The bull$hit bingo of Social Media and digital buzzwords is just getting warmed up. If you thought 2010 was bad, wait until you see the new batch of whoppers awaiting you on the flip side of December 2010! Want to know what to expect in 2011? I can give you a sneak peek. Here we go:
1. 2010’s Social Media experts, especially those who came to their impressive expertise by way of writing blogs about writing blogs, will magically transform themselves into “Content Strategists” (a term stolen from either the SEO world or that of content fulfillment firms keen on the fact that “content strategy” sounds a lot sexier than “content fulfillment”). Though for some, the transformation will take place sometime between the hours of 4am and 9am (GMT) on 1 January 2011, the vast majority of the metamorphoses will take place based on Social Media conferences’ need for Content Strategy speakers. Expect a deeper ‘content strategy’ track at SxSW, and a rapid addition of ‘content strategy’ to most failing digital agencies’ service offerings.
2. The title SVP Digital Conversation Strategy will be printed for the very first time on a business card. Some people will nod in admiration at the awesomeness of this amazing new title, which wisely replaces the all too pedestrian SVP Consumer Insights title of yore.
3. A deeper degree of specialization within the ranks of the brand new Social Media management world will give rise to a new breed of pioneers and internet heroes whose internships will be dubbed all manners of badass, such as… Facebook Wall Strategist, LinkedIn Update Strategist and Tweet Redaction Strategist, to unveil but a few. Exciting times indeed are ahead of us. Just around the proverbial corner.
4. Not to be outdone by their Twitternet brethren, many a sales rep will demand to be elevated to the same standard, and new titles will be created for them as well. (Overdue if you ask me). What organization could be competitive in the full throttle future of 2011 without Senior Telephone Outreach Strategists and Phonebook Operationalization Strategists? Surely, an organization whose ranks swell with this degree of strategic expertise cannot but obliterate its competitors!
5. Recruitment Strategists, Headcount Oversight Strategists and Employee Discipline Strategists will likewise transform the world of Human Resources quasi-overnight. They will quickly be followed by Accounts Receivable Strategists, Product Management Strategists, Information Technology Strategists, even Cafeteria Meal Preparation Strategists. Surface Engineers, once known simply as “ja-ni-tors,” will of course have to be trained in the new future-science of Surface Engineering Strategy.
6. By late April, CNN will begin to report that all manners of jobs around the US will have followed the trend begun by Content Strategists. Pastry Chefs, faced with the impending threat of being rendered obsolete by twitternet pastry gurus, will quickly evolve their own title nomenclature to Cake Strategists. Construction workers of every stripe and specialty will be forced to say goodbye to the world they had known until 2011 and rebrand themselves as construction strategists or face obsolescence. Teachers: Education Strategists. Police: Crime Prevention Strategists and Crime Repression Strategists. Cabinet-makers: Storage Design Strategists. Copywriters: Content Production Strategists. Babysitters: Child Oversight Strategists. Mechanics: Technical Recalibration Strategists. Farmers: Food Production Strategists. Consumers: Personal Consumption Strategists. Even Personal Branding Experts will find themselves forced to change their blogspot profiles to Personal Branding Strategists. Airline pilots: Safe Landing Strategists.
7. By June, Chico (this blog’s mascot) will have fully embraced his new role as Chief Pooping-On-The-Floor Strategy Officer and the global transition into strategery will be complete.
Long gone will be the peddlers of digital snake oil in this brave new world of digital strategists. Thanks to content strategists, mundane tactical tasks like copywriting, creative direction and account management will be relegated to the past of 2010. Antiquity, as some might call it, and by all accounts as ancient as G3 phones and Foursquare’s Newbie badge.
In this brave new world of strategery, tactics themselves will have become obsolete, along with equally vexing notions like execution. (Ugly word, “execution.” So negative and violent. Reminiscent of firing squads and public lashings. The old corporate regime, in other words.) No, in this brave new world of twittmastery, strategy will rule side by side with its FTW x infinity companion theory. Content will finally fulfill its destiny: Converting 100% of anyone who comes in contact with it, particularly when published to a website! Why? Because content strategy, not strategy itself – or aligning content to the program or campaign’s strategy – is the answer to bad, ineffective content, and to failure in general.
You see, content strategy promises to do what no other service offering by digital marketing consultants has ever managed to deliver: Truly optimize your content so that never again will you have to endure a failed campaign. E-ver. (What… didn’t you know that poor content was the culprit all along?) Content strategists will guarantee that your content will be awesome all the time, every time, as if Zeus himself had planned, produced and managed it.
Ah, content strategy. The Holy Grail of business. The answer to thousands of years of business and marketing inefficiency. The why didn’t we think of that sooner explosion of awesomeness that changed the world of communications forever. The two most powerful words in the universe. The key, even, to your very own Social Media win. Not outstanding creative, clever copy or brilliant tactical execution: Content strategy. It was the missing puzzle piece all this time.
And to think that, all these years, a content strategist or content strategy consultant was the only thing standing between your company and global success!
Imagine how content strategy (instead of business strategy, product strategy or even marketing communications strategy) might have helped Apple! Imagine what content strategy might have done for brands like Starbucks, Facebook, Ford and Zappos. If only their Brand Managers and CEOs had embraced content strategy instead of… well, you know… actual strategy. What if they had taken their cues from far more successful industries like print publishing and SEO. If only the world’s most successful brands had been so inspired.
Say the words outloud with me: “Content Strategy.” Let them roll off your lips like chocolate-filled dreams in a cloud of unctuous awesomeness.
Content.
Strategy.
We could have defeated the Nazis with those two words. Gandalf could have crushed Mordor in all of ten pages with that kind of power. Romeo and Juliet could have lived happily ever after had Shakespeare only known about Content Strategy.
And the music goes on.
For obvious reasons, there is little doubt in my mind that Content Strategy could be big business in 2011: It is money. Bloggers will sell it left and right. (It makes content management in the age of social sound like manna from Heaven and helps monetize their “skills”.) SEO firms and consultants will sell it too. (It beats the hell out of trying to sell the same old Search Engine Optimization and Content Optimization that has worked only marginally since the 1990’s. Same thing, really, but it sounds a whole lot sexier to call it “Content Strategy.)” Digital Firms will sell it because not having it on the menu (next to its clone digital strategy) will make them look like they aren’t in the forefront of the digital world. Every out-of-work marketing professional looking to get back into the game will add content strategy to their resume – you know, just in case. Everything about Social Media – from blogs to twitter to Youtube, – and everything on the web – from microsites to contests – will be become about content strategy. Not business strategy, communications strategy, or digital strategy, not even marketing, customer acquisition or customer retention strategy, but content strategy. Thus, the next buzzword-generated bubble will be born.
Followed by the inevitable evolution in bogus digital measurement: Return On Content.
