Is a continuing investment in content valuable?

Is a continuing investment in content valuable?

 

In early 2014 Mark Schaefer posted a piece titled ‘Content shock: Why content marketing is not a sustainable strategy’   on his website.

To me, it is one of the few pieces of truly intelligent strategic thinking I have seen on the topic of ‘Content’.

In the post he poses the proposition that because posting content is free, there would come a tipping point where there was so much content in total, and much of it just regurgitated rubbish, simply generated because it is fashionable, that the impact would be lost.

I think we have passed the point, illustrated in this guest  post from Buzzsumo on Mark’s site.

The data certainly confirms what I see on my site, and in my digital travels every day, but we should not  be surprised. We all know that if something is free, it carries very little value or credibility.

Why then do we continue producing content?

Simple answer: Because when you produce quality, original, thought provoking, instructive and challenging content, it does still deliver a worthwhile strategic outcome. You become seen as an expert, or at least someone worth talking to in your domain.

Producing such content on a continuous basis is very difficult and time consuming. It has a very long lead time before the benefits kick in, so most either give up, or outsource it and generally end up adding to the pile of digital rubbish.

There is a second significant challenge.

Once you produce this great, useful content, you have to get it seen. The biggest challenge in marketing these days is getting attention, and once having got it, not blowing the chance to do something constructive with it, to engage with those to whom you can add value.

This implies a whole lot of other basic marketing challenges, including that you have identified closely your ideal customer, and that you have a closely defined value proposition for them.

Then you have to ‘find‘ them, by one of any number of means, that can involve any or all of a number of strategies leveraging digital media and social platforms, as well as good old fashioned advertising and networking. Having found them, the next step is to engage them in a process that leads to a mutually beneficial commercial relationship.

Great content can drive all these steps.

Once created, great content is the gift that keeps giving. Even if you do not take the obvious steps of refurbishing great content as videos, longer and shorter versions from a tweet to a book, and reposting on various alternative platforms, a great post will continue to deliver viewers to your site, as does this one for me.

The numbers are not spectacular by any measure, but this is one of many posts that delivers page visits daily, to my StrategyAudit site. Despite being almost 5 years old, this post continues to attract increasing attention, which leads to the opportunity to engage and generate business.

So, the answer to the question in the headline is ‘Yes’, with the caveat that, like almost everything n life,  you must be both good at it, and different to the crowd to get noticed.

Photo courtesy Thomas’s pics via Flikr

 

What ‘digital transformation’ is not!

What ‘digital transformation’ is not!

 

It happened again over the weekend.

I had a conversation with a bloke who runs a medium sized business, and is embarking on what he called a ‘digital transformation’.

In other words, he is paying someone to build a website.

Another example of someone who is probably about to be badly disappointed, and lighter in the pocket.

A website is not a digital transformation, it is a piece of marketing collateral, and like every other piece, needs to have met and passed a few basic tests:

What is its purpose?

Who is my customer?

How is it different to others in a similar space?

What problem does it solve?

How do you want visitors to feel?

What do you want those visitors to do next?

 

If that is not all obvious in the first glance, start again.

The greatest cost in building a website is not  the technology, that is now almost completely commoditised, it is in the generation of the content in response to the answering of these simple questions. Failure to deliver to a site visitor something of value to them that creates at least curiosity to  learn more from you, means they will leave, and probably never come back. While there is  no dollar value to that outcome you can easily count, it is in reality the greatest cost in not having a site that works for you: lost opportunity and revenue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11 hard lessons from 40 years of building and implementing successful marketing plans

11 hard lessons from 40 years of building and implementing successful marketing plans

 

The key word in that headline is ‘Implementing’. A plan is of little value unless it is implemented,  the lessons from the success and failures of that implementation incorporated into the next iteration.

This is not another post about the 55 things to do to have a great marketing plan, this is about the things most forget that are about the organisational and strategic elements that will hinder any successful implementation.

Marketing planning should be a continuous, iterative, and a ‘live’ thing, not a once a year pain in the arse, necessary as a part of the corporate budget process.

To build a plan that serves the purpose of managing the implementation of strategy is a challenging and iterative process of identifying options, and making difficult choices across a host of domains.

Contrary to folk lore, it is a highly data intensive process, with a lot of experience, instinct and skill required that enables connections to be made between pieces of data that may not at first glance  have any real relationship. It is not the ‘smoke and mirrors’ some like to think, it is a tough, demanding but ultimately extremely rewarding process when done well.

You need a strategy

A marketing program operates as a part of an overall strategy, without which it is destined to be an expensive indulgence. Marketing is a key  part of the  delivery mechanism for the strategy. Strategy is all about making the always difficult long term choices, the sort that shape businesses over time, which need to be reflected in the resource allocation and activity decisions which enable implementation.

