In content strategy, there is no playbook of generic strategies you can pick from to assemble a plan for your client or project. Instead, our discipline rests on a series of core principles about what makes content effective—what makes it work, what makes it good. Content may need to have other qualities to work within a particular project, but this list is limited to qualities shared across all sorts of content.
If this looks like theory, don’t be fooled. It’s really entirely practical: if we consciously refer to principles like these as we go about our work as info-nerds of various kinds, we’ll have an easier time making good, useful content, and explaining our priorities when we’re called to do so.
Good content is appropriate#section2
Publish content that is right for the user and for the business
There’s really only one central principle of good content: it should be appropriate for your business, for your users, and for its context. Appropriate in its method of delivery, in its style and structure, and above all in its substance. Content strategy is the practice of determining what each of those things means for your project—and how to get there from where you are now.
Right for the user (and context)#section3
Let us meditate for a moment on James Bond. Clever and tough as he is, he’d be mincemeat a hundred times over if not for the hyper-competent support team that stands behind him. When he needs to chase a villain, the team summons an Aston Martin DB5. When he’s poisoned by a beautiful woman with dubious connections, the team offers the antidote in a spring-loaded, space-age infusion device. When he emerges from a swamp overrun with trained alligators, it offers a shower, a shave, and a perfectly tailored suit. It does not talk down to him or waste his time. It anticipates his needs, but does not offer him everything he might ever need, all the time.
Content is appropriate for users when it helps them accomplish their goals.
Content is perfectly appropriate for users when it makes them feel like geniuses on critically important missions, offering them precisely what they need, exactly when they need it, and in just the right form. All of this requires that you get pretty deeply into your users’ heads, if not their tailoring specifications.
Part of this mind-reading act involves context, which encompasses quite a lot more than just access methods, or even a fine-grained understanding of user goals. Content strategist Daniel Eizans has suggested that a meaningful analysis of a user’s context requires not only an understanding of user goals, but also of their behaviors: What are they doing? How are they feeling? What are they capable of?
Fig. 1. The user’s context includes actions, constraints, emotions, cognitive conditions, and more. And that in turn affects the ways in which the user interacts with content. (“Personal-Behavioral Context: The New User Persona.” © Daniel Eizans, 2010. Modified from a diagram by Andrew Hinton.)
It’s a sensible notion. When I call the emergency room on a weekend, my context is likely to be quite different than when I call my allergy specialist during business hours. If I look at a subway map at 3:00 a.m., chances are that I need to know which trains are running now, not during rush hour tomorrow. When I look up your company on my phone, I’m more likely to need basic contact info than your annual report from 2006. But assumptions about reader context—however well researched—will never be perfect. Always give readers the option of seeing more information if they wish to do so.
Right for the business #section4
Content is appropriate for your business when it helps you accomplish your business goals in a sustainable way.
Business goals include things like “increase sales,” “improve technical support service,” and “reduce printing costs for educational materials,” and the trick is to accomplish those goals using sustainable processes. Sustainable content is content you can create—and maintain—without going broke, without lowering quality in ways that make the content suck, and without working employees into nervous breakdowns. The need for this kind of sustainability may sound boneheadedly obvious, but it’s very easy to create an ambitious plan for publishing oodles of content without considering the long-term effort required to manage it.
Fundamentally, though, “right for the business” and “right for the user” are the same thing. Without readers, viewers, and listeners, all content is meaningless, and content created without consideration for users’ needs harms publishers because ignored users leave.
This principle boils down to enlightened self interest: that which hurts your users hurts you.
Good content is useful#section5
Define a clear, specific purpose for each piece of content; evaluate content against this purpose
Few people set out to produce content that bores, confuses, and irritates users, yet the web is filled with fluffy, purposeless, and annoying content. This sort of content isn’t neutral, either: it actively wastes time and money and works against user and business goals.
