Don’t worry, this won’t take long. Instead of writing a 5-part dissertation about the slow agonizing death of journalism at the hand of so-called “content strategists” and the growing culture of “let the intern do it, he knows about that internet stuff,” I will just give you a little slide show today.
Exhibit A: This story from CBSnews.com about the effects of radiation poisoning.
Now, this type of piece is intended to attract anyone with either fears and concerns about radioactive contamination from Japanese nuclear power plants reaching the US, or people with a general interest in the effects of such contamination. A few years ago, when journalism (real journalism, I should say) was still the norm, such a piece would have been written by a trained (professional) journalist. This journalist would have researched the topic thoroughly, consulted previously published articles and studies on the matter, interviewed medical doctors, researchers and other experts, and would have carefully crafted a clearly written and informative article whose aim was to attract, educate and possibly entertain readers. To make sure that the article met the news outlet’s rigorous standards (reputations were still important back in 2005 or 2006), an editor would have gone through the piece before finally signing off on it.
From a business perspective, this model worked for news organizations like CBS, NBC, CNN, the BBC, NPR and others. Relevance and trust attracted an audience. An audience meant circulation, impressions and reach, which in turn meant ad sales revenue and even subscriptions (if applicable). That daisy chain of value started with the news story. It always has and always will. “Content” has to be good in order to be sticky in the long term.
Fast forward to today. As editorial budgets continue to shrink and the news increasingly moves to the web, “content strategy” is quickly beginning to supplant editorial savvy at some of the world’s most prestigious news organizations. Which is to say that instead of employing journalists and editors to produce, write and publish stories to attract readers to advertising-funded content, news organizations’ web divisions are employing… well… I’m not really sure. Take a look:
The above screenshot is taken from a 9-slide reportage by CBSnew.com published on Monday 14 March 2011. Ignore for a moment the bizarre juxtaposition of the pretty, serene nuclear power plant and its benign plume of non-radioactive steam, and turn your eyes to the copy on the right hand side of the screen. This is the intro to the entire piece. It reads (and I am not making this up):
Radiation sickness: 8 Terrifying symptoms
People are terrified about being exposed to radiation, including the stuff that some experts fear might leak from the quake-stricken nuclear power plants in Japan. That makes sense. Even if it doesn’t prove fatal, radiation sickness can cause some pretty awful symptoms – and often proves deadly.
Really, CBSnews.com?
Let me underline a few items I have questions about:
People are terrified about being exposed to radiation, including the stuff that some experts (which ones?) fear might leak from the quake-stricken nuclear power plants in Japan. That makes sense. Even if it doesn’t prove fatal, radiation sickness can cause some pretty awful symptoms – and often proves deadly.
That’s right:
“Even if it doesn’t prove fatal,” it “often proves deadly.”
What leaks out of nuclear power plant is “stuff.”
Who needs actual experts when only the mention of experts will suffice?
And when your paragraph seems a little light, add in a worthless sentence to pad it – preferably something along the lines of “That makes sense.”
Not to mention the tabloid title “8 terrifying symptoms” and the thematic ripples in the copy itself, like “People are terrified about being exposed to radiation” and the quick-fire use of words like fear, awful, fatal and deadly, all in just 3 sentences.
But wait, as the infomercial says, there’s more:
The choice of istock photo is priceless all on its own, but here is the copy:
Nausea and Vomiting:
Nausea and vomiting are typically the earliest symptoms of radiation sickness. The higher the dose of radiation, the sooner these symptoms appear – and the worse the prognosis. Someone who starts to vomit within one hour of exposure is likely to die.
Sometimes people with radiation sickness feel bad at first and then start to feel better. But often new, more serious symptoms appear within hours, days, or even a few weeks of this “latent” stage.
My favorite part: “Sometimes people with radiation sickness feel bad at first and then start to feel better.”
If that isn’t useful information, I don’t know what is. Thanks for that life-saving tip, CBS News. Let me write that down in my handy dandy radiation survival handbook in case I need to remember it later.
We aren’t done yet. Now we come to either the Halloween blood or “I got in a bar fight” portion of the article.
