Hi Mark, Thanks for the fantastic article. I’ve not thought about the limitations of content marketing, but as you point out, sustaining it is challenging, especially as it doubles and is extremely costly to produce. Alternative? Its hard to say what will be developed down the road.

Outstanding article Mark. I have personally been pushing away from content marketing and Content Shock describes it perfectly. Brainstorming ideas…

Thanks or commenting sir.

Well, when you have the idea, let me know!!! Thanks for taking the time to comment Shari.

All valid thoughts sir. What leaves me wondering though, is what about the little guy? Even the solutions you mentioned here are already proven and can be easily dominated by anybody with deep pockets. There must be a way for small businesses and newcomers to make an impact. Any thoughts?

But the discussion has started here, and it is one that needs even more debate. As many head out the pitch the generic “content” mantra it will only be a short time before the brand frustration sinks in with “just another marketing ploy.

Interesting polemic. My question is why doesn’t this same principle apply to say the Stock Market? Shouldn’t there be a limit to how high stocks can go? How can we sustain growth, is the central question. So, if you spend $500 of your time this year on CM and $1,000 next it seems to me that you will just need to do less of something else to balance the books. This is a problem if you are 100% vested in CM, but few companies are. In fact,, many have yet to enter the arena and therefore have a lot of money to direct to this venture. I would love to get your thoughts?

Hi Sander!

Your comparison to the stock market is confusing to me. It’s apples and oranges. The price of the stock (theoretically) is dictated by a view of future earnings. So if a company continues to find a way to create more earnings consistently over time, there would be no upper limit to its stock price.

Let me explain the Content Shock idea in another way. Let’s say you were consulting with a customer and trying help them stand out on the social web in 2009. If you started a blog and a Facebook page, it would probably get the job done because it would be novel. The cost would aso be minimal because the entry barriers are so low.

Now, would that same strategy work in 2014? Probably not. Most companies have those bases covered today. Ho hum. So if you’re like Red Bull, you have to stage elaborate extreme sports events and create a video channel or if you’re like Chipotle, you hire Cold Play and Willie Nelson to score a claymation mini-movie. That is not easy. That is not cheap. It is also not accessible to many businesses today but that type of cost is what it is taking to make it on the web today.

Guess what? In 2015 it is going to be much worse. Content marketing is not sustainable.

So what is the alternative? There have always been new ideas out there for the nimble and innovative to exploit. That’s what we need to be thinking about.

Many SMBs get asked the same questions over and over again (information demand). Start with an FAQ section of an SMB website if for no other reason than to have a place to point prospects to who asking, or even better yet, provide the opportunity to proactively answer a question before its asked. Updates based on patterns of question i.e. same question asked three times in a month, add the question and answer to the FAQ. Freshness matters on many levels as you know.

Many of the SMBs competitors won’t take the time (limited local supply). For local, this can be enough to gain search visibility, as local makes the playing field a little more manageable in terms of gaining online visibility.

For restaurants, menus, specials, images of top selling dishes are all great content. Content marketing will have to become creative beyond blogging to be sustainable for SMBs. Smartphones provide everyone a potential newsroom. SMBs can promote content on social channels. The key is to integrate strategy into workflow and look for opportunities to add value with limited incremental investment.

This appears to assume that the goal of a content marketer is quantity of audience. If that’s true, then a lot of this makes sense.

But what if your goal is, instead, to build a community within a niche audience? You’d rather have 100 of exactly the right readers than 10,000 random people. In that case, I can still think of no better approach than content marketing and I don’t see (at first consideration) why these economics would still apply.

Very interesting observations Pete! I think we all need to be brainstorming in that direction.

Great post Mark. What will become increasingly important: character, community, and localization. These are basically ways to differentiate. Your cost of this post has increased by your responding to pretty much every comment. You do this as a way to differentiate. Real character brings connection and it is harder for larger companies to have that. Too many restrictions. Being local and giving back to that area could be a way to prevent take over much like local food is the new organic. Building community is also essential beyond physical location. People want to reach out and touch real people, not faceless entities even if their content is better. Of course larger companies with deep pockets could establish fronts that act local but all profits go to the larger company. I agree content shock as you describe is impacting creating a mass audience but I think there is still a lot of room to establish very specific niche audiences and communities. These communities help by connecting and keeping the web small so to speak. Build communities and relationships and this will outlast for awhile longer. Very interested to see what you come up with and the ongoing comments. Cheers!

Awesome Dot. Have you read The Tao of Twitter? This is a good place for any business to start if it is trying to understand the social media mindset. Welcome to my blog!

Help comes in many forms and if helpfulness becomes a key brand trait and corporate mindset then there is the opportunity to overcome the lack of trust in most paid media marketing (see the Edelman Brand Trust Barometer as well as the Neilsen survey on global trust in advertising). If one doesn’t overcome that lack of trust, content, as the new paid placement game, becomes an even less trustworthy, and therefore effective, form of marketing than, say, claim-centric, just-about-the-advertiser TV ads.

I agree with Wyatt. My tribe will be following me because we connect on different levels. Selling to a select group of people who understand me is where I am going.

Wow!

Excellent post, Mark! (and a bit scary for small businesses who are investing a lot of time, energy and money into their content marketing right now)

Saturation of any type of marketing tactic almost always happens over time, but it will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the land of social media.

P.S. Do I see a book on Content Shock coming in 2014?

Outstanding perspective, Mark! I was going to leave a long comment with my thoughts but, since I blog about web strategy, it probably makes more sense to do a follow-up article. In a nutshell, though, I believe marketers (and businesses) need to think about how they can be the most recommended answer to the questions their buyers ask. Personalized and semantic search are putting an emphasis on the relationships we build and the signals that come with them. This includes the content we and our connections consume. Even if you have deep pockets, you can only game that system for so long before it becomes too expensive to do so (to your points in the article).

Even though “quality over quantity” and “authenticity” are a bit overused, the underlying idea of building a reputation based on trust and the ability to help your customers solve their problems is what will help smaller, more agile, businesses stay ahead of the game.

Thank you again for this article.

As long as they also “buy” from you, you’re golden!

This is a tempest in a tea pot. there is no practical limit to our ability to consume, and a glance at communication history demonstrates it. By way of just one example, the move from 3 TV stations to hundreds hasn’t inhibited our ability or desire to consume TV. There are more stations than ever, and now streaming-only stations from YouTube and others, and we are watching more video than ever before. And we’ll continue to do so. Does it become harder to “win” when there are more players in the game?Of course. But that has nothing to do with content, and everything to do with economics.

Great comments Stephan. I look forward to seeing the post.

Agree completely.

I think Jennifer Lehner has a great point in her comment about innovating by returning to the old way of networking. But face-to-face networking can only be part of it when our world has become global and literal face-to-face is not possible. However, the personal connection is what networking is supposed to be about. I say ‘supposed to’ because too often live networking seems only to be the way to more easily corner someone when they can’t just hang up or delete your message.
So if content glut is shocking our systems, we need to find an authentic personal connection… say like a hand-written note which always shows someone that you thought of them personally and individually. That is one idea of how to reach out, but the message of why I’m writing the note is more important. That message needs to be clear no matter how it is communicated. Too many out there are not.

Nice, yes excellent post! Thanks Mark for replying, it helps keep reading and connecting worthwhile. Cheers!

Thank Mark! That helps. I am a huge fan of innovation and I am bullish on that discussion in 2014!

I think that is true, at least in the short-term and your competitors are absent from the space. What I am describing today is a macro-trend.

I like this characterization: “the half-life of novelty.” I may steal that one Mark!

A bit jumbled at the end. This was in 2009. FYI, he’s at the NY Public Library on Wednesday to give a talk, if anyone wants to go and have an in person conversation on this topic. http://www.nypl.org/locations/tid/45/node/218987

I’ve been thinking this for a little while now (it can’t possibly be sustainable), and it’s nice to see you put it into words so eloquently and with such detail, Mark. I also agree, Wyatt’s comment is fantastic. Success of marketing boils down to the service customers feel like they’re getting and that feeling comes from connection, character, quality of product, trust, etc. As always, the evolution of marketing will be an interesting one as we reach the tipping point of content marketing.

I think that is definitely one of the answers Henneke and if you think that through, there are some interesting implications for what we used to regard as “content strategy.” Should the emphasis be on SEO, quantity and calls to action or emotional connection?

From the beginning, my view has been that the most human content will win in the long-term, not necessarily the most optimized content because that is simply a game that anybody can play. But you can’t game “human” : )

Thanks for the outstanding comment. I hope I will always earn your loyalty — I never take that for granted!

Love this post and this community. It’s my first time weighing in. You definitely hit a nerve Mark and Jennifer.

My speciality for 15 years has been live networking events that I facilitated to teach a process of networking I created and got to leverage through large companies like American Express, Motorola and Office Depot. Then along came the social media tsunami and I morphed into a LinkedIn trainer. But even with that change I could not halt the onslaught of “experts” in social media hanging up their shingles.

So three years ago I morphed again into the world of publishing. I had 12 books out on networking, entrepreneurship and business growth, and also then got to be part of Seth Godin’s Domino Street Team helping him reinvent publishing.

But now publishing is also getting crowded in just 3 years, so time to reinvent again. This time I’m starting a non-profit–a technology learning and discovery center as I explain it. I’m a Chicago entrepreneur so I’m starting here. My thought is that as retail is suffering with online sales then perhaps retail-physical and local, face-to-face networking and learning opportunities might be very appealing. I say this because I see overwhelment, burnout, eye strain and more among friends and colleagues daily.