To know whether or not you have the right content for a page (or module or section), you have to know what that content is supposed to accomplish. Greater specificity produces better results. Consider the following possible purposes for a chunk of product-related content:
- “Sell products”—This is so vague as to be meaningless and is likely to produce buzzword-infested fluff.
- “Sell this product”—Selling a product is a process made up of many smaller tasks, like discussing benefits, mapping them to features, demonstrating results and value, and asking people to buy. If your goal is this vague, you have no idea which of these tasks (if any) the content will perform.
- “List and demonstrate the benefits of this product”—This is something a chunk of content can actually do. But if you don’t know who is supposed to benefit from the product, it’s difficult to be specific.
- “Show how this product helps nurse practitioners”—If you can discover what nurse practitioners need, you can create content that serves this purpose. (And if you can’t find out what they need before trying to sell them a product, you have a lot more to worry about than your content.)
Now do the same for every chunk of content in your project, and you’ll have a useful checklist of what you’re really trying to achieve. If that sounds daunting, think how much harder it would be to try to evaluate, create, or revise the content without a purpose in mind.
Good content is user-centered#section6
Adopt the cognitive frameworks of your users
On a web project, user-centered design means that the final product must meet real user needs and fulfill real human desires. In practical terms, it also means that the days of designing a site map to mirror an org chart are over.
In The Psychology of Everyday Things, cognitive scientist Donald Norman wrote about the central importance of understanding the user’s mental model before designing products. In the user-centered design system he advocates, design should “make sure that (1) the user can figure out what to do, and (2) the user can tell what is going on.”
When it comes to content, “user-centered” means that instead of insistently using the client’s internal mental models and vocabulary, content must adopt the cognitive frameworks of the user. That includes everything from your users’ model of the world to the ways in which they use specific terms and phrases. And that part has taken a little longer to sink in.
Allow me to offer a brief illustrative puppet show.
While hanging your collection of framed portraits of teacup poodles, you realize you need a tack hammer. So you pop down to the hardware store and ask the clerk where to find one. “Tools and Construction-Related Accessories,” she says. “Aisle five.”
Publishing content that is self-absorbed in substance or style alienates readers. Most successful organizations have realized this, yet many sites are still built around internal org charts, clogged with mission statements designed for internal use, and beset by jargon and proprietary names for common ideas.
If you’re the only one offering a desirable product or service, you might not see the effects of narcissistic content right away, but someone will eventually come along and eat your lunch by offering the exact same thing in a user-centered way.
Good content is clear#section7
Seek clarity in all things
When we say that something is clear, we mean that it works; it communicates; the light gets through. Good content speaks to people in a language they understand and is organized in ways that make it easy to use.
Content strategists usually rely on others—writers, editors, and multimedia specialists—to produce and revise the content that users read, listen to, and watch. On some large projects, we may never meet most of the people involved in content production. But if we want to help them produce genuinely clear content, we can’t just make a plan, drop it onto the heads of the writers, and flee the building.
Of course, clarity is also a virtue we should attend to in the production of our own work. Goals, meetings, deliverables, processes—all benefit from a love of clarity.
Good content is consistent #section8
Mandate consistency, within reason
For most people, language is our primary interface with each other and with the external world. Consistency of language and presentation acts as a consistent interface, reducing the users’ cognitive load and making it easier for readers to understand what they read. Inconsistency, on the other hand, adds cognitive effort, hinders understanding, and distracts readers.
That’s what our style guides are for. Many of us who came to content strategy from journalistic or editorial fields have a very strong attachment to a particular style—I have a weakness for the Chicago Manual of Style—but skillful practitioners put internal consistency well ahead of personal preferences.
Some kinds of consistency aren’t always uniformly valuable, either: a site that serves doctors, patients, and insurance providers, for example, will probably use three different voice/tone guidelines for the three audiences, and another for content intended to be read by a general audience. That’s healthy, reader-centric consistency. On the other hand, a company that permitted each of its product teams to create widely different kinds of content is probably breaking the principles of consistency for self-serving, rather than reader-serving, reasons.
