Echoes in the Content Space

As we content/editorial folks seek to elicit the integral value of digital editorial strategy and our own value in executing these strategies, I interrupt this regularly scheduled broadcast due to an incoming flood of new inspirations, thoughts, and ideas regarding the current media climate as it relates to a subtle but momentous shift in the ways we think about, create, manage, and structure interactive experiences. This is particularly relevant with regard to digital editorial strategy, so I wanted to address the nature and context of this shift, it’s impact on organizations, and the roles that are being developed as a result of the transformation.

The Postmodern New Media

In contemplating the nature of this movement, I am drawn to the parallel of my postmodern literature class in college where we were studying Jorge Luis Borges, John Barth, Paul Auster and other authors related to the genre. In one lecture I remember well, our professor Dr. Geoffrey Green was attempting to help us get a better grasp on the somewhat ambiguous postmodern concept, centering his lecture around a Kellogg’s Corn Flakes commercial. Kellogg’s was confronted with the unique challenge of repositioning a brand in Corn Flakes that while popular, needed a bit of a kick in the pants, as the cereal had remained virtually unchanged for almost 100 years. So how do you infuse excitement in a brand that (as far as cereals go) is about as basic as it gets? Well, Kellogg’s idea was to reintroduce the consumer to the brand by asking them to take a step back and to approach the cereal with a refreshed perspective as if they had never had any past experience with Corn Flakes. This led to the rather groundbreaking slogan: Corn Flakes, taste them again for the first time.

Professor Green went on to explain that the essence of this slogan was very similar to what the postmodern writers were doing with regard to the prose forms up until that point. He construed that postmodernism was a concept born from reactions to modernist principles and a desire to create new ideas and explorations within older prose forms. This involved taking a more finite look inside the processes involved in creating narratives, uncovering the illusion of fiction, and in doing so, examining the process of writing and narrative itself. Essentially, these authors were re-imagining fiction. Well, I think this is parallel to what is happening now in respect to creating narratives of interactive experience.  Like the postmodern authors, digital publishing has reached a transformative plateau where thought leaders are asking questions such as: What more can we do in this form? How can we make better use of complex content? How can we create more efficient user experience? Well, the answer is: plenty. Like the call to action echoed in the Kellogg’s commercial, we seem to be at the precipice of taking on the challenge, awakening to a fundamental reexamining of the digital landscape and the processes involved in its creation. In doing so, we have the potential to exponentially advance, transform, and enrich digital user experience and branding initiatives as we move into the future. So, since we have witnessed the dawn and emergence of “modernist” New Media, I would like to put forth the notion that we have entered a subtle paradigm shift to the postmodern era of New Media. The questions now become: How does this shift manifest itself in the context of the digital landscape with regard to editorial strategy, and what are the benefits of this movement? Well, I’m glad you asked…

The Microscope of Editorial Strategy

In his presentation, “Exploring Editorial Strategy”, for the Content Strategy Forum 2010 in Paris, Jeffrey MacIntyre really gets to the heart of the matter, intimating that if you creating interactive experiences for the web then you are a publisher. Other content thought leaders such as Kristina Halvorson and Erin Kissane have eloquently illustrated this as well.  At face value, it might not seem that these declarations are revolutionary, but sometimes, like the Corn Flakes commercial, it is a mere tweaking of that angle of approach or view that can have the most substantial impact sending ripples of change through a system leading to substantive progress within that system.  Likewise, it can be difficult to get everybody on board. This is why Mr. MacIntyre’s presentation is so important because it opens us to a deeper, more comprehensive exploration and examination of the processes, approaches, ideas and results that define more efficient interactive experiences and their accompanying brands. When we use terms like “digital publishing” or “editorial strategy” once reserved solely for print mediums, it provides a more familiar context to further elicit the point that when we create websites we are publishing and developing narratives. Can you imagine a magazine without editorial leadership or an editorial strategy? Of course not. Then why should it be any different for a website that houses your brand message? It shouldn’t and it isn’t. Many of the same theoretical principles, processes and disciplines that are used in print mediums are reciprocal to the digital space and are just as integral in a complex and ever-expanding, content-laden digital landscape. The essence of this movement then is not an attempt to trick our minds into taking a wholly new view of the digital landscape, but rather to awaken us to a future that has been always existed within the New Media form. So what exactly are the benefits of applying this “new” view in the context of digital editorial strategy? I’m glad you asked that too…

