Content Strategy – are we getting it right?

Content Strategy – are we getting it right?

This paper prompted me to investigate further; what I found was illuminating although, not unexpected; people generally do not engage with content to the degree we think they do and certainly nowhere near the level quoted by innumerable statistics released by marketers.

With a few marginal differences the position looks something like this:

• Over 95% of CEOs believe that ‘content’ is a business key success factor
• Between 75% – 80% of content practitioners believe their content to be having a positive outcome.
• Some 45% of practitioners are uncomfortable with the metrics and measurements pertaining to or being used to measure effectiveness.
• Less than 15% of all content is even opened.
• Only between 3 – 5% is actually engaged with.

The above leads to some uncomfortable observations

• Most marketers believe their content strategy is having positive outcomes yet over 50% of them have confidence problems with the metrics. If this is so, what evidence is there to substantiate their positive intuition?
• If only 15% of content is accessed by the audience and of that only 30% is engaged with, how is it that 80% of practitioner created content has been deemed to have a positive outcome?

There are only a few conclusions one can draw, either:

• Content practitioners, at best, misrepresent their effectiveness.
• The wrong ‘things’ are being measured.
• Definitions of content and effectiveness are ambiguous setting the framework for diverse interpretations and obvious scepticism.

When one considers that an estimated 210 million pieces of content are created and posted every minute it is impossible that all the self- assessed, effective content (80% of total) can be squeezed into the 5% that audiences’ behaviour indicates is effect

It seems to me there are only a few reasons for the significant discrepancies between what practitioners believe and how audiences behave, either:

• Most practitioners lie (highly unlikely).
• The metrics used don’t actually measure the actions (say engagement) that need to be measured (likely).
• Our understanding of the process by which content influences behaviour / action is limited or flawed (likely).

Where to from here.
We probably need to go back to basics. It seems to me, that this inevitably starts with definition.

In crystallising this, we probably need to acknowledge that:

• Content is in of itself, meaningless; it is merely a means to an end; its value resides in the opinions and actions of its audience.
• A contact between a piece of content and a person (say a download or a word search or use) does not mean engagement.
• Engagement is signalled when the ‘contact’ is followed by and action or an event on the part of the audience or individual.
• Content effectiveness is reflected in the action it induces and it is this provides the object of measure.
• The focus of our attention should be defining, isolating and measuring behavioural actions, i.e., those directly induced by individuals engaging with content.

My contention is that if one agrees to such premises one can move toward addressing the content problem

The source of a solution
Social scientists and behavioural economists have understood for a long time, it is the actions people take are the subject of study. Whilst important, at this stage, less attention is paid to trying to understand the complexity of how people’s brains actually work.

The answer lies in understanding the dynamics of social groups and behaviour of individuals within those groups. By understanding individual and group behaviour one can determine what subject matter, topics, feelings, beliefs are driving both individuals and groups’ behaviour. And after all is this not what we all seek to understand and influence.?

The key is hence understanding the diffusion of the actions within groups and between people.

This probably sounds too technical, but it is not difficult, it merely requires the employment of different thinking and the drawing of knowledge from alternate places / disciplines we haven’t used in a long time.

Explanation
Imagine a scenario where communities, groups and individuals are swimming in a sea of content.

To attract and make contact with people the content needs to be relevant to them. Now here’s the key: ‘it is the audience who decides the agenda’; so determining the agenda is central to the engagement project.

Since people live and interact within groups, by identifying the conversations within groups one can determine the importance placed on particular actions/topics/subjects etc. Once this is known, relevant content can be created for the practitioner commence the engagement process.

I can hear the chorus ‘well this is what happens!’. The truth, of the matter, for all the reasons provided above, it doesn’t.

Solution: Narrative analysis
Listening and participating in conversations cannot be achieved from a platform of aggregating word counts, downloads, likes etc.; whilst words are used by people, conversations are about concepts ( groups of words: Subjects, objects and verbs) which have tone and bias. At this stage such understanding can only come from analysing group dialogue and the structure of the social network.

Fortunately, social scientists have already done the pioneering work; . has led to the application of linguistic theory to determine the flow and relevancy of concepts and narrative (content) in people’s lives.

Simultaneously, the same social scientists have developed significant acumen in understanding of how people interact within groups. Defined as network analysis group structures and dynamics, the behavioural and thought influencers, and the role of actors can be determined with a high degree of accuracy

Combining these two empirically proven theories, in the concept of narrative analysis (SNA), allows for a rigorous and practical execution of effective content strategy.

The great advances in big data analysis, algorithms, internet trawling facilities the mapping of actions within the entire or subsections of all digital materials in traditional and non traditional media, has allowed SNA to become a paradigm breaking step forward in content engagement.

In such an environment, one can measure the flow, resonance and actions taken in response to ‘content’ delivered and discussed and by real people.
It is easier than you think!

Ian Macfarlane, is Managing Director of Strategetic Consultants.
A Sydney based group specialising in content strategy development using linguistic analysis, Big (digital) data, graph theory and network models to create and measure effective audience engagements.