The copy for the next “terrifying symptom”:
Radiation sickness can cause bleeding from the nose, mouth, gums, and rectum. It can cause people to bruise easily and to bleed internally as well – and even to vomit blood. The problems occur because radiation depletes the body of platelets, the cellular fragments in the blood that are form clots to control bleeding.
“… the cellular fragments in the blood that are form clots to control bleeding.” Really?
Nicely done. More than 24 hours after being posted to the CBS site, the typos are still there.
Moving on…
Funny factoid about the “sloughing of skin” symptom page (above): The acid-blistered hand has been replaced by a photo of a sunburned guy on a beach:
Note to CBSnews.com: In the vast historic and scientific archive at your disposal, do you not have actual radiation exposure photographs? I know this is all just mere “content” now, but still. That’s a picture of a guy on a beach. Come on. At least make an effort. Work with us here.
The copy from that particular gem:
Sloughing of skin:
Areas of skin exposed to radiation may turn blister and turn red – almost like a severe sunburn. In some cases open sores form. The skin may even slough off.
“Areas of skin may turn blister and turn red – almost like a severe sunburn…?” Mark Twain would be proud.
Criticism aside, I have to confess that I actually had to look up “sloughing.” It refers to a layer or mass of dead tissue separated from surrounding living tissue, as in a wound, sore, or inflammation. It’s basically dead, shedding skin tissue. I have to hand it to the writer: It’s impressive to see that someone who can’t string together three grammatically correct sentences has such an advanced medical vocabulary.
I wish it were over, but it isn’t. In this next image (see below), we learn that radiation from nuclear leaky “stuff” also causes male pattern baldness in middle-aged white men:
In another stroke of content strategy genius, we learn that having a cold (or the flu), as evidenced by the tissues, thermometer and nasally congested passed-out young man in the photo (see below) is also a terrifying symptom of radiation sickness. Oh wait… the copy says “Severe fatigue,” not “having a really bad cold.” Maybe those are… fatigue tissues. Maybe that’s a fatigue-meter too.
And who could forget this one:
The copy that goes along with this beauty:
Infections:
Along with red cells, radiation sickness can reduce the risk of infection-fighting white cells in the body. As a result, the risk of bacterial, viral, and fungal infections is heightened.
Not red blood cells or white blood cells, mind you. “Red cells” and “white cells.” As opposed to pink cells, brown cells and purple cells.
And this whole time, I thought that terrifying exposure to radioactive stuff leaking from Japanese power plants just caused toe fungus. (Missed opportunity for a Lotrimin ad in the bottom right corner.)
Update: The image was soon replaced by a far more medically appropriate yet suspiciously pixelated photo of a young lady waking up with a hangover. (Can you get radioactive poisoning from a duvet?)
Because nothing says infection from exposure to radioactive “stuff” from Japan like a photo of someone wrestling with a period headache.
Where can I buy Potassium Iodine tablets again?!
In case CBSnews.com still hasn’t pulled this ode to journalistic excellence from its website, you can go check it out for yourself by clicking here.
All and all, not bad if this were a 5th grade school project, but not exactly stellar if you are CBS News or a USA Today. (Speaking of which, read this unfortunate “expert” column from USAToday.com if you dare.)
If this were an isolated incident, we could laugh at it and that would be that. But think about how many articles as poorly constructed as this one (though perhaps more subtle in their affront to our collective intelligence) you have run into in the last 12 months. Now probe your memories and think back to the quality of articles you used to expect from respected news organizations just 3 to 5 years ago.
Did a journalist actually write this? Did a producer select the images for it? Did an editor allow it to be published?
The more likely scenario behind the growing amount of “content” like this is that professional writing staff has now been replaced by grossly unsupervised interns, and that editors have been replaced by operationally removed “content strategists” (a catch-all job title generally referring to 5% actual content strategists and an unfortunate 95% of recycled SEO and digital content “experts” with little to offer in regards to execution). The result is usually akin to what we reviewed here today.
Compare to this relatively short article from the National Post which probably took less time to produce yet provides relevant information. Click here. (Thanks to Anthill Marketing’s Kim Brater for the link.)
Whether you’re a CBS, an Engadget, a Mashable, a HuffPo or even a multimedia communications department for a major brand, please don’t end up like this. And more importantly, don’t let journalism as a whole end up like this.
Cheers.
