There is content marketing and there is content strategy. Or, to rollback a round of buzzwords, there is integrated marketing and there is UX Design. Either way, one is a tactic and one is a practice. I’m not shining a light on one to keep another one in the dark, but rather here to say that we all agree content is important. That includes IAs, ixDs, coders, graphic designers, and copywriters. It’s what we do about knowing content is important that counts. How we solve client’s problems is what matters.
I loved ConFab and am heading to Content Marketing World<http://www.contentmarketingworld.com/>in September, so I'll be looking for overlaps and parallels and divergence between the two. In the meantime, *do you think content strategy and content marketing are merging? How do you define content marketing?*
I have dedicated a not insignificant portion of my career - and some of my spare time - for the past year seeking out and counter-arguing the type of thinking in this post.
Content Strategy is not a new buzz-word term for UX Design, and not it is not a good thing if it merges with Content Marketing, as that completely misses the point.
I have some deadlines on top of me so I'll just do a quick quote here, and then say that I have many other reasons that this line of thinking is poison for the Content Strategy field:
"Although web marketing projects need content strategy, I don’t think that adequately defines the discipline. All dentists are doctors, but not all doctors are dentists.
Content Strategy is in its adolescence, and the discipline is asking: Who are we? Why are we?
Many thought-leaders feel Content Strategists are the ones who:
*Go where the business problems are, identify the content issues, lay out the strategy for how to fix them; or fix them ourselves.*
This implies a holistic approach, not simply a sales and marketing basis. And there’s good reason for that. Brand strategists and managers, UX designers, marketers, all say: every touch point affects the customer experience. Everything in the CX affects brand, and therefore revenues. Damn the silos! We thump our chests and declare that content needs to be consistent, relevant, on-brand and value-adding across the board. Ipso facto: You have to go holistic to make sure that there isn’t a hole somewhere in the UX." http://www.onemanwrites.co.uk/2011/05/05/putting-your-money-where-you...
On 10 June 2011 01:35, Arienne Holland <arienneholl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you haven't read it yet, check out Ian Alexander's post about the > possible merging of Content Marketing and Content Strategy. (It's Content > Marketing and Content Strategy are merging. Is that a good thing?<http://eatmedia.net/blog/2011/06/09/content-marketing-and-content-str...> > )
> Here's an excerpt:
> There is content marketing and there is content strategy. Or, to rollback a > round of buzzwords, there is integrated marketing and there is UX Design. > Either way, one is a tactic and one is a practice. I’m not shining a light > on one to keep another one in the dark, but rather here to say that we all > agree content is important. That includes IAs, ixDs, coders, graphic > designers, and copywriters. It’s what we do about knowing content is > important that counts. How we solve client’s problems is what matters.
> I loved ConFab and am heading to Content Marketing World<http://www.contentmarketingworld.com/>in September, so I'll be looking for overlaps and parallels and divergence > between the two. In the meantime, *do you think content strategy and > content marketing are merging? How do you define content marketing?*
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/contentstrategy/-/isgv17TSp5kJ. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
PS - I just realised it's easy to miss out the 'Guest Post' line. I don't have that post on my own blog, so I have linked to Gordon McLean's who posted my guest post of thoughts on this issue.
On 10 June 2011 11:10, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have dedicated a not insignificant portion of my career - and some of my > spare time - for the past year seeking out and counter-arguing the type of > thinking in this post.
> Content Strategy is not a new buzz-word term for UX Design, and not it is > not a good thing if it merges with Content Marketing, as that completely > misses the point.
> I have some deadlines on top of me so I'll just do a quick quote here, and > then say that I have many other reasons that this line of thinking is poison > for the Content Strategy field:
> "Although web marketing projects need content strategy, I don’t think that > adequately defines the discipline. All dentists are doctors, but not all > doctors are dentists.
> Content Strategy is in its adolescence, and the discipline is asking: Who > are we? Why are we?
> Many thought-leaders feel Content Strategists are the ones who:
> *Go where the business problems are, identify the content issues, lay out > the strategy for how to fix them; or fix them ourselves.*
> This implies a holistic approach, not simply a sales and marketing basis. > And there’s good reason for that. Brand strategists and managers, UX > designers, marketers, all say: every touch point affects the customer > experience. Everything in the CX affects brand, and therefore revenues. Damn > the silos! We thump our chests and declare that content needs to be > consistent, relevant, on-brand and value-adding across the board. Ipso > facto: You have to go holistic to make sure that there isn’t a hole > somewhere in the UX."
> On 10 June 2011 01:35, Arienne Holland <arienneholl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi, guys.
>> If you haven't read it yet, check out Ian Alexander's post about the >> possible merging of Content Marketing and Content Strategy. (It's Content >> Marketing and Content Strategy are merging. Is that a good thing?<http://eatmedia.net/blog/2011/06/09/content-marketing-and-content-str...> >> )
>> Here's an excerpt:
>> There is content marketing and there is content strategy. Or, to rollback >> a round of buzzwords, there is integrated marketing and there is UX Design. >> Either way, one is a tactic and one is a practice. I’m not shining a light >> on one to keep another one in the dark, but rather here to say that we all >> agree content is important. That includes IAs, ixDs, coders, graphic >> designers, and copywriters. It’s what we do about knowing content is >> important that counts. How we solve client’s problems is what matters.
>> I loved ConFab and am heading to Content Marketing World<http://www.contentmarketingworld.com/>in September, so I'll be looking for overlaps and parallels and divergence >> between the two. In the meantime, *do you think content strategy and >> content marketing are merging? How do you define content marketing?*
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Content Strategy" group. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/contentstrategy/-/isgv17TSp5kJ. >> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
as Noz I found this article a bit disturbing... So, here is my take (not a lot of grey areas for me) :)
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 1:35 AM, Arienne Holland
<arienneholl...@gmail.com> wrote: > In the meantime, do you think content strategy and content marketing are > merging?
No. Content strategy has a lot more to do with governance than marketing (companies, still, reap many benefits from it marketing-wise). Also, there is the old concept of editorial marketing, which I still find relevant even in the digital market. In case content is the product (see apps, feeds, etc.) we could easily assume that we are dealing with product marketing. But leave content alone, please...
If marketing people want to ride the trend wave, and claim this set of practices as theirs, well, that's another story, but I personally will not consider a content practitioner (manager, strategist, editor, you name it) anybody who has no idea what a DB schema is.
I didn't understand that last line about the DB schema. I know what a DB schema is, but what were you trying to say about not considering someone a practioner?
Noz
On 10 June 2011 11:47, Paola Roccuzzo <paola.roccu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> as Noz I found this article a bit disturbing... > So, here is my take (not a lot of grey areas for me) :)
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 1:35 AM, Arienne Holland > <arienneholl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In the meantime, do you think content strategy and content marketing are > > merging?
> No. Content strategy has a lot more to do with governance than > marketing (companies, still, reap many benefits from it > marketing-wise). Also, there is the old concept of editorial > marketing, which I still find relevant even in the digital market. In > case content is the product (see apps, feeds, etc.) we could easily > assume that we are dealing with product marketing. But leave content > alone, please...
> If marketing people want to ride the trend wave, and claim this set of > practices as theirs, well, that's another story, but I personally will > not consider a content practitioner (manager, strategist, editor, you > name it) anybody who has no idea what a DB schema is.
> My 2 eurocents, > Paola
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
What I meant is that we come in all flavors, and that we specialize in all kinds of content-related activities, but that without a clear understanding of the basic content management principles (hence the schema metonym), I really don't think that any strategy can be laid down.
Again, my two cents, based on my personal experience.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Paola,
> I didn't understand that last line about the DB schema. I know what a DB > schema is, but what were you trying to say about not considering someone a > practioner?
> Noz
> On 10 June 2011 11:47, Paola Roccuzzo <paola.roccu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Arianne,
>> as Noz I found this article a bit disturbing... >> So, here is my take (not a lot of grey areas for me) :)
>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 1:35 AM, Arienne Holland >> <arienneholl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > In the meantime, do you think content strategy and content marketing are >> > merging?
>> No. Content strategy has a lot more to do with governance than >> marketing (companies, still, reap many benefits from it >> marketing-wise). Also, there is the old concept of editorial >> marketing, which I still find relevant even in the digital market. In >> case content is the product (see apps, feeds, etc.) we could easily >> assume that we are dealing with product marketing. But leave content >> alone, please...
>> If marketing people want to ride the trend wave, and claim this set of >> practices as theirs, well, that's another story, but I personally will >> not consider a content practitioner (manager, strategist, editor, you >> name it) anybody who has no idea what a DB schema is.
>> My 2 eurocents, >> Paola
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Content Strategy" group. >> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
We went through this with 'content management system' 10 years ago. The word was effectively eaten by web content management system, and to a lesser extent document management systems, until it became a useless umbrella term for anything into which you can log in and jam a file.
We don't want CS to suffer a similar dilution into meaningless.
On 10 June 2011 13:09, Paola Roccuzzo <paola.roccu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I meant is that we come in all flavors, and that we specialize in > all kinds of content-related activities, but that without a clear > understanding of the basic content management principles (hence the > schema metonym), I really don't think that any strategy can be laid > down.
> Again, my two cents, based on my personal experience.
> Paola
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Paola,
> > I didn't understand that last line about the DB schema. I know what a DB > > schema is, but what were you trying to say about not considering someone > a > > practioner?
> > Noz
> > On 10 June 2011 11:47, Paola Roccuzzo <paola.roccu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Arianne,
> >> as Noz I found this article a bit disturbing... > >> So, here is my take (not a lot of grey areas for me) :)
> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 1:35 AM, Arienne Holland > >> <arienneholl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > In the meantime, do you think content strategy and content marketing > are > >> > merging?
> >> No. Content strategy has a lot more to do with governance than > >> marketing (companies, still, reap many benefits from it > >> marketing-wise). Also, there is the old concept of editorial > >> marketing, which I still find relevant even in the digital market. In > >> case content is the product (see apps, feeds, etc.) we could easily > >> assume that we are dealing with product marketing. But leave content > >> alone, please...
> >> If marketing people want to ride the trend wave, and claim this set of > >> practices as theirs, well, that's another story, but I personally will > >> not consider a content practitioner (manager, strategist, editor, you > >> name it) anybody who has no idea what a DB schema is.