Content is a direct extension of your digital brand. It has also reached a unprecedented level of complexity. When digital publishing teams execute editorial strategy, they are really looking at content under a microscope, extracting and dissecting the many parts of a complex system and underlying fabrics that make up a whole. In doing so, these parts are shaped, improved and defined at every level of the user experience. Then, if the process is executed correctly, we transmit more efficient messages, hone a better product, further reach, transmit clearer messages and maximize the quality of that user experience. Also, a well defined editorial and content strategy not only includes strategic research, planning, analysis and implementation but also provides a complex system and strategy for curation (which is large distinguishing factor from print) that continues to give digital brands value over time. This can be done with a “inside-out” strategy approach that results in creating a strong foundation for a new brand or in strengthening an existing one. So, with all of this in mind,  I would argue that a company’s digital publishing initiatives, with a properly executed editorial strategy at its core, is one of the most crucial aspects to the outcome of their digital brand’s effectiveness.

Realm of the DED

Additionally, it is important to provide an explanation of how the fundamental shift of  postmodern New Media movement and its inherent editorial and content strategies fit into a company’s organizational structure. For larger and medium sized organizations this is a new, more detailed set of services that can be offered through strategic planning departments or interactive departments and also by smaller interactive shops that specialize in content creation. As a result, by expanding their strategic services to include a cogent, well executed editorial strategy, interactive media companies can increase their production and bottom line while increasing the bottom line of their clients.

Also, with these new processes and approaches toward digital publishing, new positions are developing to fulfill these obligations and if editorial strategy is at the core, then much like a magazine, there should be similar transferable masthead for positions within this organizational structure. I refer to the person who spearheads digital editorial strategy on a web development team as the Digital Editorial Director (DED). In her groundbreaking book Content Strategy for the Web, Kristina Halvorson refers to this position as the Web Editor in Chief and certainly these might be used interchangeably. Essentially, the DED leads the complex facets of digital editorial strategy and is well versed in a variety of subset disciplines as well as the web development cycle. The nature of the organization will dictate how the DED will be used and moving into the future, I see the DED position as integral to the success of digital branding. Also, depending on the size of a interactive media company it is certainly possible for the DED to carry out several roles within the realm of editorial strategy, project management, digital production or other sub-disciplinary roles such as information architect, web writer, web editor, SEO specialist, etc. Conversely, a person who occupies the title of one of these subordinate roles may handle the duties of the DED. Obviously, depending on organizational objectives and context, there are many ways this could work, but regardless, in my opinion, there needs to be a strong point person leading an organizations’ digital editorial strategy. Also, the better we define these interactive disciplines, the easier we are able form organizational models to aid in the development and implementation of these roles in creating future interactive cycles.

Map to the Future

To provide a visual representation of how digital publishing with editorial strategy as it s core might fit into an organization or work as a part of a larger strategic planning initiative, I have created the following concept map. This diagram is part organizational structure, part hierarchical structure and entirely just some brainstorming on my part. Again, many of the disciplines and their relative positions may overlap. There are no hard walls here.

