I couldn’t agree more with your assertion that content is king. Of course users aren’t surfing the web just to see how much content they can ignore. My point of contention was really with those “strategists” or copywriters who profess an understanding or appreciation of user-centered design, but continue to fill pages with paragraphs of text that users don’t read. When usability testing shows that users overlook important information embedded in those paragraphs, these strategists seem to think that it’s a verbiage or tone problem rather than a users-are-lazy-and-impatient problem.

Here’s an example: in a recent usability test of an online insurance quoting tool, after users entered their demographic information and were viewing the quote results, their task was to change their demographic information (”…you want to see what your rates would be if your spouse was not covered…”). The demographic information they entered in step 1 is summarized in a highly-visible module above the quote results and includes an easy-to-recognize link to change the applicant information. Here’s how the demographic summary looked:

“This quote covers a 45 year old male with a 42 year old female spouse and one dependent. Your coverage can start as early as April 15. [Change details link]”

The content strategist insisted on using this sentence style and conversational tone because he believed it was “user-centric” and aligned with the global site strategy. Almost all participants used the browser’s back button to return to the data-entry screen rather than use the module on the quote results page. However, because of the way the system is built, they were forced to re-enter all of the demographic information (a significant dissatisfier). When asked why they may have overlooked the applicant information module on the quote results page, most users attributed it to the way the information was presented. They said the short paragraph looked like instructional text or marketing copy so they didn’t read it. Even the presence of the hyperlink in the module didn’t make them pause long enough to consider reading the text.
The recommendation was to present the information in the summary module more like:

APPLICANT SUMMARY
Primary: Male (45)
Spouse: Female (42)
Dependents: 1
Policy Effective Date: April 15, 2008
[link to change details]

In the next round of testing, when the updated design was implemented, all users easily completed the task by using the link in the module. I refrained from any public I-Told-You-So’s (until this post apparently).

Anyway, I didn’t mean to flame all copywriters or content strategists, and I certainly don’t think that being customer-centric is “wrong” (I’m not an airline executive). I just think that what it means to be customer-centric in terms of web content is changing faster than most content strategists or copywriters realize. This isn’t a huge revelation, but if we want to make content truly customer-centric, then we have to consider the context of the content’s consumption. There are very few ecommerce contexts where customers prefer paragraphs to bullet points. Whether you’re selling stereos, airline tickets or health insurance, customers don’t want to read a short story or poem about your product or service. They want something that they can digest instantly in a format that can be used in a side-by-side comparison. That’s why I believe so strongly that bullet points pwn =)

It sounds like you’re working with the wrong content people, although if being “customer-centric” is wrong … you know the rest.

While content strategy overlaps with, and depends upon, other disciplines, such as information architecture and SEO, it forces a more fundamental look at the core of the business. This is where the true value comes into focus.

Depending upon the mission of the organization, a thorough content strategy will reduce a huge pile of documents into a narrow reflection of that mission. Most companies don’t know how to pitch their own mission, unfortunately.

The business value for content strategy is akin to an editor for a feature film. You have hours and hours of footage but you need an editor to pick the best stuff to tell the story of the script.

Second: Aw, c’mon! 1998? That’s a cheap shot! I don’t feel sorry for myself (or other content strategists) at all. I feel sorry for the poor, poor words that no one wants to take responsibility for. And I feel especially sorry for site users who end up with a terrible experience because, after all the money was spent on UX strategy and interface design, the content still ended up sucking.

Third, and finally: Clients are breaking down Brain Traffic’s door asking for content strategy, web editing and web writing. We’re on track to triple in size this year in staff and revenues. Clearly, businesses are starting to recognize that content has to be more than blah-blah text on the screen.

So maybe next time I come out, I’ll bring some clients and we can have a panel discussion on “How Businesses Benefit from Content Strategy.”

See you then!