Author: Clinton Forry

While digging through my box of cassettes the other day, I had a minor epiphany. Content strategy and the creation of mixtapes are shockingly similar.

As it has been said, content strategy plans for the creation, delivery, and governance of useful, usable content. For a website, certainly. But for the creation of a mixtape?
For those unfamiliar, a mixtape:

• Is a compilation of songs (just as websites are collections of content)
• Created for a specific someone (consider your audience)
• Communicates a specific message (in service of business objectives)
• Should elicit a particular response (meet user needs/assist in task completion)

Although they can now be a collection of downloads, “mixtape” is a throwback to their heyday in the 1980s when they were cassettes. Later, they took the form of burned CDs, then mp3 playlists.

For those unfamiliar, a review of some basic tenets of content strategy:

• Analysis: Objectives defined, assumptions and risks noted, success metrics established. Account for internal and external forces that might influence them.
• Audit: A quantitative or qualitative review of your current content landscape.
• Strategy: Actionable, achievable recommendations. Includes editorial workflows, calendars, messaging hierarchy, content types, formats, plus much more!

First is analysis. “What do I want to do with this website (or mixtape)?” Surely you’ve a recipient in mind. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be making a website (or mixtape), right? This goes hand in hand with the objectives and message. All websites (and mixtapes) need clear objectives. They can both do many, many things, but a focused approach will make their creation and delivery much easier.

The objective of creating a mixtape might be to musically convince the recipient that you are indeed cool, or in love, or sorry, or over them (or in rare cases, all of the above). Focus on a theme and/or purpose for the mixtape, give it a title, and dig in.

To put together a website (or mixtape), you’ll need source content (songs, in this case). Now would be a good time to perform a qualitative content audit. The audit should note what content (here, your music collection) is currently available, and if it is usable.

Websites brimming with content that is redundant, outdated, and trivial are frustrating and often impossible to use. Broken links, five year old “news” articles, and duplicative pages get in the way of achieving objectives. An audit helps to determine what can stay and what gets the boot.

The same applies for the content for your mixtape. For example, your Bee Gees 8-tracks won’t make it onto a mixtape if you don’t have an 8-track player. Is that vinyl LP copy of “Thriller” too scratched to use? Did the tape deck in your friend’s Camaro eat your copy of Bon Jovi’s “Slippery When Wet,” rendering “Wanted Dead or Alive” more dead than alive? Perhaps your computer hard drive crashed, corrupting all of your Justin Bieber downloads.

On this mixtape, you might choose to include some content (songs) you don’t actually have in your collection. How will you decide where to get it? The provider of that content will be selected on the basis of what best suits your needs. For instance, you may already have an ongoing relationship with a content provider. Is it the funny-smelling record store down the street? Amazon.com or iTunes? You might also pick a place all your friends are raving about. Or you might avoid one your parents happen to frequent.

With source content in hand, selecting the songs from the pool begins the mixtape editorial workflow. These questions will help you get started:

• Does this content (or song) support the overall message?
• Does it make sense in this context? (Not everyone will “get” your raga references.)
• Does its place next to other selections make for a pleasing experience?
• Will it fit in the remaining time on side B of the cassette?

Make sure that the content (song selection) is relevant to the lucky recipient/user. Putting punk songs and opera and hip-hop tracks one right after the next might be jarring for some, but not for others.
Remember: Stay true to the focus of the theme, consider the recipient, and assert your coolness.
A few additional tips:

• Create your mix with the end user in mind (be aware of their pop culture knowledge).
• Clearly state the title.
• Write the title and track list in a language they can read (as opposed to Esperanto. Or Klingon.)
• If you are making a cassette, make sure they have a cassette player.

The associated “metadata” (in this case, title, track list, and any totally sweet, custom artwork) completes the package. The tone and voice of the title and artwork are all additional opportunities to continue the theme and message of the mixtape. The track list rounds out the experience by providing a reference to the greatness you’ve compiled. If you follow these important rules, your final product will be so much more than the consumable tape or CD alone.