My very early prediction for 2012’s follow-up to these gifts to human intellect and digital marketing: Execution Strategy (which is exactly the same brand of oxymoron as Content Strategy, except not limited to content) and tactical strategy, which is of course equally meaningless yet sounds almost as catchy as “Crazy Gravy.”
Since I like to get an early start on these sorts of things, I am preparing a whole panoply of new products and services that will keep me a leg up on the competition, starting with my two all-time favorites: Magically-turning-tactics-into-strategy Strategy and When-all-else-fails-just-make-$hit-up Strategy.
And you know what the best part about being a content strategist is? When your client’s content still doesn’t deliver results, not only is it not your fault, you still get paid.
2011 is gearing up to be a great year for snake oil.
Pop Quiz / Litmus Test:
If you don’t know if you agree with me, answer this simple question: Two years ago, what were “content strategists” called?
a) Copywriters
b) SEO experts
c) Editors
d) Social Media Experts
e) Bloggers
f) All of the above
In closing.
Just so we’re all on the same page:
Business Strategy: Yes.
Digital Strategy: Yes.
Communications Strategy: Yes.
Content Management: Yes.
Content planning: Yes.
Content fulfillment: Yes.
Content Strategy: No.
Digital Conversation Strategy: Stop. Just stop.
Tomorrow, for everyone’s benefit, we might take a brief look at the difference between tactics and strategy, for those in class who still don’t know the difference.
Brand Building and Online Marketing Blog 
I love this line…”peddlers of digital snake oil”!! Even with these new buzz words being used by these peddlers, do you find you are being called in to clean up their mess?
I do, yes. More and more, I am the cleanup guy. How did you know?
Olivier, I’ve often appreciated your insights on marketing and communication, but for some reason, this one rubs me a bit the wrong way. I get annoyed with buzzwords too, but “content strategist” is probably one of the more reasonable terms I’ve heard in the last year.
I work for an organization that is highly interested in resourcing a segment of the population, expecting nothing in return, and we want to do that with good, helpful content. We’re working to build a community around that content, therefore I am…
…determining our target audience.
…determining the types of content we’re going to provide.
…organizing an editorial calendar so that we are balanced in the topics we discuss.
…writing editorial standards so that we insure excellence from potential contributors.
…planning to distribute that content in a remarkable and shareable way.
What’s my title?
I’ve never once claimed any title using the phrase “social media.” I’ve never called myself a guru, expert, etc., but when I talk with other professionals and colleagues, I often say that I’m developing a content strategy, and it’s a key cornerstone of who we are.
This one makes sense. With the way you’ve written this post, you’ve attempted to warn people about “these content strategists” and I think you’re ultimately hurting some qualified professionals in the industry.
I’m officially a “community facilitator” but I’d also gladly go by “content strategist” since it’s the other half of what I do.
I’ll keep subscribing and learning from you, but I would urge you to be careful that your own brand doesn’t become one of being the correcter, the critic, the self-proclaimed expert on which titles are valid and which ones aren’t.
Fair enough, Brandon. Three things:
1. Relative to this conversation, strategy is the realm of communications, not content. Chances are that you are a communications strategist. I can assure you that you are not a content strategist, as no one can be. “Content” is not a strategic field. Communications is.
2. Knowing the difference between strategic roles and tactical roles is pretty important.
3. Bullshit is bullshit. You may not like me or what I have to say, but it doesn’t mean I am wrong. See #2 above.
Thanks for the comment, man. I appreciate your point of view.
Fair enough, Olivier. I get what you’re saying. And I do like you, but primarily because you’re more concerned with being effective than being liked. And I’m just newbie enough to admit, I can’t wait till you tackle this tactical v. strategy issue.
Olivier, this post should be called stop selling bullshit. However, your beating up of the term content strategy or content strategist could be misinterpreted. Read the great book “Content Strategy” by Kristina Halverson and you’ll see what I mean. The book speaks of nothing about how to send a tweet or update your Facebook, but what it does do is bring to light the fact that 99% of people and organizations building a website or digital presence leave the all important content until very last. Very few think about usability or the way content flows on a website until it’s too late. I know we are talking about different things here but I just wanted to point out that there is a such thing as a web content strategist that could help many a digital shop produce much more effective, profitable and useful websites.
So while maybe someone calling themselves a “content strategist” in the social media world is a bit nuts and a bit meta. Let’s not step on the toes of established web content and usability experts that can make a significant difference in the conversions and profitability of just about any digital property.
Three things:
1. It’s a misnomer, Keith. “Communications strategy,” yes. And had Kristina’s book been called that, I would give the title a thumbs-up. But “Content Strategy” makes about as much sense as calling cooking a “recipe strategy.” It’s crap nomenclature. Like “Return on Engagement.” It sounds cool, you can sell it, but it’s still nonsense. I understand what Kristina is trying to say, and yes usability, quality content, navigation and web design as a whole is serious business, but limiting the discussion to content when it equally touches design and usability is… well, not though through. Sorry. Content is at best 1/3 of the equation and the least “strategic” to boot.
2. The bullshit machine is already revving up. Whether Kristina’s book was solid or not, the reality is this: “Content Strategy” is the new monetization scheme for people with nothing new to sell. Note that I did not mention her or her book in this post. The context of “content strategy” that I discuss is different.
3. “Stop Selling Bullshit” could easily become the title of this blog. 😉
Regarding content, of course it has to be good. And of course it has to be aligned with the organization’s communications strategy. Does it really take a “content strategist” to make that happen? Seriously?
I know posts like this aren’t politically correct. That’s okay. I care more about writing what is on my mind than making buddy-buddy with certain segments of the SEO and affiliate marketing communities. 😉
Oh, yea by the way. Your fish eating strategy is all wrong. Eat the heads first. C’mon aren’t you French? You should know that!
The strategy is sound. it’s the execution that’s lacking.
Funny and great post 😀 Great to see that some of us still find the time to publish some great posts. Really like this one. Keep up the good work.
Best Regards
It’s part of my content strategy to… you know… occasionally publish good content. 😉
Hrm. I’ve claimed the “content creator/strategist” title for about a year now. Two reasons: 1) I didn’t want to scare away public sector agencies with the decidedly corporate-sounding “public relations & marketing communications.” Public sector doesn’t think that way. They should, but they don’t.
2) I’m something of a nonconformist, and I wanted to stand out from the public relations/marketing communications field be being more specific about what it is I do, but also didn’t want to limit myself to “writer/editor,” as podcasting and video are important to people I serve.
“Communications strategist”? Makes sense, but in emergency services, “communications” tends to be equated with “dispatchers,” and who needs strategy for that? 😉
I help clients create content and then figure out what to do with it and how it fits with their overall communications strategy. I’ve had hits and misses and clients who wanted me to focus only on tactics (because they didn’t have a long-term strategy and didn’t want my help developing one). I’m definitely still refining the measurement part.
All that said: I’ve wondered whether “public relations & marketing communications” is still easier for most people to understand, and whether I should simply return to that, even if it’s a broader description than I’d like.