Good content is concise#section9
Omit needless content
Some organizations love to publish lots of content. Perhaps because they believe that having an org chart, a mission statement, a vision declaration, and a corporate inspirational video on the About Us page will retroactively validate the hours and days of time spent producing that content. Perhaps because they believe Google will only bless their work if they churn out dozens of blog posts per week. In most cases, I think entropy deserves the blame: the web offers the space to publish everything, and it’s much easier to treat it like a hall closet with infinite stuffing-space than to impose constraints.
So what does it matter if we have too much content? For one thing, more content makes everything more difficult to find. For another, spreading finite resources ever more thinly results in a decline in quality. It also often indicates a deeper problem—publishing everything often means “publishing everything we can,” rather than “publishing everything we’ve learned that our users really need.”
There are many ways to discover which content is in fact needless; traffic analysis, user research, and editorial judgment should all play a role. You may also wish to begin with a hit list of common stowaways:
- Mission statements, vision statements, and core values. If the people within your organization are genuinely committed to abstract principles, it will show in what they do. The exception is the small number of organizations for whom the mission is the product, as is the case with many charities. Even then, this kind of content should be supplemented with plentiful evidence of follow-through.
- Press releases. These may work for their very narrow intended audience, but putting them undigested onto a website is a perfect example of the how-we’ve-always-done-it mistake.
- Long, unreadable legal pages. Some legal awkwardness is acceptable, but if you want to demonstrate that you respect your readers, take the extra time to whittle down rambling legalese and replace needless circumlocutions with (attorney-vetted) plain language.
- Endless feature lists. Most are not useful to readers. The few that are can usually be organized into subcategories that aid findability and comprehension.
- Redundant documentation. Are you offering the same audience three different FAQs? Can they be combined or turned into contextual help?
- Audiovisual dust bunnies. Do your videos or animations begin with a long flying-logo intro? Do they ramble on for 30 minutes to communicate ten minutes of important content? Trim, edit, and provide ways of skipping around.
Once you’ve rooted out unnecessary content at the site-planning level, be prepared to ruthlessly eliminate (and teach others to eliminate) needless content at the section, page, and sentence level.
Good content is supported#section10
Publish no content without a support plan
If newspapers are “dead tree media,” information published online is a live green plant. And as we figured out sometime around 10,000 BC, plants are more useful if we tend them and shape their futures to suit our goals. So, too, must content be tended and supported.
Factual content must be updated when new information appears and culled once it’s no longer useful; user-generated content must be nurtured and weeded; time-sensitive content like breaking news or event information must be planted on schedule and cut back once its blooming period ends. Perhaps most importantly, a content plan once begun must be carried through its intended growth cycle if it’s to bear fruit and make all the effort worthwhile.
This is all easy to talk about, but the reason most content is not properly maintained is that most content plans rely on getting the already overworked to produce, revise, and publish content without neglecting other responsibilities. This is not inevitable, but unless content and publishing tasks are recognized as time-consuming and complex and then included in job descriptions, performance reviews, and resource planning, it will continue.
Hoping that a content management system will replace this kind of human care and attention is about as effective as pointing a barn full of unmanned agricultural machinery at a field, going on vacation, and hoping it all works out. Tractors are more efficient than horse-drawn plows, but they still need humans to decide where and when and how to use them.
Of theses and church doors#section11
One of the great images of the history of the Protestant Church is that of a German priest standing in the cold in front of the Castle Church in Wittenberg on All Saints Eve, nailing his manifesto to its wooden doors.
The reality of the publication of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses is messier, and whether the church doors were really involved at all is the subject of academic dispute, but one thing is clear: Luther published his theses to begin an open, public conversation.
Our industry doesn’t lack for manifestos, some of them even explicitly modeled after Luther’s. This article, and the book from which it’s extracted, is not one of the firebrand, nailed-to-the-door attempts at full-scale revolution.
But it is intended to continue conversations we’ve been having for years, and to spark new ones, about the shared principles and assumptions that underlie our work, and the weird and interesting things we can build on top of them.
