Our Blog

Well, I've got 3 out of the 4 on MN Stories... and yes, it's one heckuva commitment! :-)

This is a helpful taxonomy--thanks for sharing, Kristina. On every project I find the apt classification to vary based on the conditions at hand. To be the killjoy here, there may not be one Platonic model for classifying content. (Someone, please disagree.)
So, some observations in the hopes of generating further conversation.
The best model is the one addressing the strategic goals, of course. For example, this "four kinds" division divides largely on the basis of the content type's author/owner. Which is a swell start. While authorship is an important attribute for content, particularly for sourcing and managing production, sometimes just as important are other contributing factors:
a) Shelf life: Evergreen v. Perishable -- What content is core, nameplate stuff, and what gets more care and feeding? I usually have three categories at least: perishable, semi-perishable and evergreen. (As well as time horizons [daily, weekly, as-needed, etc.] for the ongoing evaluation and tailoring of shelf life status.) There are evaluation factors in every content offering that can make these determinations, and it's up to the content strategist to draw those distinctions. The answers will influence one's recommended frequency of update for each type of content, and perhaps the extent and location of where such content is displayed.
b) Dynamic content: Manual v. System -- Recognize the differences between how dynamic content is updated. What content is constantly or otherwise automatically being system generated? Examples include: a progress thermometer on a fundraising campaign, or the aggregation of outside RSS feeds showing related content of interest to your audience. Alternately, hand (or manual) curation is time consuming, but it's also that all-important human touch that brings voice and verve to the user experience. (Editorial content experiences are hard to pull off without effective hand curation. It's the main draw for people to read content aggregators like Newser at all.)
c) Volume: Variable -- This relates to the previous two, especially the frequency of update. But instead of how much content turnover, this factor speaks to the amount of content--and poses the question of how to service the site user's appetites. Is your site focused on a niche or mass audience? Are specific audience segments or personae being targeted, and if so, is only the most relevant content being sent their way? The all-important question always lurking on volume is what's the ideal signal-to-noise ratio. The answers shifts depending on the audience, and on the...
d) Mode of delivery! Also varies based on applicable channels. Users have different comfort levels with how they receive different types of content: web, email newsletter, Tweet, SMS, etc. There are impacts to the user experience and in terms of what type of content (functional v. editorial, word count, formatting, etc.) but also to technical platforms and how the content is administered. Which is all for another time and another post.
I think another factor that leaps to mind is the difference between original, "exclusive" content and repurposed content, as they tend to have different needs--and they should be accorded different levels of promotion or treatment. And yes, repurposed content gets updated, too, and it's important to factor in how this differs from the update process applicable to home-grown editorial.
All this is to say nothing, finally, of the dramatic differences between structured and unstructured content. Taxonomy systems and supporting metadata, or data about data, are crucial to upholding the search or discovery/browse experience of many sites. Clearly I am insane and could go on.
But we're all better for this 4-types list. As my messy contributions may infer, I've never seen the idea expressed neatly. It feels like a very solid starting point, maybe particularly for an organization just starting to think through their approach to content online.
Anyone game for throwing out some more key factors in classifying content? Or taking a run at the Platonic ideal? It's only Monday, peoples.

Your caution of "go slow" shows the wisdom of your experience. Having a timely website that's to remain relevant is indeed, a commitment. With my comment focused more on the organization's brand than on the most-important user experience, I would encourage companies to at least consider one outside source for content, even initially. This demonstrates a curiosity and awareness of the market beyond their own walls and own culture.
Thanks for a good post and truly usable content.
Sarah

Kristina, good post. You're right on the money...I think when creating web content and seeking to attract repeat viewers and subscribers that consistency is key and letting your audience set expectations for when they will see new content on your site. I was part of a startup Broadband Lifestyle Network based in NYC and LA. We did video features on new and notable restaurants, boutiques and spas opening up in the two cities. While I'm proud of the quality of content we provided, I think what really made the site work were the parameters we followed in our productions: We posted a new segment daily on both the East and West Coast, We only did features on new businesses open three months or less, we kept our segments strictly to 1 1/2 minutes, all segments had a consistency in look based on production standards we followed on both coasts. They are pretty obvious ideas but seem not to be implemented by many start-up websites.
When launching a new site or campaign on a site I think that a delivery schedule and strategy is just as important as the creative content you plan to post.
Brian