The lure of cheap content in B2B marketing
An article in MediaWeek on content mills like Demand Media and Seed.com got me thinking about the dangerous lure of cheap content in B2B marketing. The goal of the content mills is to crank out a huge volume of search-oriented content for the web as cheaply as possible and sell advertising against it. Large consumer brands including AT&T, Proctor and Gamble, and General Motors have taken the bait and the model seems to be working. Critics bemoan the implications on multiple levels, including the crowding out of quality editorial and the low wages paid to the freelancers who fill the mills.
The mills themselves are mainly a B2C issue (at least for now!). But the underlying idea of maximizing content with minimum investment is all too common in B2B as well, especially as business marketers scramble to keep up with the accelerating demands of content creation for lead nurturing and social media.
With B2B, the problem is actually two-fold: insufficient investment of time as well as money in the creation of quality content. The money issues are pretty straightforward:
- Hiring junior marcom staff to produce content when more seasoned experts are really needed
- Outsourcing content production to the cheapest possible resources knowing that quality will suffer
- Making do with general-issue collateral when customization for different audiences would be far more effective
- Short-changing design and rich media when standard-issue text and stock photography scream low-budget to audiences expected to pay top dollar for your products, services, and solutions
The time issues may be even more pernicious:
- Skimping on research that would back up your arguments
- Forgoing competitive review despite the need to differentiate
- Minimizing group review in the rush to meet deadlines
- Racing through internal communication that could ensure alignment and support
The irony of cheap content, of course, is the high cost in damaged reputation and lost opportunities: "Thought leadership" content that is neither thoughtful nor leading; jargon-filled collateral that fails to connect; customer case studies that read like warmed-over brochures. Or, perhaps most common of all, marketing content that is simply ignored by sales before it even has a chance to reach customers and prospects.
Resisting the lure of cheap content is not easy when budgets are tight and time is even tighter. It means taking more time up front to understand customer needs, map out editorial strategy, and think through the true value in each piece of content. It means saying No when colleagues push for sign-off on poorly written and designed drafts. And it may mean sacrificing quantity for quality -- although investing the time to build more compelling Points of View now will actually make it easier to produce both more and better content down the road.
We all know that competition keeps growing, buyer patience keeps shrinking, and the margin for error is almost zero. In this context, can we really afford cheap content?
Photo credit: FDR Presidential Library
Solutions Insights
Reader Comments (2)
These materials are short-term winners and it's often possible to see a decent ROI over a relatively short period.
However, established brands really do need to think in terms of reputation protection, as you noted.
Additionally, the long-term viability of these techniques--which exist to mine weaknesses in search algorithms--is bleak. Eventually, content quality will matter more than it does now and those pages of belched out content aren't going to yield the desired results.
One other thing... I'm not so sure you can put all of these "mills" on equal footing. Some actually do a half-decent job of quality control. Others are complete disasters, though.
Carson
I fully agree with this post. Too many companies don't map out a cogent editorial strategy prior to jumping into the "we need more content!!" mindset. The result is lackluster content which fails to inspire thought or leadership, to your point. Bravo on pointing this out!