Unsuck-It.com: A Clear Content, Anti-Jargon Resource

Posted by on October 5, 2011 · Leave a Comment 

I took a break from a new post to listen to Content Talks. Episode 9, with Mike Monteiro, to be precise.

The topic was the business of design. But along the way, they mentioned UnSuck-It.com.

I’d never heard of it before. (Which, given this blog, is outright bizarre!)

So of course I checked it out. The site is a database of witty common-sense alternatives for jargon terms. Rewritten – “unsucked” – so they make sense.

I am ecstatic to see this. Not only did we badly need this out there, but it means I don’t have to build it myself! (I did have a similar idea in my notes.)

Whoever wrote the ‘unsucked’ explanations deserves a medal. Lots of great sarcasm to quash any jargon-user’s (self-)righteous fury.

I’ll quote a few examples:

Gamification

-Unsucked: “A popular product strategy fantasy about turning every mundane task into Farmville.”
My Comment: While balancing work and play is healthy, the fact that ‘gamification’ exists worries me.

Red Flag

-Unsucked: “Concern.”
My Comment: If you’re in Texas, you can use this. (It’s in the state business code, I think.) Everywhere else? It’s just a concern.

Social Media Strategy

-Unsucked: “Typing into text areas.”
My Comment: Heehee! Hey, wait a second…

Solution

-Unsucked: “Software. Please, just call it software.”
My Comment: Yes! We even have extra add-ons to make it clearer! Software program, software application…a “solution” is what you reach after USING the software!

Take It to the Next Level

-Unsucked: “Improve it.”
My Comment: Hatred of this term has sustained me for years.

“Unsuck” Your Content Before Posting It

I happily recommend this site to everyone writing content. If you’re using a term that’s listed on UnSuck-It.com, reconsider.

Can you be clearer? Chances are you can. Then your content won’t suck.

Next time I’ll write on content development for startups. (Product’s not the only thing you’ll need to work out!) Watch for it soon.

While you wait, why not follow me on Twitter or add Blue Ferret’s Clear Content Writing to your RSS?

Filed under BFC Blog, Confusing Content, Content Creation, Content Strategy, Web Writing, Website Content · Tagged with , , , , ,

Know Any Thought Followers? Why the ‘Thought Leader’ Classification Doesn’t Work (And What to Say Instead)

Posted by on September 22, 2011 · 2 Comments 

The Hidden Dangers of Using Jargon, Example 4

Last week the Content Strategy Google Group (of which I’m a member) discussed the term “thought leadership.”

Everyone in the group (and most people reading this) pegged ‘Thought Leader’ as jargon. Even a client rejected it for a category header.

“My problem is everyone in my industry (other than us) seems to use that term, so my firm is rejecting that outright.”

So, what should they use instead?
Some group members proposed alternatives, like:

  • Knowledge Center
  • Reader Resources
  • [Subject] White Papers
  • Our Publications (I kind of like this one)

Then the conversation swung toward Thought Leadership’s underlying problem: The implications you make if you use the term ‘thought leader.’

Has Anyone Ever Done Business with a “Thought Follower”?

When used, Thought Leadership claims a hierarchical position. Namely, the top.

But nobody claims a “thought follower” position, do they? Of course not. No one would.

Well, we can’t ALL be Thought Leaders. What do we do?

“Thought Leader” as a jargon term tries to claim the high ground. Like everyone else. So the classification goes flat. Being a Thought Leader among thousands is kind of useless, isn’t it?

In the group discussion, one person pointed out that this whole thing is meaningless. Why? Because readers aren’t interested in these kinds of classifications.

At all.

They just want to find information on a specific topic.

Which is the only thing that really matters. Are you able to deliver information on that topic? If yes, then you don’t become a thought leader to the reader.
You become a resource.

Be a Resource Instead of a Thought Leader

If “Thought Leadership” implies a hierarchy that doesn’t really exist, how should we classify ourselves? What will the reader respond to?

If you have the information they’re looking for on a topic, you become a resource to them. So, aim for that!