* * *
By the way, the book is out. Writing it was the hard part. I left you the easy part: Buying it.
Click here to read a sample.
* * *
Additional reading:
An awful piece about social media ROI by a so-called expert (USA Today)
A pretty solid piece about corporate strategy lingo BS (The Lowdown Blog)
Though it claims to have something to do with Social Media ROI, I have no idea what the hell this is (Mashable)
The aptly titled “Social Media ROI for Idiots” (Social Media Today)
Brand Building and Online Marketing Blog 
OK, I hope I’m not the first one to comment again. I must sit in front of the computer all day?! 🙂 Although, this is funny Olivier. Compared to the last post you did, this is a little light hearted. But still need to be taken seriously, I know. Unfortunately, this is the new generation. Many people can’t write, much less type. Look at all the people you see, typing, texting with their thumbs, abbreviating everything they possibly can. And we expect them to write something with substance?! I’m not holding my breath, are you? 😀
Thanks. yeah, I needed to ‘unserious’ myself a little after the post about racism.
Every copywriter under the age of 25 that I have met in the last year has been incapable of writing five sentences without making 8th grade level mistakes in both grammar and spelling. It’s scary. This is supposed to be their profession. Hell, it’s supposed to be their native language!
It’s kind of sad. Standards are dying.
😀
I have a journalism degree.
Now, once you’re done laughing – I invested four years of my life and invested real money for that degree – let me counter with this:
TV News stopped being in the journalism business ages ago. And by ages, I would go back to the early 1990s, when checkbook journalism reigned supreme. For every investigative reporter toiling in anonymity, looking for the next angle to become the next Woodstein, there are dozens of $12K a year pretty faces who would be totally happy to ditz their way through a newscast.
What we’re seeing is an online extension – through “content strategies” – of the same exact formula.
Back in the early 90s, when NBC was launching “Dateline” (as a one-night-a-week competitor to 60 Minutes), they put incendiary devices under a truck to simulate its explosive potential during a crash. Got in trouble for it, bent the rules, got sued, all that fun stuff. Instead, however, of the show going off the air because it had lost all of its journalistic credibility, it became a 3-night-a-week mainstay on the lineup.
CBSNews.com is not watching the mainstream journalism competition. They are, instead, watching Huffpo, reading Deadspin, and looking for whatever sensationalistic angle they can find.
And, to paraphrase John Kruk, “ma’am, they ain’t no journalists, they’re content strategists.”
I’m adding this to the post. It rocks.
Great addition to a great post! The original story definitely shows a lack of experience and understanding of what kind of information the public is seeking during a catastrophe like Japan is experiencing.
Unfortunately, I think the media in general has gotten so caught up in their “in your face” stories they have forgotten what good journalism is. It went from the best journalist were the ones who reported well-informed stories and maybe got them first to now being all about getting telling the story in the most dramatic way.
Here’s to hoping they will go back to well-informed over drama!
This is the Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin/Mike Huckabee news cycle. If someone says it, no matter how badly, it must be so. It is sad to see that CBS has fallen to their level.
I heard today that US ships near Japan moved farther from the coast because they were detecting radiation in the air. Just what we need, a Navy full of men with male pattern baldness.
Seriously, though, this whole thing is very sad to any of us who appreciate correct grammar, correct spelling, and dare I say it, facts.
Okay, Olivier, it’s time for me to order your book in order to enjoy some reading that doesn’t hurt my head.
An excellent remedy, if I may say so. 🙂
Just a FYI, i’m pretty sure I got a hangover from a duvet once before.
Yeah but I bet your hair didn’t look that pretty.
Great observation Olivier.
I wouldn’t be too quick to state this is a “new generation” problem (as mentioned by another commenter). Just because someone is young does not mean they don’t value an article/book/post that is written well. In addition, most large organizations have an approval process that includes those who are not part of the “new generation” and as the example shows, they aren’t catching these mistakes either. I think a lot of people value immediacy over quality and unfortunately, that leads to a lot of inaccuracy. Is it good? No. Is it sad for us grammar lovers? Yes.
Agreed. But more often than not, the people behind fiascoes like this aren’t 25 year veterans either. There is a tendency to replace salaried staff with underpaid interns and to (instead of mentoring and teaching them the ropes) expect them to take over roles that require a modicum of training, experience and supervision. A talented and industrious young journalist can write amazing articles right out of the box. Youth is a small factor in that equation.
