Confab 2012: A Methodology for the Madness

Go to article

Tosca Fasso   June 15, 2012

 One step at a time. (photo by Dominic’s pics)

The Breakout: 2012 marked the second year of Confab: The Content Strategy Conference. In our ongoing coverage, we’ll share reactions from Razorfish content strategists who made the trip to Confab last month. In this post, Tosca Fasso considers some of the discussion around methodologies, and why, like it or not, we have to define our approach.

“You can’t break the rules if you don’t make the rules.”

– Corey Vilhauer, Confab 2012

We’ve come a long way since Confab 2011. Last year’s conference focused largely on the elemental, attempting to define what content strategy is. Kristina’s Halvorson’s opening keynote covered the rise of content strategy, what we do, and why we do it. Other sessions had a similar thrust, covering why content matters, the difference between copywriting and content strategy, and how to make sense of the new content landscape.

This year, we arrived at Confab with our sleeves rolled up and ready to work. We know what content strategy is (for the most part). We just want to keep getting better at it. At this year’s conference, we learned that one of the roads to excellence is to define our approach. For those of us who think that there is no magic bullet, or that one size doesn’t fit all, this can chafe a bit. But defining an approach doesn’t mean that we shoehorn every project, no matter the size or goal, into a homogenous approach.

One size does not fit all

Corey Vilhauer’s Myth of the Perfect Methodology (Slideshare) and Melissa Rach’sContent and Cash (Slideshare) both advocated for defining an approach to content strategy, but neither advised that it be rigid and inflexible. In fact, Vilhauer emphasized that “Each project is different. Each deliverable is different. Each client is different…There’s an optimal path, but it’s not set in stone.” So, while we don’t need to use the same tools for every project, we need to be keenly aware of the unique value behind each of our tools and techniques so we can properly employ the right ones at the right time.

It’s critical to realize that a methodology is not the list of tasks that we perform for a client but the reason we do them. As Vilhauer described it, “A methodology is not the what but the why.” To help you get at the why, keep in mind that your successes aren’t the only things that should inform your methodology—your failures should too. Understanding what didn’t work on past projects—and why—can be even more valuable than understanding what did work.

Know what you’re selling

Melissa Rach’s session focused primarily on selling content strategy, but defining one’s approach was a strong undercurrent. In order to define the value of a service like content strategy, we need to articulate what it is that our clients are paying for. As Rach says, “To make an investment, organizations expect to know exactly what our product is,” and that product is the direct outcome of your approach.

Steps to success

So how do you define your approach? Here’s Vilhauer’s three-step process, which he referred to as a “methodology for creating a methodology,”

1. Find a trail guide (like Erin Kissane’s The Elements of Content Strategy)
2. Create a master list (of all deliverables/services you and your team have offered or would like to offer)
3. Break and recreate (get out there, do your work, and revisit as you go)

I’d like to amend Vilhauer’s process slightly, taking into account that most of us already have an approach of sorts, however extemporaneous it may be. My revised steps:

1. Create a master list (of all deliverables/services you and your team have offered or would like to offer)
2. Verify and refine your list (against trail guide[s] of choice) and identify any gaps
3. Recreate. Then break and recreate (fix what’s broken, get out there, do your work, and refine as you go)

So few of us in this field are starting from scratch, so I like that these steps acknowledge a content strategist’s existing arsenal and background but encourage recalibrating against the advice of our field’s acknowledged experts.

Defining an approach means having a framework you can draw from for a consistent experience. When you have an established approach, you can respond methodically instead of reacting. You can consult proven processes and maintain a measure of control even when a project seems out of control in other aspects. And when clients ask what it is that you do, you can confidently tell them.

So go forth and, as Vilhauer says, “Define the damn thing.”