Reputation to Revenue

The lure of cheap content, continued

I wrote the other day about the lure of cheap content in B2B marketing. A few weeks back, I also wrote about the potential of marketers taking a journalistic approach to marketing. 

Now comes news that more mainstream media companies are themselves falling prey to the lure of cheap content. According to AdAge, major publishers including Thomson Reuters, Hachette Filipacci, and Cox Newspapers are outsourcing article production to cheap content mills that pay freelancers as little as $5 per article.

Here I am holding up journalistic standards as something marketers should emulate and the journalists run off to build a "content candy store," as one editor from Thomson Reuters put it. Aargh! I know times are tough for the media, but really folks. This ain't the way forward.

It's certainly not anything for B2B marketers to look at. Candy stores may sell a bunch of stuff, but the momentary buzz from even a great piece of chocolate doesn't last. With B2B, we need to focus more on content that helps create lasting relationships, not quick sugar highs. And that means quality. And quality ain't cheap.

Am I ranting too much here? What do you think?

The lure of cheap content in B2B marketing

 An article in MediaWeek on content mills like Demand Media and Seed.com got me thinking about the dangerous lure of cheap content in B2B marketing. The goal of the content mills is to crank out a huge volume of search-oriented content for the web as cheaply as possible and sell advertising against it. Large consumer brands including AT&T, Proctor and Gamble, and General Motors have taken the bait and the model seems to be working. Critics bemoan the implications on multiple levels, including the crowding out of quality editorial and the low wages paid to the freelancers who fill the mills. 

The mills themselves are mainly a B2C issue (at least for now!). But the underlying idea of maximizing content with minimum investment is all too common in B2B as well, especially as business marketers scramble to keep up with the accelerating demands of content creation for lead nurturing and social media.

With B2B, the problem is actually two-fold: insufficient investment of time as well as money in the creation of quality content. The money issues are pretty straightforward:

• Hiring junior marcom staff to produce content when more seasoned experts are really needed
• Outsourcing content production to the cheapest possible resources knowing that quality will suffer
• Making do with general-issue collateral when customization for different audiences would be far more effective
• Short-changing design and rich media when standard-issue text and stock photography scream low-budget to audiences expected to pay top dollar for your products, services, and solutions

The time issues may be even more pernicious:

• Skimping on research that would back up your arguments
• Forgoing competitive review despite the need to differentiate
• Minimizing group review in the rush to meet deadlines
• Racing through internal communication that could ensure alignment and support

The irony of cheap content, of course, is the high cost in damaged reputation and lost opportunities: "Thought leadership" content that is neither thoughtful nor leading; jargon-filled collateral that fails to connect; customer case studies that read like warmed-over brochures. Or, perhaps most common of all, marketing content that is simply ignored by sales before it even has a chance to reach customers and prospects.

Resisting the lure of cheap content is not easy when budgets are tight and time is even tighter. It means taking more time up front to understand customer needs, map out editorial strategy, and think through the true value in each piece of content. It means saying No when colleagues push for sign-off on poorly written and designed drafts. And it may mean sacrificing quantity for quality -- although investing the time to build more compelling Points of View now will actually make it easier to produce both more and better content down the road. 

We all know that competition keeps growing, buyer patience keeps shrinking, and the margin for error is almost zero. In this context, can we really afford cheap content?

Photo credit: FDR Presidential Library

"Quality isn't Job One...

...Being totally frickin' amazing is Job One."

The great Hugh MacLeod (gapingvoid) has cleaned up one of his greatest hits. Wall-worthy even in the most conservative office. Check it out.

Can corporate journalism work?

Read an interesting post by Ike Pigott today (thanks Amber) suggesting that as mainstream journalism continues to shrink, struggling journalists should consider jumping to the dark side and plying their trade as corporate journalists. 

Ike distinguishes his notion of the corporate "embedded journalist" from the age-old tradition of reporters simply leaving the newsroom to go work in corporate communications. What's new, he says, is that the decline of mainstream journalism means that companies increasingly are going to forgo pitching stories in hopes of coverage and just start publishing themselves.

To some extent, this isn't that new. Even before social media, smart companies have worked to bring  their message directly to customers and others through thought leadership and other publications without the filter of earned media. And for journalists, it may simply be a matter of survival. A job is a job, after all. As traditional journalism jobs and news outlets decline, companies will step in even more to tell their own stories and take up the slack.

Can this really work on a large scale?

Well, maybe. I have little doubt that some companies will make the effort -- and I think it's important to try. I agree with Ike that if companies do indeed hire real journalists and (this is crucial) give them the support and leeway to tell real stories instead of marketing puffery, then people will respond positively. 

