Month: February 2010

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.

Can a shiny new object put your carefully crafted content strategy in peril?

Continuous partial attention is about scanning continuously for opportunities across a network, not solely about optimizing one’s time by multitasking. – Wikipedia

Though Linda Stone coined the term in 1997, continuous partial attention has become more of an issue in the world of content than ever before. Real-time technologies allow greater access to more information at any moment. It could be a tweet, an email, a quick check of an RSS reader, etc. Laura Miller wrote a book on the potential impact this may have on individuals. What about the impact on businesses?

David McCandless’s Hierarchy of Digital Distractions has made yet another round on the viral info-sharing circuit. It clearly illustrates what many of the super-connected people are cycling through any minute they are awake. Just as Miller’s book points out, the lack of focus has people bouncing back and forth between the shiny new objects.

Information itself is not the only shiny new object poised to distract. The services and the hardware/gadgets that serve up the next hit garner the most acute attention. Apple’s most recent product unveiling is a…shining example.

What does all of this divided attention mean for content creators and publishers? What impact will it have on what was once a carefully crafted content strategy? Might the continuous partial attention distract to the point of sabotage?

A good content strategy will have workflows in place that address day-to-day activities.  However, there must also be a strategy and associated tactics and workflows that allow for consideration of new business opportunities as they arise.

I put the emphasis on workflow. Why? Because articles that pop up in the “Wall Street Journal” or “New York Times” get mainstream attention, and the echo chamber amplifies any potential into an unavoidable din. If a workflow is in place that allows each new shiny object to be carefully evaluated and vetted with stakeholders, the sooner they can be either implemented or tabled. The sooner, then, you can return to the task at hand: content.

Managers will rejoice in the fact that such a workflow exists, eagerly anticipating changes in the marketplace and technology. It is in the strategy’s best interest to have something in place that can protect it from a band-wagon jumping moment of viral hysteria.

Whether this shiny new object is a service, network, or a new device (looking at you, iPad), there are several key questions to consider.  At the very least, this component should ask two questions of a shiny new object:

• Does this serve our customers/clients?
• Does this fulfill an unmet business need?

Aside from the standard questions of “does this have a solid business plan” and “will this be around in the next 8 months,” other questions you may consider including in a shiny-new-object-evaluation component:

• Would adopting a wait-and-see approach for the next quarter be appropriate?
• What approach might our competitors adopt?
• Which current content workflows would be impacted?
• What is the potential return, aside from simply “being there?”
• Does this follow our mission/tone/standards?
• Would this cannibalize resources from things already established in the strategy?

There may be an advantage to being the first in line for a new technology. Bragging rights can count for something in some arenas.  But wouldn’t you rather be the one that does it right, rather than first? Meet your business and customer needs rather than being able to chime in with “first”?

Most likely, new business opportunities will require SOME sort of addition to existing content workflows. Be it one-time tasks of database configuration or appending metadata or modifying a taxonomy, or ongoing issues of manual content ingestion, editing, or transcoding, a disruption will probably be introduced. (Then again, sometimes disruptions become workflows.)

As with any component of a content strategy, the shiny-new-object-vetting portion must also maintain a razor sharp focus on business objectives, the people using your product/service, and the practical realities of your current operation. What were once major distractions and time vampires will hopefully become ever-so-complete-able tasks.