Lead With the Message, Not the Format

Format matters. As a record collector and content strategist, I say that with passion. But it's not the most important concern. Content creators of the universe, please heed this advice: Lead with the message, not the format.

Why you are creating content in that format?

You’ve probably heard the request: "We need to create (video / gifs / animations / infographics) because everyone else is doing it / leadership wants it / I read an article about it." Content is created. Then, the content disappoints. It doesn't have to be this way.

We have reasons for creating content. Some good, some bad. Some of these things are out of our control, no doubt. However, even the most vocal advocates of the format-of-the-day will see the light when we start to talk about costs, benefits, and realities of content creation. No one wants crappy content, after all.

"Don't value your content over the job you need your content to do," said John Lane, Vice President at Centerline Digital in his presentation, "Content Marketing Art of War." Don't fall in love with a format because of its format-ness. Or its current popularity, for that matter. Formats carry the weight of our message. But they do not determine the message.

Avoid the published-equals-success scenario.

We cannot communicate an idea without a format. The ideal situation is “we chose this format because it was best-suited to communicate our idea.” One serves the next. We are communicating ideas first.

Leading the content creation workflow with the format instead of the message is a flawed approach for most organizations. Success becomes "we completed and published" rather than "we conveyed the message and the user completed an action." It's a tactical rather than strategic act. Busywork, even.

Measures of wrongly-formatted content often devolve into page/video views or downloads, rather than the more valuable and considered metrics of conversion and task completion. Without knowing what you want the content to do, outside of existing, measurement turns into the binary situation of yes we have a video/no we do not.

And sometimes, the finished asset completely misses the mark. It kills the message. Videos end up rambling, and infographics bloat out of control. Organizations still publish it, even if they don’t like it, due to perceived sunk costs. THIS IS AN UNPLEASANT SITUATION.

Create with the message first, format second.

Content creation plans MUST include a discussion of format. It should come early in the conversation. But only after you know your message, that thing you hope to convey.

Each format choice has pros and cons, bonuses and baggage. Video assets are tough to get right. Editing octopus-like infographics quickly changes their overall message and composition. Governance becomes a greater issue. Our choice can influence how the audience receives each message.

Production values and capabilities vary from org to org. That's perfectly fine. My concern is less about the sheen of the finished product. I start a-fretting when form takes precedent over function. Basic messaging elements (i.e. focus, clarity, brevity) often suffer while superficial items such as logo treatments, music beds, and transitions see flawless execution.

Right, then. What to do? Create it as a video? An animation? A .gif? An infographic? Good old sentences? How does a content strategist approach content creation and formatting decisions?

• State the message you hope to convey, and what you wish folks to do next.
• Ask yourself, “Why are we doing this?” Write this down. Restate it. Say it out loud.
• Articulate HOW this serves business goals, even if only as an exercise. 
• Carefully detail the workflow to show how the content will take shape. All of it.
• Consider the capacity of your content creator(s). Do they have the skill set to tackle more sophisticated content? Or the time?

Know your audience: their habits, their abilities, their devices, their needs, their expectations, and their contexts. The counterpart of this is knowing yourself (or organization, actually): your production capabilities, your business goals, your larger content strategy. Each one of these has a bearing on which format you chose to deliver your message.

Publish (or choose not to) with confidence.

"Does the content you contribute shine through or does it distract through glitter?" asks content strategist and writer James C. Gunter in his article, "2014: The Year the Internet Finally Grows Up?" It's is a fine question to ask and ask again throughout the content creation workflow.

Finally, don't be afraid to kill the content before it kills your message. Each item you place online is an opportunity to set yourself apart from the competition. People (and more and more, search engines) are developing smarter content radars, and will go elsewhere when crappy content rears its ugly head. If the content isn't great, wipe the slate. (Sorry.)

Instead of looking at completed-but-unpublished content as a sunk cost, consider a halted content endeavor a non-public failure and learning experience. Failing is fine; acknowledging it is the key. Apply your lessons to the next effort. It'll thank you for it.
.

Five Ways to Save Your Video Content from Devouring Itself

Video content poses unique challenges to content marketers, content managers, and content strategists. Especially since it is often hosted on constantly evolving, proprietary platforms. The incorporation of outside links in YouTube videos is a fine, current example.

Search and content have a long, dysfunctional history. Search algorithms change to address unsavory content practices. New unsavory content practices pop up to exploit newfound vulnerabilities. This cycle continues, and will, for the foreseeable future.

