I’m a big fan of content marketing – writing content geared to the needs of a specific audience. Content marketing gives the prospect the information they need when they need it (win for the customer) while nurturing prospects along until they’re ready to make a purchase (win for the vendor). More and more smart companies are doing it.

But a lot more either aren’t doing it or doing it poorly. That’s because it’s hard work and takes a lot of time, as I’m finding in my work with clients on sponsored Web sites and blogs. The effort and expense make it all the more important to target your efforts on your best prospects, and to measure the ROI of your efforts.

Things to know before jumping in:

• Creating quality content takes time, ranging from finding a relevant subject, identifying the “news” angle you’ll pursue, and then writing it clearly enough that everyone can understand it. I find it takes at least an hour or two to knock off a worthwhile 400-600 word blog post.
• Corralling internal subject matter experts is a huge time sink. The good ones are too busy doing “real” work on products or for customers to write. When they do, their copy usually needs editing for clarity and brevity. Again, think an hour or two of edit time per internal blog post.
• If you’re running a single-sponsored site, it takes extra effort to sift out content that mentions competitors or that might otherwise ruffle feathers at the sponsor. This is true of course with any “custom” content but is more of a pain when your Web site is demanding fresh content every day.
• Monitoring other social media for content to re-use or sources to tap also takes time – especially with the profusion of spam and redundant posts you see on Twitter. Just nuking the political crazies and work from home scams from my client’s Twitter feed is a half-time job.

All this is, of course, part of the inescapable value chain of creating quality content. (The ebook linked to here contains a more complete breakdown of all the costs.) I don’t describe all these obstacles to scare you away from content marketing, but to help you do an accurate cost-benefit analysis – and to target your efforts at a real business problem rather than trying to be all things to all people.

Where’s Bob? For those of you kind enough to notice, I’ve been off-line for several months under a happy barrage of corporate marketing work, along with some travel to Guadalajara, Mexico (interviewing a cloud consultant, left) as part of an ongoing IT outsourcing project.

Much of my work has involved deep dives into cloud computing, including a Computerworld piece outlining cloud security requirements, a white paper for a vendor about traditional ISVs moving their offerings to the SaaS channel, and another upcoming Computerworld story about how to achieve “agility” in the cloud.

Some thoughts from my time in the cloud:

• First, security remains the big bug-a-boo supposedly scaring the biggest enterprises from the cloud, but the customers I talk to say it’s not a deal killer. Yes, you need to know where your data is, yes, you need auditability and, yes, if you work in geographies with strict rules (like the European Union) you need special controls. Cloud providers understand that, and the good ones will help you do the necessary work to stay secure in the cloud.
• Second, the cloud is a mega-trend transforming everything, but it’s not instant magic for every application or service. There’s a reason why some of the biggest names in “cloud” (like Google, Amazon and Salesforce) run their own data centers rather than rely on someone like…well, like themselves. For really high performance, really tight controls over operations, and running your own proprietary hardware or software, sometimes your own data center is still the best.
• The same goes, many say, for predictable workloads running on in-house gear you’ve already amortized. Running such apps in your own data center can deliver not only better performance, but lower-costs. Another note: The per-seat licensing plans used by many SaaS vendors also tend to favor smaller customers.
• On the strategic front, customers are demanding (and vendors are delivering) more “productized” cloud services that can be rolled out in a predictable, consistent way. This often takes the form of templated servers and services (such as those produced by Puppet and Chef) that are pre-tested, pre-integrated and pre-priced. All this makes for yet more choices for customers, who have to decide where a “canned” service is adequate, and when it pays to customize it to reflect their own best practices. It also raises the specter of commoditization for some Web services (how many different Exchange server configurations does the market need, for example?)
• Speaking of which, there are now “appstores” for cloud-based business intelligence platforms, application and database servers and middleware, such as those from RightScale and its ISV partners. Another interesting example of how the Web allows anyone, anywhere (with enough smarts) to sell to a worldwide audience.
• Finally, it was interesting to hear what some enterprise-level customers want, but aren’t getting, from current cloud offerings. These include better, and bundled, support for “enterprise-level” requirements such as load balancers rather than forcing customers to find one themselves. They’re also looking for true, enterprise-level public cloud services rather than the likes of Google and Microsoft that actually (can you believe it?) suffer outages. Then there’s the need for highly verticalized SaaS applications for specific industries such as banking. As the CTO of one major bank told me, does every bank need it own application for handling online payments? While the user interface makes a big difference, it would seem the back end should be standard and, thus, SaaS-able. (New term I just coined.)