So you’re right: An abdication of professional and editorial responsibility are the real culprits.
Thanks, Aletta.
I agree with Aletta. I have a 25 year old employee who is a hell of a writer. She makes mistakes just like the rest of us. She is not the gate keeper. We have an editor who reviews her every word and I also look over her copy.The bottom line is that someone in a position of authority approved this. It really is easy to see how it happened. With all the mediocre writing on the internet, CBS made the decision to join the crowd instead of keeping it’s standards higher.
Unfortunately, as Mr. Van de Walle so eloquently pointed out, the media hasn’t been interested in reporting the news in decades. Factual information paired with qualified, intelligent commentary doesn’t sell ads. For that, you need over-hyped, sensationalist, fear-mongering bullshit.
The really ironic thing is thinking of all the bloggers out in Socialmedialand who will view this post as proof legacy media outlets are ignorant victims of their own greed while following following in their footsteps, with “content strategies” designed to sensationalize marginal material in order to monetize digital real estate.
PREACH IT, TBB.
Right, but would it kill them to put out half-way decent stuff? I’m not asking for Pulitzer commentary or anything: Just relevant photos, spell-check and decent grammar.
Too much? 😀
First, great post. second, I cant type on this darn iPad, keyboard so lets assume that any typos are just that, and not evidence of the further dissolution of journalism, in general.
i have to agree with Dave…and further note that the Journalism industry will only be viable again once it is treated as a non-profit and offered such status within the business realm. Only then, IMHO, will you see people passionate about bringing truth to light, instead of the cliched “ratings” that have become so integral to its existence.
But no, these groups are here to make money, and even with all the crap they are churning out, they just got … What… 10 clicks from you? :). If they can build, conservatively, 6 stories an hour that get that many clicks and multiply that by masses if even the most educated people (like yourself), well, Hi, Ford, would you like to spend an even $5 mill on your advertising package this year?
The mistake made is when we expect journalism to be anything more than it is…a corporate machine.
(I used every big word I know on this comment. i hope youre impressed….)
I agree…its shameful
I don’t understand why journalism has to suck in order to make money. Content is the product. When the product sucks, people move on. The better the product, the greater the audience, right?
Oh wait… That doesn’t explain the popularity of Jersey Shore, American Idol and… oh, never mind. Dumb sells. I give up.
Ah, Olivier’s favorite whipping boy for all things wrong in the digital age: Content Strategy.
I would say your real beef is more with media companies who value *traffic* over *informed readers.* It is they who PAY for these content strategists instead of journalists. News departments used to be a contribution to the public good and one of many ways broadcasters could meet their public service requirements to gain and keep their licenses. That, of course, is long gone and the news dept is just as beholden to P&L as any other.
Now, if I were a media company owner who was interested in not just the bottom line but also in the integrity of my brand (meaning I remained a trusted news source) I would ensure I had a content strategy that supported both. That’s what a content strategy is supposed to do: find the convergence of business objectives and user needs and then define the content that meets both.
Absolutely: Media companies, valuing traffic over informed readers, replace editors with content strategists. We’re in agreement.
What I can’t figure out, for the life of me, is why these media companies can’t see that traffic and informed readers aren’t mutually exclusive. What’s the theory? That the crappier the content, the more traffic it will attract?
I guess that works if you’re in the sideshow business, but when it comes to the news – and even pop culture – that’s a recipe for disaster. There’s a reason the Huffington Post came out of nowhere and so quickly became a contender on the web.
Good comment, Derek. You’re spot on.
Although I generally agree with the premise of your post, as a “content strategist” who focuses on quality standards (which include solid journalism practices) I find it a false equivalency for you to say content strategies are responsible for the death of journalism.
Journalism as a practice isn’t dead, it’s the business of journalism that’s dying.
I guess that puts you in that 5% of good ones then.
Hi Olivier,
Great post, thanks for sharing your opinions. Unfortunately, I see the quality of content as trend. I call it “the new journalism”. I have a feeling that the content is outsourced via some (in this case) CBS content platform that pays $ to anyone who registers and writes “articles” whenever CBS requests them to spam us with lots of “quality content”.
