Want to increase your email open rate, white paper download rate, or registrations at your next speaking gig? Create a catchy title by turning the problem you solve on its head.

The contrarian approach gives readers an ironic break from the direct approach they are used to. It’s a very effective technique in marketing content strategy, and especially effective in B2B, where we’re all expected to be serious and straightforward.

I enjoyed this post by Chas Cooper, guest blogging on the Savvy B2B Marketing blog: “What Marketers Can Learn from Storytellers.” He recommends using the good guy/bad guy approach, and the cliffhanger, to surprise the reader and catch attention. The technique is great for case studies, which can get into a rut with the standby Problem-Action-Result formula.

We titled a white paper for demand generator PointClear: “Why Your Salesforce Needs Fewer Leads.” This title turned heads, and increased the open rate on the email campaign. And today, I received an email leading to HubSpot’s blog post, “7 Reasons Social Media is Bad for Marketing.” The post really is about seven bad practices. There is something compelling about the dark side.

The largest pool of a B2B’s prospects is made up of people who are unaware of the solution to their problem. Surprising, storytelling content grabs their attention, and raises questions that the unaware buyers need to be asking.

The title of this blog post by Dianna Huff caught my attention: "DIY Marketing No Longer Cuts the Mustard." (DIY=do it yourself.) She makes a convincing case that the tools and techniques of marketing, like the computer-enhanced motors of cars, are no longer the domain of the shade tree mechanic. Marketing, done right, requires specialized skills.

Huff's article is aimed at "B2B mom and pop manufacturers;" small companies where owners and employees wear many hats, including marketing. Of course, larger B2B companies hire professionals who have the specialized skills that today's marketing tactics require. (Paul describes just a subset of those skills in this post.)

Or do they? I think the DIY temptation persists, even in larger companies.

Even when amazing skills are in-house, there's a fine line between doing it right and DIY. That's the line where outsourcing a task would have positive ROI. And finding that line can be tricky, for two reasons.

First, the tools for marketing are so easy to use--but so difficult to use well. Such is the blessing and the curse of web user interface. Google Analytics is a prime example. Even I can log in and see fascinating statistics and graphs. Even I could compose an impressive looking report of current usage. But do I know how to spot negative trends, or make recommendations on complex sites? Would I want to be in charge of analytics for a $100K campaign? No way--that's clear. Somewhere in the middle of these extremes, I'd be tempted to DIY when I shouldn't. And most executives supervising me would be happy to save the budget dollars by stretching my skills perhaps a bit too far.

Second, there's the objective point of view. Whether the effort is as strategic as a new brand design, or as tactical as developing SEO keywords, it is crucial to take the perspective of an outsider looking in. Even the most tenured marketing employees--in fact, especially the most tenured marketing employees--can only have an insider's perspective. They need outside guidance to do this work right. DIY does not cut the mustard.

I tell clients that marketing is a little bit like law and brain surgery: it's really difficult to do it well for yourself. Only an outsider can offer the most difficult, but valuable truths. Is the web site reaching the right audience? Is the content compelling? When you are the seller, it's difficult, sometimes impossible to think like the buyer--and this is what the marketing professional must do.
 

Every B2B marketer I talk to is on board with the concept of user personas to guide their web content strategy. Now our team is working with several clients to really drive this concept home, and apply personas more aggressively to the content they are creating. The results are paying off in content that truly speaks to the buyer.

What are personas, exactly? Personas are detailed profiles of your target buyers as human beings. Personas go much, much deeper than the usual B2B rundown of the target market--beyond industry, company size, and job title, to a personal profile like this:

"Richard is in his early forties and married.  He arrives at the office at 8:25 every morning after dropping the kids off at middle school. He drives a silver 2008 BMW 535d. He has been with the bank for thirteen years, starting in branch technology support. Dave is a stickler about details and accuracy. He counts his change from Starbucks. He frequently corrects other people's facts. His desk is clear every night before he goes home. He's the guy you want working on network security." That's just a start.