Try being a resource instead. It’s more specific, and more valuable. For example, you could be:

“A resource for financial management software for HR consultancies.”

This fosters more of a collaborative space online, not an arbitrary hierarchy. Resources share information & audience attention with other resources, instead of competing for every last second.

One resource aids another. One website sends traffic to others. People find more and more information as they go – noting the businesses that PROVIDE those resources.

Readers don’t look for thought leaders. They look for specific resources.

Do YOU go looking for thought leaders? I don’t. I look for information from Kristina Halvorson (for Content Strategy), or John Jantsch (for B2B marketing), or Brian Clark (for Web writing techniques & Internet marketing strategies) or Steve Slaunwhite (for the business of copywriting).

Because these people have made resources of their websites. And by extension, their businesses. Last I checked, none of them are hurting either!

There’s no high ground in the term “thought leader.” Readers don’t care. They DO care about good resources. Look at social media – people share resources all the time, every day. Isn’t that a more powerful marketing approach than using jargon?

Look at your content. Ask yourself: “Is this something the reader can use? How? When?” If your content answers those questions, you have the makings of a resource.

What could your business be a resource for? A product you made? A specific audience? A region?

(DISCLAIMER: I wrote this post as a comment on the CS group discussion. These opinions are my own and are NOT intended as a reflection of the group. It was a great discussion!)

Filed under BFC Blog, Case Studies, Confusing Content, Content Creation, Content Marketing, Social Media, Web Writing, Website Content, White Papers · Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Confusing Content: The Opposite of Clear

Posted by on May 12, 2011 · Leave a Comment 

If I’m going to blog about what I term, “Clear Content,” then I should define its opposite too. Telling the difference between two sides of a coin is much easier if you know what they look like.

Henceforth I will call the opposite – Confusing Content.

Under this label I include things like:

  • Long copy that you get lost (and a headache from) reading.
  • Webpages that don’t make sense.
  • Websites without any conversion process in place.
  • Buzzword-laden BS.
  • Content which talks about 3 different subjects at once. Or 4. Or 10.
  • Sales-heavy copy.
  • Content that wasn’t properly targeted (or targeted at all!).

If Content Isn’t Clear, It’s Confusing

You’ve seen Confusing Content on websites, in white papers, in email newsletters. And you thought something like:
“What’s this about?”
“This doesn’t tell me what I need to know.”
“Gah! Back button!”

Clear Content VS. Confusing Content: DING!

The battle begins next post. More coming soon.

(If a website popped into your head reading this, please leave the URL in the comments. I’m always gathering more examples.)

Filed under BFC Blog, Content Creation, Web Writing, Website Content · Tagged with , , ,

Sputtering Cars Vs. Bullet Trains: Why The Marketing Campaign is Dying

Posted by on March 18, 2011 · Leave a Comment 

The campaign-based model of marketing no longer works.

While reading a great post on the Top Rank Blog today (“5 Ways to Fail at Content Marketing & Tips to Succeed”), one of the subheads caught my eye.  It and its subsequent paragraph read,

Campaign vs. Ongoing

Much like SEO, content marketing is a commitment and ongoing. When companies ask us about the viability of SEO for their online marketing, I recommend to “get in it to win it” for the long term or don’t get in at all. The same is true with content marketing. It’s not an individual campaign that you start and stop. That said, a content marketing strategy may call for a string of integrated campaign efforts across different channels and communities with distinct objectives and tactics in mind. But it’s an ongoing effort, not a single “content marketing campaign”.

I find this sentiment completely true.  Instead of stop-and-start marketing campaigns, I think ongoing content marketing is now the best way to build & engage audiences.

Marketing Campaigns are Old and Busted

One reason why I believe this?  Campaigns are a sputtering car.  Content marketing is a bullet train.

Here’s what I mean.  This is what goes into your basic old-fashioned marketing campaign:

  1. Grab an old map (Use some old research you already had)
  2. Gas up (Produce sales-heavy content)
  3. Pick any road at all (Blast said content at an audience, even if they didn’t ask for it)
  4. Stop at any intersection (Wait for results to come in)
  5. Repeat ad nausea (in other words, until your audience throws up at the mere mention of you).

