Content Piece Strategy: Stop Creating, Start Deciding

A content piece is only as valuable as the decision that created it. Most content programmes fail not because the writing is poor or the production is slow, but because nobody made a clear choice about what the content was supposed to do, for whom, and why it would matter to that person at that moment. Strategy precedes execution. Always.

The gap between content that drives commercial outcomes and content that fills a publishing calendar is almost entirely a planning gap. Fix the thinking first, and the content follows. Skip the thinking, and you are producing volume with no direction.

What Does a Content Piece Actually Need to Do?

This sounds obvious. It is not. I have sat in more content planning sessions than I can count where the conversation jumps immediately to format and topic, with zero discussion of commercial purpose. Someone says “we should do a video about our product features” and the room nods, and a week later there is a video that exists in a vacuum with no clear audience, no distribution plan, and no connection to anything the business is trying to achieve.

Before any content piece is commissioned, four questions deserve honest answers. What stage of the buying process are we targeting? What does the audience know, believe, or feel before they encounter this content, and what do we want them to know, believe, or feel after? How does this connect to a commercial outcome the business cares about? And how will this piece reach the right people, not just the people who already follow us?

That last question is the one most teams skip. Content strategy discussions tend to focus entirely on creation and almost never on reach. Which is a problem, because a well-crafted piece that only reaches your existing audience is doing half a job at best. If you are serious about growth, content needs to reach people who do not yet know you exist. That requires a distribution strategy built before the first word is written, not bolted on afterwards.

If you want a broader frame for where content sits within commercial growth planning, the Go-To-Market and Growth Strategy hub covers the full picture, from positioning and audience strategy through to channel decisions and measurement.

Why Most Content Briefs Are Not Actually Briefs

A brief should make every subsequent decision easier. It should mean that a writer, designer, or strategist who picks it up can work without needing to ask basic questions. In practice, most content briefs are a topic, a word count, and a keyword. That is not a brief. That is a search query with a length attached.

The brief is where strategy becomes executable. It should contain the audience definition, the specific problem or question being addressed, the desired outcome for the reader, the commercial objective the piece is serving, the tone and angle, and the distribution plan. If any of those are missing, the piece will be weaker for it, regardless of how well it is written.

this clicked when properly when I was running an agency and we had a client in financial services who was producing a significant volume of content every month. Good writers, decent topics, reasonable SEO. But the content was not doing anything commercially. When we pulled it apart, the problem was the briefing process. Every piece was briefed on topic and keyword. None of them were briefed on audience intent, buying stage, or desired next action. The content was technically competent and commercially inert. We halved the volume, rebuilt the briefing process, and within two quarters the content was generating qualified pipeline. Less content, better briefs, better outcomes.

Audience Specificity: The Variable Most Teams Get Wrong

Vague audience definitions produce vague content. This is not a controversial statement, but the behaviour it should change is remarkably persistent. Teams define their audience as “marketing professionals” or “SME business owners” and then wonder why the content does not resonate with anyone in particular.

Specificity is uncomfortable because it feels like you are excluding people. You are. That is the point. Content that tries to speak to everyone ends up speaking to no one with any conviction. The more precisely you can define the person you are writing for, including their current level of knowledge, their specific frustration, the context they are operating in, and what they are likely to do next, the more useful and persuasive the piece will be.

This connects directly to a broader point about audience understanding that I have written about elsewhere. Most marketing teams believe they understand their audience better than they do. The research is thinner than it appears. Personas built from demographic data and a handful of sales team conversations are not audience understanding. They are a starting assumption that needs constant pressure-testing against real behaviour and real feedback.

When I was at iProspect, we grew the team from around 20 people to over 100 over several years. One of the consistent lessons from that period was that the content and campaigns that performed best were the ones where someone had done the uncomfortable work of getting genuinely specific about the audience. Not the audience we assumed we had, but the audience we actually had, with their actual questions, actual objections, and actual decision-making context. The pieces that tried to be broadly useful tended to be broadly ignored.

Format Should Follow Purpose, Not the Other Way Around

There is a tendency in content planning to start with format. “We need more video.” “We should do a podcast.” “Let’s produce a whitepaper.” The format becomes the brief, and purpose gets retrofitted around it. This is backwards, and it produces content that is technically complete but strategically purposeless.