> >> My 2 eurocents, > >> Paola
> >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > >> "Content Strategy" group. > >> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > >> For more options, visit this group at > >> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Content Strategy" group. > > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
On Jun 10, 2:10 am, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... Content Strategy is not a new buzz-word term for UX Design, and not it is
> not a good thing if it merges with Content Marketing, as that completely
> misses the point....
I'm with you, Noz. Content strategy is broader than marketing.
Strategy is just as applicable to user-guide content, for example, as
it is to marketing content. For an excellent discussion on this point,
see Erin Kissane's slim new book, "The Elements of Content Strategy."
Many good points being made here, but to be fair I'm certain that Ian's original post was NOT saying that it would be a good thing if Content Strategy and Content Marketing merge. I think it might be a little confusing if you only read the excerpt that Arienne quoted, because it's saying, essentially 'yes we all care about content and in some ways that's what should be most important' but if you read the rest of the post he's saying that there's a practice and there's a tactic and they are not mutually encompassing. I'm working on an article right now, and part of the set-up is that a lot of the growing demand for CS comes from the need to apply editorial ways of thinking to organizations that are not traditional content creators, and so they have no processes and infrastructure to support the creation of content. This of course extends to many marketing departments who now find themselves in the position of having to be a major source of the content their organizations are producing. I think that's a big part of the reason that the two terms seem to be synonymous to many people (especially people in marketing). [This point about marketing is not within the scope of the article, but the underlying premise seemed applicable here].
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:50 PM, MarciaJ58 <marcia_r_johns...@me.com> wrote: > On Jun 10, 2:10 am, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ... Content Strategy is not a new buzz-word term for UX Design, and not > it is > > not a good thing if it merges with Content Marketing, as that completely > > misses the point....
> I'm with you, Noz. Content strategy is broader than marketing. > Strategy is just as applicable to user-guide content, for example, as > it is to marketing content. For an excellent discussion on this point, > see Erin Kissane's slim new book, "The Elements of Content Strategy."
> - Marcia
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
I don't think the post is without merit or logic, but it clearly operates within a frame of reference that riles some of the CSs out there who don't feel that the field should be ring-fenced like that.
I read the whole post and I'm clear he is not saying it's a good thing. He says: "...you will find many articles that use the terms interchangeably, and I’m not sure that’s a good thing; primarily for the client who now has to deal with ever-finer slices of practitioner specialities and more difficult integration/PM issues" I think that's straightforward enough and even agree with the reasoning (although I find it only scratches the surface of the wrongness).
And yes, he's also making the distinction between practise and tactic.
He does however make a strong implication (I'm happy to be shown I'm misinterpreting!!) that the terminology for this practice and tactic is just a new buzzwords for the same tactic and practice as was used a generation of buzzwords ago.
"There is content marketing and there is content strategy. Or, to rollback a round of buzzwords, there is integrated marketing and there is UX Design."
If you're saying that 'content strategy' is simply the new way to say 'integrated marketing', then it makes a strong statement about where you encapsulate the scope of CS today. Also, it is putting it on the tactic side of the divide, whereas I think most CSs feel they are practitioners of a practice, not applying a tactic.*
Noz
*That said, I find the separation of tactic and strategy to be somewhat artificial, hair-splitting, folksonomic differentiation. When you look them up in the dictionary they refer to each other as having overlapping meanings, so the popular belief that they're clearly separable seems a bit made up to me. I find it's a distinction VPs and middle managers like to drag up to look cool in front of their CEOs when you're trying to make a point. Anyone else been batted with "This presentation is too tactical! I want to talk strategically!"? I think it's buzzwordy way to replace 'detailed' vs. 'high level', which are not the same thing...
On 11 June 2011 08:39, Rachel Lovinger <rachel.lovin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Many good points being made here, but to be fair I'm certain that Ian's > original post was NOT saying that it would be a good thing if Content > Strategy and Content Marketing merge. I think it might be a little confusing > if you only read the excerpt that Arienne quoted, because it's saying, > essentially 'yes we all care about content and in some ways that's what > should be most important' but if you read the rest of the post he's saying > that there's a practice and there's a tactic and they are not mutually > encompassing. > I'm working on an article right now, and part of the set-up is that a lot > of the growing demand for CS comes from the need to apply editorial ways of > thinking to organizations that are not traditional content creators, and so > they have no processes and infrastructure to support the creation of > content. This of course extends to many marketing departments who now find > themselves in the position of having to be a major source of the content > their organizations are producing. I think that's a big part of the reason > that the two terms seem to be synonymous to many people (especially people > in marketing). [This point about marketing is not within the scope of the > article, but the underlying premise seemed applicable here].
> -Rachel > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:50 PM, MarciaJ58 <marcia_r_johns...@me.com>wrote:
>> On Jun 10, 2:10 am, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > ... Content Strategy is not a new buzz-word term for UX Design, and not >> it is >> > not a good thing if it merges with Content Marketing, as that completely >> > misses the point....
>> I'm with you, Noz. Content strategy is broader than marketing. >> Strategy is just as applicable to user-guide content, for example, as >> it is to marketing content. For an excellent discussion on this point, >> see Erin Kissane's slim new book, "The Elements of Content Strategy."
>> - Marcia
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Content Strategy" group. >> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
I think that bit about the buzzwords is meant to be a classic analogy, like the kind that American children are made to study ad nauseum before we take the SATs (and then most people probably never use them again). I use them a lot myself, in fact one of my most quoted comments about Content Strategy follows this same structure!
So, I interpreted that bit in the blog post as: content strategy : content marketing :: UX Design : integrated marketing
Or, in plain English: "Content Marketing" is the buzzword that has arisen to capitalize on the Content Strategy practice, just as, sometime in the past, a buzzword called "Integrated Marketing" arose to capitalize on the UX Design practice.
Again, this is my own interpretation, and I have to admit that I'm not really familiar with Integrated Marketing, so I don't know how close the parallels are. I'm mostly drawing my conclusions from, well, a sentence structure that was drilled into me while studying for a standardized test in high school :) -Rachel
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Rachel,
> Your article sounds interesting.
> I don't think the post is without merit or logic, but it clearly operates > within a frame of reference that riles some of the CSs out there who don't > feel that the field should be ring-fenced like that.
> I read the whole post and I'm clear he is not saying it's a good thing. He > says: "...you will find many articles that use the terms interchangeably, > and I’m not sure that’s a good thing; primarily for the client who now has > to deal with ever-finer slices of practitioner specialities and more > difficult integration/PM issues" I think that's straightforward enough and > even agree with the reasoning (although I find it only scratches the surface > of the wrongness).
> And yes, he's also making the distinction between practise and tactic.
> He does however make a strong implication (I'm happy to be shown I'm > misinterpreting!!) that the terminology for this practice and tactic is just > a new buzzwords for the same tactic and practice as was used a generation of > buzzwords ago.
> "There is content marketing and there is content strategy. Or, to rollback > a round of buzzwords, there is integrated marketing and there is UX Design."
> If you're saying that 'content strategy' is simply the new way to say > 'integrated marketing', then it makes a strong statement about where you > encapsulate the scope of CS today. Also, it is putting it on the tactic > side of the divide, whereas I think most CSs feel they are practitioners of > a practice, not applying a tactic.*
> Noz
> *That said, I find the separation of tactic and strategy to be somewhat > artificial, hair-splitting, folksonomic differentiation. When you look them > up in the dictionary they refer to each other as having overlapping > meanings, so the popular belief that they're clearly separable seems a bit > made up to me. I find it's a distinction VPs and middle managers like to > drag up to look cool in front of their CEOs when you're trying to make a > point. Anyone else been batted with "This presentation is too tactical! I > want to talk strategically!"? I think it's buzzwordy way to replace > 'detailed' vs. 'high level', which are not the same thing...
> On 11 June 2011 08:39, Rachel Lovinger <rachel.lovin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Many good points being made here, but to be fair I'm certain that Ian's >> original post was NOT saying that it would be a good thing if Content >> Strategy and Content Marketing merge. I think it might be a little confusing >> if you only read the excerpt that Arienne quoted, because it's saying, >> essentially 'yes we all care about content and in some ways that's what >> should be most important' but if you read the rest of the post he's saying >> that there's a practice and there's a tactic and they are not mutually >> encompassing. >> I'm working on an article right now, and part of the set-up is that a lot >> of the growing demand for CS comes from the need to apply editorial ways of >> thinking to organizations that are not traditional content creators, and so >> they have no processes and infrastructure to support the creation of >> content. This of course extends to many marketing departments who now find >> themselves in the position of having to be a major source of the content >> their organizations are producing. I think that's a big part of the reason >> that the two terms seem to be synonymous to many people (especially people >> in marketing). [This point about marketing is not within the scope of the >> article, but the underlying premise seemed applicable here].
>> -Rachel >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:50 PM, MarciaJ58 <marcia_r_johns...@me.com>wrote:
>>> On Jun 10, 2:10 am, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > ... Content Strategy is not a new buzz-word term for UX Design, and not >>> it is >>> > not a good thing if it merges with Content Marketing, as that >>> completely >>> > misses the point....
>>> I'm with you, Noz. Content strategy is broader than marketing. >>> Strategy is just as applicable to user-guide content, for example, as >>> it is to marketing content. For an excellent discussion on this point, >>> see Erin Kissane's slim new book, "The Elements of Content Strategy."
>>> - Marcia
>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Content Strategy" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Content Strategy" group. >> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
Right. I can sort of see where you're coming from, but the 'roll back a round of buzzwords' seems to me more simply translated to 'to use the previous versions of these buzzwords'.
I think we're wandering into the land of conjecture instead of commentary and should ask the guy. I tried commenting but my comment hasn't appeared. I suspect that might be a technical error. I have emailed the sys admin to ask.
Anyone else want to try their luck?
On 13 June 2011 08:03, Rachel Lovinger <rachel.lovin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that bit about the buzzwords is meant to be a classic analogy, like > the kind that American children are made to study ad nauseum before we take > the SATs (and then most people probably never use them again). I use them a > lot myself, in fact one of my most quoted comments about Content Strategy > follows this same structure!
> So, I interpreted that bit in the blog post as: > content strategy : content marketing :: UX Design : integrated marketing
> Or, in plain English: "Content Marketing" is the buzzword that has arisen > to capitalize on the Content Strategy practice, just as, sometime in the > past, a buzzword called "Integrated Marketing" arose to capitalize on the UX > Design practice.