I’ll bring the coffee and doughnuts. See you on the church steps?
20 Reader Comments
bq. Factual content must be updated when new information appears and culled once it’s no longer useful; user-generated content must be nurtured and weeded; time-sensitive content like breaking news or event information must be planted on schedule and cut back once its blooming period ends. Perhaps most importantly, a content plan once begun must be carried through its intended growth cycle if it’s to bear fruit and make all the effort worthwhile.
I love this, but can’t help wrestling the common sense of agriculture against the typical concerns of consulting. We’ve all seen how politics, finite budgets, and the pressure of competing deadlines get in the way of post-launch maintenance when companies outsource their web initiatives. It’s a problem with codependent enablers: clients send RFPs for new websites, blog templates, or content; consultancies respond with ideas to relaunch anew, with sparkling new content–and too often, the timeline stops there.
Some agencies are starting to move away from the launch-and-leave model, but their efforts are misguided at best: maintenance contracts that focus on posting press releases and governance documents that live more in documentation than culture are no substitute for the model of vigilant care you describe.
Here’s my question: how do you think consultancies need to evolve their offering and how they sell it in order to educate their clients about governance, community management, and ongoing content cultivation? Is it a cultural shift that both agencies and clients need to embrace, or more of a trend that’s already happening?
(And if you answer that in full in the book, well, “RTFM” is an acceptable answer.)
Many websites are primarily focused on conversions and thus speed visitors through a funnel. Good content will let a user jump in to whichever step of that process via search engine results matching highly targeted keywords on the page.
Sometimes, sacrificing clarity for some SEO is necessary.
I wholeheartedly agree with the premise that “good content is supported.”
In my arguably limited experience I find that without a support plan, i.e., someone to keep the web site fresh and relevant, the web site does more than become stagnant. I find the owner of the site, not getting the value out of the presence on the web in the form of page hits, search engine rank and overall response to content, can not fully realize the value of the web as a medium for existing and potential customer communication. In other words, the site to him or her becomes nothing more than a yellow pages ad.
quantity is important. i’m unable to concentrate if there’s too much happens on a single page, ie. adsie, retweets, fb likes, etc..
Thank you for content on content that is witty and insightful. While some say “content is king”, I think the ruling power comes form context – that of the user, the task(s) they come to our sites to accomplish, and our business goals. Without context our content often turns into a madlib of marketing and SEO terms.
One of the root causes of my company’s content challenges comes from distributed authorship – which is akin to awarding road construction projects to the lowest bidder. Any thoguhts on how to create/manage good content in this type of environment? Like Margot’s comment above “(And if you answer that in full in the book, well, “RTFM” is an acceptable answer.)”
Very good article… as usual!
What a great site
How do you see adaptive content working with more traditional strategy models in terms of planning and execution? We’ve been experimenting with providing different content from a CMS based on organic/paid search keywords, which ties in nicely with the idea of context. The problem is that it compounds the effort it takes to create content for multiple scenarios. Not sure if you’ve had experience with this but I would be curious to hear your thoughts.
PS – Mods might want to take a pass at the spam posts above.
Bought your book a week or so ago. I just skimmed this article, but it’s making me more excited to read the whole book.
Looking forward to it. As soon as I get a free minute…….
Content about content…it’s about time.
Thank you for an insightful article on the use, timing and nurturing of content!
Thanks for the response on governance, Erin. My feeling? This is a classic teach-them-to-fish opportunity for consultancies to assess culture, train on tactics, and help their clients maintain over time.
But it’s a tough issue: while I see many agencies pitching their clients on long-term maintenance and best practices (whatever THOSE are) they’ve seen in other organizations, it seems like many shops don’t take the time to focus their user research internally and build a sense of empathy around day-to-day content cultivation. That is, they may not understand their clients’ internal processes, existing content culture, and current workflow well enough to help them graft on governance techniques that are designed to succeed in specific organizations.
