• DJLitten

    Jordan,

    Great article and visual. I am a big proponent that even the most creative content must be put in a larger framework or process for it to be as successful as possible.

    But here’s the thing: content (linkbait), by definition, is tactical. I disagree that it is to be considered “on its own end.” It must be supported by the greater strategy and be relevant to specific audiences in order to elicit a specific action.

    We – myself included – too often negate to discuss this because we assume it goes without saying or because we ignore it.

    I think as an industry, we’re (SEOs, SEMs, etc.) not embraced by the advertising, public relations and marketing communities because they feel we are overtly tactical in nature and do not engage with these departments in the importance of branding and strategy. In fairness, we’re not always invited either.

    However, because of the long lifespan of well-optimized content or linkbait, we could be doing our clients a disservice if the content is brand-agnostic (missed opportunity), or worse, brand-damaging (reducing opportunity). This is often discussed verbatim from friends or clients in larger companies.

    Again, this was a well thought out column. I just felt that this article is an excellent segue into where our industry needs to go.

  • http://www.blueglass.com Jordan Kasteler

    Thanks for your comment DJLitten. You’re right about this being tactical and only an element of an overall bigger picture strategy. This isn’t suggested to be an all-in-one strategy. Internet marketers need to know their tactical options when formulating a powerful strategy.

    I disagree with your statement of content that’s brand-agnostic is a disservice. It’s actually quite the opposite. Informational content shouldn’t be brand or ad-driven. That turns off consumers and dampens the chances of viral activity or accruing links. The shell of the content (domain/website template) is the co-branded element that helps drive the brand without having to interfere with the content. So, in short, it works on both levels.

  • DJLitten

    I don’t think we are too off and we may be differing over semantics. What I am not recommending is cheapening content by stamping it with unnecessary verbiage or logos, but one should be aware of a company’s brand voice, style, tone etc. in the event brand equity exists. It must at least be part of the discussion process.

    However, it all depends on the overall goal of such content as well as the proposed reaction of the audience. While it may decrease (slightly) the chances of viral activity, branded content increases the desired action of the target audiences because it is in the voice tailored for them as designated by the strategic marketing plan.

    Which does the client need/want? Surely, traffic on its own is should not be valuable to the client. I also fully understand that the links driven through brand-agnostic campaigns could be beneficial to the site as a whole, but there is missed opportunity to improve brand awareness or at least increase the long-term value of the content to the client.

    Because the overall goal for clients should not be driving people to the site once, but getting them to come back and convert.

    And again, for SEO/SEM/SMM industry to continue to grow, it must reach out to the marketing, advertising and PR departments where they live and breathe.

    I think understanding brand does that, which lends itself to longer-lasting relationships with clients.

    At any rate, thanks for the discussion. See you at BlueGlass FL.