The importance of context

No enterprise exists in a vacuum. There are a range of factors that exert influence, but over which the individual enterprise has little if any control. The best they can do is accommodate the context into the planning processes, always being aware that factors over which they have no control can change with little or no notice, so retaining the agility to adjust in real time is a profoundly important capability. These factors range from the regulatory regimes, competitive activity, availability of critical capabilities, to long term trends  impacting on the economies in which you compete.

The importance of process

Process is simply the way things get done, from start to finish, in effect it is the plan for  the plan, the framework upon which the plan is built. A marketing plan is a part of a larger business planning process, Strategic, Capital, Operational, Financial, all have a cause and effect role in overall business planning, and a sensible, achievable marketing program cannot be written in isolation from the other functional planning activities, and that of the overall enterprise. There is a natural flow to all these plans, of both timing and necessary cause and effect impacts. For example, there is no point in a marketing plan setting out to launch a product that requires capital to be spent in the factory unless the item is also included in the capital and operational plans. Equally, there is no point spending capital in the absence of a marketing plan to leverage the benefits of the expenditure.

Iteration, experimentation and learning

We are dealing largely with what might work in the future, and courses with credibility in ‘future- telling’ are few and far between. Therefore it pays to have as many options open as possible. This is  not to say we should allow a scatter gun approach to prevail, we should remain focused, but within the parameters of a robust well thought out and understood set of strategic  priorities. It is a balancing act, one that is hard to get right, indeed, we only can judge our efforts accurately with the benefit of hindsight. Management of your ‘experimental portfolio’ should be a key task of the senior marketing person, the one who has the power to allocate the resources and hold them accountable, and certainly not left to the junior just to record activities.

Be specific about what you learnt, which forces clarity, and how you know, which forces objectivity in the place of fluffy subjectivity.  An intensive After Action Review process should be a core part of any marketing implementation.

Critical thinking

Marketing has always suffered from the tendency to be seen as fluffy, unscientific, and subject to leaping from an inadequately defined problem to a convenient solution. It has lacked credibility in the boardroom, where the big decisions are made. Often in the past that has been a fair characterisation, but there is no longer an excuse.

Most board discussions are based on objective data of one sort or another, which usually means it comes from the past. By contrast, marketing is about the future. It relies on assumption, speculation, and ‘mental models‘ as drivers, so carries less credibility than purely objective data.  We now have tools that can deliver some reliability in the cause and effect chains we seek to influence, so long as the hard intellectual graft is done.

If you are to have resources allocated to marketing over the long term that it usually requires to be effective, rather than tied to a changing annual budget cycle, with some artificial calculation tied to sales forecasts, you need credibility. This is where the critical thinking becomes (sorry) Critical! Use of marketing jargon, buzzwords, clichés and opinion may go well in a razzamatazz sales meeting, but where it really counts, at the point where long term resource commitments are made, they are counter-productive. Data and critical analysis is what counts.

In a past corporate life, leading a large marketing function, I insisted on sales forecasts for an initiative of any sort that was going to consume a significant chunk of a marketing budget to be done from several perspectives, and using differing sets of assumptions. The assumptions and perspectives were the subject of the interrogations, rather than just looking at a convenient  extrapolation. While we never got a forecast right, the outcomes were generally in the realms of  reasonable error, we did better the next time, and most importantly, we had the confidence of the board.

Compass Vs Roadmap

Dwight Eisenhower said ‘In preparing for battle, I have always found plans to be useless, but planning is indispensable’.  This is simply a variation on the adage that no plan survives the first contact with the enemy, but adds that the planning is essential. When applied to marketing planning, the same rules apply. To be effective they must drill down to and articulate the drivers and measures of success, provide a framework within which the activity needs to happen, but without dictating the details of the activity. Those facing the situation need to be able to respond to it within the frameworks of the overall strategy and objectives, in real time.

It is the achievement of the objective that is important, not necessarily the means by which it is achieved.

Activities are not outcomes

Too often activities completed are used as performance measures. It may be good to know that an agreed activity has been completed, but of way more importance is the understanding of what happened as a result of the activity.

The better KPI is the behaviour that is the driver of outcomes, rather than some assumption that an activity will deliver an outcome, or some simplistic extrapolation of the past. Results are the outcome of activities that are implemented after consideration of those things both in and out of your control, and will never be as forecast.

Cross Functional

Organisations build a structure to suit their internal processes, it makes the scaling of activity easier. However, customers do not care about your structure, they care about the level of service, quality, timeliness, and all the rest of the factors that add value to them, all of which are all cross functional concerns. Why would you not organise yourself in a manner that reflects what it is that customers are looking for?

