Content Marketing for b2b. Professional tips
Recently, a regional conference Gorod.It was held in Tomsk, at which the chief editor of the CMS Magazine portal, well-known in runet, Anatoly Denisov, spoke.
I did an interview with him for a local publication, in parallel talking about more specific things that, for obvious reasons, we are about equally concerned about. I think that to many representatives of the market they will be useful, or at least curious. Further everywhere - the direct speech of my counterpart.
')
Anatoly Denisov, CMS Magazine, Runet Rating:
- We have been talking about content marketing for about three years already, in the West they started even earlier - translated books on this topic appeared a couple of years ago. But what is the problem of b2b content marketing in Russia now: it is perceived, like any other technology, as a “silver bullet”. It is assumed that if we start writing a lot now, everything will be fine. This is generally not the case.
What is your bullet
Content marketing is not a “silver bullet”, but a very good litmus test of what the company is all about.
When a company simply gives advertising, it can invest in it, make it very well, brightly and very strongly distort for the better the opinion of itself. And content marketing, especially aimed at a professional audience (first of all, I’m talking about it, because consumer content marketing is another topic, now b2b is about it) very quickly makes it clear what the company is. I will explain why.
Good content marketing can only be a good company. What is a good company - a company that does something wrong, like others on the market, makes it very interesting, unusual, clever, and ready to talk about it.
The overwhelming number of participants in any market, including ours, are not. They do what everyone else does about the same or slightly better. And when they try to talk about it, they are forced to retell common words.
Active content marketing allows you to very clearly understand: the company really is something interesting or is it an office that really does not know anything. The only thing she did was find a PR person somewhere who studied all the recommendations: in the headline of the figure, the article should have lists and so on.
In my opinion, many companies with such content marketing themselves only harm. In our market, on the Internet, it is very easy to create an illusion. There is a wrong side and there is a cover - it's easier to draw a cover. But content marketing, especially active, very quickly shifts the focus from the cover to the content. And since the content of the majority, to put it mildly, is very different from the cover, this becomes a problem.
You can consider specific examples.
Here, for example, Siberiks. Why do they have the best content marketing of this kind on the market right now? Because the owner is internally very dissatisfied with any result of a person, he always wants to try something new, change something, improve, always dissatisfied with what he has, he wants better. And when he gets better, he still wants even better, as it seems to me.
And second, and most importantly: he understood - if he talks about it, he will not lose anything, only gain. Many people have such a fear: we have now learned that it works (or it does not work for sure), but we will be silent about it in order to be ahead. Not a damn thing like that! When you talk about it, you actually keep a certain distance all the time, stay ahead because you have already gone further.
Another example. There is a Smolensk studio Webcanape. They really build a pipeline for the development of sites. They, too, are constantly unhappy with the process and want to make this process the most accurate and mathematically calculated. And they also openly talk about it.
Moreover, what is most interesting is that, in principle, it unites very many participants of our market. Most often, they do not invent some complicated physics. They take something that has been applied in other large markets and is transferred to the Internet, to our small market. But at the same time, those companies who transfer and tell, they are very different from others. Apparently, because they really do it.
And a good content marketing may be one who does, does interesting and not like others, that is, one who is ahead. All the others are behind, and content marketing is behind them.
Do I need to cut and water
It would seem that consistency is one of the precepts of content marketing. Yes, it is necessary to publish regularly. The trouble is that in the professional market it practically does not work: to publish something regularly you have to be a huge company.
Almost everything is exhausted, even objective leaders. I notice that when they try to start writing regularly, their quality begins to suffer. Interestingly, they can tell about a limited number of things.
Companies that could tell something interesting every week (I’m not saying that they do it, but they have such a hypothetical opportunity) - this is Apple, Google, Microsoft, all those that employ thousands of people and do many different things. .
Most studios do great and interesting only a few things, and some of them can tell.
Good content is very rarely regular.
If you take the 50 most popular materials, then 20-30% of them will not be about how to do it, but, for example, about some unpleasant situations, so to speak. Information about how bad and why bad is one of the most sought after. She is believed much more.
There is a theory - one modern journalist once said - that if there are no problems in the interview, it will be perceived as an ad, as if it were not advertised. The same with articles. One of the most interesting and sought-after materials is an open, frank description of problems and their solutions.
But a company with persistent problems is a strange company. And it is unlikely she should do some marketing.
It turns out that interesting, just because of its size, average companies do little. Therefore, I hardly believe in regular b2b content marketing on professional sites.
Repackaging content
But I believe in repackaging the content. For example, an article may become a presentation.
