
Back when I started writing for the Web about nine years ago, before I joined the team at Sametz Blackstone, nobody really talked about “content.”
Words were either “copy” or “text” — or if they were published via a blog platform, they were “weblogging.”
Essentially, you wrote what your client wanted, and that was that. Testing methods were fairly archaic, and a profound lack of search competition meant even awkward sentence structure generated results.
The words we write for client websites now are still often just called “copy.” And weblogging is now “blogging.”
But now our clients want to talk about content, too.
Let’s get this straight: website copy and blogs are forms of content and always were, but the definition of content has blown up; it now serves as the umbrella term for everything you say about yourself or whatever it is you’re talking about, anywhere you say it, whether you use text, images, or a variety of other media.
If you post something somewhere folks can see it?
Content.
Now, I don’t actually want to get into what content is or isn’t, or what it means to have a strategy for it. There are approximately 80 bajillion (excellent and not-so-excellent) articles and posts about those topics, all at your Googletips.
I’m more stuck on WHY all those articles are necessary.
Certainly…
…so we’re madly in flux, with multiple channels and venues and variables in play. People want to get heard for every reason under the sun — but somewhere along the line, they’ve figured out that the people who snag eyes and ears have something called great content.
There it is again: Content! You need content! Content is king! It’s a brave new world, right?
So you go to all the trouble of writing and posting and tweeting and “Facebooking” a million things, and then…. nothing.
Huh? I thought content was important?
Well, it is.
But something else is more important.
While the way we communicate and share has evolved and expanded (and some might say, exploded!), one thing hasn’t changed at all: the most successful individuals / companies / organizations / boy bands are the ones who provide their audience, fans, customers, consumers, and clients with exactly what they want, whether in terms of their products, services, or messages (content!).
And maybe a good portion of the population doesn’t want it… but someone does.
Sometimes it happens by accident, and a little bit of kismet turns an idea into a sensation. But more often than not, someone took the time to figure out what’s needed or what’s wanted, and what works — whether via research, trial and error, evolution, or good questions, posed in the right directions.
Sure, this might seem like a lot of trouble when you’ve got something to say, but before you do, ask yourself: do you care?
Not in a touchy-feely, “hug it out” kind of way, mind you — but in a “does this matter to anyone but me?” way.
Successful content — about whatever, for whomever, on whatever platform, and to whatever end — requires the same thing any successful venture does: that you know what others care about, and that you demonstrate that knowledge by providing it for them (and not just what you wish they’d wanted in the first place).
Or, if they don’t know they care yet, figuring out the way in through the things they do care about.
If you have no idea what your audience is looking for, or how they’re reacting to what you’re putting out now… and you’re not so much trying to find out?
Your content won’t be successful.
If you don’t care about giving people something they’ll value — but rather what you value, because it’s really, really important?
Your content won’t be successful.
If you can’t figure out how your goals align with those of your audience or you’re not working to strengthen any alignments you’ve found?
Your content won’t be successful.
If you’re not paying attention to the other people who talk about the same stuff you do?
Your content won’t be successful.
If you’ve come up with incredibly clever taglines and fantastic copy and informative posts that perfectly embody everything you are and you honestly think everyone else will love it, too, because you took so much time doing it... but you don’t verify that with anyone else?
Your content won’t be successful.
Face it: you can have the most UX-friendly structure! and author-friendly CMS! and a great messaging architecture! and keywords that seem bang-on! and the most search enging-optimized content for those keywords! and the best authors posting super often! and writing that shoots like laser beams from the screen to zap the eyes of your readership… but unless it’s what matters to your audience?
Your. Content. Won’t. Be. Successful.
If someone has to beg you to care about what the people you’re speaking to want to hear — that you should want to provide them with value, that you should be meeting a need, or at least a want — you’ll never get where you mean to go.
So work on caring first — with all the open-eyed listening and asking and noticing and research and responding and adjusting that entails — and content second.
And see where that gets you. Besides everywhere… and far.
Categories: Digital Media, Strategy and Management

Being a Digital Media Developer allows me to really enjoy the “The Five Years Ago Game,” an exercise in which I try to think up as many everyday 2010 things as I can that five years ago either did not exist or meant something different. These can be everything from proper nouns to phrases and slang, or even broad concepts. Given the absurdly dynamic nature of how we access and use the Internet, sometimes I feel like I can play for hours.
Here are a few I’ve recently come up with:
Care to join in? Post yours in the comments! And don’t feel restricted to just technology….
Categories: Digital Media, Outside the Square


