For the Content Hungry: The Eat Media Blog

We’ve all been there. You’re sending an application at the eleventh hour, making a last minute payment, or just trying to reach customer service, that bane of our existence. So you browse to some information page to find the cutoff or closing time.

Boom! You’re met with a jumble of opening and closing hours, weekend and holiday exceptions, followed by an alphabet soup of time zones: EST, PT, UTC, GMT, etc. If the company is foreign, has that country’s daylight savings time kicked in yet? Is that minus or plus one hour?

CloudAccess.net seems to have a downright ingenuous solution: Show the current time in whatever timezone the company is based. Simple, no? Note how showing the current time provides context for the support hours on the left (image below; original page here).

Bonus idea: Add the local time for the user — trivial enough with a few lines of client-side code. Why exactly isn’t this standard practice already?

With a few exceptions the website has not changed that much in past 10 years. Text + images/illustration + links + shopping cart + data capture. It’s largely a passive experience in a (hyper)active world. A world of getting people to do things and purchase other (occasionally) necessary things. Our storefront office here in Hastings-on-Hudson begs passersby to investigate. On average we get 3-5 people a week poking a head in our office and asking some form of “what do you do in here?” My natural response is – “We help clients with create and execute content-first strategies…” then I watch as their eyes drift to Rushkoff’s robots. After a few seconds they ask — “so…you make websites?”* It’s pure puffery to come back with something like — “No we tell digital stories,” so most often I acquiesce — “Right, websites. We make websites.” Sometimes they ask for a card and other times they back out slowly as if they walked into the middle of a bank robbery. *(For the record – more than 50% of our billable work is strategy only.)

Last week a woman came in, looked at our whiteboard wall covered in product-design brainstorming and said, “Well, this place is fun.” I smiled, realizing that both websites, strategy and ideas were only part of what we do. It reminded me that fun should help shape any experience and not everyone needs to know exactly what you do. Especially if you can make them smile.

PS – Want to work at a growing agency? Check out our job openings >

In a world where every self-respecting software product or service has an API, it’s surprising how convoluted it is to get simple result counts from the leading search engines.

While working on a recent coding project, I needed total results counts for a particular word or phrase. So I turned to the 800-pound gorilla, expecting that with its dozens of API projects, Google would be a walk in the park. Apparently not.

Jumping through hoops

First, you have to request an API key, then create a Custom Search engine. Considering the small data I wanted, pure overkill. And it doesn’t get any better. Next, you have to specify at least one site to search — although I don’t want to restrict the search, I want the entire web. Google says you can’t do that.

But wait, there’s actually an option to “Search the entire web but emphasize included sites.” Huh?

What you see is not what you get.

Well, let’s select that option and compare results with regular search:

• Google search for ‘tintin’: 30,700,000 results
• Google CSE search for ‘tintin’: 2,080,000 results

What?! That’s less than 7 percent — not even remotely close. Going by comments from users in the API forums, Google supposedly uses different indexes for its custom search engines. Not cool. Yahoo, here we come.

Brother, can you spare a key?

At first, Yahoo seems promising, providing good ol’ RSS feeds for any keyword searches without needing an API key, which Google does not have. Unfortunately, no result count is available in the data returned.

Turning to Yahoo! Search BOSS, the equivalent of Google’s Custom Search, we run into a paywall immediately. Fine for a larger project, unnecessary to programmatically get the occasional result count. At least Google gives you 100 queries per day free.

Oh well, on to Bing which, by the way, now powers Yahoo Search.

Salvation comes from Redmond

Microsoft surprises sometimes, in a good way. Then again, Bing itself got generally good reviews when it was released and its Cure for Search Overload Syndrome ad campaign did hit the spot. Like Yahoo, Bing provides no-API access to RSS versions of search results. (Good.) Like Yahoo, the feed is missing result counts. (Bad.) But unlike Yahoo, full API access is free (Very Good!) and unlike Google, the result count matches regular Bing Search. (Very Very Good!)

• Bing search for ‘tintin’: 3,820,000 results
• Bing API search for ‘tintin’: 3,820,000 results

Phew! Who knew getting a search count could be so complicated?

A better approach

To put this whole experience in perspective, let’s consider how two other services provide API functionality: Topsy (a Twitter search engine) and Tumblr (well, you know, Tumblr):

1. Basic access is free and has reasonable limits: Topsy allows 3,000 free API calls per day, no questions asked, no API key needed.
2. Graded access level: Tumblr has three options — No authentication for open information, and for higher level calls, an API key or OAuth authentication depending on the request.

Done. Seems the smaller companies are thinking this through better.

We’ll do a formal intro to this project in the next few weeks. For now I welcome you to take a look. We’re open to any and all feedback you have. Please use the user voice feedback tab on the right of the site or email me directly ian@eatmedia.net

calculator.eatmedia.net

INTERVIEW WITH SELF

What inspired you to make the Content Calculator?