Ensuring there is engagement of all functional areas in the development of the marketing plan is essential. They will all play a vital role in the delivery of the plan, and the CMO never has the functional responsibility for them all, so they must be led.

Clear Accountability 

Unambiguous accountability tends to focus the mind on the outcomes, which generally leads to better performance. Accountability also however comes with the requirement that the resources are made available to get the job done, properly, which is code for being accountable for the outcomes. The power to allocate resources is a key part of real accountability, rather than just its sibling, ‘responsibility’ which implies completing a specified activity.

In recent times, we have moved from individual accountability to team accountability, which has significantly complicated the management and leadership game, while offering the potential for huge gains in outcome. Holding an individual accountable can be done with just ‘management’, but effectively holding a team accountable for an outcome requires true leadership.

Plans should tell stories

Any plan, to be effective, must tell a story about the journey, the anticipated problems, alternatives considered, and the value of the outcome.

Marketing and importantly, brand building, are all about the stories we tell ourselves, and others, that illustrate how something has given us ‘value’ in some way.  Without a simple, illustrative story, all the rest just boils down to price on the day. All the great marketing we see tells a story of some sort that evokes a positive emotion towards the product. Apple tells a story, as did Meadow Lea (they stopped 20 years ago, but the effect lingers) Nike, Coca Cola, so tell yours in the plan.

My kids first dog, ‘Tamba’ was a great friend to them all. She/it played with them for as long as they wanted, protected them, and gave unconditional love, seeking nothing more than a pat behind the ears and a bit of ‘doggy-love’.  One day Tamba was a bit subdued, obviously with some version of doggy flu. Off to the vet who gave us some pills to administer, along with instructions. At home I shoved the pill to the back of Tamba’s throat, and held  her mouth shut for a while. As I let go, to her obvious relief, thinking the pill would be swallowed, up it came, back into my hand, a mess of dissolved pill and dog saliva. My neighbour, a ‘dog whisperer’ recommended I hide the pill in a spoonful of Vegemite on a square of toast, and offer it to Tamba. Whoof… gone! No pill.

I am constantly reminded of this story as I talk to clients, and watch marketing activity designed to generate a response. It is all facts, data, dry boring old stuff that has no emotion. It is like trying to get Tamba to take the pill, impossible until it was wrapped in something she loved.

Even the best plan does not implement itself

Planning is only the first step, one that without implementation is pointless. As my old dad used to say, 1/10 for the plan son, the other 9 points are reserved for implementation.

 

 

Is the content bandwagon terminally broken?

Is the content bandwagon terminally broken?

Back in 2014 Mark Schaefer wrote a prescient post he called ‘Content Shock’, in which he put the position that content marketing as it was then being practised was not a sustainable strategy.

Nearly 5 years ago, this was akin to heresy.

However, just like many others who have questioned the accepted wisdom over the years, time has proven him absolutely right.

Buzzsumo director Steve Rayson has released the Buzzsumo 2018 Content trends report, which is a compellingly sensible document for marketers, and should be read alongside Mary Meekers recently released 2018 Internet Trends report. Buzzsumo is a tool that analyses content, what is being shared and linked across the web, millions of interactions a day, so they are in a prime position to see the trends.

So many climbed onto the content bandwagon that the wheels have fallen off!

The sheer volume of material being posted has outrun our ability to even see it let alone absorb it, and why should we bother, when there is so much repetition, unoriginal thinking, and ‘salesey’ rubbish being published.

Which brings me to a conclusion in several parts about what marketers need to do to gain and keep the attention of those who are bombarded with content every day:

  • Be original and of relevance to a market niche. Without both of these elements your content, irrespective of its form, will just add to the pile in the trash folder.
  • Focus, focus, focus. Never was the old cliché ‘you cannot be all things to all people‘ more relevant.  The tighter and more consistent the focus on your market niche, the better.
  • Own your own digital real estate. Relying on social platforms is a mugs game in the long run. It can get you short term ‘results’, but what really counts are the recommendations of satisfied customers, and referrals from those who have some authority. Public platforms are not there for you, they are there to sell access to you to advertisers wanting to reach you, and they make all the rules. Owning your own digital home is not much different to owning the one you live in vs renting, you make the rules; you decide who is welcome, who is not, and why.
  • It is no longer easy. 15 years ago when all this digital stuff was new, just being there gained attention, recognition, and influence. By 2014 when the Content Shock post was written, it had reached what appears to be a tipping point, and just being there was no longer enough. As noted, Mark Schaefer saw that point before anyone else, and hindsight has proven him right. Now, half way through 2018, he is more right than ever, as the pile of trash mounts exponentially every day. Being relevant, interesting, and able to engage a market niche is extraordinarily challenging, and cannot be done in your spare time, or by the summer intern.
  • Content can still be enormously powerful. When there is so much crap around, when you are good, it shows. It may take a while to gain momentum, critical mass, and ultimately impact, but it can be done. The best content appeals to the heart before the mind, it evokes an emotional response before the rational one, and this is best done one by one. Interestingly, in this age of digital everything, the old fashioned hand written letter is regaining its place as a powerful communication tool, because it is now unusual, but more importantly, requires real effort and commitment to be present. We all respond positively to effort and commitment when made personally to us.