I see this trend in Europe as well. Both on Polish major news companies, as well as Irish.
It’s bizarre, isn’t it, this notion that a) inferior content will somehow attract more readers and b) that purposely producing an inferior product is a solid long term strategy?
I don’t get it.
Olivier,
I have to admit being confused with this vilification of content strategy, especially within the context of this article. Yes, the journalism in the CBS News piece is obviously to elicit emotional ZOMG!!! responses, is incredibly lazy, and in poor taste given the suffering of folks in Japan. However, I’m not making the connection between this piece, content strategy, and the (ill-advised) practice of putting interns in high-profile situations.
I see a blurred boundary in your writing between the folks who work diligently to insure that all content on a website or other digital communications channel is relevant, timely, and clear, and those who merely adopt the title for the sake of adding some flair to otherwise lazy performance. It’s very easy to smear any job title or profession by confusing laziness with the real deal … just look at all the “social media gurus” you’ve called out over the years.
I’ve been in web development for about 10 years, and believe me, someone who had a thorough understanding of a digital asset’s content, how it was written, organized, and consumed by the user can be quite the asset. Otherwise, you have coders, designers, or editors (who may be used to the print world) making decisions that are inefficient, ineffective, or woefully out of date.
Please don’t bash the profession; bash those who are lazy and use the titles to cover it up.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike, note that towards the end of the piece, I acknowledge that there are legitimate content strategists out there. This piece isn’t an indictment of “content strategy” in its entirety. There’s a place for it and for dedicated professionals to take on that role in complex media models.
What I am saying is twofold:
1) I didn’t really get into in this post, but the vast majority of so-called “content strategists” I run into were social media strategists last year and SEO strategists two years ago. The value they bring to an organization in that capacity (as opposed to whatever their real skill used to be) is precisely zero. These are the people behind a) turds like this one on CBSnews.com and b) editorial “decisions” (abdications) at most major media outlets now.
The comparatively small percentage of people who legitimately perform this function is going to have to either police the discipline or deal with that stigma. Same as “social media strategists” a year ago. 5% beef vs. 95% bullshit.
2) The shift from “news” to “content” didn’t originate in a vacuum. Competent writers and journalists were undercut by bloggers and “media companies” who sold corporate on the notion that they could deliver the same amount of traffic (if not more) at a much lower cost buy commoditizing “content.”.
Whereby the product used to be the article or the photographs or the video, and the advertising paid for the talent, editorial and production, the reverse is now the norm: The advertising is the product, and the article, photographs or video are filler and linkbait for all the empty space between the ads. The cheaper, the better.
You know those free local magazines about outdoor sports, parenthood and real estate interests? The ones with mostly ads and really crappy articles with stock photos? That’s the print version of that model.
Finding cheap shit with which to fill empty space around ads so people click on a link doesn’t require a content strategist. All it needs is an intern or $9 per hour underemployed college grad with basic CMS knowledge.
That is where we are today: People with zero experience in journalism or editorial roles filling empty space with remedial shit, and calling that “content strategy.”
You can see how former SEO “consultants” would be attracted to this new discipline: The job consists of pulling traffic to a page. The content doesn’t have to stick. It doesn’t have to have value. All it needs to do is cause someone to click on a link, and the company gets paid.
By the way, I blame whoever signs their paycheck as much as I blame them. Being incompetent and/or lazy isn’t any worse than willingly sponsoring and promoting incompetence, laziness and what that produces.
For those people, perhaps a more appropriate nomenclature should be “traffic acquisition strategists” or “headline optimization strategists”. But no. They call themselves “content strategists” instead. Because content is something you can sell.
Just like “social media,” given that “social platforms” and “social networks” don’t sell services. But anything with the term “media” in it does. Just as you can sell “media,” you can sell “content.”
The “strategy” part is kind of a given: Being a strategist can easily absolve you of responsibility when the execution or tactical roles fail to deliver.
So I feel your pain, and I want you to know I can tell the difference between a real content strategist and the hacks who call themselves that, but guess what: Right now, the hacks are winning, and they are the face of content strategy. I hope that changes soon.
Cheers, man.
It seems, Olivier, that I found myself disagreeing with you — or how you stated your case — so whole-heartedly that I could not fit my response here.