1- We had a client who requested we break down content costs by piece but the hard cost of a word rate or per finished minute rate didn’t factor in their excessive stakeholder review cycle and training users on their new CMS.

2- The Time is Money Clock

3- Unruly excel spreadsheets

4- Umair Haque’s book – The New Capitalist Manifesto

I noticed that in some cases creating less content is more expensive. What’s up with that?

In some cases, like copywriting, it is harder and therefore more expensive to create less content.

Are these numbers for real?

Yes.

Didn’t you start this this awhile ago?

Yes.

Why should I care about soft costs?

So you can make more informed decisions related to content?

What are the calculations based on?

Our 5 years of experience estimating content strategy/creation/management projects.

Can I enter my own numbers and variables?

It’s coming.

What should I do with this information?

Make a smaller site? Invest in a content-first solution? Streamline your operations? Gosh, the opportunities are endless.

Are you still tweaking the tool?

Yes, that’s why we need your feedback :)

—Ian

Many years ago I worked for a now defunct NY company setting up outsourcing solutions in China. Our deliverables were code, creative and analytic reporting. Our clients included HSN and Disney. I was in charge of creating the systems that facilitated us managing creative 11,000 miles away in Guangzhou. I quickly learned four things.

1- Optimizing production based tasks requires a tremendous amount of documentation.
2- Optimizing creative tasks by running them through a production filter results in either crappy creative or missed deadlines.
3- Creative solves problems and requires understanding what questions to ask.
4- Creative is rarely creative when is treated like production.

The benefit of thinking with a content-first mindset is that it requires you to think through all possible scenarios, across multiple practices. On a daily basis I had to think about design, code, reporting, messaging, ad rates/specifications, campaigns, legal issues and IT. Managing multiple variables seems easy, or at least part of what we signed up for running an agency. I often like to say it all comes down to how many shovels do we need, how many guys do we need and where is the sand going. The creative is figuring that all out. Then, and only then, is the digging (the production) part of what we signed up for worthwhile.

Occasionally clients try to assuage the details of creative projects and cover it with disguise of “execution-only” primer — the end result is rarely good. Sometimes it’s a money issue, other times it’s a vision issue, but in reality it becomes a production vs. creation issue. Creativity is about hands-on experience coupled with the ability to ask the appropriate questions at the appropriate time, while managing the change necessary to implement that creative.

Once a project starts to house phrases like: “seems pretty basic” and “should take you 5-minutes” you have either knowingly or unwittingly moved from the creation of something to the production of something. All shovels down.

—Ian

I recently had a conversation with Doug Rushkoff about a project he is working on. My first instinct was, “This could be a product or an app.” Not so much for the commerce aspect but rather to translate the value inherent in his thinking/project to something people could use. And Doug said: Not everything is a product. Some things are process only, and processes are better implemented and actualized by people from start to finish.

Every day a new app that curates knowledge or helps users skip the process and get right to decision making is pushed to web. I use many of these sites/applications — they save me time and money. But at what cost?

To Doug’s point, at the cost of process creation, process understanding and the information/experience loss that comes from understanding complexities. Is opinion formed from a deep understanding of process more valuable than a decision quickly culled from a slider, input box, submit button and results page?

—Ian

Just hear me out. One emerging practice (content strategy) + one tactic (content marketing) = I’m not really sure.

Content Marketing: “Content marketing is an umbrella term encompassing all marketing formats that involve the creation or sharing of content for the purpose of engaging current and potential consumer bases. Content marketing subscribes to the notion that delivering high quality, relevant and valuable information to prospects and customers drives profitable consumer action. Content marketing has benefits in terms of retaining reader attention and improving brand loyalty.” –from the Content Marketing Wikipedia page created 25 February 2008

Content Strategy: “Content strategy has been growing as a practice within the industry of web development since the late 1990s. It is recognized as a field in user experience design but has also drawn interest from practitioners in adjacent communities such as content management, business analysis and technical communication.” –from the Content Strategy Wikipedia page created 08 April 2009

Then a funny thing happened about a year ago—the terms got squished together to form “Content Marketing Strategy.” I’m not sure how this happened or even what it means but it’s out there and to some people it means something.

In my opinion, “Content Marketing Strategy” is vacuous—there is no such thing. 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.

Volume and repetition matter
The solution I hear most often from content marketing is “make more content, gain more trust.” From content strategy, it’s “content should drive all other practices.” Increasingly, 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 specialties and more difficult integration/PM issues.