Also, although I consider content strategy as subset of editorial strategy it is really a chicken before the egg scenario where they are two sides of the same coin. If content strategy is the subordinate, then it is the axis on which editorial strategy spins. Additionally, although I have seen them represented as such, I do not separate design or information architecture from a larger editorial strategy and while I think that social media strategy can be considered a facet of editorial strategy, I have given it a separate heading, because I think it is guided by a slightly different set of fundamental principles. Anyway, here is the map:

In my childhood, I had a Marvel comic book role-playing game that I enjoyed immensely. It was not for its riveting  gameplay or complex storylines, because the truth is I  don’t ever recall playing the game.  Rather, it was the game’s supplementary book which had a exhaustive listing of  attributes applied to each Marvel superhero with an accompanying numerical ranking system from 0 to 100  based on each of these skills. It was great because I finally had a point of reference by which to compare and contrast the characters that I had been reading about for years. This led to an inner dialouge that went something like: “I knew it! The Thing is almost as strong as the Hulk! Whattaya mean Spiderman isn’t as smart as Doctor Strange?!” And so forth. It was fun for me to match up different characters (who might never have encountered each other otherwise) in different scenarios where they might apply their powers. Even more importantly, I now had quantifiable evidence should one of my friends attempt to engage me in any relevant argument regarding characters of the Marvel universe.  The individual graphs looked something like this:

Well, the Content Strategist might be viewed in much the same way. One, of course,  one need not have superpowers to have skills scored in similar fashion (for we all have moods, attributes etc. that could be fit into this sort of graphical representation) but certainly content strategists can be put into a correlating representative field to help us better understand the holistic nature of their work. Jeffrey MacIntyre has a very engaging article entitled Content-tious Strategy replete with a wonderful napkin diagram that provides an excellent and clear elicitation of four distinct disciplines from which the Content Strategist may be born.  Obviously, there are a number of interrelated fields and sub-fields that fall under (or next to) each of these categories, but I wanted to use the disciplines found on the napkin as a springboard to gain a larger picture of how these disparate communications disciplines may be distributed within three hypothetical Content Strategists. So then, applying the disciplines found on the napkin to the mold of our Spiderman graph it would look something like this. We will assume that a score of 90 and above is considered “expertise” in the field with 50 and above being “working knowledge”:

Mr. X has expertise in Information Architecture and is nearing expertise in Copywriting. He has a strong “working knowledge” of Content Analysis and has some, but limited knowledge of Editorial Strategy

.

Ms. Y has an expertise in two fields: Copywriting and Editorial Strategy. She is nearing “working knowledge” in Information Architecture and has limited knowledge of Content Analysis.

Ms. Z is nearing expertise in three of the four disciplines and although she doesn’t have “expertise” in all of the fields as of this moment, you can obviously see that Ms.Z would still be quite a formidable Content Strategist.

In her excellent article The Case for Content Strategy-Motown Style, Margot Bloomstien says that to help define our value as Contents Strategists we should “cross sell complementary and necessary services such as design and content strategy.” I believe this is absolutely correct and in the context of the graphs above, we can see how the Content Strategist might fuse with these other “services”. But how can we as Content Strategists use these examples to further communicate our value? Well, I believe we need to be as explicit as possible in individually defining the disparate attributes that combine to create our whole.  Perhaps, today’s media professionals are so deeply immersed within their respective disciplines that they too often put the cart before the horse, glossing over basic explanations that could better communicate their current value to clients and end-users.  Considering the holistic nature of our work then, it is especially important for the Content Strategist to be mindful in this regard.  The rapid expansion of technologies and their inherent abstract terminology has left much “noise” in the system and many business managers are racing to catch up to speed. In the current climate, many businesses have no idea how to make sense of the new media models or even the nature of their needs to accomplish their full marketing or content objectives. Put simply: We cannot expect a potential client to understand the value of Content Strategy if they don’t understand the aspects that makeup content itself.  It is out of this confusion, however, that the Content Strategist CAN define their value, providing clarity not only on how each of the disparate components of content may function, but how these components integrate to help clients reach their their business’ marketing and communication goals. Do they know why they need information architecture? What type of copywriter would best suit their ideal, and how can great copy help them? How does visual design relate to content?  Helping to answer these fundamental questions and facilitating the understanding of the parts that add to the sum IS Content Strategy, and thus it must be elicited that Content Strategist is integral to the creation of meaningful human experience and in turn, a more efficient and productive future. Sounds like a superhero to me.