Even more, I believe that companies, customers, and other stakeholders could all benefit if companies shifted substantial marketing resources away from their minimally effective promotion efforts toward more thoughtful and independent coverage of the industries and issues their customers really care about.

But will they? I assume Ike chose the term "embedded journalist" deliberately in reference to the Pentagon's similarly named and quite controversial program to "embed" journalists with military units during the Iraq War. That program did lead to some interesting inside reporting but whether the program overall actually served the public interest in terms of independent coverage is far from clear. 

For now, B2B companies are mostly still struggling with how much to allow their own employees to go beyond strictures of message control and engage freely in social media and networks. If they can't even do this, it's hard to believe they'll turn trained professional journalists loose in an even more ambitious effort to provide "accurate and fair" reporting with all the risks this may entail to their own reputation.

For companies willing to try, and I hope there are many, here are a few suggestions:

• Good journalism is, first and foremost, about reporting, not making product pitches or solutions delivery examples sound better. Focus on the issues your customers, partners, and employees care about and then go do some digging to cover and analyze what's really happening. Talk to the experts, interview customers and your own employees, crunch some data...be a real resource for news you can use.
• Good journalism has (or should have) real standards for accuracy, quality, and fairness. Notwithstanding the endless blather that fills so much of both corporate marketing and social media, most people can still tell the difference. Take standards seriously and don't skimp on quality.
• Good journalism takes time and is ongoing. If you're going to do it, have patience and keep at it. Like social media, positive results will not come overnight. But becoming a trusted source for customers and others will pay dividends for years to come.

B2B marketers know that the demand for content is growing every day, and that thinking like a publisher is increasingly central to making marketing work. Corporate journalism can make a huge contribution as we move in this direction. And if we can save the jobs of some worthy journalists along the way, so much the better.

What's your take? Can corporate journalism work?

Photo credit: Valeriana Solaris

Marketing lessons from the Grateful Dead

Crazy week last week, but it was hard to resist the HubSpot webinar, Marketing Lessons from the Grateful Dead -- at least for me and 800+ other Dead-loving marketers.

Along with loving the music and concerts, I've always thought the Dead's freewheeling, performance-oriented approach represented a great example of American entrepreneurship.

Indeed, long after the vast majority of hit-focused, corporate rock bands had faded from view, the Dead kept on trucking to become one of the top grossing bands of all time despite a distinct lack of mass appeal. No less than the Atlantic magazine recently published an ode to the Dead's business acumen, Management Secrets of the Grateful Dead.

For marketers, the HubSpot webinar, led by certified Deadheads Brian Halligan of HubSpot (100+ shows) and social media writer David Meerman Scott (42 shows), was filled with great examples of how the Dead's success foreshadowed so much of what we're just now taking seriously with the shift to social media. 

For me, here are four key takeaways (leavened by my own experience at 20+ shows over the years):

1. Build an authentic experience, and never mind the critics. The Dead always went their own way with hours-long shows, little attention to rock band or radio format convention, and minimal effort to create hits. Lots of people never liked them, and that was fine. The lesson here is do what feels right, focus on your fans, and forget about trying to be all things to all people. 
2. Give away great content and make it easy to share. The Dead were notorious for actually encouraging their fans to tape their concerts and spread the music around. Far from obsessing over intellectual property, the Dead understood that the more their music spread, the more they could build a fan base and sell tickets to their shows. Once the Web arrived in the mid-90s, they jumped on board to post and broadcast as many shows as possible. The lesson here, of course, is to open up the organization, encourage your experts to connect freely with customers and others, and tear down the registration walls that require detailed business information in exchange for simply downloading a white paper or subscribing to a newsletter. 
3. Embrace new technologies and experiment aggressively. The Dead were also famous for pouring a huge amount of their early money into an enormous, state-of-the-art Wall of Sound that they trucked around the country rather than relying, as did most bands, on whatever sound system was in the venues they played. They constantly tested new sounds, new musical styles, and new media. The lesson here, as social media pundits opine constantly, is push the envelope, accept the inevitability of experiments that fail, and move on to the next.
4. Put your best customers first. Early on, the Dead realized the value of giving extra attention to their top fans with early and special access to tour information, tickets, and recordings. Rather than offer special deals to new prospects, the lesson here is to provide preferential treatment to your best existing customers. Keep them happy with customer councils and forums, executive access, and early warning of new products and services, and they're much more likely to remain loyal, provide useful insight, and spread the word on your behalf. 

Last year, I saw the Dead play in Worcester, MA (my hometown), 14 years after the death of spiritual leader Jerry Garcia. The experience was invigorating, the music was great, and the ethos remained true more than four decades from creation. Inspiring, to say the least.