No one has time for things they don't believe in, so many companies don't have time for content. Without understanding its real value, they see it as a cost instead of an investment. In reality, compelling content is fundamental to success online, and here's why:
Good, Targeted Content Spreads
Creating viral content is still a big deal for many companies, but it doesn't take five million views on Youtube to do great things for a company. While the object of many social campaigns seems to be creating a mainstream phenomenon, the target market for many companies isn't mainstream. For a lot of companies, aiming for mainstream consumers rather than a niche group is like shooting to just hit the target instead of the bullseye.
Though there are a large number of companies focusing on general consumer goods and services, strategies that try to create the next online phenomenon do little for most companies because the audience is too broad. Content spreads the most effectively when it is emotionally compelling and targeted at a specific audience. Content that is insightful, inspiring, useful, surprising, upsetting, frightening, or exciting will spread. And, if it's relevant to your audience, it will spread to the right people, even if it doesn't spread to as many.
Search Engines Love Content
Because the people who send you links tend to send you business as well, links are a useful metric to measure, but links are also valuable on a more technical level. For search engines, links play a large part in determining the importance and relevance of a website. Although there are other ways to get links, there's nothing as powerful for a link building campaign as a piece of quality content that gets shared. Here too, misconceptions abound.
There's so much talk about the people who link and why they link, but in reality the best links are rarely mysteries. The people who link are usually influencers in the target market, and they link because the content is useful or compelling. The internet is mainstream now -- instead of creating content focused on technological influencers, it makes more sense to understand your market and create content they would find interesting regardless of the fact that they found it online. Everyday your customers are likely talking, writing, tumbling, and interacting with media online. If you build it, they will link.
Another misconception some people have is that link building is a pure numbers game. The truth is that search engines are just as concerned, if not more so, with the quality and relevancy of inbound links as they are with the number of them. That's why creating good content is vastly superior to other methods of getting links: good content stands a chance at getting picked up by important and relevant sites in your niche. Other methods such as social media profiles, message boards, and link trades rarely make as much of a difference as a few good links from influential individuals. That being said, Google and friends regard links as a way to measure the conversation about your brand online, if one person thinks the world of you, that's great, but if fifty people think the world of you, that's better.
Good Content Gets You into The Conversation
The internet has moved from static information to a dialog between individuals, and now to a dialog between brands and their customers. Creating content is the best way to join this conversation, and it greatly benefits your search, social, and even PR efforts. The question is: does your company have the time for content?
The worst feedback someone can give is, "I don't like it." There's no value there. Especially in regards to design. It doesn't provide a way forward, or point to a new direction. Good feedback is critical in nature, but rooted in analysis. It pokes, prods and understands what the designer was trying to accomplish before speaking it's voice.
Design is rarely created to please a single person. Personal likes and dislikes aren't important when analyzing design. What is important, is asking: does this design accomplish its goals, or are there ways it could work better.
By providing informed critical feedback, instead of opinions, design projects will go faster and everyone will be happier with the end result.
Hot off my blog post from yesterday. Campbell-Ewald (the michigan HQ'd ad agency) launches a brand new website that "features" content from wikipedia, facebook and other web properties. Looks like another agency has jumped on the brand net bandwagon.
A brand is a nebulous thing. It's the sum of the perceptions, feelings and beliefs toward a given company.
A recent trend in interactive marketing is to try and create websites that "capture" the online essence of the brand (Modernista, Skittles, and CP+B). Some have called these brand mirrors, others have called them brand nets. The gist of these websites is to give you insight into what people are saying about that company/product across the web. Whether good or bad, they highlight mentions on twitter/wikipedia etc.
Is this trend a gimmick, or the future? It's a little bit of both. The reality is most of these executions are more gimmick than not. At least CP+B's brand promise is creating advertising people talk about, so by showing just how much people are talking about their work, they accomplish what they set out to do. Skittles... not so much. Too often brand nets are more narcissistic than useful. They monitor the conversation without participating in it.
The real future is in building branded websites that transcend the traditional limits of the online space. They merge offline content and activities in powerful new online ways. Red Bull's new site is a good example of this. They use all of their sponsored events, athletes and spectacles to generate content that's exclusive to the web. This content shows by example what it means to give people wings. They take something that most people think of solely as "offline", event marketing, and use it to generate tons of solid content for their website.
Brand "nets" may not be the future, but branded content is here to stay.
What if we looked at new ideas as a combination of all the previous good ideas they contained, instead of as completely new inventions. The Macintosh wasn't the first computer, the first GUI, or the first mouse. The Model T wasn't the first combustion engine, the first car or the first Ford. The same goes for the iPod and the the incandescent lightbulb.
The new ideas that become truly influential are a combination of previously proven ideas that in their totality turn into something special. The genius of innovation is almost never a revolutionary new idea. Most often innovation is combining a series of previously unrelated items into something that by nature of their combination becomes new and remarkable.