> Again, this is my own interpretation, and I have to admit that I'm not > really familiar with Integrated Marketing, so I don't know how close the > parallels are. I'm mostly drawing my conclusions from, well, a sentence > structure that was drilled into me while studying for a standardized test in > high school :) > -Rachel > On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Hi Rachel,
>> Your article sounds interesting.
>> I don't think the post is without merit or logic, but it clearly operates >> within a frame of reference that riles some of the CSs out there who don't >> feel that the field should be ring-fenced like that.
>> I read the whole post and I'm clear he is not saying it's a good thing. >> He says: "...you will find many articles that use the terms interchangeably, >> and I’m not sure that’s a good thing; primarily for the client who now has >> to deal with ever-finer slices of practitioner specialities and more >> difficult integration/PM issues" I think that's straightforward enough and >> even agree with the reasoning (although I find it only scratches the surface >> of the wrongness).
>> And yes, he's also making the distinction between practise and tactic.
>> He does however make a strong implication (I'm happy to be shown I'm >> misinterpreting!!) that the terminology for this practice and tactic is just >> a new buzzwords for the same tactic and practice as was used a generation of >> buzzwords ago.
>> "There is content marketing and there is content strategy. Or, to rollback >> a round of buzzwords, there is integrated marketing and there is UX Design."
>> If you're saying that 'content strategy' is simply the new way to say >> 'integrated marketing', then it makes a strong statement about where you >> encapsulate the scope of CS today. Also, it is putting it on the tactic >> side of the divide, whereas I think most CSs feel they are practitioners of >> a practice, not applying a tactic.*
>> Noz
>> *That said, I find the separation of tactic and strategy to be somewhat >> artificial, hair-splitting, folksonomic differentiation. When you look them >> up in the dictionary they refer to each other as having overlapping >> meanings, so the popular belief that they're clearly separable seems a bit >> made up to me. I find it's a distinction VPs and middle managers like to >> drag up to look cool in front of their CEOs when you're trying to make a >> point. Anyone else been batted with "This presentation is too tactical! I >> want to talk strategically!"? I think it's buzzwordy way to replace >> 'detailed' vs. 'high level', which are not the same thing...
>> On 11 June 2011 08:39, Rachel Lovinger <rachel.lovin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Many good points being made here, but to be fair I'm certain that Ian's >>> original post was NOT saying that it would be a good thing if Content >>> Strategy and Content Marketing merge. I think it might be a little confusing >>> if you only read the excerpt that Arienne quoted, because it's saying, >>> essentially 'yes we all care about content and in some ways that's what >>> should be most important' but if you read the rest of the post he's saying >>> that there's a practice and there's a tactic and they are not mutually >>> encompassing. >>> I'm working on an article right now, and part of the set-up is that a lot >>> of the growing demand for CS comes from the need to apply editorial ways of >>> thinking to organizations that are not traditional content creators, and so >>> they have no processes and infrastructure to support the creation of >>> content. This of course extends to many marketing departments who now find >>> themselves in the position of having to be a major source of the content >>> their organizations are producing. I think that's a big part of the reason >>> that the two terms seem to be synonymous to many people (especially people >>> in marketing). [This point about marketing is not within the scope of the >>> article, but the underlying premise seemed applicable here].
>>> -Rachel >>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:50 PM, MarciaJ58 <marcia_r_johns...@me.com>wrote:
>>>> On Jun 10, 2:10 am, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > ... Content Strategy is not a new buzz-word term for UX Design, and >>>> not it is >>>> > not a good thing if it merges with Content Marketing, as that >>>> completely >>>> > misses the point....
>>>> I'm with you, Noz. Content strategy is broader than marketing. >>>> Strategy is just as applicable to user-guide content, for example, as >>>> it is to marketing content. For an excellent discussion on this point, >>>> see Erin Kissane's slim new book, "The Elements of Content Strategy."
>>>> - Marcia
>>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Content Strategy" group. >>>> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Content Strategy" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
>> -- >> - Noz - >> https://lessworkmoreflow.blogspot.com // @nozurbina >> "I find quotations at the bottom of email signatures a somewhat trite..."
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Content Strategy" group. >> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
1) Rachel has to be respected for her stature among CSes
2) What we do is marketing, whether it's creating the marketing (less so), or making it easier to get to through better navigation and taxonomy (more so)
3) Marketing is what has arisen within our practice as a main focus (see 2) thus it is at our peril to belittle it
> Right. I can sort of see where you're coming from, but the 'roll back a round of buzzwords' seems to me more simply translated to 'to use the previous versions of these buzzwords'.
> I think we're wandering into the land of conjecture instead of commentary and should ask the guy. I tried commenting but my comment hasn't appeared. I suspect that might be a technical error. I have emailed the sys admin to ask.
> Anyone else want to try their luck?
> On 13 June 2011 08:03, Rachel Lovinger <rachel.lovin...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think that bit about the buzzwords is meant to be a classic analogy, like the kind that American children are made to study ad nauseum before we take the SATs (and then most people probably never use them again). I use them a lot myself, in fact one of my most quoted comments about Content Strategy follows this same structure!
> So, I interpreted that bit in the blog post as: > content strategy : content marketing :: UX Design : integrated marketing
> Or, in plain English: "Content Marketing" is the buzzword that has arisen to capitalize on the Content Strategy practice, just as, sometime in the past, a buzzword called "Integrated Marketing" arose to capitalize on the UX Design practice.
> Again, this is my own interpretation, and I have to admit that I'm not really familiar with Integrated Marketing, so I don't know how close the parallels are. I'm mostly drawing my conclusions from, well, a sentence structure that was drilled into me while studying for a standardized test in high school :) > -Rachel > On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Rachel,
> Your article sounds interesting.
> I don't think the post is without merit or logic, but it clearly operates within a frame of reference that riles some of the CSs out there who don't feel that the field should be ring-fenced like that.
> I read the whole post and I'm clear he is not saying it's a good thing. He says: "...you will find many articles that use the terms interchangeably, and I’m not sure that’s a good thing; primarily for the client who now has to deal with ever-finer slices of practitioner specialities and more difficult integration/PM issues" I think that's straightforward enough and even agree with the reasoning (although I find it only scratches the surface of the wrongness).
> And yes, he's also making the distinction between practise and tactic.
> He does however make a strong implication (I'm happy to be shown I'm misinterpreting!!) that the terminology for this practice and tactic is just a new buzzwords for the same tactic and practice as was used a generation of buzzwords ago.
> "There is content marketing and there is content strategy. Or, to rollback a round of buzzwords, there is integrated marketing and there is UX Design."
> If you're saying that 'content strategy' is simply the new way to say 'integrated marketing', then it makes a strong statement about where you encapsulate the scope of CS today. Also, it is putting it on the tactic side of the divide, whereas I think most CSs feel they are practitioners of a practice, not applying a tactic.*
> Noz
> *That said, I find the separation of tactic and strategy to be somewhat artificial, hair-splitting, folksonomic differentiation. When you look them up in the dictionary they refer to each other as having overlapping meanings, so the popular belief that they're clearly separable seems a bit made up to me. I find it's a distinction VPs and middle managers like to drag up to look cool in front of their CEOs when you're trying to make a point. Anyone else been batted with "This presentation is too tactical! I want to talk strategically!"? I think it's buzzwordy way to replace 'detailed' vs. 'high level', which are not the same thing...
> On 11 June 2011 08:39, Rachel Lovinger <rachel.lovin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Many good points being made here, but to be fair I'm certain that Ian's original post was NOT saying that it would be a good thing if Content Strategy and Content Marketing merge. I think it might be a little confusing if you only read the excerpt that Arienne quoted, because it's saying, essentially 'yes we all care about content and in some ways that's what should be most important' but if you read the rest of the post he's saying that there's a practice and there's a tactic and they are not mutually encompassing. > I'm working on an article right now, and part of the set-up is that a lot of the growing demand for CS comes from the need to apply editorial ways of thinking to organizations that are not traditional content creators, and so they have no processes and infrastructure to support the creation of content. This of course extends to many marketing departments who now find themselves in the position of having to be a major source of the content their organizations are producing. I think that's a big part of the reason that the two terms seem to be synonymous to many people (especially people in marketing). [This point about marketing is not within the scope of the article, but the underlying premise seemed applicable here].
> -Rachel > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:50 PM, MarciaJ58 <marcia_r_johns...@me.com> wrote: > On Jun 10, 2:10 am, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ... Content Strategy is not a new buzz-word term for UX Design, and not it is > > not a good thing if it merges with Content Marketing, as that completely > > misses the point....
> I'm with you, Noz. Content strategy is broader than marketing. > Strategy is just as applicable to user-guide content, for example, as > it is to marketing content. For an excellent discussion on this point, > see Erin Kissane's slim new book, "The Elements of Content Strategy."
> - Marcia
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
I think Rachel's being diplomatic. And not that Ian needs anybody to
speak for him, but Ian isn't saying what you think he is, or if he is,
he's being facetious. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly eat crow. You keep
referring to him in a way that makes me think you don't know who he
is, which is part of the problem here, no doubt. Read a few more of
his articles to get a better picture of the character.
But, let me toss you a bone, since you're anxious to pick one. Go read
Eric Reiss' article "Content Strategy for Dummies" (http://
www.fatdux.com/blog/2010/11/14/content-strategy-for-dummies/), where
he really does suggest Content Strategy is a buzzword (or another name
for Information Architecture). Mind you, replying there is a technical
hit or miss affair.
In any case, you and Eric will be speaking at CS Forum 2011 in London.
Maybe we should hold a special main stage event with you guys
together!
I didn't at all want to be in any way disrespectful, especially not to Rachel for whom I have significant respect (albeit mostly by proxy). I'm sorry if it came off that way.
I just read over my mail again to see where that comment might have come from. If it was the 'anyone else want to try their luck' bit, that was an invitation to anyone who seconded the idea of asking the original poster to engage in the conversation (as my attempt had failed). It was not *at all* a dismissal of Rachel's opinion or contributions.
When you say, 'we', you are talking about Content strategists? I know a lot of content strategists who would not limit the definition to that scope. Point 2 seems to imply you agree that your field is (more so) "making it easier to get to through better navigation and taxonomy", which to me would be classic UX? If that's what you feel CS is, then why have we bothered with the term when we could have said stuck with UX, but some of them might do some writing too'?
Do you feel that CS having a greater scope of responsibility than marketing somehow belittles the importance of marketing?
Lisa Moore tweeted after the Congility conference last month 'Content Strategy has to evolve fast or die young'. The discussion is wether the peril is from expanding the web outside marketing, or from failing to expand outside marketing. Everyone's opinion on that are valuable.