I believe strongly that there are people everywhere who would love to go to physical centers for what I call connection and direction. Think of a TED, Apple and Starbucks Mashup in a cool retail space where you might just defer pulling out your smartphone for 5 minutes to connect, learn and grow your business or career. I’ve spent years ideating on this idea but we’re finally beta testing it this year and I believe we will see more spaces like this emerging as we continue to get overserved with online content. It’s high touch connecting to the high tech world to help people of all ages make the best of the continuing growth of content creation. I see you there Mark, speaking and sharing “Content Shock” as well as many others sharing their great ideas. I look forward to learning more from this community.

100% agree. Those who are most human will win. Convert weak social media connections to strong offline connections.

is this not a content marketing piece?

Sure. Is there a point behind the question?

Your space dive example is interesting but is that any different than how it’s always been. As an old P.R./journalism guy it’s just the difference between capitalizing on a slow news day and getting buried by a breaking story.

The difference between p.r./breaking news and content is that ideally content has a much longer shelf life. Yeah, my blog post might not have gotten any attention on the day of the space dive but that doesn’t mean that it won’t the next day or next week.

So say we have a space dive or it’s equivalent every day. At some point, the small business’ target audience is going to need to get back to their need for the product/service offered by the small business. When they go seeking that product/service then who wins the competition – the space diver or the business who has provided the content they need at that moment?

Indeed. This is so timely for me as I struggle with the never-ending proliferation of “stuff” online, much of it becoming white noise. It’s virtually impossible to “keep up” and, for me, futile to continue to try to do so. For me personally and professionally, this is a time to purge, become even more selective in those I follow (and of course I’ll continue to be happily here) and completely re-think my online strategy.

Love seeing you share this perspective, it is a healthy dose of reality the market needs.

There are two factors I see that you didn’t mention, both hurt most marketers but help a few:

1) Audiences will become more concentrated over time and content will become worthwhile for the biggest players who develop bigger and bigger audiences. There are content winners here, just fewer, bigger winners.

Content marketing has further fragmented audiences. As “every company [became] a media company” (everything wrong with this is a topic for another related post…) we had too many outlets for content. Many are floundering and fading, and that attention is shifting back to the leaders. Increasing content investments will pay off for far longer for these leaders, increasing the value of content to them and widening the competitive moat.

In your example, if you spent $500/wk a few years ago, and $1,500/wk today, would you really be falling behind, or would your cost per reader actually have dropped? In your case, it is probably far lower than it was 4 or 5 years ago (because you are one of those leaders).

2) We, the people, will bemoan the loss of the small content producer. This is the opportunity and the challenge. The more content becomes one-size-fits-all, it loses its extreme relevance to specific audiences.

Marketers and individuals that can step in and consistently meet these very specific needs will continue to find an audience. Those creating content that provides functional, informational value, versus pure entertainment, will still develop an audience without high production costs.

Ok, my $0.02. Happy New Year to you Mark, hope all is well with you!

You’re seeing a similar rebellion happening in journalism, I think. Blogs are dying or converting into established media brands (HuffPo, Andrew Sullivan’s Dish, Bill Simmons’ Grantland, etc.).

I don’t think content marketing is going to completely die, but I do think it’s going to become significantly harder to break in as brands become more established. For instance, if you wanted to blog about PPC marketing in 2009, you had plenty of opportunities. But in 2014 are you really ready to compete against Wordstream? Ditto for inbound marketing and Hubspot, Moz, etc. There are so many good content creators already that if you’re just starting now it’s going to be very difficult to get noticed. So for people who aren’t established content creators, it’ll be harder to break through. But I think established blogs will continue to be OK.

If content (something people want) is doomed, then advertising (something people allegedly don’t want) should already be dead. In fact, given the rationale here, no sensible company should be investing in advertising in 2014, and yet that is clearly not the case.

Never mind that the cost of producing and distributing advertising is astronomical compared to the cost of a series of really great audience-focused articles, which for many marketers can be the business equivalent of a free-fall from space (think of Marcus Sheridan and his pool company). We’re not all selling caffeinated sugar water.

I think you raise a valid issue Mark, but have come to a sensationalist and untenable conclusion. It’s no mystery that many people are looking for any reason to avoid doing the hard (but rewarding) task of creating prospect-focused content, and it seems like you’re happily giving them one.

Agreed.

Excellent points. I would have to agree (gulp) that the internet is getting more and more crowded and therefore the content creation game is going to change drastically soon. However, isn’t there still hope in the fact that the niche markets will just get more and more specific and therefore the content more and more targeted? It is strange to think of the impending doom of content marketing, where as some businesses are still not even creating content or on social media…

I think you missed the date, let me help: https://www.google.com/search?q=content+marketing+is+dead

The key IMO in the economics argument is that producing the content that builds an audience in a competitive market is becoming more difficult (expensive, time consuming, risky, whatever dimension you choose to expand on). As this changes, either the investment in is increasing, in order to compete for mindshare, or there is more risk in the return.

I’m seeing the problem first hand. As I outlined in my comment below, I do believe there are still opportunities, but it isn’t the wide open greenfield space that many of today’s successful content marketers made their name in.

Marcus Sheridan seems to have become on the favorite examples, but what would happen if his three largest pool competitors adopted his content marketing tactics? (1) Investment would increase to have the best content in the niche. (2) Visibility of each individual company’s content would decrease in the face of increased competition. That is higher value in and lower value out. That isn’t to say it can’t still be successful for some companies, but the economics certainly are changing.

I don’t necessarily have a stake in content marketing, but in effective online marketing (eventually what will just be called “marketing”). I don’t even like the term “content marketing,” and only begrudgingly adopted it in 2009, even though I’ve been doing it since 1998.

If you show me something that works better than content, I will adopt it (and teach it) in a second. The logic of this post doesn’t do that, so I’ll look forward to your expansion of these ideas into viable alternatives with demonstrated effectiveness. In the meantime, I’ll stick with creating content that continues to grow our business. 😉

Agree 100% Jake, You “got it” : )

Content shock in action.

There are many areas still ripe for content marketing, especially if the competitors are asleep at the wheel. In that case, the content shock might be years away if there is no competition for your specific content.

Thank you! Your posts inspire comments.

I don’t think they’re exclusive either. Content Shock could be called Content Abundance or Peak Content. The thing I find interesting and underdeveloped is the idea of redundancy. A lot of this content is repetitious and desperate. I think the next great app is something that goes in and cancels out all the repetition, thus revealing what is truly original, or at least sorting through where everyone stands on a topic. Noise filters. That’s what I would put my efforts into. (Things like that Cinderella Energy Project idea – http://www.fusionenergyleague.org/index.php/blog/article/energy_cinderella_project : ))

A lot of people are making noise just to be noticed, because they have no choice. And the quiet folks have just given up – http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/the-end-of-quiet-music/?_r=0

What we need is something that helps people be quiet and clear. Sabbath apps. Fallow time. Deletions. Polishings and reductions of posts.

In lieu of advertising I’d like to see the emergence of an iterative process of networked pareto optimizing. Matchmaking. Where we all become actors that try to help one another find what they really want, rather than pushing on them what we are trying to sell to get some income. And this would be possible because we know that they, also, are trying to help us connect with what we really want, and composting what we don’t. This system requires universal health care : )

OK, that’s what it is. A world in which everyone stops trying to sell to each other, luring them in with content (that was written just to lure them in – driven by competition and mortgage payments), and instead, we go on a rampage, getting rid of what we don’t want, in order to uncover what we truly want.

Meditation and Stillness apps. Forgiveness and Deletion (forgetting) protocols. That’s the need.

Strategy, but I would add more importantly, intent, is where I think the emphasis needs to be placed. It’s been sorely lacking except for a few key brands (Copyblogger is one of them) that talk about content marketing.

I believe there’s still a window of opportunity to start something today that, with strategy and intent, will be competitive and sustainable. The size of the window depends on the competition in your specific industry.

Hi Mark: I have to agree. I am working with clients now to upgrade quality and stand out. Otherwise, you sink to the bottom with all the noise. It’s quite an issue, and in particular, the complete wanton lack of a true strategy and reliance on a singular tactic is disturbing.

Thought-provoking post, Mark. This is something I’ve been thinking about quite a bit as well.

Because there is infinitely more content than a few years ago, finding ways to compete and stand out takes a much greater investment – time, money, mindshare, etc. It’s not that it can’t be done, but more about how to do to it and whether or not the investment makes sense. For many companies, the investment will be worth it. But others, maybe not.

I think instead of bigger audiences, it’s going to be about finding the right audience. That’s what it should be anyway, but I think those that will succeed will focus on microniches and try to dominate those. It’s hard to be a generalist unless you’re producing mountains of content.

It will be interesting to see how companies find ways to rise above the noise and how the practice of content marketing and blogging continues to evolve to meet the changing landscape.

I pretty much agree with your comments but you keep inserting words like “doomed” which I did not use or imply. My conclusion is clearly stated: “Eventually, content marketing will not be a long-term sustainable strategy for many businesses.”

I didn’t say “now” I didn’t say “all.” I’m saying it is hard work and it is going to get harder.

BTW, I could also say that national TV advertising is not a long-term strategy for many businesses because the entry costs of producing and airing an ad are too high. Same concept. The cost of effective content marketing will also be out of reach of many businesses. Just look at Facebook, It is already weeding some players out, right?

What I presented is a “macro” trend. Niche opportunities abound and will for years to come.

If you know what you’re doing (and most people don’t) there are still huge gains to be made.

