Dear reader,

One of the things I'm very adamant about is not doing all the writing for our executives or thought leaders. I know they're very busy, but busy people always make time for what they want (or what will get them what they want), which is partially why I never back down from a good "I don't have time for this" challenge.

My rule when it comes to working with the experts? Entice but don't get too involved.

Before we go any further, it's important to realize that everyone operates under a personal hierarchy of values that may be completely different to your own. (Take a look at Dr. John Demartini's work and thank me later.) This means that building a great editorial structure is not enough; placing every thought leader through the same process won’t work if they each have different drivers.

I recognize the benefits of creating standardized workflows and templates, but brand communications is not a factory. It doesn't operate on conveyor belts. Now that I think about it, templatization reminds me a bit of Communism (I come from a former Soviet Bloc country). It sounds good on paper but doesn't work so well in practice in the long run.

Not to mention that the desire to oversimplify is a gateway drug for overcalculating. I avoid, for example, basing my objectives on the number of thought leaders I recruit into my editorial process—a common practice these days—because editorial marketing is not an exercise in convincing. Your ultimate goal is quality, and quality can only be assessed by how closely you align with someone's truth and bring it to the surface.

And yes, there are numbers for that.

A shift in mindset means a shift in parameters

When you think editorial, you begin caring less about the

• Number of contributors

• Number of published articles

• Number of pageviews

• Number of comments on social

And more about

• Contributor retention rate

• Average number of articles per contributor

• Returning website visitors

• Social saves and shares.

You can see the difference, right? It’s massive. The traditional approach looks at attention, while the editorial approach looks at intention. If the intention of the thought leadership program aligns with the intention of the thought leader, they'll stick around and produce more content (first and second bullets). If the intention of the content your strategy produces aligns with the values of your target audience, they'll keep coming back to read more (third bullet). And if the intention of all your content—even the smallest social media bits—is represented and communicated properly, then your audiences will interact in more profound ways (fourth bullet).

When you set your objectives according to your editorial beliefs, you achieve what most brands forget: putting the audience first. That, in and of itself, is an intention that is deeply felt by those you're speaking to.

This isn't just about the results, the entire process benefits. A huge amount of resources are wasted every day because of communications systems that remain stuck in the attention economy. They begin with an editorial calendar and work their way backwards (a big no-no). They set targets around reach and ambiguous terms of "engagement", most often because those are both easier to track and easier to hit.

But that's not what's going to convince your finance department to continue funding the content ecosystem you worked so hard to build. Operational efficiency, on the other hand, just might. And there’s a way to present it that has served me well in moments when my own strategies were put under the microscope. A way that balances what finance wants with what I believe.

The bridge that usually brings us together? Rigor.

Let’s not forget that, in this scenario: 

• Your thought leaders only do a maximum of 15% of the work, often simply reviewing the content. 

• The content ends up being less specific because it’s written by a comms professional (limited to what the expert told them) instead of the subject matter expert (continuously drawing from their experience).

• The same process is required each time you want something new from your batch of thought leaders.

• The churn rate of experts participating in your thought leadership program is unacceptably high.

Now, let's compare that to an editorial approach to thought leadership.

The benefits of this scenario are many, but most important to note is that:

• Building a customized workflow for each thought leader makes it more likely that they'll write most of the content themselves, leaving the comms team to focus only on editing, packaging, and promoting.

• Even if the comms team helps write the content, they'll have more valuable input from the thought leader thanks to that tailored process.

• The ideal number of thought leaders is much smaller because your initial set of contributors are more likely to continue participating.

• You get to watch your editorial calendar fill naturally, rather than forcing thought leaders and their wisdom into a tight box of content type, length, timing, etc.

If you didn't see the difference before, I'm sure it's obvious now. And if you can't imagine that last bullet being true, I haven't built an editorial calendar in a long time—a fact that has yet to cause my projects, my clients, or I any kind of discomfort.

The concept of invisible lost time

There's another great anchor that you can use to solidify the validity of your editorial strategy. Everyone talks about making the most efficient editorial calendar, right? They want to templatize the process, get everything set before they start, and then push for contributors and eyeballs. There's a set budget and campaign plan, everything's prepped—people are happy.

Let's say that process works. Investment is being made, content is being produced, and the audience is engaging. Well, that's the best time to question everything.

What I've learned from engineers obsessed with what’s optimal is the concept of "invisible lost time". They refuse to claim 100% operational efficiency if there's still room for improvement, and they never settle simply because something’s working well. Speak like this, and you'll have finance eating out of the palm of your hand.

Why? Because it means that you're questioning (of your own volition) whether the investment made is the right one. Whether the thought leaders you have are the right ones. Whether the content produced and the ways in which the audience engages with it are the right ones. You’re aiming for better by looking at how you work with your experts—your content development process—because that's where you're spending and generating most of your energy.

The beauty of all this is that you ARE always aiming for better. This is not some kind of falsified notion or trick—it's the truth for an editorial marketer. A truth that also happens to suit finance. And sometimes, simply showing your intention to optimize is enough; other times, you have the charts above to prove it.

The 80/20 trap? Really?

Let's have some fun now by adding a concept from a the completely different realm of manifestation. Many methods dedicated to helping people manifest the lives they want (a process not unlike setting objectives for a project you’re building) speak about the 80/20 trap. And I agree with them.

Most people believe that success comes from their actions or that, to be successful, one must act. It's the same in our personal lives as it is in our professionals lives. People fill their calendars with self-help tactics the same way marketers fill their calendars with campaigns. It makes one feel like things are progressing, without the deep work of questioning their hardest-kept principles (e.g., their hierarchy of values).

The truth is that it's the exact opposite. While the world balances 20% internal work with 80% external action, durable success only comes to those that do the complete opposite. And I'm not saying this because "the great manifestors of our time” say it. I'm telling you this because (like with everything else I share) I've tried it, and it's real.

Don't make the error of thinking this doesn't apply to your work or that it's just some spiritual, intrapersonal thing—because your entire professional landscape involves persons, involves humans. Humans approving. Humans creating. Humans receiving. Humans believing.

Success really is dictated 80% by what happens on the inside and only 20% by actions taken on the outside.

Think about that the next time you're told to build an action-packed editorial calendar. Ask yourself, "Which values serve as the foundation for our content creation process? And how can I change those, so that our audience feels we’re communicating out of good intentions?" Turn your attention and that of your colleagues towards internal workflows and help build your brand from the inside out.

I know this can sound difficult, possibly even intimidating, but the confirmation of your content's success doesn't need to come from the outside. It doesn't have to be rooted in the engagement and website metrics everyone's accustomed to. That's just a belief system that you and your managers have accepted. And belief systems can change.

You can guide your organization's gaze in a different direction by offering them a process that produces only the best content your company has to give—no external confirmation needed—and then use internal metrics as your compass. Less anticipation, less anxiety, less short-lived attention and more integrity, intention, and authenticity.

We’ll talk about this some more, but until then…

Stay human,

Flavia Barbat