Format should be determined by three things: what the audience needs in order to understand or act, what stage of the buying process you are targeting, and what distribution channel will carry it. A detailed technical comparison makes sense as long-form written content because the audience needs to read, compare, and refer back. A product demonstration makes sense as video because showing is more efficient than describing. A framework for thinking about a complex decision might work best as a structured document that someone can download and use. None of these are obvious until you have answered the purpose question first.

The format question also intersects with the distribution question. Some formats travel well organically. Others require paid amplification to reach a meaningful audience. Some work in email. Others need social context to land properly. If you are choosing format without thinking about distribution, you are making a production decision in isolation from a reach decision, and those two things need to be made together.

The Distribution Problem Nobody Wants to Talk About

Content marketing has a distribution problem that the industry consistently underplays. The publish-and-pray model, where you create something, post it on your website, share it once on LinkedIn, and wait for the traffic to arrive, is not a strategy. It is an act of optimism dressed up as a plan.

The uncomfortable truth is that most content reaches a fraction of the audience it was created for. Not because the content is bad, but because distribution was not planned. Organic reach on social platforms has been declining for years. SEO takes time to compound. Email lists are finite. If you are not actively planning how a piece will reach the people it was made for, you are planning to underperform.

Distribution planning should happen before production starts. That means knowing which channels will carry the piece, what the organic reach expectation is on each channel, whether paid amplification is required and budgeted, what the seeding strategy is for earned reach, and how the piece will be repurposed or atomised for different contexts. This is not a post-production checklist. It is a pre-production requirement.

Vidyard has written about why go-to-market execution feels harder than it used to, and distribution fragmentation is a significant part of that story. The channels have multiplied, attention has fragmented, and the assumption that good content will find its audience organically is increasingly difficult to defend.

Where Content Sits in the Buying Process

Content strategy conversations often default to top-of-funnel thinking. Awareness content, educational articles, thought leadership. These have genuine value, but they are not the whole picture, and an over-indexed content programme at the awareness stage does very little for conversion or retention.

Every stage of the buying process has content needs. Someone who has never heard of your category needs content that names and frames the problem they have. Someone who is actively evaluating solutions needs content that helps them compare options and understand trade-offs. Someone who has just purchased needs content that helps them succeed with the product and reduces the risk of churn. Someone who is a satisfied customer needs content that gives them language to recommend you to others.

Earlier in my career I was probably too focused on the bottom of the funnel. Performance marketing was the dominant lens, and the assumption was that if you captured existing intent efficiently, growth would follow. I have changed my view significantly on this. A lot of what performance marketing is credited for was going to happen anyway. The person who was already searching for your product was already close to buying. You captured them, but you did not create the demand. Content that works at the awareness stage, that reaches people before they are actively searching, is doing something performance cannot do. It is building the pool that performance later fishes in.

This is why a balanced content programme across all buying stages matters. Not because every piece needs to directly convert, but because the pieces at the top create the conditions for conversion later. The challenge is that this is harder to measure, which is why it gets deprioritised in organisations where measurement drives resource allocation. That is a measurement problem masquerading as a content strategy problem.

BCG’s work on market penetration strategy via Semrush makes a related point about the relationship between reach and growth. Reaching new audiences is not a nice-to-have. It is the mechanism by which markets expand.

The Measurement Question for Content

Content measurement is genuinely hard, and the industry has responded to that difficulty in two equally unhelpful ways. The first is to measure everything that is easy to measure, which tends to mean page views, time on site, and social shares, none of which have a reliable relationship with commercial outcomes. The second is to declare content unmeasurable and treat it as a faith-based activity. Neither of these is useful.

Honest approximation is more useful than false precision. You may not be able to draw a straight line from a blog post to a closed deal, but you can track whether content is reaching the right audience, whether it is generating qualified engagement, whether it is influencing pipeline velocity, and whether it is contributing to organic search performance over time. These are imperfect signals, but they are better than vanity metrics or no metrics at all.

The more important discipline is setting measurement expectations before the content is created. What does success look like for this piece? What would good look like at 30 days, 90 days, 12 months? Different content types have different measurement horizons. A piece of evergreen SEO content might take six months to show meaningful organic performance. A campaign-specific piece might need to demonstrate impact within four weeks. Treating all content with the same measurement timeline is a category error that leads to premature conclusions about what is and is not working.

I have judged at the Effie Awards, where the standard for demonstrating marketing effectiveness is rigorous and evidence-based. One thing that strikes me every time is how few entries have a clean story about content. Not because content does not work, but because the measurement was not planned from the start. The teams that can demonstrate content effectiveness are the ones who decided what they were measuring before they started creating. That discipline is rare, and it is worth building.