A large part of my income is derived from teaching and consulting about content marketing. I am not going to tell people to stop. Quite the opposite. I think there are wonderful opportunities but we need to go in with our eyes open and be smart marketers. You need to consider the content saturation (the “shock”) in any given niche, the competitive dynamics, the customers, etc. before covering the world with content.

I do think that there is more to it than strategy. For example, let’s say you have a great strategy and you are kicking butt with your content on Facebook.

But month by month, there is so much more content on Facebook that nobody sees your content any more. In 2011, the number was 22% In 2012 it was 16% New data at the end of the year by several sources now say it is 12% or less. Even FB admitted that content visibility (AKA effectiveness) is dropping.

In this case, your strategy is not at fault but it is slowly becoming obsolete due to content shock in the making. What happens when brand content visibility is 2%?

I suppose you could then pay for sponsored posts or a studio to make a clay-mation movie to bust through Edge Rannk, but will you be able to afford that and still realize a cost-benefit?

I do not think that it is far-fetched to think that the dynamics of content density will eventually trump both quality and strategy for some businesses.

Make sense? In that event, we may still depend on content but will need to come up something other than FB (or substitute your favorite delivery platform here).

Mark: powerful. I’m partial to dissecting these hard qualitative questions by resorting to…math. And I think you’re dead on. My own consumption of {grow} is a sad example. Your content has not gotten less value (the opposite I’d say), but that value competes with so many more sources, I spend less time with my old favorites.

I wonder if the movie biz holds lessons. They’ve largely decided nothing matters but home runs. Miss, miss, miss, home run becomes the profit pattern. I wonder if we’ll start seeing more swing-for-the-fences approaches (accepting whiffs) as a content marketing strategy?

Ken Rosen (Performance Works)

I’m not punting on content either and obviously left the question open at the end. Content will still be the marketing fuel but where, what, and how? I think you have some of the answers here. I would add “emotional connection through community” and perhaps leveraging new platforms like you mention here, Love this list Joe. Thanks!

I don’t think the positions are mutually exclusive. Content marketing is hard. It is going to get harder. This will cause some people to drop out. That means it is not sustainable for those businesses. Hopefully, they will not quit and instead adapt and adopt new ideas to overcome the wall of information density (as we always have). But I don’t think it is harmful to paint a picture of the problem that many businesses are already facing. Thank you sir.

Unsustainable means that which cannot be maintained, and therefore will inevitability end.

Doomed means inevitable destruction, ruin, or end.

Same meaning, I just took it up a notch. Hyperbole in response to hyperbole, if you will.

Like I said, I’ll stay tuned to see where you
go with this. I’m obviously skeptical.

With much respect, I’m not sure that I agree. In the cost/benefit flip you’re ignoring the fact that the older content that you created continues to perform. I liken content to an investment – where there’s an immediate return but over time there’s a continued return on the investment. So – while you’re paying $500 a week, this week you have tens or even hundreds of weeks of content that continue to drive traffic and results.

On my own blog, I’ve studied readership and over 90% of my readers are not there for current posts. 90 PERCENT! That means the $500 invested continues to still work for me.

I’m also not in agreement that there will be a saturation point. The world has plenty of basketball players – but only a few NBA players. And while the professionals come and go… the demand for the game continues to bring people into it. People will continue to search for new, relevant content and fresh opinions – and not always from us.

We’re not working in a pie, we’re working in a river. The river will ebb and flow, but it’s not going to dry up. The comparison you’re making would be equivalent with video. People can only watch so much video, correct? Then why have we gone from 3 networks to hundreds? How have we got to DVRs and video on demand? How has YouTube exploded? The demands aren’t flatlining – but the audience is getting more intelligent at finding the video they want. Crap video isn’t being watched, great video is. I believe it’s a common narrative with content.

Where do we go?

I think there are other ‘rivers’ with demand – video, audio, interactive tools… and many of these were outside the budgets of the typical blog at one time. But times are changing and the tools are becoming cheaper. People can run a very professional videocast from their mobile phone. They can work with code frameworks to minimize development costs and create interactive tools. They can partner/merge with other content communities to gain marketshare and cross-promote audiences.

While content marketing may not be “a sustainable strategy” Mark — you, and your brand are!
My plan is to explore this further with you “in the coming months.” ~Rae

Mark I agree that content marketing may not be a sustainable strategy for many businesses. I would add that the wisdom of employing content marketing is also highly dependent upon the business context, meaning, does it make sense given the circumstance which we know relies upon a lot of variables. Here is why I say that. Over the years I’ve enjoyed sitting down with hundreds of marketing directors, managers, CMOs and owners to discuss ways to improve their marketing programs. The companies ranged in size from SMB to global but regardless of size, there remain marketing fundamentals (brand, positioning, messaging, corporate identity, product profiles, etc.) that should be present and in good working order to some degree before launching into advanced plans for driving awareness, demand generation and lead nurturing. Of course this seems obvious but too often some of these basic components were incomplete, ill-crafted or non-existent. Sure, it’s an imperfect world but better to at least have the priorities in order and these basics addressed so that when prospects finally do meet us online and otherwise, they find what they need easily, are left with a positive impression and can recall us from competitors. But just doing those things well takes a lot of hard work and resources. And as any good coach would say about their team, we must be executing well on the fundamentals before we start doing anything fancy.

Secondly, for those who have managed to check all the boxes, the next question should be; do you have both the resources AND resolve to sustain a content marketing program? It’s not a Ron Popeil Chicken Rotisserie that you “set it and forget it.” As you showed there’s the question of practicality of generating a steady stream of valuable content. Anytime there’s a substantial investment it eventually begs comparison with alternative means of engaging an audience such as using direct marketing as an example. This is especially relevant in the B2B space where prospect, influencer and client list size are often relatively small and easily managed. I think this scenario is where some well-founded skepticism of the value of content marketing has its roots because there’s typically a long time horizon between start and measurable results.

Thanks Mark for keeping the conversation lively and synapses firing. Happy New Year!

Excellent points here Mark! We’re seeing content marketers produce more content than ever before, and this will drive up the cost of entry into the market.

Supply vs demand. If the supply increases into infinity, while we see flat demand, the cost of producing content that is actually consumed (market entry) will increase into infinity as well.

However there is also a limit on the amount of content that can be produced. I’d like to get your input on that side of the equation.

Here’s my take. Let’s say that for every 100 Internet users 50 of them produce content. That’s still 100 consuming the content, and even when that number increases to 75 you still have more consumption than production.

Obviously your point is valid in that as supply increases, relative to a stagnant demand, it will cost content producers more for the same consumers.

However this will reach a equilibrium (assuming the number of Internet users remains constant). Obviously this will not happen, but for each additional user we see there won’t be a new piece of content produced. Not everyone on the Internet is, or wants to be, a content producer.

I guess what’s being argued here is that the current content producers are creating more content than ever before, and that relative to a stagnant demand this will produce price pressure.

Again though there is a finite amount of new content that can be produced just as there is a finite amount that can be consumed. As the cost of entry into content production increases supply will slow as well, which is part of what will balance this market.

There will likely be a bubble where we see more supply than demand, but that’s part of what regulates a free market.? Again great topic here!

Thanks Dr. Rae.

Yep–our relationship is Content Shock in a nutshell. So what’s the “something radical?” I know you’re joking, but we both know it’s not a t-shirt. There was an old saying, “If an internet company isn’t growing, it’s dying.” (You can tell it’s old because the idea of an “internet company” today seems silly and quaint 😉 But the same may be true of online relationships–in two ways:

1) Time and new ideas: I’d tell anyone (and have) you’re a valuable thought leader in using social for business. But as your following grows, you need to cater to new ears–which means reiterating smart thinking from the past. Which means old listeners like me think, “Yep, Mark nailed that idea–just like he did when he wrote a twist on it last year. I enjoy reinforcing things I now know…and just wish I had time for it.” Until Google perfects real-time gap analysis between your content and each reader’s brain, fixing this needs your “something radical.”

2) Relationship: You moved long ago from a stranger to someone I trust (within reason for someone I’ve not met). Yet we hit that plateau quickly…and permanently. Taking a link to new levels is core to lead nurturing. But if neither of us are really “leads” for each other, what’s the analog to build stickiness? More fodder for the “something radical” I know you’ll explore wisely.

I think we have already passed the threshold. There is a saturation point where even colossal amounts of money thrown at the problem will start to show little or no effect. Targeting will be crucial.

These are wonderful points to push the thinking. Ironically, I rarely re-purpose old ideas, probably to a fault. I do re-visit certain themes.

The second point is so critical. If you and I had met in person at some point, I wonder if you would still be reading my blog? And if that is a model that works, how would you scale that? Is there an advantage to content marketing in the long term to small businesses who can scale personal connection?

I like this nuance to the point. Content creation is not infinity but it probably will equal the number of leaves in a forest : )

And if demand for content is flat, will that encourage people to do other things? Interesting to think about. I like your thinking here. Thanks!

My pleasure Mark, looking forward to our exploration 😉

Thanks for your comment SJ

Who said it isn’t? a) newspaper advertising is in steep decline b) TV ads in steep decline (DVR, Hulu etc) c) radio … go down the list. You think the ad business is healthy? That’s why all the agencies are all over native advertising and content. There’s no place else to go : )

Look up the comment section to Ken Rosen’s comment. That is the business case for my premise. The challenge (and cost) of being effective in content marketing is going up month by month.That just seems so obvious to me. I respect you Brian but sincerely do not know how you can characterize this as hyperbole when the evidence is in the news every day. Literally every day. I appreciate the time and thought you have put into this discussion. Thank you very much.

