Author Archive
Descartes: Drunken Fart
With all of the focus on content strategy recently, discussions about the definition of the word “content” have erupted into a philosophical debate that would make Kant, Descartes, and Heidegger proud. Some people say “everything is content.” Others say “there’s no such thing as content.” And then there are the hundreds of well-argued definitions in between.
It was all fun and games, until reality hit
While philosophical debates can be super fun (René Descartes was a drunken fart, Immanuel Kant was a real pissant, etc.), they can make day-to-day project work confusing. If content is everything, where does content strategy begin and end? And, if content is nothing, why does it seem to be so important to businesses?
We admit it. We Brain Traffickers lean philosophically toward the “content is everything” camp. But, we realized early on that content strategy projects require a simple, flexible, and limiting definition of content that everyone on a project team can align on.
At first, finding the right way to corral content was a struggle. Things finally clicked when we started differentiating between content and content-related elements we call “content facilitators.” (Apologies to people who are called content facilitators. We’re stealing your job title until we think of something else.)
So, what is “content”?
Content isn’t always a confusing word. When you talk about offline channels, such as books or presentations, content is a pretty easy concept to define.
Consider this: What is the content of an average biology textbook? If you’re like most people, you’d probably say something like, “It’s about biology: cells, animals, plants, and stuff.” And, if you happen to have a biology textbook, you could grab it and look at the (ahem) “table of contents” to get more specific details.
Although other communication channels are often more complex, the basic concept remains the same. The content is the meat—it’s what the user came to read, learn, see, or experience. From the business perspective, the content is the critical information the book, site, etc., was created to contain or communicate. (Think contents, not content.)
And, what are “content facilitators”?
Every communication channel has content facilitators—informational elements that exist to help people find, use, and understand the content. The real confusion about content started with the advent of the web, where the line between content and content facilitators started to blur.
Our biology book has several facilitators, such as a table of contents, an index, a bio of the author, and an unnecessarily large picture of a dewy grasshopper on the front cover. All of these things are helpful (even the grasshopper provides context), but they’re not the reason most people buy the book. In fact, they’re really optional.
Online, however, facilitators—such as navigation, metadata, taxonomy, brand imagery, help text, etc.—are mission critical. The content is unusable and unrecognizable without them.
Let’s face it. With a few exceptions (you know who you are), people don’t go online to see metadata. But they’d be awfully screwed without it. Metadata generally doesn’t fit our definition of content, but it sure as heck needs to be considered during the content strategy process.
Philosophically speaking …
Establishing working definitions for content and content facilitators has made a big difference in our content strategy practice. Although both are extremely important in any content strategy, distinguishing between the two makes it easier for us to communicate project goals, set priorities, and work with partners.
As an added bonus, clients like it. They have an easier time communicating internally, and because our definition of content isn’t limited by format (text, pictures, data, etc.), topic, or channel, Brain Traffic is better able to adapt our work to every client’s specific situation.
But, we still love an etymology debate (we’re wordnerds, after all). Give us a few drinks and we’re happy to wax philosophical about it. Just like Heidegger, that boozy beggar who could think you under the table.
Posted in Brain Traffic, Content Strategy, Web Content
As a Brain Traffic employee, people often ask me questions like, “How do you learn to be a content strategist?” or “How do I get good at content strategy?” My answer isn’t groundbreaking: You need to be well-educated on content and strategy. Then, you need to practice combining the two. A lot.
Which leads to the real question: Where do you get practice doing content strategy if it’s not part of your current job? In my opinion: Everywhere.
Start seeing content strategy in everyday life
By far, the best way to practice content strategy is to start recognizing when other people are doing it (or obviously not doing it).
Research, such as last weeks’ Ofcom Communication Market report, confirms the obvious: We all knowingly consume a boatload of content. So, you can start there. Next time you open a web site, download an app, or see a billboard—ask yourself questions like: What message are they trying to communicate? How does this piece of content fit into their greater communications plan? How do they hope I’ll react?
But don’t stop with stuff that is explicitly media-related. When you go to the grocery store, start thinking about why they labeled the aisles the way they did or content design behind nutrition labels. Decide whether the admittance form at your doctors’ office makes you feel welcomed, annoyed, or scared and why.
Draw parallels to Brian May (or your other interests)
Another way to practice is to draw parallels between content strategy and something you already know a lot about. Lots of people draw on their knowledge of related fields like IA or business strategy. But great stuff can come from unexpected places, too.
For example, a few weeks ago, my close friend sent me a link to an NPR interview with Brian May (astrophysicist, university chancellor, author … Queen’s lead guitarist). She sent it because we share a soft spot for Queen and a billion Highlander-related jokes (“There can be only one!”).
I already knew quite a bit about Brian May, but when I listened to the 40-minute long interview, I got a lesson in content strategy (despite the poor interviewer).