Web copy that generates leads starts with understanding the psychographics of the buyer: lifestyle, interests, and personality. With a psychographic persona like this one, we can set a tone for Richard by leading with statistics, citing sources, demonstrating attention to detail, and appealing to his risk-averse nature. The copy we write to reach Richard will be very different from the copy for Amanda, in her late twenties, in a relationship, bikes to work, and blogs about local theater--even though Richard and Amanda are part of the same biuying cycle.

Specificity like this is the key to a useful persona, because it allows us to write with emotion. Ardath Albee recently blogged, "Is Your B2B Marketing Content a Filter or a Vortex?" making a great case for specificity, stating: "If we get better at designing content to attract leads who are both a cultural and a buyer fit, then we save time sifting through the shale to find the gold." By seeling that cultural fit, our content helps a tentative buyer to relate comfortably to the message, and an engaged buyer validate their decision. Then buyers can interact, self-select, and feel comfortable doing business with a company that understands their perspective.

Companies don't buy, people do, even in B2B. B2B buying decisions are based just as much on emotion as B2C. So while your competitors are reticent to waver from a business-like tone, gain an edge by digging a level deeper, getting specific, and aiming for that cultural fit.

Whether your copy grabs your buyer by the heart, by the throat, or by the wallet, they will feel connected--and one step closer to being your customer.

I'm enjoying Steve Woods's post today on Digital Body Language, on the ways Marketing departments can and should be "doing" social media. I want to take a deeper dive on a few of Steve's points, because they speak to my own experience as a Marketing Manager, and they conveniently tie in with our recent new white paper, How to Create a Content Strategy for B2B Nurturing Campaigns.

Steve describes the reasons that the Marketing people and the Social Media people are, well, separate people in most organizations: in short, because Marketing thinks in terms of lightning-strike campaigns, and Social Media requires a slow steady drip of content originated from subject-matter experts. My own experience, because of the very things Steve describes, is that Marketing as we know it and Social Media require two entirely different personalities.

• Crusaders: The term "marketing campaign," not coincidentally, ties it to major efforts of politics and war. The most successful marketing campaigns I've been involved with were led by charismatic project leaders. They were kicked-off at the beginning, and celebrated with champagne at the end. At their best, they were more than campaigns, they were crusades. They even had names.
• Shepherds: Managing social media requires constant watchfulness, vigilance, and even the herding of subject-matter experts and the content they produce. If I may mix metaphors, the notions of "herding cats" and "time to make the doughnuts" apply here. There might be a kick-off to a social media campaign, but there is no cause for champagne if they end (die).

Despite this stark difference in personalities, the Crusaders and the Shepherds can get more done when they come together, as Steve's recommendations suggest:

• Crusaders like to launch ads. Advertise the content the Shepherds are rolling out.
• Shepherds create a steady stream of content. Launch Crusades for that content, too.
• Engage the subject-matter experts that the Shephers have herded; bring them into the Crusades, too.
• Use the search budget not just to herd traffic to the blog, but to crusade for the marketing campaigns as well. (This one might seem obvious, but I suspect that the divide between Shepherds and Crusaders prevents it from happening as much as it should.)

At the end of the day, the Crusaders (for all their swagger) can take an important lesson from the Shepherds, and this lesson is discussed in the white paper: it's really all about the buyer, not the Crusade itself. Buyers don't care about the project, the kick-off, and all the hoopla around a marketing campaign. They have their own problems to solve--and they are solving them by having an ongoing conversation with the Shepherds.

So if Crusaders want to reach buyers (and aren't Crusaders the ones counting leads?) don't they need the Shepherds? I'm interested to hear stories of successful ways the two personalities come together.

I'm frequently approached by writers looking for work, and the first thing they want me to see is a sample of their writing. In ten seconds, I can tell whether a writer can put a decent paragraph together. But writing is only the first of many skills needed to produce content for an enterprise.

Some of these additional skills sound "soft," but there would be hard consequences to building a large body of content without them.

• Research and interviewing: Web content writers are usually responsible for gathering the raw information from which they write, from interviews with subject-matter experts (each of whom has their own style of communicating), previously written material, and the web.
   
• Project management and workflow: Content writers require an understanding, and respect for, the approval and review process. In one large project, we have 5 writers on our team, who are working with 25 people on the client side: subject-matter experts, reviewers, marketing managers and other stakeholders. Our writers are managing a project plan of interviews, reviews, and intermediate milestones.
   