So, to help further understand the holistic nature of the Content Strategist, I will be writing a fourth and final part to this article where I will be applying some of the thoughts I have shared here in the context of Bruce Lee’s philosophy or “way”,  Jeet Kune Do.  Stay tuned…

“Hybrid thinking is much more than gathering together a multidisciplinary team. Hybrid thinking is about multidisciplinary people… folks who can connect the dots between what’s culturally desirable, technically feasible, and viable from a business point of view.” – Dev Patnaik from Forget Design Thinking and Try Hybrid Thinking

It seems that at some point over the past few centuries the popular idiom “jack of all trades, master of none” has become a culturally accepted maxim given more credence as verifiable truth than fallacy. Take a a quick gander at the Wikipedia page referencing the phrase and you’ll find it enjoys worldwide usage with manifestations in a host of different languages from Chinese to German. Certainly, in most contexts, this phrase is generally innocuous, but perhaps it speaks to a larger point about an underlying stigma in the world of modern media that at its worst has the ability to hinder our  understanding of how we might control and create content in the future. Therefore, as the digital universe expands into an area of unprecedented complexity and many old media forms crumble and shift around us, it is important that we begin with a fresh perspective if we are to truly embrace the new media landscape. For with these advancing forms of media and communication, comes a separate set of needs and as a result, new disciplines. One such discipline is that of Content Strategy and its relative practitioner the Content Strategist; an individual who has the knowledge and ability to call on a multitude of communication disciplines in order to plan, implement, lead, and execute complex content initiatives in a variety of digital contexts. No longer can we rely solely on an assemblage of  distinct specializations to actualize modern user experience, for it is the  flexible and integrated nature of their approach that gives the Content Strategist their value and defines the field.  Ironically, this is not meant to debunk the specialist for herein lies the rub. As Rachel Lovinger aptly references in her wonderful article Content Strategy: The Philosophy of Data, “everything is content” and therefore, the Content Strategist IS a specialist; a holistic specialist in the shaping of content.

To this day, Leonardo Da Vinci (along with Michelangelo) remains the model of the “Renaissance Man” and it would be a grave understatement to say he was an immensely talented innovator within a plethora of scientific and artistic disciplines. In fact, the only thing that seems to exceed the value of his work was the indefatigable curiosity which fueled a life of inimitable exploration, innovation and discovery.  So, with the benefit of hindsight and considering the tremendous impact of his contributions, his genius and skill remain (with good reason) the unquestioned standard. Certainly, throughout history there have been many other grand contributions by diversely talented individuals. The question is: why isn’t this just as viable today? For of what use is the past if we are not to learn from it, use it, and then move toward a wiser future? Consider this passage from New World Encyclopedia in regard to the polymath’s place in modernity:

Since it is considered extremely difficult to genuinely acquire an encyclopedic knowledge, and even more to be proficient in several fields at the level of an expert, not to mention to achieve excellence or recognition in multiple fields, the word polymath, in both senses, may also be used, often ironically, with a potentially negative connotation as well. Under this connotation, by sacrificing depth for breadth, the polymath becomes a “jack of all trades, master of none”. For many specialists, in the context of today’s hyperspecialization, the ideal of a Renaissance man is judged to be an anachronism…

