean a hundred different things.
Now, I don’t really care that people are using the term inconsistently. I’m not altogether invested in figuring out The One and Only Definition. What bugs me is that we seem to be missing the point altogether.
Content strategy isn’t just what content you publish. It isn’t deciding to publish more content than before. It’s not where you distribute it. It’s not a blog, and it’s not Twitter. And it definitely isn’t all about getting SEO results.
Content strategy is a plan to get you from where you are now with your current content (assets, operations, distribution, maintenance, and so on), to where you want to be. But for some reason, we want to skip that part and rush ahead to the execution piece. Which is why we tend to mix up content strategy … with tactics.
Is it a blog?
Early in the week,
Valeria Maltoni (ConversationAgent.com) wrote a terrific post called How to Develop a Content Strategy Process. I really admire the hell out of Valeria and was thrilled to see her tackle this topic. However, a few paragraphs into the post, I realized that she was specifically talking about how to plan for blog content.
If you’re a small business or an independent consultant, your blog may very well be 99 percent of your content. In this case, Valeria’s post is on the money. But for a mid-sized or large organization, if social media content is conceived and created in a silo (or siloes) apart from the organization’s other content channels, it opens the door for inconsistent messaging, irrelevant content for current target audiences, and so on. So it’s important to understand that a blog, like all social media, is (among other things) a channel through which to distribute branded content.
[Note: Just discovered that Valeria has changed the title of the post to “How to Develop a Content Strategy Process (for your blog)”.]
Is it where you get content?
Interesting content strategy thought. Newspaper is best of, Internet is more of, mobile is instant.
What he’s talking about, here, is a little bit of a mishmash. The newspaper supposedly curates the “best of” content (editorial curation). The Internet gives us “more of” content (volume). Mobile gives us instant “access to” content (distribution channel).
These are all components of content strategy, but none of them really is, per se, a content strategy.
Is it whether you pay for content?
Then we have the big brouhaha over The New York Times paid content model that was announced last week. In follow-up discussions, lots of bloggers referred to it as their paid “content strategy.” Is it? Or is it just a new business model?
(Note that The New York Times press release did not refer to the plans as a “content strategy.”)
Or is it… something else?
A few other mentions of content strategy, all of which are totally different from one another:
Okay. What the hell is it?
The most important thing to understand is this: Content strategy isn’t a bunch of tactics. It’s a plan.
It’s a well-founded plan, fueled by your business objectives and user goals. An achievable plan, created with your current business reality, content assets, and limited resources in mind. A future plan, for what’s going to happen to your content once you send it off into the world. And, most importantly, a profitable plan, where your measures of success ultimately have impact on your organization’s bottom line.
So, folks, let’s try not to gloss over this process as the industry’s latest “shiny new object.” Instead, let’s talk about content strategy as a way of doing business, a way of looking at our content not as a commodity but as a valuable business asset, worthy of our strategic consideration.
Posted in Uncategorized
My suburban neighborhood is pretty typical, with the exception of the 200-acre wooded park in the middle of it. I live right on the edge of the park, which means deer, ducks, pheasants, and turkeys roam near my house. And I enjoy that.
But a certain turkey has really started getting in my way. Literally.
He often hangs out on the corner of a four-way stop. At first it was funny, like he was waiting for the bus.
Then, this weekend as I approached the stop, the turkey was in the middle of the intersection. I waited for him to cross the road (I see the joke here), but he had other ideas. He headed right for my car and proceeded to block me every time I tried to swerve around him. He was so close I couldn’t even see him until his blue head popped up over the hood and he "gobble-gobbled" at me.
It was ridiculous. And maddening. I had no idea what to do. I wasn’t about to get out of the car—turkeys are surprisingly large. And this one clearly had no fear.
I finally escaped, and then I called Animal Control, who said, and I quote, "We’re aware of the turkey."
Apparently, even the local news had heard about this traffic-stopping bird. Police hadn’t been able to catch him. They even hired a professional trapper. And guess what? His trap was stolen.
Why? Because the neighbors like the turkey. They’ve been feeding him. They think of him as their mascot. They’ve even called city hall to protest his capture. They love this turkey so much that they are willing to put up with the hazards and annoyance this turkey imposes on, well, me.
So. Do you have any turkeys on your website? Let’s discuss.
A navigation "concept"
Website navigation helps users find the information they’re looking for. Sometimes.
The Flash-powered navigation on thomasedison.org includes an impressively long list of Edison’s inventions. But it literally spirals and moves as you use it, and the font is so small it’s illegible. I want to know more about Edison, but the design is getting in my way.