Thanks for the comment, Christa. Just be careful where “Content strategist” goes in the next 18 months. You might not want to be associated with that nomenclature when it hits its peak. Know what I mean? 😉
Olivier, you inspire me to work harder. Like, a lot. Thanks. 🙂
My content strategy? “Provide great content!” (I give that out to people for free, maybe I should be charging…)
I’ve always felt that strategy is pretty easy — it’s actually doing the stuff that you have to do to implement the strategy (aka “tactics”) that separates the big dogs from the little dogs.
And I’m not too sure if deciding how to provide that great content falls under the heading of “strategy” or “tactics. It could be argued either way.
That’s what I spend a lot of time working with clients on, in the educational space. Do you make speeches, give lectures, provide workshops, produce videos, create e-learning, develop communities, schedule webinars, write books, make job aids, create FAQs, develop web sites, send out PDF files — there are a million ways to provide the content to the user.
And then once you provide it, are you interested in measuring how well you got that information into their little heads? Whether they were able to actually use that stuff you gave them?
Part of your strategy should be measuring whether or not it worked.
Thanks for the comment.
You had me at ‘My content strategy? “Provide great content!”’ That basically says it all right there.
I agree with Keith’s comment. These days I’m way less concerned with title/labels and more concerned with activities. The activities that Kristina Halvorson puts forward in her book on content strategy are pretty solid. A friend of mine once said about the overused term “innovation” call it a “banana” who cares, we still need it.
You’re right. I am changing my title to “Banana Strategist” today. 😉
All kidding aside, I understand that everyone has something to sell. I get that. And by all accounts, Kristina’s book may make a lot of good points, not the least of which are (I assume):
1. Great content is better than lousy content, and
2. Planning for your content to be great is better than leaving it to chance or treating it like an afterthought.
I can’t argue with that. Both are true. But look… Do we need a content strategy to tell us that?
What’s really needed here: More “content strategy,” or hiring better people to produce good content IN SUPPORT of your program/campaign/business strategy?
Should the C-Suite also start looking for help with Financial Strategy when the CFO sucks? Or Marketing Strategy when the CMO is incompetent?
If that’s the crux of the discussion, then let me just cash in my chips and start an executive search and recruiting firm, because THAT is where the real problem is: Incompetent people taking on strategic jobs they aren’t qualified for. We can fix that.
The only places where I see “content strategy” being legitimately used are:
– Publishing, where content (the product) is “strategized” by an editor. Even that is a stretch, but okay. An editor is a sort of Content Strategist, although I would argue that an editor does far more than that.
– For-profit-blogging, where revenue from affiliate marketing schemes depends on a steady and ever increasing influx of traffic.
Where content strategy comes in: That traffic doesn’t happen by accident. Traffic has to be attracted. Creating a strategy around “content” (the pull) is therefore needed: On Monday, you write a blog post that attracts PR pros. On Tuesday, one that attracts journalists, hoping for a mention in a mass media piece. On Wednesday, one that attracts other bloggers and guarantees links and retweets. Etc.
– SEO, where the right keywords, for example, will boost a website’s ranking for specific types of searches.
My point is this: Words matter, the same way truth matters. If, as professional communicators (or rather communications professionals,) we start making up words, making up roles, making up functions just so we have something new to sell, we’re heading down a dangerous path. That choice (and it is a choice) makes us indistinguishable from people who deliberately sell bogus measurement, bogus services, bogus certifications, and bogus expertise.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be working in an industry where I have to spend half my day competing not against better firms (I can live with that), but wave after wave of utter bullshit. I can still laugh at it and write posts like this one, but I can’t lie, man: Cleaning up after other people’s messes is a big eye opener. The number of clients who come to me to clean up after a “social media expert” has taken them on a ride is growing, and it doesn’t make me look kindly on this kind of stuff.
The “live and let live” attitude I get a lot from professionals in this space essentially gives license to countless charlatans to operate here. It ends up hurting A LOT of people. Companies are set back over a year because of this crap. It doesn’t seem like that big a deal until you start working with them and you see the emotional and operational toll. It saps departments of not only their budgets and reputations, but of their fire as well. Of their dignity even. I am not exaggerating. People, human beings, careers are being damaged by this kind of bullshit, and it doesn’t make me happy. That’s why I write posts like this, why I sometimes draw lines in the sand, and why I occasionally call out overtly shady practices.
You don’t have to agree with my criticism and you don’t have to like the way I approach some of these topics, (it’s okay) but I can assure you that if I didn’t feel a STRONG sense of responsibility and a real need to sound the alarm for everyone when I see danger ahead, I wouldn’t do it. I would much rather be the fun French guy who laughs at stories over beers, but shining a light on snake oil when it starts popping up is something that needs doing too.
Cheers, brother. 😉
“I can’t argue with that. Both are true. But look… Do we need a content strategy to tell us that?”
Olivier, the same could be said of *anything*. Basically, all work boils down to the same things:
1. Produce great stuff.
2. Communicate what it is well, to the right people.
So essentially “we need a strategy for that?” could be asked of communications, engineering, finance… you name it.
Really enjoying this! Useful, timely discussion.
I understand and respect where you’re coming from. There’s been a lot of hype about content strategy and people are jumping on the bandwagon, often without thinking out definitions.
What I disagree with is your assertion that ‘content is not a strategic field but communications is’. ‘Content’ is an integral part of communications. It’s come into its own because of the plethora of communication channels now available to us. A strong communications strategy includes content strategy.
There’s a simplified infographic at the end of a blog I wrote last week, ‘Content strategy: the essential link [with communications strategy]’ http://bit.ly/c9JpVJ. Would value your comments. No bullshit!
It is Olivier’s blog, but my 2 cents is that content is tactic; not a strategy. Content needs to be good and needs to support the strategy, but it is NOT a strategy.
Thank you for the clear thinking. It is alway refreshing. I particularly like your latest point on the “live and let live” attitude.
People need to keep all this in perspective and focus on getting results…
Yes. Getting results, not making up new ways of billing a client with “strategy” work that isn’t technically strategic, for example. 😉
i’m with olivier on this one. social media incrowd have been cultivating their own BS nomenclature to preach their gospel. Branding and communication folk have always been good at borrowing terms from other professions to add credibility to their gospel. (examples: brand identity, strategic positioning, end values, etc). Obviously this serves a purpose, but lets not forget that in the end its all about influencing people’s behavior through clever marketing. and those funny new social media terms? the good ones will stay, but most will fade away!
Thanks.
Wow. I’m pretty amazed by this post. I don’t know who or what set you off, but it’s my opinion that you’ve done both yourself and your readership a tremendous disservice, here.
Nothing in this post indicates that a) you’ve read anything about the practice of content strategy, or b) actually spoken to someone making a living–and a big difference–as a content strategist. How can you possibly have an informed opinion about the validity of a profession you know absolutely nothing about?