The Difference Between a Content Calendar and a Content Strategy

A content calendar is a production schedule. A content strategy is a set of decisions about what you will create, for whom, why, and how it will reach them. These are not the same thing, and confusing them is one of the most common mistakes in content marketing.

Teams that have a calendar but not a strategy tend to fill it with whatever seems topical, whatever the sales team has requested, and whatever the SEO tool has flagged as a keyword opportunity. None of these inputs are bad in isolation, but without a strategic framework to prioritise and connect them, the output is a collection of individual pieces with no cumulative effect.

A genuine content strategy starts with commercial objectives and works backwards. What does the business need to achieve? What role can content play in that? What audience segments are most valuable to reach? What do those segments need to know or believe in order to move closer to a purchase decision? What content already exists, and what gaps need filling? What is the realistic distribution capacity, and what budget is available to amplify? These questions take time to answer properly, but the answers make every subsequent content decision faster and more defensible.

Growth hacking frameworks, which Crazy Egg covers in reasonable depth, often treat content as a tactical lever rather than a strategic one. That framing has its uses for specific experiments, but it does not build the kind of compounding content asset base that drives sustainable organic growth over time.

When to Refresh, When to Retire, and When to Create New

Content programmes accumulate. After a few years of consistent publishing, most organisations have a back catalogue that is a mix of genuinely useful evergreen content, outdated pieces that are actively misleading, and a large middle category of content that is neither good enough to keep nor bad enough to delete. Managing this is unglamorous work, but it matters.

The default instinct is to keep creating new content. New feels like progress. Refreshing old content feels like maintenance. But a well-executed refresh of a piece that already has authority and inbound links will often outperform a new piece created from scratch, and it requires significantly less resource. The decision to refresh versus create new should be based on a simple question: does this piece have existing equity that can be built on, or does it need to be replaced entirely?

Retiring content is the hardest call. There is always an argument for keeping something, because removing it feels like admitting it should not have been created. But content that is factually outdated, strategically irrelevant, or simply not good enough to represent your brand is doing active damage. It occupies index space, dilutes topical authority, and occasionally gets found by people who then form an impression of your business based on something you are not proud of. Retire it.

The broader point is that content strategy is not just about what you create next. It is about managing the full asset base, including what you update, what you consolidate, and what you remove. Teams that only ever think forward miss the compounding value that comes from maintaining what they have already built.

Building a Content Programme That Compounds

The best content programmes have a compounding quality. Each piece builds on the last. Topical authority accumulates. Audience trust grows. Organic search performance improves over time. This does not happen by accident. It is the result of consistent strategic decisions made over months and years.

Compounding requires three things: focus, consistency, and patience. Focus means choosing a set of topics and audiences and going deep rather than covering everything broadly. Consistency means publishing to a sustainable cadence rather than sprinting and stopping. Patience means not abandoning the programme when the results at month three do not justify the investment, because content returns are typically long-cycle.

I have seen content programmes abandoned at exactly the wrong moment. A business invests in content for six months, sees modest results, decides it is not working, and pulls the budget. Three months later, the SEO performance starts to compound, the pieces start ranking, the inbound leads start arriving, and there is nobody there to capture them. Content is not a channel that rewards impatience. If you are not prepared to invest for at least twelve months before drawing conclusions, you are not really running a content programme. You are running a content experiment with a predetermined conclusion.

Forrester’s research on go-to-market struggles in complex categories highlights a consistent theme: organisations that treat content as a short-term demand generation lever consistently underperform against those that treat it as a long-term audience asset. The time horizon matters as much as the strategy.

BCG’s work on scaling agile approaches makes a parallel point about the importance of sustained commitment to a methodology before expecting compounding returns. The principle translates directly to content: the organisations that build durable content assets are the ones that commit to the approach long enough for it to work.

Content strategy does not exist in isolation from the broader commercial plan. If you want to see how content fits within a complete go-to-market approach, including audience strategy, positioning, channel selection, and measurement, the Go-To-Market and Growth Strategy hub is the right place to start.

About the Author

Keith Lacy is a marketing strategist and former agency CEO with 20+ years of experience across agency leadership, performance marketing, and commercial strategy. He writes The Marketing Juice to cut through the noise and share what works.

Frequently Asked Questions