I am running a session at work this week on content creation, which is interesting because the majority of people I work with, don't know that I write daily, so they don't know that I might actually know a thing or two about their challenges. Today was the first session with one of my target groups and I was glad to see that they were invested and open to some ideas, which is half the challenge. The other half for them is getting over that hurdle of actually creating.
The long-term goal is to help them become established thought leaders in their region for their particular area, which is essentially taking what they do daily with their customers, making it a bit more systematic and opening their minds up to the public, albeit a targeted public. They are in a specialized area and their audience is similarly specialized in their own industry, so it isn't about teaching the customer about their business, it is about helping the customer improve their business practices in areas that aren't a core part of their business, but are a core part of their processes.
Through the session, I started with some best practice dos and don'ts to warm up, which I used as discussion topics to engage them into the conversation and prime them to reflect on their own experiences as both creators and consumers of content. These were pretty basic things, like structure, length and authenticity.
Creating content is incredibly easy these days, but creating good content is not. A lot of people seem to think that the content they post doesn't really matter much, so they use some content creation AI or don't put effort in. However, what they aren't realizing is that it does matter to the audience that they are producing the content for. For instance, ChatGPT creates a whole lot of generic "filler" content that might sound good enough to the inexperienced, but for those who are specialized, it just doesn't engage them and if they read it, they recognize it for what it is, trash.
True Thought Leadership can't be built on that kind of content, because the lack of industry-specific experience shines through.
It only fools the fools.
And as I brought this up, it became apparent that some people didn't fully understand who their target audience actually is, as though they know "who", they weren't necessarily writing for that group. They weren't being specific enough, because they were chasing the numbers.
Aren't views and impressions good?
Yes!
But if those views are coming from the wrong segment of the audience, they are valueless. The platforms condition us to chase the view numbers to help them hit their targets, but this doesn't mean that high levels of views help us hit our targets. For instance, if we are selling a product that requires the eyes of C-level decision makers, but we are getting a lot of views from lower level employees, we are unlikely to get into the eyeline of the right market segment.
Views mean almost nothing.
They are a metric that are used by centralized social media that is powered by an advertising model to generate revenue for them by attracting masses of people who can be sold specific products. This works because they can segment the audience based on millions of data points they are generating, and sell them thousands of products from their advertising partners. However, the majority of those selling B2B don't have thousands of products, they have a handful at most, each with a specific usecase and target market. Being generic might get views, but it doesn't hit the sweet spot.
A thought leader can't be generic, they have to be focused and clear in what they are delivering and the value it brings to the audience. For specific usecase needs, generic doesn't cut it and therefore, if one of the target market does stumble upon the content, it will unlikely clear the bar of specificity to pique their interest, engage them, and have them dig further. When a business buyer is looking for a new piece of software to do a certain thing, they do some research beforehand and become knowledgeable about the market, meaning that they can identify who knows what they are talking about, and who is faking it.
Fake it til you make it doesn't cut it for a thought leader, because that is built on experience and expertise.
One of the content creation challenges people seem to face online, is that they think they need to reinvent the wheel every time they produce something, which means that they can start ranging well outside of their expertise, relying on Google support to be their knowledge base. It is obvious through their content that they don't actually know much, even though they are detailed, in the same way as a child lying is apparent to an adult. It is inauthentic and devoid of real human experience - a book report of a highschooler, not the deep understanding of an industry expert. They think they are getting away with it, because they are fooling their audience, but they aren't fooling a knowledgeable audience - their target.
And this is why for targeted content like my colleagues need to produce, they need to know their audience. They need to understand what they are looking for and, what values drive them. This depends on their role and experience, as whilst some might be looking for ROI values, others might be looking for functionality and process impact return.
What was interesting to note in the session was that through the discussions, they realized that who they were producing for wasn't actually their target at all. Instead, they were looking to engage their follower base, rather than draw in new prospects. They were judging their content by the "likes" it gets, not who likes it.
On Hive, a lot of us write for ourselves, but if we want engagement and consistent support, we also have to understand who we are writing for. The fact is that while a guide on "how to be successful" on Hive might be useful, it isn't actually useful for those who have a lot of stake. They might support it because they think it may help newbies, but does it? If a person doesn't have experience and skills that are in demand and are also able to present it in a way that people engage with, can they be successful as a content creator?
Yes.
But they have to bring something of worth to the table. If you look at Instagram, there are people with millions of followers, just because they are pretty and the algorithms support them because they are able to differentiate the audience based on their viewing by more than just looking at a single account. If the same kind of person came to Hive and started posting selfies, unless they brought millions of people with them, they'd likely get downvoted, because they aren't bringing anything useful to the table.
Hive is a different ballgame, because it requires content creators to build themselves into the community, to engage, to be "industry experts" even if the industry is Hive itself. A painter or photographer can't just drop their images and assume support, a writer can't just dump text - there has to be more to it, there has to be value for the audience and to get vote value, that audience either has to be staked, or be of the kind that staked users feel it is worth using their vote value to support the content that serves them.
This is a more honest approach to content curation than the centralized platforms, because while they make content creators feel like their content matters, it actually doesn't, it is just a coat hanger to attract views of any sort so that they can better differentiate the market and sell what they are actually selling, advertising space.
Content creators who are looking for a specific target market need to stop playing for the algorithms and instead, perform for their target audience. This helps them create what we do here on Hive, build relationships between each other, with people who value what we have to say, and we value what they have to say also. It is a dialogue between community members, not an advertisement for the masses.
It isn't about going viral, it is about providing value.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]