Just like creating a mixtape is more than slapping a couple of songs together haphazardly on a cassette, creating websites with useful, usable content is more than just slapping words on a page. Taking the time and effort to carefully go through these processes will produce an end result that will make your website users happy (or your mixtape listeners happy).

Jazz icon Miles Davis is known for lots of things. Playing the trumpet. Cantankerousness. A mouth like a SAILOR.

I’ll bet that you didn’t know that he was pretty motherf*cking savvy when it comes to content strategy. Really!

While he wasn’t known for his razor-sharp technical prowess on his instrument, he was a great bandleader. He assembled some of the greatest bands, ever, in fact.

And he knew it.

In 1969, when he had assembled the band that suited his fancy, he stated that it was “really a bad motherf*cker.”

In 1970, his bass player left. Miles needed someone able to produce the content he couldn’t create on his own. Miles played trumpet. And some keyboards. But he wasn’t a bass player. A content gap analysis would show that a band as funky as Miles’ in the 70s could not be without a bass player.

Allegedly, Miles walked up to Stevie Wonder after seeing him in concert and said, “I’m stealing your f*ckin’ bass player.” And he did. Poor Stevie Wonder had Michael Henderson, his bass player, acquired.

Many companies produce some content, but have a need for other content to complete their online presence. It may be only a small portion of the content on the site. In some cases, almost all of the content is created by third parties.

There are times when the economies of scale make content acquisition a smart choice. There are lots of good reasons to do it:

• Properly accredited content is not cheap.
• A full-time content production staff or position might not be feasible.
• It puts content creation into the hands of a dedicated specialist.
• Frees up the staff to do what they do best.

This is something not to be taken on lightly. Miles didn’t acquire just anyone’s bass player. He acquired Stevie Wonder’s bass player. He hired a content creator.

Many content acquisition relationships include a pre-produced set of content, plus options to publish future content created. Delightful!

It can also lead unwitting contract signers down apocalyptic paths of frustration and insanity. Not delightful! This is important to note for several reasons:

• Can the creators maintain their output level? Do they have a solid content strategy?
• Does the content match the tone and voice of your website?
• Do they provide the content in an easily-published format?
• Do they provide the appropriate metadata?
• Are your competitors using them, or a similar service?

The most important consideration when evaluating third-party content acquisition is this: The content still needs to meet your business needs/customer needs.

Miles didn’t hire two or three bass players. He hired one. He only hired a bass player because he had a need for a bass player. He didn’t hire a bagpiper. That brings up another point: don’t consider content acquisition only to take up space on your website.

Though it will be delivered to your figurative door, the content will still need attention It will need to be finessed and published. Curated. It will need to be incorporated into workflows and editorial calendars. The governance portion of your content strategy will still apply.

Finally, put a plan in place in case the relationship ends. The content producer may go belly up, the contract may expire, or you simply might choose to stop using them.

If there is a gap in your content, acquiring it from a third party is a proven method of creating a more complete online experience. Don’t fear it. Your website may work so well that Miles Davis himself may have praised it as, “really a bad motherf*cker.”

Miles in Vienna, Austria on November 3, 1973.  And yes, that is Michael Henderson on bass:

Has anyone ever gone to a website, or a park, and said, “This place would be even more awesome if it had way more crap on it.”?

Probably not.

People slog through their online experiences everyday battling cluttered content.  It stands between them and the thing they want to get done.  Tasks are barely completed, with frustration.  Even worse, they may throw their hands up in disgust and go somewhere else.  That somewhere else might be a 1-800 help desk or order center (more expensive than the web). Or, they may go to a competitor (even more expensive).

Content ends up on websites for lots of reasons.

• Some are noble (This is core to our message on all platforms.)
• Some are not (Lady Gaga outfit picture widget.)
• Some are forced (Put this on the online internets. Or else.)