In short, there’s still a lot of opportunity for differentiation and innovation as the cloud matures. There’s also huge confusion between public cloud, private cloud, shared services, IaaS, PaaS, etc. Drop a line if you’d like some help clarifying where you fit into all this.

Now, THAT's What I Call Transformation

All of a sudden, “transformation” seems to be cropping up in messaging from my clients and elsewhere in the IT marketing world. Transformation is suddenly something we all need to do to become thin and happy and rich and sexy. There’s even a Business Transformation Institute, an Army Office of Business Transformation and, of course, consulting firms with business transformation practices.

Why “transformation,” and why now? It isn’t because of a sudden upsurge in interest in those great toys. It’s because everyone is finally convinced we’re past our near-death experience during the recession and will, indeed, live to earn another buck. But so much has changed (higher unemployment, ongoing economic uncertainty, global offshoring, MidEast unrest) we feel we need to change, too, so we can survive. If you have no clue how to change, just say you’re transforming and maybe everyone will get it and things will turn out OK.

Or not. If you just throw out “transformation” without explanation you’ll leave your prospects more confused than ever. Here are three hurdles you must cross if you really want to claim “transformation.”

Define what you’re transforming from and to. What specifically were you before that was bad, ugly, stupid, slow,and inefficient? What specifically are you becoming that is good, attractive, smart, fast and efficient?

Show how transformation will help your target audience. If an airline is transforming its gate areas, show me the comfortable seats with power outlets and free Wi-Fi. If you’re transforming enterprise architecture software, show me the new visualizations that will make sense to business managers. If you’re transforming order entry for a telecom, show me how it will speed provisioning a new account.

And finally, don’t claim you’re transforming if you’re only tweaking. The dictionary says “transform” can mean “to change in composition or structure, to change the outward form or appearance or to change in character or condition.” But when I hear transformation I think of a complete makeover from one thing into another,, as when a toy turns from a ’75 Camaro into a robot. Can you do that? Do you want to do that?

Based on my years of watching IT and business, I say be careful about promising “transformation.” You can’t just take a product, or an organization, twist a few plastic components and turn a door into a shield, an engine into a face and fenders into feet. If you’ve really have delivered transformation, prove it with specifics and examples. And if you’re not sure you’ve really done the T-word, get an outsider to cast a skeptical eye on it before going public.

Bob Scheier, a veteran IT technology journalist and marketing copywriter, is available for skeptical glances at just about anything.

                                                                 First, when the customer calls on the phone, start the automated message by telling me I can also get support over the Web. Translation: You’re not worth wasting a service rep on. Go to our Web site so we can save money by having you figure out your problem yourself.”

Second, don’t offer an option to connect to a human being. Translation: Not only are you not worth the cost of a live service rep, you’re so stupid you won’t think of pressing “zero” to reach one.

Next, have the phone robot force the customer to enter their user ID and date of birth (What, no caller ID?) and then mispronounce their name. Translation: We don’t know you from Adam and aren’t ashamed to show it.”Finally, when the customer gets a service rep on the phone, question why the customer wants to do what they’re trying to do — in this case, change from automatic withdrawal to manual payment. Translation: We don’t care what you want. You should use the payment method that’s cheapest for us to process.”