When you would like some expert help thinking about all this, we should talk.

Photo credit: Wendy via Flikr

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mad Men have morphed into Math Men

Mad Men have morphed into Math Men

Don Draper would be really pissed, his world has changed. His brand of advertising is as dated as the Model T.

Instead of having hundreds of creatively driven ad agencies, all competing aggressively for your business, which involved selling you on a creative product then cashing in from media placement commissions, we have a few global corporate agencies driven by accountants, chucking money at Google and Facebook who between them   have the GDP of France.

So much for media diversity and creativity.

Marketers have since time began tried to moderate risk and increase the productivity of their investments, by better targeting their ideal customer.

Facebook, Google, and Amazon have an immense data bank to use to target customers. Every time someone likes a Facebook post, tags a photo, expresses an opinion, shares an Instagram photo, or sends a WhatsApp message, Facebook adds it to the dossier they have on you. Google does the same thing, and better yet, Amazon actually knows not just what you looked at, liked, and shared, but what you bought, when, for how much, and where it was delivered.

All this is data, mountains of it, ready to be mined for profit, and to hell with privacy.

We have given our privacy away to the global wholesalers of eyeballs. It makes such a farce of the current ‘debate’ about the privacy of health records happening in Australia. Who cares if your doctor can log into a (relatively) secure database to check if you have an allergy, herpes, or are pregnant, she/he can probably find out by checking in on Facebook!

When I was a kid, we used second hand, historical data to try and target demographic groups of potential customers. Now you can track who they are, where they live, what they browse and buy, what interests them, and what they ignore, and how they engage with others, by mining the data.

The change has happened at breakneck speed, and has a long way to go yet, but it is clear that the data scientists rule, and are consolidating their hold on power.

Question is, do we really want these data nerds, exemplified by the ‘Zuk’ to rule the world?

It certainly has taken some of the fun out of marketing.

 

 

 

 

 

How ‘Systems Thinking’ should be applied to marketing and governance.

How ‘Systems Thinking’ should be applied to marketing and governance.

We think about marketing reasonably often in business, not often enough, but reasonably often.

However, our thinking is usually muddled, and wrong.

Let me explain.

We think about marketing as if it was a discreet set of actions that can change the fortunes of a business.

The ‘marketing function’ sits alongside sales, production, finance, IT, and the other functional units in a business, that collectively build the success of the business.

Problem is we all see the whole as the sum of its parts, not as an interdependent and related system that is more than the sum of its parts.

Take an engine out of a car, and leave it on the ground. No matter how good the engine, it cannot move itself. It is utterly dependent on the interaction of the other parts of the car to be mobile.

Take the best bits of a range of cars, the BMW engine, Mercedes gearbox, Lotus suspension, Ferrari body shape, the best of the best, and put them together. Logically with all the best bits you will get a superior end result.

Rubbish.

The bits do not fit together in any coherent manner. Individually they may be the best of the best, but together they are little  more than a box of parts.

The whole system is what counts, designing the system from the outside in, not from the inside out.

For some years now I have been referring to the marketing and sales functions together as one function: ‘Revenue Generation’.

While this is better than  the artificial separation into sales and marketing, it is still way short of a system necessary to generate a profit, as that requires the processes that develop, produce and deliver the product to be a part of the system.

We all solve problems from within our own disciplines, that is the way we are trained. We are trained to see a situation from within the confines of the discipline, not from the outside from where we can touch, feel, and see the context.

Outsiders are always better able to see the size and shape of a building than those sitting inside it. Exactly the same as having a knowledgeable and constructively critical thought leader who sits outside your business, looking at the competitive, regulatory  and strategic context in which the business competes for a living.

This was supposed to be the function of a board, outside experts reflecting on the sum of the parts rather than the individual parts, developing strategy to build success for the long term, and seeking optimisation of the assets deployed. Often we seem to fail at that as well, as the outsiders get caught up in the complication and protection of the status quo, and their own position in it, forgetting why they are there in the first place. You only have to observe a little bit of the current Financial Services Royal Commission to see plenty of evidence of that.