<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Intentional Design Inc. &#187; content as asset</title>
	<atom:link href="http://intentionaldesign.ca/tag/content-as-asset/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://intentionaldesign.ca</link>
	<description>Content strategies for business impact</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 20:51:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>

		<item>
		<title>Consequences of not having a good content strategy</title>
		<link>http://intentionaldesign.ca/2009/11/09/consequences-of-not-having-a-good-content-strategy/</link>
		<comments>http://intentionaldesign.ca/2009/11/09/consequences-of-not-having-a-good-content-strategy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:40:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>rahelab</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Content Development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Content Strategies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[content as asset]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[content management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[content strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ROI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[usability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[user experience]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intentionaldesign.ca/?p=986</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An unexpected, informal usability test shows the role of content as part of the overall user experience.  ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yesterday, I bought a phone from  Staples. I chose the AT&amp;T brand, for no particular reason other than the  physical interface looked like it could be straightforward and it had the features I wanted. When I got the  phone home, I unpacked it, attached the base, then took one cordless headset  upstairs and plugged it in, and another headset to the ground-level home  office and plugged it in. Then I started to configure the phone&#8217;s options.  Things went well &#8211; the schema was generally to press &#8220;Menu/Select&#8221;,  scroll to find an option, then press &#8220;Menu/Select&#8221; again to choose  the option, and press Menu/Select again to confirm the change.</p>
<p>So when it came  time to changing the answering machine greeting message, I followed the  instructions only to discover that there is no option to select. I tried all  the little tricks to see if the option got hidden elsewhere in the menu tree,  but it was definitely missing. Well, that&#8217;s fine; I will tough out the pain of  contacting customer support, through the phone number in the back of the book.  The phone number works in Canada &#8211; always an iffy question &#8211; so that&#8217;s  encouraging, and after listening to all the preambles, I press 1 for English,  enter my product number, and go through the various menus but there is no  option for &#8220;menu items are missing&#8221;. It seems that all the options  end up the same way, leading to an end point of &#8220;visit our website at  …&#8221;.</p>
<p>Now, gigantic corporations all have us trained to despise having to  call in; in other words: Don&#8217;t you think I&#8217;d have checked the website first if  I thought I could find the answer on your website? It would have been so much  easier: go to the site, choose the model number, and  But of course, the user experience was quite  painful. Here is an encapsulation of the frustration points:</p>
<ol>
<li>After doing a Google search for AT&amp;T 84209 (the model number) phone, I kept getting routed to the att.com site, which was obviously US-based, and geared to      telephone service subscribers.</li>
<li>I redialed the      number from the instruction book and was given <a href="http://www.telephones.att.com">www.telephones.att.com</a> as the URL. Typing in 84209 got me to a      shopping area. Do I want to buy a replacement cordless battery? I must say      that if I happened to know the model number of a phone I wanted to buy,      I&#8217;d be in luck because the second shopping option is to buy the very phone      that I&#8217;m getting annoyed over.</li>
<li>There are links      to the manual and Quick Start guide, which I consulted and had the same      incorrect information.</li>
<li>Filling in the      Contact Us form field promises to net a response within &#8211; depending on      which of the messages you believe &#8211; 72 hours (on website), 2 days      (on-screen auto-reply message), or 3 days (auto-reply email) but I doubt      that I&#8217;ll get a meaningful answer. It may be too late anyhow, as I&#8217;ve run      about the house, disconnecting telephone bits and bobs and tossing them      into a bag to return to the store.</li>
</ol>
<p>Now, I admit that  my question is not one of the top ten questions, and it might be embarrassing  to put it on the automated reply options (Press 8 if the interface  doesn&#8217;t work as per instructions.) but  surely someone has asked this question before, and somewhere, a content  developer has tackled this discrepancy. The point is that there needs to be a  strategy around content that goes beyond the basics. Now that I&#8217;ve calmed down  and revisited the situation with an industry insider&#8217;s eye, the support site is lovely &#8211; beautiful colours  and the navigation to the FAQs is quite simple. But when a customer is  searching content, and can&#8217;t find it, then all the other niceties fall away.  The laser beam focus on finding the content, which is needed to complete their  task, overrides all other aspects of the user experience. Task-based analysis  at its best.</p>
<p>So to AT&amp;T, I  would ask: if one of your questions is &#8220;Who is Charlie Johnson and why is  his name displayed on my phone?&#8221; surely the question of missing menu  items could be addressed, as well? This site is a classic example of focusing resources on the usability side of the support site, but not having a content strategy befitting such a site.  In this case, I did receive an email a few days later, referring me to a &#8220;real person&#8221; in another department, but by that time, my answer was, &#8220;Thanks, but too little too late. I&#8217;ve exchanged the phone for another brand.&#8221;</p>
<p>Seeing as how returns of electronic consumer products is a multi-billion dollar problem in North America, companies could definitely benefit from having strong content strategies, not just on their website, but across the product line, from instructions to training to their support site.</p>
