A couple weeks back I was invited by Jonathan Kahn of TogetherLondon to give an 5 minute lightning talk on Content Strategy at the London CS Meetup. Now I’m by no stretch of the imagination a content strategist but these folks are. That said, I will be presenting at the Content Strategy Forum Conference in London this September. Why? Because although content strategy gaining momentum, it is not something that our clients know that they need and/or can articulate in a way that makes sense with their sponsors / stakeholders.
The lightning talk was an teaser to my presentation, The Strategist and the Executioner that falls within the technology and content stream at September’s CS Forum Conference. As an executioner of digital ideas, ranging from digitial strategies through marketing campaigns to web sites and landing pages, the build team continue to struggle in the absence of a clear content strategy. It simply does not get the required executive level buy in early enough. However, a content architecture, well that’s a different story. For a build team seeking clarity, a content architecture can serve a dual function:
- Firstly, to capture and model the essential interactions between content publishers
and content managers. - Secondly, build the case for content strategy.
What is Content Architecture?
Content architecture is the specification for a content management solution. It is not a replacement for content strategy. Far from it. Instead the aims, audiences, publishing needs typically captured as part of a content strategy, are key, but often missing inputs to content architecture.
Content architecture is a set of guiding principles, models and best practices for effective content management. A content architecture communicates a shared understanding of "how" content should be managed and published. Once in place, it can be used to drive decisions about how designers, developers, testers and system administrators should evolve the technical solution by:
- Specifying user groups and their access across the content tree.
- Surfacing key publishing and editorial activities.
- Documenting content types and the relationships between other content types, devices, users and sites.
- Applying workflow best practice to satisfy publishing activities.
- Defining the technical environments and how content will be transferred between them.
- Overlaying an "agreed" decision making structure onto the publishing model.
- Implementing key strategies around URLs, SEO, social and campaign management.
What is NOT Content Architecture?
When a content architecture is being specified in the absence of a content strategy, clear gaps and questions get raised. These are the questions that executioners look to the strategists for answers. It’s virtually impossible for a solution to meet client expectations without clear aims and an in-depth understanding of the internal/external audiences (but many try). This is content strategy. This and all the answers to the questions that fall within content strategy’s four lands: substance, structure, workflow and governance. Content architecture is a great way to shine a light on these gaps whilst as the same time delivering tangible value back into the business.
Summary
I think we all do a bit of content architecture anyway, but just call it a different name within our own projects. Content modelling? Content design? Content requirements? You name it. However, as a technologist, it is easier to make the case for content architecture to our clients than it is to lobby for content strategy from the outset. Particularly, with a client that is not ready to listen.
Hopefully that will change. But I’m curious, how do you build the case for content strategy?
Hi Cleve,
Really thoughtful and interesting post. I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head in that there is an issue about labels and which ones are most compelling for clients (particularly in larger orgs).
The term “content architecture” may get more traction because it sounds like infrastructure, and the business can understand (or recognise) what it’s signing up to, more so than when they hear a ‘softer’ term like “content strategy”.
My own interests probably lie nearer the content management end of the content strategy continuum, so that shapes my views of course. When I’m selling the benefits of content strategy, it’s often in terms of content quality and why it’s worth investing in; or more pointedly, the risks/costs that poor quality content carries with it.
Part of quality is consistency, channel- or audience- or device-appropriateness (among other things).
To me, content strategy is more than just a fancy name for deciding what copy will be used in a website or other digital context (and I do see the term used as a label for this) – this is no more than business as usual for marketers or web editors – though it’s a very, very important job.
The “strategy” part of content strategy comes with the challenge of using, reusing (often re-shaping) and maintaining content, in my view. Often it is about designing robust processes, reducing duplication and breaking down organisational silos (you can probably see I’ve found Ann Rockley’s work inspirational here
).
There’s an elephant in the room of course, call “information architecture”. It’s interesting to me that the buzz about content strategy has tended to give short shrift to the contribution of IA’s to the mix – indeed to conflate content strategy and IA. The great IA’s I know have always cared deeply about content, not just structure or interaction – I think there is a lot of willful dismissal of IA as a discipline, and I don’t think that’s particularly helpful. What I do wonder about is whether content strategists or content architects will find it easier to embed themselves in organisations than IA’s sometimes have (it’s never popular to be in a role exercising a governance function in my experience).
Anyway, just a few thoughts provoked by your post. There’s still some work to do in clarifying how the pieces fit together (and I think you make a very useful contribution to the task), but that’s half the fun, isn’t it?
Best regards,
James
Thanks for the comment James. Content architecture is starting to take shape now and is becoming less of a hard sell through the driving momentum and heightened awareness around content strategy. It’s great news.
On your point around IA vs CS. I’m definitely more on the content management side than content strategy, but am doing much more in the content strategy space because that’s the only way for me to bring more order out of today’s chaos. But I too have felt this shudder of IA disapproval. But it quickly passes when roles are put to one side and folks just get down to the tasks at hand. I can’t remember who, maybe Erin Kissane in her book on Element of Content Strategy, nails it, we need IAs passionate about editorial planning, and content strategists keen to understand more around interaction design and structures.
In the end, it doesn’t matter how you joined the party, we’re all here, and the DJ has just put on his first track…