Our Blog

 I just finished reading Michael Arrington’s "The End of Hand-Crafted Content " (also published elsewhere as "AOL’s New Fast-Food-Content Strategy Means the End of Journalism You Actually Enjoy").

How. Depressing.

Since reading Wired’s apocalyptic article,  "The Answer Factory: Demand Media and the Fast, Disposable, and Profitable as Hell Media Model," I’ve certainly spent plenty of time bitching about the lowering of our already low standards for web content.

Here’s a summary of how mass-produced content works: 

Then, the assignment is posted to a ginormous database; it’s accepted by a freelancer somewhere, who then throws something together as quickly as possible because he’s only getting paid, like, four dollars to create it. (Want to know what the best vodka in the world is? A random bartender from a random bar in Florida KNOWS THE ANSWER!) (Uh, you’ll have to sit through the ad first.)

So, in one fell swoop, Demand Media—and now AOL—are both flooding the search engines with awful, terrible content and gleefully commodifying the work of writers, videographers, editors, and other media professionals around the world.

I hate them. Oooooo, how I hate them.

But, you know what?

McDonald’s didn’t put La Belle Vie out of business.

Does McDonald’s make more money than La Belle Vie? Of course they do. They’re freakin’ McDonalds. But La Belle Vie is running a very fine, profitable business, thank you very much, turning out exquisite French food that makes me want to weep with joy. (Even their cocktail menu is extraordinary.) (No, I do NOT say that about every cocktail menu.)

You don’t have to eat at La Belle Vie to appreciate the metaphor. Not everybody wants McDonald’s, and nobody wants McDonald’s all the time. People go out of their way to find what will satisfy, even delight, their appetites. 

AOL and Demand Media (and dozens more competitors, I’m sure) are anathema to pretty much anyone who wants an even slightly obscure question answered online. But in the long run, I’m betting on people, not algorithms. Just because I clicked on your stupid video doesn’t mean I can’t use my back button.

p.s. Google, get on this.   

Comments

Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, Uncategorized, User Experience, Web Content, Web Writing

Do you really need that?  

Comments

Posted in Content Strategy, Information Architecture, User Experience, Web Content

I’m currently seven months pregnant. Rather than developing nesting tendencies and actually cleaning my home, I have developed an addiction to reading craft blogs.

Comments

Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, User Experience, Web Content, Web Writing

There’s a big fuss being made over the fact that Mr. Rupert Murdoch has said that his media empire will "probably remove our sites from Google’s index."

How DARE he hide his content behind the iron curtain of non-indexing?

Murdoch isn’t stupid. (Old and confused, yes. Stupid? Not so much.) He’s talking about making a seriously bold move, here, in the interest of keeping his empire from crumbling. So why are people freaking out?

It’s JUST WRONG. Right?
When the religion of the Web is that you can find anything you want, from anywhere, at any time, Murdoch’s plan is straight-up blasphemous.

With this in mind, our faithful interviewer asked, "One of the key, underlying principles of the Internet is that anyone from anywhere in the world can access information freely. Wouldn’t this change mean people have to afford it?"

Murdoch replied, "They’re already paying for newspapers. And anyone can afford a newspaper, they’re the cheapest things in the world. Electronically, it will be even cheaper."

(This cracks me up, because, of course, the majority of the world’s population either can’t afford newspapers or simply don’t have access to them …  at least, newspapers that offer unbiased, quality reporting.)

Here’s what Rupert thinks you should do.
Generally, Murdoch wants you to know that his content is actually Quality Content because he employs real reporters, real writers, and real editors who offer experienced, insightful points of view. Which, of course, is true. However, this argument also implies that people shouldn’t go looking for "quality content" on search engines. No, no. You should go straight to an established publisher’s website.

Unfortunately, the internets don’t care so much about the "should"s. There’s a reason Google gets about a bajillion times more traffic than every publication website in the world … combined.

More than anything else, Murdoch is counting on his current readership’s loyalty to his brands. He admits, though, that he’s not sure what that’s going to look like in five, ten, twenty years… which means that this ends up looking more like a Hail Mary pass than anything else.

Rupert, dear, you can’t kill search.
Online readers typically know what they’re looking for, and they want the fastest way to get it. They want to be educated or entertained. They want their questions answered, their lives made easier. They have the Google or Yahoo! or MSN toolbar built into their browsers. They’re going to use it.

