According to a recent Accenture Interactive survey, 50 percent of marketers now have more content than they can effectively manage.
Mark Schaefer predicted it two years ago–content shock is officially upon us now, folks.
And, that means a slew of challenges for brands on the strategy side.
But today, I want to talk a little about what that means for brands on the OPERATIONAL side of things.
Because I think it means we’ll see a new–and very hot–new job title in late 2016 and beyond: The content librarian.
A new job for a new problem: Organizing, labeling, and managing content.
Think about the situation many brands are facing right now–does this sound familiar?
- You create anywhere between 5-10 pieces of new social/online content per week
- You store photos you use for social content in a variety of spots from your shared drive to your computer to various Dropbox accounts
- You have vendors who own and store video content for your brand
- You have other vendors/software tools that house employee-advocacy-based content
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Point is: Your content in EVERYWHERE.
Spread out across different internal drives and files; Dropbox and Google Drive accounts; and vendors.
That’s a tough situation.
And the worst part: No one is paying attention to this right now.
Why? Because it’s really no one’s job. And, since teams are spread so thin now anyway, they have little time to spend on content organization and management.
Enter the content librarian.
The job: Essentially to file, label and organize your content.
To make sure it’s centrally located, in a spot where multiple employees and teams can access it.
To make sure it’s labeled correctly, so employees can find content easily.
And, to make sure all content is organized effectively.
Now, the other problem will most likely be this: Who’s going to do this job?
Better yet: Who’s actually qualified to do this job?
Two differently questions–but two BIG questions.
First–who’s going to do this job? Who knows. I do know that it won’t be the sexiest job in the world, so convincing existing PR/social folks to take this on might be tough. You’re not going to see a lot of volunteers.
Second–who’s qualified to do this job? Does it really require a refined skill set? I probably lean toward “no.” It’s widely known and accepted that many PRs are “Type A” and hyper-organized. So, taking on a job to organize a mountain of content won’t exactly be foreign. But, I can’t help but wonder if there are some finer details to this job. Some nuances that might only be relevant to a “content librarian.” Long way of saying: I don’t know the answer to this question either (how’s that for honesty?).
The job really doesn’t even exist yet–but when it does start popping up, it’ll be interesting to see who starts applying for these kinds of jobs, and what the requirements are.
Last week, Playboy announced it was cutting the nudity out of its magazines.
I know, weird way to start a post, right? Stay with me for a moment.
The Playboy news was a long time coming. The internet killed Playboy’s corner on naked woman many years ago.
But, for YEARS, Playboy did have the corner on the market.
But, what Playboy owned wasn’t “naked women”–it was the ALLURE and IMAGINATION of naked women.
For years, Playboy actually covered up their models fairly well. Sure, they showed skin. But, not a ton of skin.
And, they usually only included a handful of shots of the models.
Now, let’s jump ahead to 2015 and the content marketing landscape.
For years, we’ve been told “behind the scenes” content will “engage” your fans.
Use “behind the scenes” videos on your YouTube channel.
Give fans access to “behind the scenes” footage on your Periscope feed.
Show your customers what it’s like to work at your company in a “behind the scenes”-kinda way in your Instagram feed.
Behind the scenes content is everything!
I mean, basically, that’s the gist of it, right?
Now, let’s go back to Playboy. Early Playboy. What did they give us? 5-7 shots of tremendously good-looking and sexy women in very little clothing.
That was it.
Sure, they also worked in a few quips from the model. A list of likes and dislikes. A profile. But that was about it.
No “behind the scenes” footage.
No “behind the scenes” video detailing the shoot.
Just the pics and a few words.
And that sold a LOT of magazines. And, made Hugh Hefner a crap-ton of money.
He didn’t give us all the behind the scenes details. If he had, that would have killed it.
What made Playboy so alluring in those early days was the ALLURE of these women. Just show us a couple pics and let our imaginations run wild.
Less is more.
Today, more is more. At least that seems to be the way many brands approach content marketing.
But, I tend to be a firm believer in that less is more corollary.
Customers don’t always need to see what’s behind the curtain.
Customers don’t always need to understand every detail around how you produced that commercial.
Customers don’t always need to read about what went into your latest marketing campaign.
Sometimes, less is more folks.
Just ask Hef. He’ll tell you.
Yeah, I know. Emojis are everything.
I know it’s how all the Millennials of Mother Earth communicate.
I know brands want to appear “hip” and “on fleek.”
But haven’t we all taken this just a bit too far?
I mean, Chevy created an entire news release in emojis earlier this year. A NEWS RELEASE. A tool that is typically one of the most buttoned up documents littered with corporate jargon and buzzwords used EMOJIS to communicate. Of course, one could argue it was all part of a publicity stunt to drive interest in a new car (I blogged about Chevy’s approach a while back, if you’re interested).
You can order pizza via emoji thanks to the folks at Dominos.
And on Twitter and Instagram, emojis are rampant. So rampant, you have uber-conservative companies like Goldman Sachs using them. Yep, THAT Goldman Sachs.
I know the rationale. I get it. Younger people use emojis to communicate words in a visual format. It’s easier. It’s “cool.” And, for businesses, it’s a way to endear themselves to these younger audiences.
For some brands, I get that this approach makes sense. Taco Bell, for example. I’m with you. Pizza Hut even. Sure. Comedy Central, even.
But, Goldman-freaking-Sachs? Yeah, here’s what they posted on Twitter earlier this year.
I’m sure the argument is that Goldman Sachs is recruiting younger talent. They need to speak their language. They need to appear keen to the needs and lexicon of the 25-year-old Stanford grad.
But, you know what I see? Desperate brands.
Brands looking at the short-term game instead of the long-term play.
Brand that are so desperate to connect with younger audiences they’ll do virtually anything.
Like creating an entire news release out of emojis.
Here’s my take. Sure, communicate with your audience in a way that makes sense for both sides. But, don’t do it at the expense of your overall brand.
And don’t do it just because your competitors–or other brands–are doing it.
Finally, don’t do it because you saw an article on “emoji marketing” (oh yeah, that’s a thing) on Digiday. Marketing fads seem to change and shift by the week these days.
Here’s a thought: Maybe you don’t even use emojis at all.
What a radical thought.