Organizations in transition: old and new roles in (content) marketing

I posted this chart on Facebook and Google+ some time ago and received some criticism. The criticism was that it was far too complex (and complicated), that no company could depict it and that it wasn't even necessary. An editor-in-chief and a well-trained editor would actually be enough. Okay, they said, if there is a lot of dialog, maybe a community manager, but the editor could normally do that as well. And I still defended the role model... 

Now I'm getting some help from Joe Pulizzi, who is considered the "content marketing guru" in the USA. Yesterday he published a blog post with the "10 content marketing roles for success in the next 10 years". Reason enough for me to revisit the topic. Because I consider the topic to be a key one: the question of whether the great content marketing ideas can also be implemented depends on it. If not, the best ideas are worth nothing. And I think that companies (large and small) need to restructure their marketing departments. Only then will they be able to meet the challenges of the future. Here is a model for this:

Basically: The difference between roles and jobs

The most important thing to understand: This is a role model. The "roles" correspond to certain functions and competencies - not necessarily to people and certainly not to "positions". Theoretically, a person with a part-time job could also fulfill these roles. Theoretically. If there was someone who combined all the functions. But the important thing is that the roles have to be filled by people who can do it. The times when the editor "can also do a bit of Photoshop" and therefore designs the graphics himself are over. The roles show which skills are important for good content marketing. As I said: not "somehow" done, but competent. However, the role model makes it possible, for example, to fill two positions (in corporations this is called "FTE", i.e. "Full Time Equivalent") with 6 people. Different departments then "share" one person - e.g. a media designer who perhaps works in traditional marketing but helps out in content marketing. Or you can fill this role with a freelancer who is then only employed for 6 hours a week, for example.

So there is a large selection of titles. But why not just call him "editor-in-chief"? Simply because a "content strategist" does something different from an "editor-in-chief". The editor-in-chief is usually the "boss of the editors" (banal, right?) and as such also has the authority to issue instructions to the editors. The content strategist does not have that. The content strategist develops the content strategy and ensures that it is implemented in the company. Above all, this means that they understand the processes of how (and where) content is created in the company and, above all, how content "adds value". But he does this with completely different means than the editor-in-chief. This is because many different units produce content in companies. The content strategist can develop recommendations, train people and give them tips, and can also bring ideas together. But they never have the authority to issue directives to other departments. However, it is also true that in small companies where only one department (with two people) develops content, there is no difference between "editor-in-chief" and content strategist.

He is the master of Excel, Google Docs - or ideally a "Content Marketing Suite", which he uses to manage all content. He leads the editorial meetings, maintains the topic plan and keeps the editorial calendar up to date. While the content strategist concentrates on the strategic elements (surprising, isn't it?), he only takes care of the implementation. And he also ensures that the content is strategically planned and then implemented in line with the strategy: In terms of tonality, the style guide, protagonists, media selection, format selection - whatever is part of the strategy. And it makes sense to separate these two roles. Because while the content strategist has to keep an eye on the big picture and think creatively and visionarily, the CvD's job is more like that of an accountant: their area is the details.

She also enforces the rules of the community through dialog. In this respect, she has a "triple mandate" similar to a social worker. She also works together with Customer Care, usually a call center, if the company has chosen to run customer support via social media. As such, they also provide the support team with content. Here too, a different role is recommended than that of the content strategist, the chief of service (or the editor), as she must be able to devote herself entirely to the customer without being distracted by other operational tasks. They also need special empathic skills that are not necessarily as pronounced in the other roles. Pulizzi calls him the "Chief Listening Officer", placing this role somewhat higher up and giving it more strategic power. However, the function of securing the "outside-in perspective" is the same.

And a good editor is certainly fit for the challenges of content marketing in the coming years. Because a well-trained editor masters the various journalistic formats such as interviews, reports, glossaries, commentaries and much more. They can also write for online media and are familiar with SEO. This role can be scaled relatively easily: There are a lot of good freelancers on the market with whom you can fill out your team if necessary.

As I said above, the days when you could quickly create a graphic in PowerPoint are over. The competition is too fierce to score points with that. It's also not enough to just quickly select images from a photo archive. The images need a uniform language. Incidentally, this function is easiest to fulfill with a freelancer. In most cases, this is not a full-time job. Nevertheless, it is advisable to have a professional on the team here.

And he knows what the special features of each channel are - both technically and tactically. And in case of doubt, he also takes over the placement of the content in the corresponding channels. This also relieves the editor, who could certainly take on this role themselves in many cases. However, the editor has other important tasks. In this respect, a distinction also makes sense here.

Other roles

I personally see these six roles as the core of a content marketing team. In his article, Pulizzi mentions other roles that I believe can be used in addition, especially in larger companies:

• The "Influencer Relations Officer" deals exclusively with influencers. I see this role as the most likely addition to the seven roles mentioned above. However, if a company does not place particular emphasis on this topic, this role should also be performed by the community manager and the content strategist.
• The "Director of Audience" at Pulizzi is responsible for monitoring and for the technical systems that supply the target groups, such as marketing automation software or e-mailing systems. This role in particular is likely to be reserved for large companies, where there is specialized software for these areas.
• Pulizzi also sees a need for "HR for Marketing", as a kind of "coach" for employees in social and content marketing.
• The "Chief Technologist" takes care of the technology (surprise!). Personally, I also see this role more in corporations.
• And the person responsible for "Freelancer and Agency Relations" mentioned by Pulizzi should probably also be used primarily in corporations if they have a particularly large number of freelancers and agencies
• And last but not least, Pulizzi mentions the "ROO", the "Return on Objectice Officer". A great title, isn't it? However, I wouldn't think that it really has any place alongside the content strategist. After all, ensuring the return on objectives is precisely his or her job.