2 Approaches to Content Science and Creativityadmin
In the mass of articles on creating content, experts advise to blindly follow the GoogleAnalytics metrics, then focus on the uniqueness of the material, as a priority task in promotion. Whom to listen to? In fact, everyone, since there are two approaches to creating content: scientific and creative.
Marketers are traditionally divided into two camps in the selection of priority when creating content. On the one hand, the scientific factor that distinguishes such material indicators as ROI, conversions and transitions is important. On the other hand, one should not forget about the spiritual side of the process, when one closes one’s eyes to bare, dry statistics, and a really interesting topic, a living language, or at least a “readable” text comes to light.
Is it possible to satisfy the desires of two warring parties at once, while simultaneously creating interesting and effectively promoting content? We will try to answer this question in this article. To begin with, let’s take a closer look at each of the approaches.
Scientific Approach for Content
The content subject matter is determined by the data. The writing process itself and editorial editing are put on stream, carried out strictly on schedule. When choosing a topic, the main attention is paid to the amount of potential traffic, conversion rates and the prevalence of similar content on social networks. Online analytics tools are actively used to predict the competitiveness and relevance of the material.
Even the smallest nuances, up to the time of publication, color or font size, do not go unnoticed. It is no coincidence that most major brands choose to process a large amount of statistical data in real time using automated analytics tools. Thus, nothing is left to chance, each of the gears works like a clock, takes the right place.
Ease of work planning thanks to the content release calendar;
Low motivation of employees;
Predictability and uniformity of content.
Creativity for Content
Be prepared that in the online data control race you will always be one step, or even two behind, in comparison with your learned colleagues in the workshop. On the other hand, if the scientific approach is able to drain the soul from the text, turning the presentable page into a miserable representative of the doorway, then creativity and originality, in turn, will breathe new life into template articles, similar to each other, like two drops.
In the battle between statistics and creativity, Rand Fishkin, CEO of Moz, an optimizer software company, prefers the other side with confidence. “It’s impossible to write a worthwhile thing if you have no idea what you are writing about,” Rand said. And one cannot disagree with this. The trouble with today’s Internet is its accessibility to publication. Anyone can think of himself as an expert and produce pseudo-scientific posts without even school knowledge or at least a minimal understanding of the issue. However, search engines are not weak: they easily distinguish between high quality content and low quality, so that only originality and competence are the real keys to getting into the top ranking.
High uniqueness of the material;
A high probability of response from the target audience in the form of reposts, likes, comments.
Difficulty in meeting deadlines and generating content on an ongoing basis;
Low SEO indicators (traffic, conversions, leads).
The golden mean, or how to get a third eye
As we can see, both approaches have their pros and cons, so how do you kill two birds with one stone, leaving all the best and discarding the ineffective? The main thing here is the correct proportion and dosage, so as not to lose the middle ground. How to achieve this? Rand Fishkin has his own original idea: “I am representing a Venn diagram consisting of intersecting circles. One circle is responsible for the relevance of the chosen topic: the demand of the target audience for this material, SEO metrics, the presence of keywords. The second ─ for the uniqueness and creativity of the text, the number of similar content already published on the network. The ideal ratio of both circles is 50 to 50. ”
Naturally, equalizing two things 1 to 1 and thereby obtaining a middle ground, Rand Fishkin did not invent a bicycle. However, the mental visualization of the process in the head is interesting in itself. You will not only begin to feel thinner by passing the metrics of work through yourself, but you will also be able to look at work from a new point of view, opening in yourself a “third eye”. At a minimum, you refresh your perception and add a couple of bright spots to the gray marketer’s everyday life.
Conclusion: love statistics, like a native child, but beware of him, like fire. They can help you better understand the wishes and needs of your target audience, but blind faith in the data will have the opposite effect, depriving you of both potential and current customers.