For me, we are already there in some ways. I had to create a new email address and move over all my subscriptions so I could systematically go through and unsubscribe to those I didn’t read. I went in yesterday after not deleting anything for 5 weeks and had 2,000 new emails. They are all useful but I just can’t read them all and end up deleting most of them.

I’ve strated to rely on the ‘experts’ you trust to filter through to you the most interesting information. When I am having a busy day there are a few websites and a few Facebook pages I’ll quickly visit to see if there is anything worth reading up on.

Content Shock in action. Thanks very much Louise! See you in April.

This is one of our longer conversations Mark. Your topic definitely makes me consider implications.

Our back and forth makes me consider content marketing as a transition step, not a destination. That is, you and I met via social media messaging (Twitter?) and I got to know you better via your excellent content. If I were your prospect or partner—or you were mine—we would have progressed to another level of engagement (e.g. contracting for services, partnership, etc.).

But with no clear next step, Content Shock rears it’s head. Our engagement could grow…or die. In this sense, one is unlikely to simply continue to read new content…forever.

This is a new idea for me and I’m not saying a content-centric relationship *must* follow a grow-or-die path. After all, I still check in on Kelly’s Cool Tools and Engadget with no expectation of change, but those are more like news sites than places I go for thought leadership.

In a mercenary sense, who cares? After all, numerous pundits harp on the need to target content exclusively to your buyers. By this logic, a person stuck at one step in a relationship would have little value.

Yet you and I (I believe) see social media relationships as more fluid. It isn’t “buy from me or you are useless.” It’s more “let’s leave a door open to mutual value at some point.” So by *that* logic, dying at the hands of Content Shock seems sad.

I end up with two takeaways…at least until you poke me with a new perspective. For customers, accept that content marketing (if you can make it work at all in a Content Shock world) is a transition. You need to up the relationship or risk losing it. And for colleagues, you better pick those you admire carefully and be prepared to invest the time to fight through the Content Shock.

Any of this resonate to you?

There is a lot of content out there, but so much is of poor quality. I imagine the creation of content will eventually slow as consumers demand better quality and poor creators give up. Can’t help thinking that’s a good thing!

I believe that you both are wholly neglecting the intrinsic value of the content itself. If the only way that three competitors could “get content” was to go to the content bazaar and pay market rate for a fully replaceable product, then, yes, this would be the case. But that is not the case (or is, in any event, a pretty lousy content strategy). If Marcus Sheridan’s competitors adopted his tactics exactly, yes, they would fail (and Sheridan would not suffer much). If they adopted the strategy and developed unique content that reflects their particular business, then they might succeed (and not necessarily at any expense to Sheridan). Ideas like “content saturation” and “content arms race” are being bandied about without the case for them being solid.

Certainly there is pressure for better content. Right now, it is about the only sure way of standing out!

The general theme of this article could be applied to most marketing tactics. There is always an advantage to being first. TV, Display Advertising, SEO, SEM, Social Advertising have all become more competitive and expensive as they’ve become more popular. There is an inherent advantage of being a first mover. All those tactics still work today for “some” if executed well.

Content is no different, I agree it’s more difficult to build a brand today with content than it was 5 years ago, but it still works for those who execute on it really well. Content is also not confined to a blog, it’s across all platforms, across all stages of a buyer cycle, it’s what helps you to build a community around your brand. It’s just marketing. If content is doomed then advertising/marketing is doomed.

Content should always be of value for businesses who can figure what their audience want, how they can create it and how they can distribute it to them.

Lot of good points in the article. Enjoyed reading it.

Thanks Christopher. This is a superb piece and I encourage everyone to read Mr. Penn’s post: http://www.shiftcomm.com/2014/01/the-role-of-pr-in-the-coming-content-marketing-collapse/

Extraordinary thinking, as usual sir.

Melissa, fantastic! Everything you say resonates with me as I am also developing something similar. I’ll go to your website to find your contact information and share more.

I admit I didn’t read all 154 comments but well over 100, so perhaps I qualify for an opinion

From the discussion here it seems most people understand “content” as something we need to publish increasingly frequently and with constantly improving quality.

That’s fine if you’re running a news site or trying to recruit more and more people into your “tribe”. From my perspective as a one-man show trying to generate leads from my online presence, the problem, however, is simpler. (I know, I’m only able to think in very simple geometrical shapes…)

– Produce a finite amount of content around your strengths.
– Gear that content to your potential clients’ pain points.
– Promote on social media.
– Engage in discussions around topics touching on your expertise.

Granted, it’s a time investment also measurable in monetary terms. But the beauty of this approach is that you only need to make the initial investment once. OK, updates are needed every now and then, but still.

The running cost, if you will, of this system is monitoring online and offline discussion around your topics. It’s still a lot simpler than going to great lengths producing constantly more and constantly better-quality articles. Plus gets you into one-on-one contact with people you meet on the way.

Once you get someone’s interest or a buyer, you’re then free to continue through email and other, more personal ways.

In other words, create a knowledge base, let them find you in times of need (assisted by pokes on social media). Wasn’t that what content marketing was supposed to be from the outset—PULL?

Newspapers are on life support at this point. Not dead yet. But getting there.

Hi Dot,

I just wanted to add that you’ll find a lot of support here in the comments section of Mark’s blog — what he refers to as his {grow} community. It really is a community too. I’ve learned so much here about business AND life from a diverse group of people. I’m sure you will too. If you ever have any questions about the tech side of things, I’d be happy to help where I can.

Thanks for this post, Mark, and for daring to go where few have gone before in talking honestly about this. After reading every comment below, it seems that the big content marketers that have shown up are speaking from their perspective as creators. That’s understandable.

But you, and others here in the comments, have presented the content consumer’s dilemma — we not only have a limited physical capacity (24 hours per day) but a limited mental one as well.

With my limited physical and mental capacity, any time spent on one thing is time not spent on another. So as a content creator, you’re not just competing for my attention against others in your niche, but against the time I might spend in apps or watching Netflix or reading books on my Kindle.

As you and others mentioned, quality isn’t the differentiator anymore. I can find quality content in any medium.

The more I consume and the bigger the social web gets, the more I crave meaning, connection, not just utility or value (and I don’t think I’m alone in this).

I don’t have time to read every social media or content marketing blog. I read one regularly — this one — and that’s because I’ve established a real connection with you that’s created loyalty to {grow}.

@Henneke:disqus is right with her comment — we’re not rational beings but emotional ones. The businesses (small ones like me and big brands) who assert their humanity, who use the advancing technology to work to establish strong emotional connections, will survive the content shock that’s coming.

The basic concept as I tried to describe it is “macro.” What actually happens is going to vary by industry, by business and even by individual. I would have liked to have gone into it more but the post was so long already!

The way that Google is set up now, “first and overwhelming:” works. Every change they make favors quality, originality, authorship and social signals so I hope you are correct and that it is moving in another direction over time. I think it will.

Ha! Great comment.

Throughout history, whenever there was an overabundance, a middleman
would emerge to discern what was worthy for the audience, and what was
crapola. This middleman was paid by his/her ability to find that which
would be desired (and profitable), and that which could not compare
(thus not profitable).

If content is truly bringing
about shock, then it makes sense to separate the good from the crapola,
and deliver the good to the audience. Isn’t that the role of curation?

Great thought Billy but in my experience the expectation of free content, no matter how valuable, is ingrained deeply. There have been very, very few paid models that have survived.

Ok. You get major brownie points Sarah. Major. You read all the comments? Good for you and thanks for summarizing this so elegantly, beautifully, and … as always … humanly!

I think we’re all in it together Beth : )

Respectfully disagree. I can point to many many examples where the best content does not win and where better competitors are blocked from discoverability on search through SEO tactics, volumes of content, volumes of social signals (gamed or otherwise). There is significant game behind content marketing success that has little to do with quality. I hope it will and think it will but I think you underestimate the difficulty of competing on content today.

Since you probably don;t know me, or at least I dont recall seeing you on the blog before. I have been in marketing for 30 years, teach content marketing at a graduate school level, consult on content marketing with Fortune 100 companies and have probably written a Bible’s worth of blog posts on the subject. I know the intrinsic value of content : )

As a paid member to Copyblogger, it seems to me that their mission is really to teach timeless marketing principles. Like developing a unique selling proposition, for example. So many people jump into the tactics without first doing the hard work of understanding their value prop. I do think it will become more important to promote content (via paid, earned and owned media) – due to content shock. Maintaining a cost effective content marketing strategy will increasingly be a challenge, but developing the ability to grab your target audiences attention is not something that will ever go away. If you are pumping out 10 posts per day to maintain readership -and losing money- it is time to reassess your core marketing strategy/value prop.

Inadvertently cut off…

What I was leading to is that, as a new player in an established market, it is insanely difficult to be found for anything other long tail keywords, and it’s only getting harder. That raises the cost of entry significantly (in time and expert knowledge) with no corresponding increase in the time available for people to read your content, supporting Mark’s thesis. Unless you have the elite expert knowledge to get found, you get lost in the pile. Content marketing is becoming the domain of the few.

Is content with personality the way to go in 2014? During face to face conversations, people judge the information presented to them by understanding the tone of the speaker to get a better sense of where they’re coming from. I see guys like Vaynerchuk and Seth Godin, that have millions of followers, create content that showcases their personalities and what they beleive in. Is that what is lacking in a linear transfer of information through a piece of content? A sense of who the author is and what he stands for?

This is an excellent question and a complex question that become its own blog post!

Let me answer it in a short way.

I once asked the renowned author Robert Cialidini what it takes to stand out in an information dense world and he said “be more human.”