Websites are funny things.  You can fill them with content until they are OVER 23,000 PIXELS LONG.  Just because you can doesn’t mean that your should.

The impulse may be pure.  Serve the people. SUPER-SERVE the people.  Give them everything they ever wanted to know about your product/service.  Show them the Facebook widget.  Give them all of the images of all of the products on the homepage.  The people coming to the site will find what they need that way…right?

This is neither an effective nor sustainable content strategy.

For every piece of content destined for the website, ask these questions:

• Does this content help to achieve our business aims or support our primary message?
• Does it really?
• No, REALLY?

The criteria thereafter will vary from situation to situation.  This sentiment is universal. Here it is, again. In bold.  Does this content help to achieve our business aims or support our primary message?

There is room for secondary content that fills out an experience, or deepens engagement with a brand.  It can make the difference between a dull visit and an experience that creates lifelong devotees.

Secondary content must be vetted, examined, tested, and cautiously implemented.  Keep governance in mind, too.  Will the content ROT (suffer from redundancy, outdated-ness, and triviality)?  While the content may serve a secondary purpose, it requires the same diligence as any other content.

Weigh any potential benefit of the secondary, additive content against the possible cost it may incur:

• Unintentional dominance of overall site messaging
• Additional noise and clutter added to the user experience
• Distraction from business aims and message
• Resources and attention required to acquire and maintain it

Go ahead.  Take that pooper scooper to your content inventory.  Everyone will be happier in the end with a little less crap around.

In the world of content, as in pies, more isn’t always better.

My mother is a good example of this; she is often charged with the task of making food for church events.  This works well, as she is fond of cooking and baking.  However, when the situation calls for 40 pounds of potato salad or pies baked at a two-per-week pace, things start to suffer.  She begins to enjoy it less than cooking for family.  She cuts some corners by buying pre-made pie crusts from the store just to keep up.  Both the process and end result are affected.

What was once sustainable in pie-making becomes unmanageable as the environment changes.  The same happens with the making of content.  In a terrific blog post titled, “Content Strategy Is About Publishing,” Erin Kissane writes:

“…the internet is made of publishing, and its new and often anarchic publishing models are messing with older models in all kinds of ways.”

This became clear in the content strategies of two major content producers: the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

The BBC announced last week some significant budget cuts; the web budget would be cut by 25%.  As a part of this, “The Guardian” reports “The BBC’s internet operation will see the number of web pages it publishes halve by 2013.” (emphasis mine)

Cutting back on projects/initiatives is something that the BBC has done many times in the past. In 2001, they ceased shortwave broadcasts to North America and Australasia.  They trimmed or cut entirely some of their language services in certain markets/regions later in the same decade.

The budget cuts will mean changes in the web staffing and managerial structure of the BBC.  It also means that there will be considerable changes in their content strategy in the next few years.

For a bit of history:  broadcasters once enjoyed the luxury of creating content in an environment that had great built-in features.  Content could be created in a much different way. This is no longer the case.  It is almost hard to image now:

• Little or no public facing archive
• Automatic context provided via linear broadcast timeline
• Massive reach in an uncrowded landscape

Capacity to produce raw content is only one part of the equation.  To be successful, the rest of the editorial workflow must be given the proper attention.  Getting the story on-air is no longer the sole aim. Editors, publishers, and those governing the long-term life cycle of the content share an equal seat at the table.  These positions need not be separate people, but each duty requires time, resources, and diligence.

As newsrooms and broadcasters look to make their content available on all platforms, additional hours are required (once people are trained) to translate the content into appropriate formats.  Translation in this case means that some things will need to be added or subtracted from the formerly-finished product in order to remain in-context and relevant to its surroundings:

• Text version of audio content
• Video to accompany audio content
• Images to populate slideshows
• Text transcripts of video content
• Interactive/casual gaming features
• Platform-specific metadata
• Branding, rights management, and editing all of the above

Online video, for example, has been viable and mainstream for years.  Many content producers are only now beginning to incorporate it into their content production and editorial workflows.  The chorus has often been “all content to all platforms.”  The CBC recently stated this on their “Inside the CBC” blog post titled “The CBC’s Digital Content Strategy.”