I can only invite you to read what I wrote in reaction [ http://bit.ly/fM3LFb — Journalism: I feel better now ] when you have the time.
But I have only just discovered your site, so time will tell if this was a one-off. Keep well. — L
I have one word: shameful!
The bottom line is that anyone can don any job title (I’ve met plenty of “journalists” and “writers” who can’t craft a sentence). There are a good number of smart, capable Content Strategists out there just like there are smart writers and journalists.
Just like any other hiring decision, you have to sift through the hay to get to the needle.
And since you don’t know what the actual staff structure is over there, why blame it on content strategy? Perhaps CS isn’t in their budget and that’s why you get crap like this.
Just thought I’d swing by to say hi!
Hi Kristina. Thanks for not ripping me a new one. You could have but you didn’t, and that’s mighty cool of you. 😉
For the record, I don’t hate content strategists. I just hate that the discipline has been hijacked by posers and the lowest common denominator. Kind of like “social media experts.”
Cheers.
Quote: “Whereby the product used to be the article or the photographs or the video, and the advertising paid for the talent, editorial and production, the reverse is now the norm: The advertising is the product, and the article, photographs or video are filler and linkbait for all the empty space between the ads. The cheaper, the better.”
This is exactly what the porn industry has done for years, and we all know they’re the ones making the big bucks. The “news” industry is simply following suit.
It’s a lengthy subject, but I think basically the media never had much interest in informing people of the whole truth. Information control has always been people control. It simply takes less effort now to control the people, being that the educational system now largely produces people who can’t think for themselves.
Great post Olivier!
I like how some people argue how journalists are superior and bloggers (“content strategists” if you will) lack credibility. Yet they fail to see that they are generalizing far too much. There are good journalists and bad journalists, good bloggers and bad bloggers. The media company that oversees and distributes the article should add credibility through fact checking and editing, but as you point out, they fumble horribly sometimes. Same goes for bloggers, there are many bad ones, but great bloggers do exist.
Having a formal background in psychology, it pains me when anyone makes radical claims without any validation. And I fear that these folks looking to push crap out there just to boost page views is killing more than journalism. It’s killing the trust people put into anything they read on the internet… now that I think about it, I don’t believe you… and re-reading my comment, I’m not believing myself… damn bloggers, I don’t know who to believe anymore!
LOL! Bradley — I’m with you on this one. I honestly don’t know who/what to believe anymore. And, yes, I definitely think there are decent bloggers and terrible bloggers, decent journalists and terrible journalists (Umm, isn’t that how it always is in everything else in this world?) And yes, yes, I agree. I hate radical claims and generalization. I’m a newbie blogger (but I read LOTS of “stuffs” from “legit” news groups AND I admit I find good picks from Mashable, HuffPost, SlashFood, etc. Heck! Sometimes, I just go straight to Twitter and start digging through the various Tweets for stuff I’m looking for! I’m not picky! And about the so-called “legit” newspapers and whatnot… I’ve come across some pretty bizarre articles before. Like TIME would write about something no one else was writing about JUST because and they put it on their cover!)
Why the hell are you people talking about journalism? I’m pretty sure I have radiation sickness!
K
I think my next door neighbor is turning his basement meth lab into a potassium iodine operation.
Your piece is shameful because it shows you don’t understand he basics of what content strategy is about. What you’ve labelled content strategy is just poor journalism. Content strategy is about tying content development to business goals and helping users get tasks done. If you were really talking about CS then you’d have to make a case that CBS is trying to also maximize the sales of duvets, or something like that. Honestly you its embarassing to read a post like this from someone who is trying to “defend” journalism. I think even the 95 percent of the so-called bad content strategists are laughing at this post. Dude- first rule in J school? Know your shit. You clearly do NOT.
Thanks for your opinion, Ahava.
Read the piece again. I am not sure how you inferred that this post suggests that CBS is trying to sell duvets… or that I have labeled content strategy as poor journalism, or that content strategy is not “about tying content development to business goals and helping users get tasks done,” as you aptly put it. Since I doubt that you will bother to give the piece another pass, let me clarify a few key points for you:
1. I don’t believe (nor am I suggesting) that CBS News is trying to sell duvets. That would be giving them far too much credit. The choice of images for this piece wasn’t that well thought through.