What an accomplishment: I’ve gone from reasonably satisfied to suspicious and grouchy customer, all in 30 seconds. The end result was the same: I got a live rep on the phone and changed by payment method. But in the process my insurer has just made me more likely to delete their emails, balk at their rate increases and consider a competitor if one presents themselves.

This is what happens when you think more about (to paraphrase John F. Kennedy) what the customer can do for you than what you can do for the customer. This is also what happens when nobody in the organization steps back and wonders, “What will this sound like to the customer?”

That’s an exercise you should go through whether you’re recording voice prompts for a customer service line, writing a white paper or creating a Web video. Take yourself out of your “maximizing revenue/cutting costs/boosting profit” shoes and put yourself in the customer’s shoes. Think about how your voice-response prompts, the jargon on your home page, the quotes in your case studies or the intro to your white paper will strike the folks who pay the bills by buying your products and services.

As Apple has shown with the iPad and Nordstrom’s with retailing, people will pay more for a superior experience. But you can’t provide that superior experience if you’re just looking out for yourself.

Your seamless solution delivered significant benefits to...hah?

The lowly topic of case studies is getting a lot of buzz on LinkedIn. It’s all about a study Peter Smith, CEO of Hot to Trot Marketing, did for a client who “wanted to make sure that their case study output matched the level of quality prevalent in the industry.” (Where do the Brits get the nerve to come up wit these names, and what client has the money to spend on such a survey?)

As you might guess, Peter’s study found “a frightening amount of formulaic writing. We actually took ten different stories, from ten different vendors, took out the customer name, vendor name and technical description, swapped them around with those from another vendor’s study and no-one could spot the difference.”

Bless the vendors who pay me to write case studies, as they help pay the bills, but it’s no surprise the turn out the way they do. Vendors ask for, and sometimes insist on, formulaic, bland case studies. Some even have a strict template, down to the number of words in each section and the order in which quotes appear. Between that, and the temptation to stuff them full of marketing fluff, it’s no wonder case studies seem to cookie-cutter.

Having said that, some good ideas came from the discussion. Michael Hope not only highlights “the commercial value and business benefits of the project but then reuses and repurposes (my italics) the case study for everything from speaking opportunities to building ROI sales tools, spread the word on social media, build into an industry lead generation campaign and producing partner specific versions of the case study. A good example of re-purposing/reimaging content.

There was also a lot of comment on how, or whether, to measure the effectiveness of a case study. Daniel McCarthy suggested “more formal approaches” such as limiting access to readers willing to provide an email (or other contact info), or providing a trackable phone number or website in the document’s call to action. But again, this only works if the case study is compelling.

Stephanie Tilton had great tips on how to convince customers to do case studies for you in the first place, something that’s harder and harder in this risk-averse age.

And I get the last word, since it’s my blog. Don’t scrub your press releases until they’re so inoffensive they’re dull. And if you can’t find something interesting and instructive in a customer’s story, don’t tell it! Customer A buys Product B to solve Problem C, and it works, is not news – it’s the way the world is supposed to work. Find something newsworthy (in either the customer’s problem, how they implemented the product, unexpected benefits they found).

Remember: No news, no drama, no story, no readers, no sales.

Can your friendly sales rep start doing this again?

Well, I guess we can all relax and start raising prices now. David Blake, president and CEO of IT outsourcing advisory firm UpperEdge, says IT buyers are spending money again after the recession, and says March 25, 2011 was the official end of the buyer’s market.

He didn’t say what hour during the day the market turned, or in what time zone, but I expect that awaits further analysis. In any case, it’s a great gimmick to call attention to what he calls the unleashing of pent-up demand from corporate customers for IT products and services. He cites strong recent results from a services provider (Accenture) and a software giant (Oracle), as well as “the emboldened approach we see from sellers of technology in our own sourcing engagements.” Among the effects Blake predicts: That vendors will look to “maximize revenue and margins (as) their focus and sole approach” and that they’ll push for fewer contract limits on rate increases.