So in light of this comment, it might be fair to say that if Da Vinci had been alive today we might have been robbed of the full capabilities of his infinite talent since the bounds of his exploration might have been stifled by normative pressures to adhere to a singular discipline. Sure, the counterargument could be if Da Vinci (considering his talent) had put all of efforts into that singular discipline oh, imagine the gifts in that particular field. While it might be (seriously) unfair to make modern comparisons to Da Vinci, generally speaking, today’s polymath is often confronted with skepticism that they might possess EQUAL expertise at two or (gasp!) three disciplines save the nom du jour Hollywood “triple-threat”.  And why should Lindsay Lohan get a pass? For even in those cases where the talents of a multidisciplinary are lauded equally, usually the “other” disciplines are eventually marginalized by the discipline that makes them their living.  But the times they are a changin’ and put in the context of Content Strategy, we can’t afford to enact similar protocol that could exclude such individuals at the cost of impeding innovation in the field. This is not to say that there are not individuals or businesses out there that remain aware of the diverse needs of today’s content. On the contrary, it is simply a call to move forward without  preconceived notions, to thaw the conventions of old forms and embrace new models as the future use of content and business dictate.  The fact is that modern businesses would be wise to not think in terms of specialist or generalist but to embrace whatever individuals and/or teams can lead their communication initiatives to higher levels of efficiency and usability.

EXPERTISE AND THE CONTENT STRATEGIST

To that point, I want to explore a slightly opposing viewpoint that took place in Kristina Halvorson’s article The Discipline of Content Strategy. Ms. Halvorson has a juncture in the article where she proposes an interesting counter to a statement made in Rachel Lovinger’s Content Strategy: The Philosophy of Data.

Ms. Lovinger states:

The main goal of content strategy is to use words and data to create unambiguous content that supports meaningful, interactive experiences. We have to be experts in all aspects of communication in order to do this effectively.

The response of Ms. Halvorson is as follows:

I’d like to propose that, in fact, there are far too many “aspects of communication” for a solitary content strategist to truly claim deep expertise in all of them.

I found both of these articles incredibly inspiring and while I don’t disagree with either of these propositions,  I do think it brings up an important point of discussion found in the crux of  the words “deep expertise” as it relates to the multiple disciplines involved in Content Strategy.  Let’s take a look. Here is a definition of an expert:

An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be, by virtue of credential, training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person…

Obviously, experience and accumulated knowledge are a large part of the makeup of expertise within a discipline. But what of natural ability? Intuition? Passion? The problem with many of the largely accepted definitions of expertise is that since, in most cases, natural ability or “feel” cannot be measured without observation over time, these more subjective elements remain glaringly omitted.   However, I would argue that these subjective elements are just as integral to the makeup of an expert as the objective elements, and that this omission lies at the heart of perpetuating the negative connotations found in the idiom  “jack of all trades, master of none”.

Marie-Line Germain an assistant professor of Human Resources and Leadership at Western Carolina University developed a scale on expertise entitled the Generalized Expertise Measure (GEM) which contains 16 objective and subjective expertise items that would define an expert within a field. Of the 16 items in her scale, only the first five are objective or “Evidence-Based” items with the other 11 being subjective “Self-Enhancement” items.

Here are the Evidenced-Based items:

This person has knowledge that is specific to his or her field of work. This person shows that they have the education necessary to be an expert in his/her field. This person has knowledge about his/her field. This person has the qualifications required to be an expert in his/her field. This person has been trained in his or her area of expertise.

Now the Self-Enhancement items:

This person is ambitious about their work in the company. This person can assess whether a work-related situation is important or not. This person is capable of improving himself or herself. This person is charismatic. This person can deduce things from work-related situations easily. This person is intuitive in the job. This person is able to judge what things are important in his/her job. This person has the drive to become what he or she is capable of becoming in his/her field. This person is self-assured. This person has self-confidence. This person is an expert who is outgoing.

This scale shows the large role that the subjective attributes might play in the expertise ratio. Then, because the Content Strategist must rely on their ability to function within a number of different disciplines, it especially important to include these subjective elements when understanding their relative construction and how they might gain expertise within several disciplines. So in moving forward, my definition of expertise would include an even mixture of knowledge gained through study and practice as well as natural ability/intuition.