There’s absolutely nothing like holding an old black and white family portrait in your hands. Weathered and battered, maybe a little musty-smelling. There’s also nothing like holding a 40-year-old vinyl record in your hands, pulled out of the sleeve while taking a moment to admire the artwork and track listing, then placing it on the turntable, letting the needle drop every so gently on it.
While you may not share in either of these two experiences, I KNOW you can relate to something like it. These are the tangible elements of media that are fading away in technology’s wake. I’m not getting ink or lead smeared on the right side of my hand as I draft this post. No, I’m giving my fingers a workout as they type feverishly on my keyboard. Click, click, clicking away (and not in the cool typewriter sounding way).
Vinyl records have been able to make a significant comeback. People love the experience and thought of vinyl. But I fear for poor photographers and the seemingly ill-fated return of film, and for recording engineers and the return of analog tape in the recording studio. These beautiful mediums are lost due to the extreme cost benefits of using digital methods to capture the art.
Even as a tech-heavy guy, I worry as I snap photos on my phone or digital camera and dump them onto a hard drive that might fail in a year or two. (This is why you BACK. UP. folks!) I also worry as I burn a CD of an intangible set of mp3s, wondering how long that CD will last as it gets kicked around the center console of my car.
But what can we do?
As technology rapidly advances, we are quickly drifting away from being able to experience these tangible events and occurrences in our lives. While our smartphones, laptops, and digital cameras are making life much easier, they’re also killing the seeds of nostalgia. I really don’t think the next generation is going to get the same nostalgic feeling from swiping through .jpgs on their iPads as I do when holding a musty black and white photo.
Do you?
Categories: Digital Media, Outside the Square

That’s right — just one day left to vote on SXSW panels! Head here to vote right now.
Our contributed panel proposal, “Scratch Your Niche! How Digital Dimensionality Builds Influence,” brings together:
You can read more about what the panel’s all about at the link above, but here’s a quick peek:
“Influence based on “digital dimensionality”—a coordinated presence across four dimensions—can expand your potential audience, and influence, to almost infinite proportions. In this session, you’ll see real-life examples of how both individuals and organizations have used the digital dimensionality to advance their goals…and learn how you can, too.”
To learn more — and to vote! — just head to our SXSW PanelPicker page!
Categories: Branding, Digital Media, Outside the Square, Strategy and Management

To answer your first question: “SMBNH&ME” stands for “Social Media Breakfast New Hampshire and Maine.”
What’s that you, ask? Well, Social Media Breakfast was founded as a way for people involved with (or even just curious about) social media to get together to meet and learn. The location-based groups meet on varying schedules, usually with a specific topic in mind.
Last Friday, the groups from New Hampshire and Maine joined forces to cover the topic of social media and education—and Meg and I took a road trip to take part. (The tweet transcript can be found here and here.)
The event itself was a testament to both new technologies and the power of social media-fed relationships: due to some last-minute cancellations, one speaker presented via Skype, and I was asked by my friend and Social Media Breakfast New Hampshire Founder Leslie Poston to pinch-hit with her to answer attendee questions on social media and education (I worked in higher ed for eight years before joining Sametz Blackstone Associates).
Up first was Tucker Kimball from Gould Academy who talked about what he and Gould have learned from their forays into social media. His four “rules”:
We also thought it was interesting that Gould’s upcoming redesign of their website will funnel people in via content-specific microsites (athletics, arts, etc.), rather than driving people to a main site first. A sign of trends to come?
Hans Mundahl, who teaches Media Productions at New Hampton School, used live video streaming (Skype!) to discuss how NHS uses live video streaming themselves, both to produce student-run live webcasts and to live-stream select athletic events (something that’s apparently been a great for building alumni interaction and involvement).
The two Q&A sessions—one with just Leslie and me, and the other with Tucker and Hans as well—covered a variety of topics, from the legalities around posting student images (media releases at a minimum; check FERPA guidelines) to getting students to engage with social tools as classroom aides (I suggested enlisting students in choosing and building what they’d want and need) to whether or not to centralize institutional profiles and streams (general consensus was to keep streams separate, but coordinate through a central office).
Our thanks to Leslie and Amanda (the doyenne of SMBME) for a great event!
Categories: Digital Media, Outside the Square