Many people now like infographics, but I will say straightforwardly, I am very negatively disposed towards it, very often these are just beautiful pictures that are now very much addicted to and which put a lot of time into production. I understand why it is done, people love funny pictures. But more often than not, everything that is presented in infographics could be packaged in a very short article that you can print or save for reading. And infographics is such specific content.
But, for example, I also specifically relate to the video format, because its production is very expensive, even amateur video. The second is very demanding content. You need a stable Internet to watch the video in your workplace or at home. It takes a few minutes if the video is long, not looking up at the screen. Now it is rarely possible to afford.
I’m not talking, of course, about some viral videos that for “just have fun”, I’m talking about professional content.
For example, it is now very actively doing all sorts of video interviews and other large formats. Probably, there is something interesting in them, but it is simply impossible to sit and listen for 30 minutes waiting for interesting things. If this interview was translated into text, it could be read in a few minutes. And to spend 30 minutes on it, even if they recommend me ... Therefore, when packing, you also need to clearly understand for what purpose and how much this package will be in demand.
How to publish
A lot of materials are sent to us to the editor, on the day I reject out of 10 9. Most often, in one thing that remains, I feel the potential and can direct the author’s thought in the right direction.
I see my editorial task in helping to understand how to highlight a particular topic. Because most often there is an understanding of the idea or problem, there is its description, but there is no understanding how to submit it. In this situation I try to help the authors, if I see from the experience of previous materials, how to direct what direction and (not always, but sometimes!) It turns out really very well.
As for the “take-not take” material. We have a certain idea about our audience: who reads us, subscribes to us and so on. And our goal is to ensure that each material that is published is interesting for at least half of this audience.
Because if we have consistently appear materials that are interesting only to 10-15-20 percent of readers, then we will start to lose our level very much, because the competition for attention is very large now. And if there is a source of information in which there is clear, expected and predictable content, then they will subscribe to it. Rather, they will not unsubscribe from it.
And if he starts to be diluted with all sorts of different things, then he will lose his value. After all, you can unsubscribe now from just one click.
That is, it turns out, every time I make a decision to “publish” or “not publish”, I understand that if I do not guess and an article will come out that will be uninteresting, rejected (conditionally rejected - not promykan, not commented) half or more of our readers, it will be bad. Therefore, the material that can be very interesting - but only 5 percent of readers - I refuse, because it is more important to meet the interests of the majority of the audience.
I did an interview with him for a local publication, in parallel talking about more specific things that, for obvious reasons, we are about equally concerned about. I think that to many representatives of the market they will be useful, or at least curious. Further everywhere - the direct speech of my counterpart.
')
Anatoly Denisov, CMS Magazine, Runet Rating:
- We have been talking about content marketing for about three years already, in the West they started even earlier - translated books on this topic appeared a couple of years ago. But what is the problem of b2b content marketing in Russia now: it is perceived, like any other technology, as a “silver bullet”. It is assumed that if we start writing a lot now, everything will be fine. This is generally not the case.
What is your bullet
Content marketing is not a “silver bullet”, but a very good litmus test of what the company is all about.
When a company simply gives advertising, it can invest in it, make it very well, brightly and very strongly distort for the better the opinion of itself. And content marketing, especially aimed at a professional audience (first of all, I’m talking about it, because consumer content marketing is another topic, now b2b is about it) very quickly makes it clear what the company is. I will explain why.
Good content marketing can only be a good company. What is a good company - a company that does something wrong, like others on the market, makes it very interesting, unusual, clever, and ready to talk about it.
The overwhelming number of participants in any market, including ours, are not. They do what everyone else does about the same or slightly better. And when they try to talk about it, they are forced to retell common words.
Active content marketing allows you to very clearly understand: the company really is something interesting or is it an office that really does not know anything. The only thing she did was find a PR person somewhere who studied all the recommendations: in the headline of the figure, the article should have lists and so on.
In my opinion, many companies with such content marketing themselves only harm. In our market, on the Internet, it is very easy to create an illusion. There is a wrong side and there is a cover - it's easier to draw a cover. But content marketing, especially active, very quickly shifts the focus from the cover to the content. And since the content of the majority, to put it mildly, is very different from the cover, this becomes a problem.
You can consider specific examples.
Here, for example, Siberiks. Why do they have the best content marketing of this kind on the market right now? Because the owner is internally very dissatisfied with any result of a person, he always wants to try something new, change something, improve, always dissatisfied with what he has, he wants better. And when he gets better, he still wants even better, as it seems to me.