Here’s another example: The tiny gray boxes at the top of the site for fashion designer Alexandre Herchcovitch may look sleek, but as unlabeled navigation they tell you absolutely nothing about the content—unless you click each one. (P.S. Incredibly loud intro music and no off button? Isn’t that against the law?)
Give me what I’m looking for
If you give me a text link, make sure that when I click I get whatever the text tells me I will.
If a "Read more" link on a "Project Management Courses" page goes to a video, that video should give information on course content. It shouldn’t just show course participants saying "hi." This is only interesting to the people in the video.
And the video ending, showing a participant in his underwear and covered with Post-It notes, helped me decide to never sign up for these classes.
Show, don’t tell
Don’t fall victim to the "blah blah blah." Just give me the goods.
Ladder Golf site visitors are likely interested in ordering this new game or learning how it’s played. So the homepage doesn’t need all kinds of content telling them why the product is so great. Instead, move that animated banner demonstrating the game from way at the bottom of the page to the top, and give visitors what they want.
Too much fun
If you’re looking for product information on the Beggin’ Strips dog snacks site, you’re in for some unexpected fun. Play games! Put a picture of yourself and your dog in a music video! Lots of fun—and no actual product info anywhere. Hmm. Bacon-flavored turkey?
Why did the turkey cross the road?
I don’t care. Because it’s not funny.
Do you have turkeys on your website? No matter how fun, cute, or beautifully designed a turkey is, if it keeps users from getting to the information they want, then it’s causing an annoying, even aggravating, experience.
Think of it this way: Does anyone want a turkey getting in their way? No, they don’t. Trust me.
Posted in Content Strategy, User Experience
Recently, Brain Traffic Twitter friend Taj Moore (@tajmo) asked us for some advice about copy for authenticated websites, or websites that require registration in order to log in for firewalled content and/or functions.
Taj wanted to know our thoughts on what to call members vs. non-members, and logged in members vs. non-logged in members.
Taj’s question inspired quite the philosophical discussion around here. And by “philosophical discussion,” I mean: “really long email chain.”
We like Amazon’s approach to labeling members.
In short, we side with Amazon’s way of doing things. But, as it is with anything of value, it was the ride that mattered. Here’s how we came to our conclusion.
Are there terms to diff. bw member logged in and member not logged in? "Guest" not useful bc conflates w/ non-member.
…Or another tack: how about a word for guest/visitor who is not a member?
…b.c. I am leaning toward "logged-in," "logged-out," & "non-member" but thought you might have better insight.
Kristina: Let’s discuss. Who wants to go first?
Katie D.: Just call everyone Earthlings. We’re all just people, after all.
Christine A.: Is he asking about a user-facing label? I’d question whether there is any value in showing those terms to users.
I like Amazon’s approach. They use a cookie to identify users who have accounts, and ask them to log in only when they do something significant like go to their shopping cart.
Amazon doesn’t tell people they’re logged in, logged out, non-member, etc. They just put the person’s name up there if the cookie is in place, or show a generic login link if it isn’t. They don’t need users to keep track of their own status.
If he’s asking about what the developers/UX people/etc should call it, it doesn’t much matter as long as they’re consistent and the labels identify clearly defined roles.
Elizabeth (her email passing Christine’s on the information superhighway from NYC):
I’d say, the first question is, how are these terms going to be used? Are they internal or user facing?
If they’re meant to be user-facing, they don’t really seem necessary. If the user is logged in to the site, you’d address them by name. If they’re not logged in, you’d probably call them a guest. If they’re a member who isn’t logged in, you can’t really know that. Not sure why it’d be necessary to label each separately, unless he’s talking about terms to be used internally …
Angie K.: Whoa. It’s like Elizabeth and Christine A. had a cross-country mind meld.
Elizabeth: We’re Vulcans!
Twitter says…
Address logged in members by name. Everyone else, guest. Internally, use whatever labels you like. Just be consistent, please!
Yeah, we heart Amazon. But nobody’s perfect.
When not logged in, Amazon covers all of the bases—member, non-member, logged in, or not logged in. Check it out:
- Hello—greets the user, whether a member or not.
- Sign in—invites members to log on.
- Start here—gives non-members the opportunity to create an account.
When you’re logged in, Amazon greets you by name and gives you the option to log off. Nice.
However, when I used our company’s login to do some office supply shopping the other day, “Not Brain?” had me giggling for hours.
Posted in Around the Office, Content Strategy, User Experience, Web Writing