Here are some examples:
(click to enlarge)
Once you start, you can’t stop
Once you start seeing content strategy everywhere, thinking strategically about content becomes a habit—and you’re practicing during all of your waking hours (whether you want to or not). With that habit established, it becomes a lot easier to find answers to your own critical content strategy questions.
So, now, if you’ll excuse me, I'm going to go look for some content strategy parallels in May’s Ph.D. thesis: “A Survey of Radial Velocities in the Zodiacal Dust Cloud.” (Or, maybe I’ll just play air guitar on “Stone Cold Crazy” instead.)
“Looking Brian May” image courtesy of flickr user Icemanfr75 (cc: by-nc-nd)
Posted in Content Strategy, Uncategorized
At lunch the other day a friend asked me, "Where can I find somebody smart, but really cheap, to be my ghost-tweeter?" A guy next to her obviously thought she was loony. Not me; I’m used to it.
Twitter-as-content-commodity was a new twist, but her conundrum was very familiar. What she was really saying was, "I know I need smart content, but I don’t want to pay for it." On a grander scale, many organizations have the same attitude.
Most people understand that content has value. Big value. They just can’t prove or measure the ROI. And, therefore, they have no concept of how much content is worth.
Proving and measuring the value of content is complex. But, as content professionals, we have to do it. I have some ideas about how to do it, but before I even go there, let’s talk about why everybody is so confused in the first place.
Brace yourselves, content folks. We’re going to talk economics. I promise there will be no math involved.
1776: Defining product value, Adam Smith style
I’m no expert in economics, but I know this much: Adam Smith was a smart dude. Back in 1776, he wrote The Wealth of Nations, a book that basically defined economics as we know it. His ideas still influence the way we assign value to things today.
For the market economy to work, Smith said products of value have three characteristics:
-
Excludability: The seller can "exclude" you from owning or using the product unless you pay for it; the product is difficult to replicate so you have to buy it from the seller.
-
Rivalry: It’s more expensive for two people to use the product then one person (So, I can buy a pair of shoes for $10, but if we both want to have shoes it’ll be $20).
-
Transparency: Customers can see exactly what they’ll get before they buy the product.
These rules work pretty darn well for things like apples, shoes, or kazoos. Those are the kind of tangible products people bought in 1776. (Well, kazoos weren’t invented yet, but apples and shoes surely were.)
1956: A funny thing happened on the way to the factory
Smith’s theories worked pretty well for 180 years, but in 1956 something happened that would have surprised Adam – in the U.S. the number of white-collar jobs surpassed blue-collar jobs.
So, instead of people working in factories and farms making tangible products, people were sitting behind desks making … information. Accountants creating reports, lawyers creating legislation, advertisers creating TV spots, etc., etc. In 1956, content/information was red hot. The first computers were up and running (Check out the photo below of a home computer in 1956 for proof). Heck, Marilyn Monroe even married Arthur Miller, a playwright (you may have heard of him).
The industrial age was over. The information age had begun. Information was in demand in a way it had never been before — and Smith’s three pillars of economic value had started to blur.
1990s: Content breaks all the rules
Until the 1990s, Adam Smith three pillars seemed to be adequate, if not perfect, even for content. Before then, if you wanted some information, you bought a book or newspaper (tangible items). Sure, you could lend your book to a friend, who would get the content for free, but content creators were largely paid for their work.
But, with the advent of the internet, the pillars of value for content collapsed.
-
Excludability: Content is now easy to create, use, and replicate.
-
Rivalry: When content is posted online – even if you make me pay for access – I can easily share it with millions of friends without paying a cent.
-
Transparency: Once you’ve looked at content in-depth, you really don’t need to buy it, do you?
Simultaneously the business importance of good content went sky-high AND the value of content tanked (according to Adam Smith). On top of it all, the internet movement suggested that all content should be free. And society agreed.
2009: Classical economics is toast
So, let’s recap. Today, content is one of the most important business assets in the world. AND, according to traditional economics, content has little value. AND people expect to get it for free (see newspaper industry stats). AND we’re experiencing the worst recession in 80 years.
The economic system is just plain out of date.
I wish I could tell you about the economic model of the future. (Not only would that be nice for you, but I’d make zillions.) Lots of brilliant economists have been trying to figure it out for years.
No wonder people are confused about what to pay for content strategy and creation.
COMING SOON: The Value of Content, Part 2 (The Sequel)
Here’s what I do know. Content makes money. Content saves money. And, ROI of content can be measured. That’s what my next blog post will be about in a few weeks. (It’s just like when the Brady Bunch went to Hawaii – two whole episodes of non-stop fun! Just. Like. That.)
Until then if you have any great examples or ideas about content ROI, send them my way (melissa.rach@braintraffic.com). I’d love to hear about them, and I’ll include them in the blog when I can.
Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, Information Architecture, Web Content, Web Writing
I have always liked the idea of medieval mapmakers using the phrase "Here Be Dragons" to denote unexplored or dangerous territories. Sticking a fire-breathing reptile in documentation when you run out of facts? That’s panache.
Unexplored and dangerous territories, indeed
These days, people aren’t so stylish. When an information architect (or user experience designer) doesn’t have the time (or the talent) to document content requirements, they stick a "page stack" on their site map. It looks like this:
Don’ t get me wrong: I’m cool with the stack if there is accompanying documentation that provides content details. But when an information architect uses the stack in place of content requirements, they are leaving the client in unexplored and dangerous territories (without even a dragon to warn them).
A little dragon goes a long way
So, I have an idea. If you’re a web professional doing information architecture and you’re not documenting content requirements, stick a dragon on your site map instead of a page stack. This will be a nice heads up for your client and particularly fun for those of you who used to be designers.
If you’re a client and you see a dragon on your site map, consider why your information architect is not worried about the information. Then, call Brain Traffic.
P.S.: Unfortunately, that here-be-dragons bit is mostly a myth. Only one medieval artifact, the Lenox Globe (ca. 1510), actually has the phrase "here be dragons" on it. Well, technically, there’s also the Borgia map (ca. 1430), but it doesn’t really say "here be dragons." It says (over a dragon-like figure), "Here are men who have large horns of the length of four feet, and there are even serpents so large, that they could eat an ox whole." Put that on your site map.
Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, Information Architecture
"Whatever you may have heard, this is our world, our place to be. Whatever you've been told, our flags fly free. Our heart goes on forever. People of Earth, remember."
The Brain Traffic team sat together in the conference room to watch the inauguration yesterday. There were tears, applause, and lots of comments about Aretha Franklin's hat. Every one of us typing away on our computers—not only sharing the experience with people in the room, but those far away in cyberspace.
Talkin' 'Bout a Revolution
The Obama campaign—which has inspired so many with its themes of hope and change—has often reminded me of the "internet revolution" of the late '90s.
In retrospect, it sounds a bit trite, but anyone who worked in the first wave of interactive agencies from 1996 to 2000 will probably tell you a similar story: We went to work every day believing we were the "pioneers" of the internet age. Groups of incredibly smart people (most of us in our early 20s) toiled for small paychecks in dodgy warehouse spaces. (Revolutionaries have to suffer, right?) But, we believed the Internet could triumph over the big corporations and big governments . . . engage the whole world in a global conversation . . . give every human being on Earth a voice.
This fervor was even documented with a manifesto—the Cluetrain Manifesto. The quote at the top of this post is not a part yesterday’s inaugural address, it's actually part of the introduction to the Cluetrain written in 1999. Thankfully, Obama's speechwriters have more talent, but Locke & Co. (Cluetrain's authors) were trying to convey a message of inclusive, universal change, too.
Storm Clouds on the Horizon
Speed ahead a few years. By 2001, the internet "bubble" was bursting. Those of us on the ground realized the big corporations that we were trying to bring to heed were actually the only clients paying us for project work. On September 11, I also sat in a conference room with my coworkers huddled around a TV. There were only nine of us left at the agency. There had once been more than fifty. Like everything else that stopped that day, it seemed like the revolution no longer mattered.
Slow and Steady Wins the Race
Yesterday, after more than a decade of working in the internet industry, I thought I would take a look at the Cluetrain Manifesto again, for old time's sake, and to have a good laugh. I'm not 20 and naïve anymore, after all.
As I read through the Manifesto, there were certainly things that gave me a chuckle. But, I also realized that a lot of the "95 Theses" are starting to happen. The internet has changed big business (airline or newspaper execs can attest). Internet conversations are affecting how consumers spend their money (Angie's List, Amazon recommendations, etc.). People around the world are linking to each other and communicating faster (Facebook, Linked In, Twitter). Even the Obama campaign is a proof of how the internet can mobilize the people. (Not to mention that our new President is taking a stand to keep his Blackberry.)
As Barack Obama took the oath of office, the typing in the Brain Traffic conference room paused. I looked around the room, and realized the same thing that drew me to Obama, drew me to Brain Traffic. Smart people, working toward a change for the better. So, maybe there's a little revolutionary in me yet. (Luckily, this time around, I work in a far less dodgy warehouse.)
Posted in Around the Office, Content Strategy, Information Architecture, User Experience, Web Writing
This morning, while looking for a quote from Richard Saul Wurman (the guy who coined the term "information architecture"), I absentmindedly stuck "history of IA" into Google. I got—you guessed it—42,000,000 results on the history of Iowa. This exercise was a good reminder of three things I know to be true:
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Information Architecture