<img src="http://intentionaldesign.ca/?ak_action=api_record_view&id=986&type=feed" alt="" />]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://intentionaldesign.ca/2009/11/09/consequences-of-not-having-a-good-content-strategy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Redefining content strategy</title>
		<link>http://intentionaldesign.ca/2009/06/11/redefining-content-strategy/</link>
		<comments>http://intentionaldesign.ca/2009/06/11/redefining-content-strategy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:02:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>rahelab</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Content Strategies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[content convergence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[content as asset]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[content strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[single-sourcing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[user experience]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[user-generated content]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intentionaldesign.ca/?p=908</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An argument to broaden the definition of content strategy to include more consumer-facing content types. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The definition of content strategy, according to <a title="Wikipedia" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_strategy">Wikipedia</a>, is &#8220;a repeatable system that defines the entire editorial content development process for a website development project.&#8221; This definition, not surprisingly, is taken from the <em>The Web Content Strategist’s Bible</em>, by Richard Sheffield. While there is no explicit connection of Web copy to marketing copy, the implication is that Web sites are marketing sites.</p>
<p>I would argue that, depsite the perception that websites consist of marketing content, for many sites, the marketing content is only the top layer &#8211; the icing on the cake, and what supports that top layer is a substantial amount of technical content &#8211; the cake itself. </p>
<div id="attachment_909" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 310px"><img class="size-medium wp-image-909" title="layers" src="http://intentionaldesign.ca/www/pmh3472/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/layers-300x190.png" alt="Layers of content on a website" width="300" height="190" /><p class="wp-caption-text">Layers of content on a website</p></div>
<p>That technical content is often far more valuable to the corporate or product brand than the persuasive content. In doing user research for one client in particular, a manufacturer of power generators and inverters, I saw how guys used their site. Consistently, they would bypass all of the marketing material and go right for the specs. (Of course, before the site revamp, a lot of the specs were missing or buried in a PDF in some obscure area of the site, but that&#8217;s a whole other story.) They knew what inverters did, and what to look for, and went directly to find what was, to them, the important piece of information.</p>
<p>In effect, the technical specifications <em>were </em>the marketing material; if the inverter had the right oomph to it, that&#8217;s what the users wanted to know. And had the content been wrong, had the inverter been used with some disastrous results, then the ensuing fall-out would have become a marketing problem. The artificial siloing of content between organizational departments &#8211; marketing, techdocs, training, support, engineering &#8211; is reminiscent of the discussions we had about information arhcitecture, some 8-10 years ago. The difference is that for many organizations, these larger silos have become de facto standards in which they bucket their information for consumers. They <em>assume</em> that when a content consumer arrives on their site, they want to see a certain type of content. They try to funnel the user through their site navigation or constrain the path to the cash register. But if you look at the way consumers <em>actually</em> use a site, you can see that they will not be constrained. In this <a title="case study" href="http://www.useit.com/alertbox/cross_site_behavior.html" target="_blank">case study</a>, Jakob Neilsen reveals that consumers will breeze past the feel-good content and <a title="head right for the technical information" href="http://www.useit.com/alertbox/sites_visted_transcript.html" target="_blank">head right for the techincal information</a>, product reviews, and other information pertinent to their decision-making process.</p>
<p>The content that was sought out by the consumer, in this example, is probably produced by a department that publishes to multiple channels, not just the Web. Their content strategy likely has to take into account single-sourcing for print as well as Web, and other channels such as training materials (possibly print, e-learning, and a Web output), manuals, product data sheets, and other end products. The Web is but a slice of a greater strategy. When we talk about content strategy, then, my contention is that the type of content we include in the definition needs to broaden beyond Web content, as does the recognition that the content, even if just for the Web, includes not only persuasive content, but instructive/informative, user-generated, and even entertainment content.</p>
<img src="http://intentionaldesign.ca/?ak_action=api_record_view&id=908&type=feed" alt="" />]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://intentionaldesign.ca/2009/06/11/redefining-content-strategy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Content strategy includes convergence, integration, and syndication</title>
		<link>http://intentionaldesign.ca/2009/04/07/content-strategy-includes-convergence-integration-and-syndication/</link>