And second, and most importantly: he understood - if he talks about it, he will not lose anything, only gain. Many people have such a fear: we have now learned that it works (or it does not work for sure), but we will be silent about it in order to be ahead. Not a damn thing like that! When you talk about it, you actually keep a certain distance all the time, stay ahead because you have already gone further.
Another example. There is a Smolensk studio Webcanape. They really build a pipeline for the development of sites. They, too, are constantly unhappy with the process and want to make this process the most accurate and mathematically calculated. And they also openly talk about it.
Moreover, what is most interesting is that, in principle, it unites very many participants of our market. Most often, they do not invent some complicated physics. They take something that has been applied in other large markets and is transferred to the Internet, to our small market. But at the same time, those companies who transfer and tell, they are very different from others. Apparently, because they really do it.
And a good content marketing may be one who does, does interesting and not like others, that is, one who is ahead. All the others are behind, and content marketing is behind them.
Do I need to cut and water
It would seem that consistency is one of the precepts of content marketing. Yes, it is necessary to publish regularly. The trouble is that in the professional market it practically does not work: to publish something regularly you have to be a huge company.
Almost everything is exhausted, even objective leaders. I notice that when they try to start writing regularly, their quality begins to suffer. Interestingly, they can tell about a limited number of things.
Companies that could tell something interesting every week (I’m not saying that they do it, but they have such a hypothetical opportunity) - this is Apple, Google, Microsoft, all those that employ thousands of people and do many different things. .
Most studios do great and interesting only a few things, and some of them can tell.
Good content is very rarely regular.
If you take the 50 most popular materials, then 20-30% of them will not be about how to do it, but, for example, about some unpleasant situations, so to speak. Information about how bad and why bad is one of the most sought after. She is believed much more.
There is a theory - one modern journalist once said - that if there are no problems in the interview, it will be perceived as an ad, as if it were not advertised. The same with articles. One of the most interesting and sought-after materials is an open, frank description of problems and their solutions.
But a company with persistent problems is a strange company. And it is unlikely she should do some marketing.
It turns out that interesting, just because of its size, average companies do little. Therefore, I hardly believe in regular b2b content marketing on professional sites.
Repackaging content
But I believe in repackaging the content. For example, an article may become a presentation.
Many people now like infographics, but I will say straightforwardly, I am very negatively disposed towards it, very often these are just beautiful pictures that are now very much addicted to and which put a lot of time into production. I understand why it is done, people love funny pictures. But more often than not, everything that is presented in infographics could be packaged in a very short article that you can print or save for reading. And infographics is such specific content.
But, for example, I also specifically relate to the video format, because its production is very expensive, even amateur video. The second is very demanding content. You need a stable Internet to watch the video in your workplace or at home. It takes a few minutes if the video is long, not looking up at the screen. Now it is rarely possible to afford.
I’m not talking, of course, about some viral videos that for “just have fun”, I’m talking about professional content.
For example, it is now very actively doing all sorts of video interviews and other large formats. Probably, there is something interesting in them, but it is simply impossible to sit and listen for 30 minutes waiting for interesting things. If this interview was translated into text, it could be read in a few minutes. And to spend 30 minutes on it, even if they recommend me ... Therefore, when packing, you also need to clearly understand for what purpose and how much this package will be in demand.
How to publish
A lot of materials are sent to us to the editor, on the day I reject out of 10 9. Most often, in one thing that remains, I feel the potential and can direct the author’s thought in the right direction.
I see my editorial task in helping to understand how to highlight a particular topic. Because most often there is an understanding of the idea or problem, there is its description, but there is no understanding how to submit it. In this situation I try to help the authors, if I see from the experience of previous materials, how to direct what direction and (not always, but sometimes!) It turns out really very well.
As for the “take-not take” material. We have a certain idea about our audience: who reads us, subscribes to us and so on. And our goal is to ensure that each material that is published is interesting for at least half of this audience.
Because if we have consistently appear materials that are interesting only to 10-15-20 percent of readers, then we will start to lose our level very much, because the competition for attention is very large now. And if there is a source of information in which there is clear, expected and predictable content, then they will subscribe to it. Rather, they will not unsubscribe from it.
And if he starts to be diluted with all sorts of different things, then he will lose his value. After all, you can unsubscribe now from just one click.
That is, it turns out, every time I make a decision to “publish” or “not publish”, I understand that if I do not guess and an article will come out that will be uninteresting, rejected (conditionally rejected - not promykan, not commented) half or more of our readers, it will be bad. Therefore, the material that can be very interesting - but only 5 percent of readers - I refuse, because it is more important to meet the interests of the majority of the audience.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/364623/
All Articles