These algorithm adjustments also apply to video content. I happened upon an article on ReelSEO, written by Chris Atkinson, detailing the introduction of including outside links on YouTube videos, and its potential search and content implications.

(These platform-specific announcements are especially important to we content folks, as they often have a direct impact on the whats and hows of our content delivery.)

Link to anything you fancy

Link placement within videos has been an option for years. Up to this point, YouTube has limited the nature of those links to other YouTube videos, YouTube channels, or fundraising appeals. Most recently, they added "merch" as an option for channel owners to link to YouTube-approved retail sites like iTunes, GooglePlay, etc.

Now, the floodgates are open. Links to any site are now allowed on any YouTube video. Gone are the days of only placing a link in the video description area. CUE THE PARTY HORNS. Sort of.

Some video content creators will abuse this. I guarantee it. Others will link to too many things in a video, causing confusion. We'll see videos so laden with links, calls-to-action, and more that your old GeoCities page will seem like a serene utopia in comparison. Link to the Facebook page! Visit this microsite! Fill out this email signup form! LINKS!11

Start by creating great video content

The best case scenario here sees content creators using the in-video link option to focus their channel-specific video messaging even further. We want to provide the best content experience possible, links clicked, Watch Time, and otherwise. How do we do that with video?

1. Create content that people want to watch. Think palatable, not gimmicky. Effective and straightforward trumps trying-to-be-funny or attempted-edgy on most occasions.

2. Make content clear and concise. Make your point in as few seconds as possible. Be direct helpful. PEOPLE LOVE THAT. A shorter video makes the link placement have less of an SEO impact. It's easier to watch a shorter video, from a life-expectancy point-of-view, too.

3. Focus on a single topic, concept, or task. The linear presentation of a video and its (new) links precludes an easy message hierarchy. Stick to a single message, and don't try to do to many things at once. Otherwise, you're likely lose your audience on all of the things in frustration and confusion. 

4. Give it context. Resist the urge to start off videos with a Ken Burns-style mini-documentary about the company. Instead, give them the background they need to make use of the rest of the video. If your messaging is consistent, this context should flow easily from one platform to the next.

5. Tell the story. Use a video's linear constraints as a force for good. Take advantage of it with an equally-linear storyline. Beginning, middle, end. Even if it is a :30 second piece. To quote Steve Martin's character Neil Paige from the holiday travel film, "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles": "When you are telling these little stories, here's a good idea: Have a point."

Place the link carefully

The ReelSEO article touched on another important part of this equation: inclusion of a "Watch Time" variable as a metric used in SEO. In other words, the longer a viewer watches your video, the better your stature in search results.

The Watch Time metric will be a considerable challenge for some. It's not exactly new; YouTube has been doing this since March 2012. This is fine for short videos with a quick and concise close.

However, longer videos were often published with the optimistic mindset of "viewers can watch a little, or they can watch all 18 or 32 minutes." The impact was the same. Now, the opposite is true. Watching a portion of a video to the end, once started, now has a potentially detrimental effect on the placement of the video within search results.

Atkinson notes that this presents a paradox of sorts. Ideal link placement within the video becomes a Schrödinger's content cat situation:

• Place the link at the beginning, where more people will see it? (Assuming more people will start your video than watch it to the end.) 
• At the end, to receive more SEO mojo? (At the risk of fewer people actually seeing and clicking on said link.)
• In the middle, to strike a perilous balance?

Link to appropriate web pages from your video (And vice veresa.) Strive for a seamless experience across platforms with branding, messaging, and tone & voice. Great content makes it all a more satisfying endeavor, all around.

More content tips from Neil Paige:

(Top image adapted from "Skip containing discarded VHS tapes" by Flickr user Rob Pearce.)

Surviving the Distraction of Shiny New Objects

Can a shiny new object put your carefully crafted content strategy in peril?

Continuous partial attention is about scanning continuously for opportunities across a network, not solely about optimizing one's time by multitasking. - Wikipedia

Though Linda Stone coined the term in 1997, continuous partial attention has become more of an issue in the world of content than ever before. Real-time technologies allow greater access to more information at any moment.  It could be a tweet, an email, a quick check of an RSS reader, etc.  Laura Miller wrote a book on the potential impact this may have on individuals.  What about the impact on businesses?

David McCandless’s Hierarchy of Digital Distractions has made yet another round on the viral info-sharing circuit.  It clearly illustrates what many of the super-connected people are cycling through any minute they are awake.  Just as Miller's book points out, the lack of focus has people bouncing back and forth between the shiny new objects.

