I’ll be honest: I sometimes struggle with creating content dedicated to driving sales for business-to-consumer clients. Not that it isn’t fulfilling or that I don’t believe in what I’m putting out there; it’s just that finding the right voice to talk to the customer can be taxing and is particularly difficult when multiple companies are offering the same product.

For example, let’s say I’m writing for a retailer about televisions which the customer could buy from Best Buy, Target, Amazon, Walmart, and so on. It can be hard to create effective content when I’m living between two worlds.

There is one world that is the seller. They have a product or service that needs to be bought or they go out of business. They offer content as a marketing tool to reach a new breed of customer. This customer is doing research for themselves and using online content (reviews, blogs, etc.) to help make informed decisions.

The other world is that of the buyer. The buyer could be at any stage of the customer life cycle when they interact with a blog, a tweet, a status update or a video.

I really started thinking a lot about this when I wrote a recent blog post for Raidious, and I created this diagram:

Click to enlarge

That sweet spot in the middle is what I’m aiming for, producing for a customer that also takes into account the seller’s goals. But compare this to a website that isn’t as focused on driving sales but is instead solely focused on getting hits and being an authoritative voice in their field. Their content diagram would look something like this:

Click to enlarge

It seems like the deck might be stacked in their favor when it comes to creating engaging content. Their success or failure is measured in time, eyes and clicks; mine is measured in time, eyes, clicks and action/dollars. That means my content must be more focused, more engaging and more monitored to create more value because in the end we are asking for more from our customer.

In a fantastic article Are Sales Pitches Dead in the New Buyer Economy?, Tony Zambito writes that buyers are responding to four things that companies are providing online: Networking, Educator Role, Media Integration and Advisory Role. I particularly jumped on this Educator Role statement:

“…companies today must see themselves in the role of educators because buyers are expecting to learn a thing or two. And if they are not learning anything at all, well, you will have no value to them.”

Educating the audience is the key. In other words, focus on telling the buying message. Take an educational voice about the product or service you are marketing and give the buyer information that will drive them to you when they are ready to buy. Call it Brand Journalism if you want, but if you aren’t trying to educate about the brand as well then you are probably not creating content that is going to drive sales–at least not where you want them.

Educational content for brands has to be more than one call to action and a name drop hidden inside block of text that is not successful for the client.

I find myself fighting against the desire to create content like the second diagram but justifying it by throwing in a shout-out for the client as an afterthought. The problem with doing that is the content runs the risk of becoming indistinguishable from other brands selling the same product. I call this the Interchangeable Void; if your information is too generic it becomes relevant to all brands and is much less effective.

Content should be organized by a strategy that revolves around multiple customers at the same time. The customer who is in the early stages of buying is part of an audience that is scattered around multiple sites researching a lot of content from different sources at the same time. Then they begin to narrow their focus to a few sites offering specific and relevant information. Being able to produce content that fits both of these stages greatly increases the effectiveness of it in terms of end sales. If your content is too generic and interchangeable they might be using it solely as information gathering. If you are not educating the customer into the next step, you could simply be helping someone else make the sale.

You have to educate not only the product but your brand as well. What makes your brand so special? What do you offer that no one else does? These are the questions you must answer. Educating and informing across the customer life cycle is the key.

Today in the AdAge blogs there is a post by Bob Garfield titled “Chrysler’s Twitter Controversy Teaches Us ‘Brand Journalism’ Is a Lie.” The post is worth a read, if only to reinforce the idea that it’s best to take the pontificating of experts with more than just a grain of salt.

Rather than eviscerating the post point-by-point, the counter-argument can be summed up simply: a misplaced Twitter post isn’t the same as brand journalism.

After taking time to mock the “dissolute musicians and inked-up hipsters in porkpie hats” in Austin, Texas, for SXSW, Mr. Garfield asserts that the person responsible for the Chrysler F-bomb incident was let go as punishment for his transparency.

… Chrysler, instead of stoning him to death, merely fired him. Fired him for being funny. Fired him for being spontaneous. Fired him for being relevant. Fired him for alighting ever so gently, like a canary taking its perch, on a dowel of human truth. You know — the way social media is supposed to be …

While I agree with Garfield’s overall point that the tweet in question was a nugget of honesty–one that hardly threatens Chrysler’s valuation or market position–I take exception with the generalization that the offender’s sacking means that the entire practice of brand engagement via social media is disingenuous.

Chrysler didn’t fire their social media agency simply because of the profanity (we’ve all heard it before). The agency wasn’t fired because the post was funny and relevant (it was neither). Nor were they fired because the post trained a spotlight on some fundamental human truth (who doesn’t have an opinion on the drivers in their city?).

