Boagworld Forum
Boagworld is not just a web design podcast, it is also a thriving online community. Whether you build, design or run websites there are always people here to help. Whatever your question there is sure to be somebody with the answer.
-
I've been advocating clients develop a strong emphasis on high quality content for years now. But I've just got wind of a trend for calling it "Content Marketing".Really, this is a horrible title. It sounds the exact opposite of quality content. It sounds like content farmed garbage, or one of the songs in 1984 that were written by a machine. Reading some articles on it, it worries me that "Content Marketing" is proudly marching down the wrong path. It seems totally obsessed with data and "optimizing headlines" like some SEO hawking gobshite. I understand keyword optimisation is a consideration, but it seems to me the next step are web apps that analyse your content and gives it a mark out of 10 or something.How about writing content that you are passionate about, instead of building it in a lab like you're Mr Spock so it ticks a bunch of checkboxes? I find it disheartening, and self defeating.Thoughts?
-
This is pretty close to one of the reasons I don't like SEO when it comes to content. People focus too much on the findability of a site and don't pay attention to how that content works once someone is there."This has good keyword density!""Yes, and it reads like it."That's why what I told my clients was to write and let their passion come through. Don't worry about keywords, just precision. I'll be looking over everything they write and if I think it's appropriate I might make adjustments but my foremost concern is that the content is the best it can be.Google and I will take care of the rest of it.
-
Agree with Doug. Write good content for real people. Content people care for. Then search engines will (should?) serve that content to the people looking for it.
Of course, when the writing really does lack some specific key words, you could think about adding them (in a careful way). Maybe the article and headlines uses jargon a regular user doesn't even know about yet. But now that I write this, I realise that "good" content shouldn't contain jargon regular people don't understand anyway...
There's also the question of how you measure success. Better get 10 readers from which 5 convert to something actually valuable (a loyal reader, a subscriber, etc) then get 100 readers of which 98 leave within a few seconds.
-
I don't think there is anything wrong with A/B testing multiple headlines to see which is more effective. I rely heavily on empirical data to discover the best design approach so I don't see a problem with applying that same technique to content.I think there is a big difference between that and SEO. I haven't come across the term "content marketing" myself so I don't know exactly how it is defined.From my perspective things are very simple: write content for people and not search engines.After all look at it from the perspective of search engines. The job of a search engine like Google is to connect their visitors with the best content possible. They work very hard to make that happen. That means in order to rank highly on google all you need to do is write the best content possible for users. Google will then do the rest.Sure, you shouldn't hinder Google from doing that by making content inaccessible but beyond that I see it as Google's problem.
-
I like to think I'm a pretty good writer but I'd be daft to think my favourite headlines are the best headlines for my audience, every time. Even David Ogilvy A/B tested his ideas, before A/B testing was a thing: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/01/i-am-lousy-copywriter.html
Good enough for him, good enough for me :)
-
I don't think there is anything wrong with A/B testing multiple headlines to see which is more effective. I rely heavily on empirical data to discover the best design approach so I don't see a problem with applying that same technique to content.
Empirical data is great... to a point.
The reason the Advertising Industry is in a state of paralysis is because they are terrified of doing anything without wheeling the creative in from of a focus group and doing exhaustive research. That is why most ad campaigns - while pretty - have little actual effect on the bottom line (for this, coupons, even direct mail is more effective). Obsessing over data in the way that Google does, that leads them to having such bland aesthetics and designers quitting in frustration. Do we want content creation to go down this route? Are we becoming cynical TV executives that want to find another way to repackage the X-Factor because its what the market wants?
From my perspective things are very simple: write content for people and not search engines.
This would seem to be a good rule of thumb.
I think there is a big difference between that and SEO. I haven't come across the term "content marketing" myself so I don't know exactly how it is defined.
As far a I can see, "Content Marketing" is content strategy that has been subject to a military coup by SEO gurus.
-
Sites like copyblogger have been using the phrase “Content
Marketing” for a while but I get the feeling that you’ve heard it in a
different context – or seen people doing it badly.Boagworld is a perfect example of how I understood Content Marketing.
I am not in need of a professional web design, so I am very unlikely to find
myself on a design agency website. However, by providing high quality content that is
relevant to people who run websites you build up a regular audience and your
own brand credibility.When that audience needs professional web design, they’ll be
more aware of Headscape than they otherwise would have been and may even recommend
them to other contacts despite never working with them in a design capacity.Give it a few years and content strategists will be calling
it spec work. -
I also find content with passion much more attractive then SEO based texts.
When your content is filled with passion, you can always tweak the text a little to include some important keywords. But then again, if those keywords are the most important, the chances are your content already has them included.
But who am I to talk about writing content, I'm a lousy writer :)
-
The reason the Advertising Industry is in a state of paralysis is because they are terrified of doing anything without wheeling the creative in from of a focus group and doing exhaustive research. Obsessing over data in the way that Google does, that leads them to having such bland aesthetics and designers quitting in frustration. Do we want content creation to go down this route?
I see where you are coming from and do actually agree. However there is a danger that this is used as an excuse my designers to justify their mad ideas. As with anything there is a balance to be found. -
I think it depends on what kind of data and how slavishly you adhere to it. For example, the data tells us that all links should be blue by default, purple after visits and red on active. That's what the data tells us we have to do. None of us do this because we all know the benefit is pathetically small while the negative is an uglier, less "unique" experience.Sure, it's "less user-friend", but it's a case of gaining +20 in aesthetic at a cost of -1 to usability.And that's where intuition gets mixed in. Every decision you make will benefit one thing and harm another. The trick is knowing what and by how much. If you stand to make a large gain at little cost then the data be damned. If, however, the data comes back and says, "That layout may be pretty, but it performs horribly. We're down 30% in conversions over the two weeks we A/B tested it." The data trumps the designer's crazy idea.