2. I don’t equate content strategy with bad journalism. Bad journalism is just bad journalism. Content strategy has nothing to do with journalism. Not. One. Thing.
3. I understand perfectly what content strategy is supposed to be. Before I get too far with this, let’s ignore for a moment that “content strategy” as a term doesn’t do your discipline justice, and accept it as legitimate nomenclature. (A topic for another day.) “Tying content development to business goals” is wonderful. It is indeed the driving force behind what you and I perceive to be a much needed function in communications and publishing (digital and otherwise). We’re in agreement.
BUT…
The reality of “content strategy” as it is being sold to media companies (and widely adopted) is very different from what you and I understand it to be. The reality of “content strategy” as it is being applied is illustrated by the article this post focuses on. “Content strategists” in name only are beginning to replace writers and editors. It’s a simple question of cost benefit, opportunity, and improper goal setting by the companies employing their services. The new model is this: Increase online advertising revenue while minimizing costs. The easiest way to cut cost out of the model is to commoditize content.
Who provides cheaper content for the web than writers and journalists AND plugs in SEO at the same time? Hack jobs who have taken over the “content strategist” nomenclature.
By the way, they are the same jackasses who ruined SEO professional’s reputations, then did the same thing to Social Media professionals. Your discipline is their new life raft of choice. Next year, with any luck, they will have moved on to something else.
They are the 95% of bad “content strategists” and I doubt they are laughing at this post or any other post because they are too busy cashing checks from the thousands of companies recruiting their services instead of yours or mine.
There’s a big difference between what we want the world to be like and what it actually is like, Ahava. You can call me an idiot all day long for writing this, but I do know what I am talking about, and if you put your hurt feelings aside for a few minutes, you might see that I am not attacking you or your profession if you fall into that 5%.
Thanks for the comment all the same. Cheers.
I’ll bite – in this case, I think CBS was using “content strategy” as you define it (tying content development to business goals), BUT their business goals were “more eyeballs” and their content development was “crappy combination of photos, clip art, and sensational headlines.”
First rule in J-school? “Know your shit” wasn’t it. Learn to write, tell the truth, don’t libel or slander anyone. Those are up there.
Actually, I think this case study makes a terrific recruiting test for those looking for a high quality team member. Situational interview question: “A client provides this content for a website for which you are responsible. What is your reaction? What do you do?” or “you find this content on your organization’s website…. same questions.” Could reveal a lot about a content strategy candidate on a number of levels.
Agreed.
The bad thing about this is, that most readers are not really interested in how well an article is researched. In the end, people can read, what they want to hear.
And that’s why it can also sell better.
Don’t know what I enjoyed reading more… your post or the comments!!??
Such an CBSnews article could be written by almost everyone.
For such an unprofessional article you don’t have to be a journalist or probably not even have a graduation.
The only thing that the article causes is fear and scare.
There follows no scientific explanation or proof. It sounds like a sensational story of a boulevard magazine and not like an informing and critical article.
It seems to me as if they were sloppy by creating the design of the article, and as if they had been too lazy to look up right images.
Because of the overload of information and articles it is important that readers can rely on a few news agencies.
It is important that the news agencies research exactly so that they can write correct and true facts.
Otherwise, the facts are so perverted that they do no longer match the actual story.
If this happens the false stories are believed.
So I totally agree with Oliver.
Nowadays people are due to the high flow of information only interested in information that are very good or bad. Therefor it is simple to sell a bad written article which contains a dramatized content instead of selling a “good written” article which contains also a “writing- value”.
This is very sad and pitiable today.
Sounds like news sites are following the lead of AdSense farms? It doesn’t matter what you put out as long as you put something out, tweet it, and slap some advertisements next to it.
I’m a little curious to see the numbers behind the article – i.e. how many people went through the whole thing in the time it would take an average person to read it?
I needed to thank you for this fantastic read!! I certainly
loved every little bit of it. I’ve got you book-marked to look at new stuff you post
Admiring the time and energy you put into your website and detailed information you present.
It’s awesome to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the same old rehashed
information. Wonderful read! I’ve bookmarked your site and I’m adding your RSS feeds to my Google account.