Information itself is not the only shiny new object poised to distract.  The services and the hardware/gadgets that serve up the next hit garner the most acute attention.  Apple's most recent product unveiling is a...shining example.

What does all of this divided attention mean for content creators and publishers?  What impact will it have on what was once a carefully crafted content strategy?  Might the continuous partial attention distract to the point of sabotage?

A good content strategy will have workflows in place that address day-to-day activities.  However, there must also be a strategy and associated tactics and workflows that allow for consideration of new business opportunities as they arise.

I put the emphasis on workflow.  Why?  Because articles that pop up in the "Wall Street Journal" or "New York Times" get mainstream attention, and the echo chamber amplifies any potential into an unavoidable din.   If a workflow is in place that allows each new shiny object to be carefully evaluated and vetted with stakeholders, the sooner they can be either implemented or tabled.  The sooner, then, you can return to the task at hand: content.

Managers will rejoice in the fact that such a workflow exists, eagerly anticipating changes in the marketplace and technology.  It is in the strategy's best interest to have something in place that can protect it from a band-wagon jumping moment of viral hysteria.

Whether this shiny new object is a service, network, or a new device (looking at you, iPad), there are several key questions to consider.  At the very least, this component should ask two questions of a shiny new object:

• Does this serve our customers/clients?
• Does this fulfill an unmet business need?

Aside from the standard questions of "does this have a solid business plan" and "will this be around in the next 8 months," other questions you may consider including in a shiny-new-object-evaluation component:

• Would adopting a wait-and-see approach for the next quarter be appropriate?
• What approach might our competitors adopt?
• Which current content workflows would be impacted?
• What is the potential return, aside from simply "being there?"
• Does this follow our mission/tone/standards?
• Would this cannibalize resources from things already established in the strategy?

There may be an advantage to being the first in line for a new technology.  Bragging rights can count for something in some arenas.  But wouldn't you rather be the one that does it right, rather than first?  Meet your business and customer needs rather than being able to chime in with "first"? 

Most likely, new business opportunities will require SOME sort of addition to existing content workflows. Be it one-time tasks of database configuration or appending metadata or modifying a taxonomy, or ongoing issues of manual content ingestion, editing, or transcoding, a disruption will probably be introduced.  (Then again, sometimes disruptions become workflows.)

As with any component of a content strategy, the shiny-new-object-vetting portion must also maintain a razor sharp focus on business objectives, the people using your product/service, and the practical realities of your current operation. What were once major distractions and time vampires will hopefully become ever-so-complete-able tasks.

(Cragars! image via Flickr user cindy47452 (cc: by-nc-sa))

Is Your Content 'Good Enough'?

A couple of weeks ago the Geek Girls Guide featured a post about the relatively new and inevitable phenomenon of "Good Enough."  Sometimes the answer to a need is less about the most-est and more about the most well-suited.  The example is the handy Flip camera -- not the most sophisticated or high-tech, hi-res device.  But, it is good enough for most people. (myself included.)

There is a luxury that creators and publishers of content are able to enjoy that the hardware and device manufacturers are not: the flexibility of multiple versions of content.  This concept can apply to many different kinds of content:  feeds, documents, or other file types.  It also applies to variations of those, like resolution and format.

Enter the stadium of rock-n-roll content resolution.  Radiohead guitarist Johnny Greenwood and Nine Inch Nails founder Trent Reznor have opposing viewpoints on "Good Enough."  They shared their views in a recent set of "New Yorker" articles.

Greenwood argues that average mp3 files are fine:

We had a few complaints that the MP3s of our last record wasn’t encoded at a high enough rate. Some even suggested we should have used FLACs, but if you even know what one of those is, and have strong opinions on them, you’re already lost to the world of high fidelity and have probably spent far too much money on your speaker-stands.

Reznor on the other hand, argues:

Walk into a Best Buy and everyone’s obsessed with the highest possible resolution for their TVs. 1080p versus 1080i resolution, hundred-dollar HDMI video cables...yet everyone still walks around with those terrible quality white iPod 'earbuds'...I want you to have the same feeling I do sitting in the studio listening to a final mix, surrounded by sound, in heaven.

There are two clearly different attitudes here. 

The first looks at the way things are.  Why go to much trouble if most people are going to take the low-resolution road anyway?

The second looks more at the way things could be.  Offer the high-resolution experience, but offer convenience as well.

This gets to the core of the issue: the user experience.

Lots of folks are happy with average-quality resolution mp3s.  But what of the people that are looking for a better user experience?