		<comments>http://intentionaldesign.ca/2009/04/07/content-strategy-includes-convergence-integration-and-syndication/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 20:05:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>rahelab</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Content Strategies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[content convergence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[user experience]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[content as asset]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[content management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[content strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[convergence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[integration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[structured content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[syndication]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intentionaldesign.ca/?p=844</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A look at the changing nature of content, treating content as a valued corporate asset, and the changes in processes to support its use.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you think content production is complex now, wait until it starts converging with content from other departments or groups. Or when users, dissatisfied with the quality of the documentation provided, start their own DIY documentation project, and it ranks higher in the Google rankings than your own support site.</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re being asked to use your content in more than one way, you might be at the stage where the more part includes methods or technologies you&#8217;re not really familiar with. Maybe content re-use means syndication or collaborative creation with other departments or divisions, or incorporating content from other sites or user generated content. It could mean figuring how to build community or provide better support or get better feedback.</p>
<p>Maybe more means creating or incorporating help from the technical side, sharing the content in a knowledge base, putting it on the Web, maybe with automatic updates, and adopting XML, perhaps figuring out how the new DITA standard works for you in all of this.</p>
<p>No matter what your situation, you&#8217;re in the position where you&#8217;re supposed to figure out the XML stuff and the Web stuff and the quality stuff and the stuff around RSS feeds and copyright, how it all fits together, and why you need any of it, anyhow.</p>
<p>After all, if you&#8217;ve even tried to coordinate content creation between departments, or track the effectiveness of email marketing campaigns, or just share content between a CMS and LMS, you&#8217;ll recognize how hard it is to find two systems that play nice together, let alone get an entire corporate strategy in place. It&#8217;s easy to get overwhelmed. The promise of content management was to solve the silo problem, but in many cases has simply created larger silos.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve posted slides from my workshop, where we look at:</p>
<ul>
<li>The concepts of content convergence and integration, the principles behind it, and the market forces that are driving the trend</li>
<li>Opportunities created by content convergence in various contexts, from technical documentation converging to support documentation to marketing material to user-generated content</li>
<li>The changing nature of content to allow for successful convergence, and the changes in processes to support it</li>
<li>Ways to prepare your organization to adapt, and explore ways to allow content convergence to drive improvements in business efficiency and customer relationships</li>
</ul>
<object style="margin:0px" width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://static.slidesharecdn.com/swf/ssplayer2.swf?doc=id=1260597&amp;doc=contentconvergenceworkshoplength-090407140310-phpapp01" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"/><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://static.slidesharecdn.com/swf/ssplayer2.swf?doc=id=1260597&amp;doc=contentconvergenceworkshoplength-090407140310-phpapp01" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="355" wmode="transparent"></embed></object>
<img src="http://intentionaldesign.ca/?ak_action=api_record_view&id=844&type=feed" alt="" />]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://intentionaldesign.ca/2009/04/07/content-strategy-includes-convergence-integration-and-syndication/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Making Your Content Work for You</title>
		<link>http://intentionaldesign.ca/2009/03/23/making-your-content-work-for-you/</link>
		<comments>http://intentionaldesign.ca/2009/03/23/making-your-content-work-for-you/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:55:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>rahelab</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Content Development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[content as asset]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[content strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[structured content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[user experience]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[value]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://intentionaldesign.ca/?p=807</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Does your organization consider your content a pain point that they&#8217;d love to eliminate? Or do they consider it a corporate asset that is valued and exploited to its full potential? Using the music industry as an example of an industry that gets the most from its content, this presentation illustrates ways to make your [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does your organization consider your content a pain point that they&#8217;d love to eliminate? Or do they consider it a corporate asset that is valued and exploited to its full potential?</p>
<p>Using  the music industry as an example of an industry that gets the most from its  content, this presentation illustrates ways to make your content be both useful  and a delight to your customers.</p>
<object style="margin:0px" width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://static.slidesharecdn.com/swf/ssplayer2.swf?doc=id=1187258&amp;doc=makingyourcontentworkforyou-090323203004-phpapp01" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"/><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://static.slidesharecdn.com/swf/ssplayer2.swf?doc=id=1187258&amp;doc=makingyourcontentworkforyou-090323203004-phpapp01" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="355" wmode="transparent"></embed></object>
<img src="http://intentionaldesign.ca/?ak_action=api_record_view&id=807&type=feed" alt="" />]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://intentionaldesign.ca/2009/03/23/making-your-content-work-for-you/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