That’s where best practices fail: as consultants, we need to show our clients that what’s best may not always be right for their particular, peculiar needs and culture. But all experience (and corporate culture) is specific, and that’s not always easy to estimate and sell. In many agencies, the vague but vital governance component is tough for both account managers and their clients to accommodate.
Margot Bloomstein was recently out working with us and I got a chance to flip through the new book. Definitely planning on ordering a copy of our own.
Working in the web development/design industry for over 15 years it’s great to see content strategy getting a well deserved focus these days. Anyone who’s been in the game for a long time will tell you that one of the top reasons a project will fail is when content and message architecture is ignored or minimized.
This is a really useful checklist. Thanks!
I sometimes find it difficult writing website content myself, especially when SEO is involved, as it can be hard to write several pages of varied content, having to fill a word limit and without repeating yourself.
Good, clear checklist here, definitely something to keep in mind for future projects. I agree that there is nothing worse than going on a site and seeing streams of content, it really puts me off reading any of it, and I would probably just leave the site if what I was looking for wasn’t clearly marked.
That I find is one of the hardest things to get across to clients. They can be so self absorbed in their business that they never stop to put themselves in their clients shoes. Their content can be technical, bland and as interesting as watching paint dry.
Once they see their content from the clients point of view you can almost see the light bulb go on in their heads.
I think the value of content depends on the author/site owners goal. Blogs are written for retaining a reader audience, while press releases are intended for making an announcement. It can be difficult to make a product announcement interesting and viral, but thats not the point. This is just one example of how none interesting content can also be valuable.
The concept of usability occasionally takes a backseat in web design, sadly, but not as often as it does in content writing.
Making content user-centered really goes hand in hand with good site structure and navigability. It can be difficult to write content that is functional (useful) when there isn’t a clear concept of what its purpose is in the scheme of the site.
This article is an excellent resource for generating usable content for usable sites and preventing content bloat.
In this fast paced world I an very aware that being concise is right on the money. I also liked the venn diagram of physical, emotional and information.
I exclusively write for my dog walking site. This means that my target is one third of families in my local area. I constantly struggle with topics that might be of interest to me but have too much detail for the reader. So what does my reader want? They probably will view the articles now and then if I walk their dogs, but maybe not even then.
It seems my content is to expand my reach into the long tail of google and for article sites (which now I have found I have to re-write an article so I dont get caught in the duplication trap.
My biggest trick is researching facts and presenting them as interesting, and even tied back to my dog walking. I found by reading scientific journals that dog behavior is a real ‘rabbit hole’ of information that most people have no idea about. So in a way I am lucky that I have such a deep interest in my topics. Do I make them concise enough, or do I provide enough detail to support my (and others) theories? That at the end of the day is the question for me, as well as, did I entertain my reader … I truly hope so.
I would like to add some useful tips to your wonderful article on how to write content for your website “Make sure that your website works for your business. A website that works must have the following characteristics: otherwise it is nothing more than an oversized electronic business card. It must be appealing and professionally designed. Mare sure that the first impression a potential customer gets from you is a positive one
It must allow for better communication channels between you and your customers or prospects. Your contact information shouldn’t be more than a click away
It must give visitors a good reason to return to your site. Here, content is king
Do not make a sales pitch in every paragraph …”
As a burgeoning copywriter all this brain food is brilliant. Cheers
I could not agree more with your retake on the old “Content Is King” maxim – it’s all about delivering relevancy.
When I first started my blog, I was obsessed with SEO and putting up content as quickly as possible so that my pages could be indexed by the search engines. This practice resulted in a low conversion rate and an extremely high bounce rate. This article hits the nail on the head. Without good content your blog will not be successful, no matter how many visitors it gets.
Got something to say?
We have turned off comments, but you can see what folks had to say before we did so.
More from ALA
Personalization Pyramid: A Framework for Designing with User Data
Mobile-First CSS: Is It Time for a Rethink?
Designers, (Re)define Success First
Breaking Out of the Box
How to Sell UX Research with Two Simple Questions