Travelblather

Here's the second of two posts about the new buzz-phrase "Content Strategy" - written by my colleague Charlie Peverett - content strategist at iCrossing. The first post explains why content strategy matters. This one explains a little about the who and the how. Let me know what you think...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a content strategist does

The clearest definition for how a Content Strategist can sort out the messy state of so many websites these days is provided by Kristina Halvorson, in her landmark book Content Strategy for the Web (2009).

The headlines are that a strategist must:
• Audit the existing content
• Analyse it alongside all the research inputs – stakeholder feedback, customer surveys, UX work, site analytics, competitor analysis, SEO recommendations, etc
• Create a content strategy

That is, they audit the available content – what does the client have, who makes it, looks after it, how, why, when, who for?

They analyse it against the available research and the project's objectives – how is it being used, what's the return on effort, how does it relate to other content, what could be deleted or simplified, where are the opportunities for new and better content?

They create a strategy – a roadmap for getting from the status quo to an agreed objective, which understands and addresses the realities of creating and looking after content (the necessary inputs and ownership, how long it takes, who does what) and how to measure its success.

Who can be a content strategist?

Anyone who understands how content works, how it's made and maintained, how to measure its success - and how to work with all available parties to make it happen.

They may be from a technical background (web dev/IA), a digital strategic/planning background or an editorial background (publishing/web editing).

The important thing is: they really get how content works and know how to get it organised.

And of course, a lot of people with other job titles are already doing this work successfully: those web editors with the necessary clout, obviously; on smaller dev projects, the information architect (IA) or project manager; in social media activities, the social media strategist or blog editor perhaps.

But even where people are already doing it very well, it's often an 'invisible', partial success. The content strategy succeeds in places as a by-product of some other officially-recognised process – the 'site design', the 'social media strategy', the 'editorial brief'. And the opportunity for applying a cohesive strategy across the organisation is missed.

I'm not a big fan of cheerleading new roles and terminology for the sake of it. There is a strong argument that 'content strategist' may, in some cases, be indistinguishable from the role of a consultant web editor, or web editor in chief.

But whether we still use this language in ten years' time or not, the principle behind its arrival is right. And it seems unlikely that the desire for it - simultaneously seized upon by professionals across disciplines and sectors - will turn out to be passing phase.

Image by richardjingram

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this need to be strategic about the content that goes on a website is as important as working out a flatplan for a magazine. There has to be order and organisation and there has to be complete focus on the reader. This stuff may sound clunky and even dull - but I  think it's essential if we are serious about the value of the content that we publish on-line. Do you agree?

I'm very fortunate to work with such smart people at Search and Social Media company iCrossing. Here's the first in a couple of guest posts from Charlie Peverett our Content Strategist. All too often the person doing the writing for a website is left out of the planning. The end result is a poor user experience and often poor quality content. A number of people have begun to try to start addressing this problem - and the discussion has quickly focussed around the phrase 'content strategy'. (I posted this last night as one long post, but on reflection I think it works better to split it into two.) This first post then describes why we need content strategies. The second will describe what a Content Strategy is and how you create one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Late last year I left my role as an 'Editor' and became a 'Content Strategist'.

It was, if I'm honest, a bit of a punt. As 'Editor' I wasn't getting into the conversations I felt I needed to be in - and I was fed up with being passed work where 'the content bit' had already been decided on, often by someone with no apparent clue about what producing the content might entail.

'Content strategist' seemed sufficiently high-falutin', and so we settled on that and wrote a job description to support the main objective (in short: getting our oar in early whilst decisions about design, user experience and so on were being made ). About that time I started to look around at what other people meant by the title and I had a bit of a shock.

It was like arriving in the middle of a maze and seeing people converge from all directions - techies, information architects, web editors, journalists. All looking battered and frazzled, but with a glint their eyes. Different paths - same conclusion.

What is content strategy?

I say 'conclusion' when I really mean: a good place to regroup and begin going somewhere else.

Content Strategy™ is a work in progress, bringing together several strands of expertise in ways that are yet to be fully worked through. It's not neat. It doesn't all make sense to me (or, I gather, to others).

But at iCrossing, as at a good few other places, we see it as a promising approach to some of the biggest challenges faced by us and our clients.

Problems, you say?

All the relevant inputs to a web project – on-page optimisation, metadata, UX, brand voice and messages, editorial guidelines, press releases, Ts and Cs etc – everything manifests as content. As videos, pictures, podcasts – but overwhelmingly as written words.

And when does a 'content person' get involved? Usually at what is, effectively, the last minute. When the lorem ipsem (that placeholder copy that's just stuck there  by a designer) needs to be magically transformed into sparkling, all-singing all-dancing 'copy'. At this point you'd be better off with an alchemist than a writer.

Who's made the decision about what form this content takes? What its production requires? How it should be presented?

Will the writer have enough time to understand all the things that they are required to do – to make it findable, meet user needs, be engaging, reflect the brand, hold up in court, etc? And can they cry foul if they can't fulfil those needs because the IA's already been agreed and the dev site built and it's just not right? Often the answer is... no.