Attempting to understand the nuance of “net neutrality“—the idea that Internet access and content should remain free of government or corporate control—is a tall order. It requires the observational skills, experience, and understanding of an anthropologist coupled with the book-smarts of a seasoned lawyer.
Tragically, most of us are neither of these things (myself included). And yet, anyone who spends a great deal of time dealing with the Internet (i.e., most of us) has a great stake in the outcome(s) of the debate surrounding the issue.
After all, the very definition of digital space and the rights of those that traverse it are at stake.
Recently, Google and Verizon released a short list of legislative recommendations summarizing their contemporary views on the subject. These include basic consumer-protections, transparency and non-discriminatory requirements, establishment of network management standards, and more.
The general reaction has been…hyperbolic. Articles with eye-popping headlines like “Google Goes Evil,” ”Google-Verizon pact, makes BP look good,” etc. have been fairly commonplace throughout the web. I would expect this kind of thing from HuffPo, of course, but I’ve read plenty of forum threads on the subject that haven’t been terribly inspired as well. I’ve seen one too many posts along the lines of “This could be the end of the internet as we know it!”
Fortunately, a few more level-headed responses have emerged. The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation), an internet-oriented civil liberties group, has done a series of more detailed analyses on the recommendations. Their viewpoints focus more on the troubling vagaries, such as the nebulous concept of “network management standards” and consequences of “lawful content,” along with the highly conspicuous lack of standards for wireless networks (Google and Verizon suggest that for now, only the transparency standard should apply given the current dynamism of the technology/content).
I still think they may be a bit too troubled by the concepts they deem overly vague, as law is full of such language (e.g., the concept of “probable cause”) and we just sort of have to live with it. Still, I’m glad that a reasoned cautionary body like the EFF exists to counteract the natural flaw inherent in ANY legislation recommended by corporate entities. After all, Google and Verizon are ultimately self-interested.
Our government has a strong tendency to look for private sector “expertise” when dealing with complex issues like net neutrality. While this often generates problems, I find it understandable. Imagine you’re an elected official and are expected to formulate an opinion on net neutrality. Where do you look? To people you perceive have a great deal of knowledge regarding the Internet, of course: CEO’s of Google and Verizon, etc. This principle is applied across the board, particularly with executive branch appointees (just look at Henry Paulson‘s credentials before he became Bush’s second treasury secretary).
Even though I find the Google/Verizon recommendations perhaps more innocuous than most; I still think it’s fortunate that some very smart people out there are attempting to provide an alternative source of information. For every evil king, there tends to be a Robin Hood.
Frankly, it could be a lot worse. At least they have a non-discrimination requirement for land-line broadband in there. That’s essential to the very basis of net neutrality. Now if only they could apply it to large-scale wireless networks as well….
What do you think? Is this the end of the Internet as we know it?
And how can we move towards a more productive debate?
Image credit: Jason Walton
Categories: Digital Media


That’s it. I NEED A SYSTEM.
While that statement can (and unfortunately, does) apply to far too many areas of my life, it’s probably the thing I say most often when faced with the daily influx of Twitter streams, Google Waves, RSS feeds, Facebook and LinkedIn status updates, and all the other sources that form the social media firehouse.
I NEED A SYSTEM.
It’s a natural cycle of gathering information: when we first start learning about something (or join a social network), we cast the net wide, and follow every rabbit hole.
Every new blog post leads to at least one new person to follow on Twitter (i.e., the author, if it’s good)—and many more if we’re impressed with the commenters. Every new tweet on Twitter leads to a new blog to subscribe to, which means more email coming in, or more feeds in our RSS readers. Every new Facebook update holds the potential for finding a new site, or connecting with a new—or very old—friend (or even the opportunity to creep on an old enemy). Every new LinkedIn group means another daily digest, and yet another place to spend even more time we don’t feel like we have.
After a while, it’s too much. The tide is overwhelming. You can’t hear the quality signals for all of the noise. You miss updates from those you care about. You start to avoid whole sections of your network, or even entire platforms, entirely (hellloooo, LinkedIn groups!!). And you hear yourself say it:
I NEED A SYSTEM.
We all seem to want a system, and so we read eagerly how everyone else manages the influx, hoping to find the one that’ll work for us, too. The funny thing is, no two people’s systems are the same. Just this week, Ian M. Rountree and Justin Kownacki told us they’re going to read it all (and challenged us to), while Amber Naslund told us she’s razed it all (and challenged us to).
Ultimately, what works for me is unlikely to work for you, and vice versa.
And yet we keep looking. Or at least I do, because I hope that something about how someone else does something will resonate with something in me.
I NEED A SYSTEM.
My Twitter system is months old—so old as to now be completely useless. I rejiggered Facebook a few weeks back, but that’s only helped me with whom I publish to, not how I take in information… so that, too, needs a fix. I’ve already admitted my problem with LinkedIn, I turned off Google Buzz within 48 hours of its launch, and thankfully, I’m on few enough Waves that my lack of system there doesn’t hurt me overmuch.
But I’m frustrated. The only system that’s working for me right now is my RSS reader (I use Google’s).
So, in the hopes that by showing you mine, you’ll show me yours, here it is:

