3

Why do we keep saying “content is king?” That’s a lie.

If anything, sales or revenue is king. Content is a means to an end.

Think on it: most “thought leadership” is really just thinly-veiled sales documents, right? I think most people know this by now.

When people talk about “content” as in a show — like something on a social platform, Netflix, or Apple+ — mostly the reason for that “content” is to either (a) put ads next to it, or (b) drive subscriptions to it. It’s not content for the sake of content, no.

This part is where it really starts to collapse for me: Most content is crap. Most blog posts, long-form stuff, etc? It’s ineffective. Harvard Business Review was saying this in 2015. Social Media Today was saying it in 2013. For context, when that latter article was published, I wasn’t even married yet. I’ve been divorced for almost three years. Velocity Partners recently said the “biggest threat” to B2B content marketing was, yes, crap content.

And the fact that we’ve been saying this for years illustrates perhaps the biggest point: a lot of supposed “business” content or “entrepreneurial” content doesn’t actually change or impact anything. There are millions of articles on topics like sales enablement, better on-boarding, better hiring, etc. Do companies by and large actually get better at these things? No. And part of that problem is because all this content creates a lot of digital noise, and people are so busy with their meetings and standups and all that … they don’t have the time to say “This is valuable and this is not.” If anything, the excessive supply of content is probably making things worse, i.e. more confusing, for the check-writers/buyers class of business.

In the last few years, others have come to this realization more and more too: Content is not king.

Content to most is a poorly-executed means to an end. You want to get eyeballs, or put ads next to it, or send it to prospects/leads. We can have love affairs with really good content — informative magazine articles, good books, binge-worthy shows — but the fact is, a lot of us out here are producing absolute garbage. That’s not kingdom stuff. And it’s not impactful either; people aren’t getting better at hiring even though every HR Tech vendor has reams of content on how to be better at hiring.

If anything, content might have become the jester in the equation.

PS I’ve been doing content work for about four years, and …

… I can’t tell you how many times a conversation starts around the idea that someone “needs” content, or “heard they needed content,” without any real plan, strategy, execution, etc.

Plus: in functional organizations, the people that actually do the work — the “Makers,” if you will — do not have time to create content and webinars and all that. So usually the forward-facing content comes from people who are not actually experts but pretending to be experts, often based on a hurried 20-minute discussion with the actual expert.

Most people do “content stuff” because others are doing it, or they want to feed social, or they heard about it at a trade show, or whatever … very few are out there doing it right. I’ve probably worked with 150+ companies and individuals since late 2015. I’ve seen content done in a strategic way maybe twice. It’s not normative. Now, maybe I don’t get gigs with the right places, and I could totally see/understand that. But broadly it’s not “king” level at all. It’s usually a rushed, also-ran process because someone wants to pump something out, i.e. broadcast a message, as in “I’m here! I’m over here! My brand is still doing stuff! Don’t forget!”

As you see Apple and Disney and NBC and HBO move to models where content is designed to sell an adjacent thing, i.e. a device or a connected model, you’ll see more people crank more content in the hopes of selling something on top of/connected to it. Since most people can’t hire Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon to do their “content” for them, the process won’t be so smooth.

What’s your take? Is “content” still “king” or no?

Ted Bauer

3 Comments

  1. Thank God only 0.4% of all stuff online is indexed, Google is rapidly becoming a trash can where you have to wade through tons of crap.

    Most content is irrelevant. Typically it’s created to get your email address, a major victory for marketers who want to show their relevance. And then a 22 year old sdr in San Francisco calls me in Amsterdam at 20:00 pm because i’ve just entered their funnel, apparently. To set up a call with me for her account executive, because that’s what she is measured on (hard to blame her). This is what sales reps spend time on, people who download a whitepaper or some stats.

    You are quite hard on the Thought Leaders though, there’s over a mln of them on LinkedIn! A while ago i saw a ‘thought leader on thought leadership’ there, it’s true. And a ‘visionary thought leader’ who is also a ‘Mastermind specialist’. IBM has 7,716 thought leaders…They missed the cloud though…

    Happy Holidays, Joël

    • In Ye Olden Times, quality content/product was the objective.KPIs, revenue & sales happened as a result of creating quality content.

      Now the objective is revenue, derived from a series of KPIs. The tactical objective of worker bees is to hit the metrics by any means necessary. The objective of middle management is to post top metrics for their silo, and senior silo management converts the KPIs to revenue- which is then used as ammo against other executives. (my area posted more revenue then Phil’s!)

      In that environment quality content is actively discouraged by management- the worker bees should be hitting KPI targets, NOT expending effort on quality of content / business output. 6 cheap articles are worth more to the silo then one good one.

Comments are closed.