“We don’t know what will work,” (Richard Stursberg, the executive vice president of English programming) said, “One of the big outstanding questions is how long content will live on various platforms.” But he reiterated his commitment to pushing content onto new platforms regardless, “We’re gonna have to absolutely be there,” he said, if we don’t move to these new platforms, “we just lost all our viewers.”

This brings about a question that the BBC may have asked themselves: If it takes longer to create content that is viable on a multitude of platforms, could the current page counts on the web be unsustainable? The answer was a budget cut and subsequent planned page count reduction.

Is publishing a story in audio form, with an image slideshow and text version plus an interactive/gaming feature causing a change in focus?  Are the raw number of pages published no longer the benchmark?

A change of this magnitude allows for an alternative to the “content farm” model by offering an in-depth, robust slate of content–neither the BBC nor the CBC are strangers to that.  As Erin Kissane writes, creation of content that fits the new modes of consumption is “…largely made up of new applications for old skills.”  That is good news for the news.  What is left is this: content producers must now reconcile the amount of time and resources required with changes in output volume.

If it means baking fewer (but better) pies (or content), then I am all for it.

Does it pay to produce content that values craft, careful research, and proper grammar? Do people want content so irresistibly compelling that it must be shared? Two pieces this week out of the “New York Times” shed some light on this issue.

The first, titled “Plentiful Content, So Cheap,” says that content farms like Demand Media are capitalizing upon a near-loophole-like situation of content creation by low-paid writers. Demand Media discovers “needs” by parsing popular search requests and publishes 20,000 articles each week. Writers are paid $15-$20 for each article, and editors about $3.50 each for proofing and vetting. The texts are produced to rank them high in the world of SEO.

The articles produced on one content farm, eHow.com, show a definite flaw in this type of content strategy. A search on that site for clogged drain reveals articles titled “How to Clean a Clogged Drain Pipe,” “How to Open Clogged Drains,” “How to Open a Clogged Drain Full of Water,” and “How to Clear a Clogged Drain Easily,” among others. This reveals a strategy of “more is better.” An overabundance of similar/duplicative content will lead to confusion and, ultimately, a poor user experience.

Christine Anameier wrote about the end product of content farms on the Brain Traffic blog in a post titled “Sorting through the digital debris.”  She sums the situation up well:

“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.”

The second “New York Times” article, titled “Will You Be E-Mailing This Column? It’s Awesome,” points out a different kind of content phenomenon. University of Pennsylvania researchers have been poring over the email-to-a-friend data from the “Times” itself, and have uncovered some interesting trends. Long-ish articles are popular (a surprise, there) as are articles about science (a surprise, too). Positive articles outnumber the negative ones. It appears that senders are not just trying to impress their friends with their acumen, but rather “seeking emotional communion,” according to one of the researchers, Dr. Jonah Berger.

The difference is between the content featured in the two articles is not How-To guides versus canonical works, but rather a matter of intent. Quality versus quantity. Spartan, functional content has been around for ages. Lots of it. So has the top-notch, compelling content. The new ingredient is the manipulation and overloading of the system in order to have content of a lesser quality supersede the real thing where it matters most: in search results.

What became apparent to me immediately was that these are two very different kinds of content. The stories topping the shared-with-a-friend lists in the “Times” are examples of content that affects people on a different level.

Content must be created and presented in a way that will meet goals and objectives, rather than simply filling quotas, bloating site content holdings, and search engine placements. A content farm might teach you four ways of how to remove that wookie from your shower drain, but it will not inspire and fill you with awe, let alone meet a true need.