Murdoch doesn’t seem to get this, or care. The rest of the world, of course, does. Including you. You’ve been obsessed with SEO and page rankings for years. You don’t have the option of breaking up with Google.

However, you also shouldn’t be so obsessed with Google that you neglect to remember this all-important fact: getting your content indexed by the search engines isn’t enough to win eyeballs that matter. Just because your users can find your content doesn’t mean you’ve won your battle.

Content first. Google second.
Here’s where you can take a page from our friend Rupert and start placing significant value on content people will care about. Editorial oversight. Quality research. Quality writing. These things actually do matter. They inspire trust and motivate action.

Getting to quality content is worth your organization’s investment: time, budget, people. Because once your readers arrive from Google, they’ll either like what they see and stick around for a bit, or lunge for the back button.

Remember, people: If you have a website, you’re a publisher. If you participate in social media, you’re a publisher. If you create emails, help text, product descriptions … you’re a publisher.

You may not be selling content, but your content is selling you. Google won’t solve your problems. Of course, ignoring Google won’t, either …  sorry, Rupert.

P.S.
I just have to add this little gem: In the interview, Murdoch says that public broadcasting should be of the highest quality, which commercial broadcasting can’t afford to be. Then he tells us that " most of the stuff [public broadcasting does] is stolen from the newspapers now. And we’ll be suing them for copyright. They’ll have to spend a lot more money paying a lot more reporters when they can’t steal from newspapers."

Old. Confused. Sigh.

Comments

Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, Uncategorized, User Experience, Web Content, Web Writing

Whether you’re a writer, editor or content strategist, you probably spend a lot of time thinking about how to effectively reach your audience. Maybe you pore over personas and case studies for inspiration. But there’s probably one resource you’re not considering—you! As a web user, you can be your own content expert.

Think about it. You know what an effective user experience feels like when you come across it: An instantly identifiable objective. Clean, concise copy. Benefits front-and-center. Easy navigation and clear task instructions.

Sure, style guides and success metrics are important tools for creating better content. But as a web writer and editor, I’ve learned that considering my own user experience every step of the way is one of the best strategies for success.

Here are some tips for developing your inner content expert.

Change your perception of web writing
We all hear a lot about the differences between print writing and web writing. Overall, web writing has to be more concise—scannable, task-driven, presented in bulleted lists, etc.—than print copy.

On the surface those differences seem pretty straightforward. I mean, when it comes down to it, good writing is good writing, right?

Not exactly. Web writing is a whole other animal. It needs to work in harmony with the design and information architecture to create a seamless user experience. It needs to help people DO something. And once you recognize that, you might need to change your approach to creating content.

How? By answering this one simple—but very important—question:

Is this something I’d want to read?

In other words, if I landed on this web page and read the copy, would it hold my attention? Would I get the information I need to complete my task? It may sound like common sense, but this approach can make a huge difference in the quality of your web content. Trust me.

White space is your friend
You’ve most likely visited a website filled with paragraph after paragraph of copy. And you’ve most likely zoned out, stopped reading, and maybe even left the site. I know I have.

Keep this in mind when you’re creating your content. If you can, see how it looks in a design mock-up. How dense do those paragraphs appear? Does the copy length seem intimidating and time-consuming? Would you read it if you were trying to complete a task in the midst of juggling a million other things, as your users likely are?

If not, start slashin’. Create some white space. Web users want to find what they need as quickly as possible so they can move on to the next task. They don’t want to spend a lot of time sifting through unnecessary copy to find the information they really need.

Remember, attention spans are short. Make sure your content keeps readers engaged.

Say something that matters
Concise copy alone isn’t enough. Bulleted lists don’t guarantee good web content. You still need to make sure the limited words on the page actually help users do what they came to do or learn what they came to learn. We’re talking product or service benefits, clear instructional copy, user-friendly navigation nomenclature, etc.

When you’re trying to complete a task or order a product, you want the most direct path possible to making it happen. And that path can’t be cluttered with mission statements or "why we’re great" language—unless it supports what you’re trying to do. Does this content help you make a purchase decision? Complete your task?

Great web content is about so much more than just brevity. It’s about choosing the right words (and sometimes showing rather than telling with good design) to support an effective user experience that will keep people coming back for more.