A few points:

This is indeed encouraging news, at least for the tech sector, which seems to be recovering faster and more strongly than other parts of the economy;

Calling an arbitrary “turn” in the market, even tongue in cheek, sure gets attention. I would have loved to see more anecdotes from David about how vendors were pushing harder for advantage. This is where he, by dint of being in the negotiations, has premium information and insights the rest of us don’t.

And finally, I would have loved to see more specific suggestions for what customers can do to fight off these newly-emboldened vendors. Again, this is the “secret sauce” UpperEdge has that the rest of us don’t, and a turn in the market (meaning opportunity for some, danger for others) is an ideal time opportunity for David to show us what he’s got.

And a few questions:

Are you – on either the customer or the vendor side – also seeing a turn in the market? Is it only affecting some geographies or industry sectors? Is the higher demand translating into more pricing power? Or can you still beat up vendors?

And from a marketing perspective, do you agree that calling a “turn” in the market is a good way to get attention and, if so, what details should you provide to back up your call?

If nothing else, strengthening demand is a sign of spring we’re not getting from the weather, at least here in the chilly northeast. Thanks, Dave.

Spending a day clearing deadfall from the winter here in Boston may be no match for being in Austin for South by Southwest. But I was pleased to see a post from SxSW by Erica Carnevale from Text100 (on their excellent “Hypertext” blog)  with great tips for writing as a “brand publisher.”  They include:

• Turn your real-time conversation monitoring into context for conversations. Break free of your schedule and let the insights and pain points gleaned from listening to your customers  drive your content strategy.
• Don’t rely on one form of branded journo – content creation or owned media. Weave together a complete evolved media experience for your customers that brings together the best third-party content, original content created by your brand and content/opinions from peers – provide value to your customers by making it easier than ever to find the information they need – but be transparent and clear about your company’s role in each.
• Involve external parties – people with journalism backgrounds and agencies with a pulse on your audience’s conversations and motivators – to help you craft your story and avoid creating “non-fiction advertising.” But be sure that your partners are steeped in you brand values or your content will be disingenuous.

A piece by James Fallows in the Atlantic Monthly also provides some perspective that the late, great days of media maybe weren’t that great, and that there’s hope we will learn how to create something of value out of the editor-less, readership-driven, commercial media world.

Good to see others are thinking about when and where the “old” journalism values still have a place in the new media world. Blatant self-promotion: I do an in-depth dive on this in my e-book  examining when and where to spend.

Back to cleaning up the yard…

One of the things I often hear these days is that marketing people need to “think like publishers,” as if publishers spend all day writing and editing great, fascinating stories.

 Wrong.

In the newspaper and magazine world, the publisher usually has very little to do with what stories appear on the front page (remember those?) The publisher works on the business side, spending most of his or her time selling ads, dealing with unions (remember those?), hassling over budgets and trying to squeeze out enough profit they don’t get canned.

It’s editors who determine what a publication “feels” and reads like, with their day-to-day decisions about which stories get the biggest “play,” which columnists get to squawk about which subjects, and whether they want a down-the-middle or a snarky headline on that Charley Sheen story.

What does this have to do with content marketing? Everything. If you’re trying to sell with thought leadership, as so many are today, you can’t be pandering to advertisers like a publisher. You need to serve the reader like an editor, focusing on what they need to know – not the marketing spin you want to give them.

In the past, you could rely on a trade publication to deliver the straight news to hook the reader, and use your ad dollars to deliver your pitch. Today, you have to do both: Deliver honest and subjective (well, honest and subjective enough) news and insights to keep prospects reading, and add the “word from our sponsor” however you can.

 It’s not easy and there are built-in conflicts that come with being a “corporate” or “brand journalist.” But you’ll never succeed at using good content to draw prospects if you don’t pay attention to whether you’re publishing (for profit) or editing (to serve the reader.)