On 13 June 2011 12:44, Jeffrey Durland <jeffrey.durl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) Rachel has to be respected for her stature among CSes
> 2) What we do is marketing, whether it's creating the marketing (less so), > or making it easier to get to through better navigation and taxonomy (more > so)
> 3) Marketing is what has arisen within our practice as a main focus (see 2) > thus it is at our peril to belittle it
> JD
> On Jun 13, 2011, at 3:18 AM, Noz Urbina wrote:
> Right. I can sort of see where you're coming from, but the 'roll back a > round of buzzwords' seems to me more simply translated to 'to use the > previous versions of these buzzwords'.
> I think we're wandering into the land of conjecture instead of commentary > and should ask the guy. I tried commenting but my comment hasn't appeared. > I suspect that might be a technical error. I have emailed the sys admin to > ask.
> Anyone else want to try their luck?
> On 13 June 2011 08:03, Rachel Lovinger <rachel.lovin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think that bit about the buzzwords is meant to be a classic analogy, >> like the kind that American children are made to study ad nauseum before we >> take the SATs (and then most people probably never use them again). I use >> them a lot myself, in fact one of my most quoted comments about Content >> Strategy follows this same structure!
>> So, I interpreted that bit in the blog post as: >> content strategy : content marketing :: UX Design : integrated marketing
>> Or, in plain English: "Content Marketing" is the buzzword that has arisen >> to capitalize on the Content Strategy practice, just as, sometime in the >> past, a buzzword called "Integrated Marketing" arose to capitalize on the UX >> Design practice.
>> Again, this is my own interpretation, and I have to admit that I'm not >> really familiar with Integrated Marketing, so I don't know how close the >> parallels are. I'm mostly drawing my conclusions from, well, a sentence >> structure that was drilled into me while studying for a standardized test in >> high school :) >> -Rachel >> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> Hi Rachel,
>>> Your article sounds interesting.
>>> I don't think the post is without merit or logic, but it clearly operates >>> within a frame of reference that riles some of the CSs out there who don't >>> feel that the field should be ring-fenced like that.
>>> I read the whole post and I'm clear he is not saying it's a good thing. >>> He says: "...you will find many articles that use the terms interchangeably, >>> and I’m not sure that’s a good thing; primarily for the client who now has >>> to deal with ever-finer slices of practitioner specialities and more >>> difficult integration/PM issues" I think that's straightforward enough and >>> even agree with the reasoning (although I find it only scratches the surface >>> of the wrongness).
>>> And yes, he's also making the distinction between practise and tactic.
>>> He does however make a strong implication (I'm happy to be shown I'm >>> misinterpreting!!) that the terminology for this practice and tactic is just >>> a new buzzwords for the same tactic and practice as was used a generation of >>> buzzwords ago.
>>> "There is content marketing and there is content strategy. Or, to >>> rollback a round of buzzwords, there is integrated marketing and there is UX >>> Design."
>>> If you're saying that 'content strategy' is simply the new way to say >>> 'integrated marketing', then it makes a strong statement about where you >>> encapsulate the scope of CS today. Also, it is putting it on the tactic >>> side of the divide, whereas I think most CSs feel they are practitioners of >>> a practice, not applying a tactic.*
>>> Noz
>>> *That said, I find the separation of tactic and strategy to be somewhat >>> artificial, hair-splitting, folksonomic differentiation. When you look them >>> up in the dictionary they refer to each other as having overlapping >>> meanings, so the popular belief that they're clearly separable seems a bit >>> made up to me. I find it's a distinction VPs and middle managers like to >>> drag up to look cool in front of their CEOs when you're trying to make a >>> point. Anyone else been batted with "This presentation is too tactical! I >>> want to talk strategically!"? I think it's buzzwordy way to replace >>> 'detailed' vs. 'high level', which are not the same thing...
>>> On 11 June 2011 08:39, Rachel Lovinger <rachel.lovin...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Many good points being made here, but to be fair I'm certain that >>>> Ian's original post was NOT saying that it would be a good thing if Content >>>> Strategy and Content Marketing merge. I think it might be a little confusing >>>> if you only read the excerpt that Arienne quoted, because it's saying, >>>> essentially 'yes we all care about content and in some ways that's what >>>> should be most important' but if you read the rest of the post he's saying >>>> that there's a practice and there's a tactic and they are not mutually >>>> encompassing. >>>> I'm working on an article right now, and part of the set-up is that a >>>> lot of the growing demand for CS comes from the need to apply editorial ways >>>> of thinking to organizations that are not traditional content creators, and >>>> so they have no processes and infrastructure to support the creation of >>>> content. This of course extends to many marketing departments who now find >>>> themselves in the position of having to be a major source of the content >>>> their organizations are producing. I think that's a big part of the reason >>>> that the two terms seem to be synonymous to many people (especially people >>>> in marketing). [This point about marketing is not within the scope of the >>>> article, but the underlying premise seemed applicable here].
>>>> -Rachel >>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:50 PM, MarciaJ58 <marcia_r_johns...@me.com>wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 10, 2:10 am, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> > ... Content Strategy is not a new buzz-word term for UX Design, and >>>>> not it is >>>>> > not a good thing if it merges with Content Marketing, as that >>>>> completely >>>>> > misses the point....
>>>>> I'm with you, Noz. Content strategy is broader than marketing. >>>>> Strategy is just as applicable to user-guide content, for example, as >>>>> it is to marketing content. For an excellent discussion on this point, >>>>> see Erin Kissane's slim new book, "The Elements of Content Strategy."
>>>>> - Marcia
>>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Content Strategy" group. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
>>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Content Strategy" group. >>>> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
>>> -- >>> - Noz - >>> https://lessworkmoreflow.blogspot.com // @nozurbina >>> "I find quotations at the bottom of email signatures a somewhat trite..."
>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Content Strategy" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Content Strategy" group. >> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
Eric Reiss's article was a good read. You didn't say what I was reading it for though. It does seem to lay out a serviceable explanation of web-oriented CS for those focused on making websites.
Ian's 5 elements of hip hop<http://eatmedia.net/blog/2011/05/09/5-elements-of-hip-hopcontent-stra...>was just awesome. I also read a few more posts by Ian as per your recommendation. In a few short posts he's convinced me he's a very smart guy with a lot of good ideas who I'm going to start paying more attention to. That said, I still disagree with the context being set for CS and some of his points of its definition.
My original enthusiasm (as you've quoted, which I hope was also clearly facetious itself?) sprouted from the original posted question:
"*do you think content strategy and content marketing are merging?"*
To which the answer was, in very short: "I sure hope not!"
I really don't want to get into somehow making this personal, or based on my opinion of any one person. I actually wanted to engage Ian in the conversation rather than talk around his words without him...
If we're going to have good discussions, it's important we're allowed to disagree with each other - even fundamentally - and be impassioned about our position, right?
I agree with many of the points the Eric and Ian have made and disagree with several others - I often disagree with very nice and intelligent people. I'll just going to leave it at that.
If anyone wants me I'll be re-applying make-up in my trailer.
On 13 June 2011 12:46, Destry Wion <des...@wion.com> wrote:
> I think Rachel's being diplomatic. And not that Ian needs anybody to > speak for him, but Ian isn't saying what you think he is, or if he is, > he's being facetious. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly eat crow. You keep > referring to him in a way that makes me think you don't know who he > is, which is part of the problem here, no doubt. Read a few more of > his articles to get a better picture of the character.
> But, let me toss you a bone, since you're anxious to pick one. Go read > Eric Reiss' article "Content Strategy for Dummies" (http:// > www.fatdux.com/blog/2010/11/14/content-strategy-for-dummies/), where > he really does suggest Content Strategy is a buzzword (or another name > for Information Architecture). Mind you, replying there is a technical > hit or miss affair.
> In any case, you and Eric will be speaking at CS Forum 2011 in London. > Maybe we should hold a special main stage event with you guys > together!
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
Haha! I love it. But Noz, I don't think you're being a diva.
A few responses to various things:
1. I really don't feel that anyone has been disrespectful on this thread. It's all good clean debate, which I agree is necessary - and frankly, I think Ian was probably trying to stir up some passionate discussion of the topic. I wasn't trying to protect Ian's character (I think he has done a great job of representing himself on the web), just trying to point out some counter-interpretations of what he had said. In anycase, I appreciate the votes of support from others on this thread, but I really didn't feel offended.
2. I don't think that Content Strategy is in peril - there may be a period where the majority of people who are adopting it are only aware of a small segment of the practice (namely, content marketing), but that's not going to make the other aspects any less necessary and they will continue to grow and mature in their own areas of usage.
3. I don't think the world of Makerting is going to feel threatend by a few content strategists being annoyed that they are trying to turn this practice into a buzzword. They are a surprisingly resiliant bunch and they will not only bounce back from our criticisms, but they will probably find a way to coopt our concerns and say, "yeah, totally! that doesn't apply to ME though." - Rachel
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Destry,
> Eric Reiss's article was a good read. You didn't say what I was reading it > for though. It does seem to lay out a serviceable explanation of > web-oriented CS for those focused on making websites.
> Ian's 5 elements of hip hop<http://eatmedia.net/blog/2011/05/09/5-elements-of-hip-hopcontent-stra...>was just awesome. I also read a few more posts by Ian as per your > recommendation. In a few short posts he's convinced me he's a very smart guy > with a lot of good ideas who I'm going to start paying more attention to. > That said, I still disagree with the context being set for CS and some of > his points of its definition.
> My original enthusiasm (as you've quoted, which I hope was also clearly > facetious itself?) sprouted from the original posted question:
> "*do you think content strategy and content marketing are merging?"*
> To which the answer was, in very short: "I sure hope not!"
> I really don't want to get into somehow making this personal, or based on > my opinion of any one person. I actually wanted to engage Ian in the > conversation rather than talk around his words without him...
> If we're going to have good discussions, it's important we're allowed to > disagree with each other - even fundamentally - and be impassioned about our > position, right?
> I agree with many of the points the Eric and Ian have made and disagree > with several others - I often disagree with very nice and intelligent > people. I'll just going to leave it at that.
> If anyone wants me I'll be re-applying make-up in my trailer.
> On 13 June 2011 12:46, Destry Wion <des...@wion.com> wrote:
>> Noz Urbina wrote:
>> > Hold me back! Hold me back!