Keep this in mind when creating your own content. It’s not about the story you want to tell—it’s about what the user wants to know. Talk to them, not at them.

Now get out there and create some killer web content. You’re the expert, after all.

Comments

Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, User Experience, Web Writing

A few weeks ago, there was a rather heated debate (some might call it a "smackdown") between a few industry luminaries and their supporting communities. On one side, the web development/user experience community. On the other, the SEO community.

This battle has been fought more than once before. Is it possible for well-built, awesome websites and products to be findable simply by being built "right"? Are web developers behind the curve when it comes to the latest, most effective SEO techniques? Is either practice absolutely necessary for online success? Are they both?

There were some great discussion points that arose in this most recent debate. Let’s review.

"Good SEO techniques are just good web development techniques."
First, there appeared an inspired rant by the inimitable Derek Powazek on the evils of the search engine optimization (SEO) consulting industry. Derek’s ire was fueled largely by his recent experiences working with publishing organizations that are sinking millions of dollars into SEO initiatives while laying off writers left and right. His argument:

Good SEO techniques are just good web development techniques. They should be obvious to anyone who makes websites for a living. If they’re not obvious to you, and you make websites, you need to get informed. If you’re a client, make sure you hire an informed web developer.
 

Derek received a lot of feedback on his post and responded with a post called SEO FAQ, which is also an interesting read.

"SEO is a legitimate form of marketing."
The post was pretty heated, and it spread (accordingly) like wildfire. It wasn’t long before the post reached Danny Sullivan, Editor-in-Chief of SearchEngineLand.com and one of the SEO community’s most revered leaders. Danny posted a response to Derek’s first post, and then again to Derek’s "SEO FAQ" post. In Danny’s second post, he said:

 

Web development is not SEO. Good web developers will understand the fundamentals of SEO, in terms of good site architecture, crawlability and so on. But… few of them are dialed into how to handle giving Google and others a shopping feed. Or a feed of real estate listings. Or the completely separate ranking aspects that impact YouTube (the world’s second most popular search engine). Are they putting out a full-feed that Google Blog Search prefers? Are they checking that the URL shortener you use on Twitter spits back a 301 rather than a 302 redirect, or worse, frames stuff up via a 200 code?

 

Who has the secret sauce?
So. Whose advice is key for businesses truly succeeding online?

Fundamentally, Derek believes that the best way to drive traffic to your website or product is this: "Make something great. Tell people about it. Do it again." His position is difficult to argue with. But, it’s also based on several faulty assumptions, not the least of which is that everyone who "makes something great" has the right people’s attention, online and off. And, frankly, most of us who want to promote our products or services really don’t.

From Danny’s point of view, helping individuals and organizations raise the visibility of their websites is instrumental to online success. Important, yes. Instrumental? Not so sure. What’s prioritized by SEO professionals is getting as many eyeballs as possible on the page. And yet, if what you’ve made isn’t great, you’re going to lose attention and possible conversions, fast.

Ultimately, Danny and Derek talked. Common ground (of sorts) was reached. Derek posted a very classy, very informed apology to "the people out there doing good work for real clients under the auspices of SEO." Danny published Thoughts on Web Developers, SEO, and Reputation Problems. The storm quieted. And we all went back to our work.

Alignment: A girl can dare to dream
I’m a content strategist, which means I care deeply about the expertise and insights on both sides of the table. I want websites to be awesome. And I want the right audiences to find out about them, so those users can accomplish what they need to, and be happy.

Really, that’s what I want. For people to have happy online experiences.

You know, here’s how I see it. For the web development community to tell us that "if you build it and it’s awesome, they will come" is simply naïve, bordering on irresponsible. However, for SEO professionals to promote SEO as one of the primary tactics for online success is equally misleading.

There’s some fairly obvious common ground, here, that’s getting overlooked. And that’s creating and maintaining awesome content that’s optimized for the right people to find it at the right time in the right places.

In my experience, both the web development and SEO communities have largely marginalized the importance of delivering relevant, quality content that’s focused on meeting clear business objectives and user needs. Or, they’ll pay passionate lip service to it, then go back to preaching and promoting their areas of expertise.