You run campaigns like that nowadays and you’re standing still.   Competitors online will run right over you with ongoing content marketing.  And laugh as you lie coughing in their digital dust.

Ongoing Content Marketing is Smooth and Solid

A bullet train is fast, smooth…and reliable.  It always shows up where it needs to be.  It shows up WHERE PEOPLE ARE.

That’s what content marketing does.  It goes to where people already are, provides something useful, and continues on its way.  People come back to it expecting more value.  And they get it.

After a few impressions, they come to see your company as the resource for this information.  And if they have a business need you can satisfy?  Welcome to sales.

Have you had this discussion with prospects?  What were their impressions?

Filed under Content Creation, Content Marketing, Content Strategy, Social Media · Tagged with , , ,

When Should Content “Come In” in the Development Process?

Posted by on September 20, 2010 · Leave a Comment 

I was watching Karen McGrane’s video on “The 11th Hour Sh*tstorm Problem” earlier today. (It’s a really good video. If you have anything to do with user experience or web development, go watch it. I’ll wait right here.)

Welcome back. So, while watching that, I had a few ideas.

The problem she’s discussing is VERY real. I’ve seen it too many times. But let’s look at it from my end – that of the content writer/producer.

Sometimes development teams focus on their work and think of content as “something that goes in later.” Resulting in content producers (like myself) have awkward last-minute conversations with them. Like this:

“Thank you for finally speaking to me about content. I’ve been trying to coordinate with you and the client for weeks now. What? You built the site already? Here you go then–half-baked content. Have fun figuring out how to fit it in!”

So I thought I’d blog about a question. A question that should help crystallize the “11th Hour” problem – and maybe help a few of us avoid it in future projects.

When should content “come in” in the development process?

Right now content is the red-headed stepchild in most dev processes. It’s the “black box” as Karen put it, that designers & developers block out in their minds. And to be fair, it’s not their primary job, so it makes sense.

Trouble is when they do this, one of two things happen:
The content producers are shoved to the side of the project cycle.
OR
The content itself is ignored.

Both result in – you guessed it. The 11th Hour Sh*tstorm. (Karen, that is a great metaphor. I may borrow it for future meetings.)

So how do we fix this? Well, first by answering the above question of when to bring in the content.  I find that…

The best position for content “coming in” is right before the client sees the new site for the first time.

Why then? Because this position forces several changes in the overall development process. All of which help keep everyone content-aware.

Oh, and it helps create better content too.

  1. It reminds development that the site is not a “bucket” for content – it’s a podium for it.
  2. It compels use of a content strategy. If the dev team knows content is coming up, and there’s a content strategy involved in the project, then that strategy must work with the overall Web strategy. And vice-versa.
    (This also gives a paper trail for everyone to refer to/save themselves with later.)
  3. It compels early buy-in from the client. It’s easy to put content off in favor of development. But if a content writer is right there at initial planning, he’s much harder to ignore…
  4. It helps you organize the site around user needs. Karen made a big point of this in her presentation, and I agree 100%. The site isn’t there to astonish the client. It’s there to help their customers solve problems. Showing them content DURING development gives more time to sharpen the message.

Content Must Be a Constant Presence

When the client first sees the site, it should have content IN IT. Lorem ipsum filler is now a sign of poor development. (I have decreed it so.)

If content is to be delivered at first-version, then content R&D has to start at the same time as site development. Usability testing, audience research/interviews, UX, outlining…all done while the site goes from wireframe to HTML.

This way content providers stay in the loop. And the client receives reminders about content’s importance. Maybe this will help dev teams avoid last-minute scrambling.

Hey, we content producers don’t like it either. We’re all problem-solvers in one sense or another. So let’s fix this!

Thoughts? Anything to add? Think I’m radically oversimplifying things? Comment away.

Filed under Content Creation, Content Strategy, Web Writing, Website Content · Tagged with , , , , ,

Next Page »