Visual Representation of Content Marketing: Do You Agree?

I had a few of the folks at VizEdu.com send me this visual presentation of content marketing @Twitter, and I thought it was close enough to share.

I like what they've done, but as always with trying to depict a philosophy visually, it leaves a few things out.  Possibly for the next version?

Couple thoughts...

• This model completely leaves out content strategy, possibly the most challenging part of the content marketing process.  Check out this article by Kristina Halvorson (@halvorson) for more on content strategy, as well as in my book where we discuss this in detail. As part of content strategy is doing the research on the customer's informational needs and setting up listening posts. Hard to distribute good content marketing without an ear to the ground.
• A solid content marketing plan does not require viral or word-of-mouth to work.  There are plenty of retention-based content marketing programs that don't need to be spread in order to achieve behavioral objectives. That said, great content should naturally spread (for example, this 2009 predictions post was my highest clicked post of all time in just a few days as it spread through Twitter, Facebook and Stumbleupon).
• Content marketing does not only function online. Print content marketing, such as print newsletters and custom magazines/magalogs are still incredibly effective when done correctly (see the APA 25 minute research under Content Marketing Research). Customer events and roundtables are also a form of content marketing - the in-person kind. When planning your marketing, you should look at the all-important mix of online/print/in-person content marketing.

I must say, I'm still in awe at how the content marketing industry has changed and is evolving from custom publishing. Frankly, it's exciting and utterly confusing at the same time. How can it not be with all these terms?: content marketing, content strategy, inbound marketing, custom publishing, custom media, branded storytelling, private media, customer marketing, branded content and so on. Rick Liebling (@eyecube) calls this branding. For the most part, aren't they all pretty much the same thing?

Tell you what...let's all get together an pick a term.  You with me?

If you liked this, check out 10 Content Marketing Tips to Start Now for 2009 or Content Marketing on the Rise for 2009.

Like information about content marketing? Sign up for my weekly eNewsletter.

Subscribe  -  Junta42  -  Find Content Providers  -  Get the Book

Comments

[Kate Richardson]

Hi Joe,

To your point, the presentation doesn't actually address the first step in any content strategy - understanding the content (or entertainment) needs of your audience.

People often skip this step, yet it's the most important. Marketers confuse it with product needs, agencies mistake it for media consumption needs.

In addition, people's entertainment and content needs change in relation to different channels. This is why straight re-purposing doesn't always work.

I hear you on the number of terms we can attribute to content marketing. To be honest, I think the spectrum is so broad it's difficult to define.

The purpose comes back to storytelling, but I think it's not a bad idea to get comfortable with not having to define everything in a short, pithy, term.

[Joe Pulizzi]

Hi Kate...I think I agree with you. One term may not do the job...so why try?

[Rick Liebling]

Joe, I thought was a good overview for people new to this area. I think I prefer the gang at Common Craft, but that's just personal preference.
I must admit that I have a hard time with the term "content marketing". I always fear people will think I'm suggesting they market their content rather than using content as the marketing.

I've written about what I call the Deeply Immersive Narrative Universe, but that's not quite right for what you're talking about. But Narrative Marketing might work.

[Kate Richardson]

Not sure Rick, I think advertising people could make a case for lumping their wares under narrative marketing.

But I hear your point on content marketing. The last thing we want to do is make this area more confusing or obtuse for marketers.

For me it's all about brand entertainment but that's specific to the wares I'm spruiking. Branded content seems to be the other term people use mostly in Australia.

I tried to avoid the term 'branded content' because it sounds like existed content that's branded in a rather gratuitous fashion rather than content that's created for a brand. I also think entertainment suggests a connection with the audience where content does not.

But I know entertainment doesn't fit everything.

This is really semantics and not something clients really care about I'd say. Although I find it interesting!

[Joe Pulizzi]

@Kate @Rick The reason why I've always thought the industry should consolidate until one term is because I think marketers need it. There is so much confusion out there anyway, having 50 names for a type of marketing makes it all that more challenging. Marketers don't know what to call it, so how do they grow in a discipline that other marketers call something different.

