More than a month ago, I argued that quantity, or even better, the frequency, doesn’t determine quality. Since then, I’ve been struggling with this question.
As a brand editor, I make daily decisions about the quality and relevancy of an impressive array of texts, podcasts and videos by also considering the brand’s overall story, their prospects and customers, and channels the content is intended for.
Last month, I twisted Joe Pulizzi’s argument, “Everywhere I go, I find marketers who are challenged with creating more content. More blog posts, more eBooks, more videos, more podcasts … more, more, more. … I’m done with more.” I focused on the correlation between ‘more’ and ‘good’.
It didn’t end there. I’ve been bothered by this a lot. I couldn’t stop thinking about it. And then last week, I came to the same conclusion as Joe. Quality first, frequency second (depending on high quality content that is ready for publication).
It’s not like this is new, but many brand editors and content marketers are under pressure to post new content as many times per week as possible; research shows that even a modest increase in publishing increases leads.
But last week I made peace with myself; it was probably my d’oh moment: as editor you shouldn’t succumb to pressure to publish more. Your main concern should be the quality – not saying yes because there’s nothing else to post but you’re expected to post something.
I’m not saying I’ve been doing that; I just talked to many content marketers who are responsible for sourcing and even writing original content for their site and that’s exactly the pressure they’ve been feeling lately.
It’s like, damn if you do, damn if you don’t. I strongly believe that you should pay more attention to high quality and relevancy, taking all other factors into account. Great quality makes readers come back.
You may say, “D’oh, Nenad.” Well, it isn’t as obvious as you may think. Many are struggling with this. According to B2B Content Marketing Benchmarks, Budgets and Trends Research Report, for example, producing enough content is the biggest challenge across B2B marketers.
Each one of you have to find what’s best for your case. It’s good to look around and see what worked and what didn’t for others. Just because Content Marketing Institute can publish seven quality posts a week (and they worked hard to get to this point), it doesn’t mean you should “copy” them. Every case is unique.
So, if a day or two or three or even more pass by without publishing new content, you shouldn’t panic, unless you promised too much. Rather post when you have something relevant to say. And say it well.
Zemanta's Lovely Test Blog 
Energy is the quantity and quality of relationship within a system and between that system and others.
The amount of an element does not determine if it gets bound to others -it is the quality of it that does.
Relevance binds but Resonance bonds.
Resonance is more important than Relevance.
Relevance is the residue of Resonance.
Relevance factors have driven internet platforms such as Google and Facebook. However Resonance driven code will underpin the latest Killer Apps. What has relevance for people is initial Interests, passing Preferences and bleating Behaviours. Underneath a persons Interests though are their deeper Intentions. Underneath their passing preferences are their Long term Priorities. Underneath their bleating behaviours is their real authentic way of Being. These deeper factors are factors of Resonance. Their by-products are the factors of Relevance. Interests then are the by-products of Intentions -maybe even the waste-products! Preferences are the by-products of Priorities and Behaviours are the by-products of a person’s authentic way of Being.
Quality is all about the deeper factors of Resonance that create bonds between us with our Intentions. Priorities and way of Being. Relevance focuses on tying people up by their Interests, Preferences and Behaviours.
I’d rather bond through quality factors of Resonance than be tied up with Relevance by-products that bind me or I am bound to.
Jazz Rasool.
Great post Nenad, and it got me thinking. In the traditional print world it’s quantity not quality that trumps all. Vogue/Wall Street Journal/any other newspaper or magazine has a deadline they have to meet. The product has to be on the shelves everyday/week/month. There is no way around this. Quality is obviously still very important to a magazine/newspaper, but at the end of the day they have to print what they have come the deadline, and they have to fill all slots in their publication.
Does this not apply to the world of blogs as well? If a blogger sets a schedule for themselves they should make all efforts to stick to that schedule and publish what they have to date. hopefully if they’ve done their research/writing and editing properly then the quality will be acceptable. Not every article you publish can be your best. Not every article will resonate with people. 9 out of 10 will probably be mediocre compared to your best article, but at least you’ve published something and delivered to your readers. So I think like the traditional print world, quantity, not quality should be in 1st pace (with quality a close second). I’m not advocating publishing second rate articles on purpose, but to not get tied up in only publishing the best of the best of the best and ending up not publishing as much as you could.
People struggle to come up with new and interesting ideas for blog posts (hence your company). Setting a schedule and sticking to it (fixing the quantity) helps people to keep at blogging, I think. They may initially go through a period of posting for the sake of posting, but I believe it starts to open their eyes and minds to what is a good idea and will improve their quality over time.
Where it all starts to go wrong I think is that when people say quantity they mean ‘more, more, more’. That’s not the best way either. Scarcity is a good thing. People look forward to the next monthly edition of their favorite magazine. It should be the same with a blog. If you publish weekly then people will start to anticipate your next article, rather than being drowned in posts that lose their impact quickly.
So I advocate for fixating on quantity above quality. While at the same time, not falling into the trap of ‘more is better’ and also publishing the best quality content you have come the publishing deadline.
The interesting part of the research you posted is that above posting 2-3 times a week there is little to no increase in benefit. Do you think this should be put forward as an argument that more is not better?