So what’s all this about “content” then? A good definition of a bad idea

Before you get seduced into paying good money for stuff that doesn’t quite cut it, a few thoughts

You cannot help but notice how frequently people in marketing – actually in all fields – come up with new catchphrases.

These emerge from fertile brains, usually in the U.S., and spread like the plague to be presented as the answer to all your problems at seminars and conferences all over the world.

No need to think, dear Marketer! CRM will do it for you. Or perhaps One-to One marketing. Didn’t that work? Have you tried going Viral? That failed? You need Pay Per Click. Or is it Search Engine Optimisation?  If that doesn’t pull it off, try Social Media. Didn’t do the trick? I suggest Adwords. Have you tried re-branding? That will provide fodder for a year’s worth of meetings.

Of course, these things are manna from heaven for marketing directors, who last on average for under two years – just enough time to confuse the board with a few ill-digested theories before they get found out, thrown out, and look for another job.

Far too often I fear they – the phrases, not the marketing directors – are the business equivalent of fast food. They are a substitute for real thought and don’t do you much good. They seduce the unwary into thinking all they need do is  follow the latest fad and all will be well – which it won’t.

Recently we have been treated to  what I always think of as The Cloud of Unknowing and of course, Big Data, which seems curiously similar to small and medium sized data, but will doubtless cost more money.

And of course we also have Content Marketing.

This has caused much mirth among some copywriters and solemn head-scratching among others. I was among the amused. It seems I have been writing content all my life but never knew it.

Anyhow a lady called Chris Marlow runs a group of 700 copywriters who have been debating all this. Seven hundred copywriters? What a daunting thought. Imagine all the needless exclamation marks to be removed.

“Should there be a perceived difference between ‘content writer’ and ‘direct response copywriter’?” Chris asked her horde. They concluded that a direct response copywriter gets leads and sales while a content writer writes content that supports the path to becoming a lead or a sale.

I think that is a good definition. One kind of writer makes you money; the other almost makes you money.

But wouldn’t anyone with any sense prefer the first to the second? Why move people towards a sale when you could get one? Any decent direct response writer should be able to write content. Actually, any decent writer of any kind should be able to.

Aldous Huxley remarked that it was harder to write a good advertisement than a good sonnet.

One great weakness I often see is that people don’t ask often enough or with sufficient urgency for a sale. I have often seen messages which do nothing else than ask for a sale do very well. No doubt now that content has become a fashionable word, corporate idiots will be willing to pay more for people who offer it, rather than people who will get the money that pays their wages.

It reminds me of Alexander Pope’s demolition job: “Willing to wound and yet afraid to strike”.

There is a parallel with one of the ideas of the disastrous Tony Blair – Community Police. These are semi-police who can do everything proper police can do – except the dangerous bits; the ones that matter. Same thing, it would seem, with content writers.

As for me, since today is one for literary allusions, “now is the winter of my discontent”.