And so the content, as it often is, becomes someone else’s problem. Which ultimately becomes the end user’s problem. Which then results in a really crappy ROI for all those web design/development/SEO dollars you just spent.

One of the key components of any business’s online success is to start by deeply considering the content itself. Before you worry about building the damn thing, let alone promoting it, figure out why you’re publishing content, who it’s for, what it’s going to say, how it’s going to sound, and what happens to it once it’s "out there."

In other words …  figure out your content strategy. Or, if you’re a web developer/designer or SEO wonk, ask for it. Because it should be informing what you are (or aren’t) doing.

Postscript: Get yourself edumacated
There were a lot of hopped-up, dueling posts and tweets that came out of both communities during the few days of battle. But there were a few added to the conversation in really valuable ways, and I encourage you to read them:

• The Good, the Bad, and the (Mostly) Ugly by Scott Anderson

• An Open and Hurried Response to Derek Powazek’s Diatribe by Andrew Girdwood

Additionally, I highly recommend the following resources to, well, pretty much anyone that deals with web content:

• Building Findable Websites

• Where Search Meets Usability

• Search Engine Optimization: Your Visual Blueprint for Effective Internet Marketing

Onward, content comrades. Now, let’s hug it out.
 

Comments

Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy

I love this sign.

I pass by it every day on my way to work. It’s hard to tell from the picture, but this sign is huge. I’d guess it’s six or seven feet tall.

I love it because it communicates information that’s useful to me (store name and hours) in a manner that is conscious of how I will be reading the information (quickly, from a bus, bike, or car).

Everything works together. It has both good information and an easy- to-read design. It’s a good reminder to not forget the how and when, in addition to the what, when looking at content for your site.
 

Comments

Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, Information Architecture, User Experience, Web Writing

On this week’s calendar: the Autumnal Equinox. Or as I like to say, the beginning of the end. Now that it’s fall, my mind drifts to dazzling topics like, raking leaves, saying "sayonara" to the sun, and that hard-coded alarm I still hold on to … first semester. Since nobody wants to read my complaining about Minnesota weather, I’d like to celebrate fall learning with a couple of content tips.

Tip #1: Content is more than copy. Around here, we love words. But what we really love is content — and there’s a difference. When we talk about content, we consider copy, meaningful imagery, metadata, user-generated, error messages, video, audio, graphs, charts, etc. You know who illustrates this concept well? The New York Times. Check out the Multimedia page and you’ll find photos, interactive graphics/features, text, audio, video and a lot of other cool stuff.

Tip #2: Speaking of graphs and charts, consider infographics. Bring together words with visuals. Do it to inform, entertain or inspire. We have a resident infographics junkie on staff. Her name is Christine. And she finds and circulates some goodies. Here’s where we go hunting: GOOD’s FFFFOUND! page incorporates the best of the web and the Transparency archive is a "graphical exploration of the data that surrounds us."  Flowing Data "explores data visualization" in the Infographics Archive.

Tip #3: When I said "a couple" of tips, I really meant it.

Comments

Posted in Content Strategy, Resources, Web Content

A while ago, our fearless leader blogged about how technology can’t fix your content problems. Of course, I agree.

Sure, the CMS is important – the right one makes content publishing easier and the published pages more consistent. But it can’t ensure that your content is useful and usable. Only a person or team of people can do that.

Consider this smaller-scale example:

I just read a blog post by Ben Parr on mashable about an online resume builder tool – JobSpice – that he describes as shockingly simple to use.

It does look pretty darn easy to use, making it a great way to create a dapper dandy resume. It’s as easy as filling in the blanks. Cool. It’s sorta like a CMS. Just enter your content, check some boxes, add some parameters, and ta da: Content. Published.

But, the person building the resume still needs to think about what content goes in the blanks. Right? The shockingly simple tool can’t do that. Neither can a CMS. A person has to determine:

• Who is the resume for?

• What kind of job am I looking for?

• What will the employer care about?

• What do I want them to do after reading my resume?

Real, live people are the key to content that meets users’ needs and drives results. And that’s where content strategy comes in. It answers the questions that help ensure your content – however it gets published – hits the mark.
 

Comments

Posted in Content Strategy, User Experience, Web Writing

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.

Comments

Posted in Content Strategy, Editorial Strategy, Information Architecture, Web Content, Web Writing