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

Comments

[Rob Leavitt]

Thanks for the kind words, Jim. I agree that there is a big issue around appreciating the difference between good and poor quality content. Im not sure business people cant tell the difference (sorry for the double negative there); perhaps a bigger problem is that so few people actually read the content that their own organizations produce. Ive been amazed numerous times at the cursory reviews, if that, that people sometimes give the content I produce for them, even when its going out in their names! No question that results matter most but here too, we have a double problem: many marketing organizations still struggle with measurement, and, if they do get more serious about measurement, its often tied to bringing in a better marketing automation system, which then gets a lot of the credit for improved results even if theyre starting to put out better content along the way.

But its Monday and Im in an optimistic, beginning of the week mode, so Ill go with Ardath on this one and at least hope were moving up the learning curve here.

[Jim Pennypacker]

Folks -- this is a great discussion. Rob and Ardath are right on the mark (as usual). I'm starting the think that the main challenge we all face is that far too many business people simply can't tell the difference between good content and poor content. I find that the majoriy of marketing service company websites I visit are filled with poor content (ironically, poor from a marketing point of view). And they should be the first to know better.

I had thought that education would improve things, but I'm not sure. Ardath says we're in the middle of a learning curve but, again, I'm not sure (maybe I'm getting too old -- buy the time we've moved along the curve far enough to notice, I won't be around). I'm starting to think that bottom-line results are the only drivers of change. If marketers can clearly show that good content beats poor content in business results, we'll have more good content. Unfortunately, companies are also fairly poor at measurement.

Note that newspapers and magazines have been steadily losing readers. They tried to solve their business problems by cutting the quality of their content. Most of them still haven't learned from that mistake.

[Rob Leavitt]

Thanks Paul -- good question. I dont literally worry that B2B firms will start pumping out articles purchased for $5 or $10 the way some consumer sites do for the reason you mention. But I do worry greatly that they will continue to take shortcuts both on individual pieces (e.g., quick drafts with little review) and, even more important, on overall editorial strategy. Ironically, many B2B companies still spend a great deal of money on content but dont get close to their moneys worth because they accept inconsistent and disconnected editorial standards rather than putting the time in up front to build a customer-focused strategy on the types of content that matter most.

[Paul McKeon]

Rob and Ardath, do you think the emphasis on buyer education in a B2B buying cycle will prevent cheap content from gaining a foothold? If I buy the wrong corn flakes or even the wrong phone service, I won't lose my job and my credibility. At work, for a B2B decision, I do more research, and I trust the vendor who gives me educational, useful, and thoughtful content.

I do take the threat of cheap commoditized content very seriously, and it is certainly a temptation for B2B companies. In the long run it will be interesting to see whether the companies who give in to that temptation get anywhere with it.

[Rob Leavitt]

Thanks Ardath. I think you're right on with all three of your points on accountability, the rule of 5, and the learning curve. It is a new approach for most B2B marketing organizations, and will require new skills, processes, measures, etc., which all take time to develop. Understanding the importance of quality content is probably the first step, and that has to come from the top, although quick content audits, competitive assessments, and chats with frustrated sales people can certainly help build the case to bring upstairs if CMOs aren't yet ready to make the change.

[Ardath Albee]

Hi Rob,

Truly a great point. I think a couple of things will come into play for B2B in this context.

First is accountability. Marketing programs will not produce the desired results with cheap content.

Second is for marketers to learn how to create economies of scale for the development of multiple content assets with one project. This will happen with better planning and the adoption of editorial calendars and other things. Goes to my Rule of 5 concept - that if a topic is good enough for one content asset, it should be good enough for the creation of five. Same research and consolidated development time when the writer is in the right mindset.

I also think we're in the middle of a learning curve. Today's content is definitely not the content marketers are used to creating. We've got to put relevance, personalization and context above our products, feeds & speeds and sales offers.

Thanks for your post. It's a great topic for discussion.