Interview with David Lieberman: Journalist, Content Strategist, Professor of Media Management, and Also My Dad

For this week's newsletter, I'm trying something different again: I'm interviewing David Lieberman . He has a long and storied career in journalism, having worked for the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour, USA Today, and Deadline Hollywood. He is currently a professor in the Media Management department at The New School in New York. He writes articles about content for online publications like Strategy + Business. He's also my dad. But wait! Stay with me! I promise this has value beyond the sentimental for Father's Day!!

Through wild coincidence, over the past ten years, he and I both ended up in content - a surprise for us both considering his background in journalism and mine in entertainment! He naturally approaches it from an academic and journalistic perspective as he reviews strategies from a 10,000 foot view, looking for how the strategy as a whole can be most effective for enterprises and audiences. I approach it more from a perspective of producing the material itself as I lead a team that writes content every day, looking for how you can grab that audience’s attention and most deeply resonate with them.

Below, we discuss what content actually is - it's harder to define than non-content folks think! - along with what makes a content strategy work and what are some great examples of one. Check out our discussion for some fantastic insights into who does content well, who doesn't, and why.

Edited for length and clarity:

So, for starters, how would you define content? And content marketing, if you define it differently.

I tell my classes that effective content does at least one of three things: it provides useful information, it cures boredom, or it provides or enhances a sense of identity. Most of it is a form of  journalism or entertainment that draws you in. It's not push marketing, like a commercial on TV, we're going to interrupt the show and force you to watch this.

So you would say it’s the same thing as an inbound marketing strategy. It's meant to act like a magnet.

Correct. Content strategy isn’t limited to marketing. It could be for a variety of purposes. But in all cases, the content should create this bond of trust with the audience. People say “I'm going to go here because I know that I'm going to get something that I want.”

Given that would, how would you differentiate - or would you differentiate - between entertainment as we've traditionally thought of entertainment and inbound marketing?

The key word there is “marketing” because here's the issue: whose interest are you serving? Marketers would serve the enterprise, right? That might mean boosting sales for this quarter or this period.

But the content strategist has to think about building a long term relationship with the audience. So, if the chief marketing officer wants to do something absurd or phony with the content, then a content marketer should be able to say “No. Even though it may help us for this quarter, it will break this bond of trust we have to cultivate.” 

What I'm getting at is, a content strategist for, say, a network that is more entertainment-focused.

A TV network.

Yeah. And a content strategist for an enterprise that does have the audience in mind. Do you think they operate differently?

There's a lot of similarity. And it’s not an accident that  a lot of content strategists come from journalism. We're taught to be responsible to the audience. Sometimes you tell your editor, “We can't run this headline. It's not right. It's too clickbait-y. We need to maintain that connection with our readers. Or our viewers.” That's what's important. The long-term relationship is important. Reputation is important. Once you lose that, you've lost a lot.

The point is that you’ve got this other constituency. And marketers will say, oh, we care about the audience too. But I think the content has to deliver consistently. Cheat this quarter and pull this stunt or say something that's not true. It’ll get you into trouble. Avoid that.

Pivoting to your Strategic Content Management course; what would you say is the number one goal of that course? If a student only took one thing away, what do you hope it is?

I'll make it two things. One is, the value of maintaining that trust with the audience. I think a lot of them come in thinking about content in narrow marketing terms and I try to reinforce the idea that, no, you serve another constituency as well: your audience.

But secondly, I insist that they look at content objectively. Because content has a lot of baggage. There's what you like. It's part of your identity. It's very easy to say, oh, I know what would work for this project: something that I like. Well, maybe not. And, so you have to think in terms of, what is the goal? What’s the enterprise’s goal? And then, what fits? You can think about that in very creative ways.

Oh, and, if I can add one other thing: the devil’s in the details. Specificity is the new radicalism. You can't just say “let's have some catchy music and some attention grabbing videos.” What does catchy music mean? What is an attention grabbing video? Be specific.

Years ago, I was interviewing someone who was in charge of the New York Times’ content strategy. And he told me about a decision they had to make before they came out with their first podcast. They said they knew what the Times looked like. They didn't know what the Times sounded like. That required a lot of discussions. Do you have this audio vérité where it’s like you are there in the streets, with a lot of ambient noise? Or do you get that NPR-like voice of God from the center of your head? Almost everyone now in podcasting does the voice in the center of your head, in a quiet studio, very controlled, very sort of soft spoken. You didn't have to yell like they do on radio. But all that was thought through.

That actually leads me into my next question. Who do you think does a really good job publishing content? Who do you point to as some of your favorite examples of a content strategy?

Okay, well the obvious first one is I think the Times has done a good job. But I'm trying to think of something that's less obvious. If you want to go back in history, Motown had a great content strategy.

Oh! Expand on that a little bit.

Motown’s slogan was “The Sound of Young America.” It began at a time when radio was still pretty divided. Many areas had stations that targeted Black audiences and others for White audiences. Motown helped to break the barriers. The founder, Berry Gordy, wanted all the acts to have a polished look. They'd be dressed really well, the dance routines would be rehearsed, the harmonies would be perfect. They had a type of sound that they're going after and cultivated. You knew a Motown record when you heard it. And that worked really, really well. So, before we were calling things content strategy, they had a content strategy.

Are there other things that you notice about content because you approach it from an academic perspective? That someone practicing might not notice?

How bad so much of it is. Don't assume that just because it's done by a professional, that it's good. I look at stuff and say, are these people out of their minds? You know, how do they come up with this? What were they thinking? Not in terms of it appealing to me or not appealing to me, but does it serve their goals? There's a lot of lousy stuff out there. And there’s all kinds of reasons for that. You know, particularly in content marketing, there are many different bosses. And the thing with content is, everybody thinks that they can do it. It's like being a drummer. “I can be a drummer.” Just try it. But everyone thinks that they know content. And so, they're glad to tell you what to do. So there's a lot of really awful stuff. It breaks my heart when I go to sites that have great content and I see pop up ads. Why are you ruining my experience here?