• Version control and reviews: The number of documents in a large project, multiplied by the number of versions that go back and forth, is daunting. We use Basecamp to manage the review process and version control; Basecamp also provides a portal for our clients.
• Content management systems: The tools of the writer have evolved--not just from pen to typewriter to computer, but to Word, WordPress, Drupal, and a variety of other content management systems. Writers must be adept with these tools--and be ready to lear new ones, since there are so many.
   
• Brand management: Although a project requires multiple writers to complete on schedule, the body of work represents our client's single voice.Our writers must understand how brand extends into the copy they write. They use and contribute to style sheets when the project requires it. And they collaborate with each other to achieve a common voice.
   
• Search engine optimization: This topic is already exhausted, but suffice it to say that although content management systems automate many SEO basics, real SEO skills are required to optimize web content.

All these skills require an attention to detail that we do not take for granted on our team.  We're fortunate to have process-oriented writers with broad experience who understand enterprise content management: how these projects work, and how to work them.

Last week’s AdAge poll posed a fascinating question:

As someone employed in marketing, advertising or public relations, would you work on the BP account in a professional capacity at this point?

The consensus leaned slightly toward “Yes,” 46% to 42%, with 13% responding, “It depends on how much I’d be paid.” But many of those who left comments on the poll’s web page would take on the challenge gladly. Here’s a sample:

The question is not whether an ad agency can turn public opinion in BP's favor, it's whether you can ever tell a compelling enough story about the response to make it OK in enough consumers' minds to fill their tanks at a BP station. If BP allowed me to do an HONEST campaign? Yes, I'd take it on in a heartbeat. It'd be one helluva ride. [PowerFliteGuy]

The commenters who say they would take on the challenge would do so if they have access to management—and management was ready to take their advice. Armed with that, the creative possibilities for transforming the brand are enticing to these professionals.

Last week, Paul tweeted a MarketingProfs article about a study saying that PR, not marketing, is gaining control of social media, because PR is accustomed to communicating through dialogue, not monologue—dialogue being more suited to social media.

Sounds like the dialogue must not only be between the company and its public, but also be between the communications professionals and their management—especially when the brand needs rescuing, and the message is the hardest to communicate.

I took part in an interesting discussion today regarding how much effort and resource organizations should put toward developing and "owning" unique creative terms. Every marketer wants to be the Jerry Maguire that is associated with "show me the money," but the internet rewards the common and most commonly searched terms: "images of money?"

Of course, this is just another question in the ongoing debate between the more creative elements of marketing organizations and those that are more process oriented. But it does make you wonder if United Airlines would be happier being associated with the "friendly skies" or "cheap Florida vacations."  The former is a more memorable, longer lasting marketing asset, but the latter is more tangibly associated with current revenue--as long as the SEO budget remains strong, that is.

I need a new laptop. I also know that I won't be happy until I have done exhaustive research to assure myself that I have purchased the perfect machine for me: the right compromise of weight and power, the best video for my needs, the right-sized keyboard, and so on. There are so many options to consider, and so many choices, that I'm making my 3-year-old Toshiba, with Vista, last as long as possible.

Do your B2B buyers feel overwhelmed, too--to the point where they just aren't buying?

I wondered this as I read Ted Mininni's blog post on MarketingProfs, "Don’t Confuse the Customer: Limit Choices, Make More Sales." The post is written for the B2C marketer, but the concept works for B2B as well.

Mininni asks: "Has a store that is packed with selections overwhelmed you and turned you off?" The question is relevant whether the product is potato chips, laptops, or IT services.

If your company markets ERP software or employee benefits, for example, your buyers have to do a lot of research before they can make a short list, let alone make a decision. But if they perceive the number of choices to be manageable, they won't be paralyzed by indecision--they will decide, act, and buy. As B2B marketers, it is in our best interest to narrow the field.