This is simple, profound and true. So I think what you are observing is true. To the extent that we can create these real human connections, these emotional connections, we have some chance of beating down the Content Shock. The real question for companies then, is that scalable? Is that achievable?

Thanks for the excellent question Sanchit.

Interesting point about scalability. I think you’re right there. Certain brands like Harley Davidson and Goldie Blox have an inherent voice and personality due to the nature of their products. Scaling that brand voice may not be a problem for them.

Certain others in the b2b space like Cisco or BP may find it harder to find a personality or brand voice in their communication. A combination of being risk averse and possibly a weak company culture, might be at play here.

Thank you Sarah

Excellent view. I had a “feeling” about the excess of content that exists everywhere but I wasn´t sure if it made sense. You have argued it very well Mark. Internet is too saturated of content and to be remarkable is becoming extremelly difficult. In my opinion it is becoming a luxurious marketing activity for many companies. Related with content, I also see that besides existing too much content around, only an small percentage of it has good quality. So, will the people/customers get tired of it? Thanks.

Absolutely. Very critical factors.

Great perspectives Rhonda.

Fascinating discussion here, guys. Really love Wyatt’s insight on this. And I agree that the Content Shock could tip the balance toward smaller businesses (or smaller groups within larger business, as Wyatt described). And hasn’t that always been the winning point in customer service–to make the customer feel heard and valued?

When a friend and I started our music blog in 2001 we were flooded with comments (which actually were enabled through a hack, not even a standard blogging feature back then!) but as social media spread the ability for less tech-savvy people to communicate on the web became more prevalent and our comments decreased…and then they came back. Comments came back and it’s because of the quality of content and community we created.

I think we’re experiencing a flash of content, which has fractured audiences, but will reconsolidate around quality publishers (of all sizes). The cream always rises!

I’ve read many of the comments here and am really enjoying the discussion. Here’s my $0.02:

Mark, I understand your perspective, Looking at this blog as an example … it’s a key revenue driver for you (whether the eyeballs generate impressions for ads, or give you weight for speaking and consulting gigs). And in this case, content marketing is a less sustainable practice for you than it was in the past. You have to work harder just to keep the same number of people coming back because there are others talking about similar topics, and you’re battling them for mindshare.

In contrast, think about a corporate blog. Though the marketing team behind it may be looking at visitors and engagement numbers, the more important aspect here is driving sales. The NUMBER of readers is less important as getting the RIGHT readers, and the ACTIONS they take as a result.

To this point, marketers can no longer create content for content’s sake, or be wishy washy in their approaches. They need to know their niche, and their audience, and how to speak to both. From the consumption perspective, I’d also argue that having one solid, evergreen content asset that answers all your buyers questions is probably more important than making sure you update a blog three times a week.

As many here have alluded to, content marketing isn’t going away, but it is consistently changing. I think we’re in a place where people will have no choice but to look at the dollars-and-cents results of their content, over metrics like views and shares. View and shares will always deplete when there’s more available to consume, but if you have the right information available for the right buyer, there’s nowhere for the real value to go but up.

@laurelmackenzie

Others (esp. @disqus_TSgO4BZJXY:disqus and @jchernov:disqus) have already laid out the meat of why I disagree with this post – but one thing I want to add is the reminder that content marketing is a strategy, executed via channels.

That last part is important because there’s a misperception of content meritocracy. Facebook and others control what we see, and they are not free channels despite what it looks like. They may be free for a while, but they’ll take their cut in data and advertising (using both brands and individual users to sell to other brands and users) and often eventually in “premium” or “subscription” level services (that often occur when they weaken the free offerings). They are bound by their profit margins, especially if they are public companies with shareholders. But distribution isn’t going away, even if it’s been obscured by the “everyone is a publisher” aspect of Facebook. My guess is content marketing will just get called something else, but that won’t change the essential core: creating great content that actually means something to people and inspires them/is useful, and distributing it.

Many thanks for the great comment Laurel.

I don’t see much of a distinction between the goals of a small business and the goals of a large business. At the end of the day, I need sales too.

But even in your case, the acquisition cost through content is likely to go up if it isn’t already. This is going to vary a lot by business, by industry, by a lot of different factors. There are plenty of industries out there with no content at all. The “shock” might be years away if they can care a relevant niche.

But I think it is hard to argue with the mega-trend, at least I think.

Whoa. You hit a nerve here, Mark.

No one can dispute the fact that there will be way too many content pegs for every content hole. And as that number rises, some very, very good content will fail to reach the surface and find an audience. Even great content will be buried.

But we’re presuming that the content demand side will stay as it is now, and I don’t think it will.

There has to be a new generation of dynamic, smart, self-teaching content filters that help consumers find the very best, most relevant content for every search — and even proactively push content to their user/owners before any search is initiated.

Admittedly, I’ve been waiting for these magic filters for five years now and they haven’t shown up yet. But there MUST be a few dozen startups in every Silicon Whatever that are addressing this issue.

There will still be a content glut. But instead of a few gatekeepers deciding what surfaces (Google, Facebook, Twitter), there will be millions of them — we’ll each have our own.

I agree with you. Especially with your last line. Marketing’s biggest blind spot is the total customer journey. They have little to no idea what content works during the sales engagement. Marketing is failing to look inward for the real engagement data. Content Marketing isn’t complete without Content Selling. (Content Selling is a one to one strategy use by customer facing teams.)

That’s exactly the kind of arms race I picture!
Marketers trying to slip through smart content filters that get better and better at filtering out irrelevance.

The only sane strategy: create content that passes even the toughest relevance tests for your specific target audience. The more laser-targeted your content, the better its chance of getting through the filters.

(Yes, I do think it puts each consumer in their own content bubble, as you put it, but I’d rather be in my very own and make the marketers jump through my own, highly personal content hoops.)

Doesn’t all of this just reinforce the conclusion that marketers have to develop better content? It’s gotten harder to be heard, but that makes us all up our game and. I think that’s a good thing. Now, if this ever comes to the point that you can’t up that game any further without giving your product/service away for free, the obvious place to turn for me is focus your content efforts on existing customers. Switch your focus a la Joseph Jaffe’s Flip the Funnel. I think there’s still room for a lot more GREAT content, though. Like this blog

I don’t know if I’d put it in terms of “cost”, but clearly the amount of content of all types is exploding so it will necessarily be harder for anyone, or any one piece of content, to be found and seen. The ROI curve on all digital marketing channels — SEO, PPC, social media, etc. — flattens over time.

Various people, such as Wyatt, have given good advice on how to make content as valuable as possible. “Conversation” was not a term used in marketing 10 years ago, and many major brands still don’t practice it.

Nonetheless, the huge response to this post shows that quality content will still find its audience — and be shared and even find a new, larger audience.

I think you are on to something. This is great forward thinking Doug.

I have been surprised myself that there have been so few true new ideas put forward here. Basically the advice has been “create amazing content” and if your competitors are already amazing, then “be more amazing.” Honestly, that is pretty disappointing advice. Seriously, we need to move beyond that. OK, so now every business is amazing. I get it. Now what?

Agree, but how many companies can do this on a sustainable basis? Actually, I can’t name one.

so I also agree that there’s a good point here. but there are two concerns I have. first – I do not think that investing in assets can be equating to paying customers to read. The second and more important point is this. Content for the sake of content will always loose. Content that helps your brand matter to people more, provides them real value – that’s going to deliver returns, reliably, and sustainably. Claymation for consumer chains may not need apply.

“Strategy” implies that you are doing something unique. What is keeping your competitor from doing the exact same long tail strategy? You are all accessing the same information, presumably.

Perhaps the same can be said for traditional advertising. It is (has?) being replaced with Inbound. Eventually, inbound will be replaced with a new set of tools. Companies will adapt.

Agreed. Enjoy the market “ether” as long as you can but prepare for change.

That is precisely why I wrote the article Barbara. I am seeing this issue every day with my clients. As a marketing industry, we need to rationally and dispassionately assess this situation and keep on moving. It makes no sense to dig in our heels and think the status quo will exist indefinitely.

I was wondering about content shock myself and it’ll be interesting to see the ecosystem evolve and metrics play out over the next few years. I think that the days of easy SEO are over, but whether quality content will get saturated at the top remains to be seen.

Hi Mark, a point you don’t mention in your post that supports your argument is that all behaviours on the web follow a power law. Anyone who has created lots of pieces of content and looked at, say page views per post, will see a curve where a few posts get all the attention and the majority get far less. This is a universal characteristic anyone using on-site analytics can check out. It isn’t a linear distribution.

In the case of a major hub such as Gizmodo it’s the difference between hundreds of thousands of views for the few posts at the top and tens of thousands of views for all those in the tail of the curve. The reason content marketers never share their results is that if you aren’t a hub and don’t have the existing readership then the range of results is likely a few thousands views for a top post to nothing in the tail. There is no way to predict what will be popular which means, as you point out, you are paying to create vast amounts of content, which in the case of most brands, will never be read.

I explored this angle and why it cannot provide a return here: http://www.travelblather.com/2013/11/content-marketing-will-never-work.html

Amusingly the use of Red Bull as an example is almost guaranteed on any post criticising content marketing. I always point out that if you go to their home page and look at the breadth of content created and check the social shares as indicated on individual posts most have next to nothing. This both supports my point above and yours.

I don’t think these filtering tools make it materially harder to produce content that gets consumed. For sure, they are another step in the distribution chain to account for, but I think they can even help content creators focus and target their content to a more “qualified” (interested) audience.

Is Google continuously “changing the rules,” or getting better and better at what they set out to do years ago? And is search traffic the only way to get your content curated?