It's funny that you say that, because I've noticed that the Content Marketing Institute has those. In fact, a lot of major websites, including the ones dedicated to content, also include those. And it’s frustrating, because they do work. Like, they absolutely work.

As a marketing tool, they absolutely work.

So in that case, appreciating that the content marketer cannot win every battle, what are the battles to choose?

You always fight to protect your audience's interests, consistent with what you've promised to deliver them. Anytime someone says that we can trick them, fool them, catch them off-guard, the antenna should go up right away. And I get why it's done. I'm just saying that, if the marketing person is across the table and I'm a content person, I've got to say, “if you do this, here's the price. We might turn people off If we're not straight with them.”

This is the trickiest territory for companies that want to provide people with useful information. They're not used to saying things about themselves or their industry that may not reflect well on them. However, if they also want to be seen as sources of information, then it's really imperative.

Companies are just starting to realize that if they are honest and say things that are uncomfortable to say, even entertain points of view that differ from theirs, it will pay off in the long run. Radical transparency can work. But it's a hard thing for people who are accustomed to not being transparent to wrap their minds around.

Are there any similarities that you notice among people who are most successful in content? What qualities make a good content strategist?

One is they know a lot of content. When I say a lot of content, they know literature, they know film, they know music. And they've got a broad knowledge of this stuff, so they can make some really surprising choices because they've got this breadth of understanding.

And the ability to think strategically. Thinking strategically also means understanding what the competition is doing. You can't do everything. If you can do everything, it's not a strategy. You just do it. But a really great content strategist will have that sense of “we can't do this but we can do that. We can do that really well.”

Okay, so now I want to try an exercise with you. Just for your additional context, this is something that I tried when I was working with some of our executives at work to help them develop their point of view and become thought leaders.

Okay.

So I'm just curious what's gonna happen when I try it. I call it the venting exercise. If you could say anything in the world to the content industry at large, or to people within it, without repercussion, without knowing that you're being quoted, what would it be? I might totally cut this, don't worry about that. [Editor’s note: 😉] What is something that you wish everybody knew?

How often you put up bad stuff. If you're trying to educate, it's not that useful. If you’re trying to cure boredom, it's not that interesting. If you're trying to create a sense of identity it's pandering or patronizing. So, notice how often you fail. Then get better.

Also, hire people who will tell you the truth. That's a hard thing to do in an organization. People want to rise in the organization. They'll tell the boss what they think the boss wants to hear. But there needs to be a dedicated truth teller or dedicated naysayer, a devil's advocate. Someone whose job it is to say, “this doesn't work. This is gonna come back to haunt us.” And then you can decide whether to go or not go, but at least you'll have heard that other point of view. Not having someone like that is how you end up with some of the most derided pieces of content

I feel like Apple could have used that for the iPad Pro ad that they had.

Yeah, the crushing. Yeah, absolutely. And Pepsi, the Kendall Jenner ad.

Oh God, yeah.

Sometimes you wanted to ask, where's their senior vice president of common sense?

You said something a moment ago that also reminds me of another thing: thought leadership. One of the greatest content strategies you can have. Where you're out there, you're actually getting people information and points of view that broaden their understanding and enlighten them. Doing that honestly is not only inexpensive, but the payoff is terrific. People say, “oh, I really want to read so and so, or watch this video or listen to this podcast. Because it's interesting to me, it's useful to me.” That's a great way to go.

Okay. Cool. Thank you! That is pretty much all the questions I had. Is there anything else you get out there? Anything that you were thinking of that didn't quite fit in.

Well, yeah, I would love to get away from the word “content.” Always hated the word content. And I get it. In the digital era, it's not video because it's also music, and it's interactive. But content is just a blob of a term. It's what we need, I get it, but it doesn't have very much meaning itself. What is good content? You know, it's effective. Okay. What's good journalism? Well, good journalism should be well written, well reported, it should be thorough, accurate. When you think of great films, great music, it has this whole history you can draw on.

In that case, do you think that comes because content as we think of it today is still relatively new? It doesn't have the history that music and film has. Those have been around for generations. Content's been around for maybe 20 years.

I think that content, the word content, doesn't really have an independent meaning. It's a fancy way of saying “stuff.” It's digital stuff. Mostly. I know it can also be live performances. But, it’s because it embraces too much. You need a word that embraces everything and “content” will do. But it doesn't really mean much.

Yeah. It's kind of funny to me that one of my first questions for you today was “what is content?” And we circled back around here at the end to, “it's stuff.”

Yeah, well, yeah. I said the three goals should be useful information, cure for boredom, or sense of identity. It tends to end up in one of those categories, but a lot of content is just not good at any of that stuff. So I wonder why is it there? I don't know. It's another form of advertising. Is it content? Yeah, sure. Is it good content? No, it’s not.

I am, of course, biased, but I think my dad makes a lot of really good points. But there's also an element of the ideal that you can strive for versus the realistic best that a person can do. As mentioned above, content folks have a lot of bosses. And for every piece of bad content, there's an executive who asked for it - those executives can be hard to fight against.

But it's also funny to hear my dad talk about the value of having a team that respectfully disagrees so you can get multiple points of view (and avoid the derided content) and why it's so important to be clear about the purpose of your content. Those are things I fight for at work every day, and it's shockingly so easy for that to become a struggle. I'll explore that more in a future newsletter.

Of course, don't tell him ANY of this. Don't let my parents know I think they're right. It's so EmBaRrAsSiNg.