It’s fine to take issue with nomenclature, but a long-winded, highly personalized attack on a growing community of serious professionals is not.
I know I previously offered to engage you in conversation about content strategy, but that was before I saw this post. Now I’m not concerned about whether or not you get it. It’s clear you simply don’t want to. So I’m retracting my offer.
Also, I’m not at *all* concerned about whether you’ve damaged the reputations of legitimate content strategists with your words. Informed, experienced professionals know better than to base opinions on hyperbolic rants like this one.
I’m so disappointed in this entire episode. Looking forward to having it blow over. Which it will.
Thanks for the comment.
What I take issue with IS the nomenclature. Precisely. The exact same discipline called “Content Planning” makes sense. The moment you call it “Content Strategy,” it ceases to sound legitimate. How do I know this?
1. Content is tactical, not strategic.
2. Every Social Media hack is rebranding himself a content strategist.
You are right though: I have never met anyone who made their living being a content strategist. I have met editors, copywriters, creative directors, content planners, photographers, videographers, web designers, all of whom have legitimate roles when it comes to developing and managing content. A content strategist? Never met one. Weird.
It’s catchy, I’ll give you that, but the nomenclature is wrong. Sorry.
I was given an embarrassing title when I took a job at a large financial services industry: director of innovation strategy. I did not choose this title. A brand expert spoke at a round-table I attended and took smug pleasure in publicly humiliating me for my this: “Shouldn’t we all be responsible for innovation? Or were you somehow marked by the gods,” she asked me as we introduced ourselves. Her talk was about persona development and I’d heard the same sort of discrediting flame thrown at firms who were specializing in that at the time. The same type of cynicism could be wielded at Builders of The Brand or Strategists of the Brand Banana.
I worked with a brilliant editor at this financial services job over the course of many years. I observed his title change from Editor to Copy Specialist to Content Specialist to Editorial Director to Content Director. We observed that Content Specialist was the most clear and fitting in the trenches. Though he was responsible for writing and re-writing new and old copy, he was also responsible for getting his arms around thousands of old articles, images, calculators, etc., reconciling it with the re-designed features, and improving it based on user feedback. I’d say he way pretty darn strategic about it too. He was Content God as far as I was concerned.
Will you hear him pontificating at any of the UX conferences or tweeting about how uncomfortable the pillows were at the Sheraton in Philly – no. Maybe that’s why it becomes annoying. Evangelists of any kind can rub one the wrong way, especially when they’re smug.
I like hearing what members of our tribe have to say when it’s thoughtful and well examined. Giving a high-faultin’ name to something our we and our smart colleagues have been doing all
along may indeed set off the BS detector, rightfully so. Lovinger, Kissane, and Halvorson, for example, are doing a great job leading some very interesting conversations in our community. Let’s not let the nomenclature turn us into bullies.
There’s a difference between being forced to endure a silly title and being the kind of person who creates the silly title to begin with. Don’t you think?
“Content planning” was fine and it made sense.
I can’t wait to see how many people jump on “Conversation Strategy” after someone writes a book about it. 😉
Thanks for the comment.
Hi – interesting post… but surely if you have a big website, with lots of content, it’s logical to ask someone to think about that content from a strategic point of view? Especially as the majority of everything on your website is content.
Content strategy isn’t a requirement for every project – it’s for bigger sites with large, unwieldy batches of content.
Your comments suggest you don’t often work on big websites, and if you do, you don’t get involved with the content.
I’m a copywriter, but I’ve been called upon to do more than just write copy – and content strategy is a nice way of wrapping up the more esoteric stuff that needs to happen before copy can be written. Also, big websites with lots of content do need some kind of system for managing their stuff – and content strategists offer that system. It’s more than just editorial, it’s more than just copywriting – so why not content strategy?
I think you’re absolutely right to be sceptical of developments in web-land, but I wonder if you really understand what content strategy is. Sounds like you’ve just heard a little bit about it and decided it’s bullshit.
It still isn’t strategy. That’s content planning and content management.
Next thing you know, we’ll be arguing over “Conversation Strategists” too. 😉
Cheers.
Or devising a new role, “Argumentation Strategists”.
Your post struck a chord with me, Olivier, as I have now felt this pain from the other side of the equation. For the past few years, I have avoided calling myself anything other than Brand Strategist and Consumer Insights specialist because, hey, I help clients get to know their customers and build brands that are relevant and meaningful to those customers (through research and strategy).
But I had a client recently who hired me despite the fact that what he was certain he wanted was a content strategist. Our typical conversation went something like this:
Client: We need a content strategy. This is what I’m looking for (shows me Excel file).
Me: You want a spreadsheet that lists all of your communication channels, sortable by who they touch?
Client: Yes, a content strategy.
Me: A what?
Client: A content strategy.
Me: Um…so I know I can do this work with my eyes closed but for some reason I feel less than qualified for this “content strategy” assignment. 🙂
Thanks for fighting the good fight and if nothing else, helping me to better understand what the hell this latest craze is all about.
Glad to know others out there know what I mean. 😉
Cheers.
Well, sure if people are defining content strategy as a sortable excel file, it’s not much to talk about. Documenting communications channels and who they touch is about a zillionth of content strategy. Of course, you have no idea what content strategy really is or does, so you wouldn’t know that.
I love it. Replace content strategist with any number of other bullshit titles and you have an endless series of blog posts (or a book perhaps 😉 )
Point is, this is applicable to my own work in IT in any number of ways.
I’m just imbibing the snarkiness like the sweet nectar of Olympus.
The subject of future posts. 😉
Are you an IT strategist, then?
This post is so whacked and way off-base it makes me wonder if Oliver even has access to Google. First, “content strategy” is not new. My business card has said “content strategist” since 2002. There are hundreds of content strategists who have been helping large, content heavy organizations unfuck the seriously flawed way content is created, managed and delivered (and has been) since we were given *personal* computers with a folder called “My Documents” as a storage container for corporate assets.
I edited the first book on the subject, “Managing Enterprise Content: A Unified Content Strategy”, by Ann Rockley, Steve Manning and Pamela Kostur, in 2000. I’ve been successfully implementing content strategies and making a six-figure income doing so long before blogs were even part of our vocabulary — and social networks were a fancy way to say “face-to-face meeting”.
http://www.managingenterprisecontent.com
There are entire conferences dedicated to this subject matter, including, Intelligent Content 2011, which serves to help organizations deliver the right content to the right people in the right language (and in the right context) at the right time in the right format and on the device of their choosing. It takes some strategy to make this all happen — fully, orchestrated, as it were.
Oliver, on this one…you are so far off the mark it’s ridiculous.
I’m sure what you do is great and it pays well. Thanks for the comment.
When 10,000 content strategists magically appear out of nowhere in the twitternets, let’s have this chat again.
What you do is communications strategy, it’s content planning, it’s content distribution process planning even, it’s a lot of wonderful things, but it cannot be content “strategy” for basic semantic reasons. Content is not strategic.