Targeting and positioning (starting with the sage advice of Ries and Trout in the classic book, Positioning) are tried and true techniques. Now they must be adapted to the buyer who controls the buying cycle. That means:

• Identifying the buyer's stage of the buying cycle as part of their persona. Are they unaware of your product or brand, or just need more education about it?
• Placing the buyer's agenda above your own. Buyer's don't care about your company's events unless you can help them get their jobs done. Devise content that provides benefit now, on their terms.
• Utilizing the channels where buyers are looking for content--social media being a critical piece. Don't expect buyers to seek out your company--but do expect them to seek out information. Where do they look for helpful, objective information? Be in those conversations.

A content strategy that respects the buying cycle is key to helping the buyer eliminate some choices and focus the buying decision. This strategy leaves control with the buyers--where it belongs now--and places the right information in front of them at the the right time. Adopt a content strategy that avoids overwhelming them with choices, and instead enables an informed decision in your favor.

Two major events make a trend. Now that Yahoo has purchased Associated Content, in the wake of AOL launching Seed.com, it is official that the major Internet portals see big profits in the ads they can sell on pages of cheap content.

The content categories on Seed.com read like the sections of USAToday: Entertainment, News, Sports, Lifestyle, Money & Finance. Today, hot topics on Associated Content include LeBron James, Lost, and Shrek. Is the commoditization of content just a B2C business, or does it have ramifications for B2B?

I sat on a panel yesterday for the Technology Association of Georgia, to discuss how to integrate social media into the marketing mix to generate leads. The questions from the audience validated what I've been seeing: inbound marketing demands that marketing orgainzations produce greater volumes of content, and monitor the social media constantly. This effort requires staff, which costs money, which requires some provable ROI before the investment is made. So many companies are still struggling to get fully on board with true inbound marketing.

So a "seed" model for B2B could be tempting to some B2B firms, but I don't think it will gain a foothold, and here's why: the stakes for both the buyer and the marketer are too high.

As a consumer, if I learn how to pack a suitcase, or buy a new breakfast cereal, based on a tip I read in a 250-word article for which the writer received $25, that's great. If the tip turns out to be a bad one, not much harm done.

But education and due diligence are too important in a B2B buying cycle. Let's hope that no CIO is going to be convinced to invest in a new network infrastructure, for hundreds of thousands of company dollars, based on a generic article that a random freelancer submitted online for a few dollars. And no B2B marketer would risk distributing the cheapest content possible only to be bested by the competition.

That doesn't mean that B2B content won't get cheapened in the scramble to generate more, faster. But the best content will generate the best leads, pure and simple.

Marketing expert David Meerman Scott blogged last week about Boeing's new web site as a stellar example of brand journalism--a term he defines thus:

Brand Journalism is not a product pitch. It is not an advertorial. It is not an egotistical spewing of gobbledygook-laden corporate drivel.

Instead Brand Journalism is the creation of Web content—videos, blog posts, photos, charts, graphs, essays, ebooks, white papers—that deliver value to your marketplace and serve to position your organization as one worthy of doing business with.

In my nose-to-the-grindstone marketing-manager mind, I can't discern how brand journalism differs from what I have come to know, simply, as good marketing content.

Gobbledygook-laden corporate drivel = bad.
Position my organization as one worth of doing business with = good.

And yes, Boeing is an example of good. But to paraphrase Billy Joel, "It's still B2B [marketing] to me."

So I appreciated John Bethune's recent post, "Is B2B ready for corporate journalism?" (And see also our post, "B2B Publishers: Guardians of Truth.") Brand/corporate journalism, ideally, occurs when a company reports honestly, transparently, on itself, with the objective eye of a journalist. Now that's discernibly different from what I know. But is it feasible?

Bethune asks: "Does content marketing inherently compromise journalistic ideals? Or does the problem lie with [marketers] who don’t understand the point of brand journalism?" Is it practical to expect companies to report on themselves objectively when the news is not good? We have only to look at today's headlines for an answer.

The new Boeing.com features Rocky the bomb-sniffing dog = good.
BP.com's headline article "Gulf of Mexico response" = good, as marketing goes, but--
It reads quite differently from this New York Times story = bad.

How would BP act differently if it really understood brand journalism? Would they really, for example, blog that they underestimated the magnitude of the oil leak? Or does BP understand as well as any company can? If it does, then perhaps the idea of brand journalism is, after all, a helpful new way to approach the creation of good B2B marketing content--even if the objective perspective of the traditional journalist is not attainable.