Radiohead put their most recent full-length album up for pay-what-you-like downloading  But, they used mediocre-quality mp3s: 160kbps.  The album, titled "In Rainbows," was eventually released on CD and vinyl LP.

Reznor, however, released a recent album, "Ghosts," in a much different way. Five different ways, in fact:

• First 9 tracks in high-quality 320kbps mp3 - FREE
  
• All 36 tracks, in one of three hi-res formats - $5
  
• 2-CD set, with access to above downloads - $10
• Above, plus data DVD with files for remixing, plus Blu-Ray ultra-fidelity version and hardcover book - $75
• Above, plus the album on 4-LPs and Reznor's autograph, limited to 2,500 - $300 [sold out]
  

You can easily give people too many choices.  Reznor didn't release the album on cassette or 8-Track.  [Even though some people would likely have bought them.]  However, he did release it in a way that offered people a variety of attractive, relevant choices.

Consider the option of multiple versions early in the analysis phase.  Know the client, know the audience.  Keep the design and interface clean.  Clearly explain what is available.  People want choices, but not to be overwhelmed.

People that choose their own version of "Good Enough" will think your company is more than just good enough.  They may think it is awesome, even.

["Like a record baby" image via Flickr user itchy73 (cc: by-nc-sa)]

Is that a complete news studio in your pocket, or...

Have you ever been witness to some piece of technology, earlier dismissed, that now proves to be a an obvious chunk of awesome?

Count me in on the streaming live video front now.

As the McCain/Palin ticket graced the fringes of the Twin Cities metro on Friday I had a unique opportunity to witness some of it live. Not in person, not on the television, and not on a mainstream media news site. Instead, it was on www.theuptake.org.

The Uptake is an aggregation of citizen journalists, using a central site for coordination and distribution. We can now say that citizen journalism is nothing new. However, the critical difference is now that technology allows them to stream live video from their compatible devices [ a hacked iPhone in the clip I viewed, as the cameraman described it to an interviewee. ]

These streams are available on theuptake.org live as they happened, and also in archived form after the fact. They use the service Qik for the live video back-end, and blip.tv for archived/produced pieces.

I have been aware of the technology since Qik's release, but thought that it might be an answer looking for a question. The tech itself seemed sound enough, but the missing link to me was in notification to potential viewers. How would people that wanted to see the video know to visit The Uptake to partake?

The answer was now simple, as it was how I found out. One of my Twitter followers, @noahkunin, is a correspondent for The Uptake. He sent out tweets that preceded the event, and while it took place.

Now, the picture is complete. The tech to harness the moment live to teh Internets is in place, an aggregator like The Uptake is in place to coordinate the coverage, and, a suitably viral method to notify people about it is also in place. The archive in is place; it is the last and oldest piece.
What does this mean?

It means that now things will be covered in a way that they haven't yet been covered. Citizen journalists are not only equiped with a phone/camera/video camera in their pocket; now they are packing what is just shy of a complete news studio. And that is a big deal.

I am not making this up: Tastebook

My wife is a fabulous cook. She gets her ideas from all over the place -- family, friends, cookbooks, and, most recently, the Internets. for years she has been a frequent visitor of popular site epicurious.com.

Epicurious has been one of those places that was ahead of the social media curve in the same sense as Amazon. They were both doing social media-type things before folks were even calling it that. People were posting their recipes, posting comments, and reviewing. I have eaten well as a result, many times.

CondeNet, owner of Epicurious, announced investment in a new venture in October 2007. It was dubbed "Tastebook." Created by the originators of Ofoto in February 2007, it takes some of the concepts of the Ofoto photo service [now known as Kodak Easy Share Gallery]; taking the digital and making it tangible in the form of prints.

Here is what Tastebook is capable of, from their press release:

Registered Epicurious.com members can now instantly import their My Epi Recipe Boxes to TasteBook. In addition, by logging onto TasteBook, users will have access to more than 25,000 editor-tested recipes from Epicurious and may upload their personal recipes. With TasteBook’s simple drag-and-drop interface, making a personal cookbook is as easy as creating a “playlist” comprised of recipes. Details like cover art and title are also customizable.

Anyone can create a TasteBook today by visiting www.tastebook.com or www.epicurious.com to get started. Using the TasteBook service is free, and a personal cookbook filled with up to 100 recipes costs only $34.95.