I am not putting your profession in doubt, Scott, but the nomenclature. Content strategy makes about as much sense as conversation strategy, photographic strategy or copy-writing strategy. “Content” is not a strategic endeavor.
The term might be ten years old and widely used, but it is still wrong. (I didn’t invent the difference between strategy and tactics.)
Thanks for the comment.
I know this is feeding a troll–and crawling under a bridge to do so–but I can’t help it. Olivier, this is personal. You’re talking about my back.
Seriously.
A little over a year ago, I hurt my back pretty badly. In an instant, old injuries combined with poor posture and a sudden movement to quickly make walking impossible. Granted, poor posture had built up over time, but I also hadn’t developed any habits to prevent that injury.
A few friends suggested I try a chiropractor. Actually, “chiropractic”–can you imagine? They use an adjective as a noun… the nomenclature drove me nuts! Plus, I’ve never gone to a chiropractor before. I trust modern medicine, not wacky cracking and quasi-scientific treatments. But even my regular, board-certified primary care physician suggested I give it a try.
At my first appointment, I eyed the “doctor” (was he? Wasn’t he? Did he even deserve the title for practicing this?) skeptically. “If I don’t believe in this, will it still work?” I asked him. He laughed, and patiently explained this: chiropractic medicine is recognized by many other more western medical specialties. (I’m not a doctor, so I didn’t realize this going in.) It’s been around and has evolved over many years to include standard processes, modalities of treatment, governing bodies, and schools of training and certification. Perhaps most meaningful: it works. Over a process of many weeks, my chiropractor enabled me to sit and walk normally, without pain, again. He also helped me to improve my posture so as to prevent injury in the future.
Now, I’m sure there are quacks out there who hurt more than they help, and undermine trust in the profession as a whole. And perhaps chiropractic treatment doesn’t work for everyone. But who am I to judge? I’m still not a medical doctor.
Olivier, content strategy has evolved as both a practice and title over more than a decade; I’ve had the title “content strategist” in agencies large and small since 2000. And there were people in those teams who practiced it before I got there–more than content planning, editing, copywriting, or governance, but a mix that included all that. Just because you don’t believe in something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, work, or add value in countless user experiences. My back is proof of that.
I completely hear you. The fact remains that strategy and tactics are not the same, and content is a tactical element, not a strategic one.
I don’t doubt that content strategists do great work. It’s just that what they do, while somewhat strategic (as all things are to some extent), is not “strategy.” It’s planning, development, curation, management, etc. It’s a lot of great things, but it is not strategy.
Why? Because it’s content.
My mechanic is awesome at what he does, and when he rebuilds an engine from scratch, it might seem like he is being strategic about how he goes about it, but the reality is that his work, like yours, is wonderfully tactical and complex and highly specialized. He still isn’t an engine strategist.
😉
Thanks for the comment.
This example helped me the most…but to understand fully, could you expand on it? In this example, who are the automotive strategists? How would that translate to an agency? This is the part that eludes me.
Having been a copywriter for nearly two decades, I’ve suffered through the if-I-can-type-I’m-a-copywriter hackery only to watch the business attitude towards copywriters approach something approximating stall-mucker disdain. With the Web, suddenly copy became “content.” As sites grew in the late 90s and early 00s, the agencies for which I worked billed my services as ahem, a web content copywriter.
I started using spreadsheets to keep track of all the pages to be written. The spreadsheet was simply a tool to cover my ass in meetings in which the strategists (?) would say, “we need an About page and it should have pages for our 30 SVPs. Add it to the spreadsheet.” After three or four of these kinds of meetings with clients, the ADs would introduce me as the Content Manager (no raise came included with the new title).
At my current job, I was hired as a senior writer and content manager, but I my services are listed on the RFPs as content strategist (again no raise).
Whatever it’s called, it’s paying my mortgage.
Thanks for getting the debate going.
An “automotive strategist” is to an auto mechanic what a “customer acquisition strategist” is to a salesperson. 😉
You nailed it with copy becoming content. Copy doesn’t need strategy. It just needs smart, dedicated, talented people to create it under the supervision of a project manager/editor/Account exec/ or whomever requests the piece.
Some roles are truly strategic. These new roles aren’t. They are tactical/operational roles. People selling themselves as strategists in tactical disciplines seem to prefer telling people who already know how to do their jobs how to do their jobs… while not actually having the chops to do the job themselves.
Olivier,
You told Kristina Halvorson, above, “I have never met anyone who made their living being a content strategist.” I’d like to remedy that by introducing myself.
My name is C.C. Holland and I make my living as a content strategist. I’ve worked with a number of reputable digital agencies and am currently working for Cisco.
There. See? We do exist. And now you can say you know one.
Believe it or not, we are not peddlers of digital snake oil, nor are we former social-media experts trying to rebrand ourselves to ride a wave of popularity. Trust me, we’re not sitting at the cool-kids lunch table just yet.
What we are doing, however, is trying to help businesses make sound and, yes, strategic decisions about what content to put out there on the Web; how to make it useful; and how to have it support business and branding goals.
And why “content” rather than “communications”? Because content is more than just words. It’s images. It’s video. It’s ALT tags and H1s and metadata. It’s the way your pretty words and pictures work together on the page — or don’t.
I appreciate the debate. And I may even agree with a few of your points. But I do take exception to your assertion that content strategists are just writers, editors, or social-media pros disguised in a different title.
Thanks,
C.C.
CC, great to meet you. I direct you to my previous two comments. My argument is twofold:
1. The term is abused and is about to become a complete joke. In about 12-18 months, every former Social Media guru will also be a “content strategist.” That doesn’t make me happy (and shouldn’t make you happy either).
2. The term is incorrect. What you do may feel and seem very strategic, but it is by nature tactical. There is nothing wrong with that. Actually, tactical is harder and more specialized than strategy yet doesn’t enjoy the same status for some reason. Tactical roles encompass planning, operational management, execution, etc.
The crux of my argument is that content is not strategy. Content supports strategy. Even content planning and development is tactical.
Thanks for the comment.
Ok. I can’t help myself. Why are you so opposed to using the word strategy?
A strategy is a plan or method designed to achieve a specific goal or result.
Content strategy defines how you will use CONTENT to achieve your business GOAL(s). Sure, there are a bunch of tactics that fall under that. Social media is one of them. But there’s a whole lot of important strategeristic stuff before you get anywhere near a tactic.
Now, please tell me how the nomenclature is so inappropriate.
I’d really prefer to not bother with this whole mess and get back to my very real work with very real clients. But one thing bugs me here: Your definition of strategy.
See, we content strategists happen to be obsessed with nomenclature as well (it’s kinda part of our job). We create taxonomies. We organize structures. We develop style guides. We fuss over voice and tone. We don’t tend to take word choice lightly.
Also, we own dictionaries.