This is a very interesting take and it makes so much sense. Surprised it has not been articulated quite this way before.

To build on this idea, I do think there is usually a correlation (at least for me) on the posts that attract the most attention and the ones that had the biggest time (which equals money) investment. So GENERALLY, the biggest investment gets the biggest payoff but as you correctly state you cannot predict this.

My content success is certainly Darwinian, forged by tweets and comments. Perhaps an element of surviving Content Shock is rapid response to analytics like you suggest. A subtle but important point. Thanks for the stellar contribution.

I think @cspenn would like this line of thinking.

I don’t think content shock will be linear and slow. I think the changes will be dramatic.

As a blog network that specializes in managing bloggers to create rich quality content for brands, it does make our job harder these days to face the challenges of a possible “Content Shock.”

As a network, we manage our bloggers very closely to make sure their content is relevant, well-written, accurately targeted, and properly promoted via social media channels that reflects bloggers’ audience. Content marketing is not one dimensional. Content marketers need to utilize whatever platform that are available, e.g. social media, forums, groups, communities, to deliver their message to the right target market – a market that “needs” and “wants” the content. It becomes a decision maker for consumers. Who doesn’t Google a product review before buying an item these days?

So while I agree there is a certain degree of Content Shock (smiling at your usage of ‘global warming’ analogy), we have to assert that content marketing is still rich and sustainable if it’s carefully designed and delivered to the right target. You might say there is content shock in Time Square compared to a desert but a billboard gets more eye balls in Time Square than out in the desert.

Note to readers: I edited the above reader comment to take out a blatant commercial appeal.

My return comment is that your analogy does not make sense. There are more people in Times Square. If the same number of people were in the desert, then the single blllboard would get more attention.You’re making an argument that more content will be seen than less content which is not logical.

I disagree that as marketers we should simply take a view that everything is OK, nothing is changing and all we have to do is deliver content to the right target to succeed,

Note to Readers: My comment was not meant to be commercial but to illustrate that, as content marketers, our network makes sure our bloggers are writing relevant and well-thought-out content to represent brands successfully across all channels.

And my point is that even if there are a million other content (content shock) in TS (right target market), by the mere fact that there are more people in TS, it would still be better to be in TS than in a desert, even if there is content shock. Hence, my argument that right target IS imperative if you want to succeed in content marketing.

To add, Facebook announced recently that content is better ranked than a meme or graphics. So even Facebook prefers organic quality content over short meme’s that are not delivering quality info.

Christopher Penn wrote: “Any content marketing effort absolutely must have paid media behind it to help it grow. The days of “build it and they will come” are long, long gone.”

But, this has always been true.

Free traffic never lasts.

You always have to paid for distribution.

Nothing has changed.

I loved Christopher’s post but I do think something has changed. In the name of expediency, let’s use a business built on a blog as an example. I doubt anybody considers a blog “paid media” and for years, you could probably build a decent business without advertising.

I think what has changed — and what I point out in my post — is that we need to consider the true cost of this content with seemingly “free” distribution. In every sense it is paid media, although nobody I know admits that!

The second factor is that in this era of content shock, we may need that something extra, perhaps it is a paid option, to compete. Interesting times.

Thanks so very much fr your comment Michael.

I don’t understand your analogy. I have blogged for five years and have never paid for anybody to deliver my content. So in that respect, it has been free. That may change in the future and that is the point I was making. I’m not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing : )

I honestly had a difficult time getting past your headline:

“Why content marketing is not a sustainable strategy”

and then your first paragraph:

“why content marketing may not be a sustainable strategy for many businesses.”

Which is it? I will eventually read it because you’re very smart and your posts are very logical. I TOTALLY agree with “may not be”, but good grief. Why write a headline that isn’t backed up by your post?

re: Is character scalable. Maybe not within a single person, Mark, though new tools help every day. But hiring smart employees is a solution for many small businesses — it allows the scaling of high quality interaction.

Of course if you are the sole expert able to interact, that not may not work well, but I think Gary Vaynerchuk and Guy Kawasaki are proof that you can do amazing amounts there too.

This is a superb comment James and I am not as down on content marketing as you are. There are plenty of businesses who have no competition at all and it might be years before it starts to get hard. I do think there is still room for excellence and innovation and I think if a small business can build an emotional connection it might even trump the big pocket book.

I actually see this as a tremendously exciting time and exciting discussion because at least a few of us are starting to come to terms with the economic implications of what we have created and are thinking through what’s next. There will be a next. Let’s find it and win. Stay tuned.

Thanks for the wonderful effort you put into this content. It’s a real gift James.

I think people can sniff contrived a mile away. Be human for the win.

And oh yes … what I’m doing … it is definitely not free : ) But it is also not unusual, Look at any blog post over the last five years. I appreciate every reader and every comment.

James, you said it more eloquently than what I can say!

Brian Clark lost his credibility to me. I can’t imagine him saying that reduced demand for your content is a sign of ‘success’ because people have already consumed it! He is like Comical Ali of Baghdad.

Comical Ali of Bagdad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf

I will quote what Brian Clark quoted someone else:

——

“When consumer demand for content flattens, yet the price of producing content rises, you get “content shock” says Mark Schaefer

Link: http://www.businessesgrow.com/2014/01/06/content-shock/

I disagree. A prospect’s interest in content only disappears after they’ve found their answer, whether from your business or a competitor. This means content, someone’s content has worked!”

——-

What kind of nonsense is Brian Clark saying? I’ll paraphrase this sentence to show how absurd it is:

“A consumer’s interest in iPhone only disappears only after they got a smartphone, whether from Google Android or Windows Phone. This means smartphone, some corporation’s smartphone has worked!”

That’s why I agree 101% with you when you said,

——

In short, if Brian Clark or Michael Stelzner or Mark Schaefer write an article (and they’re awesome, don’t get me wrong) their ROI is substantially better than an equally amazing (but unknown) writer with an equally insightful, informed, and innovative take on the exact same subject.

——

If Brian Clark write a Google+ post that says rubbish, their ROI is still better than an unknown writer with far better insight. If the king farts, lots of his courtiers will smell it and say it smells fragrant. Likewise, if Brian Clark says rubbish, there’ll be lots of people who say it is ‘insight’.

What galls me about Brian Clark is that he sees Mark as a confused individual.

See https://plus.google.com/109193674823031718540/posts/6v38fsfVwdX

“You’re just as confused as the guy who wrote the original Content Shock post.”

Thanks John. I will look into it.

Mark, I really feel sorry for you. Take a read at http://www.copyblogger.com/content-shock/ Reading the comments in that article is painful. It’s feels like being trapped in an echo chamber.

But I think Copyblogger is ignoring the changing tide of popular opinion. A lot of people are in pain. And if these crowd ignore the pain that many are suffering, they will become irrelevant.

I think if there was one word that gets to the heart of this matter … it’s “context”. Our individual “context” to what is known as “common knowledge” will be what separates content that avoids “shock” from content that gets “shocked.”

I can understand your take on this Mark, and can even agree on some of your points, but I strongly disagree with your headline that content marketing is not a viable strategy for the long term. (Your headline makes a firm, broad statement, but you then go on to explain why your headline is actually not true.)

Joe Pulizzi and Robert Rose got it right: we hit content shock a long time ago. That doesn’t mean content marketing is dead – it just means each year, companies have to up their game, create better and better content, and find new ways to stand out above the crowd.

Your article reminds me of when people started declaring SEO was dead. It never died, it just evolved – just as content marketing will evolve. Yes, these extreme headlines will get you more readers, but they do not serve people well. Businesses struggle with creating great content. It’s hard, and it requires great commitment. Your article gives them an easy cop-out.

Also, its easy to point out problems… much harder to offer up solutions. If you’re going to suggest to business owners that they shouldn’t be investing in becoming a top-notch publisher of excellent content, then I think it becomes your responsibility to offer up some better alternatives. At the end of your article, you seem to hint that you have better ideas, but you do not share them here. If there was a better strategy, I would think you would have mentioned it in this article.

Now that you’ve declared content marketing dead, we will be eagerly awaiting to hear from you what we should all turn to next that doesn’t involve creating great content.

I like the contrarian point of view on content marketing: It raises some interesting points to help any marketer either rethink or reevaluate their approach. I would add: I pay for people’s attention … the content just helps me hold that attention.

Thanks for the extremely well-articulated dissent Mike.

Basically you are saying we have no problem because the amount of content created actually declines due to competitive pressures and “supply and demand” are in a happy equilibrium.

I understand your position but I can’t get my head around the idea of content production falling in any meaningful way. In fact, I think we are at the beginning of content marketing efforts in general. And remember, it’s not just business content it is ALL content.

Two years ago, I could not sit down and binge on TV shows through Netflix. Yes, we are competing with that too. I think you have presented a neat little theory and it definitely will play out in some ways but I think the macro trend I explained will determine the fate of most businesses in the game, and it already is.

Many thanks for this very fine alternative theory. Well done.

It is extremely difficult writing a headline that is catchy, tweetable and accurate. The headline tells part of the story I spell out my thesis in the very first sentence.

Nowhere in the article do I declare that content marketing is dead. In fact, you may have missed this sentence: “Content marketing is not over. How and when the “shock” comes will vary by business, by industry, by a lot of factors. For some it might be years away, for some it is happening now.”

Of course content will be at the heart of what we do forever but without question the strategies of today are in peril. If you’re a business depending on Facebook views to tell your story and your visibility just went from a paltry 16% to a depressing 12% or less you are probably wondering if this is still worth the effort. What would you have them do? “Be amazing?” That comes at a cost too.

