Jeffrey MacIntyre › Comments

"This is great. *Hat tip* I strongly agree that practitioners need to be thinking through how they are scoping their content strategy engagements in terms of project impacts and operational impacts. And that value needs to be clearly and plainly communicated with clients and colleagues. This is, as I’ve tried to suggest in several venues now, the crux between “small tent” and “big tent” CS. This field of practice is capable of much, but we as a community need to hedge against overstatement and hype. Which is, after all, a very pragmatic definition of scope management." - Jeffrey MacIntyre

"As your illustration slyly suggests, content specialists need to grasp that all attention to content (planning, production, delivery, reuse) is cyclical. I think there is some subtle satire at work in here, too, because we’ve all had experiences with “on/off” marketing campaigns and other single-burst theatrics from the PR hack down the hall. What’s missing so often is the long view: what’s the effect of our content over time in terms of advancing an experience, a product or service? Which is why it’s heartening to see content marketers start to think longer term with keyword analysis, for example, in lieu of dashed-off overnight splashes. It’s about really grasping the longevity of content, its value over time. Just as importantly, Colleen, I wonder whether there’s a somewhat different vector we could add above, which is when content *is* the product of a digital property–a web magazine, for instance. My approach with editorial strategy is to wed it to the product development..." - Jeffrey MacIntyre

"Bingo on #3!" - Jeffrey MacIntyre

"Astonishing. This is what my wife refers to as "a feeding" -- thanks for this early morning one." - Jeffrey MacIntyre

"This reminds me of what the Boston Globe’s Big Picture blogger had to say, in his 5-word acceptance speech at The Webby’s: “It not journalism that’s dying.”" - Jeffrey MacIntyre

"I’ve seen the taxonomy tension played out before with interesting results, Jacob, and I’d second Scott’s referral to Weinberg. In my client experience with major news companies, there is often resistance to moving away from the holy tablets of section-based taxonomy. And it’s been an editorial team-led resistance, or sometimes an argument for remaining attentive to user needs. Both hold merit, but as you say, the technology and need to compete are driving us to push the model in bolder directions. It is happening, although some such projects haven’t seen the light of day yet. I think the kicker, from my own experience, is that advertising and biz strategy is driving a lot of the web editorial innovation coming down the road. I’ve seen sophisticated ad strategies enthrone new models of organizing content at other media and entertainment companies. (Much of this follows topical aggregations, executed to varying levels of technical and revenue-driving ingenuity.) News orgs will not be..." - Jeffrey MacIntyre

"This is absolutely spot-on, Rachel. I’m so glad you’ve documented it here. If I could add anything, it would only be to to say that alongside an ‘understanding of logic,’ an appreciation for taxonomy–a yen for auditing and defining organizing principles–is critical. Such a person is going to wrestle order out of chaos and find fresh ways to rethink and reorder data. This can result in structural improvements to how content is ordered, sure, but also to the workflows and processes required to maintain content organization." - Jeffrey MacIntyre

"Colleen, I’d like to try answering the question your thoughtful post implicitly poses. You’ve buttonholed how important it is for strategists to fixate on the matter of timeliness in messaging and frequency in habituating users (and publishers!) to expectations of fresh, meaningful content. The question I’m inferring here from you is that it’s less about how we make the decisions than the tool we use to express them. And so what’s the tool? I think it’s an editorial calendar." - Jeffrey MacIntyre

"Chris, the biggest reason you're not seeing us deploy real-work examples is the binding strength of the nondisclosure agreement. Even for those outside agency life there are confidentiality/competitive issues, as a lot of this is considered intellectual property (it is). I've toyed with an article idea around a speculative project and may undertake it when I complete the one in my docket at the moment. That said, I make a point of using redacted work samples in all my presentations for this reason. The truth remains, however: there is not yet nearly enough sharing and socializing of our work product around the community. 12 months ago, there wasn't much of a community to provide that incentive." - Jeffrey MacIntyre

"I had a reply extending my argument that any CS worth her salt delivers solutions that are operationally sound and transcend the life of a campaign or project context, but it got blown away by the failtastic authentication procedure of Disqus. The short form answer is that an agencyside CS may or may not deliver something that is sustainable only because the client and agencyside decisionmakers may not recognize the value of incorporating that time (and the postlaunch value proposition) into the build and bill cycle. If it's not blue sky--and CS best practices can be dead-unsexy, if you ask me--it may not be worth selling." - Jeffrey MacIntyre

"I'm not surprised to see the comments feed become a lively counterpoint to your post, Craig; I’m delighted. It's a strong vote that you're onto something genuinely important: the connection between content and business strategy. From where I stand, this gets red-stamped as an important new cornerstone in the thinking we've been trying to advance, which is specifically to elevate the conversation beyond what organizations rightfully regard as micro considerations (meaningful data; better content and methods; richer tools) to the macro: how does my business cope and compete in this (momentarily, at least) Googlecentric content economy? In the wake of a curtain-raising 2009, this is the long game for content strategy. Unlike yourself, Craig, I didn't go to school for business but I've found myself drawn into it, especially business analysis, by dint of the recurring and specific client problems I’m trying to solve, and of the niche clientele I’m trying to support. They need to level-up..." - Jeffrey MacIntyre

"Very nice, Richard--this is a nice keeper. Is there another wing, called Business, wherein our consultative work on licensing and syndication might apply, or on other aspects of product development (such as paywalls/models, archives, other premium content offerings)? Or would you see that fitting into Creative instead? Or what about evaluating/ingesting third party content? Is that a matter for migration or platform development, or business, or...? If mapping this were easy, it'd be no fun. Cheers, Jeff" - Jeffrey MacIntyre

"Great post and a sweet gauntlet to be dropping at this particular moment. I’ve said this elsewhere before, but I think the client and organizational literacy around content strategy–itself as a field; a set of deliverables; and something of a methodology–has been one of the most telling things I’ve noticed in the last three projects on which I’ve worked. In two of the three (and I’m not far into the third) there were specific requests around deliverables that I was not aware were all that well known, nevermind appreciated or requested. This may be partly a NY thing for the moment. But you can hit the bricks here and find more than one agency that has found themself for wont of a CS because a prospective client had it line-itemed in their RFP. Appropriately enough, my next project is to write one such document, and you can believe I won’t leave the client exposed on that front. Best, Jeff" - Jeffrey MacIntyre