So, let’s elaborate on Meghan’s above point and take a look at a few easy-to-reference and generally accepted definitions:
– From Wikipedia: “A word of military origin, refers to a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal.”
– From Merriam-Webster: “A careful plan or method : a clever stratagem. The art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal.”
– From Dictionary.com: “A plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result.”
My job includes planning. It has methodology. It has specific goals tied to overall business objectives. It brings measurable results. I’d love to show you sometime, but as others have noted, you don’t seem to be interested.
Your mechanic is not an engine strategist; he’s working within a known system of engineering. But content strategy defines what the system is and how it works. It creates a framework that ensures all the pieces of tactical content execution come together to work toward achieving the right goals.
Sure, there are social media scumbags out there touting a very different definition of content strategy. Oftentimes, they’re purely tactical. Frequently, they’re snake-oily as all hell. Valid, valid, valid.
But. You mention again and again that, by definition, content cannot be strategic. Full stop. Yet you’ve never explained precisely why, or contrasted the roles, responsibilities and project deliverables of a content strategist with the definition of strategy.
I’d like to see you try. But even more, I’d like to see you stop wearing your ignorance on this field as a badge of honor.
Wow, I can tell that you are mad, I’m just not sure at what. But a crazy post is always good link bait. Here’s my one cent, then I’m moving on. No time for two cents, I have six ongoing content projects to manage. Each has a well-defined strategy that covers exactly who and how the content will be selected for development, written, approved, published, maintained, archived, and eventually sunset – a strategy for the definition and successful completion of all phases of the content life cyle – some might call it a content strategy. Sorry you don’t like the name, but around really big companies, communications strategy means something else, something a bit more meta. Content Strategy grew out of the Web development world so it is therefore, a bit Web centric, but expanding. The process of creating a new Web site goes much smoother when the process for identifying, developing, and governing site content is elevated to the same level as branding, graphic design, technology, and information architecture. This was not (is not) always the case. All these components have to work together to create a Web experience that serves the project’s goals. Whatever they are. Love it or hate it, the content strategist role (as a professional practice) is what has developed to take an equal seat at the strategy table with the brand strategist, art director, technical lead, and UX director. Call it what you will, but it just works better this way. Fewer problems, more on-time deliveries, and more profitable contracts.
I had the title “content strategist” as far back as the late 1990s, so did 10 other people I knew at the time. It’s nothing new. So welcome to the party, it’s been going strong for over ten years.
Remember “Carnation Condensed Milk, the Milk from Content Cows?” Or it was something like that.
It is the word “content” itself that I find troublesome. “Content” in the abstract makes me wonder “of what?” What is there inside this thing that contains content other than the content? “Content” to me is as non-descriptive and all-inclusive as “stuff.”
But ultimately, I have no problem with “content strategy.” It seems (at least to some people) to be something different from “communications strategy” (although “more meta” isn’t a full explanation of the difference, especially when that phrase seems to distinguish between strategy and tactics). Any job title can be (and probably often is) a smokescreen for snake oil, so it might be unfair to single out this phrase.
On the one hand, I’m confused about why anybody would give this guy the time of day. On the other hand, I’m so pleased that content strategy as a discipline has generated enough attention to threaten knee-jerk reactionaries.
This blogger hopes to create contention (and, therefore, attract attention) by placing himself in opposition to change.
And by publishing a rant that’s based on an egregiously idiotic premise.
“Content is not strategic.” No kidding. A thing can’t be strategic.
Content strategists, on the other hand, develop cross-functional strategies for dealing with content. They are strategists. The whole of their contribution to any particular project is called content strategy.
For my part, I think branding specialists charge unsuspecting clients massive fees for something any decent creative team could accomplish in a couple of days. But hey, I wouldn’t blog about it.
Cheers,
Elena
I think you might have uncovered my super top secret content strategy conspiracy. Well done.
What I was after all along was attention. It couldn’t possibly be that content strategy makes about as much sense as food strategy in a restaurant. Food is content too. It goes in plates.
Stringing two words together doesn’t make something a discipline. Content work is tactical, not strategic.
Your insistence in saying “content is tactical” also doesn’t make it true. The creation and publishing of content may be tactics but we have all seen how effective that can be without a bit of strategy behind it. Like all effective strategies, it must support an identified goal and that goal is identified in the Brand Strategy or the Communications Strategy. But to not have a strategic approach to the creation and management of content is to have a digital experience full of empty calories.
And this is all a bit much from someone who calls himself “The Brand Builder.” I mean if we’re debating semantics, how does one “build” a brand?
That said, I generally enjoy your posts and welcome the opportunity to debate topics like this.
I hear you, but look, it’s content. Like paint in buckets. It fills spaces. Hence the nomenclature: “content.” Like the contents of a bag.
The strategy is to fill the spaces with great stuff that will attract people, make them buy stuff, etc. The content isn’t the strategy, it’s the product. You see?
It’s like a chef running a kitchen and calling himself a food strategist.
😉
But a good chef IS a food strategist: she understands what dishes go together, how to coordinate the cooking so it all arrives at the same time, how to ensure she has enough ingredients to deliver those great meals…
Of course the content itself isn’t strategic, it’s the coordinating of activities and resources to produce that great content. Saying “my content strategy is to deliver great content” is like saying “my war strategy is to win the war.” Good luck with that.
Right. I’m not saying that someone who does tactical work is a robot. There’s a strategy to not losing your keys and buying your groceries. But there is a point where putting two words together that don’t fit works against the spirit of the function. Content and strategy make about as much sense as toilet and strategy.
What’s your toilet strategy? What’s your engine repair strategy? What’s your nail hammering strategy? Just because it requires a functional IQ doesn’t make it strategy. 😉
Most people who didn’t serve in the military have a tough time understanding what strategy is and isn’t. It’s a common thing.
Content is the at the core of Social Media ‘engagement’, no? So how could one be a social media strategist, yet question the role of content strategy? My business cards referred to me as a Content Strategist back in 1999 even though at the time I was consulting with clients on how to establish, maintain and run their community bulletin boards — you know the very first time ‘social media’ was a popular tactic to reach and engage consumers.
Unlike the trendy ‘social media’ industry, content strategy has roots — it’s an established discipline that been around since 1990s, cultivated and established in innovative digital giants like Sapient, Organic, Razorfish and dear, departed US Web CKS (RIP).
So those of us in this discipline, who have *practiced* in this discipline for a nice stretch have seen this same conversation before:
No, those guys are simply ‘copywriters’
No, those guys are simply ‘business communication specialists’
No, those folks are simply ’email marketers’
No, those folks are simply ‘CRM Managers’
No, those folks are simply ‘Web Publishers’
No, those folks are simply ‘Business Analysts’
No, those folks are simply ‘information architects’
No, those folks are simply ‘search engine marketers’
Guess what, most CSs are all of those and a bag of chips too.
