Content: From Collateral to Core Business Asset

Most B2B marketers have embraced content marketing as the key to unlocking empowered buyers’ attention. We know it’s the right thing to do, but what’s the right way to do it?

What kind of content do buyers want and when? What sources do they trust? What formats do they prefer? And are we even asking the right questions?

Several recent studies have approached these questions in different ways, with interesting—if contradictory and confusing—results. In some reports, white papers are favored while webcasts and virtual events are at the bottom, while in others the order is markedly different. But let’s look at the results that are consistent.

Corporate websites rule

Recent research from the IT Services Marketing Association (ITSMA), TechTarget and Eccolo Media all show that vendors’ company websites are one of the first places buyers look when researching a problem or technology purchase. In fact, in its “How B2B Buyers Consume Information Study, 2011” ITSMA revealed that, for the first time in five years, solution provider websites unseated peers as the top source of information in the early stage of the buying process.

What’s behind this shift? ITSMA reports that as solution providers have offered more valuable thought leadership content, buyers, rather than being skeptical, now rely on this content.  In fact, 88% of respondents said such content was either important or critical when when deciding which vendors to put on their short list.

(For deeper insights into the ITSMA research, check out Lauren Goldstein’s post, “What is the Major Shift in B2B Buyer Behavior?”)

Meanwhile, the “Eccolo Media 2011 B2B Technology Collateral Survey Report,” indicated a dramatic shift in the types of content B2B technology buyers are using.

Old school “collateral” isn’t enough

In its report, Eccolo said survey results showed a “surprising drop in consumption among white papers, case studies, and product brochures/data sheets.” This doesn’t strike me as particularly surprising, but the trend prompted Eccolo to conduct a follow-up survey, which asked about what they described as “less traditional collateral types”: company Web pages, e-books, social media sites, blog posts and presentations.

“While the consumption of particular collateral types appears to have dropped, consumption of marketing collateral overall appears to be holding steady; respondents simply seem to be consuming a greater variety of content. They’ve spread their attention across a wider array of assets.”

A few reactions…

First of all, these other content types are not new; they’ve been a popular part of the content marketing mix for several years. Another nit: How can you consider a company web page a type of collateral? It’s a source of information—and a vehicle for content—but is it really collateral? And could it really be considered less traditional than a podcast?

By including content vehicles (company web pages and social media sites) in the same category as content types/formats, you confuse what you consume with where you consume it. And none of these labels address the actual substance of the information provided—the content of the content—which is ultimately much more important than the container it comes in.

Unfortunately, the follow-up survey seems to have only addressed one question, which makes it difficult to see how the more diverse content mix is impacting other areas. I would have liked to see more in the report about when and how technology buyers are using the other content types…maybe next year.

Can we stop calling content collateral?

I also take issue with the term “collateral,” which implies that it plays only an ancillary role. That may have made sense in the days when the entire spectrum of content could be contained in a branded portfolio with a few case studies, data sheets and a product brochure with the sales rep’s business card. But content now spans a much broader set of communication tools, from blog posts to infographics to multi-media experiences to widgets. It’s not just collateral; it’s a core business asset—and we should treat it that way.

Trends to watch

The Eccolo report isn’t perfect, but it does surface several significant content trends that B2B marketers should pay attention to:

Social influence: “More than 77% of respondents said that adding “Share This” buttons made the collateral either ‘much more influential’ or ‘somewhat more influential’ than collateral that didn’t include these buttons.”

Mobile content: “While the majority of content is still consumed at the desktop, 37% of the 2011 respondents report that they now consume content on mobile devices such as tablets and smartphones.”

Interactive elements: “83% of respondents reported that including embedded audio positively affected the overall influence of written collateral. 92% said embedded video positively affected the overall influence.” 

Buyers vs. marketers

Finally, it’s interesting to compare buyers’ evolving content preferences with those of B2B marketers. In a study conducted by Focus Research for eMarketer.com, “Marketers’ Benchmarks 2011: A Survey of Marketers’ Priorities & Challenges,” B2B marketers indicated that blog posts are the most valuable content type for supporting their objectives, followed by webinars and virtual events, and industry white papers.

In the TechTarget 2011 Media Consumption study, “Similarities in Brand Reception and Media Consumption of IT and Personal Technology Buyers,” which combined content sources and types, white papers were in the middle of the pack, with webcasts and virtual events at or near the bottom. Blog posts weren’t listed at all (although they may have been considered as part of the vendor website bucket).

TechTarget 2011 Media Consumption Study

So what do we make of all this data?

When you’re looking to data to help inform your content strategy, it would be nice to get a clear picture of what your buyers want…to see consistent patterns across multiple studies that can guide our decisions. But often, the picture is anything but clear.

You have to consider differences in respondent pools, the context of the questions, and the definitions that are used. All things being equal (or at least roughly equivalent), you have to ask whether it’s a white paper someone wants—or simply any type of content that provides relevant answers to the questions or problems they have at a particular point in time. Does it really matter whether they get it in a blog post or a video?

Collateral or core business asset? How is the role of content changing in your organization? And how are you adapting your content strategy to make the most of it? I welcome your comments below or on Twitter: @carmenhill.