I've read "We shouldn't use the word" or the notion that content marketing is solely about awareness. Neither makes sense.
Content. A collective noun
More than one person has decried the use of the word 'content' as "reducing media bits down to a uniform standard when they aren't".
As a collective noun, it works just fine. It's a collective for many different types of media bits, like we would refer to "people" or "houses".
Tom Goodwin expressed a concern that as a catch-all, it has made everything about 'tonnage, not craft'. I agree, although I suggest the issue is more about the misuse and abuse of the word than the word itself.
Content. It's not just about awareness
Jason Patterson had an interesting post in which he suggested there is a notion out there that content marketing is solely about awareness. Yikes, those suggesting this clearly don't understand the customer journey and the role content plays at all stages.
It's great to have ideas challenged and debated, although sometimes we tend to dissect things so much that it turns into intellectual masturbation.
...the issue is more about the misuse and abuse of the word than the word itself.
I like to keep things simple.
I've successfully used the Hero, Hub and Hygiene model for years. In B2C, B2B2C, B2B…Maybe even before Google labelled it 'HHH' 😊
So yes, I believe Content is still King.
The only difference nowadays is the need for better quality to cut through the morass of shitty, mediocre 'stuff'. The good news is that poor Content is unlikely to usurp quality content any time soon, with or without AI.
Here's my follow-up to "IS CONTENT STILL KING?" in another edition of Firebird Brand Tales, covering The Content Framework.
[Yes, the visuals are all AI-generated. Some could be better; it's a process.]
Follow me for brand truths and other marketing stuff. I try to dispel a few myths and nonsense.
Curious how you can sharpen your brand's story? Get in touch. I'll help you make it count.
Comments