I recently met with a friend of a friend about a website he was launching. His business was a data-based content creation & strategy play with all the requisite buzzwords in place, along with poor design, clunky marketing speak and a mish-mash of “content marketing” and “content strategy” definitions. I was at loss. Here was a very smart guy with good intentions going out into the market with one puzzle piece. The whole event felt like dropping your car off at a mechanic who asks you for a ride because his car doesn’t run.

Perhaps you don’t build trust?
Building trust goes way beyond the creation of content. (And yes, I’m guilty of oversimplifying its importance.) I’m slowing starting to realize that you can’t set out to build trust. When you do, it implies that you are building it in order to leverage it later—and that feels a little dirty. Trust has so many facets to it and is so subjective that I find it hard to believe there is a one size fits all solution that works. So if Content Marketing Strategy can live on the web, then I’m petitioning for Trust Strategy.

Perhaps content ________ isn’t about building anything but rather is just a requirement like air in your tires, ink in your pen and quality in your product/service.

A great user experience respects both the content and the reader (see Readability). A great user experience cares that labels fit inside buttons and ensures that “thanks for coming” takes precedence across all fields of practice from the first click to the last.

—Ian

At the initial Content Strategy Consortium in 2009 /IA Summit in Memphis I suggested we create a budget, a fake project and play out a content strategy budget scenario. The small group didn’t jump on the idea, but it has always sat with me as a worthwhile exercise.

So I’m offering up my experiment here to a broader audience of: Content Strategists, Design/Build Digital Shops, User Experience Designers and anyone else in the Strategic Branding, Digital Marketing space.

THE $25,000 CHALLENGE

The Challenge:

How would you use this (purposefully) limited budget to solve this hypothetical client’s problem(s)? You can focus just on your expertise or spread the budget out across multiple practices.

The Rules:

You can ask 3 questions (email ian@eatmedia.net) but you can’t say no to the job.

Industry: Financial Services

Budget: $25,000.00

Deadline: We’ll be collecting ideas until Thursday, May 5.

What’s in it for You:

We’ll be posting the best submissions on our blog sometime in May. And if we mention your submission, you’ll get a little gift from us.

Assessment of the Existing Website:

• On a scale of 1-10 the site would score a 5 (design/IA/user experience).
• Client has a 50 page website. Home/Services/About/Contact/Press.
• Client’s target audience = 23-59 year old executives looking to invest in regional, high-yield markets.
• They are only using organic search. 30 of their 50 pages are articles, press and marketing content.
• Site is not converting pageviews to leads (email and one whitepaper download).

Assessment of Newsletter:

• On a scale of 1-10 the newsletter would score a 4 (design/IA/user experience)
• Newsletter is not performing well compared to industry opens and clicks.

Assessment of Social Media:

• On a scale of 1-10 their social media interaction would score a 4 (content, frequency, relevance)
• Twitter account that they intermittently post to – 1-3x a week with prompts to check out their services as well as some industry news.
• No mobile strategy and website is not optimized for the web. All collateral is very dry and lacks a unique voice.
• How do you allocate this (purposefully) limited budget? You can focus just on your expertise or spread the budget out across multiple practices.

—Ian

If you have ever heard, “Throw your hands in the air, and wave ‘em like ya just don’t care,” you know the next line is, “Oh yeah!”

DJ Hollywood originally coined the call and response that happens between a DJ and the crowd as “conversations.” Hollywood’s “conversations” with his audience completed a circle and cemented a relationship that built trust, extended the depth of the experience and established Hollywood as the hottest DJ in New York.

Today’s digital landscapes too often forsake the conversation and treat experiences like shiny IP assigned megaphones—statement amplifiers—rather than introductions to converse. Dan Brown says very early in his book Communicating Design, “The people who will be visiting and interacting with your web site provide important context to the design process.” If Dan would permit me to replace ‘design’ with ‘conversation,’ I’d leverage his statement to offer that companies should be paying more attention communicating with web site visitors and creating designs/experiences that introduce and inspire conversations, rather than simply collecting data and prompting to purchase their wares. An incredible experience is not enough anymore, it feels both obvious and static without a conversation. (A conversation is not an email address, a pop-up chat window, a comment field or even a “like” button.)

Collect = Confero in Latin, meaning to “bring together.”
Buy = Paro in Latin, meaning, “to prepare or get ready.”

I’d like to think we can tailor experiences that confero better than a plain old form submit—like this from uber-designer Jessica Hische. Or as a broader in-person experience like the Donahue App from arc90 and Behavior.

I also think we are capable of helping customers paro. Like Warby Parker’s virtual glasses tool.

Virtual realities, GEO-located inspirations and social media are great tools with which to create experiences, but only if they are part of a larger conversation with the user. Only if they are committed to an open loop where the experience wants to both talk and listen.

Oh yeah.

P.S. — Interested in more Hip-Hop and Content Strategy analogies. Come see me speak at Confab.

—Ian