Social Media Strategist is yet another popular, trendy discipline from which some of new CS practitioners will likely emerge, only to be assimilated back into the fold in a few years.
Content isn’t at the core of engagement. Relationships, conversations and experiences are. 😉
If you really want SM to work for you, listening is more important than producing content. The emphasis on “content” was created by folks who depend on perpetuating “the need for content” to keep scoring paychecks. Now, don’t get me wrong: There is nothing wrong with that. But it isn’t engagement’s lifeblood. 😉
Social Media isn’t like traditional media, where content is still king.
Cheers.
Hmmm. Conflicted.
On the one hand, you’re right – there’s no doubt that the title “Content Strategist” will be a ‘route to market’ for all manner of ill-informed, opportunistic bullshitters and quacks over the next 18 months or so. Just like the titles “Social Media Consultant” or “Digital Strategist” or “Brand Consultant” or just plain and simple “Strategist” already are. Equating a title with bullshit because it’s new rather misses the point of how bullshit has always worked, I’d say.
On the other hand – it’s clear that you don’t get what “Content Strategy” is about. You have self-evidently got hung up on the (broadly insignificant) issue of the title itself and not gone much deeper than that, never really grasped what “content strategy” is.
And in any case – should peripheral concerns about nomenclature invalidate either the practice or the practitioners? The real ones, I mean? Surely the distinguishing factor, once you get past the title, is the work?
You talk of “cleaning up the mess” of others in your own working life, without ever really indicating how these messes are the result of a “Content Strategist” being in there before you. Maybe if you could more accurately define what one of those is, you might more accurately assess whether they and their praxis are actually what you’re encountering in these circumstances.
Take your angle to its logical conclusion and the only thing that needs fixing here is that “Content Strategists” need to move to pastures new as regards their chosen nomenclature. Nothing they do, say, advise, sell, perform or produce will change, but they’ll call themselves something you approve of. Something that will make it harder for people who, like you, don’t actually understand or really do content strategy to claim they do.
Is that it?
Seems an odd sort of thing to get the soapbox out for.
If the nomenclature is wrong (and the nomenclature is the problem here), how is anyone supposed to know what you guys actually do?
Content Planning, I understand. Content Strategy (which, as I understand it, is the same thing) opens the doors for every Social Media douchebag in the world to start padding their resume with BS and turn your discipline into a punchline.
Words matter.
I’m not a Content Strategist. But I know enough about the work done by people who are to understand that your attack on their use of the word “Strategy” for their praxis is pretty superficial. To say nothing of provocatively one-eyed. Which is OK for a bit of link bait fun, but doesn’t do much to enhance your credentials.
Cristy did nail it. Anyone who uses the word “Strategy” in our industry – and a good many others beside it – opens themselves up to the old raised eyebrow. But that’s a collective failing of everyone in the industry, not people whose daily work has recently gained some attention under that nomenclature.
Don’t you think that “content planning” describes what is essentially a tactical role better than the self-aggrandizing “strategist” nomenclature?
Content is stuff that goes into things. Like paint in a can, peas in a bowl, or words in a block of space on a page. Content requires no strategy because it is simply content.
You can call it strategy if you don’t use “content” as the other word, or you can use content but not “strategy.” I am sure that what real “content strategists” do is legit, but the nomenclature makes the whole thing sound like a sham. I’ve met some pretty solid content planners and content managers over the years. Content strategists, no.
Though I keep running into some on the interwebs all of a sudden, and many of them were under-employed Social Media consultants and bloggers six months ago. Go figure.
Cheers, Matt. 😉
Ooh. Same tribe. We may need to chat more.
So I get that you’re trying to be funny and I enjoyed the read. You just happen to be wrong on this one. There’s nothing wack-o about content strategy. Both content strategy and content architecture are valid roles. Digital conversion strategy…well…that might be one you could legitimately poke some fun at. Keep up the good work!
-c
Can you tell me the difference between content strategy and content architecture? I’m not clear on that.
I like the article – very informative and organized to its stature – I hope you enjoy to Earn Free Money Online from Surveys and referrals
Matt Clark beat me to the punch. Then again, I’m still on the soapbox that all this “strategery” is nothing but practicing with a fancy name.
If any strategy is to work, it has to ONE strategy. Start with your business strategy. That *IS* the strategy. From there, everything else is a plan underneath that.
So, if you use logic, then I don’t agree with using the term, “content strategist.” Nor do I agree with using the term, “social media strategist,” “communications strategist,” or any other strategist.
The function is figuring out how all the pieces work under the one, official “STRATEGY” (read all the definitions given above, a strategy is nothing more than a PLAN).
Who cares? Let’s all get back to work.
Yep. You nailed it.
1. The business strategy.
2. Other strategies (macro) that support the principal strategy. (Comms, Marketing, etc.)
3. Everything below that (the execution, production, etc.) is tactical.
Nope, I mean it the way Dick Carlson said it. ONE strategy. Everything else is planning. No “macro strategies” or “supporting strategies.” That’s how we ended up with content as a strategy.
Stop it! 😉
Here’s how I see it – content strategy is derived from people who work on the web. Not those techies who program the sites but the men and women who fill the templates with content. This is why we refer to it as content versus the more ambiguous umbrella of communications. Yes content is in fact communication but let’s just accept the word “content” for now and move on to my next observation.
Often there is a disconnect between a company’s brand and how it’s delivered strategically through content in the digital world.
I know scores of communications professionals who don’t realize that the stuff they create (videos, web pages, tweets, emails, etc) shape the perceptions of their stakeholders. They don’t realize that the tone of their communication, the topics they promote or the color palette they choose all work together to reinforce that perception.
The result is that their communication is “off brand”. Which means the content doesn’t support what the company is trying to convey.
Having a content strategy – a tactical way of applying one’s brand – is a good idea. If the title “content strategist” gets a person a pay raise or some respect, so be it. At least said person understands that just throwing words and multimedia products out into the world won’t get the intended result unless there is thought behind it.
But isn’t that a question of poor execution, not poor strategy?
Doesn’t poor execution = bad writing/communicating and poor strategy = bad choices about where/when/how/why the bad writing/communication is placed? Isn’t the chef in fact, the writer and not the strategist? It helps produce better food/content if the chef/writer understands the overall strategy. But it’s often not the chef/writer’s job to develop the strategy. Which is why so many restaurants and websites have bad food and content. Hence, the need for a content strategist? And, dare I say, a food strategist? : )
The problem with the shift from stuff that happens to be used as content to stuff being made specifically to serve as content is that you end up essentially turning a family restaurant with a solid reputation for quality and delicious meals that surprise and delight, to becoming a cafeteria whose kitchen is manned by minimum-wage cooks trained to reheat crap in microwave ovens. Why? Because the focus has changed from providing value to getting asses in seats. “Content” for the sake of content is about eyeballs and traffic and clicks, not about the quality of the experience. Shift the intent and you shift the nature of what it is you do. That’s my caution. 😉
Olivier,
As I remarked in the column where the question of “Do we need a content strategy?” on Linkedin, http://linkd.in/bZNj66, as a Content Strategist, we consider everything in the project related to getting the message across. Online, “content” is everything from messaging to documents and videos; nomenclature to structure and primary navigation of branded/nonbranded websites, intranets, extranets and CRM initiatives.
