You are just beginning to wrap your mind around the fact that content marketing is the new "it" thing in digital marketing, and then you hear it's over. Too much noise, not enough signal. Too much content. Too much bad content. No one will ever find your content due to the glut of other content incessantly pouring into digital channels at an accelerating, unceasing rate.
You may as well hang it up and go home. Better yet, if you haven't already, don't even start doing this whole content marketing thing.
This argument, surfacing recently in a spate of blogs and articles, is as pointless as it is predictable. You may as well argue that you shouldn't market via email because of spam. Or (as was suggested in a recent interview), claim it's time to trash your website because all websites "look alike" and are "boring."
These are kneejerk reactions to disruption, more indicative of human nature than they are of the efficacy of new marketing strategies and techniques. Here's what's really going on:
- It's cool to be the first to the party.
- It's even cooler to declare the party's over before anyone else does.
Only with content, you can't do that because content is a constant. As I've said before in this column, content is the atomic particle of all marketing. No content = no website. No content = no email. No content = no social media, advertising, "creative," DM, you name it. All those tactics and formats are, in effect, content envelopes.
Has a surge in the popularity of content marketing foisted more bad content upon us? You bet it has. So what else is new? Bad content, boring content, superfluous content -- the world's always been full of it and will continue to be full of it.
Even bastions of impeccably produced content, The New York Times, for example, can be tarred with this brush. For more decades than I'm willing to admit, as a print edition subscriber, my first act of the day was to bend over, pick up the paper, and chuck the sports section. That (to me, at least) is boring, superfluous, irrelevant content (though I can appreciate that you may be of an entirely different opinion). This did not, however, impel me to "turn off" my New York Times subscription.
If there's a content glut, it's because we've reached that very predictable stage in the disruption curve when a trend becomes a bandwagon. This results in spray and pray tactics, irrational exuberances, content "gurus" emerging from every quarter (most of them were social media gurus yesterday, and search gurus a couple of years back).
I won't dispute for an instant that bad content is being created at a healthy clip. But I do disagree that all this noise drowns out the genuine signals.
Bad content isn't shared or amplified on social media. It isn't targeted to specific audience segments and therefore, doesn't resonate. It isn't modular or planned enough to be broken into components that can be repurposed in other media channels. It isn't consistent in voice, tone, or style. In short, what's being called "too much" marketing content is too much bad content. Bad content happens when tactics (creating all that content) occur without strategy (having goals and governance in place around the content process). The overarching question should be: Why?
Why is this content being created, for whom, and what is it meant to achieve? That's content strategy, and while strategic underpinnings can't guarantee bulletproof content, strategy does create a whole lot more signal and a whole lot less noise.
On Twitter? Follow iMedia Connection at @iMediaTweet.