Content Acquisition, Miles Davis, and a Motherf*cker of a Content Strategy

[left to right: Pete Cosey, Miles Davis, Michael Henderson]

Jazz icon Miles Davis is known for lots of things.  Playing the trumpet. Cantankerousness.  A mouth like a SAILOR.

I'll bet that you didn't know that he was pretty motherf*cking savvy when it comes to content strategy.  Really!

While he wasn't known for his razor-sharp technical prowess on his instrument, he was a great bandleader.  He assembled some of the greatest bands, ever, in fact.

And he knew it.

In 1969, when he had assembled the band that suited his fancy, he stated that it was “really a bad motherf*cker.”

In 1970, his bass player left.  Miles needed someone able to produce the content he couldn't create on his own.  Miles played trumpet.  And some keyboards.  But he wasn't a bass player.  A content gap analysis would show that a band as funky as Miles' in the 70s could not be without a bass player.

Allegedly, Miles walked up to Stevie Wonder after seeing him in concert and said, "I'm stealing your f*ckin' bass player."  And he did.  Poor Stevie Wonder had Michael Henderson, his bass player, acquired.

Many companies produce some content, but have a need for other content to complete their online presence.  It may be only a small portion of the content on the site.  In some cases, almost all of the content is created by third parties.

There are times when the economies of scale make content acquisition a smart choice. There are lots of good reasons to do it:

• Properly accredited content is not cheap.
• A full-time content production staff or position might not be feasible.
• It puts content creation into the hands of a dedicated specialist.
• Frees up the staff to do what they do best.

This is something not to be taken on lightly.  Miles didn't acquire just anyone's bass player.  He acquired Stevie Wonder's bass player.  He hired a content creator.

Many content acquisition relationships include a pre-produced set of content, plus options to publish future content created. Delightful!

It can also lead unwitting contract signers down apocalyptic paths of frustration and insanity.  Not delightful! This is important to note for several reasons:

• Can the creators maintain their output level? Do they have a solid content strategy?
• Does the content match the tone and voice of your website?
• Do they provide the content in an easily-published format?
• Do they provide the appropriate metadata?
• Are your competitors using them, or a similar service?

The most important consideration when evaluating third-party content acquisition is this: The content still needs to meet your business needs/customer needs.

Miles didn't hire two or three bass players.  He hired one.  He only hired a bass player because he had a need for a bass player.  He didn't hire a bagpiper.  That brings up another point: don't consider content acquisition only to take up space on your website.

Though it will be delivered to your figurative door, the content will still need attention It will need to be finessed and published. Curated. It will need to be incorporated into workflows and editorial calendars.  The governance portion of your content strategy will still apply.

Finally, put a plan in place in case the relationship ends.  The content producer may go belly up, the contract may expire, or you simply might choose to stop using them.

If there is a gap in your content, acquiring it from a third party is a proven method of creating a more complete online experience.  Don't fear it.  Your website may work so well that Miles Davis himself may have praised it as, “really a bad motherf*cker.”

Miles in Vienna, Austria on November 3, 1973.  And yes, that is Michael Henderson on bass.

Content, Scalability, and Making More Pie

In the world of content, as in pies, more isn't always better.

My mother is a good example of this; she is often charged with the task of making food for church events.  This works well, as she is fond of cooking and baking.  However, when the situation calls for 40 pounds of potato salad or pies baked at a two-per-week pace, things start to suffer.  She begins to enjoy it less than cooking for family.  She cuts some corners by buying pre-made pie crusts from the store just to keep up.  Both the process and end result are affected.

What was once sustainable in pie-making becomes unmanageable as the environment changes.  The same happens with the making of content.  In a terrific blog post titled, "Content Strategy Is About Publishing," Erin Kissane writes:

"...the internet is made of publishing, and its new and often anarchic publishing models are messing with older models in all kinds of ways."

This became clear in the content strategies of two major content producers: the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

The BBC announced last week some significant budget cuts; the web budget would be cut by 25%.  As a part of this, "The Guardian" reports "The BBC's internet operation will see the number of web pages it publishes halve by 2013." (emphasis mine)

Cutting back on projects/initiatives is something that the BBC has done many times in the past. In 2001, they ceased shortwave broadcasts to North America and Australasia.  They trimmed or cut entirely some of their language services in certain markets/regions later in the same decade.

The budget cuts will mean changes in the web staffing and managerial structure of the BBC.  It also means that there will be considerable changes in their content strategy in the next few years.

For a bit of history:  broadcasters once enjoyed the luxury of creating content in an environment that had great built-in features.  Content could be created in a much different way. This is no longer the case.  It is almost hard to image now:

• Little or no public facing archive
• Automatic context provided via linear broadcast timeline
• Massive reach in an uncrowded landscape

Capacity to produce raw content is only one part of the equation.  To be successful, the rest of the editorial workflow must be given the proper attention.  Getting the story on-air is no longer the sole aim. Editors, publishers, and those governing the long-term life cycle of the content share an equal seat at the table.  These positions need not be separate people, but each duty requires time, resources, and diligence.

As newsrooms and broadcasters look to make their content available on all platforms, additional hours are required (once people are trained) to translate the content into appropriate formats.  Translation in this case means that some things will need to be added or subtracted from the formerly-finished product in order to remain in-context and relevant to its surroundings:

• Text version of audio content
• Video to accompany audio content
• Images to populate slideshows
• Text transcripts of video content
• Interactive/casual gaming features
• Platform-specific metadata
• Branding, rights management, and editing all of the above

Online video, for example, has been viable and mainstream for years.  Many content producers are only now beginning to incorporate it into their content production and editorial workflows.  The chorus has often been "all content to all platforms."  The CBC recently stated this on their "Inside the CBC" blog post titled "The CBC's Digital Content Strategy."

“We don’t know what will work,” (Richard Stursberg, the executive vice president of English programming) said, “One of the big outstanding questions is how long content will live on various platforms.” But he reiterated his commitment to pushing content onto new platforms regardless, “We’re gonna have to absolutely be there,” he said, if we don’t move to these new platforms, “we just lost all our viewers.”

This brings about a question that the BBC may have asked themselves: If it takes longer to create content that is viable on a multitude of platforms, could the current page counts on the web be unsustainable?  The answer was a budget cut and subsequent planned page count reduction.

Is publishing a story in audio form, with an image slideshow and text version plus an interactive/gaming feature causing a change in focus?  Are the raw number of pages published no longer the benchmark?

A change of this magnitude allows for an alternative to the "content farm" model by offering an in-depth, robust slate of content--neither the BBC nor the CBC are strangers to that.  As Erin Kissane writes, creation of content that fits the new modes of consumption is "...largely made up of new applications for old skills."  That is good news for the news.  What is left is this: content producers must now reconcile the amount of time and resources required with changes in output volume.

If it means baking fewer (but better) pies (or content), then I am all for it.

["Pie Chart" image via Flickr user net_efekt (cc: by)]