Olivier, you say you’ve never known anyone who made a living being a Content Strategist. By now, you’ve heard back from over a half-dozen of the top in the field. I think that you’re being argumentative and hostile about the term, for really no reason. As someone who has been gainfully employed doing this for over ten years, my first title was in fact Content Analyst/Information Architect.
Over the years the role of Content Strategist grew as it became valued and embraced by the top agencies. Those of us who do this work have different backgrounds, but mostly the work we do is under the umbrella of user experience design – not Copywriter, SEO, etc…
Communications is something else and would be an incorrect and insufficient label for those of us who are vital to developing the strategy of large-scale website projects.
As for the adoption of the term by every quack in town – let them show they have the stuff it takes to do the job, and then maybe they’ll earn the right to call themselves a content strategist.
Lisa L. Trager
Content Strategist/User Experience Designer
Pictures In Motion
Thanks for the comment, Lisa.
You bring up an interesting point: “Over the years the role of Content Strategist grew as it became valued and embraced by the top agencies.”
So basically, “content strategy” became “real” when agencies decided to build a deeper revenue stream for their digital practices. No offense, but that’s kind of having the tail wag the dog, isn’t it?
I know it still sounds cool to plug copy, pics, graphics, video and other media in empty spaces on a website, but it’s still not “strategy.”
More than a decade of work on content for major websites makes me think that, yes, content strategy is the answer to bad, ineffective content.
I never met a content strategist that says something like “Content strategists will guarantee that your content will be awesome all the time, every time, as if Zeus himself had planned, produced and managed it”. It’s like saying SEO is all bullshit because you cannot get first rank in Google for all your keywords and for infinite times. Please be honest. Or please don’t lose contact with reality.
In fact, what your post says, is that you don’t understand what is Content Strategy. FYI, it is not just sexier words for Search Engine Optimization and Content Optimization, and Content planning is only a part of it.
BTW, you wrote “Imagine what content strategy might have done for brands like Starbucks, Facebook, Ford and Zappos. ” I don’t know for the other brands, but, yes, Facebook do hire content strategists.
Okay, I’ll bite: Can you explain to me the difference between a content planner and a content strategist?
I’ll give it a try: A strategist does high-level thinking about what should be done and why. A planner decides how it should be done. A writer executes the plan.
As so many companies struggle with the digital landscape (including my own), the vague and abstract job titles across the board aren’t always helping the C-Suite folks understand the skillsets really needed to execute or the right kind of experience to fill those roles. The titles become an abstraction from the core of what it takes to build ANY kind of website: Some technology, some concrete and abstract design, and some writing— and then maybe—MAYBE– some folks to scope, plan and coordinate the execution of those things or somebody to analyze the effectiveness of what’s been built. I kinda hate the word content, even though I have been forced to use it for the last 15 years and had it in my own title at one point. (I hate the word “users” too—but that’s another blog posting).
What is a “Brand Builder?”
It’s the name of a blog that you just commented on.
Look, it’s really a lot simpler than this. We just need Strategy Strategists.
Why is there such much emotion on the subject?
If I am correct, Olivier isn’t belittling the disciplines behind the title “Content Strategist”.
It seems to me that he just disagrees with renaming existing roles under a new, false, buzzword title.
Mind you, if a new buzzword happens to drive the market in a sensible direction… i can suffer the crap nomenclature.
Thank you, Oliver. I am glad you saw the post for what it was. 🙂
I think a content person can definitely have a good portion of their job be strategic and another portion of their job be tactical (just like any job). I think Content Designer as a title would help. There is a similar discussion around UX Professionals vs. UX Designers or Interaction Designers or Web Designers. If the argument was about a job not being 100% strategic and needing to be more tactical, that’s a different discussion.
However, having said that, I think you are wayyyyy too hung up on the name of it. It warranted maybe a five minute chat, or at least if you were a content strategist changing your title to Content Designer. At the end of the day, if the people you are working with understand what you’re doing for them that is all that matters. By the way, I’m a designer, and I would love to have more “Content Strategists” working on my projects.
🙂
I like what you’re saying.
Great post! This point of view was desperately needed in the conversation. Kevin P. Nichols (director and practice lead for conent strategy at) SapientNitro, just wrote a post about Content Strategy: The Old, New Thing where he said that content strategy was by its nature implicitly enterprise. (http://ideaengineers.sapient.com/strategy/content-strategy-the-old-new-thing/)
Personally, I’ve see content strategy (when it is not done robustly) as a line item agency offering that doesn’t deliver much value to the client in the long run.
Best
A
Exactly.
It’s really easy to establish a steady income with affiliate marketing if you just know how.
Check this site
This is one of the best articles I’ve read in a long time. Meaningless new buzzwords, I hate them and I can’t believe so-many people indeed see them as the new holy grail.
We’re not designers anymore, but user experience designers, even when we make crappy experiences.
We’re not copywriters, but content strategists.
Well…. I’m just a techy responsible for building the systems that people put content into, and I despise bullsh*t job titles as much as the next man, but I have to say that this post, though it’s quite funny, seems fairly misguided.
It’s been pretty galling to have put 10 years of my life into building sites that fail to achieve positive business outcomes, precisely because there is no “strategy” for the errr….”content”.
You say this:
“Copy doesn’t need strategy. It just needs smart, dedicated, talented people to create it under the supervision of a project manager/editor/Account exec/ or whomever requests the piece.”
This is just stupid. It seems to me that this it the attitude that is the root of the problem…the idea that content is just “copy”, just a bunch of “words” that we fill up pages with because it would be embarrassing to leave them completely blank…so let’s just hire some low level “resource” and get the project manager to make sure they churn out enough text to fill up our blank pages.
If you don’t think that content is strategic, or if you think that a sufficient strategy for content is “Our content should be good”, then you are not the solution, Sir. You are the problem.
I wish the people behind the Men of Social Media had had a Content Strategy. Then we might not have had to put up with an exercise in narcissism dressed up as a bolt-on charity event.
😀 I think there was a whistle strategy.
Of course, now that it’s 2011, we no longer need to look for shovel-ready jobs. Now it’s strategy-ready jobs. Voila – you’ve just unveiled the full employment act of this decade!
Blogging can be a way to increase sales by establishing your knowledge of your industry and credibility.
It’s incredibly easy to get leads based on your blogging techniques. If you really get your name into the blogosphere – like celebrity bloggers have – generating sales through blogging and social media. Nice post and point of view!
Interesting blog post, I’ve always wanted to see companies express personality in their blogs. It’s the only way to A. get a lead, and B. keep readers attention!