>> Noz,
>> I think Rachel's being diplomatic. And not that Ian needs anybody to >> speak for him, but Ian isn't saying what you think he is, or if he is, >> he's being facetious. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly eat crow. You keep >> referring to him in a way that makes me think you don't know who he >> is, which is part of the problem here, no doubt. Read a few more of >> his articles to get a better picture of the character.
>> But, let me toss you a bone, since you're anxious to pick one. Go read >> Eric Reiss' article "Content Strategy for Dummies" (http:// >> www.fatdux.com/blog/2010/11/14/content-strategy-for-dummies/), where >> he really does suggest Content Strategy is a buzzword (or another name >> for Information Architecture). Mind you, replying there is a technical >> hit or miss affair.
>> In any case, you and Eric will be speaking at CS Forum 2011 in London. >> Maybe we should hold a special main stage event with you guys >> together!
>> Get your tickets, folks! It's going to be good!
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Content Strategy" group. >> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> Haha! I love it. But Noz, I don't think you're being a diva.
> A few responses to various things:
> 1. I really don't feel that anyone has been disrespectful on this thread. > It's all good clean debate, which I agree is necessary - and frankly, I > think Ian was probably trying to stir up some passionate discussion of the > topic. I wasn't trying to protect Ian's character (I think he has done a > great job of representing himself on the web), just trying to point out some > counter-interpretations of what he had said. In anycase, I appreciate the > votes of support from others on this thread, but I really didn't feel > offended.
> 2. I don't think that Content Strategy is in peril - there may be a period > where the majority of people who are adopting it are only aware of a small > segment of the practice (namely, content marketing), but that's not going to > make the other aspects any less necessary and they will continue to grow and > mature in their own areas of usage.
> 3. I don't think the world of Makerting is going to feel threatend by a few > content strategists being annoyed that they are trying to turn this practice > into a buzzword. They are a surprisingly resiliant bunch and they will not > only bounce back from our criticisms, but they will probably find a way to > coopt our concerns and say, "yeah, totally! that doesn't apply to ME > though." > - Rachel > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Hi Destry,
>> Eric Reiss's article was a good read. You didn't say what I was reading >> it for though. It does seem to lay out a serviceable explanation of >> web-oriented CS for those focused on making websites.
>> Ian's 5 elements of hip hop<http://eatmedia.net/blog/2011/05/09/5-elements-of-hip-hopcontent-stra...>was just awesome. I also read a few more posts by Ian as per your >> recommendation. In a few short posts he's convinced me he's a very smart guy >> with a lot of good ideas who I'm going to start paying more attention to. >> That said, I still disagree with the context being set for CS and some of >> his points of its definition.
>> My original enthusiasm (as you've quoted, which I hope was also clearly >> facetious itself?) sprouted from the original posted question:
>> "*do you think content strategy and content marketing are merging?"*
>> To which the answer was, in very short: "I sure hope not!"
>> I really don't want to get into somehow making this personal, or based on >> my opinion of any one person. I actually wanted to engage Ian in the >> conversation rather than talk around his words without him...
>> If we're going to have good discussions, it's important we're allowed to >> disagree with each other - even fundamentally - and be impassioned about our >> position, right?
>> I agree with many of the points the Eric and Ian have made and disagree >> with several others - I often disagree with very nice and intelligent >> people. I'll just going to leave it at that.
>> If anyone wants me I'll be re-applying make-up in my trailer.
>> On 13 June 2011 12:46, Destry Wion <des...@wion.com> wrote:
>>> Noz Urbina wrote:
>>> > Hold me back! Hold me back!
>>> Noz,
>>> I think Rachel's being diplomatic. And not that Ian needs anybody to >>> speak for him, but Ian isn't saying what you think he is, or if he is, >>> he's being facetious. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly eat crow. You keep >>> referring to him in a way that makes me think you don't know who he >>> is, which is part of the problem here, no doubt. Read a few more of >>> his articles to get a better picture of the character.
>>> But, let me toss you a bone, since you're anxious to pick one. Go read >>> Eric Reiss' article "Content Strategy for Dummies" (http:// >>> www.fatdux.com/blog/2010/11/14/content-strategy-for-dummies/), where >>> he really does suggest Content Strategy is a buzzword (or another name >>> for Information Architecture). Mind you, replying there is a technical >>> hit or miss affair.
>>> In any case, you and Eric will be speaking at CS Forum 2011 in London. >>> Maybe we should hold a special main stage event with you guys >>> together!
>>> Get your tickets, folks! It's going to be good!
>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Content Strategy" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
>> -- >> - Noz - >> https://lessworkmoreflow.blogspot.com // @nozurbina >> "I find quotations at the bottom of email signatures a somewhat trite..."
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Content Strategy" group. >> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
Thanks for that, Rachel. I was loving the high-level, respectful debate that you and Noz were having, and got a bit put off at the attempt to quash it. Without debate, there is no growth, and I've seen respectful differences of opinion squashed in some other organizations because of too-thin skins. (No org names mentioned here, though.)
Interestingly enough, there's a parallel discussion on the IA forum, where someone pointed to this article http://blog.fogcreek.com/our-marketing-is-up-fog-creek-and-what-we-di... and said it's not really marketing, it's IA, and that's how IAs could frame their work. I countered with how IAs traditionally stop short of content and quality (most agencies I've talked with have said "we don't do content", from which I take my stand), and suggested that it was actually content strategy. HOWEVER, I did add that each profession would look at the article through their own lense, and interpret it through their personal experience.
It's not much different than anywhere else in a corporation. In a project I'm working on right now, I have an issue. The integrators see it as a CMS workflow issue. HR sees it as an HR issue. Management sees it as a government issue. I see it as a web operations issue. (I could also interpret it as a content strategy issue because it affects the content strategy, but in this case, I don't think it is.)
Anyhow, that's a long way of appreciating the level of discussion here. I do hope you carry on.
Rahel
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Rachel Lovinger <rachel.lovin...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Haha! I love it. But Noz, I don't think you're being a diva.
> A few responses to various things:
> 1. I really don't feel that anyone has been disrespectful on this thread. > It's all good clean debate, which I agree is necessary - and frankly, I > think Ian was probably trying to stir up some passionate discussion of the > topic. I wasn't trying to protect Ian's character (I think he has done a > great job of representing himself on the web), just trying to point out some > counter-interpretations of what he had said. In anycase, I appreciate the > votes of support from others on this thread, but I really didn't feel > offended.
> 2. I don't think that Content Strategy is in peril - there may be a period > where the majority of people who are adopting it are only aware of a small > segment of the practice (namely, content marketing), but that's not going to > make the other aspects any less necessary and they will continue to grow and > mature in their own areas of usage.
> 3. I don't think the world of Makerting is going to feel threatend by a few > content strategists being annoyed that they are trying to turn this practice > into a buzzword. They are a surprisingly resiliant bunch and they will not > only bounce back from our criticisms, but they will probably find a way to > coopt our concerns and say, "yeah, totally! that doesn't apply to ME > though." > - Rachel > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Hi Destry,
>> Eric Reiss's article was a good read. You didn't say what I was reading >> it for though. It does seem to lay out a serviceable explanation of >> web-oriented CS for those focused on making websites.
>> Ian's 5 elements of hip hop<http://eatmedia.net/blog/2011/05/09/5-elements-of-hip-hopcontent-stra...>was just awesome. I also read a few more posts by Ian as per your >> recommendation. In a few short posts he's convinced me he's a very smart guy >> with a lot of good ideas who I'm going to start paying more attention to. >> That said, I still disagree with the context being set for CS and some of >> his points of its definition.
>> My original enthusiasm (as you've quoted, which I hope was also clearly >> facetious itself?) sprouted from the original posted question:
>> "*do you think content strategy and content marketing are merging?"*
>> To which the answer was, in very short: "I sure hope not!"
>> I really don't want to get into somehow making this personal, or based on >> my opinion of any one person. I actually wanted to engage Ian in the >> conversation rather than talk around his words without him...
>> If we're going to have good discussions, it's important we're allowed to >> disagree with each other - even fundamentally - and be impassioned about our >> position, right?
>> I agree with many of the points the Eric and Ian have made and disagree >> with several others - I often disagree with very nice and intelligent >> people. I'll just going to leave it at that.
>> If anyone wants me I'll be re-applying make-up in my trailer.
>> On 13 June 2011 12:46, Destry Wion <des...@wion.com> wrote:
>>> Noz Urbina wrote:
>>> > Hold me back! Hold me back!
>>> Noz,
>>> I think Rachel's being diplomatic. And not that Ian needs anybody to >>> speak for him, but Ian isn't saying what you think he is, or if he is, >>> he's being facetious. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly eat crow. You keep >>> referring to him in a way that makes me think you don't know who he >>> is, which is part of the problem here, no doubt. Read a few more of >>> his articles to get a better picture of the character.
>>> But, let me toss you a bone, since you're anxious to pick one. Go read >>> Eric Reiss' article "Content Strategy for Dummies" (http:// >>> www.fatdux.com/blog/2010/11/14/content-strategy-for-dummies/), where >>> he really does suggest Content Strategy is a buzzword (or another name >>> for Information Architecture). Mind you, replying there is a technical >>> hit or miss affair.
>>> In any case, you and Eric will be speaking at CS Forum 2011 in London. >>> Maybe we should hold a special main stage event with you guys >>> together!
>>> Get your tickets, folks! It's going to be good!
>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Content Strategy" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
>> -- >> - Noz - >> https://lessworkmoreflow.blogspot.com // @nozurbina >> "I find quotations at the bottom of email signatures a somewhat trite..."
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Content Strategy" group. >> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
BTW, Noz, I agree with you about how other smart (and sometimes profession-entrenched) people either co-op or distance themselves from content strategy. It may be convenient to do so at a given time, and people do change their stances on occasion, as circumstances change. Not a good or bad thing; it just is. I wouldn't consider Eric Reiss or Gerry McGovern content strategists (I know, I know, heretical words in some quarters, but I'm entitled to my opinion) though I have read there books and respect their messages. And though Bob Boiko doesn't call himself a content strategist, I think he'd be the logical professor emeritus of the profession.
And how, off to work for me. (Any flaming won't get seen till way later tonight.) ;)
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Destry,
> Eric Reiss's article was a good read. You didn't say what I was reading it > for though. It does seem to lay out a serviceable explanation of > web-oriented CS for those focused on making websites.