Even the least enlightened fool will tell you Content Is King, but more often than not it's treated like a hostage; to be brought in at the end of a project to fill all the containers that have been built for it without its consent. And then left languishing until the next site redesign.

Projects that continue to be carried out like this are built to fail.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So... what do you think? Do you share Charlie's frustrations (and mine too) that the person writing the content always seems to be last in line on web-projects?

Pic by richardjingram

It's now official. The Times and The Sunday Times will soon have separate websites and will charge people for access. News International, the newspapers’ parent company, has announced that people will be offered a day’s use for £1, or £2 for a week’s subscription.

For me this is one of the most important announcements in a very long time. As a journalist who believes in the value of his craft I have long been fed up of the way that it's just become 'normal' for anything online to be free. Why should that be? I write a feature for a newspaper and, without my say-so, it appears in the online edition too - for no additional payment. As a reader I've become fed up too with the amount of crap that is clogging up the net - words used just to target search engines rather than to deliver useful information to readers. Just this week I was offered between £15 and £25 to write 500-word pages for a fairly well-known travel website about flights and hotels in particular destinations. This is the sum-zero of this game. Content that's of little real use to anyone aimed in the main at getting people to land on a page - even if they click straight off again, just to earn ad revenue. And the people who write it being paid a pittance to do it. Something has to change.

More interesting still, it's looking increasingly likely that Murdoch (who is of course the real player behind all this as the Chairman of News International) will bar all his content from Google and conversely do a deal to make it available on Microsoft's competing search engine Bing. Google - no longer the search engine that covers everything? Wow... that is a serious cat amongst the pigeons and something only a huge player like News International would be able to consider.

So, I applaud the intent. But will it work?

1) People hate paywalls. Ironically I wanted to link to a piece on the FT that I found on Google about this - but I hit a 'register to read this' wall. So I went elsewhere to find something. I just struggle to see how they will get the casual browser to convert to  becoming a paid-up subscriber. Hitting a paywall will not make me want to subscribe.

2) Differentiation is all important. News is totally commoditised. Sorry, but I just don't see people paying for news. If I can't read it on Times Online I will read it on the Guardian or the Independent or literally hundreds of other sites. (There is a possibility of course that everyone will follow News International's lead. I wonder if NI management have been having quiet chats off the record with their opposites at other major publishers?But even then there's the BBC. ) Features of course are a completely different err, story. I had a fascinating chat with someone who works at News International last week about the way that NI plans to have The Sunday Times' online content focussed on Features - print, images, video and the Times on News. I can see a payment model working for the ST's more feature-orientated approach because this content will be genuinely unique.

3) What will that mean for writers? Well, again, according to my contact at NI there are serious budgets available for pure online content. Our conversation was all about the importance of video, and I can see how exploiting the technical advantages of web over print seems the logical way to add value here. So, maybe, just maybe, it will be possible for journalists to make a living writing/creating content for the web? If that's the case what will that mean for the travel writer? Now it's not just notepad and SLR to carry around, you'll need a video camera, tripod and mic too and the requisite skills to use this new kit.

4) What will that mean for advertising? This is the one that really fascinates me. I watched the video clip on that link above to the timesonline of Times Editor James Harding explaining  (not particularly effectively in my opinion) why this step is  being taken. Ironically, I had to watch an advert before the piece. I hate that. God, I'd pay not to have that crap getting in the way if I could. I loathe the increasing banality of online advertising - as the media landscape gets more cluttered advertisers resort to ever crasser ways to try and grab our attention - people walking across the screen, pop ups, things jumping around in the sidebars. For me it just doesn't work. An ad-free reading/viewing environment on-line would be heavenly. But will Timesonline and Sunday times online still carry ads? I bet they do.

Fascinating times. What do you think this means for writers and for readers?

I recently met up with my editor to discuss the upcoming second edition of my Frommer's guidebook: Day By Day Seville. I was delighted to be able to share an email with him from the Andalucia Tourist Board offering to fix up trips, organise a hire car and some accommodation if I wanted to get out of Seville and see more of the region.

It's a breath of fresh air. It's clearly easier to get people to help you when you have a finished product in your hand to show them. I've had notably better success with the main Seville Tourist Board this time around. When I first pitched up there, I was made welcome, but the help I got was pretty limited and I had to work hard to get it.

That's not really the  point I want to make though... what I just don't get is how hotel owners, restauranters, tourists boards, PRs and all fall over themselves to provide accommodation, meals, tours etc if you are writing a feature for a national newspaper.

Tell them you are writing a guidebook and many of them don't even reply to your emails. To me this is nuts. Why?

A newspaper feature gets published - once (in print) and that's it. Some tour cos I have worked with on features have had awesome response from them. Loads of calls as a result of people reading my piece. Others have had next to none. It's totally variable. It can depend on whether it rains that particular Saturday (people have more time indoors to peruse the travel pages and make a call) what else is in the supplement (there's an awesome competition or whatever) whether it's a slow news day (David Beckham hasn't injured himself).

