Mark Ritson, a marketing professor at the Melbourne Business School in Australia, recently published a column at Marketing Week titled “Is content marketing a load of bollocks?” As you might expect, the column created quite a stir in the content marketing world.
Professor Ritson makes two arguments in his column. First, he contends that content marketing isn’t really different from “regular” marketing communications. And second, he argues that most of the content produced by content marketers is ineffective. He writes, “A study by software firm Beckon recently revealed that although the amount of content being marketed has tripled in the past year, there has been no increase in engagement. Just 5% of the total content produced generated 90% of the customer engagement meaning that 19 out of 20 pieces of content marketing have little if any impact.”
It shouldn’t be surprising that most content marketing advocates don’t share Professor Ritson’s view. Most proponents of content marketing will readily acknowledge that content marketing efforts are often ineffective, but they argue that’s because many companies aren’t doing content marketing correctly. They contend that many companies are still producing bad content, or are haphazardly creating content without having a sound content marketing strategy. Supporters argue that content marketing is effective when it’s done the right way.
Recent research provides support for both points of view. The Beckon study cited by Mark Ritson echos the findings of earlier research by TrackMaven, which also found that content volume is increasing while content engagement is decreasing.
On the other hand, the 2017 B2B content marketing survey by the Content Marketing Institute and MarketingProfs (published a few weeks ago) found that doing the right things in the right ways will have a major impact on content marketing success. In this research, survey respondents who rated their company’s content marketing efforts as extremely or very successful were also more likely to say that their company:
- Has a documented content marketing strategy
- Is extremely or very committed to content marketing
- Is clear on what an effective/successful content marketing program looks like
- Measures content marketing ROI
- The amount of content available to potential buyers has increased dramatically, and the competition for buyer attention has become more intense.
- The growing use of content marketing best practices tends to make content marketing programs look alike, which makes differentiation more difficult.
- While companies are still producing a lot of bad content, there’s also a growing volume of good content available in the marketplace, which allows potential buyers to be more choosy about the content they consume. This makes it more challenging to consistently produce content that will win mindshare.
Illustration courtesy of DigitalRalph via Flickr CC.
Good article David.
Some of this comes down to different measures of success. Inbound content marketers (in the HubSpot school) will tend to talk about ‘engagement’ metrics. Mark Ritson and traditional B2B marketers will focus on business effects (pipeline, revenue etc). Personally, I think Ritson makes some excellent points — unless content marketing can demonstrate real, tangible business benefits, why do it?
The reality is, inbound is not the only model. My agency specialises in outbound content marketing campaigns, normally delivered through marketing automation. With this, the results are pretty clear, pretty quickly and can be tracked relatively easily. There isn’t anywhere to hide.
The issue I have with the CMI research (which is virtually the only research that ever gets quoted) is the make-up of respondents. The B2B cut covers just over 1100 businesses in North America. 18% if these are agencies who, let’s face it, have a vested interest. 19% are businesses under 10 people and a further 31% are under 100 people — so these are companies at the smallest end of the market who are less likely to have sophisticated marketing operations. And the respondents come from the lists of the CMI, MarketingProfs, ADMA and WTWH media who are all, I would expect, likely to skew in a very pro-inbound / social direction.
I think you hit the nail firmly on the head with your key question: Will a well-conceived and well-executed content marketing program be more effective at driving profitable revenue growth for my company than alternative marketing methods?
Too few businesses are really asking this.
Thanks