I was really impressed with David Chapin’s work on comparing content marketing to life sciences. So much so, that I asked him to submit a guest post about it. Thanks to David for putting this together.
Content marketing is a hot trend in marketing circles. This trend may be hot but it is
not new.
Science has been using a form of content marketing since the 18th century, when peer-reviewed articles first began to be published. Though the titles are different, the mechanism and the benefits are similar.
Peer-reviewed publishing works like this: A scientist gives away information (such as the description and results of an experiment) that the audience finds useful and relevant. The audience responds by noticing the information, by paying attention to the source of the information, by seeing the source as differentiated, by trusting them and eventually by “raising their hands” to interact with them (e.g., “Could you please come present your paper at this conference?”). The scientist’s reputation is enhanced, which helps them get funding for the next experiment.
Substitute the word “company” for “scientist” in the paragraph above, and you describe content marketing: A company gives away information that the audience finds useful and relevant. The audience responds by noticing the information, by paying attention to the source of the information, by seeing the source as differentiated, by trusting the source and eventually by “raising their hands” to interact with the source. The company’s reputation is enhanced.
Here are some key differences between the two:
This content marketing illustration depicts the similarities and differences between peer-review publishing and content marketing.
The benefits of peer-review publishing and content marketing are the same: so you can be found (out of the sea of information), so you can be differentiated from your competition, so you can be chosen as a relevant source, and so you can become trusted – all with the goal of with your audience (prospects).
Aren’t these the goals of marketing?
David Chapin is the CEO of Forma Life Science Marketing, a leading marketing firm for life science, biotech and pharma companies. Forma distills and communicates complex messages into compelling communications for sophisticated audiences.
David authors a newsletter: The Marketing of Science which covers topics of interest in marketing life science companies; it is
published by Forma Life Science Marketing approximately ten times per year. For subscription information, go here.
7 Comments
A marvelous comparison! Excellent way to speak to the scientific-minded among us (which includes me). It’s all science and psychology and process. Much simpler than we make it sometimes.
Initially, it seemed like an odd comparison to draw, but it works!
That’s a real stretch. The idea that quality will automatically stand out is simply not correct (one has to know what constitutes quality before being able to discern it – even PT Barnum knew that), as is the premise that customers will “seek out” vendors (sellers.) Quite the contrary, the vast majority of vendors have to aggressively seek out their buyers – it’s called selling. Proactive selling results in forecastable revenue – passive marketing results in marketing budgets.
Scientific publishing is more akin to professional promotion than commercial marketing.
The best marketing and PR content comes from documenting the successful sales process (e.g., building case studies from the sales map), which serve to visualize solutions and shortens the distance between the seller and the buyer (revenue).
The power of content marketing is self-evident to most. However, it is very useful have another way of illustrating it – thanks.
J Geibel,
What exactly is a real stretch? Do you refer to the main thesis of the article, which is the similarity between content marketing and peer-reviewed publishing, and what we can learn from comparing/contrasting the two? Or something else?
You take issue with the statement “..that customers will ‘seek out’ vendors (sellers).” and you go on to state: “On the contrary, the vast majority of vendors have to aggressively seek out their buyers – it’s called selling.”
Buyers do seek out sellers. Think about what happens when a consumer decides to buy a car. The buyer-to-be does go seek out sellers. The same thing happens in the B-to-B world in the life sciences. If a lab needs a flow cytometer, they seek out the vendors of these devices. The ability of people to search out information on the internet just facilitates this and puts power in the hands of the consumer, power that selling can’t overcome all by itself. To assist in being chosen for the short list of relevant, trusted suppliers, vendors must actively market their products, that is, raise awareness of their offering and raise the level of trust in the audience’s minds.
You state “Scientific publishing is more akin to professional promotion than commercial marketing.” If by that you mean that scientific publishing is all about promoting yourself, then I disagree. Scientific publishing can be seen as an fair exchange: “I’ll tell you about the results of my experiment and in return, you’ll give me some of your attention and your trust.” The byproduct may be promotion of the scientist’s professional standing, but that is not the main point.
In the future interruption marketing is going to be much less important for most B2B categories. But selling (aggressive or otherwise) alone won’t replace it. In its place will be similar kinds of exchanges: valuable information and insight in exchange for trust and dialog.
Lastly, I do believe that the “quality” of the content being marketed will assist the audience in differentiating between the different kinds of content available on the web. There is lots of low-quality content out there, and this low-quality content does little to build trust between the audience and the “author.” My point is simply that creating content of high quality is important because it helps the “author” stand out when quality content is compared to other offerings that have lower quality. And yes, I believe that people can distinguish on their own between higher quality and lower quality content. Particularly in the life sciences, with highly educated, sophisticated, technologically-savvy audiences. In peer-reviewed publishing, there is a mechanism built in to ensure some baseline level of quality – that is, the peers that are reviewing the papers will not recommend for publication those papers that exhibit “poor quality,” (which can be defined in a number of ways, including errors in thought, errors in analysis or errors in writing and presentation.) This baseline level does not exist in typical content marketing situations, and I was simply exhorting people who are interested in creating or publishing content to pay attention to the quality of the content they publish.
David Chapin
I feel like I hit the gold mine with this post. I go crazy for infographics, and these ones are great. It’s always interesting to find similarities between seemingly different industries.
Very clever, and on-point.
Content marketing is the way to go, though I still believe peer review should have a place in the process of publishing.
I’m sure there’s an editorial process for most publishers; but I’m absolutely sure there isn’t for most online publishers. Thus, lots of opinions exist, but little honest, tested data (excepting a few sites that hit critical mass, and have the cash to fund proper tests).
Anyway, props for the analogy. It’s a good one.