So, with this in mind (and in reference to the points made above by Ms. Lovinger and Ms. Halvorson), while it may be a difficult undertaking to become an expert in every discipline within the field of communication, I would posit that it is certainly attainable to gain expertise in several different communication disciplines along with a strong “working knowledge” (some ability and knowledge) of others. This “working knowledge”, however, coupled with the expertise(s), I would argue, is what gives the Content Strategist their holistic power. Either way, I believe expertise in as many of these fields as possible should be the GOAL if the Content Strategist is to maximize their potential in the field.

Also, I think it bears noting that just because you have some experience and/or affinity within a few of these different fields does not a Content Strategist make. I think that one need to have expertise  (or near expertise) in at least one of the larger branches of communication as well as “working knowledge” in at least one other discipline. Also, I think that one needs to be able to integrate those respective disciplines into the aggregate processes involved in creating interactive experience. Certainly, there will be exceptions to this rule. Most importantly, I think one of the quintessential characteristics of an exceptional Content Strategist is an affinity for strong leadership (a quality I will not attempt to quantify here).  Without it, I am of the opinion you can be a Content Strategist but you can’t be a truly great one.

Coming up in The Holistic Specialist Part II: Content Strategists are Superheroes, I will attempt to display how different communications disciplines may be distributed within the individual Content Strategist. Stay tuned…

The Path To Self-Realization

The conversations were sometimes awkward, often frustrating and always an interesting exercise. There, sitting across from friends, interviewers, colleagues, or acquaintances, I would attempt to wind my way through the components of my hybridized resume. I would begin with my love of writing and words, show the arts magazine I had launched, throw in a master’s degree in communications, discuss editorial strategy in the digital realm, and close with my accruing experience in information architecture. The result of these loquacious exchanges often left the object of my explanation looking rather exhausted but not any closer to understanding my area of expertise. This wasn’t how it was supposed to be. I knew what I did, I had a grasp on my talents, and dang it all if I wasn’t a good communicator! Well, then, what was so hard about explaining it? The problem seemed to be that although I had acquired skills in several different communications disciplines, what I considered my greatest ability wasn’t one of these skills taken individually, but rather, the ability to apply them in the context of a larger, holistic approach to creating meaningful user experience. This just wasn’t an easy thing to tie up into a neat little package. Certainly, my explanations weren’t living up to the marketing maxim of selling your product in a sentence or less, even if the product, in this case, was me.  I needed a way to put it together in a manageable form; a title that fit me…but was there such a title out there?   Well, just as I was about to abandon my clearly useless subconscious and consciously ask myself that question…

… it happened.  Or I should say, they happened. Two simple words that provided the clarity I had been seeking and awakened me to a moment of great self-discovery.

Here’s how it transpired: I recently moved back to Austin and eager to get networking, I was introduced by a friend to a young woman who works at a rather innovative advertising agency here in the downtown area.  We agreed to meet for coffee and entered into what I thought was a wonderful conversation discussing my background, skills and yes, ideas on an appropriate title to wrap it all together. She listened intently, asked engaging questions, and though I may have been on one of my circuitous spiels, by the end of our conversation she seemed to have an excellent grasp of my skills and experience. Later that day, she was kind enough to email me and say she had discussed our conversation with some of her colleagues and from what they had cumulatively gathered, the title that best seemed to fit me was that of a Content Strategist. Whoa…wait a minute, what was this? Content Strategist?! I had never heard the title before but as soon as I read those two words, it just felt right.  I began diving in to the literature and the more I read the more excited I became because it WAS right!  Throw in a eureka, a light bulb, or any other epiphanic cliche. I had found it. All of a sudden things made sense, as if an old friend had entered my life for the first time, and the path to my future had been opened before me, set into glorious motion.