> Ian's 5 elements of hip hop<http://eatmedia.net/blog/2011/05/09/5-elements-of-hip-hopcontent-stra...>was just awesome. I also read a few more posts by Ian as per your > recommendation. In a few short posts he's convinced me he's a very smart guy > with a lot of good ideas who I'm going to start paying more attention to. > That said, I still disagree with the context being set for CS and some of > his points of its definition.
> My original enthusiasm (as you've quoted, which I hope was also clearly > facetious itself?) sprouted from the original posted question:
> "*do you think content strategy and content marketing are merging?"*
> To which the answer was, in very short: "I sure hope not!"
> I really don't want to get into somehow making this personal, or based on > my opinion of any one person. I actually wanted to engage Ian in the > conversation rather than talk around his words without him...
> If we're going to have good discussions, it's important we're allowed to > disagree with each other - even fundamentally - and be impassioned about our > position, right?
> I agree with many of the points the Eric and Ian have made and disagree > with several others - I often disagree with very nice and intelligent > people. I'll just going to leave it at that.
> If anyone wants me I'll be re-applying make-up in my trailer.
> On 13 June 2011 12:46, Destry Wion <des...@wion.com> wrote:
>> Noz Urbina wrote:
>> > Hold me back! Hold me back!
>> Noz,
>> I think Rachel's being diplomatic. And not that Ian needs anybody to >> speak for him, but Ian isn't saying what you think he is, or if he is, >> he's being facetious. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly eat crow. You keep >> referring to him in a way that makes me think you don't know who he >> is, which is part of the problem here, no doubt. Read a few more of >> his articles to get a better picture of the character.
>> But, let me toss you a bone, since you're anxious to pick one. Go read >> Eric Reiss' article "Content Strategy for Dummies" (http:// >> www.fatdux.com/blog/2010/11/14/content-strategy-for-dummies/), where >> he really does suggest Content Strategy is a buzzword (or another name >> for Information Architecture). Mind you, replying there is a technical >> hit or miss affair.
>> In any case, you and Eric will be speaking at CS Forum 2011 in London. >> Maybe we should hold a special main stage event with you guys >> together!
>> Get your tickets, folks! It's going to be good!
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Content Strategy" group. >> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
I should have chimed in earlier but I've been slammed. Thanks to
Rachel for her interpretation which was spot on.
The point I was trying to make here was that:
- Most practices were once buzzwords. Not a judgement, just a fact.
- Too often the chatter is about what we call ourselves vs what it
accomplishes or how/why it accomplishes.
- While important, to some degree we are talking in a vacuum. (Clients
don't care.)
- The solution delivered by a CS is not the same as what a CM
delivers.
I would argue that my post is not conjecture but very clearly a
reaction to the environment. While there are some great voices and
grand minds who talk about CS there are also a smorgasbord of articles
that use a stock definition of CS and then go on to explain (content)
marketing 'techniques' — which in my mind (and agency) are a very
small slice of what a CS does. My post was an A is not B article but
is perceived as such and is that good for the client.
Loving the conversation on this post.
On Jun 12, 6:07 am, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think the post is without merit or logic, but it clearly operates
> within a frame of reference that riles some of the CSs out there who don't
> feel that the field should be ring-fenced like that.
> I read the whole post and I'm clear he is not saying it's a good thing. He
> says: "...you will find many articles that use the terms interchangeably,
> and I’m not sure that’s a good thing; primarily for the client who now has
> to deal with ever-finer slices of practitioner specialities and more
> difficult integration/PM issues" I think that's straightforward enough and
> even agree with the reasoning (although I find it only scratches the surface
> of the wrongness).
> And yes, he's also making the distinction between practise and tactic.
> He does however make a strong implication (I'm happy to be shown I'm
> misinterpreting!!) that the terminology for this practice and tactic is just
> a new buzzwords for the same tactic and practice as was used a generation of
> buzzwords ago.
> "There is content marketing and there is content strategy. Or, to rollback a
> round of buzzwords, there is integrated marketing and there is UX Design."
> If you're saying that 'content strategy' is simply the new way to say
> 'integrated marketing', then it makes a strong statement about where you
> encapsulate the scope of CS today. Also, it is putting it on the tactic
> side of the divide, whereas I think most CSs feel they are practitioners of
> a practice, not applying a tactic.*
> Noz
> *That said, I find the separation of tactic and strategy to be somewhat
> artificial, hair-splitting, folksonomic differentiation. When you look them
> up in the dictionary they refer to each other as having overlapping
> meanings, so the popular belief that they're clearly separable seems a bit
> made up to me. I find it's a distinction VPs and middle managers like to
> drag up to look cool in front of their CEOs when you're trying to make a
> point. Anyone else been batted with "This presentation is too tactical! I
> want to talk strategically!"? I think it's buzzwordy way to replace
> 'detailed' vs. 'high level', which are not the same thing...
> On 11 June 2011 08:39, Rachel Lovinger <rachel.lovin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Many good points being made here, but to be fair I'm certain that Ian's
> > original post was NOT saying that it would be a good thing if Content
> > Strategy and Content Marketing merge. I think it might be a little confusing
> > if you only read the excerpt that Arienne quoted, because it's saying,
> > essentially 'yes we all care about content and in some ways that's what
> > should be most important' but if you read the rest of the post he's saying
> > that there's a practice and there's a tactic and they are not mutually
> > encompassing.
> > I'm working on an article right now, and part of the set-up is that a lot
> > of the growing demand for CS comes from the need to apply editorial ways of
> > thinking to organizations that are not traditional content creators, and so
> > they have no processes and infrastructure to support the creation of
> > content. This of course extends to many marketing departments who now find
> > themselves in the position of having to be a major source of the content
> > their organizations are producing. I think that's a big part of the reason
> > that the two terms seem to be synonymous to many people (especially people
> > in marketing). [This point about marketing is not within the scope of the
> > article, but the underlying premise seemed applicable here].
> > -Rachel
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:50 PM, MarciaJ58 <marcia_r_johns...@me.com>wrote:
> >> On Jun 10, 2:10 am, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > ... Content Strategy is not a new buzz-word term for UX Design, and not
> >> it is
> >> > not a good thing if it merges with Content Marketing, as that completely
> >> > misses the point....
> >> I'm with you, Noz. Content strategy is broader than marketing.
> >> Strategy is just as applicable to user-guide content, for example, as
> >> it is to marketing content. For an excellent discussion on this point,
> >> see Erin Kissane's slim new book, "The Elements of Content Strategy."
> >> - Marcia
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "Content Strategy" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Content Strategy" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
Thanks all. I suffer from cronic foot in mouth disease on online forums as I am curt, full of opinions and exhuberant, which if you don't know me doesn't come off well in raw text.
I didn't know you were on the forum, Ian. : ) As you saw I tried to post a comment to raise my (mis?)interpretation of your post but the technical fairy gremlins whisked it away.
I'm about to run out the door, but I wanted to say that:
a) I love a lot your work from what little I've seen
b) in the brief form in your list below I don't disagree with anything you're saying at all
c) I don't need every post about content strategy to be about all-things-cs- everywhere. Mine certainly aren't... that said, with the permission of the jury, I was taking issue with certain points and choices of words. I don't need to belabour - especially with my aforementioned foot-mouth ailment - but I thought some points came off as dismissive to CS, which you've clarified was not your intent. There's other stuff, but hopefully we'll get a chance to chat about that in future. Please feel free to tear gaping holes in my blog should you ever care to, I'd be interested in the feedback.
d) If you are being a bit dismissive about CS, then that's totally cool too. I find the field is fraught with buzzy energy these days, and it sometimes will naturally need a little reality check to bring us back to earth.
And now... to the bar....
On 13 June 2011 18:06, Eat Media <contenthun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I should have chimed in earlier but I've been slammed. Thanks to > Rachel for her interpretation which was spot on.
> The point I was trying to make here was that:
> - Most practices were once buzzwords. Not a judgement, just a fact. > - Too often the chatter is about what we call ourselves vs what it > accomplishes or how/why it accomplishes. > - While important, to some degree we are talking in a vacuum. (Clients > don't care.) > - The solution delivered by a CS is not the same as what a CM > delivers.
> I would argue that my post is not conjecture but very clearly a > reaction to the environment. While there are some great voices and > grand minds who talk about CS there are also a smorgasbord of articles > that use a stock definition of CS and then go on to explain (content) > marketing 'techniques' — which in my mind (and agency) are a very > small slice of what a CS does. My post was an A is not B article but > is perceived as such and is that good for the client.
> Loving the conversation on this post.
> On Jun 12, 6:07 am, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Rachel,
> > Your article sounds interesting.
> > I don't think the post is without merit or logic, but it clearly operates > > within a frame of reference that riles some of the CSs out there who > don't > > feel that the field should be ring-fenced like that.
> > I read the whole post and I'm clear he is not saying it's a good thing. > He > > says: "...you will find many articles that use the terms interchangeably, > > and I’m not sure that’s a good thing; primarily for the client who now > has > > to deal with ever-finer slices of practitioner specialities and more > > difficult integration/PM issues" I think that's straightforward enough > and > > even agree with the reasoning (although I find it only scratches the > surface > > of the wrongness).
> > And yes, he's also making the distinction between practise and tactic.
> > He does however make a strong implication (I'm happy to be shown I'm > > misinterpreting!!) that the terminology for this practice and tactic is > just > > a new buzzwords for the same tactic and practice as was used a generation > of > > buzzwords ago.
> > "There is content marketing and there is content strategy. Or, to > rollback a > > round of buzzwords, there is integrated marketing and there is UX > Design."
> > If you're saying that 'content strategy' is simply the new way to say > > 'integrated marketing', then it makes a strong statement about where you > > encapsulate the scope of CS today. Also, it is putting it on the tactic > > side of the divide, whereas I think most CSs feel they are practitioners > of > > a practice, not applying a tactic.*
> > Noz
> > *That said, I find the separation of tactic and strategy to be somewhat > > artificial, hair-splitting, folksonomic differentiation. When you look > them > > up in the dictionary they refer to each other as having overlapping > > meanings, so the popular belief that they're clearly separable seems a > bit > > made up to me. I find it's a distinction VPs and middle managers like to > > drag up to look cool in front of their CEOs when you're trying to make a > > point. Anyone else been batted with "This presentation is too tactical! > I > > want to talk strategically!"? I think it's buzzwordy way to replace > > 'detailed' vs. 'high level', which are not the same thing...