But to your points, I don't think I've heard the perfect fit yet, and there's the rub. The reason I use content marketing is because that was the first term that I used that marketers seemed to gravitate toward the fastest...where they "got it" the best. Haven't found another one that works as well - although simple "storytelling" works sometimes as well.

jp

[Richard S. Papale]

I am interested in visualization tools for business to convey stories visually (as done here). Any recommendations of other tools to use?

[Joe Pulizzi]

Hi Richard...Rick's recommendation of Common Craft is worth a look.

[Sandeep Arora]

Thanks for sharing our Flash Video here.This flash is basically about the "WHAT and WHY of Content Marketing".

A next version could be "HOW, WHERE and WHEN on Content Marketing". Thanks for the seed idea and pointing it out.

At VizEdu - we are on the frontline of Content Marketing- We are trying to create super awesome educational content - which has high value in itself. A byproduct of this effort will be the projects we get.

I must say - it is not as easy as it sounds. This Interactive Flash took almost 7 days - with 2 resources (a Social Media expert and a Flash Developer). But hard work done for common good does pay off. Just wanted to share my implementation experience.

Thanks

[Russell Sparkman]

I think that the Content Marketing Flash does a good job of explaining the essentials of the concept. The difficulty, I find, is getting entrenched mindsets to "get it."

From a personal perspective, I feel we've been patiently waiting for a level of upper level marketing execs to either retire or die off, so that a younger generation more attuned to these concepts is in decision making power.

Our first foray into this began in 1998, when I presented something titled "Toyota Offroad and Online Presents" to international marketing directors in Toyota's Tokyo Corporate office. That project ultimately become "One World Journeys" and was picked up for a two year "branded content" sponsorship by Seiko Epson, out of the Japan offices, in 1999, and launched in early 2000. We had an integrated offline/online strategy for the content that was proposed, but only marginally embraced/implemented upon by the client. But, that's a whole different story.

The site's still live, at http://www.oneworldjourneys.com, if you want to view a project that qualifies as a "historical" site in the context of this discussion.

Anyway, I bring this history up to support my thoughts on the use of the term "Content Marketing."

Until we redid our logo last year, our business cards always had the words "Inspiring Digital Storytelling" printed under our logotype. This dated back to 2000. We've had a lot of years of experience in trying to persuade marketers of the latent power of quality "storytelling" content to reach audiences, online. It's been difficult, to say the least, to be convincing, but that has been changing for the past several years.

While I like the term "storytelling," I'm afraid it comes across a little wishy-washy, and it's role has largely been misunderstood by the average marketing manager/director.

I like the term Content Marketing, and have added it to my own blog. Still, I find it always needs explanation, amplification, to get across the essence. The flash here does a good job of getting across the essence, and I'll be using it to help teach my own client prospects for "content marketing."

Ultimately, regarding the term, I'm wondering if what we're really talking about is Integrated Marketing (a term that seems to be in fairly universal use, and understood), of which Content Marketing and Inbound Marketing are specific practices, philosophies, etc.

Just like "direct marketing" is a practice that resides under the umbrella of marketing communications.

If I applied that to myself, I'd say that we're an integrated marketing communications firm, which advocates and practices the specific discipline of content marketing.

This was long for a comment. Sorry!

[Joe Pulizzi]

Russell...I like your thinking, and agree with you about content marketing, simply because marketers respond to that the fastest...they seem to "get it" - at least in theory.

Regarding storytelling - you may be right. Would a billion dollar company spend $$$ on storytelling?...maybe, maybe not...but they should on content.

[Keith Wiegold]

Joe (and Kate and Rick, et al): I believe what we have here are two questions --

1. where does strategy play a role in the demonstration of content marketing, as above; and
2. how to get marketers to understand and take more seriously 'content marketing'

In a stroke of convergence, the answers to each serve the other.

The strategy process is an absolute necessity to formulate a plan where content plays a key role in affecting every customer segment interacting with your brand at every level of engagement throughout their lifespan as your customer. Detailed marketing objectives and corresponding content strategy should define each stage of engagement as the customer grows from suspect to prospect to customer, and from part-timer to loyalist to advocate. Attaching metrics to each stage to ensure the content is working toward marketing objectives is paramount as well.

If we, as 'content marketing' evangelists, wish to have Marketer credence adhered to our efforts and beliefs, we must play by the same rules and be judged similarly as the 'established marcomm' efforts: namely, by and through sound strategy and measurable results.