I’ve figured out over time whose stuff I like to read, and how I like to “try out” new blogs. So, forced high on my list are the blogs I won’t miss (Zen Acorns is an inside joke amongst those folks, so no, you’re not missing out on some new social media term). Next are the “Faves,” those blogs and feeds that reliably deliver great content to share, comment on, or keep for future reference (one of those feeds posts about 50 times a day, which is why the unread number is so high).
Then comes the “Need to Know,” which (as you can see from the partial list) is a group of blogs whose posts are often linked to and talked about on Twitter and other blogs. I don’t read all of those every day, but do scan to find an interesting post here or there, and to keep an eye on trends and patterns in topics (like the whole wave of influence-related posts two weeks ago). Sometimes I’ll move a “Needs to Know” feed over to the Faves, or vice versa.
The “Watchlist” is comprised of new subscriptions I’m watching for a while to see if they’ll eventually make it to Faves status, and feeds from folks I know who post less frequently, but whom I see or interact with on a regular basis (either in person or online). The “High Volume” folder holds those feeds from sites that update multiple times a day. Corralling them there keeps me from being scared at the unread number that would show up if they were allowed to mix with the other feeds. Then the subject matter folders start.
Basically, I organize my feeds by reading priority. The more time I have, the further down the list I’ll read. A lot of the topic-specific folders go unread much of the time—the best of breed of those is captured in the folders at top—but I hold onto them for those times, whether for client work or personal interest, that I want to dive deep into a particular area.
It’s been working well, but it’s my only system that is.
I NEED A SYSTEM. Several of them.
So tell me some of yours. What works for you?
Image credit: wbaiv
Categories: Digital Media, Strategy and Management

Conventional wisdom suggests that consistency is the granddaddy of all brand strategies. You implement a specific framework for communication of a single, relevant idea and follow up with visual guidelines that spread your brand identity to constituents, customers, and strangers alike.
But when is it OK to break those rules? Is it possible to modify an established logo? To plant an Easter Egg in your mosaic brand?
Google has a brand identity, but it’s one of the most vague, minimalistic major brands out there. Really, what are you meant to get from this:

It’s colorful, perhaps playful, but ultimately open to interpretation; nothing, but also anything (which is in line with the word’s origin). Not only that, but it’s at the heart of a medium (the internet) made unique by its capacity for rapid change and dynamism.

So when Google started celebrating various holidays and events by transforming its logo, it did no harm. In fact, it actually strengthened the brand. This initially obtuse concept became something familiar by embracing commonly understood aspects of culture; like when they put a Cubs and White Sox hat on the Chicago Picasso.

People notice this sort of thing; and word of mouth is powerful. Some of the changes have even prompted articles about just how much time people have wasted admiring them.
This strategy is not, however, something that can be mimicked with ease. Google meets all the right criteria to get away with it. It’s big, ambiguous, and widely liked in advance.
Plus their initial execution was very subtle. Tweak an “o”, hang a Santa hat on the “e”, etc. They’ve grown more ambitious only after several successful iterations.
Even so, this sort of brand dynamism is very achievable on the internet, where changing one graphic is all it takes to reach an entire audience. It should be considered with care, but it’s definitely something worth considering.
Categories: Branding, Digital Media