Compare this with a guidebook.  Once printed, it lasts. People use it to plan their trip, they take it with them to their destination, they lend it to friends also planning trips there too. It sometimes gets reused if people return to the same destination. Admittedly guidebooks are printed in far lower volumes than newspapers, but think what a tiny proportion of the 300,000 readers of say the Guardian actually want to go to Seville and so will pick up the phone as a result of reading a feature about the city? Everyone who purchases a copy of my Seville guidebook clearly plans to go there and will certainly act on information printed in it.

My hunch? It's about short term PR and lazy marketing. A PR agency needs to demonstrate the value of its service to its client. The quickest and highest profile way to do this is a newspaper feature. If three years down the line someone books a night in a Seville hotel due to a recommendation in my guidebook, no one will be able to tie that action back to the work of a PR co organising for me to stay in the hotel years previously. Likewise with the hotel's marketing team. Chances are the hotel reception won't even track the fact that the enquiry came as a result of reading my guidebook.

I see this approach as pretty typical for our times. Short spans of attention... give me a bright shiny thing now rather than a more durable dull thing later.

But that attitude runs totally contrary to building sustainable, long-lasting business.

I have relationships with GMs of several hotels that I've struck up personally in Seville. I know them and their businesses well. It's a pleasure to recommend them. They are genuinely excellent. If I was working for a hotel chain in PR, I'd have a programme devised specifically to target guidebook writers. If I was a hotel marketer, I'd make it my job to get to know guidebook writers and to work with them.

These kinds of relationships will far outlast a single hit in a newspaper and - whilst it's difficult to prove with hard data - I'm convinced they will deliver more business over the long term.

What do you think?

Regular readers (hello and thank you!) will I hope remember a recent post about how I see travel writing changing. (And I think it's happening increasingly quickly.)

As I explained, I see an opportunity for travel writers to associate themselves with a brand and get paid for doing so.

In return the brand gets credibility and quality content on their website/blog (or even out there elsewhere on the net.)

Here are a couple of interesting live examples:

• Fiona Hilliard writing the Glove Box blog for Argus Car Hire
• Lara Dunston and Terence Carter, writing the Gran Turismo blog for HomeAway Holiday-Rentals (screen shot above)

Anyone found any others?

So - what are the new skillsets that a travel writer in the web-age needs?

Here are a few that I can think of:

A blog and a twitter feed - you need to demonstrate that you 'get' web. That you are live in your network.You need to demonstrate too that you get CMS systems like Wordpress and would be comfortable writing posts directly into a CMS platform yourself

Comments and followers - you need to demonstrate that the web gets you. People online are following your tweets, commenting on your posts, interacting with you. This is actually quite subtle in my opinion. Or to put it another way... how do you get comments and followers and what does that show about you as a writer? You need to know how to write posts that are opinionated, thoughtful, and encourage others to respond. You need to know how to nurture that discussion by moderating the comments and responding. You need to tweet usefully (an obvious example, don't tweet that you've just eaten a donut or someone on the bus is annoying you if your twitter feed is supposed to be about you as a travel writer. Set up a separate personal twitter feed for personal stuff!).

Connections in the right networks - marketing bods are all about audiences and customer groups. So instead of profiling yourself as say an expert on six different destinations that you've written Lonely Planet guides to or whatever, profile yourself as someone who can interact successfully - with real credibility - with backpackers and independent travellers. Pick an audience and focus on that. I don't know how crucial this one is... but it's certainly interesting. Editors like to be able to think of their freelance writers as having a particular skill or specialism. If someone has a ready made network that targets a particular demographic, wow, that's a powerful thing.

I guess I'd summarise the above points in one phrase: Social Influence

And then as a counterpoint - Search Influence

Page Rank - If you haven't downloaded and installed the Google toolbar - try it! It has a particularly handy Page Rank indicator that gives a rough and ready idea of the relative authority and hence link-value of any website you are looking at. It's a mark out of 10 (Travelblather is currently Page Rank 4). So... a link from Travelblather to your website is worth 4 out of 10 in Google's eyes. Not great, but not too bad either! The higher a site's page rank the more authority the links from it have. If you know a bit about SEO you'll know that links to a site have a huge impact upon its position in search rankings. (Another post on this sometime, but enough for now to say that if your blog has a decent page rank people who know their stuff will want to get you to link to them and this could be a revenue opportunity for you.)

So... if you're a travel writer (be that an old pro or a complete newbie) and you've set up a blog and maybe posted a few times and are now wondering 'why am I doing this?' the answer could be because in another year or two's time it could be your most valuable asset. Print sure isn't dead and it will always be there, but as opportunities for publication in print decline, the alternative will be on-line and in my opinion the winners will be those who demonstrate the qualities and skills I've blathered about on this post.

What do you think? Does this give you hope or fill you with despair?

(Another post you might want to read: The Future for Travel Editors)