Happy to further this discussion with anyone/everyone! Viva le Content!

[Joe Pulizzi]

Keith...

1. Very deep, and correct.
2. You need a blog

[Kate Richardson]

Wondering what else can we learn from other disciplines with 'wishy washy' or ill defined terminology?

'Social media' is one that comes to mind.

Also to your point Keith, we all need to better educate our clients on how brand entertainment or content marketing can actually deliver results.

I think clients have difficult comprehending how it can support their business objectives. Moreover its often lumped in the 'soft' or 'nice to have' category.

Nice discussion Joe.

[Russell Sparkman]

For the readers here who aren't web site developers, or information architects, there's a book called "The Elements of User Experience" by Jesse James Garrett that would be an interesting read, I believe (this is a well known book amongst the web designer/info architect crowd).

This book has influenced our own approach to developing a content strategy for clients, and for helping clients to see how that content can deliver results.

To quote from the opening page of the Strategy section of the book: "The foundation of a successful user experience is a clearly articulated strategy. Knowing both what we want the site to accomplish for our organization and what we want the site to accomplish for our users HELPS INFORM ALL THE DECISIONS WE HAVE TO MAKE ABOUT EVERY ASPECT OF THE USER EXPERIENCE." (Upper case added by me for emphasis)

As this pertains to working with a client, we define what the client's desired outcomes are from the initiative, and then plan the specifics of the content strategy to match specific desired outcomes.

For instance, if a non-profit's desired outcome is increased online donations, we may recommend an emotionally compelling video to be associated with the Please Donate link.

In fact, we've done just that for a non-profit client and have demonstrated that the content delivers results by showing that the Donate link associated with the video content is, after a homepage Donate link, the second highest referring link to the donate form.

What's important about this idea is that it's planning content not just for content's sake, but matching particular types of content to achieve specific desired outcomes.

Thanks for reading my comment ... like Kate, I think this is a nice discussion.

[Destry Wion]

As someone who has wore different hats under the user experience umbrella, but which is nevertheless somewhat new to the labels "content strategist" and "content marketing," I find this all very interesting. I've been reading up on both lately to try and get my head around them and strategist fits more of my background activities than marketer. Still, the divide is a lot shorter now that "traditional marketing" is being replaced with this new kind, and thus increasingly relevant to what I do (in terms of hands-on). OK, there's that.

So, in looking at this presentation, I'm a little troubled by one thing suggested in the slide showing Chris Brogan's definition of what content marketing is. In fact the whole presentation seems to take the tack that content marketing is the *development* of good (insert definition here) content rather than the promotion of it and the channels used in that promoting. To me -- and maybe this is simply my lack of marketing experience and confusion with the label "content marketing" -- marketing is about getting the product/service known, generating the buzz, etc, and that's where folks often like to make a distinction between good content (that which is produced by subject/medium experts and serves user needs) versus marketing pitch that a commercial writer might produce. I don't mean to sound unfair but we've seen these distinctions before.

Thus, there seems to be a discrepancy in what the presentation is visualizing (it does convey using socialware channels, for example, as a means of distributing/culturing the content, which is what makes "content marketing" click with me) versus what reads on the slides (that being to develop good content as it might come from a skilled writer, videographer, designer of any type and so forth).

I welcome any clarifications. As it is, someone else besides me might be scratching their noodle if they're also trying to distinguish roles. I guess it goes back to defining what good content is under a given set of circumstances (audience, objectives, etc.)

Here's a related question, as I think the content strategist and content marketer roles reside in here somehow (among other hats): Let's say someone is responsible (actually being paid) for developing/growing a user community around a new open source product -- the product website, the community support hangouts, the blog communication, promotion in the social channels, etc -- what do you call the person who has a lead hand in all that? Pick a title out of a hat and add "Lead" to it?

Thanks to @halvorson for the article tip.

-dw (@Wion)

[Joe Pulizzi]

dw...the question you raise is an important one. It almost seems like there are two sides - one that talks about content development and strategy, and the other that talks about content promotion. There aren't many that bring this together as one fluid process. That's exactly why we wrote our book to tackle that issue.

Content strategy and content marketing and promotion must hand the baton to each other or it's all pretty much meaningless.

Thanks for joining in on the conversation.