> > On 11 June 2011 08:39, Rachel Lovinger <rachel.lovin...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > > Many good points being made here, but to be fair I'm certain that Ian's > > > original post was NOT saying that it would be a good thing if Content > > > Strategy and Content Marketing merge. I think it might be a little > confusing > > > if you only read the excerpt that Arienne quoted, because it's saying, > > > essentially 'yes we all care about content and in some ways that's what > > > should be most important' but if you read the rest of the post he's > saying > > > that there's a practice and there's a tactic and they are not mutually > > > encompassing. > > > I'm working on an article right now, and part of the set-up is that a > lot > > > of the growing demand for CS comes from the need to apply editorial > ways of > > > thinking to organizations that are not traditional content creators, > and so > > > they have no processes and infrastructure to support the creation of > > > content. This of course extends to many marketing departments who now > find > > > themselves in the position of having to be a major source of the > content > > > their organizations are producing. I think that's a big part of the > reason > > > that the two terms seem to be synonymous to many people (especially > people > > > in marketing). [This point about marketing is not within the scope of > the > > > article, but the underlying premise seemed applicable here].
> > > -Rachel > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:50 PM, MarciaJ58 <marcia_r_johns...@me.com > >wrote:
> > >> On Jun 10, 2:10 am, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > ... Content Strategy is not a new buzz-word term for UX Design, and > not > > >> it is > > >> > not a good thing if it merges with Content Marketing, as that > completely > > >> > misses the point....
> > >> I'm with you, Noz. Content strategy is broader than marketing. > > >> Strategy is just as applicable to user-guide content, for example, as > > >> it is to marketing content. For an excellent discussion on this point, > > >> see Erin Kissane's slim new book, "The Elements of Content Strategy."
> > >> - Marcia
> > >> -- > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > >> "Content Strategy" group. > > >> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com > . > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > >> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > >> For more options, visit this group at > > >>http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > "Content Strategy" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Content Strategy" group. > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
Rachel, I think you're right on target with content strategy : content marketing :: UX Design : integrated marketing (at least in terms of how it's intended in the article). Thanks for explaining it, because I didn't quite get it myself until you did.
And the word you're looking for to describe that concatenation is "syllogism."
I could always get the one with "raconteur" in it right, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out what it meant.
And they're read, "a is to b as c is to d," so this one would be read, "content strategy is to content marketing as UX Design is to integrated marketing."
Thanks for that trip back down Wasted Lifetime Lane! :D
Cliff
________________________________ From: Rachel Lovinger <rachel.lovin...@gmail.com> To: contentstrategy@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, June 13, 2011 1:03:19 AM Subject: Re: Content Marketing and Content Strategy: What's the difference?
I think that bit about the buzzwords is meant to be a classic analogy, like the kind that American children are made to study ad nauseum before we take the SATs (and then most people probably never use them again). I use them a lot myself, in fact one of my most quoted comments about Content Strategy follows this same structure!
So, I interpreted that bit in the blog post as: content strategy : content marketing :: UX Design : integrated marketing
Or, in plain English: "Content Marketing" is the buzzword that has arisen to capitalize on the Content Strategy practice, just as, sometime in the past, a buzzword called "Integrated Marketing" arose to capitalize on the UX Design practice.
Again, this is my own interpretation, and I have to admit that I'm not really familiar with Integrated Marketing, so I don't know how close the parallels are. I'm mostly drawing my conclusions from, well, a sentence structure that was drilled into me while studying for a standardized test in high school :)
-Rachel
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I don't think the post is without merit or logic, but it clearly operates >within a frame of reference that riles some of the CSs out there who don't feel >that the field should be ring-fenced like that.
>I read the whole post and I'm clear he is not saying it's a good thing. He >says: "...you will find many articles that use the terms interchangeably, and >I’m not sure that’s a good thing; primarily for the client who now has to deal >with ever-finer slices of practitioner specialities and more difficult >integration/PM issues" I think that's straightforward enough and even agree >with the reasoning (although I find it only scratches the surface of the >wrongness).
>And yes, he's also making the distinction between practise and tactic.
>He does however make a strong implication (I'm happy to be shown I'm >misinterpreting!!) that the terminology for this practice and tactic is just a >new buzzwords for the same tactic and practice as was used a generation of >buzzwords ago.
>"There is content marketing and there is content strategy. Or, to rollback a >round of buzzwords, there is integrated marketing and there is UX Design."
>If you're saying that 'content strategy' is simply the new way to say >'integrated marketing', then it makes a strong statement about where you >encapsulate the scope of CS today. Also, it is putting it on the tactic side of >the divide, whereas I think most CSs feel they are practitioners of a practice, >not applying a tactic.*
>Noz
>*That said, I find the separation of tactic and strategy to be somewhat >artificial, hair-splitting, folksonomic differentiation. When you look them up >in the dictionary they refer to each other as having overlapping meanings, so >the popular belief that they're clearly separable seems a bit made up to me. I >find it's a distinction VPs and middle managers like to drag up to look cool in >front of their CEOs when you're trying to make a point. Anyone else been batted >with "This presentation is too tactical! I want to talk strategically!"? I >think it's buzzwordy way to replace 'detailed' vs. 'high level', which are not >the same thing...
>On 11 June 2011 08:39, Rachel Lovinger <rachel.lovin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Many good points being made here, but to be fair I'm certain that Ian's original >post was NOT saying that it would be a good thing if Content Strategy and >Content Marketing merge. I think it might be a little confusing if you only read >the excerpt that Arienne quoted, because it's saying, essentially 'yes we all >care about content and in some ways that's what should be most important' but if >you read the rest of the post he's saying that there's a practice and there's a >tactic and they are not mutually encompassing.
>>I'm working on an article right now, and part of the set-up is that a lot of the >>growing demand for CS comes from the need to apply editorial ways of thinking to >>organizations that are not traditional content creators, and so they have no >>processes and infrastructure to support the creation of content. This of course >>extends to many marketing departments who now find themselves in the position of >>having to be a major source of the content their organizations are producing. I >>think that's a big part of the reason that the two terms seem to be synonymous >>to many people (especially people in marketing). [This point about marketing is >>not within the scope of the article, but the underlying premise seemed >>applicable here]. >> -Rachel
>>On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:50 PM, MarciaJ58 <marcia_r_johns...@me.com> wrote:
>>On Jun 10, 2:10 am, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> ... Content Strategy is not a new buzz-word term for UX Design, and not it >is
>>>> not a good thing if it merges with Content Marketing, as that completely >>>> misses the point....
>>>I'm with you, Noz. Content strategy is broader than marketing. >>>Strategy is just as applicable to user-guide content, for example, as >>>it is to marketing content. For an excellent discussion on this point, >>>see Erin Kissane's slim new book, "The Elements of Content Strategy."
>>>- Marcia
>>>-- >>>- Noz - >>>https://lessworkmoreflow.blogspot.com // @nozurbina >>>"I find quotations at the bottom of email signatures a somewhat trite..."
No stress at all. Sharp blades require hard stones - I welcome,
understand and appreciate the opportunity to clarify. I'm not being
dismissive but certainly believe it is time to move on from the
cheerleading phase and on to harder tasks - which I think the CM / CS
discussion taps into.
Ian
On Jun 13, 1:19 pm, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks all. I suffer from cronic foot in mouth disease on online forums as
> I am curt, full of opinions and exhuberant, which if you don't know me
> doesn't come off well in raw text.
> I didn't know you were on the forum, Ian. : ) As you saw I tried to post a
> comment to raise my (mis?)interpretation of your post but the technical
> fairy gremlins whisked it away.
> I'm about to run out the door, but I wanted to say that:
> a) I love a lot your work from what little I've seen
> b) in the brief form in your list below I don't disagree with anything
> you're saying at all
> c) I don't need every post about content strategy to be about all-things-cs-
> everywhere. Mine certainly aren't... that said, with the permission of the
> jury, I was taking issue with certain points and choices of words. I don't
> need to belabour - especially with my aforementioned foot-mouth ailment -
> but I thought some points came off as dismissive to CS, which you've
> clarified was not your intent. There's other stuff, but hopefully we'll
> get a chance to chat about that in future. Please feel free to tear gaping
> holes in my blog should you ever care to, I'd be interested in the feedback.
> d) If you are being a bit dismissive about CS, then that's totally cool
> too. I find the field is fraught with buzzy energy these days, and it
> sometimes will naturally need a little reality check to bring us back to
> earth.
> And now... to the bar....
> On 13 June 2011 18:06, Eat Media <contenthun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Noz,
> > I should have chimed in earlier but I've been slammed. Thanks to
> > Rachel for her interpretation which was spot on.
> > The point I was trying to make here was that:
> > - Most practices were once buzzwords. Not a judgement, just a fact.
> > - Too often the chatter is about what we call ourselves vs what it
> > accomplishes or how/why it accomplishes.
> > - While important, to some degree we are talking in a vacuum. (Clients
> > don't care.)
> > - The solution delivered by a CS is not the same as what a CM
> > delivers.
> > I would argue that my post is not conjecture but very clearly a
> > reaction to the environment. While there are some great voices and
> > grand minds who talk about CS there are also a smorgasbord of articles
> > that use a stock definition of CS and then go on to explain (content)
> > marketing 'techniques' — which in my mind (and agency) are a very
> > small slice of what a CS does. My post was an A is not B article but
> > is perceived as such and is that good for the client.
> > Loving the conversation on this post.
> > On Jun 12, 6:07 am, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi Rachel,
> > > Your article sounds interesting.
> > > I don't think the post is without merit or logic, but it clearly operates
> > > within a frame of reference that riles some of the CSs out there who
> > don't
> > > feel that the field should be ring-fenced like that.
> > > I read the whole post and I'm clear he is not saying it's a good thing.
> > He
> > > says: "...you will find many articles that use the terms interchangeably,
> > > and I’m not sure that’s a good thing; primarily for the client who now
> > has
> > > to deal with ever-finer slices of practitioner specialities and more
> > > difficult integration/PM issues" I think that's straightforward enough
> > and
> > > even agree with the reasoning (although I find it only scratches the
> > surface
> > > of the wrongness).
> > > And yes, he's also making the distinction between practise and tactic.
> > > He does however make a strong implication (I'm happy to be shown I'm
> > > misinterpreting!!) that the terminology for this practice and tactic is
> > just
> > > a new buzzwords for the same tactic and practice as was used a generation
> > of
> > > buzzwords ago.