There are many fine ideas sprinkled throughout this comment stream and I have lots of ideas myself for how this might progress but did not feel inclined to go into that subject in a post that was already too long for most people to plow through. I think this dialogue sets the stage for the real conversation that needs to be taking place right now … a conversation that is something more than the predominant strategic advice out there of “cover the world with content”

Mark, I’m completely impressed by your thoughtful replies to nearly 300 comments. Awesome.

My thought is really that the content brands pay for (which you call business content) will have to decrease as brands’ ability+willingness to pay decreases. Other content, like my Aunt Marge’s chili recipe, will simply be filtered out. I believe the studies that quote the growth of the web include all of this ‘non-business’ content that won’t really burden the general public as they won’t be able to find it.

Thanks again.

After nearly 300 comments I have already addressed these points but in summary there is a real cost to “do it better.” My point is that information density will cause us to adapt and this of course will vary by business. There is no cookie cutter solution but to be “truly remarkable” as you state is not free and the expense is going to increase as your competitors fight to be even more remarkable than you.

Of course you are correct that the real outcome for any business, or any individual, is going to be different and a result of many complex interactions. However, I believe the macro trend of dramatically rising content and practical limitations on attention will still be an underlying factor in almost any scenario.

Thank you for your comment Domingo.

The scenario is incorrect and the economic approach is as well in relation to content.
Content is exploding and people have a limited time to consume… that’s the same with exploding amount of products/services… just because that grows doesn’t mean consumers will grow with that rate.. it’s still all about marketing, STP (segmentation, targeting, positioning), standing out and attention

Thank you for adding your view Sid. i agree.

I think that is an accurate assessment. Thanks for your comment.

Apologies if someone has already touched on this point in a comment (only browsed through the first dozen or so).

In your argument the basic variables are 1) the amount of content and 2) time (amount of time available to spend on consuming content). I don’t argue with the assumptions you make based on these two particular variables; it makes sense that competition would lead to higher cost of creation. But this is only the case if you know that these are the only two variables. In a broad and complex global market like “content marketing”, that’s too much of an assumption to make.

For example, this model must assume that the amount of topics to cover (or angles to take, or data to present) is static, which is simply not true. Perhaps in a single industry, especially one where technological progress is slow and disruption is rare, the market for content could very well follow this model, where quality, and therefore the ability to spend more on creation, is the only recipe for success. But to apply that behavior to the broader content market would be like assuming a predictive model of any single industry can somehow apply with equal accuracy to the entire global stock market. If that were the case, every niche industry analyst would be Warren Buffett.

In this example, for every new industry (or topic, or idea, or technological disruption), a new market for content will arise. There will be a dearth of content on the New Thing and new entrants will have a chance to make a name for themselves with a low barrier to entry. Simple, low-cost blog posts with authoritative ideas on the New Thing will have a huge net effect.

In this way, content marketing will perpetuate. It will simply have different and changing costs and benefits for every actor and every topic. The analysis you present may be a useful warning for businesses or authors stuck creating content around a static set of ideas, but to apply it broadly to the concept of content marketing is not right.

Great point. It’s what fluff is made of.

Exactly, I can be “truly remarkable” as much as I want to but without the budget to back it up and get it out there, I’m relying just on crossing my fingers.

Agree. Most of the dissent to this post is coming from “the victors”

I agree. What I presented is a macro view. How it is applied to each individual industry (or even person) will depend on many other factors. However, unless you are in a monopolistic environment this underlying pressure will be present at some point.

Exactly. I have been really surprised at the arguments suggesting there is no cost to “doing it better.”

Thanks for adding your perspective Lainie. I have received a lot of feedback like that. It is a common sentiment from small business owners.

Congrats for launching the hottest debate in the content marketing community Mark: great way to wake us up from the holiday and kick off 2014!

I haven’t seen yet a response that would capture the point of the opportunity it creates for publishing by curation and the interest graph so I wrote it here: http://blog.scoop.it/2014/01/23/interest-based-content-curation-publishing-the-cure-for-content-shock/

We need to stop thinking of becoming media the old-fashioned way: BuzzFeed, the HuffPost or Upworthy should be role models for modern content marketers – not the New York times. That model + the interest-graph based platform is the cure to content shock.

This is some very good stuff. It’ been a while since someone has presented an interesting viewpoint on the future of content and content marketing – and I’ve been thinking about it for a while myself, and I think your analysis is correct Mark. There are way too many company blogs that are running with a separate content strategy in order to try and get a piece of the content pie, but the amount of effort and time that they put into that probably doesn’t get them the kind of returns that they should look for.

Case in point: all of those crazy infographics that are built by SEO companies on the latest in SEO and what’s coming up in SEO – their claim to fame is being able to appear on the odd popular blog, and be pinned a couple of times on Pinterest. Consumers take a look at it – pull their takeaways and implement that strategy.

How many of them are going to think – hey! This infographic by this company is amazing! I think I’ll hire them to do my SEO work for me! Why? Because they got a graphic artist to represent the latest change in SEO?

I agree with that assessment. Many industries have a long way to go.

Well said. Beautifully said, in fact. Thank you.

You are really a gifted writer Jeff and this comment is a keeper! Always an honor to have you stop by and I thank you for this entertaining perspective!

The funny thing is, more than 90%of the responses I have received — here and elsewhere — understand what I am saying and say they are already seeing this in their world. Maybe this IS the conventional wisdom but it has just not been articulated yet.

Your post at that link was on Medium and I thoroughly enjoyed it, Guillaume Decugis, even as I enjoyed Mark Schaefer’s post.

My response to Mr Schaefer will be available before the week runs out. Thanks to all the experts that I’ve chosen (curated) to listen to and who have continued (and will indefinitely continue to) educate, inform, and entertain me.

Wow, most excellent take! Lots to glean from here.

Maybe someone should tell you Red Bull has an average social following number of 60 million – that’s 60 million people!

Gil Amminadav, this is huge enough to make a blog post! The points are epic already!

i think the point is that you are engaging on something you dub as not sustainable and it’s somewhat of an oxymoron

Many thanks for your well-thought-out and passionate comment Klaus. You are welcome to leave long comments any time. Thanks for the gift!

From my experience, only robots read.

Great comment.

Of course not. Content will always be at the heart of the strategy.

The link with anchor text “valuable content filling up that consumer content limit” is busted. Looks like it should point to: http://www.shiftcomm.com/2014/01/nuances-in-the-content-shock

Thanks for the catch Jim.

Yes, you and I usually only differ in semantics.

I am finding that there is great content being produced that doesn’t get seen… My thinking is that we will see a division of awesome content creators and those that sponsor content.

The fad of “content marketing” has many people trying to make content that might well do better to sponsor it instead. I am considering what ways we might call those needles out of the haystacks

“Remarkable Content”…what exactly is this? How would anyone know their content is “truly
remarkable”? What is the standard of measure? Do we go by what the “experts” do, or label as “remarkable” or “superb”? Or do we go by the actual results? What if we are not getting results? Where do we turn to learn what is or is not the type of content that will produce a bigger ROI?

Very interesting perspective. Good angle and thank you!

The best content rises to the top is a myth. We are in agreement. I write about that here: http://www.businessesgrow.com/2014/01/27/best-content-rise-top/

Mark, I want you to know that I am in the ‘elite minority,’ in that I read social content shock and the follow up to it, in their entirety. I always knew I was. (Smile)

This is a superb comment Jon and I appreciate the forward thinking. Your points closely align with much of my thinking on where we need to place our focus.

I would refine the “attitude” point to “entertainment.” I think there will be a premium on highly-entertaining content as we go forward through content shock because that will always cut through the clutter. Of course that comes with a cost!

Thanks for your important contribution to the dialogue!

So, perhaps a thought here as I return to this post from your “Bitch Mittens” post Mark…

… do we perhaps need to change the mentality behind “content marketing” and all that implies (good and bad)… to one of “content experience?”

I think you make some good points here but I don’t think it’s as easy as “work hard, create great content.” I checked out your own blog and well … it apparently isn’t as easy as Matthew says, right?

I like your point about the churn and growing sophistication of the audience. Hard to say what the impact is. There is a constant change of the audience here on {grow} but I think the demographic is fairly stable. But an interesting point.

As I state clearly, I don’t think content marketing is dead, but we will have to adjust, adapt and adopt. I do think there are plenty of opportunities out there but it is MUCH more complicated than hard work and great content as perhaps you are finding out : )

Thanks very much for your comment.

I think atomizing content is a legitimate strategy, at least in the short-term. If people don’t have the bandwidth for long content any more, maybe making it smaller will get through the pipeline?

Maybe. I am not sure that way through the filters, in so far as they exist, is by bazooka-ing a way through. I think there are two ways to find something you want – either to filter all the stuff out there, or to find a way of identifying exactly what you want. I think the latter way is way of the future. Anyway – more on this here http://richardstacy.com/2013/12/05/need-talk-content-marketing/.

Hopefully not an inappropriate presentation. Uncomfortable – deliberately so.

Also I have been trying to post this reply but somehow it is not showing anywhere on my screen, Terribly sorry if you see the post a couple of times!

In your article, the build up to the demise of content is based on economics. I.e. It will be too costly to produce ‘winning’ content because consumption is finite and production has surpassed demand, devaluing each piece of content created. Whilst I agree too much nonsense is created, the conclusion to your argument is wrong. This can’t be the end, all it simply means that we will reach a point where production is not viable for the return and so they will simply stop and for those for whom it is viable, they will continue. Either way, the market will always reach a balance – but the method of communication (content) will not go away because as you have stated in your argument there is CONSUMPTION. And like any media channel where is strong consumption it will continue to flourish.