No, Chrysler fired their social media agency because they were being paid to do a job, and they did it wrong.

Of course marketing is smoke and mirrors; the adage about selling “the sizzle not the steak” is a truism for a reason. We’re not saving sick babies, we’re in the business of selling stuff. Brands are dedicating our greater and greater percentages of their marketing budgets to digital. With the capacity for instantaneous communication comes an increased possibility for missteps. That’s why guardrails must be put in place during the planning process, to ensure that communications remain on message and on target.

Bigger than that, though, is this concept of brand journalism. If a brand is simply parroting their commercial messages through digital channels, they’re not engaging in brand journalism. True brand journalism is the creation of original content around a subject topography that is interesting, relevant, and valuable to a brand’s demographics. It is the practice of engaging in social listening and constructive, transparent response to customer issues. There are plenty of examples of brands at least making a valiant attempt in getting engagement right.

Digital agencies charged with speaking on behalf of a brand must be held accountable for what they say and do. Posting a hackneyed personal opinion with no connection to the brand or the campaign–however accidentally–is a mistake that proves the agency isn’t ready to handle the responsibility. It doesn’t mean there aren’t thoughtful, useful ways to engage in brand journalism.

Come on, Bob. I’ve heard your insights on NPR and listened intently. You founded ComcastMustDie.com, which arguably led directly to Comcast‘s concerted effort to improve their customer service–to the degree that ComcastMustDie.com itself died. Your position as a sought-after expert in marketing brings with it an enviable pulpit from which to preach. Painting an entire field with one broad brush is too easy, and I expect better.

After all, it was journalist and satirist Craig Brown who said, “Journalism could be described as turning one’s enemies into money.” Isn’t that what marketing is all about?

Today at SXSW Interactive 2011 started with the realization that my seven dollar gamble on a dual-charging iPhone cable did not pay off. My iPad and iPhone greeted me with barely-charged batteries as I awoke feeling much the same.

After a hurried drive back to Austin, I was able to get downtown and into a great session with Kevin Pollak, AOL, and some other folks called “Banking on Big Brands/Celebs for the Web.”

Brands, content, and journalism have been much-emphasized topics at the conference thus far. It’s a great time to be representing a company that specializes in developing great content for brands.

Click to enlarge

If you don’t believe brands are thinking about or needing digital journalism and content production, then the line outside the room for the “Brand Journalism: The Rise of Non-Fiction Advertising” session would have convinced you.

I was back to stop by the FreshBooks birthday party–complete with clowns–and had a stellar ice cream sandwich for lunch, washed down with a shiner bock.

On the agenda for this afternoon: a quick jump into the keynote after my phone chargers, and a stop by the Social Media Data Visualation panel.

On Monday the Federal Trade Commission changed the rules for advertisers and bloggers and how they communicate to the public.  Starting December 1st bloggers that review products must divulge their relationship with the advertiser.

Why change the rules for these seemingly innocent bloggers?

Well for starters the current endorsement and testimonial in advertising rule hasn’t been visited since 1980, four years before wunderkind Mark Zuckerberg (founder of Facebook) was born. And with the continual change of the online social construct (Twitter, Facebook, etc), marketers are seeing the value of the brand journalism that review bloggers do.

For instance, if you follow a home restoration blog regularly, and have for some time, you have a certain amount of trust in what that blogger is writing about. You visit there site for all sorts of reasons: for simple maintenance tips, for help on design options and to see what cute thing their kid did today. This person is real to you and help guide your decisions in everyday life. Therefore you have a right to know if Lowe’s or Home Depot is covering the cost of this bloggers materials or writing them a $5,000 check every month. That is what the FTC wants to clear up.

There are probably bloggers out there clamoring at the thought that they will no longer receive “FREE” items from advertisers. First off, if this is why you blog I can’t help you. Secondly, you as a person have a choice to talk about any product you want, good or bad. That advertiser wants you to write a glowing review, but your opinion is worth more than a pair of adequate sneakers.

“the rules are looking ahead to a quite possible future when there is a market to buy ‘authentic’ public endorsements.” Jonathan Zittrain, professor Harvard Law School and co-founder of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society

Raidious Digital Content Services isn’t in the game of “ghost blogging” or misrepresenting brands. We believe in leveraging owned media to engage the relationship between the user and the brand. Posing as an “earned media” source is underhanded and we are happy the FTC is stepping up to stop this practice.

More Reading:

• NYTimes article “Soon, Bloggers Must Give Full Disclosure”
• Time’s “25 Best Blogs 2009″