When we employed our 15th writer, it became apparent after several months that the quality of our content processes was beginning to degrade. Clients were requesting more revisions; we weren’t discussing content performance as much as before; and we could see that retention among our clients was slipping slightly at the outer reaches of our client base.
Initially, our response was to improve our content processes by implementing better quality assurance frameworks, more specific and detailed style guides, and providing additional training sessions to help new hires understand and follow the pre-existing standards of our company. While these efforts did lead to some incremental improvements, they ultimately didn’t address the underlying issues associated with the content process.
The real issue was structural, as we developed a system that relied on an individual’s knowledge of the entire scope of content; what types of client-based projects require certain types of approaches; and how decisions flow through an organization. All of the major decisions related to content went through a single approval process. Client expectations are only held in my mind, but there is no document outlining the reasons behind strategic business decisions, unless you consider separate discussions I have with each writer individually.
As soon as we expanded to over 50 writers located throughout the world, this model completely disintegrated. It wasn’t due to lack of ability or commitment from the writers; it was because the original structure was created for a group of 5 individuals and can never be expected to support 50.
The Manufacturing Model That Will Destroy Your Content Quality
Most content marketing agencies use a similar model when expanding their capacity to produce content, as if producing more products. They simply scale up production by adding more employees performing the exact same tasks. As such, output will increase accordingly. Unfortunately, such an approach is a disastrous way to scale content marketing production. Content fundamentally relies on context-driven judgment.
For example, when 50 different writers develop 50 different interpretations regarding a client's voice, methodology toward topics, and overall position relative to strategy, you won't receive 50x the amount of output. Rather, you'll receive 50 different voices all claiming to speak on behalf of your brand. We tracked this directly. Writers who have been part of our organization for two years average a 12% revision rate. Newer writers average 43%. The difference has absolutely nothing to do with talent and has everything to do with there being a collective set of frameworks, internalized knowledge, and organizational context that develops as time passes.
Build Infrastructure Prior to Scaling
We realized this pattern immediately following this discovery. At that point, we ceased hiring additional writers and instead worked on developing infrastructure that would enable us to continue to provide high-quality content regardless of how many writers we added to the team.
Over the course of the next year, during which our writer population remained relatively flat, client retention improved significantly, rising from 71% to 89%, while publishing volume remained constant. The changes occurred solely in regards to how new writers integrate into our organization and how decisions propagate through our team.
All new hires spend their initial month embedded with a senior writer, not viewing training videos independently, but instead, they observe exactly how decisions are made at the point of creation. For instance, how does one know when a topic necessitates long-form treatment vs. short-form treatment? When does a client's voice need to transition from casual to formal? How do technical subject matter areas remain accessible without sacrificing precision? Each of these questions receives documentation as rationale inside of Notion, creating a repository of decision-making history, as opposed to creating another "training guide."
Our client style guides grow and change every month, based upon patterns observed between true client preferences and stated client preferences. In essence, we've shifted away from focusing on maximizing writer productivity and now focus solely on producing results for clients. A writer providing four outstanding pieces of content per month exceeds a writer who produces twelve subpar pieces requiring significant revisions.
The Operational Reality
The quality does not scale up with hiring more employees. The quality scales are based on building an infrastructure to distribute decision-making effectively while maintaining consistency so that a central oversight is not required all the time.
Our company manages over 200+ client accounts while we maintain content quality, not from hiring talented writers (although this certainly helps), but through developing systems that will convert good writers into great writers by reducing friction and providing context.
You limit your content operations to the maximum potential of either your infrastructure for aligning and informing the talent or the maximum potential of your talent.