Download to read offline
Uploaded byRasmus Skjoldan
Content wants to be free (from projects) - J.boye Aarhus 2015
This document discusses balancing centralized content hubs with channel-specific content. It notes that content hubs allow content to be reused across channels but risk creating generic content. Channel-specific content ensures relevance but is difficult to update across channels. The document proposes a hybrid approach of core content in a hub with contextual content tailored for each channel. Workshops are suggested to identify core and contextual content in organizations and how to reuse core content across projects.
More Related Content
Similar to Content wants to be free (from projects) - J.boye Aarhus 2015
Content wants to be free (from projects) - J.boye Aarhus 2015
- 1. CONTENT WANTS TOBE FREE (FROM PROJECTS) @RASMUSSKJOLDAN | J.BOYE 2015
- 2. Rasmus Skjoldan Lead contentstrategist of Magnolia Founded the content strategy agency, Cope Former brand manager of TYPO3 and UX lead of the open source Neos CMS @rasmusskjoldan
- 3. UCD » CMS» CS
- 5. THE PLOT 1. THEPROBLEM SPACE 2. COFFEE 3. TWO PRAGMATIC APPROACHES
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
- 22.
- 24. MORE CHANNELS MEANS MORE STORIES ABOUTCATASTROPHIC, OUT-OF-DATE CONTENT
- 25.
- 29. THE FRIDGE NEEDS YOUR CONTENT
- 33.
- 34. TOO GENERIC CONTENT& UX BORES USERS TO DEATH
- 35.
- 36. “SHOULD WE MOVEALL OUR CONTENT TO A CONTENT HUB— OR SHOULD WE LET CONTENT STAY IN EACH CHANNEL?”
- 37. CONTENT HUB ADVANTAGES —ONLY UPDATEONCE (ISH) —CENTRALIZED CONTROL —POTENTIAL SYNERGY: OMNICHANNEL DISADVANTAGES —GENERIC CONTENT —POTENTIALLY BAD UX
- 38. CHANNEL-TAILORED CONTENT ADVANTAGES —HYPER RELEVANTUX —WYSIWYG FOR CONTENT PRODUCERS DISADVANTAGES —VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO UPDATE X CHANNELS —NO SYNERGY ACROSS PROJECTS/CHANNELS
- 39. THE (SLIGHLY UTOPIAN DREAMOF A) CONTENT HUB
- 40.
- 41. “We should moveall of our content to a content hub because it will let us repurpose content across different projects, channels and platforms and because it will let us produce content across internal departments and external content providers. Let’s use CMS’s such as Contentful or Woodwing’s Content Station to create, manage and store structured content and publish it all directly to each and every publication point via content delivery API’s.”
- 42.
- 43. “Mmyeah, but yourisk creating a new monster of a publication system that way, leading to integration nightmares. Or you risk that content will fail to communicate in a relevant manner because it was created in a system too far away from where it touches the user. “
- 44. THE (OVERWHELMINGLY HARD CASEFOR) CHANNEL-TAILORED CONTENT
- 45.
- 46. “We should keepallocating ressources for each touchpoint because that is how you produce real quality content. Only by doing so, we make sure content speaks the language of the platform, relates more directly to target groups, is framed correctly to obtain project goals—and also prevents content from becoming too generalized. Let’s try to agree on some overarching themes and goals—and then let the channel, platform or project content folks communicate them in appropriate ways, one channel at a time.”
- 47.
- 48. “But hey, youwon’t be able to keep up at the pace things are moving—when you’re trying to produce content for one channel at a time! What about the time it takes to translate it all, too? And don’t even get me started on personalization.”
- 49.
- 50. If anyone sayslet's do a Create Once Publish Everywhere setup and really tailor the user experiences on each touchpoint, then start waving flags.
- 51. WHICH ONE DIDYOU CHOOSE?
- 52. DOES IT HAVETO BE EITHER—OR?
- 53. LET’S MESS WITHTHE CONTENT ECO-SYSTEM
- 54. “LET ME HAVE ONECOPE WITH EXTRA TAILORING”
- 56. WEAVE TOGETHER ORGANIZATION-WIDE CONTENT WITH CONTEXTUALLY RELEVANT CONTENT
- 57.
- 58. 1. CORE VSCONTEXTUAL — WORKING INSIDE A PROJECT 2. CORE VS PROJECT — WORKING ACROSS PROJECTS
- 59.
- 60. THE CONTENT-MIX OFA PROJECT: Contextual Content Core Content Content as a business asset. Reusable, long-term content. Approved, proof-read, translated. Can never live in a single channel! Short-lived content. Tailored to a particular touchpoint, to the project’s goal and fit to the tone of voice of the channel and the platform. Lives nicely in the publication system of a channel or a platform. Content is produced by platform experts
- 61. Hero Core content Contextual content Headline Image Payoff Productdescription Product name Product name Intro CTA Body text A touchpoint on the web
- 62. Core content Contextual content Productname Background *S*I*G*N*H*E*R*E Standard product description Sales contract Standard disclaimer Special disclaimer Special price for you
- 63. GETTING DEPARTMENTS TO WORKTOGETHER ON SHARED CONTENT (DESILOING) + BRIEFS ABOUT STRATEGY + KEEPS UP WITH CHANNELS + TAILORS THE EXPERIENCE
- 64.
- 65.
- 66.
- 67. CORE VS CONTEXTUAL —WORKINGINSIDE A PROJECT
- 68. Look at yourown organization: 1. Identify one type of content that would be better off by being handled centrally 2. Identify content that would be better off by being edited and managed in the channel 3. Combine the two in at least 2 different end results (An end result can be an intranet webpage, a product webpage, an app screen, an email, a flyer, an info screen, a fridge etc.) 4. Go through 1-3 alone, then explain to your neighbor, then iterate together 5. Present your neighbor’s end results to all
- 69. CORE VS PROJECT —WORKING ACROSS PROJECTS
- 70. Look at yourown organization: 1. Identify one project that has produced content that could be used across several projects. 2. Now imagine a new project of yours—about something else—and describe how to reuse content from 1. 3. Go through 1-2 alone, then explain to your neighbor, then iterate together 4. Present your neightbor’s project to all
- 71.