> > > "There is content marketing and there is content strategy. Or, to
> > rollback a
> > > round of buzzwords, there is integrated marketing and there is UX
> > Design."
> > > If you're saying that 'content strategy' is simply the new way to say
> > > 'integrated marketing', then it makes a strong statement about where you
> > > encapsulate the scope of CS today. Also, it is putting it on the tactic
> > > side of the divide, whereas I think most CSs feel they are practitioners
> > of
> > > a practice, not applying a tactic.*
> > > Noz
> > > *That said, I find the separation of tactic and strategy to be somewhat
> > > artificial, hair-splitting, folksonomic differentiation. When you look
> > them
> > > up in the dictionary they refer to each other as having overlapping
> > > meanings, so the popular belief that they're clearly separable seems a
> > bit
> > > made up to me. I find it's a distinction VPs and middle managers like to
> > > drag up to look cool in front of their CEOs when you're trying to make a
> > > point. Anyone else been batted with "This presentation is too tactical!
> > I
> > > want to talk strategically!"? I think it's buzzwordy way to replace
> > > 'detailed' vs. 'high level', which are not the same thing...
> > > On 11 June 2011 08:39, Rachel Lovinger <rachel.lovin...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > Many good points being made here, but to be fair I'm certain that Ian's
> > > > original post was NOT saying that it would be a good thing if Content
> > > > Strategy and Content Marketing merge. I think it might be a little
> > confusing
> > > > if you only read the excerpt that Arienne quoted, because it's saying,
> > > > essentially 'yes we all care about content and in some ways that's what
> > > > should be most important' but if you read the rest of the post he's
> > saying
> > > > that there's a practice and there's a tactic and they are not mutually
> > > > encompassing.
> > > > I'm working on an article right now, and part of the set-up is that a
> > lot
> > > > of the growing demand for CS comes from the need to apply editorial
> > ways of
> > > > thinking to organizations that are not traditional content creators,
> > and so
> > > > they have no processes and infrastructure to support the creation of
> > > > content. This of course extends to many marketing departments who now
> > find
> > > > themselves in the position of having to be a major source of the
> > content
> > > > their organizations are producing. I think that's a big part of the
> > reason
> > > > that the two terms seem to be synonymous to many people (especially
> > people
> > > > in marketing). [This point about marketing is not within the scope of
> > the
> > > > article, but the underlying premise seemed applicable here].
> > > > -Rachel
> > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:50 PM, MarciaJ58 <marcia_r_johns...@me.com
> > >wrote:
> > > >> On Jun 10, 2:10 am, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > ... Content Strategy is not a new buzz-word term for UX Design, and
> > not
> > > >> it is
> > > >> > not a good thing if it merges with Content Marketing, as that
> > completely
> > > >> > misses the point....
> > > >> I'm with you, Noz. Content strategy is broader than marketing.
> > > >> Strategy is just as applicable to user-guide content, for example, as
> > > >> it is to marketing content. For an excellent discussion on this point,
> > > >> see Erin Kissane's slim new book, "The Elements of Content Strategy."
> > > >> - Marcia
> > > >> --
> > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > >> "Content Strategy" group.
> > > >> To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com
> > .
> > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > >> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > > >> For more options, visit this group at
> > > >>http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> > > > --
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > > "Content Strategy" group.
> > > > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Content Strategy" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> No stress at all. Sharp blades require hard stones - I welcome, > understand and appreciate the opportunity to clarify. I'm not being > dismissive but certainly believe it is time to move on from the > cheerleading phase and on to harder tasks - which I think the CM / CS > discussion taps into.
> Ian
> On Jun 13, 1:19 pm, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks all. I suffer from cronic foot in mouth disease on online forums > as > > I am curt, full of opinions and exhuberant, which if you don't know me > > doesn't come off well in raw text.
> > I didn't know you were on the forum, Ian. : ) As you saw I tried to > post a > > comment to raise my (mis?)interpretation of your post but the technical > > fairy gremlins whisked it away.
> > I'm about to run out the door, but I wanted to say that:
> > a) I love a lot your work from what little I've seen
> > b) in the brief form in your list below I don't disagree with anything > > you're saying at all
> > c) I don't need every post about content strategy to be about > all-things-cs- > > everywhere. Mine certainly aren't... that said, with the permission of > the > > jury, I was taking issue with certain points and choices of words. I > don't > > need to belabour - especially with my aforementioned foot-mouth ailment - > > but I thought some points came off as dismissive to CS, which you've > > clarified was not your intent. There's other stuff, but hopefully we'll > > get a chance to chat about that in future. Please feel free to tear > gaping > > holes in my blog should you ever care to, I'd be interested in the > feedback.
> > d) If you are being a bit dismissive about CS, then that's totally cool > > too. I find the field is fraught with buzzy energy these days, and it > > sometimes will naturally need a little reality check to bring us back to > > earth.
> > And now... to the bar....
> > On 13 June 2011 18:06, Eat Media <contenthun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Noz,
> > > I should have chimed in earlier but I've been slammed. Thanks to > > > Rachel for her interpretation which was spot on.
> > > The point I was trying to make here was that:
> > > - Most practices were once buzzwords. Not a judgement, just a fact. > > > - Too often the chatter is about what we call ourselves vs what it > > > accomplishes or how/why it accomplishes. > > > - While important, to some degree we are talking in a vacuum. (Clients > > > don't care.) > > > - The solution delivered by a CS is not the same as what a CM > > > delivers.
> > > I would argue that my post is not conjecture but very clearly a > > > reaction to the environment. While there are some great voices and > > > grand minds who talk about CS there are also a smorgasbord of articles > > > that use a stock definition of CS and then go on to explain (content) > > > marketing 'techniques' — which in my mind (and agency) are a very > > > small slice of what a CS does. My post was an A is not B article but > > > is perceived as such and is that good for the client.
> > > Loving the conversation on this post.
> > > On Jun 12, 6:07 am, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Rachel,
> > > > Your article sounds interesting.
> > > > I don't think the post is without merit or logic, but it clearly > operates > > > > within a frame of reference that riles some of the CSs out there who > > > don't > > > > feel that the field should be ring-fenced like that.
> > > > I read the whole post and I'm clear he is not saying it's a good > thing. > > > He > > > > says: "...you will find many articles that use the terms > interchangeably, > > > > and I’m not sure that’s a good thing; primarily for the client who > now > > > has > > > > to deal with ever-finer slices of practitioner specialities and more > > > > difficult integration/PM issues" I think that's straightforward > enough > > > and > > > > even agree with the reasoning (although I find it only scratches the > > > surface > > > > of the wrongness).
> > > > And yes, he's also making the distinction between practise and > tactic.
> > > > He does however make a strong implication (I'm happy to be shown I'm > > > > misinterpreting!!) that the terminology for this practice and tactic > is > > > just > > > > a new buzzwords for the same tactic and practice as was used a > generation > > > of > > > > buzzwords ago.
> > > > "There is content marketing and there is content strategy. Or, to > > > rollback a > > > > round of buzzwords, there is integrated marketing and there is UX > > > Design."
> > > > If you're saying that 'content strategy' is simply the new way to say > > > > 'integrated marketing', then it makes a strong statement about where > you > > > > encapsulate the scope of CS today. Also, it is putting it on the > tactic > > > > side of the divide, whereas I think most CSs feel they are > practitioners > > > of > > > > a practice, not applying a tactic.*
> > > > Noz
> > > > *That said, I find the separation of tactic and strategy to be > somewhat > > > > artificial, hair-splitting, folksonomic differentiation. When you > look > > > them > > > > up in the dictionary they refer to each other as having overlapping > > > > meanings, so the popular belief that they're clearly separable seems > a > > > bit > > > > made up to me. I find it's a distinction VPs and middle managers > like to > > > > drag up to look cool in front of their CEOs when you're trying to > make a > > > > point. Anyone else been batted with "This presentation is too > tactical! > > > I > > > > want to talk strategically!"? I think it's buzzwordy way to replace > > > > 'detailed' vs. 'high level', which are not the same thing...
> > > > On 11 June 2011 08:39, Rachel Lovinger <rachel.lovin...@gmail.com> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Many good points being made here, but to be fair I'm certain that > Ian's > > > > > original post was NOT saying that it would be a good thing if > Content > > > > > Strategy and Content Marketing merge. I think it might be a little > > > confusing > > > > > if you only read the excerpt that Arienne quoted, because it's > saying, > > > > > essentially 'yes we all care about content and in some ways that's > what > > > > > should be most important' but if you read the rest of the post he's > > > saying > > > > > that there's a practice and there's a tactic and they are not > mutually > > > > > encompassing. > > > > > I'm working on an article right now, and part of the set-up is that > a > > > lot > > > > > of the growing demand for CS comes from the need to apply editorial > > > ways of > > > > > thinking to organizations that are not traditional content > creators, > > > and so > > > > > they have no processes and infrastructure to support the creation > of > > > > > content. This of course extends to many marketing departments who > now > > > find > > > > > themselves in the position of having to be a major source of the > > > content > > > > > their organizations are producing. I think that's a big part of the > > > reason > > > > > that the two terms seem to be synonymous to many people (especially > > > people > > > > > in marketing). [This point about marketing is not within the scope > of > > > the > > > > > article, but the underlying premise seemed applicable here].
> > > > > -Rachel > > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:50 PM, MarciaJ58 < > marcia_r_johns...@me.com > > > >wrote:
> > > > >> On Jun 10, 2:10 am, Noz Urbina <b.noz.urb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > ... Content Strategy is not a new buzz-word term for UX Design, > and > > > not > > > > >> it is > > > > >> > not a good thing if it merges with Content Marketing, as that > > > completely > > > > >> > misses the point....
> > > > >> I'm with you, Noz. Content strategy is broader than marketing. > > > > >> Strategy is just as applicable to user-guide content, for example, > as > > > > >> it is to marketing content. For an excellent discussion on this > point, > > > > >> see Erin Kissane's slim new book, "The Elements of Content > Strategy."
> > > > >> - Marcia
> > > > >> -- > > > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > Groups > > > > >> "Content Strategy" group. > > > > >> To post to this group, send email to > contentstrategy@googlegroups.com > > > . > > > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > >> contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > > > >> For more options, visit this group at > > > > >>http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> > > > > -- > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > Groups > > > > > "Content Strategy" group. > > > > > To post to this group, send email to > contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
> > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > "Content Strategy" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to contentstrategy@googlegroups.com. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > contentstrategy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/contentstrategy?hl=en.