Sweet, Sweet Double-Irony

I don’t think I risk too much by suggesting that no one claiming the title of content strategist started out life as a content strategist. It’s a journey of self-discovery: “Oh, so that’s what I do!” – R. Stephen Gracey, Content Strategy is an Act of Love

Let me say this: Although, I understand it is a rather helpful component of modern life,  I am not a big fan of labeling myself. I always do so with a bit of trepidation. I certainly won’t go around calling myself something I am not. The irony then that it was a title (a little taxonomy) that provided this revelation. Therein lies the beauty. I feel completely comfortable with the title of Content Strategist because it’s more than accurate. It was amazing to read Rachel Lovinger’s What Makes a Content Strategist? and be able to check off each one of the listed attributes as if it had been written about me. After reading Mr. Gracey’s quote above, I quickly realized that everything I had done in the field of communications, for better or for worse, had led me to this moment. Indeed, although I have only been using the title of Content Strategist for a few weeks now, it has been a lifetime in the making.   I also imagine that there are many stories like mine happening around the world. I immediately felt a sense of  kinship realizing that there was a burgeoning community of Content Strategists already out there and many more to be discovered. Is it an evolution? A revolution?  Perhaps, in the future we will be locked in conversations where we ask the questions: Do you remember where you were when you had your first kiss? Found out there was no Tooth Fairy? Discovered you were a Content Strategist?  What a relief then to finally be able to verbalize it in just two little words. Brilliant. Of course, here is where the irony really begins because it’s out of the frying pan into the pot. Now, when I tell people I am a Content Strategist will they know what I mean? Whew, here we go again…but this is the fun part because well, that’s what this site is all about…

Here for a Reason

Mr. Gracey says in his same article that “the path to becoming a content strategist begins with love—the love of content.” I think he is correct in his implication, for no matter what discipline you consider the starting point on your path to Content Strategy  this “love” is the tie that binds us. This an exciting time. An important time. Content is meaning and and it defines how we make sense of the world. For the Content Strategist, whether hopeful, budding or seasoned, we are all given the great opportunity to help define and shape a field that has implications far beyond the moment.  Right now, we are speaking about content in the digital realm but in what future vessel might content be held? To be certain, no matter what shape the urn may take, the Content Strategist will be instrumental in determining how we experience this content. If steered correctly and efficiently then, the implications for content are boundless. With this in mind, I leave a personal definition:

Johnston’s Definition of Content Strategy: Content Strategy is the planning, implementation and execution of content (or data) within a specific interactive context using a holistic approach applied to a series of disparate communicative disciplines at whatever percentage is necessary to fully maximize the efficiency and usability of the content within that context.

On that note, I do not purport to be an authority in the field of Content Strategy but rather, a person very hungry to shape the discipline. For me personally, definitions will not be enough.  It goes without saying, that I humbly stand on the shoulders of the Content Strategists who have been and are currently paving the way forward in the discipline, for without them, I would clearly not be writing here.  Having said that, I don’t want to go about these notes with a reticence that could undermine the possibility for beneficial dialogue. I will do my very best to impart my thoughts with honesty, grace and deference but at times I will most certainly be wrong or change my mind a time or ten.  This, alas, is part of the journey, but I will always do so with respect and good humor. To that point, any conjectures made herein are my thoughts and my thoughts alone.

How is Content Strategy relevant? What is its place in our world? How will it be shaped in the future? How can we as Content Strategists elicit our value? These are all questions I hope we can answer through examination of the social, theoretical, philosophical, and practical implications of creating useful interactive experiences in the digital world or any context that may materialize in our future. Thus, it is my sincerest of hopes to provide a forum of symbiotic discussion that will help promote the growth and understanding of Content Strategy (and related disciplines), and that through this process we may all learn a bit more about ourselves and shape of things to come. I look forward to it.

All the best,

Johnston

P.S. Stay tuned for the coming series, The Holistic Specialist, featuring appearances by Spiderman, Leonardo Da Vinci and Bruce Lee!