As for sustainability as a strategy – well it depends on what the strategy is. There isn’t much value in volumes of self made brand content, however partnerships have certainly been under utilized and under valued. How are brands going to exploit mobile and social? Its certainly not going to be through banner advertising alone. e.g. We flick through our fb news feeds so consistently, content is the best for brands to reach us. I don’t mean to say we should be creating non-nonsensical conversations but if a brand can deliver a memorable interaction or piece of content then its doing its job. Mass production of vanilla content which a lot of brands do is precisely the problem in the industry and that is why it will become less valuable for a lot of brands. But the content itself – that will live on and it will be up to creative teams to deliver strong ideas.

Very interesting argument. Just wanted to be sure about a minor thing: I believe the labels of horizontal and vertical axes on the graph should be switched so that it shows the contents amount change (dependent, vertical) per time change (independent, horizontal). In the current graph the content consumption (red) explodes at a time point and keep increasing rapidly without limitation. Just a quick note. Thanks for the article!

SocialNMP dot com is for Social Network Marketing Pro’s. SocialNMP dot com is the first ever social bookmarking site for network marketing.

I think this article is missing one point. The reason why businesses are creating this content is to ‘compete’ with content being created by friends. UGC drove the content trend. Marketers realized that the content being created by people naturally was where traffic was going, and decided the best way to capitalize was to create their own. In many cases marketer (brands) decided to even make their content look less polished so it could look and feel less polished and more authentic. That said… 1.) when will people stop making content that their friends and family want to engage with? ( I’ll give you a hint – never) 2.) And when will marketers not want to capitalize on that model of content creation that inherently drives engagement? See answer to question #1

welcome to legit loan service here all problem regarding

loan is solve between a short period of time with a low

interest rate of 3% and duration more than 20years what

are you waiting for apply now and solve your problem or

start a business with loan paying of various bills just

email us via fasterloanservice@gmail.com

Times Square? Right, nobody goes there anymore. It’s just too crowded.

How many people in Times Square remember a single ad or “piece of content” they looked at?

In some markets – b2b marketing its is already hard but in many others – say construction there is a way to go before this becomes a problem. In any case the answer is not to run but to establish your brand leadership by getting going and refining so that when the Shock hits your industry you are ahead of the curve

I agree 100 percent Ian. Thanks for taking the time to add your voice to the discussion.

There are more avenues to share content, but that just means it’s more a struggle to get your content noticed. I read somewhere that the current live time for a tweet is an estimated 18 minutes. That’s no time at all. You have to hope that the right person’s on at the right time and that they share your work.

We love the idea that the internet and social media is democratizing everything and everyone can make their voices heard, but that’s not the case. It takes a lot of time and dedication to cultivate an audience of people who want to hear you. If you’re in a very niche market, it’s easier because you’re not competing with as much information, but you still have to work to get your stuff out there.

The owned content will finds its importance dwindling not because there will be less demand for content but because the content is not relevant enough within the context of your customer journey and the channel of their interaction.
Relevance and personalisation is the key to content marketing going forward and content needs to be supported by marketing technologist and analyst.

I noticed that too, hehehe

The competition point is very interesting. The major brands that have capitalised on this, like BuzzFeed will now be seeing a wave of competitors roll into the market place further adding to the competition for attention.

Great article Tom. Quality over quantity, curation over only creation. Great storying telling that is customer centric is share worthy but yes the challenge as you point out is this overwhelm and content shock I am seeing within SMBs. You point about it becoming too time consuming on both sides of the fence; to create and digest. I am already seeing a boom in my business by SMB that want to outsource content creation. It is a trend that is coupled with the need to analysis masses amounts of data points along the customer journey. It all comes down to $. You have to choose where you play, do it well and focus on where your ideal customers are. I say to my clients 5-10 pieces of targeted well crafted useful content is better than weekly blog posts with little relevance or value. I started a Strategic Marketing Resource Forum to curate resources and help SMBs shift through content faster. This time saver and resource is example of thinking about how my audience want to receive content and being the curator. Evidence of curation in many industries, how to select your insurance, bright-talk webinars, Alltop blogs are now more important to assist us find what really matters to us.

Hi Mark,

You make some great points, but I also think there are incredible opportunities for us.

Here is what I mean… while we are creating more content today in 48 hours than in all of human history through 2003, the overwhelming majority of content is garbage that says nothing, means nothing and helps no one.

While it initially makes it hard to compete, in the long-run it creates incredible opportunity as we of offer what I call context marketing. Most marketing online is about “me” – that has to be flipped to be about the audience.

I have to know what business I’m really in (how does the public perceive me?), what problems do I “really” solve, who do I “specifically” solve them for and how do my products and services serve as a part of the solution?

We all have to pay for our marketing so I really like that you attach a value to your blogging and content marketing. The key metric for me is how much did it cost me and what is the return.

Because blogging and context marketing is first about establishing competency, it helps regardless of where someone comes to my site from. People want to know above all else if I’m competent to solve their problems. Relationship comes later, but it’s always predicated on my competency. Just cost someone enough money for long enough and watch what happens to the relationship.

When done right, we will stand out far above and beyond and for me, well I’ve earned the opportunity to consult or coach small businesses and Fortune 1000’s alike. The experience has been phenomenal and content / context marketing has saved my marketing budget and increased my ROI significantly because I understand how to use the tools and where to spend my time.

Is it for everyone? Absolutely not. That’s where the rub comes in. Unless someone is willing to put in the training, time and investment to learn how to it right they will waste their time and in turn their money.

I really enjoyed your post Mark and I do think you’re on to something. I believe it’s an opportunity and call to action for us to change our approach based on the needs of ones target audience.

I hope you have a great week ahead and I do hope to engage with you!

~ Don Purdum

Mark,
This post accurately reflects the current dynamic facing content marketers today. We’re seeing a critical shift towards the concept of “attention”. What drives attention in your market? How many people’s attention do you need to win to make a difference? How do you really measure attention, because it’s not the atomic measurement like pageviews, time on page, shares etc…

The next 24 months will likely support the notion that content marketing without data is just content. In addition, an integrated marketing approach will be central to any content marketing strategy as the stakes increase around driving attention for your brand in a marketplace.

To use your line of thinking: content shock is driving attention deficit disorder amongst your customers and prospects.

Larry

Hi Mark,

I do not see this theory taking into account that not all content is of the same quality. I also cannot help to think that content is probably like any other marketeable good. Subject to the same forces of supply and demand and to the same logical flaws in the model.

Can it be that content generators are being forced to really up their game as their comfort space gets increasingly crowded? Can it be that your perceived cost increase through the years is because your target demo is being reached by others with comparable content? Could it be time to go back to school or to the deep end of the pool to really differentiate from the crowd not with additional investment but radically different approaches?

All the best!

Guess it depends on what you consider great or the top to be.

I am heavily invested in memetics and have grown obsessed with the concept. Great or top content can be many different things. It can have unpredictable and wildly different behavior given different contexts. And it can result in radically different outcomes despite our best efforts at prediction.

Maybe its time to evolve the mechanisms of content delivery to escape an increasingly competitive struggle for resources.

I don’t necessarily agree. My new book The Content Code will examine this question. I do believe there is room to maneuver on the fringes when you discover that the power does not come from content, but content that moves. And sometimes content marekting has nothing to do with the content. Strange to think about but true.

And the extremely hard part is matching the content to the RIGHT audience. You may be sharing great content with me about the latest gear to hike the Andes Mountains, but my preference is for the latest gear to host outdoor parties for 20. (I do neither of these, haha, but it seems that while the tools have opened up the universe to a content creator, they may have removed some ability to home in on audience with any sustainability.)

Is today’s audience here today for trending content and gone tomorrow when the next catchy thing grabs me? I picture this as groups of ants marching from one patch of treats till consumed and then marching to the next patch.

Enjoying this blog series, Mark…glad I “marched” into it.

Deep pockets win? A big part of that will depend on Google.
As long as they will value content quality over content distribution their updates will reflect that. We’ll see…

I found this post about 2-3 months ago when I finally stepped away from my own practice of inbound marketing to study over 2000 of the most shared content in the industry, I was manually dissecting them. ( i was reading them, with a good ol’fashion pen and paper)

AND this is one of the articles that I constantly show the startups I work with

thank you for writing this post and making it very clear to me that content marketing can have to some degree, an end game (one which benefits the consumers, and lets the most human brands win)

Your post has really helped me explain to startups that there is significant opportunity to rapidly grow a company when the market has no “content shocker”

I do have a question regarding creating content shock.

To create content shock how much emphasis would you put on doing your “persona research?”

For whatever reason I just read this, Mark. I could not agree more. Our corporate email newsletter is our pride and joy of inbound content marketing. We cull our list very carefully, and know we are sending it to only those clients and potential clients with bona-fide interest. Yet, we find we are constantly ramping up the effort in each bimonthly issue, and continually invest in an improved list of recipients, only to have the statistics trend flat at best.

The reason is that our audience is inundated with too much topical content from too many sources, and only has a finite hours in any day to read ANYTHING on line. You hit this limitation right on the head with Content Shock and many thanks for your astute comments and observations.

Mark, I appreciate that you don’t take the standpoint of yelling at the wind, but finding ways to work within what the world is giving us. Being a marketing student currently, I find the insights very helpful. I think social media helps with this “fatigue,” at least to my few experiences. Does the book address the sea of data pouring out of social media sites as well? How does one even hope to be effective in that arena?

WOW this is super intriguing from first sentence to last. Good content yourself, my friend! Keep it up!