Those two paragraphs cover what blogger Kevin Kelly speaks of in a post titled "Better than free." Whether Tastebook is aware of it or not, they have provided about five of the "Eight Generatives Better Than Free." In a nutshell, Kelly posits that in the world of free things, creators/aggregators/distributors need to offer value to people.

Epicurious users have access to those 25,000 recipes already, for free. Users have also always had the option of printing a page out of Epicurious as they would print any web page, but those loose pages tend to accumulate in unusable piles on counters, waiting to be painstakingly indexed and filed.

What they haven't had up to this point is this:

• a copy they can immediately pull off of the shelf
• user-selected content
• easily accessed content [via index & tabs in the book]
• findable content [as opposed to those print-outs]
• a hard copy they can happily dust the flour off of [as opposed to a keyboard]

They may have had a couple of those, but the more you have in one place, the greater that value proposition appears. Tastebook is making this downright irresistible for net-savvy cooks.

The name may or may not have been a clever play on the white-hot Facebook. If you ask me, their idea is hot enough that they didn't even need to bother. Perhaps the name was an update on the standby name of 'cookbook;' that term is still functional if not overly workman-like, for sure, but Tastebook lends an air of, well, taste.

iTunes #2, for now.

[ image courtesy of kunstlab / Flickr ]

Arkansas juggernaut seller of all things Wal-Mart had better keep an eye over shoulder. Business Week reports that iTunes has surpassed Best Buy and Target to become the #2 music retailer.

AppleInsider.com states that the download store sold 20 million tracks on Christmas day 2007. In one day.

I guess that will work until everyone gets on board with the subscription streaming model, where we pay for access to everything ever recorded. [Or at least as much as the copyright holders will license.]

The more music I download from eMusic, the more it gets lost on my harddrive. [I don't buy much of anything from iTunes because of their extant & punitive DRM.] I end up buying physical copies of things I really enjoy hearing, even though I have paid for them to some degree through my subscription to eMusic. This is probably silly and counter-intuitive, and the main reason that this next month's membership will be my last month.

I have gone back and forth on this, and I am strongly considering putting that eMusic subscription money towards a Rhapsody subscription. Rhapsody has the unlimited streaming of songs for a set price of $12.99.

This model will support the behavior that I am certain I am not the only one engaging in. Being a sometimes fan of some pop songs, I enjoy hearing them more than once. I could pay a buck on iTunes, or about 33 cents on eMusic, and have the single track get lost in my 11,000 song iTunes library. I have done that. I don't make playlists, and I don't burn many mix CDs, so these precious few singles quickly fall between the cracks.

My main interest is in full albums and compilations; I will continue to buy those physical objects. With an outlet for my pop song interests pointed at Rhapsody, I won't have the urge to by albums that in the end, I really don't want. I'll go to the site and stream them.

And everyone is happy. I'm glad we worked that out.

Oh, and congrats iTunes. I guess.
.

R.I.P. HD DVD, OMG

[ image courtesy of Kaptain Krispy Kreme / Flickr ]

The day of reckoning for one of the extended-resolution video formats has come. Toshiba announced that it will no longer pour cash down the HD DVD hole. The BBC News site has a quick Q&A about what went down.

Wal-Mart backed the competing format, Blu-Ray, as did Best Buy and several major film studios. When both options launched in 2004, each had relatively equal backing from equipment manufacturers and film studios. The tides turned, and HD DVD has gone the way of the wax cylinder.

Format wars are something that we have discussed here in the past at length. They are often expressions of R&D dollars, with outcomes that are driven more by marketing budgets rather than true technological superiority. For an example, see the advert above for the product referenced so many times with this news: Betamax.

Betamax died an unfair death, it could be said. It was a capable format, and was refined to a great degree for the Japanese market where it thrived for many years after VHS's domination in the US. Wrong place, wrong time, perhaps.

I remember when my folks came home with our family's first VCR, a Quasar, in 1984; it was a front-loader, rather than a top-loader [good choice #1] and it was VHS [good choice #2]. It was a crap shoot. At the small-town electronics retailer, there was no clear winner to be had in the format war. The only advice offered was that of, "Well, you can rent more videos in VHS." Sold!

My old boss at the record store that employed me during my college years was an advocate for all formats. He claimed that if you are a real collector, a real fan, you need the capability to play as many formats as possible. He had Beta decks he kept proudly in solid working order.

Even the old Edison cylinder phonograph, too, succumbed to an unfair fate. The phonograph cylinder was superior in quality to its predecessor, the flat Gramophone disc format [which later evolved into the LP record]. Witness one of these, still in working order: